|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
Step back a minute - so zero G makes some bacteria stronger - so should we
be worried that the ISS astronauts are breeding grounds for stronger bacteria - which eventually they'll spread amonst the general population. Time to shut down ISS, quarantine the inhabitants and hope we've escaped armageddon. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
Having the Salmonella suddenly get stronger in space is like finding that as vicious as piranha are in the Amazon River, you should see what happens if you stick them up inside rainclouds...then they can gnaw holes in steel plate. :-D But the still scarey part here is we took all sorts precautions - Hornet + 3 Quarantine on Apollo - then oh things gets stronger in zero G on the ISS - but this is cool science - and there's no roadblock to astronauts who's resident bacteria have become bacteria on steroids (pun here) from coming back and attacking the rest of us. Almost makes the ISS seem like an unintentional time bomb, but never the less a time bomb. Science run amok for science only is the theme of many of the schlack horror movies - and here it seems real. Is anybody really minding the store? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
Pat Flannery ) writes:
On 7/10/2010 4:17 PM, Val Kraut wrote: Step back a minute - so zero G makes some bacteria stronger - so should we be worried that the ISS astronauts are breeding grounds for stronger bacteria - which eventually they'll spread amonst the general population. Time to shut down ISS, quarantine the inhabitants and hope we've escaped armageddon. Zero G is also supposed to make the human immune system weaker, allowing them to get infected with the strengthened bacteria more easily. http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1...tem/index.html What I'm having trouble with here is why exactly weightlessness would strengthen bacteria. Don't forget, in this case, lower g is associated with a bit more ionising radiation. Could we be talking about simple mutations? --John Park |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On 7/10/2010 4:17 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
Step back a minute - so zero G makes some bacteria stronger - so should we be worried that the ISS astronauts are breeding grounds for stronger bacteria - which eventually they'll spread amonst the general population. Time to shut down ISS, quarantine the inhabitants and hope we've escaped armageddon. Zero G is also supposed to make the human immune system weaker, allowing them to get infected with the strengthened bacteria more easily. http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1...tem/index.html What I'm having trouble with here is why exactly weightlessness would strengthen bacteria. Organisms evolve to be optimized for the conditions under which they live, and having then suddenly get stronger if gravity is taken away would suggest that they are optimized for life in zero-G, and existence on Earth and in its gravity field is a non-optimal situation for them. Astrogenetix states that this is similar to the way some microorganisms can go into a spore state when their environment is suddenly changed. That's not a good analogy though, as although some microorganisms that live in wet conditions can go into a dessicated state when the water dries up and return to life when exposed to moisture again, they aren't somehow stronger when they are in that dessicated condition, but rather in a state of suspended animation. Having the Salmonella suddenly get stronger in space is like finding that as vicious as piranha are in the Amazon River, you should see what happens if you stick them up inside rainclouds...then they can gnaw holes in steel plate. :-D Pat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On 7/10/2010 6:44 PM, Val Kraut wrote:
But the still scarey part here is we took all sorts precautions - Hornet + 3 Quarantine on Apollo - then oh things gets stronger in zero G on the ISS - If you believe what Astrogenetix is saying they do...but Astrogenetix has a vested economic interest in those organisms mutating into more virulent forms so they can get more government funds to study them, and get investors to buy their stock in the hopes of big future profits from the vaccines they are going to create from their space-mutated organisms. The profits that could be realized by creating vaccines against Salmonella and MRSA are almost impossible to estimate...we are probably talking tens of billions of dollars over the next couple of decades for any company that could patent such vaccines and sell the rights to their manufacture to other drug firms. Which leaves three obvious questions: 1. If that's the case, why aren't more of the major drug companies sending up medical payloads on the Shuttle or to the ISS? The cost of the payload would be very small compared to the profits that could be realized if the concept succeeded. 2. When's the last time you heard of a subsidiary of a company that had a total of 76 full-time employees coming up with a pair of world-shaking vaccines? 3. When's the last time you heard of a company that had such a potential for immense future profits having stock that sells for $1.33 per share? I suspect that investors have looked at Astrogenetix's claims for its future vaccines and decided that even the tiny investment it would take to get a good-sized chunk of stock isn't worth it. Pat |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On 7/10/2010 11:00 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
