Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

UK Doctors Cure Type 1 Diabetes 96

Posted by timothy from the that's-what-they-tell-you-anyway dept.
ayden writes "The BBC is reporting that a 61-year-old man has become the first person in the UK to be cured of type 1 diabetes thanks to a groundbreaking cell-transplant technique. More info here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Doctors Cure Type 1 Diabetes More

UK Doctors Cure Type 1 Diabetes

Comments Filter:

  • Whoo hoo!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @02:51PM (#11891449) Homepage Journal

    I'm off to 7-Eleven for a Pepsi Super Big Gulp!

    • Re:Whoo hoo!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by UWC ( 664779 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:17PM (#11891798)
      I'm off to 7-Eleven for a Pepsi Super Big Gulp!

      Ah, so you've decided to pursue Type 2, then, have you? Good luck with that.

    • Woah, don't drink that yet! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bluGill ( 862 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:24PM (#11891879)

      This is a cure for type I. Type I is what you get as a kid when your body never makes enough insulin. Type II is what you get when you consume so much sugar your body can't produce enough insulin.

      Drink that Super Big Gulp and you will add to your chance of getting type II, which isn't covered by this treatment. (Not to mention all the other unhealthy things about soda in general)

      • Type I == Juvenile Diabetes (Score:4, Informative)

        by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:53PM (#11892311)
        Unfortunately, it's a poor name. 50% of Type I diagnosises occur in people above the age of 18.
        • Actually "juvenile diabetes" is an accurate name. I was diabetic for at least 10 years before I was diagnosed at 12-13.

          Just because 90% of doctors don't care about patients at ALL and are so dense they can't diagnose a common condition with unique, easily testable symptoms before the patient is an adult doesn't mean you should change the name of the disease.

          <rant>
          If you couldn't tell, I'm bitter. My mom thought I was diabetic the whole time and I went to many many doctors (including a special childr
          • Yes, you do sound bitter, but it doesn't change the fact that 50% of cases of Type I diabetes are in people above the age of 18.

            Not sure about your case, but you do not have Type I diabetes, untreated, for 10 years. Onset of Type I diabetes happens, at most, over a period of months. After that, if untreated, you go into diabetic ketacidosis, and you die. You simply can't have untreated Type I diabetes for years.
            • Yes, you do sound bitter, but it doesn't change the fact that 50% of cases of Type I diabetes are in people above the age of 18.

              And, assuming that's true, that does not imply that the 50% to which you're referring did not suffer before they were 18. It merely implies that they were not diagnosed until they were 18. Which more clearly suggests the reasoning behind my rant.

      • Coca-cola: Toilet bowl cleaner! (Score:4, Informative)

        by denis-The-menace ( 471988 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @04:21PM (#11892688)
        I kid you not.
        It works great and it doesn't harm my septic tank!
        Leave it for an hour or overnight and flush in the morning.

        Now if pop can do that, imagine what it does inside you!
        Pepsi works too.
      • Type II is what you get when you consume so much sugar your body can't produce enough insulin.

        Wrong. That's nothing but an old wive's tale. You get Type II diabetes when your body has trouble keeping your blood sugar at the right level. It's not just insulin, you have problems when it gets too low too, because your body may not react properly and pump some more sugar into your blood. Among other things, Type II diabetes is caused by exposure to Agent Orange. That's why any Viet Nam era veteran with T

  • Good news! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    From someone who has both parents being diabetic, this is great news.

    • Re:Good news! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RootsLINUX ( 854452 ) <rootslinux@gmail.cDEBIANom minus distro> on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @02:56PM (#11891514) Homepage
      Agreed. I'm also at risk for developing diabetes. Hopefully we'll see the method mature and grow more effective.

