That is strictly laboratory data, measured in controlled conditions, and I have discussed that at length in other posts. If you want to know whether Ebola viruses are stable in situations where someone could actually be infected, you have to study the virus in those conditions.
==== Life is not controlled, and the temperature data, and binding-survival data is relevant. You are sophomoric to assume the virus will not mutate.
That is the point. It has only been shown to survive for prolonged periods in controlled environments--in environments that do not assault the virus with factors like temperature, humidity, changes in pH, environmental chemicals, etc. Biological entities typically are not very durable in uncontrolled environments.
Also, I *assume* that the virus mutates. It would be extremely unusual if it did NOT mutate, since viruses, especially RNA viruses, have very unstable genetic material. They cannot mutate in such a way that they change their shape or the functions of their proteins too much, because then, they would be unable to cause infections--but, within limits, they mutate a lot.
“Probably” means you do not KNOW the extent of the animal reservoir. And NO ONE knows how many animals species it will survive in, on the N. America continent (yet).
Actually, "probably" means that everyone is pointing fingers at bats, but nothing has been proven. The evidence is all circumstantial.
Ebola causes different symptoms in different animals. Dogs don't get symptoms, but they have been shown to get infected. Pigs get a respiratory illness, and they can spread the disease through respiratory droplets (they sneeze a lot, contaminating their environment). But they don't die (at least in lab studies). And so on. Many viruses cause mild illness in bats, but are deadly to humans. No one can possibly know how the virus will affect a species without testing it.
Rain drops are between 1 and 50 microns in diameter. Nebulized aerosol droplets are 2 to 20 microns. The filamentous Ebola, stretched out which it need not be, is 970 nm which is 0.9 microns. Therefore, Q.E.D.
The 970 nm length is a minimum; it is up to 14,000 nm long. And it can't be "stretched"--it might coil or not, but its volume is still the same. And it fits best in the large particles that fall quickly to the ground. I doubt that the small particles can hold an infectious dose, and they dry so quickly that the virus wouldn't survive anyway.
Nebulizing, as in laboratory experiments, is not really pertinent to a natural setting. For aerosol studies, the virus is mechanically nebulized directly into an animals face. Humans don't nebulize... Some medical procedures can generate aerosols or droplets.
Despite your claim, even humans “cured” pass the virus to sex partners for months.
Despite your claim, viruses survive (in clays for example)
for a long time, and bacteria have been found on the ISS.
Despite your claim, filoviruses can be transmitted in droplets
Despite your claim, virus reservoirs are serious,
and at this moment there are none with these filoviruses
in N. America.
Despite your claim, you do not know how this virus
can mutate, or what promotes that process,
or even if this involves error prone processes
leading to aerosolization
or unexpected means of transmission
or to unexpected vectors.
If you really feel there is nothing to this, consider
joining a doc or nurse in W. Africa with the US military.