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.
OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OMG! (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget the human flesh some ghouls carry. +25 HP but only +2 radiation! SCORE!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
kinda RadX and RadAway all rolled into one, but tagging already figured that out. Tim Cain and Co were prescient.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, here ya go... [zcache.com]
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well there is a difference between radiation and radioactive, so I'll address your points with the goal of clearing any misunderstanding.
It's the entire Nuclear Industry that releases radioactive isotopes into the environment. Mining, enrichment, the reactors themselves and as yet no long term plan to contain spent fuel. ALL ra
YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the BBC has a less slanted article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341336.stm [bbc.co.uk]
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: (Score:3, Funny)
the BBC story doesn't have that lovely lady in the advert for the Daily Maccabiah (hope y'all can see it). All radiation stories should be full of such bountifulness.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My first thought is that it sounds like a start toward an "immortality" drug.
Face it, we're living in a science fiction novel!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ynet is Israel's top news site, owned by the most popular newspaper, Yedioth Achronoth (don't you love it when Hebrew names sound like mythical monsters?).
The story is on the front page of the paper today as well. I can vouch for the site and newspaper's credibility (I actually worked there many many years ago), but not for this story.
Re:YNet isn't the only one who's picked it up.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That Sunday Gazette isn't nearly as scary as the dreaded Gazebo...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL. Well that's fantastic! So tell us oh creditable AC? Who shall now vouch for you?
Understand the sociological background. (Score:3, Interesting)
In recent past years, there was extensive TV footage of Israeli-owned U.S.-made Blackhawk helicopters [palestineinformation.org] operated by Jews firing at Palestinians on the ground throwing rocks. I saw that numerous times on TV. The footage was apparently taken from Blackhawk gun cameras, apparently by people who disagreed with the violence. Now, however, apparently because of the negative reaction, such footage is no longer shown.
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?
Re:American? (Score:4, Funny)
Then jbeale53 is making a pass at you.
The body does not repair cells. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The body does not repair cells. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true that it usually doesn't, but it sometimes CAN. A cell that has minor damage will most certainly be repaired. A cell that has major damage will lyse and hopefully be replaced by new cells. But when all of the cells lyse at once, there is no way to replace them fast enough. If you can keep most of the cells alive long enough for some non-damaged cells to proliferate, then you could theoretically have viable organs at the end.
Normally, it's more energy efficient to convert a damaged cell into basic components that can be reused than repair the cell, but the repair mechanisms do exist. Apoptosis can be halted, and things will go on relatively normally. The damaged cells might not work all correctly, but if faced with the option of 'die' or 'maybe die', I'll choose 'maybe die'. Plus, if the dangerous part of radiation therapy can be averted, the cancer I'm liable to get later is a lot easier to deal with.
Better Article & 2008 Shareholder Report (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better Article & 2008 Shareholder Report (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Better Article & 2008 Shareholder Report (Score:5, Interesting)
In comparison, a full-body CT scan is about 0.01 Gy, anywhere from 12-100 Gy is typically used for antimicrobial irradiation, depending on the material and microorganisms of interest, and 5000 Gy is about the threshold where Deinococcus radiodurans starts to get bothered by ionizing radiation.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and then there's also the DNA getting chopped up and shuffled around
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Informative)
It's published in Science according to the BBC [bbc.co.uk]. Jokes about tabloids aside, Science is a real scientific journal.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently the only side-effect are that it susceptible to turning into an airborne virus and it turns you into a rabid vampire-like creature that is sensitive to sunlight and likes to feed on humans. :-(
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
No it won't. The damaged is caused by radiation which destroys DNA. Radioactive particles that are helium or larger are stopped by your skin. Smaller particles ionize organic molecules within your body producing highly reactive radicals. Maybe its these radicals you call energetic particles? Anyway even if you remove them the DNA damage from the radiation is still there, and often the extent of the radical damage is beyond the coping mechanism of the cell. Acute damage is in the radiation, radical damage is the slow damage of aging.
