HIV vaccine a reality!

[--Pete]

Hi,

The cure for cancer is also the fountain of youth.

Talk about getting far afield;)

Some of the work being done on 'junk' DNA (i.e., the stretches of DNA which do not code for proteins and therefore were thought useless under the fundamental dogma) indicates that there may be 'counters' encoded in the DNA. There are repeated groups that seem to bracket and (possibly) protect some portions of the DNA. When cells reproduce, there is a built in transcription error so that the number of these protective groups decreases by one on each reproduction. When all the protective groups are gone, the transcription error causes the protected portion to be erroneously copied, thus causing it to either not code for a protein, or to code for a defective protein.

I do not really understand the process, and from what I've read, the people studying it still have more questions than answers. How and why such a system evolved is baffling to me. However, it does seem to indicate that there is more to our 120 year clock than just a decrease in the ability of our body to repair itself.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I do not really understand the process, and from what I've read, the people studying it still have more questions than answers. How and why such a system evolved is baffling to me. However, it does seem to indicate that there is more to our 120 year clock than just a decrease in the ability of our body to repair itself.

Yes, and then you have the enzymes that have a bit of RNA embedded and examine DNA for errors and repair them, or enzymes that lengthen telomeres that are too short. Either of which have the ability to extend useful cell life, or impart immortality to the host.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . impart immortality to the host.

I agree. Though I have no idea of the details, when I look at the progress made in the past quarter of a century, I suspect the techniques for complete cell repair will be perfected soon enough that many alive now will become "immortal". I qualify that, for accidents will continue to happen and over a long enough time, the probability of an accidental death tends to one.

--Pete

[Lissa]

In general, as I understand it from my sister and BIL, cancers tend to hijack the RNA mechanism that instigates cell division. Usually, a cell has a comparatively lengthy growth phase, then at some point it divides. A carcinoma cell skips the growth phase, and just divides, and divides, and divides. Also, there is a mechanism in cells that tell them to stop dividing and become immortal (that is they can die, but they are set to permanent repair mode). Understanding cancer, also helps us understand aging, since many cancers are the result of transcription errors or mutations due to radiation or chemicals. In a younger person, the bodies repair mechanisms would find and kill rogue cells before they cause trouble. As we age, our endocrine systems slow down and our cell anomalies eventually kill us. Put another way... we are designed to die. If you live long enough, you will get cancer. Transcription errors due to cell division are why cancers tend to end up in the places where cells are replaced rapidly, like skin, and intestinal lining.

The cure for cancer is also the fountain of youth.

What you're talking about are the telomeres getting screwed up. Your cells contain teleomeres that tell a cell the maximum times it can divide, which is about 50 times (this is not true of stem cells which can divide as many times as necessary before they become the cell type they are destined to become). Cancer overrides the telomeres and screws with the DNA.

[kandrathe]

I agree. Though I have no idea of the details, when I look at the progress made in the past quarter of a century, I suspect the techniques for complete cell repair will be perfected soon enough that many alive now will become "immortal". I qualify that, for accidents will continue to happen and over a long enough time, the probability of an accidental death tends to one.

Also, we tend to be killing and sterilizing ourselves anyway through absorption, and consumption of chemicals that inhibit and retard cellular repair, whether it be Tylenol, alcohol, or red dye #3. We identify and pull them as we find the most damaging ones, however I'd venture to guess that there are many compounds that we ingest that combine and breakdown into toxins which result in side effects that we may never fully figure out. I think you are right. Between nanotechnology, and biotechnology we will come up with some pretty amazing things in the next 50 years.

[ShadowHM]

I think you are right. Between nanotechnology, and biotechnology we will come up with some pretty amazing things in the next 50 years.

And I envy you both your optimism, but I just had a flashback from a song by George Jones:

Now the race is on
And here comes pride in the backstretch
...
the race is on and it looks like heartaches
and the winner loses all

The chemical soup that we live in isn't going to get better anytime soon. The young of today are soaked in it from conception. Heck, it is worse than that. They are the product of eggs that were soaked in it from their conception. We barely know what each chemical does to us, let alone the effects of the interactions.

We can be proud of the research but we and (more importantly) our children still have to (try to) live with the legacy of the headlong rush to do it better that created that chemical soup. I am feeling less and less sanguine about our chances.

[Ashock]

Oh really? Cervical Cancer Vaccine

Totally unrelated to most other types of cancer, Doctor.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Totally unrelated to most other types of cancer, Doctor.

True. The classification 'cancer' predates any real understanding of the underlying causes. Thus, a number of what now appear to be only slightly related diseases are clumped together as cancer. As our understanding increases, these various diseases will probably each get their own names, and the word 'cancer' will pass into disuse like 'natural causes' has.

