Slashdot Mirror

Actually, it has been shown in the last 10 years that the cellular response to ionizing radiation deviates from the "linear quadratic" (a strange term indeed) model at very low doses. There is a dose threshold below which it is actually more damaging than previously predicted. The theory goes that at very small doses the cell's repair mechanisms aren't triggered. There's a fairly recent review article by the guys who discovered the phenomenon here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1498249 0&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum Bear in mind that this is IONIZING radiation, so it is a totally different animal, but it is important to note that extrapolation/interpolation doesn't always give you the right answer. So personally, I would view cancer incidence data from low doses as very suspect at this point.

Right. Unfortunately, the main benefit of DDT was that it was effective on a large scale, and so it could be used for mass spraying to essentially eradicate the mosquito population. On a smaller scale, it's not exactly cost-effective.

See this paper on a cost comparison between DDT and insecticide-treated nets.

The problem with chemicals such as DDT is that they are persistent within the environment, and bioaccumulate. The levels used in a wetland to control mosquitos may only be low, but still be enough to damage the higher-order predators, as well as the mosquitos (ie: 1 frog gets a dose of x mg. A bird eats 10 frogs, bringing its dose to 10x. A cat eats 10 birds, which makes its dose 100x, etc)

DDT can also mimic oestrogren in some species, causing developmental problems in male offspring

It can also cause deformities and immuno supression.

The problem with chemicals such as DDT is that they are persistent within the environment, and bioaccumulate. The levels used in a wetland to control mosquitos may only be low, but still be enough to damage the higher-order predators, as well as the mosquitos (ie: 1 frog gets a dose of x mg. A bird eats 10 frogs, bringing its dose to 10x. A cat eats 10 birds, which makes its dose 100x, etc)

DDT can also mimic oestrogren in some species, causing developmental problems in male offspring

It can also cause deformities and immuno supression.

Indeed. Early-onset Alzheimer's is caused by mutations in the Presinilin gene family. For an overview, look here.

This story might seem insignificant but what you don't realize is that Alzheimer's is a growing problem. Like many things, as the baby boomers begin to retire it will increase. People are living longer and, as a result, the genes responsible for Alzheimer's are being exposed. When evolution shaped us, there was no way to naturally select genes that didn't have Alzheimer's traits as our species was most likely dead by the time we hit that age.

As I understand it, Alzheimer's is caused by a twisted or malformed protein (beta amyloid) that starts to cause synapses of the brain to clump too close or cause their dendrites not to touch other synapses. Resulting in huge cognitive problems. There has also been research linking it to lipids and cholesterol intake.

What makes this research interesting is that I believe the idea in the field was that the gene mutation could be virus induced or suspected to not begin until one cell grew with the characteristics and successfully multiplied (often later in life). I'm not a medical researcher so don't quote me on any of this.

Unfortunately, since many of these baby boomers are fairly wealthy, more research will be going into Alzheimer's disease than AIDS as it will most likely be easier to market in developed nations. You can call me a conspiracy theorist but that's my honest opinion. Michael Chrichton pointed it out in Jarrasic Park when the park was built instead of something more useful like a cure for AIDS. You can charge people whatever you want to see dinosaurs but you can't charge them whatever you want to save their lives, it just looks immoral to do so.

Gene research is often the most politically frowned upon form of medical research but necessity breeds innovation ... er ... understanding. It will be interesting to see how far stem cell research and the like are allowed to proceed given a vast aging population in the United States. Currently, I've seen Alzheimer's research being done in the form of mammalian brain tissue introduced to a herpes virus that has previously infected cells which had the Alzheimer's gene. They then infect the new brain tissue but do not kill it (as herpes is not normally lethal to cells).

Actually, mice are resistant to Warfarin now.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=621381&dopt=Abstract

This cancer gene could be the one that also gives humans a soul.

Hear hear.