      On a side note, if they can extract the pancreas cells from dead donors, then why do they claim to have a major shortage of them? I imagine that they only need to borrow a small sliver of the dead donor's pancreas and not the whole whopper, so one dead donor can help cure tens, maybe hundreds of afflicted patients? But then again I have no idea how many people in the UK don't mind donating their organs after they're dead. Personally I see no reason not to. Spread the love, share the life! =D

      • Re:Good news! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hubs99 ( 318852 )
        If you are at risk for developing diabetes then you probably have diabetes type 2 in your family, not type 1 which this would cure. Type 2 can be different because although your body is still producing insulin, your body's cells are effectively ignoring it. As for you question. The reason of the shortage is for a multitude of reasons. One being the lack of organ donors, and of those donors those that will match perfectly enough for the stem cells to becmoe integrated. Also if a pancrease has on the orde

        • Re:Good news! (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Type II can become (and often does) Type I

          • Re:Good news! (Score:5, Informative)

            by Nipok Nek ( 87328 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @05:00PM (#11893248)
            Not true - Type II is where your body isn't correctly using the insulin it has, Type I is where the body simply doesn't make enough. Anyone (including myself) who has ever "progressed" from Type II to Type I was simply mis-diagnosed in the first place, and was always Type I.

            Nipok Nek
            • Are you sure? My partner L has Type II but is now on an insulin regime; her doctors say that her diabetes is so severe it's a kind of "type 1.5" - ie Type II with a lot of Type I symptoms. Can you tell me more about how you came to this conclusion?

              cheers!

            • Re:Good news! (Score:2, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              That's incorrect, sorry.

              Type I, associated with a death of the insulin-producing islet cells of the pancreas (due to an autoimmune reaction) can indeed come from Type II diabetes.

              What typically happens, is that the first stage of NIDD (non-insulin dependent diabetes) occurs when body tissues become insulin resistant. The levels of insulin increase, as the typical levels don't reduce blood glucose sufficiently (due to a change in insulin receptors. The down-regulation comes in response to overstimulation).
      • People have to specifically give permission for their organs to be used. Also I think there are problems with the recipients body rejecting the cells, so they need specific types of donors. Fairly powerful treatments are needed to prevent the body rejecting the cells, which bring their own unplesant side-effects.
        I can't give blood, as the effects of giving non-diabetic people blood with artificial insulin are not certain. I assume this means that my organs would not be welcome either. There are a numbe

      • Re:Good news! (Score:3, Informative)

        by kpearce ( 518069 )
        so one dead donor can help cure tens, maybe hundreds of afflicted patients?
        Unfortunately not. As reported here http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/03/week_2/09_ins ulin.html [channel4.com] more than one donor is required for each transplant.

      • Re:Good news! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *
        On a side note, if they can extract the pancreas cells from dead donors, then why do they claim to have a major shortage of them?

        Society is screwed up. Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in.
        • "Society is screwed up. Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in."
          No your wrong simple as that. I do agree that everyone that does not have religious objections should be a opt in. And yes I did. And I told my wife that I want to do it.
          Just opting in is not enough. You need to tell your family.
          • No your wrong simple as that.

            Hated Debate Club, eh? ;)

            I do agree that everyone that does not have religious objections should be a opt in.

            Which religions still prohibit it? Catholics are even jiggy with cremation these days.

            Once exception I know of are Christian Scientists, which don't even believe in blood transfusions. I don't see ER's adopting a no-transfusions policy for all John Does in case they may be Christian Scientists.
            • "Hated Debate Club, eh? ;)"

              When the government starts assuming permission it is wrong. Do you want an opt out policy for phone taps, searches, or drug testing?
              Actually I know some Jewish sects forbid it. Plus I am sure that there are some individuals that have feelings that it is wrong.
              Your example of Blood transfusions not a good example. That is a procedure to save the patients life. Organ harvesting involves the termination of the patients life. While I agree that brain dead is as good as dead there are
              • Your example of Blood transfusions not a good example. That is a procedure to save the patients life.

                We're trying to be sensitive to religious views here. It may well save the patient's life, but if the patient's beliefs are correct, it may well also damn their immortal soul for all eternity. Point being, they would rather die than be transfused but we don't extend them that courtesy.

                Organ harvesting involves the termination of the patients life.

