Community | January 16, 2010 | 59 comments

Austrian scientists bury live pigs in snow

Image
unimatrix0
Vehement protests from animal activists prompted scientists on Thursday to temporarily stop an avalanche experiment that involved burying pigs in snow and monitoring their deaths.

The two-week experiment — taking place in the Western Austrian Alps — was trying to determine what factors make it possible for humans to survive an avalanche in an air pocket until rescued without suffering permanent brain damage.

http://airamerica.com/green/01-14-2010/activists-protest-experiments-burying-pig...
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Webmash,   current cult,   4 more
  2. tags:
    Animals Animal Rights Ethics Animal Protection 7 more
  3.     
    |

59 comments // Austrian scientists bury live pigs in snow

  • feefer2010
  • angelaguayo
    • 0
      angelaguayo  
    • Im vegan so im totally against anything like, if your against it too you should try being veg because worse things happen to the ones you eat (its not that hard to be vegan, i am 15 and in a house of meat lovers)

    • 2 years ago
  • Minus5scenePoints
    • 0
      Minus5scenePoints  
    • Here's a theory I like. instead of EVER testing ANYTHING on animals! test things, all sorts of things on in mates! lifers, rapist, killers. get rid of the death penalty and test shit on them instead.

    • 2 years ago
  • comicahzy
  • artemis6
  • EthicalVegan
  • PureEm
    • 0
      PureEm  
    • Trading pork for saving people from permanent brain damage. Hmmm. That seems like a fail tradeoff, considering that we go around slitting animal throats for food anyways. The frozen ones get anesthetics. The slit ones dont

    • 2 years ago
  • iamwilliamhello
  • Yihua
  • chiefgreendaddy
    • 0
      chiefgreendaddy  
    • like occhipij said lets worry about humans, and not the 20 pigs who are gonna get covered with snow then turned into pork, people are dying of diseases and starvation all over the world, and these people are crying about pigs? get a life

    • 2 years ago
  • ebin_lee
    • 0
      ebin_lee  
    • i eat bacon...and thus cant really say that this is sad without being contradictory since so many pigs are inhumanely slaughtered and tortured like these pigs are being....i can say that i doubt they will get anything from their little experiment except a bunch of cold dead piglets.

    • 2 years ago
  • MMoran
    • 0
      MMoran  
    • "Yeah - scientists. They are collecting money to do their 'experiments' and the whole time, their results are negligible and obvious. "

      Well, since you appear to be very knowledgable in this field already, I'd like to know what "what factors make it possible for humans to survive an avalanche in an air pocket until rescued without suffering permanent brain damage."

      Please enlighten us?

    • 2 years ago
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  
    • i like what penn and teller had to say about animal testing. " we would personally strangle every chimp left on earth with our bare hands if it meant saving a single human life."(edit)

    • 2 years ago
  • comicahzy
    • 0
      comicahzy  
    • Nephwrack:

      I love Penn and Teller, but I would not personally strangle every chimp on earth if it was pointless and wasteful and I wasn't sure it would save anyone. There are other ways to do this experiment. There are all kinds of machines and robots that can test exactly what they are asking about so why kill something? If there is a specific thing that can only be learned by animal testing, I don't have too much a problem with that. But if there are other alternatives that do not include torturing and killing an animal, I vote to do that instead.

      Ironic sidenote - my little avatar is Baby from "The Devil's Rejects", she would go for using the scientists instead. :D

    • 2 years ago
  • Progresshiv
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  
    • I think they should use humans . Guys on death row . There are persons out there who are so destructive to society they cannot ever integrate . They can serve a purpose here . The results would be more accurate . Hanging or lethal injection just seems like a waste to me .

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • artemis6
  • artemis6
  • davzap
    • 0
      davzap  
    • The previous commenter is from above, she knows exactly what god intended?! Really.
      I say you are grossly misinterpreting what bunk you are reading, written by another know-it-all-bozo.

    • 2 years ago
  • QueenGloria
  • iamwilliamhello
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  
    • QueenGloria:

      Oh, but that was written by a storyteller. So it's not FACT.