If you believe what Astrogenetix is saying they do...but Astrogenetix has a vested economic interest in those organisms mutating into more virulent forms so they can get more government funds to study them, and get investors to buy their stock in the hopes of big future profits from the vaccines they are going to create from their space-mutated organisms. Which brings up another good point...Astrogenetix said they should be doing human tests of their salmonella vaccine in 2010, according to their statement from September of last year: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/0...pace-research/ But it's hard to find where exactly they state that _they do have a experimental vaccine in hand_, and more troubling yet, what exactly happened regarding any animal testing of said vaccine. The FDA isn't going to give the go-ahead for human trials of a vaccine until it's been tried out on animals ranging from white rats to chimps, to show that it is both safe to use and does indeed do what it's supposed to do, and that is a process that takes more than a few months to accomplish. To get a feel for that process, note this interview with a doctor who is also working on a (non-space-mutated) salmonella vaccine: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/0...cine-in-works/ Her group is at the mouse test stage, with no immediate plans to move to human testing. Pat |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On 7/10/2010 7:22 PM, John Park wrote:
Don't forget, in this case, lower g is associated with a bit more ionising radiation. Could we be talking about simple mutations? According to this, salmonella is constantly mutating anyway; http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/0...cine-in-works/ So how can you tell if the space salmonella mutations are due to zero-G, radiation, or just naturally occurring mutations in the particular colony of salmonella you took into orbit? I would expect the salmonella to behave a bit differently under space growth conditions, the part I have trouble with is it suddenly turning into some sort of super-bug. This reminds me of the old Mir Giant Space Worm story, where it sounded like the space station was infested with the Andromeda Strain: http://www.anomalist.com/reports/mir.html Pat |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On Jul 7, 3:53*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:53*pm, Pat Flannery wrote: As if Michael Steele wasn't bad enough, now another black man is cuddling up to the enemies of Israel: That, was, of course, intended in sarcasm. But I do find the statement bizarre. NASA does have a legitimate role to promote science education, not only in the United States, but also elsewhere in the world, because the excitement associated with space activities provides it with a unique qualification in that area. But viewing it as a _major_ element of NASA's mission, and specifically targeted at the Muslim world, is... odd. There's nothing wrong in admitting that. John Savard Being against bad Jews or other bad kinds of bad faith-based folks is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic. Sorry to keep confusing those of you that always think our NASA and it's DARPA have always been so honest and wonderful for humanity or the environment. ~ BG |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On Jul 7, 4:12*pm, "Val Kraut" wrote:
" But I do find the statement bizarre. NASA does have a legitimate role to promote science education, not only in the United States, but also elsewhere in the world, because the excitement associated with space activities provides it with a unique qualification in that area. Read the statement carefully - He is to make the muslim nations pround of the math and science they did centuries ago - he's not there to promote education in countries that don't value education anymore and actually deprive women of any education. It' simply Dr. feelgood. What could they possibly have in mind with this insanity. Read on - he's to promote American students to study math and engineering - but he's shutting down NASA and squeezing defense spending - I guess they're after better educated unemployed. This whole thing seems like episode 2 of the prisioner. If there's no spare public loot (only trillions in debt and worse to come), how the hell are those physics and scientific research grants plus all of them cushy government jobs with terrific benefits going to get paid? ~ BG |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
National Review blows its cork over NASA's Bolden
On Jul 7, 6:56*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:28:12 -0800, Pat Flannery wrote: It's highly unlikely the ISS will ever repay even a small part of its development, construction, and resupply costs in any sort of a tangible economic way at any point in the future. If the Salmonella vaccine pans out, it might already have. Salmonellosis kills an estimated 3 million people a year, mostly in the third world (142,000 were sickened in the US last year and 30 died). http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/0...a-vaccine.html We have ten years or more of Space Station research ahead of us. Reports of ISS's failure to earn its keep are greatly exaggerated. Brian Not really exaggerated enough. ISS has been nearly a complete waste of time and resources. After the ISS fat lady sings, then what? Your ISS "Salmonella Vaccine" ruse is noted. ~ BG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bolden to review HLV study on Friday - Sidemount in doubt, In-line/SSME boost | Jeff Findley | Policy | 3 | January 19th 10 09:31 PM |
NASA's Ares I Rocket Passes Review To Reach Critical Milestone | [email protected] | Policy | 35 | April 8th 09 03:29 AM |
NASA's Webb Telescope sunshield preliminary design review complete (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | March 26th 08 04:05 AM |
From the National Review Online... | Jim Davis | Policy | 15 | June 23rd 05 07:44 PM |
NASA's National Transonic Facility Turns 20 | [email protected] | News | 0 | December 5th 03 12:35 PM |