And _you_ did your research then? (...) It _is_ possible for something to be toxic to insects without being lethal to humans. (...) On the other hand, the opposite _can_ be true too.
I agree that introducing an insecticide does require tests. But what is "somewhat toxic"? Tomatoes and potatoes are somewhat toxic too.
Are you just motivated enough to rant against Greenpeace even when you have no fucking clue what is it about?
Yes I am. People think that Greepeace is ideological and speaks the truth, well that's not the truth per se. Greenpeace lives on people's donations that are fed by fear of technology. I hate that they feed on that. They don't have to prove since they are ideological. Their donators believe them anyway, and the more sound Greenpeace makes, the more is donated.
Hand-waving about mutations happening randomly in nature is at best brain-damaged too. Equally random mutations in plants include atropine (nightshade), ricin (deadly in 0.2mg doses and no antidote), solanine, cyanide (wild almonds), etc.
And guess what? Obviously you don't understand that's exactly the point I'm making. Yes, nature is very well capable of producing toxins. Now let me tell you a little secret. If you produce a medicine from plants then your drug is checked far less, and it passes the food and drug administration more easily, whereas if something is produced in the lab it is extensively tested. I'm not against the latter.
So what do some companies do? They try to get something produced by nature, increase quantities using classical plant breeding and produce a 'safe' drug. No extensive testing required and far more profitable. Now have you **ever** heard Greenpeace complaining about something like that? No. It's not something that colors with their 'nature is good' fealing.
And to me it seems that's the reason they're fighting against this. They use peoples ignorance, ideology, religion and aversion against 'changing nature and playing god' - whatever that may be - and fight against genetic engineering. That's their way, to get some greens donated.
And you believe Monsanto does their research objectively?
I don't know, but they're stupid if they don't. Let's take for instance the case that indeed they introduced a highly toxic agent, and not something that's barely toxic. What happens? People eat it, and they die or get ill. So? Monsanto is prosecuted for malpractice. Obviously it's not in their interest to produce toxic food.
People like to think that large corporations are evil. so let me tell you something: Greenpeace is nothing different. What if Greenpeace is not objective? It doesn't matter, they don't have to. They just play on people's emotions and still get their donations.
And what's this modding me flamebait? Am I not allowed to point out my perspective on Greenpeace?
The genetic manipulation says: we will produce bunch of mutations. If they are profitable, then we keep the profits. If they are dangerous, then you pay for it with your health.
The mutations are not at random. The protein that's introduced apparently is an insecticidal protein against the corn root-worm. Ok, maybe I was a little quick in judging Greenpeace. That's a mutation that isn't likely to pop up at random, and testing is required to determine its toxicity since insecticides can be dangerous for vertebrates as well. But still, not all genetic engineering is bad.
The corn now produces more of a specific protein than it used to, and the higher dose of this new protein is toxic.
Nah, I don't believe greenpeace does their research objectively. Their research is motivated, and they're just fishing for a hype. Every nature freak that's ignorant and scared of something technological and new is a potential donor of $$$ for them. They want to put a label on genetic engineering, as if it produces toxic food.
Mutations also occur at random in nature. Mutations produced in the lab could occur spontaneously in nature as well, although some may be unlikely. And **sigh** a mutation does not make a product radioactive.
Neural signals are not electrical impulses, they're electrochemical state changes
I agree with your first statement, but your second doesn't tell me anything. What reaction in cells isn't an electrochemical state change? I would say neural signals are transmissions of neural membrane depolarizations.
A neuron in 'rest' keeps a certain charge (polarization) on the membrane between the inside and outside of the cell. This costs energy in the form of ATP (a cellular currency for protein actions). Upon a depolarization, membrane channels and pores transmit ions and the charge in the membrane changes. This depolarization is later measured further along the axon (the neural extension that transmits depolarizations).
This article wasn't an attack on your views, but on the popular belief
No, he *is* attacking the traditional view:
According to the traditional explanation of molecular biology, an electrical pulse is sent from one end of the nerve to the other (...) Heimburg and Jackson theorize that sound propagation is a much more likely explanation.
I need more information to believe their theory. I do think their main argument is flawed:
The physical laws of thermodynamics tell us that electrical impulses must produce heat as they travel along the nerve, but experiments find that no such heat is produced.
How do you measure miniature temperature changes in a fluid? (Ok that's possible near boiling point, which it's not in your body). They will have to come up with a better way to falsify the current view. Their theory is interesting, however:
A medium with the right physical properties could create a special kind of sound pulse or "soliton" that can propagate without spreading or losing strength. The physicists say because the nerve membrane is made of a material similar to olive oil that can change from liquid to solid through temperature variations, they can freeze and propagate the solitons.
