The benefit of the nuclear tests prior years
Until now, defining the life span of specific human cell populations was limited by an inability to mark the exact time when cells were born in a way that can be detected over many years. However, a team of Swedish researchers from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, lead by Jonas Frisén, has announced that cells can be dated by applying carbon-14 techniques to DNA, a method commonly used in archaeology and palaeontology to pinpoint the age of fossils.
The new dating approach relies on a peak in the atmospheric levels of C14 as a result of aboveground nuclear arms testing during the Cold War. C14 dating looks at the ratio of radioactive carbon, naturally present at low levels in the atmosphere and food, to normal carbon within an organism. While a creature lives, eats and breathes, its ratio of radioactive to normal carbon will equal the ratio in its environment. But when it dies, this ratio will fall, as the carbon-14 decays.
Until now, the main obstacle to applying this technique was that radioactive carbon decays slowly, such that a given amount of carbon-14 halves every 6,000 years. Detecting the subtle change in the ratio of normal to naturally occurring radioactive carbon over just a few years proved too difficult. But Dr Frisén maintains that it can be done if one takes advantage of the signal left by nuclear testing, which vastly increased the levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere during the Cold War.
According to Dr Frisén, by the time aboveground nuclear testing ended in 1963, the levels of atmospheric C14 had doubled beyond natural background levels. Since the halt, this has halved every 11 years. By taking this into account, one can see detectable changes in levels of C14 in modern DNA.
Most molecules of the cell will turn over all the time. But DNA is a material that does not exchange carbon after cell division, so it serves as a time capsule for carbon,' he says. All the C14 in a cell's DNA is acquired on the cell's birth date, the day its parent cell divided. By measuring C14 levels in their DNA, it would be possible to pinpoint individual cells' birth dates.
Q:
Do you think that unethical experiments are worth their benefits? For example, nuclear testing or human embryo experiments.
L:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/09/15/1460856.htm
http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?l=en&d=130&a=74282
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Studies-Show-That-Brain-Cells-Do-Not-Regenerate-But-Remain-The-Same-Throughout-13198-1/
I think that the hardest part is to define what is and what is not unethical. Embryo experiments for certain groups are totally unethical while others have no problem with it.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I see no link between unethical experiments and determining cells age or nuclear testing. It's cool that we can now pinpoint cells age, but what that gives us? What are the benefits?
ReplyDeleteNuclear testing I am against at all but if it doesnt influence the atmosphere than I have no problem with that. If the nuclear energy plants are concerned, unfortunately I do not have any knowledge about it. But if its earth friendly it can be set up close to mine house :)
ReplyDeletehuman embryo hmm... Untill the embryo cannot feel anything I have nothing against it.
Q:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that unethical experiments are worth their benefits? For example, nuclear testing or human embryo experiments.
A:
Yes, in most cases they are. Some claim that human evolution is faster than it was before, but in my opion mankind should unite its efforts to fully understand human being and do everthing what is possible to accelarte this process and make it more "directed".
I agree with Jacek, i can't find anything unethical in human embryo experiments, they don't know and feel anything, and i'm not sure if they're human.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that human embryo experiments are very needful for science and there is nothing unethical with that. People have to live with progress and get to now more about human being.
ReplyDeleteI think that our knowledge on the impact which nuclear testing has on humans is to small and that such testing is not a good idea. I think that testing made on human embryo is very unethical and might have serious consequences in the past. Dr. Frisen might be right, but I think that such experiments should not be done, not yet at least.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that human embryo cannot feel anything is not the case. It’s rather more about ethics and what people do. If human embryo experiments won’t be satisfying than what would be next? People shouldn’t threat human life in a material way, it should be respected. I also think that people should care more about our planet and try to live more in line with the nature, instead of brutally breaking in and messing up.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to nuclear testing, I’m wondering what is the purpose of nuclear arms. Only one thing comes to my mind – killing people. Is it so important? People are risking causing damage to environment and other people’s health to kill people. Makes no sense for me, but maybe I’m not an expert.