I'm as big a fan of free markets as the next guy, but telecom is _not_ a free market. There is necessary management of public assets (rights to utility poles and municipal infrastructure) that will always require regulation of some sort or another (and thus provide an opportunity for corru^H^H^H^H^Hlobbying). So until the day comes when it's all unregulated wireless, the legitimate fairness concerns of the public deserve primacy.

BTW, for a look at the early days of unregulated wiring, check this out.. or this.. Downtown NY was covered in all these lines at first, which would of course break in winter and cause safety issues...

Lets face it. One part of most boys development is to make liberal use of our adrenaline & testosterone. Some people play sports, some play video games, some get in fights, some go on murderous rampages, some break things, some hike, et al. The point is that it happens. Now, if there's a better outlet to fast-paced violent video games, then lets find it. IMHO if it means that some bored teenager wants to do -something- I'd rather it be beating the crap out of some virtual enemy than against a real person.

I think the real issue with the 'older' audience is that they've forgotten these key periods in a young boy's life. I say boys because in general people aren't afraid about girls morals being eroded. Its like there's a magical shield around girls that say they can't be violent offenders or mass murderers. Thats another flaw in their logic.

Not only that, they've mistakenly attributed the realism in video games as an increased threat to our childrens morals than the 'harmless' nature of games in the old days, like double dragon (The sole activity of the game is killing people).

If Jack really wanted to solve the problem, he'd come up with a new teenage pass-time that they actually want to do more than games.

Just to end this thought:
"Part of the research challenge is to try to learn what positive changes affecting children born most recently are associated with the reductions in both victimization and offending"
Quote relates to the severe decrease in crime from teenagers recently.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/new/releases/americas_chi ldren.cfm?from=sids

Actually, no, cancer death rates are falling.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/november96/c ancer_11-14.html
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov96/nci-14.htm

From 1996 - "Cancer death rates have dropped three percent since 1990, that's 15,000 fewer Americans succumbing to the disease every year."

"Since about 1900, the American people have regularly been required to report causes of death, and we have fairly accurate information dating back that far. This is reported through the National Center for Health Statistics. And actually, Dr. Phil Cole, from the University of Alabama, was the first one to identify looking at information through 1994/95 and adding up all the causes of cancer death. And he was the first to identify this trend from the total death cases, dating back to 1990 as a peak year, so '91, '92, '93, '94, and now '95, the death rate has gone down, and what's even more encouraging is in '95, the decrease was almost 2 percent. So depending on how you calculate it, the rate of decrease in deaths is actually accelerating, very good news, indeed."

Also, could you tell us how likely it is that you would have BOTH versions of the flu at the same time? Seems to me that would be pretty small.

You're not getting it. It only takes one person with Avian flu to get the the regular flu as well, and you've got a pandemic. Period. So how unlikely is it for someone with Avian flu, who's immune system is already seriously compromised to get the regular flue as well? Not terribly unlikely.

You see, when you get the Avian flu, you're immune system isn't what saves you, it's what kills you. That's why in flu pandemics, it's the young healthy people who tend to die. Your body starts sending a massive immune response that destroys lung tissue. While your lungs are in this perilously compromised state, you are far more vulnerable to any other illness, so simply exposure to human flu is just about a guarantee that you'll get it.

There are so many sources to site, jesus man, learn to use Google. Start of at Wikipedia. Look up Asian flu, Hong Kong Flu, Spanish Flu, H5N1 flu. Check their references. Check here, and here, and here.

And frankly, if you can't figure it out yourself from that stuff, then you're just never going to get it and there's no point in me wasting my time trying to explain it to you. You'll just figure it out when your friends and family start dropping dead left and right, if you don't go first.

can die of cancer.

You can always tell the level of sexual experience in a group of men by how willing they are to believe the "pussy smells like fish" myth. Anyone who's ever spent much time around (or inside) one knows that is simply not true.

You give your own inexperience away. The "fishy" smell occurs in women with a variety of common bacterial infections.