And, yes, I referenced Wiki again. So, sue me for malpractice :P

--Pete

[kandrathe]

We can be proud of the research but we and (more importantly) our children still have to (try to) live with the legacy of the headlong rush to do it better that created that chemical soup. I am feeling less and less sanguine about our chances.

:nod: I most heartily agree. As a society, we are still out of control with inputs and outputs. The same lack of foresight that clear cut the forests, and strip mined the foothills are evident in the actions of yesterday, and today. Regulations will always lag, and be too little applied too late well after the rape is over. So, yes, I'm optimistic of the technologies, but then again, also just as sanguine about the realities of the expressions of wretched excess of our generation. The only solution I can see would be to make the citizens jointly responsible for every polluted area and responsible for the cleanup, whereas, they would then care enough to hold the *real* culprits accountable for the messes that are made in their own back yards.

[Jester]

The only solution I can see would be to make the citizens jointly responsible for every polluted area and responsible for the cleanup, whereas, they would then care enough to hold the *real* culprits accountable for the messes that are made in their own back yards.

I'm slightly confused by what you mean here. Do you mean citizens should pay jointly for all cleanup? Because that would be a terrible incentive system. Or do you mean that citizens should get together and make polluters pay for their pollution?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm slightly confused by what you mean here. Do you mean citizens should pay jointly for all cleanup? Because that would be a terrible incentive system. Or do you mean that citizens should get together and make polluters pay for their pollution?

I mean both. We citizens need to take ownership for what happens within the community, county, state, geography that we govern. But, whereas we can hold the polluter accountable, we should and when we are held accountable, then we would have the incentive to hold the actual polluter accountable. If it hits your bottom line, then you will be motivated to 1) prevent anyone from despoiling the land you govern, and 2) be more sensitive to despoiling other peoples land, and 3) willing to hold those responsible to account.

[eppie]

I mean both. We citizens need to take ownership for what happens within the community, county, state, geography that we govern. But, whereas we can hold the polluter accountable, we should and when we are held accountable, then we would have the incentive to hold the actual polluter accountable. If it hits your bottom line, then you will be motivated to 1) prevent anyone from despoiling the land you govern, and 2) be more sensitive to despoiling other peoples land, and 3) willing to hold those responsible to account.

The problem is that most of the time we are not dealing with the drum with a skull and bones sign on it leaking in the sand-box of the local playground. We are dealing with global problems. Think about CO2 (not poisonous but giving environmental problems) CFKs (not poisonous but leading to the hole in the ozone layer), agent orange (leading to heavily handicapped babies even after 30 years), build up of heavy metals in seafish etc. etc.
It is already difficult for governments to check what is going on during the production of our, food/toys/electronics because most of it is coming from abroad. And even when it is known people don't act because often teh results of a certain pollution are not directly visible, a certain disease (say cancer) can almost never be 100 % proven contruibuted to a certain pollution, leaving your car and taking a bike or walking to work will not directly show you an 'improvement' in the climate. etc. etc. etc.

It is easy to say 'we citizens blabla....' but as long as in elections in most countries on this planet the environment is number 97 on the list of most important issues nothing is going to change.

Most people know that food for cattle (for meat production) makes us destroy the rainforest (soy beans) but nobody will eat a steak less because of that.

[Jester]

I mean both. We citizens need to take ownership for what happens within the community, county, state, geography that we govern. But, whereas we can hold the polluter accountable, we should and when we are held accountable, then we would have the incentive to hold the actual polluter accountable. If it hits your bottom line, then you will be motivated to 1) prevent anyone from despoiling the land you govern, and 2) be more sensitive to despoiling other peoples land, and 3) willing to hold those responsible to account.

I think you're underestimating the problem of diluted incentives. If company X pollutes 5 million dollars worth, and they get fined 5 million dollars for it, then they have a very good reason to cut down on their pollution - a dollar for every dollar of externality.

If, on the other hand, company X pollutes 5 million dollars, and a million citizens Y share the bill, they each pay 5 bucks - not enough incentive to get me to work for an hour, let alone organize a citizen movement to hold polluters responsible. Even if I am totally successful, I still only save the cost of a happy meal. Meanwhile, the 5 million the polluters don't have to pay is probably going to lobbyists, whose job it is to neutralize whatever citizen outrage is left.

Citizens already suffer the consequences of pollution, although perhaps unequally. What is necessary is a system to keep the pollution from happening, since cleanup is usually more expensive than the savings of polluting. I say, lay it at the door of industry. It's the most efficient place to do so, and keeps the incentives in the right place.

