Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Cancer Help and Undeground Nuclear Power

Cancer Help
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-03/plastic-beads-fight-cancer-cutting-blood-flow

First up is the topic on cancer.  Chances are cancer has been in your life, one way or the other.  And anyone who has been around it knows that chemotherapy is a terrible thing to have to live through.  Popsci has reported about a new treatment method of sticking small beads into the blood stream.  Made out of sodium acrylate and vinyl alcohol polymer they are designed to soak up the drugs before being injected with them.  They are placed near by the tumor and then slowly release the drug. 

But it isn't used just to help release the drug in smaller doses.  It's designed to block the blood flow, keeping the drugs localized to reduce the amount of pain the patient will get from the therapy.  And because it blocks the capillaries, it also starves the cancer cells, adding to its destruction. 

This method is still being tested and hasn't been confirmed to be "better" then regular chemotherapy.  However, results have already shown shrinkage in the tumors and the patients get to go home the same day as the treatment instead of staying in the hospital feeling incredibly sick. 

Underground Nuclear Power
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/03/nuclear-power-to-go-undergroun.html

Since Nuclear Energy is the topic of so many due to the recent activity, this one I figured would be an important read.  Singapore is looking into placing a power plant underground in order to provide power to its people, without the potential for great havoc from a meltdown.  The method is simple; place the reactors underground where it is surrounded by natural bedrock.  In the event of a meltdown, block off any access tunnels and the bedrock will be a natural containment field. 

The idea is great and much safer, which makes me sad to say that corporations are again causing problems with their money debates.  Because the construction for an underground reactor would be so great, they say it wouldn't be cost effective unless the reactor was 1/20th the size of the conventional nuclear plant.  It really is sad to hear money is more important than a country's people. 

Location is also a big factor with this plan, and since nuclear energy isn't going anywhere it is important not to let the media incorrectly inform you into making biased decisions on energy sources.  Even though it is a very dirty and potentially dangerous source of energy, the output is massive in comparison to many alternatives.  It is good to see a company not claiming absurdities to get rid of nuclear energy, rather finding ways to make it safer. 

36 comments:

  1. Nuclear energy is very dirty? And here I thought it was causing less pollution and radiation then coal and fossil fuel burning plants. Hell, we ought to ban the Sun, it causes more cancer then anything else!

    That aside, it does have potential to be dangerous, and placing it underground is a good idea. Managing that cost effectiveness is any companies issue. Customers have to pay for energy, and will customers in a poorer country like Singapore be willing or able to spend the increased cost for energy?

    Also, I saw the cancer bead thing and think that was a genius idea. I can't wait to see how its testing turns out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I said dirty I meant the amount of waste it produces and the longevity of keeping it safe/out of reach of people while the rods are cooling down, which is so long no civilization on Earth has outlived the rate of decay of used nuclear rods. On top of this, storing it can be hazardous and the location again is a touchy subject. As far as coal and fossil fuels, i'd never support that as a "progressive" or even good source of energy. To me, those should be taken down and replaced with something all around better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting treatment for cancer. I don't think singapore can afford to make it above ground anyways as land is a very scarce resource.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Underground powerplants would most likley be very very expensive, unfortunately not many countries had a budget to build these powerplants.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nuclear energy is fine until there is an incident. We are getting better at making things safer and cleaner.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting Read. Love these comments!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nuclear power definitely has it's downsides...
    Heck, look at the trouble Japan is in :/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Everything has its pros and cons, nice blog 1+ follower.

    ReplyDelete
  9. All idea's look great on paper, but will it actually come out as planned? Probably not. Construction companies will try to cut corners on this project and we're looking at an underground nuclear meltdown.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just gotta keep it safe to avoid Chernobyl.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Makes sense. But it's A LOT easier said than done. heh

    ReplyDelete
  12. An underground Nuclear Reactor would be quite a success, however the world today revolves around money.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Really awesome post, good topics.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nuclear energy is the future. This is a great blog. Following you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That underground reactor sounds neat! What a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  16. as long as nuclear energy doesn't completely destroy the world before I see the age of 80 I think I'm alright with it

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice post. My grandma died from cancer

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm fairly certain no matter what efforts are made, the use of nuclear power will be severely handicapped due to the recent events. even though its the most efficient source of energy we have

    ReplyDelete
  19. interesting post very informative

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well it has been like that for a while now. Gov't does value money over life. Its quite sad but true.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good read. Interesting post.

    Followed.
    bigunicorn.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nice, the problem we have in Japan is they were simply out dated. The nuke industry, like any other, flat out sucks. They want to maximize profit, in turn we are using building code and designs from the 1960's. Great post, followed!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "as long as nuclear energy doesn't completely destroy the world before I see the age of 80 I think I'm alright with it" What man? That´s pure selfishness dude

    ReplyDelete
  24. yeah i am selfish, but after I die does that word even carry a meaning?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think we should try to switch to nuclear fission and away from fusion

    ReplyDelete
  26. Really interesting post, thanks for the awesome read, hope more stuff like this comes from you :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. i live next to a power plant! :D

    ReplyDelete
  28. that's pretty cool. fuck cancer!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I would still say that the environmental impact of nuclear power plants is still the lowest among all of the power plant types. Its like the plane vs car travel riskiness issue, people are afraid of planes despite they are actually much safer

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm not sure if putting the power plant underground will prevent the radiation to get into the water.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It's diffucult to talk about, but the problem is that we depend from energy, and we cannot have energy only from renewable sources.
    Maybe nuclear power plants of 3th or 4th generations are more safer. We need to power off the old power plants (1th and 2th gen). Following ! Interesting articles

    ReplyDelete