Surgeons Weld Wounds Shut With Surgical Laser

So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is real? by Michael_gr · 2008-11-26 20:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

Now that is a surprise. That always struck me as funny, the way they just beamed at some wound and it closed.

Laser? by slider2800 · 2008-11-26 20:42 · Score: 0, Redundant

Was there a shark attached to it?

--
return $sig;

Re:Laser? by Dekker3D · 2008-11-27 00:50 · Score: 1

yep, that's a cliche. but a shark-decal on both sides would be an awesome in-joke for those geeky doctors!

The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 20:43 · Score: 5, Informative

As usual, the summary misses the interesting bit. Using lasers to seal wounds is old news - I first read about it in the Readers Digest about a decade ago. What's new here is a mechanism to prevent overheating.

Re:The real news by TooMuchToDo · 2008-11-26 21:04 · Score: 2

This shit needs to make it to battlefield medics sooner than later.
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:31 · Score: -1, Troll

Do you want to see babykillers live and keep doing the white man's dirty work?
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:31 · Score: 0

I'm probably just old fashioned, but I believe eliminating battlefields is a better solution. End war, means end need for cool medial lasers on the battlefield sooner rather than later.
A man can dream, can't he?
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:33 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Do you want to eat a bag of dicks?

/I know, I know...don't feed the troll...but just...damn.
Re:The real news by Roland+Piquepaille · 2008-11-26 21:34 · Score: 1

The shit in question was probably developed with the battlefield in mind in the first place. Just like Superglue, which was developed so seal off wounds of injured soldiers.
Re:The real news by Hurricane78 · 2008-11-26 21:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmm... conflict is an essential part of evolution. Ending wars is a nice dream... But in reality, it's just nice for the oppressor. Because no wars always means, that something/someone is extremely predominant. Those who think otherwise will normally fight for their way. If they can't, it's because of a horribly strong oppression.
The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.
So in reality, you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.
What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us (if you want an example, think of a group, where it is generally accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him), as long as they do not hurt anyone (eating someone of that group, who thinks that way too, is not hurting someone), we have no right so tell them what to do.
One great example could be the USA. There you have the more liberal areas and people. And the (from my pov!) religious fanatics.
They could both live happy, if they just had their own countries. And why the hell not? They could still work together in areas that they both agree on or need each other for.
That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Oh, and if we must have a world government, then at least I want to be the leader. ;)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:The real news by davester666 · 2008-11-26 22:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Cuz that's what medics want to carry. A large battery pack with a small laser, while humping a guy back to the aid station. Or maybe a gas generator.
Hell, it could be dual use. As a weapon, it can blind enemy combatants or slice open their skin, but when the enemy gets closer, you bend over a wounded comrade and claim to be a medic, and that it's your laser scalpel/magical healing device.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 23:05 · Score: 0

while humping a guy back to the aid station
You wouldn't get that in the British Army!

(hump meaning sex)
Re:The real news by moteyalpha · 2008-11-26 23:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

You are right on that. My sister was doing laser cellular reconstructive surgery ( Transoral Laser Microsurgery ) 12 years ago with a Neodymium Yttrium Arsenic Garnet ( Nd YAG ) 100 watt continuous laser. Here is a link to that laser created in 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nd-YAG_laser. I would have RTFA, but it was slashdotted already. I still think if a shark did it, that would be news.
Re:The real news by fabs64 · 2008-11-26 23:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

yerch, and here come the isolationist libertarians, trotting out their ideology as if they've realised some perfect universal order that no one else gets.
First, the word "evolution" is a very bad one to use as a justification, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something more akin to "progress".

The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.
And just under it

What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us ... we have no right so tell them what to do.
So "all opinions are relative and there is no universal truth" and that statement is a universal truth that must be acknowledged and accepted.
Cultural relativity can only extend so far, and a group where it is "accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him" is far beyond that if for no other reason than the passive acceptance of such practices is as much a choice and changes your own group in the same way as choosing to combat those practices would.
Diverse groups may be more prone to argue within themselves, but they are less subject to the extreme conflict that arises between polar opposites in the form of states.
Give me the snarky '08 election over the neverending conflict faced by Israel, the american civil war over the second world war, the war for independence over the crusades.
Re:The real news by Thiez · 2008-11-27 00:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

> Hmm... conflict is an essential part of evolution.
Maybe, but war isn't. Many bacteria and plants and herbivores happily live their lives without ever being at risk of being killed by their own kind. A 'war' against others of your kind is something very few species do (I guess ants can be considered an exception).
Let's not use 'evolution' as an excuse for war. Even if war was part of evolution, the whole thing that defines us humans is that we can mostly ignore what would happen in nature.
> The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.
If we have two countries whose citizens have exactly the same culture and beliefs about the world, when country A wants something from country B and country B won't give that thing to A, there is a conflict. So even with a 'global truth' people will have conflicting interests.
Personally I believe there is such a thing as a universal truth, and science is creating increasingly acurate theories about this truth. The problem is that many people (myself included) have misconceptions about this truth, and incomplete knowledge, and, most importantly, consider their culture to be part of this truth.
> What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us (if you want an example, think of a group, where it is generally accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him), as long as they do not hurt anyone (eating someone of that group, who thinks that way too, is not hurting someone), we have no right so tell them what to do.
Fair enough, but in this particular example it might be best to inform these people about 'our' culture so they can make a choice. And what about a culture that abuses a particular group (let's say, women) and believes that anyone who tries to leave their culture must be tortured and killed? Or a culture wherein it is not allowed to learn about other cultures?
> That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
I don't see the problem with big countries, if many, many people have the same culture, they should be able to live in one (big) country. I agree a world government would suck, though. Even when it had very little power over its people, governments tend to slowly take more and more power without giving it back.
> Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Stop the evolution thing, please. Evolution is never a cause of things, it is the result.
> Oh, and if we must have a world government, then at least I want to be the leader. ;)
My vote goes to cowboyneal!
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 00:13 · Score: 0

