|
OK fine, I put Ignition! in the OP.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Yeah I'm 99% sure it's in the public domain, Rutgers University Press doesn't usually bother renewing copyright. On the off-chance it's not though, I put in a request for a copyright check on their website to confirm. I'll post back with the details when they get back to me, which I'm sure will be sometime between now and when the universe reaches uniform entropy. edit: dang, that was quick. The book is out of copyright and in the public domain. Go hammers. Memento has a new favorite as of 12:21 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Memento posted:Yeah I'm 99% sure it's in the public domain, Rutgers University Press doesn't usually bother renewing copyright. On the off-chance it's not though, I put in a request for a copyright check on their website to confirm. I'll post back with the details when they get back to me, which I'm sure will be sometime between now and when the universe reaches uniform entropy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Memento posted:Go hammers. Not in a thread about hexanitros I won't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
To bring the thread back from the dead, I'd like to relate a much more mundane danger that I witnessed today. A truck full of nitrogen cylinders pulled up on the side road next to our campus, the driver grabbed a fresh 25l dewar and filled it with liquid nitrogen from one of the big dewars on the truck, sealed, it, and brought it in. I was watching this intently as he had pulled up to the front of the building rather than the service entrance by the freight elevator, and with the dewar slowly venting as they tend to do, rolled it into the concourse on a hand truck and into one of the (notably small and slow) passenger elevators to bring it to the third floor. I waited until I saw him roll the dewar out on the third floor to call the elevator, then took the other one. I'll be mentioning it to administration tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
As if a bunch of Nitrogens in a tighter-than-usual space could ever end poorly...
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:To bring the thread back from the dead, I'd like to relate a much more mundane danger that I witnessed today. For those who don't know, the normal safety procedure with compressed/liquid gas canisters of any kind, is put them in the freight elevator, and rope it off. There's usually a safety cord behind the door with a notice to not get in and not touch anything that's in there. Then you take the stairs or a passenger elevator to the correct floor, and retrieve the dewar from the freight elevator on that floor. Never travel in the same elevator that contains the dewar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:For those who don't know, the normal safety procedure with compressed/liquid gas canisters of any kind, is put them in the freight elevator, and rope it off. There's usually a safety cord behind the door with a notice to not get in and not touch anything that's in there. Then you take the stairs or a passenger elevator to the correct floor, and retrieve the dewar from the freight elevator on that floor. Never travel in the same elevator that contains the dewar. Helium is the one exception to this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Helium is the one exception to this. "Is that canister leaking?" _"NOPE!"_
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:Helium is the one exception to this. Why is helium the exception?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
vOv posted:Why is helium the exception? Guessing it's because helium is nearly impossible to contain so it just fucks off without hanging around long enough to suffocate you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Guessing it's because helium is nearly impossible to contain so it just fucks off without hanging around long enough to suffocate you. Or that poster might be trolling, because Beach Bum posted:"Is that canister leaking?" I mean why would you make an official exception for a single type of gas? It'd just complicate safety courses for no good reason. And a huge leak of compressed helium is still dangerous: it can replace a lot of air in a short time, suffocating you, and the decompression cools it down to immediate-frostburn levels. Have a video of an MRI quench. It's when they do a sudden emergency shutdown of an MRI scanner, which can only be done by suddenly venting all the cryogenic liquid helium. It's already loving cold and after immediately condensating all the water in the air (the visible mist cloud), its decompression takes so much heat from the environment that the pipes turn the surrounding nitrogen and oxygen liquid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOUJP5dFEg And this process can go wrong. This is the only time I've heard of an MRI exploding, so it's probably very rare. But still: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R7KsfosV-o Carbon dioxide has a new favorite as of 07:54 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
 OH OH NOO OH OH OOH OOOH
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
repeating posted:
What's this? It doesn't look explosive or anything. Could be a drug or a venom of some kind?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
From much earlier posts:Toast Museum posted:The part of that dynemicin model above that's sort of jutting out weirdly is a ring of carbon molecules coming out of the plane the rest of the molecule is drawn in; the solid wedges indicate a bond pointing "toward" you, and the dashed wedges indicate a bond pointing "away" from you, from the perspective the molecule is drawn in. The long double or triple lines indicate, appropriately enough, double and triple bonds. XMNN posted:Man, chemistry is cool. What does the tumor say? repeating has a new favorite as of 09:32 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Cool. Just looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently the current problem is that it does this to all DNA, not just tumor DNA. At this point it basically kills cancer by killing the patient. Effective, but not intended. They're looking for ways to make it work in tumor cells only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Things that go FOOF in the night: Reverse FOXDIE
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Cool. Just looked it up on Wikipedia. This is standard practice for all anti-tumour drugs. Because tumour cells are made out of you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Cool. Just looked it up on Wikipedia. Note that this is how chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and basically all of our other cancer treatments work. The best treatments we have (especially for cancers that aren't localized in a particular spot) are basically "gently caress up everything, hope it kills the cancer before it kills you".
