Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 88907	2008-04-14 03:37:00	The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure?	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
658572	2008-04-15 05:21:00	Thomas Edison, neither invented the light bulb, nor held the first patent to the modern design of the light bulb. In reality, light bulbs used as electric lights existed 50 years prior to Thomas Edison's 1879 patent date in the U.S. Additionally, Joseph Swan, a British inventor, obtained the first patent for the same light bulb in Britain one year prior to Edison's patent date. Swan even publicly unveiled his carbon filament light bulb in New Castle, England a minimum of 10 years before Edison shocked the world with the announcement that he invented the first light bulb. The point is, the cure is being tested. Until proven its just a nice idea. No need to get all defensive.	pctek (84)
658573	2008-04-15 05:24:00	The point is, the cure is being tested . Until proven its just a nice idea . No need to get all defensive . There you go reading betwixt my lines again . I was AGREEING WITH YOU . . this time I am yelling in caps . :angry Sheesh! I can't get a break with yer . . . I think ya just don't like me either fer or ag'in ya!	SurferJoe46 (51)
658574	2008-04-15 08:37:00	Thomas Edison, neither invented the light bulb, nor held the first patent to the modern design of the light bulb. In reality, light bulbs used as electric lights existed 50 years prior to Thomas Edison's 1879 patent date in the U.S. Additionally, Joseph Swan, a British inventor, obtained the first patent for the same light bulb in Britain one year prior to Edison's patent date. Swan even publicly unveiled his carbon filament light bulb in New Castle, England a minimum of 10 years before Edison shocked the world with the announcement that he invented the first light bulb. Yup. What Edison did do though is create the first usable light-bulb. The carbon-filament ones burnt out far too soon to be economical, and were a hassle to constantly replace. Edison tried a zillion different materials until he finally hit on a combination of tungsten (possibly a slight alloy?), and low-pressure noble gas. These ones lasted long enough to be more useful than gas lamps, which were the competing standard..	Erayd (23)
658575	2008-04-15 08:41:00	Well, I have a very good background in RF and RF heating, and I'd say the principles are sound. Localised heating is nothing new, but the frequencies required to excite effectively carbon nano-particles might be a problem as they would be strongly attenuated by body tissue. Accepting that there is a lot of ill-informed journalistic hoopla surrounding this story, it is still not totally beyond the realms of possibility. It is different in principle to radio diathermy, or any current form of radio-therapy because it supposedly uses a frequency-responsive agent in the body to create a very localised and targeted heating effect. Whether sufficient energy can be transferred to a cancer cell without frying the patient is another matter altogether. I think I'll sit on the fence and await further research results, but I will say this, it is significantly more credible than the recent crop of perpetual-motion machines! Of course "credible" doesn't mean it will work, or even that the Kanzius story is being reported correctly or truthfully. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
658576	2008-04-15 10:48:00	I have a background in molecular medicine/cancer biology . There is currently no way to target cancer cells, and only cancer cells, reliably, efficiently and specifically . If that were the case, cancer would have been cured by now . This is the crux of "curing" cancer - targeting tumour cells and only tumour cells . Chemotheraphy targets actively dividing cells (which tumour cells are), but also gets normally actively dividing cells such as hair follicle cells, digestive systems cells, blood cells etc - hence the awful side effects . Radiotherapy does this also, as actively dividing cells have unravelled their DNA for replication - and making it more vulnerable to damage from ionizing radiation - but like chemo, it also kills normally actively dividing cells . I tried using immunotherapy, but got very mixed results . And this talk of nanotechnology makes me very skeptical, but hey, good luck anyhow .	vinref (6194)
658577	2008-04-15 20:31:00	An interesting topic. Do any of you remember those repulsion coils that used to suspend an aluminium ring above them? I remember making one as a kid and blowing the pole fuse. :blush: Never did own up and the power board faultman died wondering what the hell happened. ;) The system relied on eddy currents from memory. Also from memory I think a large manufacturer of the time made a stove that suspended aluminium pots and could boil water. The large current required was apparently the downfall. Anyway, I’m sure somebody out there can correct my fading memory if I’ve got it wrong. But returning to the subject, I’ve always wondered if this principal could be used to blast cancerous tumours. Something along the lines of aluminium particles or similar being injected into the tumour, then the magnetic field (MRI Scanner) turned on and blat goes the tumour. Mind you, the cure might be worse than the disease? :groan:	B.M. (505)
658578	2008-04-15 21:34:00	Thomas Edison, neither invented the light bulb, nor held the first patent to the modern design of the light bulb . In reality, light bulbs used as electric lights existed 50 years prior to Thomas Edison's 1879 patent date in the U . S . Additionally, Joseph Swan, a British inventor, obtained the first patent for the same light bulb in Britain one year prior to Edison's patent date . Swan even publicly unveiled his carbon filament light bulb in New Castle, England a minimum of 10 years before Edison shocked the world with the announcement that he invented the first light bulb . The point is, the cure is being tested . Until proven its just a nice idea . No need to get all defensive . God, aint you all a bunch of sceptics . Coming from a nation of do it yourself kiwi ingenuity I am surprised . I guess the only logical explanation is that you sceptics are from Auckland and therefore aren't really New Zealanders . . . . Back to your lattes guys and leave the thinking to the experts .	Veale (536)
658579	2008-04-16 20:24:00	It is radiotherapy and hoopla. Not according to some experts in the field. Two universities are currently testing the device and it shows much promise. Watch the 60 Minutes program before a knee jerk reaction of trashing it. No, it is not Radiotherapy, which is: "treatment of disease by means of x-rays or of radioactive substances."	Morpheus1 (186)
1 2