Don't believe me? Maybe the makers of Vagisil know a thing or two about pussy. http://www.vagisil.com/understanding_itch.shtml

Or if that's not serious enough for you - try the National Institutes of Health. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/vaginitis.htm

So while you may have spent plenty of time around and inside ONE, I suggest you get some experience and get inside a few more before you start strutting about it on slashdot. Word of advice to the nube - stay out of the stinky ones - no matter what they smell like.

This is our national anthem, people, it's not entertainment. I don't care how lousy you sound (like singing at church: God gave you that voice, give it right back!).

I don't even mind if you voted for W; it's his country, too, even if he is trying to eviscerate it.

On that very page -- right after the table of everyday G forces -- is a link to a Popular Mechanics article which in turn references "a classic medical study published nearly a decade ago in the medical journal Spine", which most likely is available on PubMed should anyone want to check it out.

Now let me quote from the PM article (emphasis mine):

Time Matters
When discussing the effects of g-forces on the body, time emerges as one of the most critical factors. When it comes to the higher-g sections of amusement rides (see the illustration above right), exposure to high g-forces lasts only a fraction of a second. Blackouts and other health problems associated with g's require exposure to g-forces that are either greater in magnitude or of much longer duration than those achieved by today's amusement rides.

The issue of g-forces on the body was explored in detail in a classic medical study published nearly a decade ago in the medical journal Spine. In their investigation, doctors and engineers found that the normal movements we go through every day subjects us to far greater gravitational pull than that felt on any amusement park ride. According to the study, you experience 10.4 g's when you plop down into a chair. Hopping off a step generates 8.1 g's. A cough is a 3.5 g experience, a sneeze generates 2.9 g's. By comparison, 4-g amusement rides are wimpy.

I would suggest a more humble approach in the future; there are still people around that can teach you a thing or two, young padawan.

My Dad gets the newest version of Norton System Works every time he sees it on the shelf and then pisses and moans

Perhaps your dad needs to drink more water and less coffee.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. The trypanosome (a protozoan) can definitely spread in blood transfusions. There are three pages of papers about this topic on PubMed. Transfusion-associated Chagas' disease has been recognized for decades.

Seems to me that a little xenophobia and fearmongering on this particular issue is not only justifiable, but praiseworthy. Thumb-sucking multi-culti wish-mongering won't make the problem go away.

I will graciously accept your apology whenever you think you're ready to handle the truth.

-ccm

The main problem with that advice: Most people overestimate their intelligence. Unintelligent people are FAR more likely to overestimate it than those who are actually in the top 5-10%. This is borne out by everyday experience, but there have been studies to back up that experience. Most stupid people think they're smart. So if you can't trust a person to decide whether they're smart or not, when you say "all smart people should drop out" you run the risk of convincing many stupid people to drop out, as well. And those stupid people are NOT likely to go much of anywhere in life without an education. They certainly won't be the next Jobs or Gates.

Reshuffling requires random acts... when's the last time you conciously reshuffled your genes? Reshuffling is not evolution. Evolution ultimately teaches creation of new information, something never demonstrated by evolutionists. Besides, most reshuffling results in loss of information. For each step in the process, and whenever an evolutionist finds more detail about how something works in nature, that person should be required to calculate the probability of that particular detail evolving, and combining that with the probablility of everything else evolving, to put everything in perspective. ...Not that that would help. Your beginning premise is flawed anyhow.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.

Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_repor t.asp

Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
   • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
   • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
   • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
   • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

   If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
   • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
   • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
   • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

   The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates info

More can be found here, here and here.

Other than that, it would be pretty hard to work next to people talking to themselves, as some are unable to speak in a hushed voice.

Furthermore, having programmers talk to computers would definitely knock the profession's geek-factor up by a notch or two; BAM!

just had to look it up... http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/bones.htm
midi tune included....

2 words: middle management

In biological terms: digestion system
They scream for ice-cream and are full of gas.

