The International Population Report P95/92-3 graphing shows the MAXIMUM
life span to be 110 to 120 years for tha past 100,000 years (I don't know
how they *know* that) and thare has been no "right shift" of this age to
date. The graphing also shows a steady "right shift" of AVERAGE life span
from 20 years old in 10,000 bc to 35 yrs. in 1000 AD to 40 yrs. in 1700 to
50 yrs. in 1900 and projected to be 80 yrs. in 2000.
Name calling is not a reasoned response and is only used when you run
out of useful things to say. You guys must know that. I am not taking
sides it the argument except to say that germ warefare is *VERY* serious
business. Patricks argument is not the way an army would do it. He
leaves me with the impression that there is nothing to worry about.
There is still biologicl warefare research going on even though they have
already been sucessful in producing such weapons. I don't have to explain
to anyone the danger of such weapons, I am sure you can figure it out.
Rick Abrams (ricka at praline.no.NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950226233909.13784A-100000 at corona>,
: Patrick O'Neil <patrick at corona> wrote:
: >On 26 Feb 1995, Rick Abrams wrote:
: >> Please define natural life span. Is it the 120 years of the
: >> woman in France; or my father's, who died two years younger
: >> than I am today (heart failure).
: >There is no set, hard span but I have read estimates that put maximum
: >human lifespan at around 120 years, which doesn't bode all too well for
: >the Frenchwoman, depending on how one views things. If I were a betting
: >man, I would bet against the woman getting to 125.
: > The max possible is barring other factors such as cancer, heart
: >disease, alzheimer's, congenital defects, etc.
: >Unfortunately for your father, disease got him rather than age-related
: Think it through, why is 125 a 'natural death' but 46 not? All I see
: is you saying is 'words mean what ever I want them to mean.'