Science desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 19

Iraqi National Oil Company

Dear Wikipedia,

Why is there nothing on the Iraqi National Oil Company since 1987 on your page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_National_Oil_Company)?

Are they a publicly traded company?

How would one invest in INOC?

Thanks,

50.15.18.118 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event in 1987 it mentions is it merging with the oil ministry, so it ceased to exist as an independent company at that point. That's why the article doesn't go any further. --Tango (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Iraqi Oil Ministry isn't exactly stellar either. There must be some company that owns Iraq's oil... 50.15.18.118 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it can't be state-owned? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The oil of Iraq is owned by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi National Oil Company, which is one of the few government ministries that survived the recent war and overthrowal of the government, has been a state-owned corporation since 1966; in recent times, for logistics reasons, it was split into North Oil Company and South Oil Company, splitting operations on both sides of the 32.5 degree N latitude line. You cannot invest in either of these companies; they are nationalized. You can conduct business with them; but if you don't already know how to negotiate a petroleum E&P contract, Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to learn. If you want to invest in the oil industry, you can research your favorite publicly traded integrated supermajor or oilfield services corporation, or track down one of the thousands of smaller companies that operate in Iraq; innumerable companies operate in Iraq in some capacity. Per recent developments, Shell will operate the Development and Production Service Contract for Majnoon (one of the largest fields in the region). You can learn how to invest in Royal Dutch Shell or your local Shell subsidiary, and download investment guidance, at the Shell investor-relations webpage. Keep in mind that numerous other major and minor corporations, public and private, also operate in Iraq, working side-by-side (sometimes on the same well).

It is a moot point to debate who "owns" the petroleum. It is a mineral resource. If you're new to mineral resource economics, here's a good primer, Economic Theory of Depletable Resources. Specifically in Iraq, the crude oil in the ground is "owned" by the Iraqi people, and is administered by the National Oil Company, and extracted by an authorized production company who has the equipment and expertise to do so. Iraqi and foreign companies may extract the petroleum for a fee, provided that they abide by the rules and laws of Iraq. This region has been in a war for several years, and the government has changed significantly. Consequently, the business environment is fraught with legal (and illegal) complexities - it's not really a good environment for a novice investor. Nimur (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar eclipse (why not with every full moon ?)

Why isn't there a lunar eclipse every time there's a full moon? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I changed the title to distinguish this from the other lunar eclipse question a couple above this one. This question was also answered there, but, to reiterate, most times it passes behind the Earth, the Moon is either above or below the line formed by the Earth and Sun. Thus, the Earth's shadow falls above or below the Moon. Only when they happen to align does a lunar eclipse occur, or a solar eclipse if the Moon is between the Sun and Earth. StuRat (talk)

Because the Moon's orbit around the Earth is inclined by about 5 degrees relative to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The Earth casts a conical shadow in space and the inclination of the Moon's orbit means that most of the time it either passes above or below that cone. It is only when the full moon happens at the same time as the Moon's orbit crosses the plane of the Earth's orbit that we get a lunar eclipse. --Tango (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the moon's orbital plane around the earth were the same as the earth's orbital plane around the sun, we would get a lunar and a solar eclipse every month. They aren't, so we only get lunar and solar eclipse pairs a couple or three times a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although solar eclipses at any particular location on Earth would still be less common, as they are now, since, while the Earth's shadow covers the entire Moon, the Moon's shadow only covers part of the Earth. And, if the Moon stayed in the same plane as the Earth's orbit of the Sun, then those solar eclipses wouldn't ever be seen at the Earth's poles. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If the two orbs were in the same plane, all the solar eclipses would occur within the two tropical latitudes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological solar heating

Consider this situation. I'm inside and can look outside through my window. It's a fairly cold day, but comfortable enough inside. While the sun's out I feel quite warm. When the sun goes in (say just going behind a cloud) after a few minutes I don't feel so warm. When the sun comes back out I feel warmer again.

Since I'm inside, the actual temperature is not changing in such a short time and the sun's radiation is not striking me in any way to warm me up (sure there may be a tiny bit of reflected radiated heat, a little bit more black body radiation coming from outside, and stuff like that, but not enough to make any noticeable difference in the course of a few minutes). So clearly, to me, there must be something psychological going on here. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who experiences this.