It's not just whether it hits your bottom line. It's how hard it hits.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

And I envy you both your optimism, but I just had a flashback from a song by George Jones:
The chemical soup that we live in isn't going to get better anytime soon. The young of today are soaked in it from conception. Heck, it is worse than that. They are the product of eggs that were soaked in it from their conception. We barely know what each chemical does to us, let alone the effects of the interactions.

Some of these chemicals make you fat, if you are a kid, or so they say in that not quite scientific journal Newsweek.:P


http://www.newsweek.com/id/215179/page/1

[Occhidiangela]

Citizens already suffer the consequences of pollution, although perhaps unequally. What is necessary is a system to keep the pollution from happening, since cleanup is usually more expensive than the savings of polluting. I say, lay it at the door of industry.

One way to stop the polluting is to shut the economy down.

"Lay it at the door of industry."

Interesting platitude.

My gut feel is a tenative agreement with you based upon "clean up your own mess" so that the real costs of production are assessed up front, not later on. This requires valid metrics, measurement. Bridge that forward to licensing retuirements that enable the inspecting agency to be able, sorta like reading the electric meter, take samples that are attributable and thus compliance/non compliance determined.

Non compliance? Why bother with a fine? Revoke an operating license. Shut them down NOW until remedy is in place.

That hurts everyone, and incentivizes employees and management both to be mindful of the importance of paying attention to detail. When the consequences of failure are felt throughout the organization, buy in to preventive measures and behaviors, rather than reactions to failure, is more likely.

I wonder where I learned that.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Some of these chemicals make you fat, if you are a kid, or so they say in that not quite scientific journal Newsweek.:P
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215179/page/1

For some more reading, try Slow Death by Rubber Duck'. It even has a bibliography. ;)

Not for the faint at heart, though. There are times when the ostrich method of dealing with this is preferable. :(

[Jester]

Non compliance? Why bother with a fine? Revoke an operating license. Shut them down NOW until remedy is in place.

That hurts everyone, and incentivizes employees and management both to be mindful of the importance of paying attention to detail. When the consequences of failure are felt throughout the organization, buy in to preventive measures and behaviors, rather than reactions to failure, is more likely.

I don't generally switch over to the business side of things, but there's no need to overcompensate for pollution. X dollar pollution cost can be dealt with by an X dollar fine. Any more than that, and industries will be needlessly paranoid, and society will suffer in other ways - unemployment, reduced production, lower tax revenue, and so forth.

But, revoking licences for extreme or repeat offenders should certainly be on the table, as a threat if nothing else.

You are also right that calculating the costs of pollution is very difficult. I would only say that the problem does not vanish if you calculate it incorrectly, or not at all. Someone is paying for the pollution, somehow, no matter what.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

My gut feel is a tenative agreement with you based upon "clean up your own mess" so that the real costs of production are assessed up front, not later on. This requires valid metrics, measurement. Bridge that forward to licensing retuirements that enable the inspecting agency to be able, sorta like reading the electric meter, take samples that are attributable and thus compliance/non compliance determined.

Non compliance? Why bother with a fine? Revoke an operating license. Shut them down NOW until remedy is in place.

Good idea, but: pollution is a global problem. As long as the manufacturing of products continues to migrate to where the profit is greatest (i.e., where the regulations are least, or least enforced) we'll continue to have lead based paint on toys and anti-freeze in our toothpaste. The solution seems to require a strong central global authority. Such an authority may very well cause more problems than it solves and opens the door to global tyranny.

Even if a global authority had no down side, the chances of it occurring in any reasonable time-frame look to be slim. Looking about, we see an increased Balkanization of the world and a resurgence of strong nationalism. The EU seems to be a movement in the direction of globalization of government, but it has many problems.

So, if there are any miracles left unused, we can all hope one of them will be a useful UN. I expect that to happen shortly after pigs come under FAA jurisdiction. :whistling:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Good idea, but: pollution is a global problem.

You are right. But, each of us is most capable in helping to solve local problems. While I do care about massive pollution and exploitation of third world nations, there is very little I can do about it when their systems of government allow for such exploitation. Also, let's not get distracted with other people's excrement, and ignore the stink in our our back yards.

Now, let's say this philosophy were applied here, and then spread to the rest of the world. The hole that needs plugging and global enforcement are the international spaces, such as air pollution, river pollution and ocean dumping.

[Jester]

So, if there are any miracles left unused, we can all hope one of them will be a useful UN.

To both you and Kandrathe, where we are in a rare moment of agreement, at least in objectives...

I'm hearing those gorgeous first chords to the Beach Boys' all time classic album, Pet sounds...

"Wouldn't it be nice..."

-Jester