I expect they are referring with their 'olive-like medium' to the myelin layers (glia cells) that surround neurons. Myelin layers occur along the axon and are interrupted by nodes of Ranvier, where changes in membrane polarizations occur upon a 'pulse'. These Nodes of ranvier contain a lot of ion gates and channels. A change in membrane charge can be measured here.
The current view is that the depolarization is transmitted by ions. Ions, outside the membrane are suspected to move from one node of Ranvier too the next. What I guess these Danish scientists will have to prove is that ions do not move but stay at their location. This may be possible by inducing a depolarization by radioactive ions, and measuring radioactivity along the axon at other nodes of Ranvier. If their theory is correct they won't see a spread of radioactivity, otherwise there is.
Re:Good, but just one tiny bit of the problem
on
Toward a 3D Search Engine
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Usually the aminoacid sequence is known, and you can find structures of similar aminoacid sequences in databases using a BLAST (search algorithms). If that doesn't give a structure of which the structure (preferably from a crystal, otherwise NMR) was determined you can try to predict the protein structure: proteins have domains, small subsequences of which the shape is known. Many domains are known that have a particular shape. If you have determined a few of these then it becomes a lot more easy to determine the rest of the protein.
They kill off everything except that tiny proportion that have a mutation that protects them from the antibiotic. Those survivers then rapidly become the dominant strain and suddenly your wonder drug *doesn't* kill the majority of bacteria any more.
You are right, but in other words: most bacterial resistance is caused by a wrong use of medicine. You should use the drug until all bacteria are killed, and not stop when the symptoms are gone. Prescriptions often describe a timespan in which a medicine should be used. If people would follow these prescriptions, then the development of resistance shouldn't have a chance.
Also, bacteria can take up plasmids, circular pieces of DNA, from one bacteria to another. These can contain the genetic information required for the antibiotic resistance and spread it among different strains.
I am generally very reserved when it comes to releasing living organism where they don't belong and/or trying to alter the environment. There are just too many factors involved, and there is no way we can cover them all!
Why is it that we allow nature to run freely, in an uncontrolled manner, and think that's safe, but when things are done controlled, people get scared? Is this motivated by religion? Yes, there should be investigations on whether it is harmful, but don't be scared without reason.
It is a common error to think that something that's biological can't be toxic. That is not the truth per se. In this case however, I am tempted to believe that the use of bacteria isn't harmful. While making cement, the bacteria entrap themselves in calcium. This ensures that the bacteria only reside in one location.
I confirm, potatoes are bad for rats. Potatoes contain glycoalkaloids a toxic compound, which can affect the digestive, nervous, and urinary systems. Cooking degrades this protein in some extent, but a small percentage will remain in the potato. While humans do not suffer effects because of their large body volume - you would have to eat many (green) potatoes - smaller animals often suffer from this. That's also why you shouldn't feed your dog potatoes.
won't T-Cell count restore itself after HIV leaves the system? I was under the impression that T-Cell are generated constantly, and the count only falls when attrition exceeds generation due to HIV becoming too numerous.
That's correct
Also, doesn't this all seem a little too simple? Sticking antibodies to it sounds great, but isn't it necessary to actually disable the virus?
Sticking an antibody to a protein can be enough to disable the working of the protein, but what is more important in this case is that other immune cells recognize the antibodies very easily recognize the intruder and 'eat' it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phagocytosis). Cells like macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells.
Unlike antibiotics for bacteria, there is no drug to stop virusses. Viruses can change, and we have to rely on the immune system that adapts itself towards the virus.
Seems like if you stuck a protein to it without disabling it, whichever cell tries to actually destroy it would just get victimized.
Viruses are only able to affect specific cells. They carry a little amount of proteins, have a little genetic code (RNA in HIV), but rely heavily on proteins created by the host. Since in every human cell-line different genes are active - and genes encode the proteins - in most cells the virus won't work.
yes, antibodies are produced by B-cells, but T-cells are required to enable B-cells to produce antibodies. In specific T-helper cells (CD4+) are targeted by HIV. from wiki:
When a B cell ingests a pathogen, it attaches parts of the pathogen's proteins to a class II MHC protein. This complex is moved to the outside of the cell membrane, where it can be recognized by a T lymphocyte, which is compatible with similar structures on the cell membrane of a B lymphocyte. If the B cell and T cell structures match, the T lymphocyte activates the B lymphocyte, which produces antibodies against the bits of pathogen, called antigen, it has presented on its surface.
pathogen - something that makes ill: a virus, bacterium, etc.