...you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.
You don't have enough imagination.
If the planet can be nuked into oblivion, it's not unthinkable that everybody else can be killed. It's irrational to do so. I believe history shows there's no shortage of irrational people that might try.
A planet with one person left on it, has one point of view.
Re:The real news by Chrisje · 2008-11-27 00:29 · Score: 1, Offtopic

we have no right so tell them what to do
The hell we do. Philosophers have been arguing the point for ages, but at the end of the day I do believe there are such things as absolute morals. I do not believe such morals should arise from such arbitrary things as the haphazard religious writings that float around this planet, but rather should be based on common sense and deliberate thought.
A society which thinks it's perfectly OK to rape anyone in sight and then eats them blatantly violates everything that was ever said about human rights pretty much anywhere in this world. There is probably not a government on the planet right now that would get behind that notion, even though opinions on homosexuality, the death penalty, adultery, and women's rights are still highly debated amongst nations.
Hence, I cannot disagree more with you. Such a society *should* be changed. This by no means I condone what the United States are doing in Iraq at this moment, because I suspect that the US' brand of "help" has cost well over half a million Iraqi's their lives for a conflict in which the US helped put the ousted regime in charge in the first place.

conflict is an essential part of evolution
If you study natural selection long enough, you would realize that Survival and Reproduction are essential to evolution. Obviously, if you win all conflicts by means of violence, you will evolve to the point where your race will be violent, physically strong and psychologically aggressive.
In today's society, however, mere physical survival has become commonplace and evolution of humans will likely have more to do with our minds than with our raw capacity for killing the other bloke. Hence I would argue that the prerequisites for further human evolution have evolved beyond conflict or rather the violent resolution thereof.

Those who think otherwise will normally fight for their way
In a parliamentary democracy which is governed by consensus such as The Netherlands and to a large extent the European Union, we tend to guarantee each individual's rights to his thoughts and his free speech. Within the boundaries of a body of law that does exclude killing and raping anyone in sight, of course.
If there are particular items on which you disagree, you are free to do so. You are furthermore free to start a political party (yes, you *can* have more than two of those), and you are free to try and get a seat in parliament, your municipality or your city council or even the government to see if you can swing popular opinion to the degree where your view becomes policy.
I feel that many of the laws we have in The Netherlands are perfectly reasonable, and I feel that as a citizen I ultimately have the power to debate/change the ones that don't. Whether I choose to do so or not is a question of commitment versus the degree to which the less reasonable laws affect me. You could say it's a matter of Return on Investment.
If other parties that live in The Netherlands would start fighting over those bits, I would argue they are being either very primitive about things or they have fringe views which they know will never see the light of day in legislation anyway. Instead of doing the decent thing and simply moving to a society that adheres to their views, these uncivilized individuals would then resort to violence to get their way at the expense of the will of the majority of citizens.
In other words: You're full of shit. It is completely beyond me, from a scientific, logical, political and moral perspective, how your post could have been modded +4 insightful.
Re:The real news by Gerafix · 2008-11-27 00:53 · Score: 1

So in reality, you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.
Any human planet, anyway.
Re:The real news by Dekker3D · 2008-11-27 00:59 · Score: 1

ah, i'm just gonna be a simple-minded fool about this. you said evolution is all about survival and reproduction. that's true (although survival isn't always a necessity, think of the widow spider). then, you proceed to claim that we no longer need to worry about survival. arguable, but true so far. what interests me here is that the only goal left is reproduction..
if we were to "reproduce" with the same enthousiasm that we kill others with... does that mean we should solve our problems the bonobo way?
and does anyone care to debate this little point with me? i'd like to hear another view on this :P
Re:The real news by Chrisje · 2008-11-27 01:16 · Score: 1

Obviously, your statement was nuanced differently than mine. When I said survival and reproduction are essential, to me that means the ability to survive long enough to reproduce one's gene-set as well as facilitating the survival of your offspring so they can pass on that set of genes.
Secondly, when I said physical survival is commonplace, I meant that mere physical strength or a capacity towards violence will not necessarily make you more or less successful at reproducing in today's society, which changes the ballgame quite a bit.
And lastly, I don't see why you say "if we were to" in that sentence. We already reproduce with the same enthusiasm that we kill others with. If we are to stand a chance of surviving as a species, we either need to branch out into space or we need to find a way to curb our reproduction. It's either that or drastically increasing the killing bit.
Having said that, we are now self-aware and we are aware of quite a few of the principles that drive evolution, so you could argue that we are starting to get into the position where we can engineer our evolution, for better or worse.
Re:The real news by Dekker3D · 2008-11-27 01:34 · Score: 1

well, i was joking just now. but you provided some very good points. still, you avoided the main point of my last post, whether we could learn anything from bonobo society. i guess not though, since we'd have to find another way to vent any aggression.
hey, that reminds me... what do you think, would it be possible to completely weed out aggression from a society or is it too deeply ingrained in our being?
Re:The real news by Thiez · 2008-11-27 02:09 · Score: 1

> hey, that reminds me... what do you think, would it be possible to completely weed out aggression from a society or is it too deeply ingrained in our being?
Should we want to weed out aggression from a society? I don't think so. I think in some situations, aggression is the right course of action (or simply the fun thing to do, I for one enjoy a little senseless murder and mayhem now and then when playing videogames. Sometimes so-called 'friendly' NPCs really need to get shotgunned in the face). A better goal would be to eliminate aggression in situations where it is uncalled-for.
Re:The real news by TheRealZero · 2008-11-27 02:16 · Score: 0

+1 "Yeah eat a bag of baby dicks!" - Macktastic
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 02:21 · Score: 0

You're a fucking dumbass. Damn right we have a right to tell people to stop it - or kill them if they disagree - if they find rape and cannibalism normal.
There IS an universal truth, coming from that evolution you mistakenly say supports your view.
Destroying members of your own species is bad, and any viewpoints leading to this are bad.
"Kill the nonbelievers" is an amusing way to put it. We should kill all those who don't believe that killing the nonbelievers regarding anything else is a bad thing.
Re:The real news by Attila+Dimedici · 2008-11-27 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

The important thing is that we can actually figure out how to deploy this laser technology on the battlefield without the cooperation of those who desire to use violence to satisfy their desires. How do you propose getting those who desire violence to cooperate in ending wars?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The real news by Attila+Dimedici · 2008-11-27 05:39 · Score: 1

Of course, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali became too dangerous to have around the Netherlands kicked her out. Yes, I know there are some extenuating circumstances regarding this action, but having followed the story, I believe that she would have been allowed to stay and hold her seat in Parliament if the people of the Netherlands had not been afraid of Muslim violence.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:The real news by Grashnak · 2008-11-27 06:15 · Score: 1

A society which thinks it's perfectly OK to rape anyone in sight and then eats them blatantly violates everything that was ever said about human rights pretty much anywhere in this world. There is probably not a government on the planet right now that would get behind that notion
Great, you've identified a moral absolute which no one in the history of the planet has ever disagreed with. Universal rape followed by cannibalism is out. Awesome. Good luck coming up with a universally agreed list of moral absolutes that actually correspond to real life moral questions though.

