Not really. The method of damage here is due to filtration of the active antibiotic from the blood at the glomerulus. In order to spare the kidneys here, you'd need to bypass the renal arteries, which receive about 20% of the body's blood flow.
Thats not even getting into the fact that you need kidney perfusion to maintain proper blood volume.
I am a med student studying on renal physiology (test on friday...)
I didn't mean I am a doctor, I meant taking the perspective of a doctor; in response to a poster above one of the first things we learned was actually medical ethics, which involves a lot of putting yourself in the perspective of the doctor.
One of the things I have learned though is that just because a patient tells you something, does not always mean that it's true. I have had clinic patients tell me one thing while taking a history, and then twenty minutes later, during the physical exam, say something contradictory. I admit that for many cases, the physical exam may not necessarily be germane to the diagnosis, and may reveal nothing more than what the patient has already explained. However, it does serve as a useful source of confirmation as well as new information about the patient.
One of the most common presentations you see in medicine is a headache. Oftentimes, it's harmless. But when you can physically examine a patient for papilledma, or cranial nerve dysfunction, you might miss a life-threatening diagnosis.
For the subclinical, non-emergent cases, yes this can be useful. But the problem here is that the patient is now expected to determine whether the tele-visit or a physical visit is the more appropriate course of action.
This is a bad idea. No, this is a TERRIBLE idea. With a virtual doctors visit you are missing out on a very important component of data collection leading to a diagnosis; the physical exam. Without ascultation, you are missing out on a ton of information about a patient's cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and pulmonary systems. Without physical contact, you cannot perform any kind of neurological or musculor skeletal exam, or even really determine a patient's mental status, especially if you are using just a instant messenger style window for communication. I think it is highly irresponsible and certainly opens up a practitioner to a lot of liability to be diagnosing and prescribing meds in such a manner.
As a doctor, I'd say this is not for me. And as a patient, moreso.
You basically beat me to what I was going to say, but I will also add that the OP neglected to mention that glycolysis, which certainly produces ATP, occurs in the cytoplasm of every animal and plant cell...how that would make them "not alive" I haven't the faintest idea.
Having done neuroscience research, (if only on a master's degree level), I can say that the cat brain is particularly well studied, mapped out, and understood by neuroscientists. It is used as a model organism by many neuroscientists, and has a number of similarities with the human brain in its layout and function, much moreso than the mouse or rat brain.
You are so utterly off base here. The rotation of the earth is due ENTIRELY to the conservation of its momentum from the protoplanetary cloud it condensed from. As the nascent Earth coalesced, its radius decreased; conservation of momentum dictates that for a smaller radius, the mass must rotate at a higher velocity; think spinning on an office chair with your arms and legs splayed out, then bringing them in; you will being spinning faster. That is why the earth rotates. The only forces that are currently acting on the earth that could affect its rotation in any meaningful way is that of gravity; the earth-moon system being the main culprit. As the moon exerts a gravitational force upon the earth, the resultant movement of the oceans (in the form of tides) causes a "bulge" of water on the surface of the earth. The bulge however is not perfectly aligned with the moon due to the relative rotation of the earth. The offset causes a torque (rotational force) slowing the rotation of the earth as well as increasing the distance the moon orbits at.
Wind on the other hand is a result of a heat gradient between two locations on the planet's surface. Seeing as this force originates and terminates on the surface of the earth, there can be absolutely no net impulse given to the earth, let alone its rotational momentum.
Killing birds, disrupting the landscape, and even maintenance are all at least somewhat reasonable critiques of wind power. Claiming it will result in draining the Earth's rotational momentum is just ridiculous and totally incorrect.
The atomic radii don't progress in a nice orderly linear increase in size with increasing element number; in fact each period overlaps part of the period that comes before it...
Oh I am aware of that as well, I was just using Chernobyl as a point of comparison to make a point. If TMI showed anything it's that the containment design of the then-current reactors works as designed. The point being that pebble bed reactors are designed such that a runaway reaction and increased temperatures improve the moderator's effectiveness, thus reducing the reaction rate. It literally is a fool-proof design inasmuch as a nuclear reactor can be "fool proof"
This needs all the political momentum it can get. Nuclear power is one of the areas I have strong disagreements with the current administration. Considering how much Uranium (and thorium, but lets not get into that) we have available domestically, this is such a fundamental and simple (albeit expensive) steps we can take to reduce emissions (I'm looking at you, coal) while decreasing our energy dependency. It has been so long since we have built a new reactor in this country that the safety of the newest designs, particularly the pebble bed reactor makes the still operating relics of the 60s and 70's look like potential Chernobyls (Of course, they're not, but I'm speaking relatively and the safety aspects have come quite a ways since then)
and I also goofed on the math, 10 megatons is 500 times more energetic than 20 kilotons, cube root of 500 is 8, so if 20kt levels a radius 250 meters, 10 megatons would level a radius of 4km.
