Cure For Radiation Sickness Found? 385
Summit writes "A scientist has claimed to have discovered a radioprotectant that all but eliminates acute radiation sickness even in cases of lethal doses of radiation in tests on rats and monkeys, when injected up to 72 hours after exposure. They also claim the drug, a protein, has no observed negative effects in humans. They have not irradiated any people just yet, but if this turns out to be true, it could mean everything from curing cancer to making manned interplanetary space expeditions feasible... not to mention treatment for radiation exposures in nuclear/radiological accidents/attacks. If this drug works, it would mean a true breakthrough as past experiments with radioprotectants were not particularly promising in any respect." The only source for the story at this time is an exclusive in YNet News, a site with the subtitle "Israel At Your Fingertips." Such a radioprotectant would be huge news for Israel. Make of it what you will.
I doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
No publication in a real scientific or medical journal.
Further, radiation sickness is difficult to fix. You've got alpha, beta & gamma particles bombarding cells, causing damage all over the place. Chemical bonds are broken, energy is added, and new chemical bonds form.
I really doubt a magic bullet can exist for the many types of cellular damage that can occur in different body systems.
Oh good, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I need a car analogy... (Score:4, Insightful)
And possibly make the treatment quite ineffective, if it also works on cancer cells.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:3, Insightful)
and then there's also the DNA getting chopped up and shuffled around
Re:YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice to see a second source.
I was puzzled when I first read, "They also claim the drug, a protein, has no observed negative effects in humans. They have not irradiated any people just yet..." but now, it seems they make the claim of no negative effects without any radiation. While nice, that doesn't precisely predict no negative effects WITH radiation.
I'm always a little skeptical when a medical announcement is made by a corporation.
Re:I need a car analogy... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you already have cancer, then developing another type of it one or two decades down the road is the least of your worries.
Re:Won't fix DNA damage (Score:4, Insightful)
650 + monkeys ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just In Time For : (Score:5, Insightful)
Why post anonymous troll... don't have any confidence in your assertions? Don't want to have your karma blasted?
North Korea is like an ugly step-child who will take every opportunity to get back at his more attractive more successful siblings. That kid nobody likes because they always lie about everything and don't take care of themselves, don't try to get along and are generally miserable and make everyone around them miserable.
Israel is like a self-centered only child who gets all the attention deserved or not and always expects that she gets to go first. The kids she cut in front of long ago despise her but everyone else just takes pity on her as an only child and invite her to their parties to be nice. Sometimes she helps out, if it's in her own interest and then everyone gives her a high five to encourage her to do more for others and be less self-centered...
Two completely different psychologies that can present themselves in similar ways at times... both are isolated in a way and feel threatened by those around them, so they both feel the need to create and put forward a strong defensive front and both over-react when anyone questions them about it. Otherwise, completely different.
Now let's get back on topic.
Re:72 hours after exposure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than take the chance that the repairs that get done will leave the cell cancerous, the cell is programmed to suicide. Another cell will take it's place. But in the case of fatal radiation poisoning, this happens to too many cells at once.
'Unacceptable risk' that a cell might turn cancerous might be a very low risk indeed, since cancer is fatal 'in the wild'. Most radiation damaged cells might very well be able to repair themselves perfectly if only they didn't suicide. Deactivating the suicide mechanism temporarily gives them time to repair themselves. Once repaired, they no longer want to suicide. However in the case where many cells were radiation damaged, this likely means some cells were repaired incorrectly and will now cause cancer. Maybe this is not as likely as it may seem at first? How well does radiation cause cancer? How exactly does it happen? I've heard that a speck of plutonium inhaled has a 100% chance of causing lung cancer. But that speck is emmitting radiation 24x7 killing and damaging neighboring cells all the time. Is it the nuclear damage to the cells that causes the cancer, or is it the constant healing? Doesn't the body send stem cells to repair damaged areas? Aren't stem cells more cancer prone?
Maybe in the case of radiation poisoning, the cells are damaged, and if prevented from suiciding, they will be fine. This isn't chronic radiation damage caused by contamination, but rather acute radiation poisoning caused by having rads of radiation shined through you.
Maybe not. Excessive X-Ray photographs cause cancer don't they? Maybe the irradiated mice and monkeys will be teeming with tumors in short order. Maybe some of them will touch their keepers and pick up some genetic material. Then they will mutate to be more humanlike, including having intelligence, and natural talent at karate. They will go live in the sewers and protect us from evil ninja gangs with their elite Kung Fu skillz.
Re:Oh good, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:72 hours after exposure? (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely it just stops the damaged cells from committing suicide.
Any increase in cancer rates shouldn't be a big problem for mice, since most mice have a max lifespan of 2-3 years anyway.
That said, not all damaged cells would end up as cancer, or even nonmalignant tumours. They could just be different from normal in a nonlethal or "big problem" way.
Re:kdawson strikes again (Score:3, Insightful)
Jewish-American (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, it's quite weird that they ynet article feels it necessary to cite the scientist's religion. Does it really matter? I hear of news, a discovery, etc, my first thought is "where is this?" not "gee, what book does this person worship?"
Fallout (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh good, (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the arguments against the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) was that it actually increased the risk of a nuclear war. I think you can make a similar argument here....if the effects of nuclear weapons are mitigated, doesn't that make people more likely to use them?
Re:Oh good, (Score:1, Insightful)
You start advertising missiles pointed towards Mecca. There's still MAD.
Such a move may not result in the behavior you suppose...
Re:kdawson strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were published in Science, yeah you'd probably get slashdotted.
Re:650 + monkeys ? (Score:3, Insightful)
600+ mice would not be out of the ordinary at all. Remember that, whatever species they use, there are subgroups. The article states "experiments" on 650+ monkeys. Note the plural. They also note that they obviously tested different times of administration, from -24 to +72 hours. To do that, and to maintain significance within each group, you might end up in a number like this, especially if the Chernobyl-like dose was a maximum rather than the only dose tested. You might even vary the dose of the compound. So, you would test administration time, possibly administration method, radiation dosage. But, yes, it means that they have a quite strong source of funding, but considering the military connection suggested in the article, that doesn't seem impossible.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apoptosis did not evolve to combat massive doses of radiation. It's sort of a "blunt instrument", which takes out a lot of healthy tissue. Controlling apoptosis may very well allow recovery from radiation exposure. Perhaps there will be an increased cancer risk, but this is better than immediate death.
Re:YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:4, Insightful)
They mean that the substance itself does not cause any observed harm. In the approval of any medicine, the first step is always to demonstrate that the substance is not itself poisonous. Only then do trials progress to determine if it is in fact effective.
American? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that but I would imagine that it is somewhat insulting to Americans - are they really that ashamed of being a US citizen that they have to somehow dilute it by mentioning where their family emmigrated from?
that was my first thought (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another success for VaulTec! (Score:1, Insightful)
Given the forum, Mentats are curiously absent from your list.
Re:kdawson strikes again (Score:3, Insightful)
If your blog happens to be a well respected, hugely successful news organization in a well respected, modern country, then yes, you will probably get slashdotted.
Re:YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL. Well that's fantastic! So tell us oh creditable AC? Who shall now vouch for you?
Re:72 hours after exposure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is actually bad news... (Score:4, Insightful)
And better still, increases acceptance of N power (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider this - with an effective "cure" for radiation, it ceases to become a bogeyman and people will be a LOT more comfortable with clean, efficient nuclear power stations nearby. It takes out a large leg from the alarmists that try to stop them from being built.
Re:Jewish-American (Score:2, Insightful)