--
Life needs more saving throws.
Re:The real news by Dravik · 2008-11-27 06:39 · Score: 1

One thing to keep in mind: No matter how much you develop the mind, if you don't maintain the capacity and the will to fight off those few primitive violent people who are left then your society will die.

--
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 08:50 · Score: 0

yerch, and here come the isolationist libertarians, trotting out their ideology as if they've realised some perfect universal order that no one else gets.
But that is not what the GPP said. You are not even close. E.g.,

The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative. So in reality, you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.

Contrast that with your claim of "perfect universal order". It would seem that the need to trash "libertarians" runs so deep in some people that you a) ascribe the term at random b) don't read or comprehend the post to which you reply, and c) end up looking like a fucking moron (good bye job intereview!).
Re:The real news by fabs64 · 2008-11-27 11:21 · Score: 1

What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us ... we have no right so tell them what to do.
And

One great example could be the USA. There you have the more liberal areas and people. And the (from my pov!) religious fanatics.
They could both live happy, if they just had their own countries. And why the hell not? They could still work together in areas that they both agree on or need each other for.
That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Just because he says he doesn't believe in a universal truth apparently doesn't stop him from spouting one.
Just trolled by another foul-mouthed AC I guess.
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 18:12 · Score: 0

And where does the "isolationist libertarian" crack come from? You aren't being 'trolled' asshole. Just because you have no logic and are being called on the carpet for it, does not mean you are being 'trolled'. BTW, you don't know what that means either.
Re:The real news by fabs64 · 2008-11-27 20:35 · Score: 1

One great example could be the USA. There you have the more liberal areas and people. And the (from my pov!) religious fanatics.
They could both live happy, if they just had their own countries. And why the hell not? They could still work together in areas that they both agree on or need each other for.
Isolationist

That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Libertarian
I'd say I'm being trolled because I'm silly enough to respond to your mess. I imagine you disagree but I'm more annoyed at myself really.
Re:The real news by danieltdp · 2008-11-28 03:21 · Score: 1

I see your point. A wound that gets weld and cooked does not sound as a good idea after all.

--
-- dnl
Re:The real news by c6gunner · 2008-11-28 09:19 · Score: 1

"Cuz that's what medics want to carry. A large battery pack with a small laser, while humping a guy back to the aid station. Or maybe a gas generator."
Mount it in a vehicle. Most of our ops these days are mounted anyway, so why have medics lugging shit around? Depending on just how much space it takes up, you could probably put one in each HMMWV and Bradley. Or, failing that, you could have a designated vehicle for the medics.
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-28 18:57 · Score: 0

That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.
Opposing "world government" is not libertarian. It is not generally even a libertarian issue. The specific policies of a hypothetical world government would be a libertarian-v-socialist-v-communist-v-fascist-v-etc issue. I continue to believe you are using terms without knowledge of their meaning. Also, if you don't want replies to your postings - why post? Perhaps it is like my father, to hear himself speak.
Re:The real news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-28 19:12 · Score: 0

One great example could be the USA. There you have the more liberal areas and people. And the (from my pov!) religious fanatics.
They could both live happy, if they just had their own countries. And why the hell not? They could still work together in areas that they both agree on or need each other for.
This is not isolationist. There is a lot of wiggle room between hiding in a cave and going out and randomly assaulting people. There is a distinction between being social and being a sociopath. The wiki identifies two traits of isolationism. At best, you have a manifestation of half of one. Even that is generous. Perhaps I should call you a Catholic Democrat. I have no evidence that you are Catholic or a Democrat but because I harbor ill will towards both Catholic Democrats and your sloppy reasoning, I may as well associate you with them. Ignorance for all!
Re:The real news by fabs64 · 2008-11-28 19:42 · Score: 1

That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
Re:The real news by fabs64 · 2008-11-28 19:46 · Score: 1

Fine, you've got me on semantics. When saying "Isolationist" I should have said "non-interventionist".
I'd call it picky but you are right.
Interestingly the wiki also identifies non-interventionism with the libertarian movement.
Re:The real news by khope · 2008-11-29 21:56 · Score: 1

"Evolution is never a cause of things, it is the result."
If we rephrase that as:
Inheritable change caused by environment has no consequences, the statement seems not to be true.
Re:The real news by brokenbeaker · 2008-12-01 17:34 · Score: 1

YAG is yttrium aluminum garnet...
Re:The real news by moteyalpha · 2008-12-01 18:12 · Score: 1

That is interesting, as I posted the link to wiki and it says so right there. I should have noticed that inconsistency in my post. Thanks. Apparently I am not perfect, and spell cheek didn't help me with content.

Lasers by Chuck+Chunder · 2008-11-26 20:43 · Score: 1

Is there anything they can't do?

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by badkarmadayaccount · 2008-11-26 20:46 · Score: 1

It would be interesting if this could be used in the creation of people like Wolverine, only the body doesnt need mingboggling regeneration capabilities, they just weld the wounds shut. Sign me up!

--
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.

Sharks! by sincewhen · 2008-11-26 20:48 · Score: 1

This would be great if your leg had been bitten by a shark!

--
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.

Re:Sharks! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Cauterizing lasers, for the conscientious shark.

So Jedi should really be called Jedi Doctors by Timesprout · 2008-11-26 20:49 · Score: -1

because lightsabres cauterize the limbs they chop off.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Re:So Jedi should really be called Jedi Doctors by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:45 · Score: 0

/. NEEDS a "-1 Stupid" Moderation function.

Optimal Temperature by cjfs · 2008-11-26 20:49 · Score: 4, Funny

First, they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius).

I don't envy the test subjects.

Re:Optimal Temperature by failedlogic · 2008-11-26 21:02 · Score: 1

Oh, don't worry they didn't start by decreasing by one degree on someone counting down from 500 Celsius. They started at 425. It cooks french fries quite well. The article doesn't mention the use of anesthetic or painkillers.
So yeah, being a test subject would suck! But, you probably get $20 for your time. And a 'consult' with a doctor.
Re:Optimal Temperature by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:58 · Score: 0

Don't worry, those pigs will still provide tasty ham.
Re:Optimal Temperature by cp.tar · 2008-11-26 22:49 · Score: 2, Funny

In Israel?