Like the GP said, the methods of radiation damage are diverse, it is impossible for there to exist a single pill that treats it from all these aspects. The pill would need to be a cluster of several different types of DNA repair enzymes (to repair DNA damage from all the possible ways of bond damage), as well as being an antioxidant (to absorb radicals) and some sort of protein 'digestant' (to remove the denatured proteins). Since the body took 3+ billion years to come up a couple dozen enzymes to fulfill these purposes, it seem unlikely (downright impossible!) that a single molecule could be created to take their place.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Informative)
So far, animal tests do not appear to show an increase in cancer, which would be a big concern with damaged DNA + free radicals floating around. Obviously, at this point there are no studies on whether this presents a long-term cancer risk, but since one of the applications for this protein would actually be in the treatment of cancer, I imagine that study will be underway soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that DNA-damage-induced apoptosis (programmed cells death) is a DEFENSE MECHANISM, not a hindrance. It prevents the damaged cells from replicating, thus preventing tumor development, and/or hereditary mutations. Preventing radiation-induced apoptosis would be a good drug to give soldiers when you want them to keep fighting after being lethally-irradiated... but it won't stop them from dying, it will just prolong their life and alter the proximal cause of death from radiation sickness to (most likely)
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:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apoptosis does not occur randomly. You must trigger it. In this case, with ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage, you have MMR proteins and the ATM/ATR system signaling to activate p53-dependent apoptosis. Since there are a number of checkpoints along the way, the cell that proceeds to apoptosis has already failed the evolutionarily-conserved tests for genome integrity and capability to repair its DNA damage.
It's is not feasible, given our knowledge of molecular biology, to prevent apoptosis after massive radiation exposure, without virtually guaranteeing a relatively quick (on the order of weeks to months) death from resultant tumors. The cell death mechanisms are there for a reason.
P.S. If you think dying from multiple foci of aggressive invasive lymphomas over a period of a couple of months is less painful than dying of massive GI epithelial and hematopoietic failure due to radiation sickness over a period of one week or less, then you haven't seen many cancer patients.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that apoptosis on a massive scale can outrun the body's ability to repair itself, thus taking down the whole system. Using a drug to limit apoptosis should slow this process down and let the body properly heal. Presumably, cells that are "marked to die" will still ultimately die as the drug is withdrawn - just not all at once.
The researchers agree that cancer is a risk - but they report not having seen any in the lab animals thus far.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
it will just prolong their life and alter the proximal cause of death from radiation sickness to (most likely) a flood of lymphomas.
Assuming they aren't lying about their animal models, this is not the case, nor would one expect it to be.
Apoptosis is a programmed response to generic cellular damage (amongst other things.)
We evolved in a low radiation environment, so there was no selection for more clever apoptosis triggers than, "lots of damage, time to die!" Because such a mechanism would only kill off a cell needlessly now and then, it posed no risk. It was, like so many evolved solutions to problems, good enough.
Unfortunately this generic and rather indiscriminate mechanism is not appropriate to the rare and artificial case of high radiation exposure, in which many cells sustain lots of damage, but most of it reparable. Under these circumstances, turning off apoptosis and letting the expensive machinery of cellular and genetic repair do its thing is more desirable.
It is still likely that there is an elevated long-term risk of cancer comparable to that from high non-lethal doses, but since the usual mechanism of apoptosis will turn back on as the drug clears the system, most of the irreparable cells will off themselves at that time.
Overall, I am cautiously optimistic about this.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Informative)
If you dig around a bit, you'll find that this compound doesn't fix damage done by radiation - rather it prevents the body from killing off the damaged cells, thus preventing radiation sickness. The makers speculate that it will increase cancer risk, but they so far have not observed this in lab animals.
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
... this compound doesn't fix damage done by radiation - rather it prevents the body from killing off the damaged cells, thus preventing radiation sickness. The makers speculate that it will increase cancer risk, but they so far have not observed this in lab animals.
And that seems about right. (Actually it prevents the cells that are damaged from killing THEMSELVES off.)
After an intense dose of ionizing radiation there's a lot of broken stuff hanging around in a cell. Some of this triggers the suicide mechanism. But if the DNA isn't damaged (or isn't damaged in a significant and non-repairable way) by the radiation or the subsequent debris, it can typically recover (if it doesn't "slit its own wrists").
Cell suicide for local damage, to prevent possible cancer from mutated cells, is an appropriate response. But suicide of the bulk of the cells kills the person, when surviving with a somewhat higher cancer risk later is not.
So it seems to me that a drug that temporarily suppresses the mechanism, used to let the body survive a radiation exposure event that would otherwise kill it, is indeed likely to result in a living subject with a somewhat higher cancer risk.
But as I recall the released studies on cancer risks among survivors of single high-dose radiation events - like nuclear lab accidents and Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors - indicated a very small increase in cancer risk. So not seeing a significant bump in cancer rates among a small sample of lab animals in preliminary tests is hardly surprising.
So the claims seem plausible to me.
72 hours after exposure? (Score:4, Interesting)
So this can patch you DNA back together after it's been ripped to shreds?
Pardon me, but I'm a bit sceptical.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most DNA damage isn't primary and physical, it's secondary and chemical. After all, a single quantum or particle of ionising radiation can only ionise one target. The secondary electrons it creates, and the secondary chemical species those create, do the damage.
Re:72 hours after exposure? (Score:5, Informative)
Err .. no. It can ionize targets as long as it has sufficient energy to do so. Never seen a cloud chamber?