What should the government/society do if there is a public website that researches technology that can be used to make mass casualty weapons?

Currently, they do nothing. Actually, they help host such a site; your one-stop shop for DNA sequences of lethal viruses is here That, a DNA synthesisizer, and half a dozen biotech PhDs will give you your weapons of mass destruction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2 122000/2122619.stm

Enjoy!

How about teaching pedestrians not to walk about in front of a moving vehicle? It turns out, at least in Washington DC and Baltimore, that pedestrians are more likely to be found at fault then the driver of the vehicle. On the other hand, this is evolution at work. If you think stepping in front of a fast moving car is a reasonable thing to do, we don't need your DNA in the gene pool, thanks.

~nate

or raping somone to get your sexual satisfaction

Seriously, I can't believe this misconception still exists. You would think 30 years of sex-ed and women's lib literature would have clued you all in by now. Rape is about power, anger, and violence. It has nothing to do with sex.

some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.

• They will have to explain away the effects of radioactive heavy metals and nitrosamines in commercial cigarettes, the former produced from cheap phosphate fertilizer and readily uptaken by the tobacco plant, and the latter produced by open-air curing of the tobacco.
• They will have to explain why tobacco chewers get cancer.
• They will have to explain how PACs in the concentrations and duration present in smoke (both tobacco and marijuana) supposedly cause carcinogenic mutations.
• They will have to explain away the antioxidant and anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids.
• They will have to explain away the apoptosis-suppressing (and thus cancer-friendly) effects of nicotine.
• They will have to explain why they cannot unearth a single case of lung cancer or emphysema in a marijuana-ONLY smoker that has no other risk factors. Where are the bodies?
• Speaking of emphysema, THC is an expectorant which means it aids the lungs in clearing smoke particles from the small airways. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, which means it does a good job of keeping smoke particles inside the small airways (and raises blood pressure). Asthmatics have successfully used sufficiently potent cannabis to ward off asthma attacks when no other option was available.
• If you still think tobacco and marijuana smoke are the same, why in the heck does tobacco smoke stick to everything and turn it yellow?

Also, nicotine in tobacco smoke raises the heart rate and blood pressure while at the same time the carbon monoxide starves it for oxygen. Marijuana smoke, while containing CO as well raises heart rate but decreases blood pressure. Even if the same amount of marijuana as tobacco was smoked, and the same amount of CO taken in over the same period of time, the vasodilating effects of THC may mitigate heart damage that would otherwise be caused by the CO. It is a good area for further research (with appropriate controls).

If you think smoking is risky, don't smoke it. Make brownies, or use a vaporizer. But the jury is most definitely still out on this one.

some studies have shown it does more damage to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarrettes.

• They will have to explain away the effects of radioactive heavy metals and nitrosamines in commercial cigarettes, the former produced from cheap phosphate fertilizer and readily uptaken by the tobacco plant, and the latter produced by open-air curing of the tobacco.
• They will have to explain why tobacco chewers get cancer.
• They will have to explain how PACs in the concentrations and duration present in smoke (both tobacco and marijuana) supposedly cause carcinogenic mutations.
• They will have to explain away the antioxidant and anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids.
• They will have to explain away the apoptosis-suppressing (and thus cancer-friendly) effects of nicotine.
• They will have to explain why they cannot unearth a single case of lung cancer or emphysema in a marijuana-ONLY smoker that has no other risk factors. Where are the bodies?
• Speaking of emphysema, THC is an expectorant which means it aids the lungs in clearing smoke particles from the small airways. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, which means it does a good job of keeping smoke particles inside the small airways (and raises blood pressure). Asthmatics have successfully used sufficiently potent cannabis to ward off asthma attacks when no other option was available.
• If you still think tobacco and marijuana smoke are the same, why in the heck does tobacco smoke stick to everything and turn it yellow?