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:Optimal Temperature by Chrisje · 2008-11-27 00:51 · Score: 1

I'll have you know that I've bought and eaten some of the most splendid ham, pork chops and ribs I have tasted to date in Israel. The Wadi in Haifa has a lot of Christian Arabs that sell outrageously good meat, including pork. Alright, I do have a spot of trouble sourcing real raw bacon, because the climate here causes butchers to only sell the stuff smoked or cured, but that's besides the point.
Furthermore the national supermarket chain "Tiv Tam" (for Russians by Russians) has pork, albeit of inferior quality and freshness to the Wadi. The benefit of that supermarket is though that they also sell Dutch cheeses, excellent pickled herring, belgian waffles, stroopwafels and in some branches even my brand of garlic sauce and liquorice.
Re:Optimal Temperature by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 06:09 · Score: 0

The article doesn't mention the use of anesthetic or painkillers.
Why would they? It's f-cking obvious they used them, just like they do for the stitches this technique replaces.
Re:Optimal Temperature by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 11:04 · Score: 0

"Was that in Fahrenheit or Celsius?"
"OW"

For while the true Laser will bring you life... by Digitus1337 · 2008-11-26 20:51 · Score: 1

... the false Laser will take it from you.

Incisions aren't similar; nonsense comparison made by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 20:52 · Score: 0

TFA "compares" two wounds (http://www.technologyreview.com/files/22023/laser_x220.jpg) and then states that "After 30 days, the laser-bonded scars ... appeared smaller than those done with a needle and thread" - and yet it is pretty obvious that this is because the laser-bonded scars were smaller incisions to start off with. In terms of prominence of the remaining scar, it looks like there's not a lot in it, but that perhaps the laser-bonded scar has either a darker area or a scab still remaining in the middle. Perhaps next time, they should compare results with incisions of identical length?

Another Technological Advance From Israel by Apple+Acolyte · 2008-11-26 20:53 · Score: -1, Flamebait

And yet so many love to hate Jews and the Jewish State nevertheless. Go figure. . .

--
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by Surreal+Puppet · 2008-11-26 21:04 · Score: 1

You can hate and love something at the same time, for different reasons.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by abigsmurf · 2008-11-26 21:08 · Score: 1

Israel gets an obscene amount of investment from the US. You pour vast sums of money into research labs, you get a lot of inventions and ideas.
It has nothing to do with religion
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by N1AK · 2008-11-26 21:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, next they'll be knocking the Nazi's even though they made massive advances in rocket technology. Why can't everyone realise that as long as you make scientific breakthroughs people should love you regardless of anything else.

Disclaimer: I have no issue with Judaism and its followers, I just want to show the logical flaw in AA's post.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by HateBreeder · 2008-11-26 22:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's actually a common misconception.
US foreign aid to Israel is limited to commodities purchased back from US companies: Israel cannot spend that money in any other way.
The money goes back to US companies like Boeing or Lockheed martin when Israel purchases fighter jets.
You can rest assured, that university research projects in Israel don't see a dime from US tax payer money. (Unless it's some US D.O.D joint effort)

--
Sigs are for the weak.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by abigsmurf · 2008-11-26 22:52 · Score: 1

Nope they just have a lot of money that they would've otherwise spent on those things to spend on research instead
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by HateBreeder · 2008-11-26 23:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

The foreign aid to Israel is given out since the US recognizes the strategic importance of Israel in the middle east - it is vital to promote US interests in the area.
And yes, the game is played both ways. Both US and Israel gain from the foreign aid - i just don't want people to think that the US is spending money in Israel without gaining anything from it. The US is not a philanthropic organization and Joe six pack is definitely not funding the Jews because they tricked him into it.

--
Sigs are for the weak.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by dcam · 2008-11-26 23:58 · Score: 1

Honest question, what does the US gain from the money it gives to Israel? Is that gain cancelled out by the negative views of the US throughout region as a result?

--
meh
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by erikina · 2008-11-27 00:27 · Score: 1, Offtopic

The US gets to stop an country getting annihilated, that shares similar values and willing to get its hands dirty (at the expense of political backlash). And no, the gains are not canceled out as the people that hate Israel are not the sort of people that ever would not hate the United States.

I've got a great story after talking with a girl who fled Iran after her family was persecuted for not being Islamic (belonged to some weird minor regional religion). Though it's an anecdote, I've come to believe the Muslims hate people for not belonging to their religion. And even if it was only 5% (Although, I'm inclined to believe it's much much higher) it's completely incompatible with our society. Imagine if 5% of Christians started stoning atheists..
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by Chrisje · 2008-11-27 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

First of all, plenty of Christians have killed and will kill a non-believer. It's documented well, and countless times.
Funnily enough 10% of Jews in Israel *will* also stone your ass if you drive through a particular street on a Shabat, if you happen be Palestinian and live near certain settlers and if you dare to drive/eat/smoke in their vicinity on a Yom Kippur.
Believe me. I live here. The latter example actually took place in Akko recently. An Arab drove through Akko (which is an Arabic city), ended up on a Jewish street, got stones thrown at his car and subsequently *he* was arrested for it.
Then there are the boys who immigrate from Russia who get bullied into circumcising themselves at the age of 20 by their peers in the Army. That one's about brainwashing *and* self-mutilation as a consequence of it, and that's still done by the more secular Jews, that's not even the work of your 10% of orthodox fringe idiots.
Now my boy would be considered Jewish because his mother is an Israeli Jewess, so don't come to me and cry anti-semitism for what I've just pointed out either, please.
Having said that, I think the Christians should be very, very quiet about the Muslims killing those who are not Muslim because we all know what religion brought on the Spanish Inquisition, which hunts, the 100 year war, the Crusades and many other calamities that were aimed towards non-believers.
In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.
So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims. Christians and Jews are just part of the same mob, however.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by erikina · 2008-11-27 01:50 · Score: 1

First of all, you have based your entire reply around attacking my religion. Which is funny, as I'm an outspoken atheist (check my post history, or take my word for it). The example I gave was only because if I said the same things I do today in many parts of the world I'd be killed for it.

First of all, plenty of Christians have killed and will kill a non-believer. It's documented well, and countless times.
Sure it's happened lots historically, but all present day cases are really just psychopaths.