The secondary electrons it creates, and the secondary chemical species those create, do the damage.
I doubt that any of those molecules (H2O2, mostly) survive for more than a few minutes before doing damage to something that may or may no be important.
Re:72 hours after exposure? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, that was a stupid thing to say, given I know fine that it generates secondary species all along its path. My main gist is that there's an easy mental image of ionising radiation striking a DNA molecule and damaging it, which isn't the correct mechanism at all. The correct thing to say is that it can only ionise the DNA if it encouters it, whereas the secondary species effectively give it a larger cross-section. Secondary species are exteremely important to DNA damage. Their lifetimes aren't particularly large but they're monumental compared to the time the original radiation spends in the body.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
To continue on your argument: cells get damaged by radiation, want to suicide, drug prevents that, cells repair, but not all repair correctly and may cause cancer.
This cancer risk might actually be quite low. This drug will work for a certain amount of time before it is removed from your body naturally, as happens to all medicine. When this drug is gone, the incorrectly repaired cells will suicide after all. Now if I'm interpreting this correctly we would hope that say 95% of the cells with radiation damag
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
OK, so some radiation-damanged cells are gonna survive. Cancer cells are cells with damaged nuclei that get kicked into high gear and don't die easily. Howbout I don't get irradiated in the first place so I don't have to deal with possible cancers a few years down the line after taking this drug?
That's silly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's silly (Score:5, Funny)
Oh good, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh good, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You start advertising missiles pointed towards Mecca. There's still MAD.
Won't fix DNA damage (Score:2)
Re:Won't fix DNA damage (Score:4, Insightful)
Suicidal cells (Score:3, Interesting)
"The medication works by suppressing the "suicide mechanism" of cells hit by radiation, while enabling them to recover from the radiation-induced damages that prompted them to activate the suicide mechanism in the first place."
So it turns the cell into a cry for attention?
Seriously though, saving cells damaged by radiation sounds like a shortcut to cancer. Is the claim of 'enabling cells to recover' realistic?
Re:Suicidal cells (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of radiation poisoning, the problem is that so many cells die, that you die. If you can prevent them all dying, you can maybe handle the cancer issues from cells that were damaged such that they've become precancerous, later.
The other thing that's interesting about this, to me, is that there are indications that people who have had heart attacks or hypothermia don't die from those, but from a massive wave of programmed cell death as a result of, essentially, misinterpreting the results of the heart attack/hypothermia: big fluctuations in oxygen levels and ion concentrations [scripps.edu], that make the cells all think they're individually damaged and cause them to die en masse. If this could be used to stop that process, it could save millions of lives every year, not just the very few people who have radiation poisoning.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
BG? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that the stuff Helo kept shooting up while he was stranded on Caprica?
it stops apoptosis (Score:5, Informative)
It works by inhibiting the protein that initiates the cell suicide programme
In other word it does not repair radiation damage (cue the rad away joke), it just stops all the cells where this protein is present to die. Whether there was a good reason for them to die or not. It might be wonderful for radiation treatment, though. The researcher seems conscient of the risk (like new cancer developping).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:it stops apoptosis (Score:4, Informative)
The researchers theorize an increased cancer risk as a possibility as well.
Since they've been unable to observe such increased risk in testing so far, I think your claim of a "significant" increase in risk is premature, and your labeling of the substance as a carcinogen is FUD.
Long-term radiation exposure (Score:2)
Nothing in the article suggests a cancer cure. (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps that was just speculation on the part of the submitter.
Curing cancer entails the difficult process of getting all the people who have cancer today to not have it later (short of dying). A radioprotectant will not make cancer go away. It also won't prevent new cancers, since radiation is not the only cause.
Another success for VaulTec! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
awesome! (Score:3, Funny)
Now i'll be able to get bitten by as many radioactive spiders with no worries!
Homepage and older info (Score:2)
Hulk? (Score:2)
So this potion will allow me to survive long enough to gain super powers?
650 + monkeys ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Sounds like a familiar situation in the past... (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe this only smells fishy because there's carp all over the damn place..
Hyronalin (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like they may have discovered Hyronalin
.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Hyronalin [memory-alpha.org]
.
Wake me up when they have discovered Warp Drive.
Fallout (Score:4, Insightful)
Imaginary Reportage (Score:3, Informative)
Not the BioLabs stuff, the wild speculation and false statements spouted here being imaginary. Not a one here so far has attempted to find out if there actually were peer reviewed publications by Andrei Gudkov on the subject of radiation treatment and/or radioprotectants.
Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez [nih.gov]
Put 'Gudkov, Andrei' in as the search term
You'll get 52 results with his name given as 'Gudkov AV'; the abstracts make it clear it's him by giving his associations.