When used the term "radiative" I meant radiation in the full EM spectrum, from the nasty gamma and X-rays to the optical and thermal radiation that will blind and burn people in a decently large radius.
You are neglecting to factor in the damage caused by the over pressure wave created by the blast, as well as the radiative damage caused by the blast. The shockwave created by a moderately sized nuclear detonation will create an overpressure effect that can be incredibly damaging to structures not designed to withstand it; see Hiroshima, which had an area of near complete destruction a mile in radius, excepting a single concrete structure which can best be described as "bombed out." This was produced by a 20 kiloton bomb. Assuming more robustly built structures in a modern city, I would still suspect that a 10 megaton bomb, releasing 50 times more energy would be much more destructive than 200-300 meters.
Secondly, radiative damage would be devastating, as that becomes an increasing factor with bomb strength. Nuclear weapons can release the equivalent amount energy as radiation as the actual explosion; in fact it is the X-ray pressure of the fission primary that is responsible for ignition of the fusion secondary in a hydrogen bomb. This means that for the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki, objects three miles from the blast site were severely burned or ignited from the thermal radiation of the blast. Again, extrapolating to a multi megaton device today results in a somewhat significantly larger burn radius, although this is constrained by the fact that the radiation travels in a direct line of sight and in a dense city, assuming a near ground level detonation this radiation will likely be absorbed well before dispersing to a "safe" level. Of course, with an air blast, the damage inflicted will be significantly higher, with the added bonus that much of the terrain directly below the blast will be heavily irradiated then sent airborne, dispersing fallout throughout the area.
Shouldn't be too much of a problem. Unlike most fish, which are simply capable of ramjet respiration, (where water is forced over and through the fish's gills at high speed through swimming, as opposed to forcing the water over their gills via the mouth and operculum), with tuna this is obligatory, as otherwise the fish cannot obtain enough O2 from the water, and will for lack of a better word, drown. They swim constantly, even while "sleeping"
I doubt entomologists would be investigating diseases or curing plagues. On the plus side, there were probably no epidemiologists involved with this study.
I guessed, and confirmed upon reading, that the linked article is referring to the fact that human embryos naturally have a high rate of genetic abnormalities, and thus the fact that not every copulation during a woman's fertile period results in a pregnancy. The article explains that newer, more thorough screening mechanisms are flagging embryos that previously went undetected.
Those two paragraphs made me wince. The second paragraph in particular makes me wonder about what kind of "astrophysics" degree this kid even earned, especially considering the list of available courses someone posted earlier. Where is the class in QM that would provide framework to understand the theoretical underpinnings of an EPR bridge, which judging by his statement, he does not posses. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, most 4 year schools do not offer degrees in "astrophysics" anyway, one would major in physics or astronomy and then go to a PhD program for astrophysics, so the idea of a 2 year AA degree in astrophysics is kind of laughable.
How about achievement spaders? There have got to be "secret" or unusual achievements sprinkled around the site. Maybe "Had a missing option comment moderated +5" or "Successfully included a rickrolling in an article summary"?
There should be a threshold above "Excellent" that gives the "Karma Whore" achievement, it would actually motivate people to make useful posts for longer.
Then again, this is/. and I'm only posting this for the April Fool acievement.
Thanks, thats much more enlightening than the linked article. And man oh man, no mention at all of the reversed affinities for O2 and CO in the summary or link, which I think is one of the most incredible things they've discovered here...
There are a number of reasons, first is that its actually a tetramer of proteins that must be properly assembled before becoming useful, as the individual alpha and beta subunits are not well suited for useful carriage of Oxygen. Second, and this wasn't really addressed in the article is that the porphyrin ring containing the heme group is built separately from the globin proteins, through a chain of other enzymes, and then inserted into the finished globins. In the article they just had the porphyrin ready to go.
Finally, hemoglobin is a large protein and as such, loose hemoglobin would be rapidly cleared from the blood by the kidneys. In fact, given the large size of Hb as well as the amount needed to carry sufficient oxygen, I could envision kidney damage occurring in some patients receiving large amounts.
They fail to give any meaningful data on its oxygen dissociation curve against pH, so we have no idea how it will perform as an oxygen transporter at physiological conditions. Also missing is any information on whether histidine groups are present above and below the heme which are quite important for regulating the binding and release of O2. While I am suitably impressed with their engineering of a protein from scratch, I will hold off on kudos for creating something useful until I see some hard data.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. The method of damage here is due to filtration of the active antibiotic from the blood at the glomerulus. In order to spare the kidneys here, you'd need to bypass the renal arteries, which receive about 20% of the body's blood flow. Thats not even getting into the fact that you need kidney perfusion to maintain proper blood volume. I am a med student studying on renal physiology (test on friday...)