Funnily enough 10% of Jews in Israel *will* also stone your ass if you drive through a particular street on a Shabat, if you happen be Palestinian and live near certain settlers and if you dare to drive/eat/smoke in their vicinity on a Yom Kippur.
It cuts both ways. There are many mountain regions in Israel that you can't go without also risking being stoned.

Believe me. I live here. The latter example actually took place in Akko recently. An Arab drove through Akko (which is an Arabic city), ended up on a Jewish street, got stones thrown at his car and subsequently *he* was arrested for it.
And hopefully that is more the exception than the rule. But keep in mind the solution isn't to be peaceful when faced with a violence. I think it would be relevant to cite the holocaust..

Then there are the boys who immigrate from Russia who get bullied into circumcising themselves at the age of 20 by their peers in the Army. That one's about brainwashing *and* self-mutilation as a consequence of it, and that's still done by the more secular Jews, that's not even the work of your 10% of orthodox fringe idiots.
It happens in the US military too, so you can hardly call it religiously motivated (more conformity).

Now my boy would be considered Jewish because his mother is an Israeli Jewess, so don't come to me and cry anti-semitism for what I've just pointed out either, please.
Why would I? You've said nothing remotely anti-Semitic.

Having said that, I think the Christians should be very, very quiet about the Muslims killing those who are not Muslim because we all know what religion brought on the Spanish Inquisition, which hunts, the 100 year war, the Crusades and many other calamities that were aimed towards non-believers.
The Christians certainly can't be critical of Muslim history (they were imo much worse) but at least they've progressed. :P

In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.
I chucked at this. Your counter example to a religion that sanctions the killings of "infidels" is a *comment* pandering to the hard religious.

But even so, I'm surprised someone could believe that (along with things like 'there are no atheists in the fox holes'). And I honestly don't like the religious any more than you, nor would I ever vote for a party that supports state religion in any respect (Unless it was atheism, I'd be all up for that :P). But even so, I can admit they're really not being actively aggressive to my choice (or lack of) religion.

So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims. Christians and Jews are just part of the same mob, however.
So I can climb back on? :P And yes, I agree that Christians and Jews can be lumped in the same boat.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 02:17 · Score: 0

Calling in Moderation Ordinance Off-Topic! Or MOOT for short.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 05:41 · Score: 1, Informative

George Bush Sr was president for one term. Also, the past does not justify the present. If people are being killed simply because they don't share a faith they are still BEING KILLED. It doesn't matter that roles may have been reversed 50, 100, or a thousand years ago, that is done and gone. Everyone should complain and complain loudly regardless of their faith. So please climb off that horse and realize that this is about people and we all have equal rights to complain Christian, Atheist, Musilm and Jew.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by bjourne · 2008-11-27 06:50 · Score: 1

That's actually a common misconception. US foreign aid to Israel is limited to commodities purchased back from US companies: Israel cannot spend that money in any other way. The money goes back to US companies like Boeing or Lockheed martin when Israel purchases fighter jets. You can rest assured, that university research projects in Israel don't see a dime from US tax payer money. (Unless it's some US D.O.D joint effort)
Totally false. In contrast to other receivers of US foreign aid, Israel is allowed to spend the money in what ever way it wants. And they do have a strong domestic weapon industry which means that the aid goes to the Israeli military buying Israeli planes and Israeli tanks.

--
Football Odds
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by bjourne · 2008-11-27 07:01 · Score: 1

Wrong again, HateBreeder. Oh how ironic it is that that is your choosen nick..
The indirect costs in goodwill the Israeli-American special relationship is causing American companies is orders of magnitudes bigger than the direct aid cost which is 5 billions/year. Companies have a much harder time penetrating Arab markets thanks to the US pro-Israeli stance. Coca-Cola for example was boycotted in Middle East. The whole oil embargo which caused the US economic recession in the late 70's was a direct result of the aid to Israel. From a purely economic viewpoint, the aid has been a huge freaking burden with no return whatsoever. Not even gratefulness.
Oh, and "the Jews" do tick, coerce and bribe politicians to keep giving money.

--
Football Odds
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by ScrewMaster · 2008-11-27 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can hate and love something at the same time, for different reasons.
Yes, that pretty much defines "marriage", I think.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by ScrewMaster · 2008-11-27 07:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I chucked at this.
I thought he was off-base too, but I didn't throw up.

And yes, I agree that Christians and Jews can be lumped in the same boat.
Sure, bring the whole Chrew along with you.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by jiggerdot · 2008-11-27 13:03 · Score: 1

With the exception of a few training jets, the IAF currently flies no Israeli-made planes. All bought in the US. Just a heads up.

--
"can't run, can't hide...oh well, return 0"
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by smithmc · 2008-11-27 13:23 · Score: 1

In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.
Actually, the first Bush only got elected once. Normally, since you don't live here, I wouldn't bother to point out your error, but since you're up on your, um...

So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims.
Oh, gee, thanks for the permission. I'm an atheist, and I'd support Israel over the rest of the Middle East any day of the week including the Sabbath. Forget religion; they're the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, and they're surrounded by countries that want to wipe them off the map. I'd say that makes them worth defending, just a little.

--
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 14:44 · Score: 0

You are right, it has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with values: education and minding you own business to better better yourself. That leads to progress, and some progress that spills over to others. It has to be said because it is relevant that so much good progress comes from Israel, and not quite so much from the surrounding dictatorships that just want to annihilate it.
Nota bene: Egypt gets comparable amounts of foreign aid from US. Not quite so much to show for it.
Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-28 05:28 · Score: 0

This is an interesting example of non-quite-to-the-point anecdotes cobbled together to seemingly make a point but missing alt
Look around at the world now and point out where are the roving gangs of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists that are taking over neighborhoods and spraying the inhabitants with UZIs - just because they aren't Jewish?
ditto - Christians or Buddhists

Doesn't this invalidate by Splab · 2008-11-26 21:01 · Score: 3, Funny

sharks with friggin lasers on their heads?

I mean the poor thing is going to keep biting and not understand why the pray wont die.