Is there a name for this phenomenon, has it been studied in any depth, and are there any likely applications of it? --jjron (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close your eyes. Do you feel warmth on your skin immediately sunlight strikes it? If so, you are feeling Thermal radiation by Infrared rays and it is not an illusion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't discount reflected light as an important source of heat, specially if the ground is snow covered outside. Dauto (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do try the simple experiment to determine how much of your perception is psychological. I suspect that both effects are measurable. Dbfirs 16:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it heats you skin more than you might think. Radiant heating is an attempt to duplicate this heating method. Ideally, it could allow the occupants of a house to be kept warm without heating the home, and save lots of energy. The reality, though, is that the parts of the body hidden from the radiant heaters are chilled, making the occupants uncomfortable. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friend and I pondered exactly this, many years ago after noticing the same effect. We titled it "rimduction: a mimetic transfer of heat", which is complete gibberish, obviously, but it's interesting that others have thought the same thing. Zzubnik (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dbfirs in that some of the effect is psychological. When it's hot outside, just wearing sunglasses makes me feel less hot and sweat less. – b_jonas 10:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purifying water with bleach in th UK - bleach source?

If I want to purify water with household bleach, I need to use bleach with no added perfumes or detergents. What such sources of this are there in the UK? ASDA's own brand and Domestos both seem to contain other things I don't want. I know I can buy tablets but their price iswell above their value considering the cost of household bleach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.135.118 (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. Depending on the production process there may be impurities in the bleach on a toxic level when you eat or drink the water. Why don't you use a pressure cooker instead? 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a good idea, why is it recommended [here], [here], [here], [here], [here] etc...? Also, a pressure cooker is heavy, requires fuel and necessitates a long cool down period and a small bottle of bleach is/does not. 2.216.135.118 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to pay for the more expensive food grade stuff then it's save. I interpreted your question the way that you intended to use normal household bleach that is intended for bleaching clothes etc. Also, in an emergency, for example a cholera outbreak, using household bleach might probably be less of a risk than drinking contaminated water. 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for sodium metabisulphite. A proprietary brand of this is Milton, or you could try Asda's own brand equivalent. You will find this in the nappy cleaning section. Another place to look is in a home-brew shop, who will sell this as a sterilising agent. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm looking to disinfect water for drinking rather than equipment. 2.216.135.118 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is for use when camping etc., then chlorine tablets is the easiest way carry it. Such as can be seen here: http://www.lifesystems.co.uk/psec/water_purification/water_chlorine.htm --Aspro (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy water purification tablets at any decent outdoor shop. They are specially designed for purifying water for drinking, so are probably a better choice than household bleach. --Tango (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never allow bleach within yards of drinking water or any crockery because I can taste it at an extremely low concentration. Use Aspro's & Tango's suggestion instead. Dbfirs 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surprising question, as all tap water in the UK is safe to drink, and indeed better quality than bottled water according to studies. If you want to purify water from a stream while out camping, then why not go to a camping or outdoor shop and buy some water purification tablets? 92.29.112.168 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP refers to North American websites, so I assume purification is required for water in that continent. The advice given refers to use of bleach in an emergency. I would prefer to find a spring or small spring-fed stream so that I could drink the water without any treatment, but I realise that this will not be possible in some areas. The human stomach is very acidic, and will kill most bacteria, and the gut will adapt to cope with many others, but water with a high bacterial content (especially some strains of E Coli) would certainly be safer after treatment, and I suppose I would learn to tolerate the taste of bleach in an emergency if the only source of water was polluted. A mixture of dilute pure sodium hypochlorite and salt (such as Milton fluid), or Campden tablets (as mentioned above) is safer than common household bleach and less unpleasant. I regularly drink untreated water from clean streams without any ill effect, and not quite all of the tap water in the UK is treated. Dbfirs 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tap water in North America is safe to drink and requires no further purification (I've been drinking tap water myself on many occasions and never experienced any ill effects). The websites refer to purifying water in an emergency situation (e.g. earthquake, flood, hurricane, etc.) when tap water may be unavailable or contaminated. -- An American ultranationalist 67.169.177.176 (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mexico part of North America? Googlemeister (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't intend any criticism of North American treated tap water. I'm sure it is just as safe as UK "mains" water. I suspect that, as in the UK, there are areas with private supplies that are untreated. I've been drinking untreated water all my life without any ill effects. Dbfirs 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "private supplies" you mean your stereotypical water-well with a hand-pump on top, dontcha? In that case, chlorine tablets might indeed be needed, depending on the quality of the groundwater. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if your intent was to italicize your text, the proper command for this is two single quotes one after another, like this: ''Your text'', rather than a double quote. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