Repeat the search with 'Gudkov, Andrei radiation' as the search term.
You'll get 10 results, all of which pertain to radiation treatment, radioprotectants and specifically the role of p53.
Two of those entries are reviews. Those would be the most instructive to any who actually want to find out if there's actually research on the subject and what it's about. Here's the two abstracts:
(1) Nat Rev Cancer. 2003 Feb;3(2):117-29.
The role of p53 in determining sensitivity to radiotherapy.
Gudkov AV, Komarova EA.
Department of Molecular Biology, NC20, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. gudkov@ccf.org
Ionizing radiation (IR) has proven to be a powerful medical treatment in the fight against cancer. Rational and effective use of its killing power depends on understanding IR-mediated responses at the molecular, cellular and tissue levels. Tumour cells frequently acquire defects in the molecular regulatory mechanisms of the response to IR, which sensitizes them to radiation therapy. One of the key molecules involved in a cell's response to IR is p53. Understanding these mechanisms indicates new rational approaches to improving cancer treatment by IR.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005 Jun 10;331(3):726-36.
Prospective therapeutic applications of p53 inhibitors.
Gudkov AV, Komarova EA.
Department of Molecular Genetics, Lerner Research Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. gudkov@ccf.org
p53, in addition to being a key cancer preventive factor, is also a determinant of cancer treatment side effects causing excessive apoptotic death in several normal tissues during cancer therapy. p53 inhibitory strategy has been suggested to protect normal tissues from chemo- and radiotherapy, and to treat other pathologies associated with stress-mediated activation of p53. This strategy was validated by isolation and testing of small molecule p53 inhibitor pifithrin-alpha that demonstrated broad tissue protecting capacity. However, in some normal tissues and tumors p53 plays protective role by inducing growth arrest and preventing cells from premature entrance into mitosis and death from mitotic catastrophe. Inhibition of this function of p53 can sensitize tumor cells to chemo- and radiotherapy, thus opening new potential application of p53 inhibitors and justifying the need in pharmacological agents targeting specifically either pro-apoptotic or growth arrest functions of p53.
===
Note: 'Apoptosis' is the tendency for cells to die off based on signals from other nearby cells that are dying off -- a 'suicide signal'. This happens in many situations, radiation exposure being one of them.
As for emphasis on ethnicity, sure, they do mention it. The source noted is an Israeli newspaper. They have right to be proud since one of their citizens is accomplishing something notable to the world. Nobody seems to find it a problem when US newspapers note that a scientist is from the US. That's so common that it's not even noticed, unless you're not from the US. 90% of scientific publications are from the US. In those from other countries it's common for such emphasis to be included so the w
Known work, but may be making progress (Score:5, Informative)
First, this isn't new; the company issued a press release on PR Newswire in January 2007.
It has nothing to do with Israel; the work is being done at Cleveland BioLabs in Cleveland, Ohio. [cbiolabs.com] The researcher behind this, Andrei Gudkov [cbiolabs.com], is Russian. He was at the National Cancer Research Center in Moscow until 1990, then came to the US and became a professor at the University of Illinois.
This seems to be legitimate; they're in FDA Phase I human testing (safety only, not effectiveness.). That doesn't mean it will work; if it makes it through Phase II, it's real.
Woohoo! (Score:3, Interesting)
Can I get it in a spray mister so I can just spray it into my basement and not worry about all that pesky radon?
cells have anti-radiation mechanisms (Score:4, Interesting)
The second inducement was the incorporation of mitochrondria into eucharyote cells. This gave cells ten times the energy they had before to eventually power animal locomotion. However, mitochrondria spew out all kinds of nasty poisons like free oxygen, protons, and high electric fields. Cells had to develop mechanisms to neutralize these.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm.
But my muffler flaps help me get an additional 207 stone to the pint highway miles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 need a car analogy... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if this could be used to help cancer patients who are undergoing radiation treatment.
Radiation is a good way to cause cancer. Radiation does damage not only to cell structures, but also does irreversible damage to DNA, which can cause cancer. People being treated for severe radiation poisoning may survive only to find they are plagued by repeated development of cancerous tumors all over their body.
Alive still, but not nearly the rosegarden of living that the casual headline reader would envision.
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:I need a car analogy... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it would be an effective way to treat cancer. That's why it's being developed.
No, it doesn't affect the cancer cells, too.
In the studies, the potential to actually cause cancer is being investigated. In testing so far, it hasn't happened.
Re:I need a car analogy... (Score:5, Funny)
God kills kitten everytime you RTFA
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, no! Now you need it more than ever, because they're not afraid of accidentally irradiating your brain while they read your thoughts!
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:kdawson strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were published in Science, yeah you'd probably get slashdotted.
Re: (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.