Re:Doesn't this invalidate by powerspike · 2008-11-26 21:15 · Score: 1

not at all, now they can rip your leg open, close it up, and have another go...
so sharks will be able to play with their food now :p
it's just like having a play toy that keeps giving..
I'm never going to the beach again...
Re:Doesn't this invalidate by Corporate+Troll · 2008-11-26 23:09 · Score: 1

I'm sure that the prey prays that it won't die.
Re:Doesn't this invalidate by ScrewMaster · 2008-11-27 07:27 · Score: 0

I'm sure that the prey prays that it won't die.
Yes, prey tell us what you meant by that.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

The whole point. by Surreal+Puppet · 2008-11-26 21:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

The whole point of this new method is that you can cauterize a wound without charring the flesh, instead just melting it. The optimal temperature for this is, apparently, 60-70 deg. C., and this is maintained using feedback from an infrared sensor on the "soldering pen". They apparently also use a water soluble protein as "solder". The scars on in the TFA pictures look real nice. Wonder if the wound will hurt more or less than a conventionally sealed wound?

Scarring by abigsmurf · 2008-11-26 21:13 · Score: 1

Wouldn't this leave some rather ugly scars?

A clean cut can heal in a way that has minimal impact. When you melt flesh you're doing lasting, siginificant changes that doesn't really heal. You'll change a thin white line that fades with a tan to a large pink splotch on the skin that won't really ever go away.

Re:Scarring by MrMista_B · 2008-11-26 21:23 · Score: 1

Heh, I think you're underestimating how *tiny* lazor beams can get. With this, there should be *zero* evidence of scarring, once the skin grows over.
Re:Scarring by ijakings · 2008-11-26 21:49 · Score: 1

It says right there in TFA that the doctors believed that the scar looks and is healing better than the conventionally sealed wounds.
Infact theres a discussion about this not very far up the page from this comment.
Re:Scarring by abigsmurf · 2008-11-26 22:19 · Score: 1

The photo evidence they show isn't convincing on that front. The wound on the top is still healing and tender but the wound on the bottom is mostly healed but with that ugly crater.
You'll have to forgive me for not reading through every single comment...
Re:Scarring by maxume · 2008-11-27 00:57 · Score: 1

Ted Stevens voice: NO.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Scarring by ScrewMaster · 2008-11-27 07:28 · Score: 0

Heh, I think you're underestimating how *tiny* lazor beams can get.
I don't think I've ever seen laser spelled quite like that before.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:Incisions aren't similar; nonsense comparison m by myxiplx · 2008-11-26 21:23 · Score: 4, Informative

No, TFA shows two sample pictures, and TFA didn't do any comparison at all, especially not any based on these particular pictures. The *doctors* compared wounds on ten patients and decided that the laser-bonded scars were healing better, which is what the article reports.

The point of the pictures isn't so *you* can second guess the doctors (who believe it or not know an awful lot more about this than you do). They are there to give a quick visual impression of what's going on, to complement the real detail contained in the text of the article.

If you really want to double check the results, go find the original research paper. However I think you'll find it's rather longer and not quite so interesting to read.

sealing up your drunk buddy's butthole by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-26 21:43 · Score: 0

Someone predicted that as soon as something like this gets invented that a bunch of med students would get drunk and seal up the butthole of someone who passed out.

lida by magicseo1 · 2008-11-26 21:44 · Score: -1, Troll

This is an important subject. Thanks for this stuff. lida,orjinal lida,http://www.lidasatis.org

What lasers should be for by Smivs · 2008-11-26 21:48 · Score: 1

"Do you expect me to talk?" "No Mr Bond, I expect you to die!"

--
Smivs on the intertubes!

Shark surgeons? by inflame · 2008-11-26 21:58 · Score: 1

So will we have to be underwater for the surgery?

The end of natural by tzot · 2008-11-26 22:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Breasts, I mean. This is going to be heavily used to close incisions of breast augmentation surgery. We shall lose a weapon in our arsenal of 'true-fake' wars.
We are doomed.

--
I speak England very best

Re:The end of natural by cp.tar · 2008-11-26 22:55 · Score: 1

Now, now. However tiny scars may get, fakes are still fairly easy to spot. The bigger they are, the easier it is to spot them.
Talk about Captian Obvious.

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:The end of natural by Extremus · 2008-11-27 00:23 · Score: 1

Knowing if breasts are natural or not is not a big problem anymore. Nowadays, with all this advanced technology in surgery, it is becoming difficult to know if the WHOLE woman is fake or not.
Re:The end of natural by Chrisje · 2008-11-27 00:55 · Score: 1

Come on now! You can easily feel whether they are man-made or not, and if that fails you can still ascertain it by looking at the degree to which they wiggle (or not) during a shag.
Besides... who cares, really? If it pleases you it pleases you.
Re:The end of natural by Yaotzin · 2008-11-27 02:04 · Score: 1

Who cares? Bigger breasts == Win!

--
Error: No error occurred
Re:The end of natural by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2008-11-27 04:51 · Score: 1

Breasts, I mean. This is going to be heavily used to close incisions of breast augmentation surgery. We shall lose a weapon in our arsenal of 'true-fake' wars.
It's already been lost. I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel. And it didn't cost all that much more than the kind where they slice the boob instead. Its probably only good for 10 years though and she will have to get cut on the boob in order to have them removed/replaced.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:The end of natural by ScrewMaster · 2008-11-27 07:30 · Score: 1

I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel.
She must be very ... short.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:The end of natural by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2008-11-27 07:48 · Score: 1

She must be very ... short.
5'10" - she got them to improve her career -- she's a professional model, mostly commercial print and video (Mercedes, HP, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc) a handful of music videos and lead in one incredibly dull horror movie.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:The end of natural by Briareos · 2008-11-27 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

It's already been lost. I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel.
You have to wonder what they're gonna do next - brain surgery through the sole?
np: B. Fleischmann - As If (Welcome Tourist (Disc 1))

--
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by 1stvamp · 2008-11-26 22:23 · Score: 1

People like Wolverine..........as long as they can take time out after every injury to run a "fricken' laser" beam over their wounds.

--
Wes

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by b4upoo · 2008-11-26 22:24 · Score: 2, Funny

What kind of rod does one use for that weld?

Very, very brave people by biscuitlover · 2008-11-26 22:32 · Score: 1

TFA states that several people underwent clinical trials... for a FLESH-WELDING LASER.

Anyone who hears those words and still goes in for experimental surgery is probably the bravest person on the planet. I salute you!