MHC - a family of proteins:
MHC class II is specific for B-cells and presents pathogenic proteins.
When the pathogen is presented on the B-cell membrane, the T-cells provide growth factors for B-cells that enable B-cell cell division, B-cells take up antibody bound to antigen, and therefore are able to present more antigen when their antibodies match better. In this process the antibodies are perfected (mutations can occur in regions encoding parts of the antibody).
Although a bit of topic, MHC class I is a surface protein that works as an ID to the immune system: it is unique per person, and presents proteins on the membrane surface that were trashed after use - proteins that were active inside the cell. MHC I shows to the immune system that the cell belongs to that person and the presenting of used proteins show whether they are in correct working order. Due to this protein, cancer cells are usually recognized and killed by the immune system in early stages. MHC molecules are also a reason why organ transplantation may fail.
warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (11) in/home2/haiku/webapps/website/gallery2/lib/adodb/dr ivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 348.
Antibodies against the b12 region are therefore potential vaccine candidates
b12 is a family of human antibodies that targets this viral protein gp120. gp120 is therefore the candidate for the vaccine. For vaccines we usually just inject viral protein(s) - as we would in this case - or a weak or dead form of the virus, and let the body make the antibodies (the b12 family in this case).
The talk about 'region' in this article probably refers to a site on the RNA of the virus: this region, encoding protein gp120, is not much changed by mutations - HIV codes genes in RNA since it's a retrovirus.
Also, since HIV targets the immune system, when someone has AIDS - the later stages of the disease in which the immune system is broken (targeted by HIV are T-cells) - vaccination may no longer work, since the immune system is no longer capable of producing antibodies, unless the T-cell count can be brought back to a level in which antibodies can be made.
Slashdot Mirror
People go on with their lives. If you stop living then you're already dead.
Very useful, especially in combination with the Single-Pixel Camera:/ 18/2117243
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01
Yes I am. People think that Greepeace is ideological and speaks the truth, well that's not the truth per se. Greenpeace lives on people's donations that are fed by fear of technology. I hate that they feed on that. They don't have to prove since they are ideological. Their donators believe them anyway, and the more sound Greenpeace makes, the more is donated. And guess what? Obviously you don't understand that's exactly the point I'm making. Yes, nature is very well capable of producing toxins. Now let me tell you a little secret. If you produce a medicine from plants then your drug is checked far less, and it passes the food and drug administration more easily, whereas if something is produced in the lab it is extensively tested. I'm not against the latter.
So what do some companies do? They try to get something produced by nature, increase quantities using classical plant breeding and produce a 'safe' drug. No extensive testing required and far more profitable. Now have you **ever** heard Greenpeace complaining about something like that? No. It's not something that colors with their 'nature is good' fealing.
And to me it seems that's the reason they're fighting against this. They use peoples ignorance, ideology, religion and aversion against 'changing nature and playing god' - whatever that may be - and fight against genetic engineering. That's their way, to get some greens donated.
People like to think that large corporations are evil. so let me tell you something: Greenpeace is nothing different. What if Greenpeace is not objective? It doesn't matter, they don't have to. They just play on people's emotions and still get their donations.
And what's this modding me flamebait? Am I not allowed to point out my perspective on Greenpeace?
Nah, I don't believe greenpeace does their research objectively. Their research is motivated, and they're just fishing for a hype. Every nature freak that's ignorant and scared of something technological and new is a potential donor of $$$ for them. They want to put a label on genetic engineering, as if it produces toxic food.
Mutations also occur at random in nature. Mutations produced in the lab could occur spontaneously in nature as well, although some may be unlikely. And **sigh** a mutation does not make a product radioactive.
I agree with your first statement, but your second doesn't tell me anything. What reaction in cells isn't an electrochemical state change? I would say neural signals are transmissions of neural membrane depolarizations.
A neuron in 'rest' keeps a certain charge (polarization) on the membrane between the inside and outside of the cell. This costs energy in the form of ATP (a cellular currency for protein actions). Upon a depolarization, membrane channels and pores transmit ions and the charge in the membrane changes. This depolarization is later measured further along the axon (the neural extension that transmits depolarizations).
No, he *is* attacking the traditional view:
I need more information to believe their theory. I do think their main argument is flawed:
How do you measure miniature temperature changes in a fluid? (Ok that's possible near boiling point, which it's not in your body). They will have to come up with a better way to falsify the current view. Their theory is interesting, however:
I expect they are referring with their 'olive-like medium' to the myelin layers (glia cells) that surround neurons. Myelin layers occur along the axon and are interrupted by nodes of Ranvier, where changes in membrane polarizations occur upon a 'pulse'. These Nodes of ranvier contain a lot of ion gates and channels. A change in membrane charge can be measured here.
