The new egg/sperm cell is unipotent....it can form abolutly any tissue you will ever need. This includes all body tissues as well as placental tissues.
After it divides a few times the cells differentiate...some turn into embryonic stem cells and the rest turn into placental stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells are capable of maing any BODY tissue, but not a placenta. If you try and implant it it will just die...but if you complex it with placental stem cells it will grow up just fine.
The reason cloning fails so much is that it is a lot harder to revert DNA to the egg/sperm level than it is to embryonic stem cell level. So most cloned cells don't implant correctly and die.
Not really. Adult stem cells are MUCH more limited than embryonic. No matter what you do, adult stem cells will never be able to do as much. But with adult stem cells you don't have problems with rejection like you can by taking another persons stem cells.
Actually I am going to grad school to study stem cells. My thesis is going to be directed at turning adult stem cells INTO embryonic stem cells.
Unfortunetly we need a LOT more information on both adult and embryonic stem cells. But when we can do this we will be able to generate embryonic stem cells from the person that will not be rejected AND without the moral implications!
The entier reason researcher use mice is because they so closely resemble humans. While we could not take the mouse cells and expect them to work, nor could we treat human cells exactly the same as the mouse cells and hope they will work, if we take human cells and treat them in a SIMILAR way, they will probably realease a SIMILAR molecule that help trigger wound healing.
This is a proof of principal experminet NOT a clinical trial.
This is coming from someone who does cardio-pulmonary research on mice.
read the article. They say that the energy produced is as much as 250 times what goes in. Most of that is heat.
They powered it off a battery......
Also fusion is very low radioactivity compared to fission. Most of it is neutrons. Many of thoes get absorbed in the water (hence the expected tritium)...then there is the inverse square law. You stand back a few feet from a low level radioactive source and you won't get anything.
Plus radioactivity is a cumulitive effect. They MAY be more likley to get cancer 30 years from now.
Remember, there is not that much overall energy in this system. Chernoble etc were so bad because Uranium and other fissionable material CONTINUE to react after they have left the reactor. They continue to release radiation as they material is vaporized. So now you have a radioactive cloud...etc
Fission plants (at least the current ones) only have as much free energy as is in a large, hot pot of coffee. This energy is just consentrated on a very small ammount of matter, and therefore that matter gets VERY hot. But once it leaves containment, there is nothing to maintain the temperature and pressure, therefore the reaction stops and all you get is a warm cloud of hyderogen gas (not very much hyderogen either.)
So in the event of a catastrophic failure (someone taking a sledgehammer to the reactor) not much will happen. I would not want to be standing next to it when it opened, but the people in the room next door probbably wouldn't notice anything.
Now the only radioactivity is essentially from Tritium. This is a neutron emmiter, it is relativly safe (compared to fission radiation) and is short lived (half life of 12.3 years instead of 20,000 years).
So, long comment short, there is no way this set-up could explode, leak large ammounts of radiation, or cook anyone.
while it is true that ther are some self propigating systems that could theoreticlly destry everything, all of these things (from black holes to nanites) only do so under specific conditions. For instance, it is almost certain that particle accelerators HAVE created black holes, but these are so small that they evaporate before they grow. Only in a suoer dense environment, like the core of the sun, cloud it actually grow.
Worrying about nanorobots is just stupid! As thermodynamics states, as you make things smaller, you must put more energy into the system to overcome entropy. In theory nanorobots could turn the world into gray goo, but the availible energy is SO low that they will not be able to replicate outside of the environmet we create for them.
All other disasters are all the same....it is stupid to entertain the idea of accidental world distruction!!!
I attend Georgia Tech....in fact I am graduating from there in two weeks.
It has taken me 5 years of straight classes to get here. And in that time I've discovered a few things about Tech.
First it is extremly competitive. THe AVERAGE GPA is around a 2.5!
However, this schools admissions are fairly lenient, due to the fact that it is a state school.
To reconcile these, Tech has several Weed Out courses. The purpose of these are to be as difficult as possible. For most of these corses a C is an excellent grade and a D is adaquate.
This CS class is exactly that. The intro CS classes are easily the hardest classes the major offers. This is to encourage thoes who are not interested or capable in the subject to change majors before a great deal of time and energy is expended on them.
The short answer is.....just because you were an A student in HS, don't expect to be one here at Tech. People pass these classes all the time and if you can't then....tough luck, change majors or study CS elsewhere. But I for one am sick and tired of everyone whining about these classes. Thousands of people make it through them each year so suck it up and do the work.
I am sorry, computer science is an oxymoron!
A science is a field of study in which you attempt to deduce the laws of the universe.
Sure the computer universe has laws...but they are mutable...all you have to do is hack them into the kernel. Computer "''''''''Science is not a science.
It is however applied math, in the case of databases and encryption etc, or applied psycology in games or web pages etc...
Computer science does not exist, therefore it cannot be the basis for all other sciences.
Clonan
Slashdot Mirror
Actually....you can, almost.
The new egg/sperm cell is unipotent....it can form abolutly any tissue you will ever need. This includes all body tissues as well as placental tissues.
After it divides a few times the cells differentiate...some turn into embryonic stem cells and the rest turn into placental stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells are capable of maing any BODY tissue, but not a placenta. If you try and implant it it will just die...but if you complex it with placental stem cells it will grow up just fine.
The reason cloning fails so much is that it is a lot harder to revert DNA to the egg/sperm level than it is to embryonic stem cell level. So most cloned cells don't implant correctly and die.
