2 replies to this topic

[treonsverdery]

I think curing cancer easier than storing nuclear waste to prevent illness

Compare the gram/day cancer risk of a 20 gram mouse as well as a 60 or 70 kg human. The human outmasses the mouse 3000 times, the 20th century human outlives the mouse 30 or 40 times, so per gram/day the human is about 90,000 times more resistant to cancer than the mouse. From a mouse perspective humans have essentially cured cancer. From a human perspective this tremendous physiological variation between two organisms with 4/5 or more identical genetics suggests that making humans 10, 100 or even 1000 times more resistant to cancer is highly likely.

One appraoch is to RAR, to find the rodent accelerated regions at the mouse to beaver genomes. RAR is just a variant of HAR, the human accelerated regions of human genetics http://en.wikipedia....lerated_regions . Beavers live five or ten times longer than mice, they also mass near 20 kg, so they are perhaps 5,000 or 10,000 times more resistant to cancer per gram/day than mice yet they are 98-99/100 genetically identical to mice. So less than a 1 pct genetic difference makes them at vastly less cancer risk than mice. Finding the genomic sequences that have changed most rapidly between mice n beavers likely points to just a few tens of thousands of codons, some of which cause 10,000 times the resistance to cancer. Finding those genetic areas, then finding the same areas at humans gives people the opportunity to seek or create human variations that also give super resistance to cancer.

Another approach is to find mice that have lived at nuclear waste or ground zero sites since the 1940s, about 400 mouse generations ago to see if those mice have developed resistance to radiation induced cancer. Then, similar to the RAR technique find just those few genes that are different that cause the resistance to cancer. Then find variations on those genes among humans, to predict or reassure about cancer likelihood. siRNA are able to modify the bodys RNA produced from DNA to emulate different gene activity levels. Thus siRNA at humans on the mouse cancer resistance gene areas upregulates resistance to cancer.

Also creating or just finding those human genomes that are resistant to cancer creates kids that are cancer resistant. We can do this now, so compare that to nuclear waste. It may actually be much easier to make humans hundreds of times more resistant to cancer than to actually reduce nuclear hazards. Nuclear weapons would become mere gigantic explosives rather than sources of illness.

One of the benefits of curing cancer is the removal of most nuclear threats. Nuclear power becomes orders of magnitude less hazardous.

Edited by treonsverdery, 25 April 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[treonsverdery]

I thought that a person might reply

well, you really should think about plutonium. One particle at the lungs causes cancer as a result of alpha particle emission, basically all the radiation goes to just one area repeatedly rather than diffusing through a depth of tissue. Curing cancer solves the depth of tissue risks of nuclear material yet has little effect on alpha emitters.

Also, the idea that curing radiation illness of any kind reduces harm from nuclear war is kind of optimistic. Presumably a nuclear weapons user could just create a nuke cladded with Co, as has been published at wikipedia or some other really extreme physioconcentrating alpha emitter.

Then I would support my idea that curing cancer reduces nuclear risks with the statement Pepto-bismol

actually alpha emitters have a cure. think about tuberculosis. TB is a mycobacterium that actually lives nside other cytes then creates a thick impermeable coating. Just genetically modifying TB to superconcentrate bismuth would surround plutonium particles with an alpha absorber so there actually is a biosequestration approach to plutonium. It took me just a few hours to realize that, so I think the idea of curing radiation illness is vastly more rapid that believing nuclear waste could be contained. Also SENS cures any cancer, so coating radioactive particles with bismuth then digitally controlling cytoreproduction (SENS) does minimize most radiation risks.

[treonsverdery]

Then the reply to that might go

well, actually there is an opportunity here to create nuclear powered mammals. consider that if the bismuth atom were at a molecule like chlorophyll then the absorption of the alpha particle would actually cause electricity, which could then be used to polarize a membrane causing proton pumps to do mitochonria type things with the result of lots of ATP being generated. All without chemical oxidation. so aquatic mammals could have little TB nodules with alpha emitters, bismuth linked to electron transport molecules like chlorophyll then make lots of ATP. so these creatures could exist without eating, which places them on a much more ethically blessed basis than other mammals. It is true they might filter accumlate a few milligrams of Uranium from seawater as they live,while converting CO2 to carbohydrates yet the matter requirement would be minimal.

 mermaids.jpg   112.6KB   0 downloads