What if... by denzacar · 2008-11-26 22:39 · Score: 4, Funny

...they had lasers on the INSIDE beaming out when ever their flesh is pierced? You know, like having lasers in the blood.
How come Marvel didn't yet come up with such an awesome character?
Would such a combination make the character some kind of a weird Wolverine-Cyclops hybrid?
What would Jean Grey think about that?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:What if... by 1stvamp · 2008-11-27 00:28 · Score: 1

She'd probably try to guiltily screw it before dying for the 64^10th time...for a while.

--
Wes
Re:What if... by PsychoElf · 2008-11-27 15:25 · Score: 1

Nah, she'd just screw it and the guilt would resurface 10 issues later.

How the button panel of the device will look like by Dirk+Becher · 2008-11-26 22:49 · Score: 1

[Stun] [Cure] [Kill] [Charge]
[Laserpointer] [Flashlight] [Blue Light] [Disco] - Never mix up with blue light - it might be embarassing!
[Self Destruct][Help][Big Surprise][Not-So-Big Surprise]
[Undo] ;)

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by trburkholder · 2008-11-26 23:50 · Score: 5, Informative

From TFA:

"All a surgeon has to do is move the pen's tip along the cut, strengthening and sealing the weld with a solder of water-soluble protein."

It looks a lot like very controlled cooking and I suspect the protein used to connect the tissue denatures in the process. It's not welding, it's hot-melt glue.

Still very cool.

Waaaait just a minute. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 00:18 · Score: 0

I'm confused here, hasn't stuff like this been done for a long time now? (pre 2000 at least?)

I know they have been using them to cut pre 2000 for sure, but i'm sure i remember seeing flesh welding lasers. (and to burn away tattoos as well)

Anyone else? Or did i seriously just wake up in the wrong universe today.
It doesn't seem right to me, the sky is blue, i was pretty sure this was Winter, not the middle of Hazlug.

Re:Waaaait just a minute. by compro01 · 2008-11-27 03:05 · Score: 1

The new thing with this seems to be the automatic temperature control. It maintains the optimal temperature (~65C) for making a smooth weld and thus minimizes charing/scaring/etc.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

65 Celcius melting point of skin? by ZeroExistenZ · 2008-11-27 00:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius)

Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath, and doesn't a sauna reach up to 110C ? Second, since when does a skin melt?

Who can give some more indepth information about this?

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by maxume · 2008-11-27 01:00 · Score: 1

O.k., since a sauna reaches up to 110C, you should be able to stick your hand in a pot of boiling water with no ill effects.
The mechanism of the heat transfer is just as important as the temperature.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 01:07 · Score: 1, Funny

If you take 110 Celsius saunas I salute your gonads. However sterilized they might be.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by Zironic · 2008-11-27 01:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Have you ever burnt yourself on the stove or something? Then you'd know that skin melts.
65C is way, way, waaaaay above the temperature you'd want in a warm bath and while the air temperature is 110C in a sauna your skin never reaches that temperature, if you stayed in the sauna long enough your skin would melt though(I think you'd die first)
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by DynaSoar · 2008-11-27 01:24 · Score: 1

they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius)
Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath, and doesn't a sauna reach up to 110C ? Second, since when does a skin melt?
Who can give some more indepth information about this?
PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Nothing I can find that answers directly to the details in TFA, it is after all original research, but I find a few that are probably among the present research's predecessors, which relate the fact that various collogens are unstable and unfold or 'melt' at temperatures less than 65C, including human lung tissue that's unstable at body temperature. I used "skin melting temperature" -- other search terms may prove more fruitful.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by Dunbal · 2008-11-27 02:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Second, since when does a skin melt?
Skin isn't just the rigid layer of dead cells covered in keratin that you're used to seeing. Lots of interesting things happen under the basement membrane in the "extra-cellular matrix". Cells aren't just glued to each other but rather they produce and surround themselves with different proteins - some for rigidity and others to allow flexibility and elasticity.
This matrix becomes more fluid at higher temperatures as the proteins unwind and change shape with the heat. The theory is that if you have two pieces of matrix close enough to each other and increase the temperature, some of the proteins from either side of the wound will entangle with the opposite side, and remain entangled when the temperature is lowered again, kind of like velcro on a molecular level. The trick is to provide just enough temperature to get the proteins to entangle with each other, without putting so much temperature that they end up destroyed.
Anyway surgeons have known about cauterization for a long time. It helps fix all those little mistakes (oops who put that artery there...). There's nothing more fun than watching a bleeder turn into a brown and black bubbling mess of protein goo - but goo that no longer bleeds.
It would be interesting to know how this "new" technique holds up under different conditions - sepsis, metabolic disorders like diabetes, etc. And of course how much trouble is the patient in if ever there's a dehiscence? At least with sutures, the other sutures are there to keep the wound reasonably closed...

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 02:47 · Score: 0

Saunas can easily go above 120 Celsius. ... though, I really prefer 80 Celsius.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by compro01 · 2008-11-27 03:07 · Score: 1

Are you quite sure you're not getting Celsius and Fahrenheit mixed up?

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by ColdWetDog · 2008-11-27 05:21 · Score: 1

There's nothing more fun than watching a bleeder turn into a brown and black bubbling mess of protein goo - but goo that no longer bleeds.
You must be one of those surgeons. The ones that, as a surgical case is winding up, they spend inordinate amounts of time frying each and every tiny little "bleeder" that they find. Never mind that, if left alone, the whole mess of them won't account for a few band-aids full of blood. Never mind that the anesthesiologist has just about got the patient extubated. You're just standing there with your little zapper having fun.

I'm pretty sure I've operated with you before....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 05:38 · Score: 0

Seeing that 65 Fahrenheit is a cold bath and 110 Fahrenheit sauna is a very cold sauna, I doubt it.
And yes, 110C is "normal" for a sauna. A bit high, but still within normal range.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by Dunbal · 2008-11-27 05:43 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure I've operated with you before....
Ah, a voice from the "other" side of the "blood-brain barrier"!
Remember that one way or the other, ALL patients eventually stop bleeding...
You anesthesiologists always want to rush things. No wonder it's always your fault.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by geezer+nerd · 2008-11-27 11:06 · Score: 2, Informative

65C is 149F, which is too warm for a bath, I think. 110C is 230F, which is cooking temperature. As is pointed out in other postings, sauna exposure is not the same as water immersion, nor direct radiant exposure, but still very hot. I will keep my meltable skin away from both temps.
Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-11-28 12:14 · Score: 1

Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath
A Jacuzzi runs at 40C.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

A perfect defense. how will they know? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 00:57 · Score: 1, Funny

Your Honour and Jury members,
I wasn't trying to cut the man in half with my laser, but only to sew him back together. I submit this slashdot article as evidence exhibit A.