Also, nicotine in tobacco smoke raises the heart rate and blood pressure while at the same time the carbon monoxide starves it for oxygen. Marijuana smoke, while containing CO as well raises heart rate but decreases blood pressure. Even if the same amount of marijuana as tobacco was smoked, and the same amount of CO taken in over the same period of time, the vasodilating effects of THC may mitigate heart damage that would otherwise be caused by the CO. It is a good area for further research (with appropriate controls).

If you think smoking is risky, don't smoke it. Make brownies, or use a vaporizer. But the jury is most definitely still out on this one.

Here's one such url that suggests, one, people diagnosed with ADHD do tend to be smokers, and two, nicotine's stimulant properties may work in the same way as Ritalin and Adderall to alleviate the symptoms. Here's another url, yielding such soundbites as "Nicotine, in particular, may act as a medication that improves ADHD symptoms" and "Nicotine May Help Calm ADHD Storm, Study Finds." I'd summarize my further explorations, but I lost interest.

This study considered the hypothesis that on some tasks men and women might employ different information processing strategies...Results demonstrated a near-significant overall reaction time advantage for male participants.

in almost every age group, males have faster reaction times than females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice (Noble et al., 1964; Welford, 1980; Adam et al., 1999; Dane and Erzurumlugoglu, 2003). Bellis (1933) reported that mean time to press a key in response to a light was 220 msec for males and 260 msec for females; for sound the difference was 190 msec (males) to 200 msec (females). In comparison, Engel (1972) reported a reaction time to sound of 227 msec (male) to 242 msec (female). Botwinick and Thompson (1966) found that almost all of the male-female difference was accounted for by the lag between the presentation of the stimulus and the beginning of muscle contraction. Muscle contraction times were the same for males and females. In a surprising finding, Szinnai et al. (2005) found that gradual dehydration (loss of 2.6% of body weight over a 7-day period) caused females to have lengthened choice reaction time, but males to have shortened choice reaction times. Adam et al. (1999) reported that males use a more complex strategy than females.

Interestingly, it seems at least one study suggests people with ADD get "stuck" in a phase of cortical development, possibly delaying later development.

As ADD seems correlated with the dopamine transporter density and genes that increase the number of DATs, perhaps lower extracellular dopamine levels result in slower cortical development and ADD represents an extreme manifestation of an "agile" cortex-- sometimes perhaps a bit too agile for its own good.

IIRC, task persistance and switching tasks is controlled by the temporal lobes, not the PFC, and while that ties in with the PFC's executive control, I think the definition of "agile" they use in this study might apply to a different region of the brain entirely.

Hello Everyone!

Please forgive the intrusion; I will be as brief as possible. I know you're all good friends of Audent here at Slash Dot, and I wanted to let you be the first to know that Audent has received a very special opportunity with our research group at NIMH Outreach. The study is perfectly safe, and Audent will be back with you in no time at all! Once he is, you might notice some very small changes, but rest assured that these will all be for the better. I know you will be very happy with Auden's new opportunities in life, as all good friends are and ought to be, but if you have any questions at all, do feel free to reply, and I promise to give your concerns my fullest attention. What a wonderful chance Auden has received with our study! I am sure he will be the first to share his gift with all of you.

Until then, I wish all of you the best here at Slash Dot and elsewhere. Yours faithfully,

Dr. 3-State Bit
Research Coordinator
National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/outreach/index.cfm

Hello Everyone!

Please forgive the intrusion; I will be as brief as possible. I know you're all good friends of Audent here at Slash Dot, and I wanted to let you be the first to know that Audent has received a very special opportunity with our research group at NIMH Outreach. The study is perfectly safe, and Audent will be back with you in no time at all! Once he is, you might notice some very small changes, but rest assured that these will all be for the better. I know you will be very happy with Auden's new opportunities in life, as all good friends are and ought to be, but if you have any questions at all, do feel free to reply, and I promise to give your concerns my fullest attention. What a wonderful chance Auden has received with our study! I am sure he will be the first to share his gift with all of you.