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Note that this is how chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and basically all of our other cancer treatments work. The best treatments we have (especially for cancers that aren't localized in a particular spot) are basically "gently caress up everything, hope it kills the cancer before it kills you". Well, there's a difference. Normal cancer treatments have a stronger effect on fast dividing cells, such as tumours, hair follicles, and certain organs we need. It doesn't destroy your other organs right away. This experimental treatment is at the stage 'it destroys everything with extreme prejudice'. It won't be used in practice until they got it at least to the 'mostly fast dividing cells' level of the other cancer treatments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
The wikipedia link says it does preferentially target dividing cells. But it's not specific enough, so I guess it's a wash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Note that this is how chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and basically all of our other cancer treatments work. The best treatments we have (especially for cancers that aren't localized in a particular spot) are basically "gently caress up everything, hope it kills the cancer before it kills you". There's also chemotherapic drugs that are involved with specific receptors or proteins more commonly found in tumour cells or that inhibit the metabolism of intermediates that are more important for cancer cells than normal cells. We've gone a looooong way in the last 10 or so years in how we fight cancer. Treatments are getting more specific and tolerable everyday, especially if the disease is not metastatic (in which case you're basically hosed to be honest). edit: Radio can also be veryyyyy specific if targeted but will still kill a lot of stuff in the way/near the target area anyways :s
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Note that this is how chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and basically all of our other cancer treatments work. The best treatments we have (especially for cancers that aren't localized in a particular spot) are basically "gently caress up everything, hope it kills the cancer before it kills you". Not wrong, but not complete - there are a fair few other kinds of cancer drugs these days. If you've got ER+ breast cancer, the cancer cells grow in response to estrogen. This can fairly often be controlled with something like tamoxifen, which is a selective estrogen uptake blocker. To grow, tumors need to make new blood vessels. This process can be slowed down/stopped (with a number of things, like bevacizumab), and while that's not ideal (it's obviously bad for wound healing, and can interfere with repairs if you've got blood vessel issues in e.g. your legs), and probably won't cure you on its own, it increases the survival rate a fair bit with modest side effects. It's possible to get the immune system to target specific cells if you can get an antibody to bind to it. This will also target any healthy cells that it binds to, but that's still an improvement. These are most of the *mab drugs, like, say, rituximab. I'm an IT guy in a cancer research group, so I'm not super-strong on the biology (or chemistry) here, and I've probably forgotten some. Also, the "target everything fast-dividing" class of chemotherapy are obviously still very useful. edit: What ^^ he said. Computer viking has a new favorite as of 14:26 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Argh, I keep forgetting that monoclonals against tumour antigens exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Along with this there are also new treatments becoming available that simply culture your own immune cells ex vivo and expose them to certain tumor antigens to ensure a response against the cancer cells in cases of a particularly insidious tumor that likes to hide from the immune system. As far as I know this is only available to the public for treatment of prostate cancer currently, but it's a style of treatment that has broad implications assuming costs could he reined in. Given the rare circumstances that immunotherapy is the best treatment, for a disease that is on the far end of the spectrum in regards to 5 year survival rates, I hope it gets off the ground. Mostly because it is really loving cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:If you've got ER+ breast cancer, the cancer cells grow in response to estrogen. This can fairly often be controlled with something like tamoxifen, which is a selective estrogen uptake blocker. Just to be picky it's a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM), it binds the receptor and prevents estrogen from activating it. But it activates it a bit on its own and in other parts of the body of activates it more strongly (which is why it's called a modulator and not an inhibitor). An estrogen uptake blocker sounds more like an aromatase inhibitor, which blocks the enzyme that produces estrogen and is used in some breast cancers. Cancer is a tricky business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I saw a general science lecture on Youtube a while back (science for future politicians or something along those lines). The day's topic was radiation and nuclear stuff, and during it he talked about cancer and radiation treatment. His explanation was that cancer cells basically direct all their energy toward reproducing at max speed, and don't have enough for normal cells' repair mechanisms. So basically they're less resilient to chemical/radiation damage, which is why we can reasonably hope they'll die before the healthy cells do. Obviously it's simplified and I have no idea how accurate it is, but it certainly sounds plausible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Because they have defective control over their cell cycle, they don't take as much time to repair damage between divisions. It's not really about having enough energy, it's about how fast they divide. Healthy cells that divide quickly (like hair follicles) are also very vulnerable for the same reason (although their cell cycle is not defective, just fast).
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
A biology assistant professor on a forum once described methyl fluorosulfonate as one of the most dangerous chemicals he'd ever encountered, saying, "it has this horrific tendency to methylate you. You do not want to be methylated." So what happens if you get methylated, besides just dropping dead?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
I always assume "You know that one guy in Robocop?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:I always assume "You know that one guy in Robocop?" But yeah, what's the real answer? Expect it's something about loving up DNA and replication thereof? Or does it wreck some enzyme in the liver?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
When inhaled it reacts with your cell membranes and more or less liquefies your lung tissue. It's not particularly irritating or painful so you might not notice until you start coughing on the fluid in your lungs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
In my head I see it as turning into a giant cough drop, all wonka-like
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Pitch posted:When inhaled it reacts with your cell membranes and more or less liquefies your lung tissue. It's not particularly irritating or painful so you might not notice until you start coughing on the fluid in your lungs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tx_CaXqp9U
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Or maybe this happens, but in slow motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nHAZu97ftI  due to goreA relatively mundane but still dangerous chemical: liquid nitrogen can condense liquid oxygen out of the air. When combined with a ludicrously overclocked CPU like people do for those overclocking trials... 
Woolie Wool has a new favorite as of 14:58 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:
Is this why chemotherapy makes your hair fall out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
bbcisdabomb posted:Is this why chemotherapy makes your hair fall out? Yep!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
bbcisdabomb posted:Is this why chemotherapy makes your hair fall out? Also, why it makes your skin weaker and more prone to wounds, makes those wounds take longer to heal, fucks your blood up, and fucks your gut up. Basically, the complications of older chemotherapies are a map for 'locations in the body in which cells divide fast'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Don't forget all your nails popping off!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
And bloody stools! Remember, the first chemotherapy drug was based on mustard gas, after it was noted that lots of gas attack victims had depleted white cell counts. Wasn't too big a leap from there to treating lymphoma with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:16
|
|