                Really? At the hospitals I'm familiar with 5 minutes
                • "Really? At the hospitals I'm familiar with 5 minutes of cardiac death is required before explant. No blood pumping means no oxygen to the brain, means brain death, means death. There's legal support for that definition."
                  I can not imagine that would be of much use for heart transplants. I even question that for liver or lung harvesting.

                  Even if you want to reduce organs to the level of property it is not right to assume that just because the "owner" does not need them anymore that you have the right to take
                  • Even if you want to reduce organs to the level of property it is not right to assume that just because the "owner" does not need them anymore that you have the right to take them. Since the orgianl owner is dead they would belong to their family. It must remain an opt in procedure if for no other reason than individual rights. As I said I think everyone should opt in and tell there family that is what they want to do.

                    We're in 100% agreement regarding property rights and ownership and there should be nothi
                    • "Couple that with a marked decrease in donors over the past decade due to improved medical care and increased safety of automobiles (airbags/crumple zones/seatbelt laws/helmet laws) and we're currently headed in exactly the wrong direction."

                      You have to admit that sounds really bad. But I am hoping that is not what you meant.
                    • You have to admit that sounds really bad. But I am hoping that is not what you meant.

                      That's exactly what I meant. Fewer donations available year after year is exactly the wrong direction. What sounds bad? You think it's good that we have a decreasing number of organs available for transplant? That means more people die waiting for transplant. That public education about the need for organ donations has largely failed?

                      Are you inferring that I'm advocating more people die in car in car wrecks? Are yo

        • Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in.

          How exactly would that work? Right now I assume they contact your next of kin and ask what they want to do. If they can't get in touch with your next of kin then I assume they don't allow the donation. Would you want it to work such that if they can't get in touch with your next of kin that they just donate away? Doesn't seem very fair to me. In fact, it'd be rather "screwed up".

          • Would you want it to work such that if they can't get in touch with your next of kin that they just donate away?

            Well, there's a section of your drivers license that allows organ donations - it could just as easily disallow donations. Failing that, it could be in your advanced directives at the hospital. We're going to have portable electronic medical records very soon, so if they can identify you then can find out.

            Failing that, as a John Doe, yes, donate.

            Doesn't seem very fair to me. In fact, it'd b

            • Well, there's a section of your drivers license that allows organ donations - it could just as easily disallow donations.

              That's not how it works in Florida. You are asked if you want to donate your organs in your application and you check "yes" or "no". I suppose if you checked neither they wouldn't print "organ donor" on your card like they have on mine, but that's really splitting hairs.

              It's also rather irrelevant. Once you're dead it doesn't really matter what you wanted to do. I suppose you coul

              • You're exactly right, that's how it works. The next of kin even has authority over advance directives in some hospitals.

                But that's a complex case. The base case is a John Doe in the ED, say he lost his brain in a motorcycle accident, no ID. If he hasn't explicitly consented to organ donation, his organs rot.

                Current law/tradition prevents his organs from being donated. In large part this is based on the religious belief that God will raise the Believing Dead at the Rapture and that (somehow) He needs t

                • I'd rather live in a world where "Died Waiting for an Organ Donation" isn't in anyone's epitaph.

                  As would I, but I don't think you need to change the law to make this happen. We really just need education.

                  We also need a lot of brain dead people. I'd be interested in knowing just how many useful organs are thrown away in the first place. The vast majority of deaths I would think are cardiac deaths and not brain deaths. And even when there's a brain death of an eligible donor, you've still got to find

          • "Doesn't seem very fair to me."

            Who is cheated in that case?
      • I have no idea how many people in the UK don't mind donating their organs after they're dead. Personally I see no reason not to. Spread the love, share the life! =D

        for most slashdotters its the only way to pass on genetic code
      • I work in the organ transplantation business. typically, organ donations from cadaveric donors must come from heart-beating donors -- in other words, brain-dead. Once the heart stops beating, necropsy sets in. even hours of stagnation can be severely detrimental to the organ. once an organ is past about 24 hours of stagnant existence (less if its not on ice), its nearly worthless.

  • One word... (Score:4, Funny)

    by trentfoley ( 226635 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @02:54PM (#11891486) Homepage Journal
    Sweet
  • I can't express enough the gratitude I have for those scientists who keep pushing through for advancement. Keep up the good work and keep those cures coming. I'm sure it'll be a while before the cure becomes readily available. Especially in the US due to strict USDA laws and regulations, but I hope it does well and progresses quickly.

  • The only drawback (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SimianOverlord ( 727643 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:06PM (#11891646) Homepage Journal
    Is the anti-rejection drug regime. It can cause problems down the line with side-effects and with the immune system somewhat compromised, a susceptibility to infection.

    If stem cell research continues at the rate it does, even this will be solved when cord blood stored at the patients birth is encouraged to differentiate into Eyelet cells, injected back into the patient years later and begin producing insulin. No rejection problems with your own-tissue-derived cells.

    Also, this, as far as I am aware, will not help with Insulin-independent diabetic conditions.

    USians, consider writing to your senator to protest Bush policies on Stem cell research. I'm not having a pop at him - fair enough if it's a moral issue to some folks. Just register your opinion with them. It can't hurt.
    • Actually this technique explicitly helps those with Type I diabetes (i.e. insulin dependent).

      It does nothing to help with Type II diabetes, which you get from a lifetime eating foods for the mouth, and not the body.
      • Also, this, as far as I am aware, will not help with Insulin-independent diabetic conditions in grandparent.

        Diabetic fatties will have to wait on further research into the cellular nature of their disease. When I was at Uni (~3 years ago) they pinpointed the disease to interference in the specific process somewhere between Insulin Receptor recognising Insulin (which went fine) and actual cellular changes as a result of activation and dimerization of IR. It's almost certainly moved on since then, but there
    • No rejection problems with your own-tissue-derived cells.

      Actually, since diabetes is an auto-immune disease, islet cells even from from your own body will be rejected. That's how Type I diabetes happens in the first place: Your immune system identifies your islet cells as invaders and destroys them.

      • What you say could be true, but it doesn't naturally follow. Even with the best technology available, induced islet cells are not identical to body grown islet cells, they're just close enough to make no difference therapeutically. An auto-immune response accidentally targets your cells by recognising cell surface markers which it shouldn't. There isn't the research doen to substantiate your assertion as far as I know, but it is a sensible conclusion. You could get around it, I think, by selection of cult
        • ...in any research you could track down on this.

          Of course, an approach sometimes used in treating lupus [nih.gov] (see the section "Hematopoietic Stem Cell Therapy for Autoimmune Diseases") could always be used to overcome the autoimmune problem for good - destroy the immune system and repopulate it from scratch. A bit dangerous, though.

          • the research available is generally through scientific journals which charge a hefty fee for the ability to look through them. Even a service such as Medline which allows you to search through abstracts - not complete articles - isn't free to any member of the public.

            The Institution I work at cannot afford much more than ~200 journal subscriptions, and it's a major UK research institute. Nature and its offshoots(like Nature Biochemistry, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Molecular Biology etc. etc. is horrendo
            • Even a service such as Medline which allows you to search through abstracts - not complete articles - isn't free to any member of the public.

              There is PubMed [nih.gov], which includes MEDLINE citations and is free.

    • What do Bush's polcies on stem cell research have to do with cord blood stem cells?

  • The biggest problem... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Oen_Seneg ( 673357 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:12PM (#11891724)
    ...I see is the need for three pancreases for the process - it'd take a lot of donations to cure every Type 1 Diabetic out there. Stiil, they interviewed the guy on the radio, and he seems happy that he's got the flexibility, so its still an improvement (drugs compared to needles - tough choice)

    • Three? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by devphil ( 51341 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @03:31PM (#11891972) Homepage


      The articles linked only say that this patient received three transplants. Nothing more.

      Where is your source for the conclusion that every patient is going to need three transplants?

      For all these brief articles tell us, maybe one procedure would be sufficient for a diabetic in better condition; Mr Lane sounded in pretty bad shape (falling into comas on a semi-regular basis) to this here diabetic.

      For that matter, where do you get the "1 donated pancreas" == "1 islet cell transplant" equation? That's a mighty big leap to make given these scanty articles.

      • Can't remember the exact context of the radio article (this was BBC Radio 4's 6:00 news), but I'm sure there were three actual pancreases used for the right amount of islet cells. Aparrently a lot are lost in the transfusion.

        However, the news item also mentioned about efforts to develop synthetic islet cells - not sure how that'd work, though.

        I listened to TFA, and BBC radio's making a lot of news out of it. Slow day, probably.
    • Heh, there was this story about organ donation on local TV here in .au a couple nights back. I think they were talking about donating kidneys, or something. I was doing something else at the time so wasn't paying attention, but one thing that I heard that really struck me was the SOURCE of these donated kidneys - they were from executed Chinese prisoners.

      Organs for everybody!
  • If it's true, then this is hardcore!
  • I doubt this will become the standard of care for type I diabetics.

    Why? This treatment is very complicated, costly, invovles suppressing the immune system (which has its own problems), and has had very limited success in the past. Pancreas transplantations are really nothing new (they've been doing them with bilateral kidney tranpslants for years); what's more novel here is that they've transplanted only the islet cells from the pancreas. The thing is, whatever causes type I diabetes in the first place,
  • until antibiotics fail... and when they do, Type I diabetes is the LAST of our worries

    Seriously, without antibiotics, has there been ANY medical advance in the past 50+ years? The adoption of plastic to improve hygiene?

    It will be like the civil war, "He's got a scratch, get my bone saw." Only this time it will be a very *clean* bonesaw...

    • No. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @07:41PM (#11894968)

      Seriously, without antibiotics, has there been ANY medical advance in the past 50+ years?

      For all intents and purposes, the answer is no.

      Of course, the pedant would argue the semantics of the word "medical", and offer up examples like

      1) Surgical device technology [to include technology used by non-surgeons, such as invasive cardiologists]

      2) Anesthetic technology [to include pain medicines]

      3) Imaging technology [CAT scans, ultrasound, etc]

      But if you define "medical breakthrough" as something along the lines of "a chemical [non-mechanical] agent that cures [not just treats the symptoms of] a disease [as opposed to a mechanical injury, like a broken bone, or a blocked artery]", then the hundreds of billions [trillions?] of dollars spent on "medical research" in the post WWII era by the western world has been, for all intents and purposes, an utter and complete waste of money.

      And if the "cure" for Type I Diabetes described here is nothing more than a partial pancreatic transplant in combination with an aggressive regimen of anti-rejection drugs, then I wouldn't classify it as a "medical" breakthrough - rather, it's just a new surgical technique.

      PS: If you [or a loved one] ever get really, really sick, keep in mind that the only person who stands a chance in hell of doing anything beneficial for you is a surgeon, not a medical doctor.

      PPS: Antibiotics, the true "medical" breakthrough of the 20th century, are primarily a tool of the surgeon, not the medical doctor.


      • A surgeon of my acquaintance used to claim that there were only two significant medical advances in the past 200 years: anti-biotics, and sterile technique. To that I would add anesthetic, although that's more of an enabling technology than a cure. The effect of everything else has been tiny in comparison.

        Probably the largest "minor" advance was the use of radiation to treat cancer. However, the success rate (60% of patients improve, 40% don't) has not changed significantly since the 50's, when Canadi
      • PPS: Antibiotics, the true "medical" breakthrough of the 20th century, are primarily a tool of the surgeon, not the medical doctor

        The may be the tool of the surgeon, but they are the refuge of the harried pediatrician!

    • Re:A stunning breakthrough (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, we're still managing to just hold on for most antibiotics, and the medical community is getting a little more creative in other forms of bacteriocidal and bacteriostatic treatments.

      In addition, we could always start looking into the Soviet programmes on bacteriophages. They had large stocks they were developing, and they were quite useful. Bacteriophages are basically viruses that attack bacteria - and will do the job of antibiotics in many cases.

      Even with the scares of multiple drug resistant micro
    • Look into bacteriophage therapy.

      I've posted a few articles to Slashdot but they've all been rejected.

      It's sustainably developed antibiotics! :)

      Good stuff.

  • Stepping stones (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mycroft_514 ( 701676 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @06:14PM (#11894095) Journal
    This is being tried today.

    Like insulin when it first appeared, it was cow and sheep insulin. It wasn't until years later that Humulin was developed (synthetic human insulin to you layman).

    This is the first step and assuming it works as well as it appears from this write up, then wholesale cloning of the pancreas tissue will follow.

    And for those that think this has no bearing on type II diabetis, you are shortshighted, at best, and wrong at worst. ANY time you cure a related desease, some of it becomes a significant gain to all the other related deseases.

    I'm happy even if it only cures Type I. Even though I am a type II, my brother is a type I and it wll probably help him. It's too late for my Mom.

  • The Beeb got it wrong... this has been done before (Score:4, Informative)

    by Methionine ( 866454 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2005 @07:23PM (#11894800)
    Not sure how this has been missed, but unless I'm mistaken, this is *not* the first time we've seen islet cell transplantation to correct Type I diabetes in patients with insulin-dependant diabetes mellitus (IDDM). From http://www.diabetes.org.uk/islets/trans/edmonton.h tm "The 'Edmonton' protocol is a procedure developed in Canada for transplanting healthy islet cells into people with Type 1 diabetes. The series of islet transplantations carried out by James Shapiro and his team since March 1999 has enjoyed levels of success that are unprecedented in the field of islet transplantation surgery. Since the Edmonton transplantation research trial began, 48 patients have undergone 92 islet infusions in Canada. The most recent statistics from Edmonton (January 2003) state that one year after transplantation 84 per cent of patients remain insulin free and that after three years, 89 per cent of patients are still producing insulin. Previous islet cell transplants have only succeeded in around eight per cent of cases. In addition to the work being carried out in Canada, approximately 200 patients have received islet transplants using the 'Edmonton' protocol or varients of the process in several centres worldwide. There are now almost 75 programmes planned to become activated within the next six to 12 months." Also, check this link from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research: http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/publications/newsletter/Sum mer00/sum00/inside/diabetes.feat.htm
    • Well, the BBC story only claims that this is the first patient cured in the UK. The article plainly states that the protocol has been used a number of times in Canada. Perhaps the poster should have given a better title to this submission....

      And while the Edmonton Protocol is exciting news for diabetics, it's somewhat premature to call this a cure. It requires two harvested pancreases for each transplant, and there were not a huge number of such donations available. I think there was something like 1,

  • CBC reported the Edmonton Protocol -years- ago... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ivi ( 126837 ) on Thursday March 10, 2005 @05:46AM (#11897921)

    Reporting (on Quirks & Quarks sci show)
    success rates aproaching 90% from memory,
    albeit with some side-effects.

    The idea was to transplant islet cells
    from a healthy person into the Type 1
    sufferer.

    People queued for the chance to join the
    medical trials around the world.

    Then came word that the transplants could
    come from pigs, instead of human donors...

    So, what's new...? :-/
  • Doctors in Edmonton AB Canada developed this technique about 5 years ago. Islet cells (the ones that produce insulin) are removed from cadavers and transplanted into Type 1 diabetic's livers. Apparently islet cell antibodies won't attack "foreign" cells as aggressively in the liver but the patient still needs to take immune suppressant drugs. The down side to all this is that it takes the pancreases of about 5 cadavers to extract enough islets cells for one injection and a full treatment might take several
    • "The solution to this is obviously stem cell research but you won't find this breakthrough research being conducted in the US or in any country dominated by the Roman Catholic Church."

      Patently false. Stem cell research != fetal stem cell research.

      How many times is this ignorant misconception going to be thrown around on Slashdot before people learn to differentiate between the two?

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close