Until then, I wish all of you the best here at Slash Dot and elsewhere. Yours faithfully,

Dr. 3-State Bit
Research Coordinator
National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/outreach/index.cfm

Yes, I'm a physicists and I resemble your comment.

You could do better. You might have something if you point to the known link between cancer and chronic irritation and then prove cellphones irritate nerve tissue. There should also be a rise in auditory canal and skin cancer of the ear at that rate, not to mention head and neck cancers. Hell, you might even score some points if you cited the 85 heavy cell phone users of 905 brain case numbers and told us, which the article fails to explain, how that's 240% higher than the general population. But some other smart ass would tell you you could prove anything with such tiny numbers. Both of you might ignore everyone's advice and take a smoke break.

What would you like to know about ionizing radiation or radio biology? The general principals are not difficult, but as you noted are not related to microwaves. Everyone wants you to know the causes of cancer but here's the short and sweet:

except for the increase in cancers caused by smoking, and a remarkable decrease in stomach cancer, the incidence of the most common cancers for individuals of a given age has not changed very much during the course of the twentieth century figure

Cell phone, schmell phone. It might be true, but I'm not going to give up my cell phone.

If people quit smoking other relations would be easier to spot, so cut it out already! You are killing me.

Yes, I'm a physicists and I resemble your comment.

You could do better. You might have something if you point to the known link between cancer and chronic irritation and then prove cellphones irritate nerve tissue. There should also be a rise in auditory canal and skin cancer of the ear at that rate, not to mention head and neck cancers. Hell, you might even score some points if you cited the 85 heavy cell phone users of 905 brain case numbers and told us, which the article fails to explain, how that's 240% higher than the general population. But some other smart ass would tell you you could prove anything with such tiny numbers. Both of you might ignore everyone's advice and take a smoke break.

What would you like to know about ionizing radiation or radio biology? The general principals are not difficult, but as you noted are not related to microwaves. Everyone wants you to know the causes of cancer but here's the short and sweet:

except for the increase in cancers caused by smoking, and a remarkable decrease in stomach cancer, the incidence of the most common cancers for individuals of a given age has not changed very much during the course of the twentieth century figure

Cell phone, schmell phone. It might be true, but I'm not going to give up my cell phone.

If people quit smoking other relations would be easier to spot, so cut it out already! You are killing me.

All available genetic data (and protein data) from every sequenced organism has always been publicly available. Whether it's due to requirements by publishers of the journals that they publish their analysis in, a requirement of their funding agencies, or for the mere goal of sharing their data with the global scientific community.

Gene sequence databases have been around since 1981:
EMBL: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/
GenBank: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
DDBJ: http://www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp/
HUGO: http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/
JGI: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/

Protein sequence/structure data is also publicly available:
Expasy: http://ca.expasy.org/
PDB: http://www.pdb.org/

Their statement "Google is guilty of biopiracy because a searchable database could make it easier for private genetic information to be abused" is flawed on many levels.. and is merely an attempt at media hype.

A - If the genetic data is private (ie. industry funded and not shared with the global scientific community), how will Google get access to it?
B - Searchable databases that contain private/public genetic information have existed since before most other types of searchable databases.
C - Sharing data from biological analyses (whether genetic sequence data, protein sequence data, gene expression data, protein structure data, etc.) is an important aspect of understanding the underlying mechanisms of biological systems.

Many of the medical advances that we've seen these past couple decades have resulted directly from the fact that biological data has been publicly available... facilitating collaborations beyond borders and beyond disciplines.

I look forward to Google's role in facilitating access to this information, and look forward to applying it in future research projects.

Ryan

Its not as if the NCBI is the only ones publishing genomes. taking a few examples from our useful links page

• UCSC
• Ensembl
• TIGR
• GenomeNet
• GeneLynx

Its Google is not even doing something new type in a human gene (say ABCA1and you will get taken to the gene data pages anyway

The only reason why they picked on Google is that it would get headlines, now move along nothing to see here

Uh-huh. And what matter all of the patented genomic sequences if Google publishes them?

if all this data is already considered public domain, why the fuss about Google publishing it?