I didn't mean I am a doctor, I meant taking the perspective of a doctor; in response to a poster above one of the first things we learned was actually medical ethics, which involves a lot of putting yourself in the perspective of the doctor.
One of the things I have learned though is that just because a patient tells you something, does not always mean that it's true. I have had clinic patients tell me one thing while taking a history, and then twenty minutes later, during the physical exam, say something contradictory. I admit that for many cases, the physical exam may not necessarily be germane to the diagnosis, and may reveal nothing more than what the patient has already explained. However, it does serve as a useful source of confirmation as well as new information about the patient.
One of the most common presentations you see in medicine is a headache. Oftentimes, it's harmless. But when you can physically examine a patient for papilledma, or cranial nerve dysfunction, you might miss a life-threatening diagnosis. For the subclinical, non-emergent cases, yes this can be useful. But the problem here is that the patient is now expected to determine whether the tele-visit or a physical visit is the more appropriate course of action.
This is a bad idea. No, this is a TERRIBLE idea. With a virtual doctors visit you are missing out on a very important component of data collection leading to a diagnosis; the physical exam. Without ascultation, you are missing out on a ton of information about a patient's cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and pulmonary systems. Without physical contact, you cannot perform any kind of neurological or musculor skeletal exam, or even really determine a patient's mental status, especially if you are using just a instant messenger style window for communication. I think it is highly irresponsible and certainly opens up a practitioner to a lot of liability to be diagnosing and prescribing meds in such a manner. As a doctor, I'd say this is not for me. And as a patient, moreso.
You basically beat me to what I was going to say, but I will also add that the OP neglected to mention that glycolysis, which certainly produces ATP, occurs in the cytoplasm of every animal and plant cell...how that would make them "not alive" I haven't the faintest idea.
Having done neuroscience research, (if only on a master's degree level), I can say that the cat brain is particularly well studied, mapped out, and understood by neuroscientists. It is used as a model organism by many neuroscientists, and has a number of similarities with the human brain in its layout and function, much moreso than the mouse or rat brain.
You are so utterly off base here. The rotation of the earth is due ENTIRELY to the conservation of its momentum from the protoplanetary cloud it condensed from. As the nascent Earth coalesced, its radius decreased; conservation of momentum dictates that for a smaller radius, the mass must rotate at a higher velocity; think spinning on an office chair with your arms and legs splayed out, then bringing them in; you will being spinning faster. That is why the earth rotates. The only forces that are currently acting on the earth that could affect its rotation in any meaningful way is that of gravity; the earth-moon system being the main culprit. As the moon exerts a gravitational force upon the earth, the resultant movement of the oceans (in the form of tides) causes a "bulge" of water on the surface of the earth. The bulge however is not perfectly aligned with the moon due to the relative rotation of the earth. The offset causes a torque (rotational force) slowing the rotation of the earth as well as increasing the distance the moon orbits at.
Wind on the other hand is a result of a heat gradient between two locations on the planet's surface. Seeing as this force originates and terminates on the surface of the earth, there can be absolutely no net impulse given to the earth, let alone its rotational momentum.
Killing birds, disrupting the landscape, and even maintenance are all at least somewhat reasonable critiques of wind power. Claiming it will result in draining the Earth's rotational momentum is just ridiculous and totally incorrect.
The atomic radii don't progress in a nice orderly linear increase in size with increasing element number; in fact each period overlaps part of the period that comes before it...
Oh I am aware of that as well, I was just using Chernobyl as a point of comparison to make a point. If TMI showed anything it's that the containment design of the then-current reactors works as designed. The point being that pebble bed reactors are designed such that a runaway reaction and increased temperatures improve the moderator's effectiveness, thus reducing the reaction rate. It literally is a fool-proof design inasmuch as a nuclear reactor can be "fool proof"
This needs all the political momentum it can get. Nuclear power is one of the areas I have strong disagreements with the current administration. Considering how much Uranium (and thorium, but lets not get into that) we have available domestically, this is such a fundamental and simple (albeit expensive) steps we can take to reduce emissions (I'm looking at you, coal) while decreasing our energy dependency. It has been so long since we have built a new reactor in this country that the safety of the newest designs, particularly the pebble bed reactor makes the still operating relics of the 60s and 70's look like potential Chernobyls (Of course, they're not, but I'm speaking relatively and the safety aspects have come quite a ways since then)
God hates fats!
and I also goofed on the math, 10 megatons is 500 times more energetic than 20 kilotons, cube root of 500 is 8, so if 20kt levels a radius 250 meters, 10 megatons would level a radius of 4km.