      MAN kind...... not humankind..... only the males of the human species???

      I actually suffered through reading that fairy tale book -- with so many interpretations and contradictions -- and nowhere did I ever read where some god mentioned animal testing.

      BUT, I'll be glad to eat my words if you can pull up a video that shows this particular entity saying just that, prior to someone then writing it in a big book.

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
    • 0
      02  
    • Yeah - scientists. They are collecting money to do their 'experiments' and the whole time, their results are negligible and obvious.
      There ought to be a new term to describe people doing worthwhile work - Just to clear up any confusion.

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
  • deathmetalbrian
  • drewanium
  • mirror
    • 0
      mirror  
    • Unfortunately, there are many examples of of medication inconsistencies that show reactions of new drugs NOT found to HAPPEN IN RATS,PIGS MONKEYs....ect. there is NO way to completely test these reactions because they don't behave the same in any one organism. And so, as they freeze these pigs, who don't have resources like humans and don't have cloths on, or ability to calm panic response.... and soOOOOOOOO many OTHER VARIABLES, they get go go to heaven as the one who suffocated 1000 pigs to see if they would live..........

    • 2 years ago
  • occhipij
  • GeorgeR
  • katedarling
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  
    • occhipij:

      Ummmmmmmm.............. ALL animals are sentient.

      And if humans continue to not learn animal compassion (much less true compassion for all), then nothing's going to change. And Haiti is a horror, truly -- one that's made me cry repeatedly -- but I can also feel concern about my voiceless friends at the very same time.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • and were they burying baby pigs? What a crock of a pic there. The animal rights movement seems to really be all about confusing animals with children. Y'all need to have some real kids.

    • 2 years ago
  • bking74
    • 0
      bking74  
    • Image
    • Animals are surrogates for humans. The basic reason for animal trials is to determine two issues before any new compound is introduced into a human: safety and efficacy, whether a compound is safe for human ingestion and also whether or not a product works for its intended purpose. Really that process begins way before we get to animals. But at some point in the process it is critical to understand how a compound, let's say, a hypertension medication, works in a whole living system. You can't just determine how it works on blood pressure or the heart. You need to know how it would affect all the organs. That really is the whole purpose of using a complex biological system known as an animal.
      There is no question that, despite the excellent results that come out of lots of preclinical trials, the human is the ultimate animal model — and sometimes a potential downside to a new compound is not identified until it gets to a human. We often hear you can't give aspirin to cats because it's toxic to them, or you shouldn't give chocolate to dogs. Chocolate, which is very safe in humans, is not safe in dogs. But when you go back and look at how many compounds fail before they ever get to humans, [it's clear] animals do play a really important role in at least giving early signals — and it's a constantly evolving science.
      Over the past 60 years, scientists have figured out what works best in what models. The vast majority of animal testing [today] is in rodents, either rats or mice. Rodents, particularly mice, have very short life spans, so you can see how a compound would react in a young animal, then in the same geriatric animal, and then in the next-generation animal, all in a time frame that is reasonable. Then if a product or a compound is determined to be safe in a rodent, another species is used. For example, if it's a neurological compound, oftentimes the cat is the preferred model because the neurological system of the cat more closely mimics that of a human. If it's a cardiovascular study, it might be a dog (although dogs are not used as frequently as they might have been a decade ago, since scientists have determined that pigs also serve as excellent models for some cardiovascular work). Scientists really do try to go that extra mile to find the species that will most accurately mimic how the compound would work in a human. We're focusing right now in one of our programs on the horse. It has very similar osteoarthritis conditions to humans, but it shows them in a much more compressed period of time. Many, many species [are used in trials].
      Of course, science is always making progress. You read a lot about these very special rodents, animals we call "transgenic animals." [That means] if you're studying diabetes, the mice have diabetes, so you can go right to specific disease targets in a much more expeditious way that you could in the old days. In the old days you just hoped they got diabetes. Also, as the scientific community is understanding more and more about the genome, whether it's the human genome or the fruit fly genome, they're better able to identify gene markers, to target them and start developing compounds that point to those specific diseases.
      Increasingly scientists are also looking at non-animal models to provide more and more answers. That's not only going to decrease the number of animals used in certain experiments but, more important for many, speed up the [drug approval] process. It's everybody's hope [that one day we could replace animal trials entirely with computer modeling]. But I don't think it'll happen during my lifetime. People in the research community will be the first to tell you they still don't know enough about how the complex living organism works in order to duplicate it. Animals are not perfect. They're definitely not a perfect mimic of a human, but they're [still] as close as we're going to get without using a human.