Can you suggest a better motive than profit for such an activity, or is there a simpler explanation than greed?

NCBI [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/%5D has this database for years, where everyone can search for genes, proteins, etc. Will you be able to do Google search for a gene on the Google web site instead of doing BLAST search?

You can even do BLAST searches: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/seq/BlastGen/Bl astGen.cgi?taxid=9606

What will Google and Venter bring to this approach, I wonder? A faster search algorithm? I don't see how it could be more open, but it might be made more accessible--maybe. The genome is a complicated thing, and it probably requires the interpretation of scientific minds to make much of the implications of a particular sequence.

You can even do BLAST searches: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/seq/BlastGen/Bl astGen.cgi?taxid=9606

What will Google and Venter bring to this approach, I wonder? A faster search algorithm? I don't see how it could be more open, but it might be made more accessible--maybe. The genome is a complicated thing, and it probably requires the interpretation of scientific minds to make much of the implications of a particular sequence.

Seriously they are blatantly publishing all kinds of gene information that our tax money has paid for. I mean what if the Canadians got their hands on all this precious data.

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS.

First off, I did not mean to make it personal. Just my own views. I can see how what I said could be insulting, and I really did not mean that. Science moves forward by challenging the establishment. 200 years ago if you told someone that the heard functions to pump blood they would have laughed at you. 50 years ago universal precautions were virtually unknown. Sometimes the 'crackpots' get it right, so its neccicary to regorously examine their claims. I'm sorry you've been insulted for your views, I hope not to do that, but only to engage in debate. I really wish we could sit down over coffee with a couple of text books and journals and really talk about this stuff. Lets move on...

The reason I didn't tackle some of the other issues (and not necciarly the primary 4 you referred to) was that I don't have it. It would require a paper of triple the lenght of the original to compose a fully cited and complete rebuttle. Many of the 'harder issues' I referred to require background that is not easy to impart quickly and briefly. For example, I have no clue how the math works behind the Riemann Zeta equation, and I doubt anything less than months if not years of intense study would bring me up to speed. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/2 7/1315212 The issues at hand are definately not that erudite, but I hope you get my meaning. My point for some my contentions was that the author of the article was making fun of simple ideas like "lightbulbs make light", and so she earned some easy crackpot points for belittling fundamental ideas. (overt anti-establishment thought process to the point of scientific disregard)

To answer your 4 questions:
1) Yes, I will admit that the mechanism has not been elucidated. However, the word idiopathic peppers medical literature, it is not uncommon to not know the exact mechanism, but to know generally whats happening. For example, digoxin (aka. digitalis) has been around since 1756, but the exact mechanism of how it effects cardiomyocytes is still under investigation. There are several theories, some very good, but none have been proven conclusively. A lot of pharmacology is that way. But I digress. What has been shown is that if you take blood from someone with aids, and inject into another person, you get aids in that person too. Furthermore, if you isolate HIV from the blood of an infected person you can induce CD4 cell destruction and AIDS like symptoms in model organisms. Lets hope someone has not tried this on humans. Of course, this explaination will not hold water for you if you do not believe HIV can be isolated, so lets move on to #2.

2) The initial research was flawed, granted. However, their research has been followed by others who have not been as fraudulent. I offer this instead:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1656345 8&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Plus, there are more ways than antibodies to detect HIV. HIV is a dsDNA virus with many unique proteins in its repitoire. Yes, there are other retroviruses out there, and some have embedded themselves in our DNA. However, they do not have the same genetic sequence of HIV. HIV like any unique organism has a unique genetic code. It has been sequenced, and is in fact regularly sequenced to determine which drugs the patients are treated with. The correlation is emperical - different HIV sequences have been shown to correlate 100% with resistance or succeptability to certain drugs. There are many sequences due to the innacuracies of reverse transcriptase, and not all of these changes result in a functional modification.