The current view is that the depolarization is transmitted by ions. Ions, outside the membrane are suspected to move from one node of Ranvier too the next. What I guess these Danish scientists will have to prove is that ions do not move but stay at their location. This may be possible by inducing a depolarization by radioactive ions, and measuring radioactivity along the axon at other nodes of Ranvier. If their theory is correct they won't see a spread of radioactivity, otherwise there is.
Usually the aminoacid sequence is known, and you can find structures of similar aminoacid sequences in databases using a BLAST (search algorithms). If that doesn't give a structure of which the structure (preferably from a crystal, otherwise NMR) was determined you can try to predict the protein structure: proteins have domains, small subsequences of which the shape is known. Many domains are known that have a particular shape. If you have determined a few of these then it becomes a lot more easy to determine the rest of the protein.
Dust causes lung cancer, NASA is to blame, so we can't have dust. No, let's smoke to produce tar, Dust problem solved.
What? you still got lung cancer? Duh... that's because you smoke.
You are right, but in other words: most bacterial resistance is caused by a wrong use of medicine. You should use the drug until all bacteria are killed, and not stop when the symptoms are gone. Prescriptions often describe a timespan in which a medicine should be used. If people would follow these prescriptions, then the development of resistance shouldn't have a chance.
Also, bacteria can take up plasmids, circular pieces of DNA, from one bacteria to another. These can contain the genetic information required for the antibiotic resistance and spread it among different strains.
It has been said that where there is water, there can be life. Is that also true in these reservoirs?
It is a common error to think that something that's biological can't be toxic. That is not the truth per se. In this case however, I am tempted to believe that the use of bacteria isn't harmful. While making cement, the bacteria entrap themselves in calcium. This ensures that the bacteria only reside in one location.
I confirm, potatoes are bad for rats. Potatoes contain glycoalkaloids a toxic compound, which can affect the digestive, nervous, and urinary systems. Cooking degrades this protein in some extent, but a small percentage will remain in the potato. While humans do not suffer effects because of their large body volume - you would have to eat many (green) potatoes - smaller animals often suffer from this. That's also why you shouldn't feed your dog potatoes.
Unlike antibiotics for bacteria, there is no drug to stop virusses. Viruses can change, and we have to rely on the immune system that adapts itself towards the virus. Viruses are only able to affect specific cells. They carry a little amount of proteins, have a little genetic code (RNA in HIV), but rely heavily on proteins created by the host. Since in every human cell-line different genes are active - and genes encode the proteins - in most cells the virus won't work.
pathogen - something that makes ill: a virus, bacterium, etc.
MHC - a family of proteins:
MHC class II is specific for B-cells and presents pathogenic proteins.
When the pathogen is presented on the B-cell membrane, the T-cells provide growth factors for B-cells that enable B-cell cell division, B-cells take up antibody bound to antigen, and therefore are able to present more antigen when their antibodies match better. In this process the antibodies are perfected (mutations can occur in regions encoding parts of the antibody).
Although a bit of topic, MHC class I is a surface protein that works as an ID to the immune system: it is unique per person, and presents proteins on the membrane surface that were trashed after use - proteins that were active inside the cell. MHC I shows to the immune system that the cell belongs to that person and the presenting of used proteins show whether they are in correct working order. Due to this protein, cancer cells are usually recognized and killed by the immune system in early stages. MHC molecules are also a reason why organ transplantation may fail.
True, but another problem is that the supply of coal/oil/gas is limited. Efficiency is important.
- complain about things they should fix themselves
stupid people can't use linuxlinux requires the oposite
HIV is a retrovirus. It has no DNA, but only RNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus/
b12 is a family of human antibodies that targets this viral protein gp120. gp120 is therefore the candidate for the vaccine. For vaccines we usually just inject viral protein(s) - as we would in this case - or a weak or dead form of the virus, and let the body make the antibodies (the b12 family in this case).
The talk about 'region' in this article probably refers to a site on the RNA of the virus: this region, encoding protein gp120, is not much changed by mutations - HIV codes genes in RNA since it's a retrovirus.
Also, since HIV targets the immune system, when someone has AIDS - the later stages of the disease in which the immune system is broken (targeted by HIV are T-cells) - vaccination may no longer work, since the immune system is no longer capable of producing antibodies, unless the T-cell count can be brought back to a level in which antibodies can be made.
harr... quit yer frickin bickering 'bout qubits you dim-witted twits