When used the term "radiative" I meant radiation in the full EM spectrum, from the nasty gamma and X-rays to the optical and thermal radiation that will blind and burn people in a decently large radius.
You are neglecting to factor in the damage caused by the over pressure wave created by the blast, as well as the radiative damage caused by the blast. The shockwave created by a moderately sized nuclear detonation will create an overpressure effect that can be incredibly damaging to structures not designed to withstand it; see Hiroshima, which had an area of near complete destruction a mile in radius, excepting a single concrete structure which can best be described as "bombed out." This was produced by a 20 kiloton bomb. Assuming more robustly built structures in a modern city, I would still suspect that a 10 megaton bomb, releasing 50 times more energy would be much more destructive than 200-300 meters. Secondly, radiative damage would be devastating, as that becomes an increasing factor with bomb strength. Nuclear weapons can release the equivalent amount energy as radiation as the actual explosion; in fact it is the X-ray pressure of the fission primary that is responsible for ignition of the fusion secondary in a hydrogen bomb. This means that for the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki, objects three miles from the blast site were severely burned or ignited from the thermal radiation of the blast. Again, extrapolating to a multi megaton device today results in a somewhat significantly larger burn radius, although this is constrained by the fact that the radiation travels in a direct line of sight and in a dense city, assuming a near ground level detonation this radiation will likely be absorbed well before dispersing to a "safe" level. Of course, with an air blast, the damage inflicted will be significantly higher, with the added bonus that much of the terrain directly below the blast will be heavily irradiated then sent airborne, dispersing fallout throughout the area.
Shouldn't be too much of a problem. Unlike most fish, which are simply capable of ramjet respiration, (where water is forced over and through the fish's gills at high speed through swimming, as opposed to forcing the water over their gills via the mouth and operculum), with tuna this is obligatory, as otherwise the fish cannot obtain enough O2 from the water, and will for lack of a better word, drown. They swim constantly, even while "sleeping"
I doubt entomologists would be investigating diseases or curing plagues. On the plus side, there were probably no epidemiologists involved with this study.
I guessed, and confirmed upon reading, that the linked article is referring to the fact that human embryos naturally have a high rate of genetic abnormalities, and thus the fact that not every copulation during a woman's fertile period results in a pregnancy. The article explains that newer, more thorough screening mechanisms are flagging embryos that previously went undetected.
To be fair, facebook supports Pirate and you can set your language on google to Klingon...no word on translation services for it though
And if they drop a couple of Gs in the sequencing, god only knows what kind of results you'll get back
Those two paragraphs made me wince. The second paragraph in particular makes me wonder about what kind of "astrophysics" degree this kid even earned, especially considering the list of available courses someone posted earlier. Where is the class in QM that would provide framework to understand the theoretical underpinnings of an EPR bridge, which judging by his statement, he does not posses. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, most 4 year schools do not offer degrees in "astrophysics" anyway, one would major in physics or astronomy and then go to a PhD program for astrophysics, so the idea of a 2 year AA degree in astrophysics is kind of laughable.
How about achievement spaders? There have got to be "secret" or unusual achievements sprinkled around the site. Maybe "Had a missing option comment moderated +5" or "Successfully included a rickrolling in an article summary"?
There should be a threshold above "Excellent" that gives the "Karma Whore" achievement, it would actually motivate people to make useful posts for longer. Then again, this is /. and I'm only posting this for the April Fool acievement.
Thanks, thats much more enlightening than the linked article. And man oh man, no mention at all of the reversed affinities for O2 and CO in the summary or link, which I think is one of the most incredible things they've discovered here...
There are a number of reasons, first is that its actually a tetramer of proteins that must be properly assembled before becoming useful, as the individual alpha and beta subunits are not well suited for useful carriage of Oxygen. Second, and this wasn't really addressed in the article is that the porphyrin ring containing the heme group is built separately from the globin proteins, through a chain of other enzymes, and then inserted into the finished globins. In the article they just had the porphyrin ready to go. Finally, hemoglobin is a large protein and as such, loose hemoglobin would be rapidly cleared from the blood by the kidneys. In fact, given the large size of Hb as well as the amount needed to carry sufficient oxygen, I could envision kidney damage occurring in some patients receiving large amounts.
They fail to give any meaningful data on its oxygen dissociation curve against pH, so we have no idea how it will perform as an oxygen transporter at physiological conditions. Also missing is any information on whether histidine groups are present above and below the heme which are quite important for regulating the binding and release of O2. While I am suitably impressed with their engineering of a protein from scratch, I will hold off on kudos for creating something useful until I see some hard data.
Think of the recognition, the glory, Skynet
There, fixed that for you.