You cannot isolate the HIV DNA sequence from someone not infect

jeepers creepers.

You want to base your arguments on a "debate" in wiki and going by what you heard years ago in science class?

try reading some scientific papers instead. scholar.google.com is shaping up to be pretty good at finding information. At least read the abstracts, they are usually pretty concise and to the point. Try this one for size:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8588846&dopt=Citation

XYY syndrome and other Y chromosome polysomies. Mental status and psychosocial functioning.

Fryns JP, Kleczkowska A, Kubien E, Van den Berghe H.

In this report we review the data on 75 male patients with extra Y chromosome diagnosed in Leuven in the period 1968-1993 among 98,725 patients (males and females) referred for constitutional chromosomal analysis. Special attention was given to their mental performance and psychosocial functioning. 1. Fifty male with 47,XYY karyotype were diagnosed. This is very close to the incidence of XYY in newborn studies and indicates that the frequency of MR/MCA is not increased in XYY male in general. 2. In the 60 patients with "pure" Y chromosome polysomy, the most frequent indication for karyotyping was the presence of MR and/or characterological problems in the index patients. Mental retardation was mostly borderline to mild, and severe mental retardation was rare. Characterological problems, difficulties in psychosocial integration and psychiatric problems were found in 86% of the mentally retarded versus 24% of the mentally normal men. 3. The 48,XXYY syndrome is characterized by markedly frequent and severe behavioural and psychiatric problems.

Let's modify this statement slightly. "Babies will learn language on their own, so it's best to give them as much exposure as possible -- in other words, to interact with them regularly."

Babies that (for whatever reason) are speech-delayed benefit greatly from being read to or talked to.

"Ahh. I had to look it up to be sure. I don't think "Hunter-garther women try to limit the number of children they have to care for."

It's fine that you think that, but can you provide some evidence to me so I can change my mind if I'm wrong?

In _How the Mind Works_, Stephen Pinker describes various *conscious* birth control methods used by modern hunnter-gatherer women to limit thier offspring. They know that caring for children takes a lot of effort, and that more children means less likelihood that any individual child does well. So they practice pregnancy prevention through abstinence and non-intercourse sex, and pratice abortion and infanticide.

BTW, lactation is not an effective pregnancy protection. It does reduce the probability, but does not make it impossible. This article says "It is appropriate to suggest other contraceptive methods to women who want to delay subsequent pregnancy because lactation alone is unreliable in preventing conception after the 9th week postpartum." So if you are a hunter-gatherer woman having sex 9 weeks after giving birth, you stand a chance of having to maintain a pregnancy and breastfeed an infant at the same time.

So along with long lactation, conscious birth control methods makes birth rates relatively low for hunter gatherers.

You can't make beer out of a dead woodchuck , but you stand a good chance of finding some wicked mushrooms on a hunting trip ;)

I think your response shows the deceptiveness and self-centered greed that characterizes special interests. What you call 'reduced funding' is actually increased funding at a lower rate of growth. What you neglect to tell readers is the NIH budget has had several years of sustained growth under this administration. In an era were federal spending is out of control I would have hoped that growth in the NIH budget could be restrained more. My guess is that the damage being done is similarly illusory.

diabetic neuropathy is actually not painful


Yeah - go tell that to people who can't sleep because
their legs burn at night & they also have other pain.

Check here

Hmm, a quick Google Scholar search for "capsaicin cancer" revealed this. That link, from NIH, seems to indicate that there's evidence that capsaicin is a carconigen:

The cancer increase was dependent on the concentration of these groups in a county. These results strengthen and extend an earlier case-control study which found odds ratios above 5 for the stomach cancer association with capsaicin pepper. It is further evidence that capsaicin is a human carcinogen.

Thoughts?