Slashdot Mirror


Mitochondria and the Prevention of Death

H_Fisher writes "Research into mitochondria — small structures within a cell that have their own DNA — suggests that they may be a cause of cellular death, according to Newsweek. The article The Science of Death: Reviving the Dead reports on people who have recovered from sudden death due to cardiac arrest through the use of medically induced hypothermia. The cooling process may help stop the death of brain and heart cells initiated by the mitochondria once they are deprived of oxygen. The article goes on to probe delicately at the question of where a person's personality 'is' between death and later revival, and describes several ongoing scientific studies of near-death experiences."

5 of 453 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Brilliant by B3ryllium · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ah, the midochlorians are strong in this one.

  2. Ob. follow up by kypper · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I felt a great disturbance in the ATP production, as if millions of mitochondria suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

  3. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Afecks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you want to talk about electricity production, you'll have to prove that vegetarians use significantly more electricity than omnivores. You are unlikely to be able to do this.
    Wrong. The fact is that you cause the deaths of animals. If not by eating them, then by consuming products that attribute to their death

    If you want to talk about grain production, you'll have to prove that the extra grain which is directly consumed by a vegetarian significantly outweighs the large amounts of grain fed to livestock, and all other damage done to tiny animals by the livestock industry. This will be very tricky.
    Wrong. See above.

    If you live on the grid you are just as guilty of murder as the rest of us. So STFU and bite into a nice juicy steak.
  4. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Afecks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    attribute /v. trbyut; n. ætrbyut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. uh-trib-yoot; n. a-truh-byoot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -uted, -uting, noun -verb (used with object) 1. to regard as resulting from a specified cause; consider as caused by something indicated (usually fol. by to): She attributed his bad temper to ill health.
    FYI.

    By that logic I could kill anyone, not only because of the animals but a fortiori because humans are killed by shocks from the grid.
    That is where your logic fails. You make the jump that assuming that being a little wrong makes it ok to be a lot wrong and vice versa. I'm not justifying my eating habits, I don't need to. I'm simply pointing out the vegetarians are full of shit regarding "meat is murder". Wrong is wrong. Don't bitch about someone that kills 1,000 people if you kill even 1 person yourself. Because after all if you want to call it murder then even a single murder is never acceptable. I either expect to find you balled up on a patch of dirt starving yourself to death or joining the food chain and killing something to survive and owning up to your guilt just like the rest of us.

    Life feeds on life.
  5. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ChameleonDave · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I was so tempted just to reply "I don't read 'arguments' that begin with 'um' *or* 'sorry'" - but I decided that it was only slightly wittier than either of the originals, and witty they were not.

    I was making a valid point, not just being witty. If you thought I was trying to be witty, that perhaps indicates that my wit was indeed sharp, despite your put-down.

    I'll humour you by spelling out in detail why I refused to reply to ScentCone's childish post. It is not that I object to the style of "um" in the same way as you might object to the style of "sorry". It is because "um" (on Slashdot, at least) is a lazy and logically fallacious way of saying that your interlocutor's post is stupid. It is a substitute for a civilised discussion. He continued by nonsensically declaring "You're trying WAY too hard". Since there is no "trying" going on here, this can only be interpreted as a schoolboyish way of implying that he is cool and relaxed, whereas I am dorkily getting overexciting and having to use my full brainpower to respond to his points. Then, when he finally got to something approaching an argument, it was also seemed to be nonsense that avoided the main point, so I stopped searching for relevance in the sentence and decided to respond only to real posts.