MemeFlux

Two snippets from the world of cancer research

Amateur invention works as chemo therapy alternative - human tests in 3-4 years

John Kanzius–himself a cancer victim–has invented a device using radio waves instead of radiation to kill tumors, which has proved successful in clinical trials on rabbits. The device is a radio-wave generator which heats nanoparticles and destroys the cells.

The theory behind the therapy is that radio waves are, for the most part, harmless to living tissue, but that the waves do heat up certain metals. If, in theory, nanoparticles of carbon or gold were to bind to cancer cells, and only cancer cells, then radio wave exposure would heat the cancer cells to a desired temperature and destroy them, while ignoring and not affecting neighboring healthy cells. This process is being called in Kanzius’ patent applications “RF-induced hyperthermia“. The problem is targeting only the cancer cells. More specifically, the problem is finding a way for the nanoparticle targets to bind only to the cancer cells while ignoring healthy cells. The theory is that the nanoparticles would carried through the bloodstream by a targeting molecule, binding only to the cancer cells, the targeting molecule ignoring the healthy cells.

There is still some development left on guiding the particles to the cancerous cells only, but researchers are optimistic and human trials are estimated to begin in 3-4 years.

Diagnosed with leukemia in 2002, Kanzius (63) had no medical training, and describes the idea as a “pipe dream”, having created the first model during sleepless nights in his garage:

Using pie pans, spare parts from ham radios and know-how from his days as a radio engineer, he invented the first generation of what would become a machine that uses radio waves — not radioactivity — to fight cancer.

Top ten list

The World Cancer Research Fund has just released a comprehensive study on the causes of cancer, and has released a list of what to avoid. These lists - or bits and pieces of them - pop up from time to time, so take this one as a summary that has involved 200 cancer experts and taken 5 years to compile.

The list is ranked - body fat seems to be given more weight as a risk factor, and the intensity of physical exercise will be a challenge for many.

What we’re saying is that young adults should try not to put on weight throughout their adult life. They should stay as lean as possible,” measurement-wise this means having a BMI in the lower end of the 18.5-25 ‘healhty’ range.

Everyone should have at least half an hour of exercise a day - but the panel says it should be vigorous, not moderate exercise. If the exercise is moderate, it should last for an hour a day.

The harsh reality continues–

1. Stay as slim as possible
2. Take half an hour’s vigorous exercise a day
3. Avoid sugary drinks and fast food
4. Eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day and cereals/grains/pulses with every meal
5. Eat no more than 500g of red meat a week and no processed meat
6. No more than one drink a day for a woman and two for a man
7. No more than 6g a day of salt
8. Dietary supplements (vitamin and mineral pills) not recommended
9. Breastfeed exclusively for six months
10. Cancer survivors also to follow these recommendations

A future form of recreational travel? Like a leisurely train-trip taken to three dimensions, here’s a nice dream from BBC - cruising from London to Rome in 24 hours while enjoying the sights along the way at 450m altitude, wining, dining and sleeping well along the way.

Airships have been out of fashion since the Hindenburg, which is rather sad considering that they are a very safe and comfortable way of traveling.

Some companies produce airships today - The Zeppelin NT flown in the article above being the most accessible recreational option. Another prototype airship is Dynalifter, which is slightly heavier than air and intended for cargo loads of 160 tons with a speed of over 150 km/h.

Size matters, and with continuous improvements in materials technology, building larger, lighter and stable structures becomes cheaper over time (and while we’re at it, let’s cover them in solar panels) and while airplanes will still take care of the most time sensitive travel, it is not at all impossible that a new generation airships may mark the skies in the not too distant future. The cruise-in-the-sky idea is really more about marketing as the technology has been here for more then 100 years, so where is the first billionaire to grow tired of building brains, sailing 47-meter raido controlled boats, or the ol’ stop AIDS or play RL Championship Manager, to come help us all live the dream?

How would you pronounce the year number in this link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2007

“Two thousand and seven”, I guess would be most people’s choice. But all through the last decades we have used to divide years into two numbers, so when will we start using “twenty” to designate the current century? In “Twenty-ten”? And what then, when we sit down to think about the early decades of this century, how will we then refer to the first years?” I remember back in the early tens” might work, “Two thousand and one” will probably stand out due to events and other memes — but what about the years we are currently living? “The late oh-ohs” just sound silly — Wikipedia expands:

Names of the decade
In contrast to the decades from 1920 to 1999, which are called “the Twenties”, “the Sixties”, and the like, the 2000s have no universally-accepted name. Some people refer to the decade simply as the “two thousands” while others may refer to it as the “twenty hundreds”; this can be written as “the 2000s” or “the ’00s”. But simply saying “the 2000s” can cause confusion, since this could refer to the entire 21st century, or even the entire millennium. The most common format (in the English language) in referring to the individual years is to read out the full name; i.e. 2008 as “two thousand (and) eight”. Less commonly, but occasionally in the media, a shorter version such as “twenty-oh-seven” is used.

Determining a name for the decade has been problematic, especially in the United States. The term “Noughties” has been suggested by the BBC,^[1][2] but this term has not gained general currency, especially outside the United Kingdom although it is popular in Australia.

Other proposed names include:

• aughts, aughties, the Twenty-O’s, and double-aughts, from ‘aught’,^[3] which, like “naught” means “zero” (aughts was one of the more popular terms in the early 20th century)
• nils and nillies, from “nil”, meaning “nothing”
• 2Ks, from the Greek term khilioi, meaning “thousand”
• ōzies, from the practice of calling the number zero ‘O’
• zeroes, double zeroes, ohs, double ohs, and oh-ohs