The Perfect Crime by hosecoat · 2008-11-27 00:58 · Score: 1

Your Honour and Jury members, I wasn't trying to cut the man in half with my laser, but only to sew him back together. I submit this slashdot article as evidence exhibit A.

Misuse of closing-wounds-with-beams thing by troll8901 · 2008-11-27 01:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Imagine that sort of device in the hands of your unscrupulous friends. They would sneak up behind you and seal your ass shut as a practical joke. The devices would be sold in novelty stores instead of medical outlets."

- Why real life will never be like star trek, The Dilbert Future, by Scott Adams

Re:Misuse of closing-wounds-with-beams thing by giantweevil · 2008-11-27 10:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

Luckily, you could just remove the solder and open your ass.

--
Disregard the above.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 01:21 · Score: 0

I think I fist saw this in Logan's Run...

Great way by Dunbal · 2008-11-27 01:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

To instantly send the cost of that $7500 surgery to $15,000. After all, SOMEONE has to finance, maintain and insure that $300,000 laser machine because a $2 package of 3-0 nylon monofilament just won't do nowadays. Hey do we still have the machine that goes "bing"?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:Great way by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 06:59 · Score: 0

a $2 package of 3-0 nylon monofilament just won't do nowadays
Ever seen a hospital bill? Nothing is anywhere near as cheap as $2.
Re:Great way by Dunbal · 2008-11-27 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Nothing is anywhere near as cheap as $2.
It is when I buy it for my clinic. Syringes, 15, I sell them to you for $1.50. Suture, around $1.75 each pack last time I bought, and I sell them to you for $15. That's what happens when I have to pay between $20k and $60k a year (depending on the specialty and how many times I have been sued) in malpractice insurance premiums before covering other, simpler costs like "rent". You can thank the "jackpot justice" players and ambulance chasing lawyers for that.
Oh, I guess you could buy your own sutures for $1.75 but no, "This item is restricted for sale only to or by order of a physician". Sorry.
Of course be careful at hospitals, they sometimes rip you off in illegal ways, like charging you for a whole box of medication when all they gave you was one pill. Always check your bill. I do.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Great way by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 19:13 · Score: 0

Last quote I heard had OR time at over $5k(US)/hr. Knock an hour off of a typical procedure with devices like this, and it starts to make a lot of sense over the the $2 package of monofilament.
Toss in a shorter hospital stay because of a shorter time to recovery, plus less pain and less likelihood of complications... it really can come out cheaper.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Robocoastie · 2008-11-27 03:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

hmm isn't that a modern way of the old heat a knife over a fire then burn the wound closed with the side of it like on movies?

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by SpiderClan · 2008-11-27 04:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would imagine it's much less painful and leaves less of a scar.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Bearhouse · 2008-11-27 04:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

hmm isn't that a modern way of the old heat a knife over a fire then burn the wound closed with the side of it like on movies?

I think the modern version of that would be using superglue. Both effective but fairly brutal & 'last resort'.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by kwantar · 2008-11-27 05:52 · Score: 1

Seems more like soldering as your adding a connecting agent. Glue would require time to dry, where soldering only requires cooling.

--
If it were anything else...

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Ihmhi · 2008-11-27 06:23 · Score: 1

I think a better analogy would be that this is like soldering for the body.

Can anyone translate this to car analogy?

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by ScrewMaster · 2008-11-27 07:16 · Score: 1

I think a better analogy would be that this is like soldering for the body.

Can anyone translate this to car analogy?

One word: Bondo.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 07:35 · Score: 0

What kind of rod does one use for that weld?

An inanimate carbon rod.

!frickinlasers by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 07:44 · Score: 0

Indeed, I was disappointed to think that they weren't already doing this in medicine.

I for one welcome our newly graduated Sharks-in-residence.

(Though I hear they tend to ignore any patient that isn't bleeding...)

Re:Incisions aren't similar; nonsense comparison m by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 08:28 · Score: 0

They are there to give a quick visual impression of what's going on, to complement the real detail contained in the text of the article.

Right and my quick visual impression is that scaring might be smaller, but it's far nastier looking.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by demonlapin · 2008-11-27 10:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, superglue is quite effective at closing skin (though large wounds still need to have the deep layers closed). The monomers used are designed not to produce as much heat during curing as the home-use ones, but they're still cyanoacrylate adhesives.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 12:08 · Score: 0

Superglue was developed as a wound adhesive so it's not surprising it's quite good for that purpose.

I think you meant... by FeebleOldMan · 2008-11-27 12:43 · Score: 1

If you can take 110 Celsius saunas I sauté your gonads.

There.. corrected that for you. =)

Good thing they mentioned the inventor by synthespian · 2008-11-27 14:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Gladly, they mentioned the inventor Abraham Katzir (a physicist at Tel Aviv University).

All too often, it''s the surgeon who gets all the credit when, in fact, all this wonderful medical technology is created by engineers and whole team - a lot more people than the guys who like to pose as heroes.

--
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts

Where have I seen this before ... by Mick+R · 2008-11-27 18:47 · Score: 1

... oh yeah. Anybody remember Logan's Run?

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re by Barsteward · 2008-11-27 20:46 · Score: 1

I need one. Just give me a clear shot at Sarah Palins lips and they'd be sealed forever.....

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Doctor Stiles! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-27 21:01 · Score: 0

Now all we need is an antibiotic gel that instantly closes and heals small wounds, and a way to give doctors surgical bullet time by waving pentagrams over the patient, and we're all set!

Re:Incisions aren't similar; nonsense comparison m by Anonymous Coward · 2008-11-28 07:07 · Score: 0

The comparison was right there in the caption of the image. Like it or not, the article directly implied (by placing the statement in the caption of the side-by-side photos) that this was a direct comparison of laser-bonded scars with needle and thread scars. Yes, you and I might both realise that it either wasn't a comparison, or was a very poor one. The average reader might not. One scar was long enough to require multiple stitches as evidenced by the scarring - the other couldn't have fit more than a single stitch. But, you know, feel free to make smug comments about how parent doesn't know anything and ignore the fact that the article itself is blatantly misleading.

Slashdot Mirror

Surgeons Weld Wounds Shut With Surgical Laser

151 comments