    • 2 years ago
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  
    • bking74:

      What's the source of this article, please?

      And... well.... holy hell. You must REALLY hate animals THAT much to put this much time into your selfish opinion. Hope you don't believe in a god, because then....

    • 2 years ago
  • davzap
    • 0
      davzap  
    • Some of you callus brained people are basing equity on looks! And if you aren't as good-looking as Brad Pitt then its OK to use you in the next experiment, right?

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
  • Woot
  • remanns
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Hah!

      Actually the point I was getting with the pigs that the scientists are using not being as cute as the ones in the picture was that the article is using a slightly underhanded tactic to make their case seem more important. If you were shown a picture of fat, ugly, mud and excrement caked hogs, you probably wouldn't react as strongly as you would have if you had been shown a picture of cute innocent looking piglets.

    • 2 years ago
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      Oh, dear.

      Those "fat, ugly, mud and excrement caked hogs" are PIGS. The fat ones you are talking about are those factory farmed pigs, who have been genetically altered to grow to be 800 pounds while they're still only children. No kidding. And they're killed when they're only children. No kidding.

      Please go visit a farmed animal sanctuary so you can see for yourself.

      Also, pigs are exceptionally clean animals. At the sanctuary at which I volunteer, the pigs always work their way to the end of the beautiful stall condo area they have, and they poop and pee only there. The ones you're talking about are those factory farmed pigs who are forced to live in deplorable conditions, stuffed one against the other. No dignity whatsoever.

      The mud is something pigs really, really enjoy getting into, much the same way human children (and men who like human female mud-wrestling). It protects their skin from sunburn, and takes away any itchiness. And again, at the farmed animal sanctuary at which I have volunteered, they also love, love, LOVE getting hosed OFF! The happy squeals they make as they deliberately head into the water stream is delightful to hear... and see.

      As for the "ugly" factor, I still haven't seen one pig whom I thought was ugly.

      I'm really disappointed in your comments, because I have been appreciating much of what you've written in the past. But I do hope you can become more open-minded. As I've twice (thrice?) said, visit a real farmed animal sanctuary and start petting and patting and stroking all these gentle animals, and you'll find a hard time leaving behind your new friends. I see that happen all the time.

    • 2 years ago
  • comicahzy
  • UWAZell
    • 0
      UWAZell  
    • So the pigs freeze to death for 'medical research', if it can be called that, instead of having their throats slit and bleeding to death to become bacon, pork ribs, pork chops and any number of delicious foods the vast majority of Westerners enjoy. for the aforementioned sarcastic reason I'm having a hard time caring. That is to say, it's would be hypocritical of me to proclaim 'injustice' when I know how the ribs I recently ate were produced. And no, I don't plan on refraining from eating pork, lamb, beef, chicken or turkey.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  
    • UWAZell:

      You are correct of course. It's ok to butcher and eat them but not freeze them for science. Maybe if someone was willing to eat them after they froze them no one would say anything.

    • 2 years ago
  • katedarling
    • 0
      katedarling  
    • UWAZell:

      I disagree. I think there are times where killing an animal is way more justified. If you kill an animal for meat, then killing them had a purpose. It supported the life of someone else. There are definitely times, including incidents involving medical research, where killing animals is actually not necessary. Those situations are not like killing an animal for food, because their death had no purpose, it wasn't necessary and therefore was cruel and unjustified.

