Your body is like a society of cells. Sometimes a few cells go rogue, like OWS. That's why they must be stamped out like the evil disease they are!


_{/this is the politics tab, right?}

"cancer is a relentless, cruel biatch"

Yes, Yes it is. I have been watching my FIL deal with it for the past year. Chemo, radiation, drugs...nothing has stopped the relentless progression of this shiat. If we are very, very lucky my wife will get one more Christmas with her dad before the end.

/F**K cancer.

Human ignorance is a relentless, cruel, biatch.

But on the other hand, it's good to see an article talking about external causes of cancer for a change. The trend in the last few years is to blame the genes of the victims. "Sorry you got lung cancer after working in an asbestos mine for 25 years, but if you look here you'll see you have this gene, so no health coverage for you. Now go crawl off and die somewhere."

Sunblock causes cancer?



/DNRTFA

WHERE THE fark IS THE HOT REDHEAD FRENCH SCIENTIST WHO WROTE THIS PAPER FIRST LAST YEAR?!?

Apparently living and breathing cause cancer.

Good news - there's a cure for cancer.

Bad news - it's herpes (new window). Or, more recently, a relative of smallpox (new window).

This is why I farking flip out when I see topical products tout that they've been 'Enhanced With nanoparticles', or shiat like "Socks! Now tih collidal silver in them, to fight bacteria (which will come out in the wash, and, you know, A) be useless after the first wash, and B) NOW BE IN THE WATER SUPPLY) Because either they're lying, or farking idiots.

Since we really don't have good toxicology data on nanoparticles, and they really *will* behave differently than bulk materials: They're small enough, in many cases, to diffuse into the nucleus of cells, where they could very well fark with DNA/act as a weird catalyst/alter reactions/etc.

And it's frustrating, because as far as I know, there isn't any real federal regulation of their use, since they're *structures*, not chemicals. "Nanosilver/colloidal silver' isn't regulated, and I don't think we know the long term effects of, say, letting it into our water supply. Or if we can even get it back *out* of our water supply.

I should note that I say this as someone who's getting a graduate degree in nano-stuff (Nano-physics, but I'm also doing a good bit of chemistry in my research. IT'S LIKE MAGIC). I get frustrated because I worry that corporations are/are going to *really* abuse this stuff and not use proper safety precautions, and then there's going to be a huge public backlash to any sort of nano-research whatsoever, because the corporations aren't likely going to take the same safety precautions that scientists might.

For instance, it was recently shown that carbon nanotubes *are*, in fact, as dangerous if inhaled as asbestos. But I'm pretty sure most scientists had been treating them as if they were from the start, since, well, they're tiny carbon filaments: OF COURSE they'll be bad for your lungs. But without an regulation, I'm not sure a company would take as many precautions.

Arrrrgh.

walstib: "Where would you be without zinc oxide?"

see you next wednesday

walstib: "Where would you be without zinc oxide?"

/obscure? think Z-A-Z

If there was no Zinc Oxide, you wouldn't have those curtain rods. Or the heat sensor on your stove. Or that fire extinguisher. Or your artificial leg.

Felgraf: it was recently shown that carbon nanotubes *are*, in fact, as dangerous if inhaled as asbestos

Recently? I recall seeing articles over five years ago that made that claim.

Dinjiin: Felgraf: it was recently shown that carbon nanotubes *are*, in fact, as dangerous if inhaled as asbestos

Recently? I recall seeing articles over five years ago that made that claim.

Okay, 'recently' may have been the wrong word to use, but I seem to recall scientists were treating it as "This is probably very dangerous to health" before it was *proven* to act in that way?

I may be misremembering (And graduate school has skewed my sense of time a bit)

Ivo Shandor: Good news - there's a cure for cancer.

i was cured of cancer twice, with good old fashioned chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

31 years since first diagnosis, 20 years since second diagnosis.

Suck it cancer

walstib: "Where would you be without zinc oxide?"

/obscure? think Z-A-Z

Came here for this.

Of course, not being a Gemini, I just always know what to expect

clovis69: Ivo Shandor: Good news - there's a cure for cancer.

i was cured of cancer twice, with good old fashioned chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

31 years since first diagnosis, 20 years since second diagnosis.

Suck it cancer


Most cancers have a latency period of 10-15 years, so the radiation from 'treating' the first case might have caused the second.

/just sayin'

walstib: "Where would you be without zinc oxide?"

/obscure? think Z-A-Z

Obscure? I'm disappointed it wasn't in the first five posts

J. Frank Parnell: Most cancers have a latency period of 10-15 years, so the radiation from 'treating' the first case might have caused the second.

It did, well that and the metastasis from the first cancer and it's relapse in '82. The Doctors saw the radiation burns and weren't sure if the lesions were from the radiation or the metastasis. They cut it all out and cancer free since then.

Except for the big tumor in my neck, but that was a schwannoma

clovis69: It did, well that and the metastasis from the first cancer and it's relapse in '82. The Doctors saw the radiation burns and weren't sure if the lesions were from the radiation or the metastasis. They cut it all out and cancer free since then.

Except for the big tumor in my neck, but that was a schwannoma


You're as lucky as you are tough.

/fark cancer

elvisaintdead: I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening?
Plastics. Potassium benzoate.

Can I go now?

Skin cancer as a whole has over a 99% survival rate, with basal cell being almost exactly 100%.

STOP FREAKING THE fark OUT ABOUT IT.

The damage you're doing to yourself by NOT tanning (and I'm not saying to overtan) because you're such pansies is more than likely worse than your health.

He predicted this...

jake3988: Skin cancer as a whole has over a 99% survival rate, with basal cell being almost exactly 100%.

STOP FREAKING THE fark OUT ABOUT IT.

The damage you're doing to yourself by NOT tanning (and I'm not saying to overtan) because you're such pansies is more than likely worse than your health.

This is why dermatologists get paid the big bucks.

Blahdenoma: jake3988: Skin cancer as a whole has over a 99% survival rate, with basal cell being almost exactly 100%.

STOP FREAKING THE fark OUT ABOUT IT.

The damage you're doing to yourself by NOT tanning (and I'm not saying to overtan) because you're such pansies is more than likely worse than your health.

This is why dermatologists get paid the big bucks.

Enjoy your cancer.