Not really. Adult stem cells are MUCH more limited than embryonic. No matter what you do, adult stem cells will never be able to do as much. But with adult stem cells you don't have problems with rejection like you can by taking another persons stem cells.
Actually I am going to grad school to study stem cells. My thesis is going to be directed at turning adult stem cells INTO embryonic stem cells.
Unfortunetly we need a LOT more information on both adult and embryonic stem cells. But when we can do this we will be able to generate embryonic stem cells from the person that will not be rejected AND without the moral implications!
The entier reason researcher use mice is because they so closely resemble humans. While we could not take the mouse cells and expect them to work, nor could we treat human cells exactly the same as the mouse cells and hope they will work, if we take human cells and treat them in a SIMILAR way, they will probably realease a SIMILAR molecule that help trigger wound healing.
This is a proof of principal experminet NOT a clinical trial.
This is coming from someone who does cardio-pulmonary research on mice.
yes, but that mL will drive your car for over 1000 (big number pulled out of the air) miles....
.2 cents per mile is pretty good.
I'd say
not at all!
read the article. They say that the energy produced is as much as 250 times what goes in. Most of that is heat.
They powered it off a battery......
Also fusion is very low radioactivity compared to fission. Most of it is neutrons. Many of thoes get absorbed in the water (hence the expected tritium)...then there is the inverse square law. You stand back a few feet from a low level radioactive source and you won't get anything.
Plus radioactivity is a cumulitive effect. They MAY be more likley to get cancer 30 years from now.
Plus, that is true regardless of how you get the energy. Coal/Oil/Natural gas/hydroelectric all face very similar problems.
Remember, there is not that much overall energy in this system. Chernoble etc were so bad because Uranium and other fissionable material CONTINUE to react after they have left the reactor. They continue to release radiation as they material is vaporized. So now you have a radioactive cloud...etc
Fission plants (at least the current ones) only have as much free energy as is in a large, hot pot of coffee. This energy is just consentrated on a very small ammount of matter, and therefore that matter gets VERY hot. But once it leaves containment, there is nothing to maintain the temperature and pressure, therefore the reaction stops and all you get is a warm cloud of hyderogen gas (not very much hyderogen either.)
So in the event of a catastrophic failure (someone taking a sledgehammer to the reactor) not much will happen. I would not want to be standing next to it when it opened, but the people in the room next door probbably wouldn't notice anything.
Now the only radioactivity is essentially from Tritium. This is a neutron emmiter, it is relativly safe (compared to fission radiation) and is short lived (half life of 12.3 years instead of 20,000 years).
So, long comment short, there is no way this set-up could explode, leak large ammounts of radiation, or cook anyone.
So...can they now tell us how REALLY killed Kennedy?
I entered the following info:
Your Inputs:
Distance from Impact: 10.00 km = 6.21 miles
Projectile Diameter: 1.00 m = 3.28 ft = 0.00 miles
Projectile Density: 1000 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 400,000.00 km/s = 248400.00 miles/s
Impact Angle: 90 degrees
Target Density: 3000 kg/m3
Target Type: Competent Rock or saturated soil
This projectile is too small to traverse the atmosphere intact; it does not form a crater on the surface.
The energy shown below is deposited in the atmosphere.
Energy:
4.19 x 1019 Joules = 1.00 x 10^4 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 1.3 x 10^5years
see...we get hit by FTL meteors about once every 13 thousand years!
But, what if they included a similar battery in the charger.
Use the chargers battery to recarge the inserted batteries. When the recharger is idle it can store power in it's battery.
this is really stupid!
while it is true that ther are some self propigating systems that could theoreticlly destry everything, all of these things (from black holes to nanites) only do so under specific conditions. For instance, it is almost certain that particle accelerators HAVE created black holes, but these are so small that they evaporate before they grow. Only in a suoer dense environment, like the core of the sun, cloud it actually grow.
Worrying about nanorobots is just stupid! As thermodynamics states, as you make things smaller, you must put more energy into the system to overcome entropy. In theory nanorobots could turn the world into gray goo, but the availible energy is SO low that they will not be able to replicate outside of the environmet we create for them.
All other disasters are all the same....it is stupid to entertain the idea of accidental world distruction!!!
I attend Georgia Tech....in fact I am graduating from there in two weeks.
It has taken me 5 years of straight classes to get here. And in that time I've discovered a few things about Tech.
First it is extremly competitive. THe AVERAGE GPA is around a 2.5!
However, this schools admissions are fairly lenient, due to the fact that it is a state school.
To reconcile these, Tech has several Weed Out courses. The purpose of these are to be as difficult as possible. For most of these corses a C is an excellent grade and a D is adaquate.
This CS class is exactly that. The intro CS classes are easily the hardest classes the major offers. This is to encourage thoes who are not interested or capable in the subject to change majors before a great deal of time and energy is expended on them.
The short answer is.....just because you were an A student in HS, don't expect to be one here at Tech. People pass these classes all the time and if you can't then....tough luck, change majors or study CS elsewhere. But I for one am sick and tired of everyone whining about these classes. Thousands of people make it through them each year so suck it up and do the work.
Clonan
I am sorry, computer science is an oxymoron! A science is a field of study in which you attempt to deduce the laws of the universe. Sure the computer universe has laws...but they are mutable...all you have to do is hack them into the kernel. Computer "''''''''Science is not a science. It is however applied math, in the case of databases and encryption etc, or applied psycology in games or web pages etc... Computer science does not exist, therefore it cannot be the basis for all other sciences. Clonan