    • 2 years ago
  • UWAZell
    • 0
      UWAZell  
    • UWAZell:

      So I take it you're an expert in the medical research field and know for a fact that killing animals for medical research isn't a necessary part of the procedure. Interesting, I wonder how it was that the other experts continuously miss that. Sacrarium aside, pork/beef is not a necessary part of your diet, it's been shown that people can live without consuming the product. So essentially they're being killed only because people want them dead, rather than need them so. Therefore, my question is how is that justified. I could go on but you're assertion is so weak and full of holes I fail to see the point.

    • 2 years ago
  • katedarling
    • 0
      katedarling  
    • UWAZell:

      I see that I've failed to communicate my point well enough. No, I'm definitely not an expert on medical research, nor have I ever claimed to be. I've just read about many experiments that have been performed on animals that have killed them where it was done in an unnecessary way. For example, research has been done where rabbits will have cleaning chemicals sprayed in their faces to see if they die from it, even if prior research already proved that specific action would kill a living thing. I'm definitely not opposed to medical research on animals. I am, however, disgusted by the idea of certain experiments that involve cosmetics because that IS unnecessary. There are already so many brands of makeup, shampoos, lotions, etc that are made without being tested on animals. So, in my opinion, performing experiments where a scientist shoves deodorant in a rabbit's eye to see what happens, when we already know that the chemicals in the deodorant should never go in your eye, are not necessary. Sorry, I just don't care if the "expert" thinks it's necessary. I don't.

      Another thing that I never said was that eating pork and sausage was necessary for human diets. And guess what! You don't need to eat chicken or beef to live either. I would know, because I don't eat any of those things. So thanks for the very unneeded nutrition lesson. What I did say, however, was that killing animals is more justified in certain cases if their death had a purpose. I was simply responding to your comment about how you felt you couldn't call out animal cruelty if you eat meat. I disagree with that. I feel that people are completely justified in recognizing and opposing cruelty to animals regardless of their diet. I don't know whether or not you're against this specific action in the article, but you shouldn't just feel hypocritical for believing something is cruel to animals just because you like to eat meat.

    • 2 years ago
  • MizPiz
    • 0
      MizPiz  
    • Varex_Sythe has a point, while these experiments are pretty inhumane, it doesn't mean that these scientist are hand picking the cutest pigs from each continent for the sole purpose of watching them slowly die.

    • 2 years ago
  • EthicalVegan
  • treewolf39
  • MizPiz
  • treewolf39
  • comicahzy
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • As inhumane as this kind of experiment is, I don't really think that the pigs that were used looked like the cute little bastards that are in the picture.

    • 2 years ago
  • raylinmarie
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      "And I know what it's about. "I don't want to eat the meat because I love the animals. I love the animals." Hey, I love the animals too. I love my doggy. He's so cute. My fluffy little dog.. He's so cute- There's the problem. We only want to save the cute animals, don't we? Yeah. Why don't we just have animal auditions. Line 'em up one by one and interview them individually. "What are you?" "I'm an otter." "And what do you do?" "I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands." "You're free to go." "And what are you?" "I'm a cow." "Get in the fucking truck, ok pal!" "But I'm an animal." "You're a baseball glove! Get on that truck!" "I'm an animal, I have rights!" "Yeah, here's yer fucking cousin, get on the fucking truck, pal!" We kill the cows to make jackets out of them and then we kill each other for the jackets we made out of the cows." -Denis Leary

    • 2 years ago
  • bking74
  • EthicalVegan
    • 0
      EthicalVegan  
    • Image
    • Varex_Sythe:

      I cannot believe how shallow a human you are to base the right to cause animals suffering on their "cuteness factor."

      And, perhaps you haven't visited any farmed animal sanctuaries -- where we rescue and rehabilitate abused animals, including pigs -- to see that all the babies are cute. And, when you spend day in and day out caring for these sweethearts, they REMAIN cute as can be for the rest of their precious lives... because they now have good health and no fear of more harm done to their bodies.

      I hope you can re-think your statement -- maybe visit FarmSanctuary.org and AnimalAcres.org or, preferably, visit any animal sanctuary in person, and get down on the ground with these wonderful voiceless friends of ours.

      What if things were twisted around a bit (Animal Farm?), and you were consider un-cute?

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos