| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jaso
United States2147 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:35 Unhallowed wrote: Lucky to discover before adulthood since it is harder to assassinate youth. Microbiologists are #1 in unresolved deaths. ..o_o is this actually backed up by something or a troll comment? I honestly can't tell, lol. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:12 Zamee wrote: So you honestly think healthy people dont get cancer? You think Lance Armstrong was unhealthy? Theres no way he could even take illegal substances due to his profession... Cycling is actually really bad when it comes to substance abuse. Armstrong certainly didn't take any meth or heroine or other "street drugs", but several cyclists in the Tour De France have been caught taking Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). Some people think that he took some type of PED, and others disagree, but there is no way to prove it. Just as a bit of information though, he would have had to ride the Tour a few months after getting chemotherapy, have only a year to rest, and then win the Tour De France against people who admitted to using PEDs. And before he got cancer, he wasn't a big enough name in the world of cycling to be tested except for random testing, and at this time the producers of PEDs were greatly ahead of the testers. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:44 Bleak wrote: Cancer is like the new flu, it is really quite widespread nowadays. Natural selection will take care of it eventually though. no, actually it won't. cancer usually occurs after reproductive age, natural selection is not involved. | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:01 dAPhREAk wrote: serious.... chip.... on.... your.... shoulder.... first, you call her a plagiarizer. now, you are saying she may have cheated.... Calling her cheating might be a little bit too far, but saying it has never been done before is wrong either. Unless the paper or project is published so that it can be peer reviewed or read by others, then it's still not crediable to say "hey it's new". Sorry, we scientists are trained to be skeptical about this thing or else anyone could claim anything. Moreover, the research in nano-vehicle for drugs is not a new idea, at all. The term "Nanoparticle Drug Delivery" gets a 16621 hit when it is searched in SciFinder, which is only a chemistry journal database. So it should be even more in other database too. And this does not even count a paper that does not contain these terms but still revelance to drug delivery by nanoparticle (because scientists tend to use specific name instead of "drug delivery"). She's got a talent, sure. Calling her work "original" might be true to a certain extent, as people might not think about this idea of using laser to degrade the particle (but it seems not efficient at all). But calling it a new discovery is just sensational. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:52 Veldril wrote: Calling her cheating might be a little bit too far, but saying it has never been done before is wrong either. Unless the paper or project is published so that it can be peer reviewed or read by others, then it's still not crediable to say "hey it's new". Sorry, we scientists are trained to be skeptical about this thing or else anyone could claim anything. Moreover, the research in nano-vehicle for drugs is not a new idea, at all. The term "Nanoparticle Drug Delivery" gets a 16621 hit when it is searched in SciFinder, which is only a chemistry journal database. So it should be even more in other database too. And this does not even count a paper that does not contain these terms but still revelance to drug delivery by nanoparticle (because scientists tend to use specific name instead of "drug delivery"). She's got a talent, sure. Calling her work "original" might be true to a certain extent, as people might not think about this idea of using laser to degrade the particle (but it seems not efficient at all). But calling it a new discovery is just sensational. i would be surprised to see any 17 year old think of an original new idea in such advanced science. but her work was obviously impressive enough to win the $100,000 prize. i have no problem with people saying that her work isnt original, or that it has been discussed before. but, this dude, is just taking a shit on her while at the same time saying how wonderful he is (and his friends are). that says to me that he has a huge chip on his shoulder. whether her work is original or not, she is very impressive. at 17 i was playing super nintendo and tennis, and not very good at that. ;-) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:01 dAPhREAk wrote: serious.... chip.... on.... your.... shoulder.... first, you call her a plagiarizer. now, you are saying she may have cheated.... I freely admitted that I had a bad experience with science fairs. If I wanted, I could have omitted that. My point is that high school level science fairs are often filled with projects that are not entirely the student's work, fairly simple when taken in context of the field they were done, or had extensive assistance and access to labs and resources. If you've looked on various science/ college forums like collegeconfidential or physcisforum, you can find other stories of science fair shenanigans. And again, I did not call her a cheater-- don't accuse me of saying that. I said that A. her project is not a breakthrough, and that there are and have been many other projects on the topic and B. that science fairs have a lot of stuff apart from pure scientific review. Published, peer-reviewed papers are the only source of information for discoveries I'm willing to trust. EDIT. Did I say anything about my friends being awesome? No I didn't. I pretty much said they cheated on their ISEF project. I didn't mean to boast about my project either-- I offered it as a comparison of another project done. But seriously, you admitted you were playing video games when you were 17. I was busy working on a lab scrounging for a topic to do a science project on. I know more about what goes on it these things. | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:48 Rotodyne wrote: no, actually it won't. cancer usually occurs after reproductive age, natural selection is not involved. I was thinking in terms of people who don't get cancer due to their genes being better reproduce and survive. | ||
|
RyanRushia
United States2748 Posts
amazing for her, incredible props | ||
|
Silver777
United States347 Posts
On January 25 2012 10:09 ticklishmusic wrote: I freely admitted that I had a bad experience with science fairs. If I wanted, I could have omitted that. My point is that high school level science fairs are often filled with projects that are not entirely the student's work, fairly simple when taken in context of the field they were done, or had extensive assistance and access to labs and resources. If you've looked on various science/ college forums like collegeconfidential or physcisforum, you can find other stories of science fair shenanigans. And again, I did not call her a cheater-- don't accuse me of saying that. I said that A. her project is not a breakthrough, and that there are and have been many other projects on the topic and B. that science fairs have a lot of stuff apart from pure scientific review. Published, peer-reviewed papers are the only source of information for discoveries I'm willing to trust. EDIT. Did I say anything about my friends being awesome? No I didn't. I pretty much said they cheated on their ISEF project. I didn't mean to boast about my project either-- I offered it as a comparison of another project done. But seriously, you admitted you were playing video games when you were 17. I was busy working on a lab scrounging for a topic to do a science project on. I know more about what goes on it these things. I didn't see exactly what she did(the article was extremely unspecific), but you are right, the idea of using nanoparticles for targeted cancer treatment isn't original at all. Researchers have been working on it for almost a decade now and no one has developed a true delivery system that works yet(its also different for each VERSION of cancer, so liver/pancreas/brain etc), let alone there is little consensus on the type of drug to deliver for any specific cancer. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
just a load of sensationlist journalism >_> | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On January 25 2012 10:09 ticklishmusic wrote: I freely admitted that I had a bad experience with science fairs. If I wanted, I could have omitted that. My point is that high school level science fairs are often filled with projects that are not entirely the student's work, fairly simple when taken in context of the field they were done, or had extensive assistance and access to labs and resources. If you've looked on various science/ college forums like collegeconfidential or physcisforum, you can find other stories of science fair shenanigans. And again, I did not call her a cheater-- don't accuse me of saying that. I said that A. her project is not a breakthrough, and that there are and have been many other projects on the topic and B. that science fairs have a lot of stuff apart from pure scientific review. Published, peer-reviewed papers are the only source of information for discoveries I'm willing to trust. EDIT. Did I say anything about my friends being awesome? No I didn't. I pretty much said they cheated on their ISEF project. I didn't mean to boast about my project either-- I offered it as a comparison of another project done. But seriously, you admitted you were playing video games when you were 17. I was busy working on a lab scrounging for a topic to do a science project on. I know more about what goes on it these things. lets try quoting: On January 24 2012 14:42 ticklishmusic wrote: I think it's pretty pathetic Siemens gave her a prize for a project that was more or less plagarized. On January 25 2012 05:40 ticklishmusic wrote: Yes. It's also possible she has some sort of connection with the judges. i cant find where you talked about your friends, so i will take that back. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4768 Posts
On January 25 2012 10:10 Bleak wrote: I was thinking in terms of people who don't get cancer due to their genes being better reproduce and survive. That doesn't make sense. Cancer can come in many forms and types and is mostly completely random. "Good" genes have nothing to do with it. ANYONE can get cancer, that's the scary thing. An individual has an estimated amount of 10^23 cells in the body. Every cell becomes a growing danger for mutation with every next generation. DNA replication has it's flaws, but it's mostly corrected. The system is so good that it only makes 1 mistake (1 wrong base) per cell cycle. This is also accompanied with the decaying of the telomeres... Also, take into account the amount of harmful radiation out there and the higher chances of getting this disease are evident. There's also cancer inducing viruses like Human Papilloma Virus to account for. I believe every human body has at least some mutated cells in the body, who just don't have the genetic instability yet to develop into a cancer. This is NORMAL. Only the ones with all the right variables (like being able to make blood vessels grow towards you for growth, telomerase activation, ..) become real threats to the human body. The sad thing is, while the evolutionary process has given us much to thank for, it does come with a price. It's normal for a mammalian to develop a cancer, how horrible that may sound.. (think about how many pets die from some sort of cancer.. I have had two pets die of it..) Any person could have had the misfortune of having just the wrong gene targetted at the wrong time for a cancer to develop, no good or bad genes will fix this. However, I do believe some people are more predisposed to cancer than others. Hope this is kind of understandable and not just a ramblefest to read, I tend of being all over the place.. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On January 25 2012 10:24 Uldridge wrote: That doesn't make sense. Cancer can come in many forms and types and is mostly completely random. "Good" genes have nothing to do with it. ANYONE can get cancer, that's the scary thing. An individual has an estimated amount of 10^23 cells in the body. Every cell becomes a growing danger for mutation with every next generation. DNA replication has it's flaws, but it's mostly corrected. The system is so good that it only makes 1 mistake (1 wrong base) per cell cycle. This is also accompanied with the decaying of the telomeres... Also, take into account the amount of harmful radiation out there and the higher chances of getting this disease are evident. There's also cancer inducing viruses like Human Papilloma Virus to account for. I believe every human body has at least some mutated cells in the body, who just don't have the genetic instability yet to develop into a cancer. This is NORMAL. Only the ones with all the right variables (like being able to make blood vessels grow towards you for growth, telomerase activation, ..) become real threats to the human body. The sad thing is, while the evolutionary process has given us much to thank for, it does come with a price. It's normal for a mammalian to develop a cancer, how horrible that may sound.. (think about how many pets die from some sort of cancer.. I have had two pets die of it..) Any person could have had the misfortune of having just the wrong gene targetted at the wrong time for a cancer to develop, no good or bad genes will fix this. However, I do believe some people are more predisposed to cancer than others. Hope this is kind of understandable and not just a ramblefest to read, I tend of being all over the place.. I do believe there are certain genes that can (maybe indirectly?) lead to higher chances of certain cancers. Even if this weren't true though, most cancers occur past the normal ages at which we reproduce, so @Bleak: yeah natural selection can't do anything about cancer. EDIT: I will assume you typo'd 10^23 and meant 10^13  | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4768 Posts
| ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:10 HowitZer wrote: I'll take a healthy toxin free lifestyle over getting shot with a laser. Out of control cancer is impossible in a healthy body. wow are you trolling? because if so, please just let me know and i'll concede before i get raged to the point of getting banned. I absolutely hate these pseudoscience/pop-lingo words like "toxins." What is a "toxin"? And do you think more "natural" lifestyles are cancer-free? First of all, toxins are not a word used in the scientific community the way you see them used in Oprah or Cosmo or wherever you get your hippie nonsense from, a toxin is simply a biological byproduct of one organism that harms another. You people use toxins almost synonymously with pollution or chemicals, as if all artificial chemicals are inherently bad and all natural ones are inherently good. Chemistry is chemistry, it comes down to a molecule-by-molecule basis (or functional group by functional group). stop oversimplifying the complexity of biological chemistry. avoiding "toxins" that don't actually exist isn't doing anything. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
On January 25 2012 09:40 Jaso wrote: ..o_o is this actually backed up by something or a troll comment? I honestly can't tell, lol. haha holy shit, i too would like to know this o_o | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 25 2012 10:22 dAPhREAk wrote: lets try quoting: i cant find where you talked about your friends, so i will take that back. Sigh. I said Siemens was pathetic. And I backed up my opinion of science fairs quite enough I think. Saying she had a connection with a judge might be a stretch and admittedly a statement made colored by (whatever bad diction) my experience, but it happens quite often. Try looking at the list of Siemens projects. There are thousands of them, and probably quite a few dozen really good ones. I'm willing to bet that a few of those got passed over in earlier rounds of judging for various reasons. This is pretty tangential to the discussion (which was pretty tangential anyways), but cancer is a huge keyword, buzzword, whatever in science fairs. Do a project on cancer, and many judges will be like "OMG CANCER CURE YAY". I once saw a project at a regional science fair about "cancer worms", in which some student got some earthworms, irradiated them and compared the size of tumors between those that were cut and those that weren't. And somehow that was a cure for cancer. I believe it made it to the state level before it lost to some project about peanut butter... | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