No, I put "mains" in quotes because I wasn't sure whether Americans talk about "mains" water and "mains" electricity. Dbfirs 18:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have water mains, but I don't know what we Americans call the electrical analog. Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The power grid (although this term is usually used to denote only the high-voltage lines). 67.169.177.176 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was evidently confusing the systems and I didn't need quotes at all for water mains. Do you have "mains gas" on your side of the pond? Dbfirs 06:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "gas mains" is the proper term. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work to use chlorine to kill the bacteria, and then use a filter (as with a Brita pitcher) to trap the chlorine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Activated carbon is pretty effective at removing chlorine. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Rupture

If someone was said to suffer from a "bad rupture" in the latter part of the 19th century - what is the exact medical term today? Apparently this person had the problem for some 2 years and there was not then (or was just new) a cure for it. Also it appears it was not life threatening, however painful. He was cured of the problem by 1900 and henceforth lived a normal life. Guesses?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rupture this would be Abdominal hernia. 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like The only cure for hernia is surgery. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the "Like"? Are we now rating our own responses? Bielle (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a matching "thumbs down"? I couldn't find one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days (and maybe still) they used a Truss (medicine) to deal with a hernia. Not a cure, just a "keep it under control" kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They no longer use this because surgery is much safer now than it was back then. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still. Until either surgery or death. An abdominal; hernia is a quite morbid condition. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using Nuclear Warheads for Electricity Generation

Have there been any efforts (theoretical or otherwise) to capture the energy released from a nuclear detonation and use it to produce electric power? I know that a) it's not possible (even in theory) to convert all the energy released into electricity, or even most of it as a practical matter; and b) even if you could convert, there's no easy way to store that amount of power. But couldn't you use the energy to electrolyse a bunch of water and store the hydrogen (say), or immerse the warhead in a cavern full of water and capture the steam? 24.215.229.69 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been attempted the way you described it. But the easiest way to use nuclear warheads to generate electricity is to take the nuclear fuel out and feed it into a nuclear power plant, possibly after some reprocessing. 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The weapons grade uranium from South Africa's decommissioned nuclear warheads was diluted down to the concentration needed for fuel rods for the Koeberg nuclear power station. The South Africans only had 6 warheads so I'm not sure if it's a feasible for converting much larger arsenals such as the US, Russia, and China have. Their warheads are also based on plutonium which is more complicated to use as a reactor fuel. Roger (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Megatons to Megawatts. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be lots of mad ideas like this, for instance cutting canals or other engineering works using nuclear weapons. I think it was associated in black an white films with a stentorian voice and a huge flashing glowing giant and electricity for everyone for free and mums happily ironing shirts in bungalow houses across the nation. It would only be really worthwhile in energy terms compared to a nuclear power station if you used hydrogen bombs and no I don't think I want it thanks very much. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of nuclear explosions for constructive purposes was explored by Operation Plowshare in the United States, and Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy (or sometimes just "Project #7") in the USSR. See additionally our article on peaceful nuclear explosions. While (as far as I know) none of these programs contemplated the direct generation of electricity from the heat and pressure of a nuclear detonation, several projects (under consideration or actually carried out) involved oil, gas, or coal recovery, the creation of natural gas storage caverns, or the creation of canals and reservoirs for hydroelectric generation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was directly considered during the Cold War by the United States. Project Gnome was a 1961 nuclear test carried out in part to investigate turning water into steam with a nuclear weapon, for the point of electricity generation. A later project, code-named PACER, investigated using H-bombs to heat liquid substances who could then have their heat extracted off and turned into power. A variation of the PACER idea became the germ for the development of inertial confinement fusion at Lawrence Livermore (i.e. try to shrink the secondary to a size where you don't need an atomic bomb to start fusion reactions, use a laser instead) in the early 1960s. The main arguments against a bomb-electricity scheme as far as I know are that the engineering would be pretty tough (especially when you factor in the radioactivity), the capital costs would be extraordinarily high, the fuel costs are extremely high (bombs aren't cheap), and the political fallout (hyuk yuk) would be immense. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such ideas were quashed as soon as the long-term effects of radioactivity on people became fully known. Thus, any nuclear reactions must be fully contained, as in a nuclear reactor, to prevent radiation from contaminating large areas.

You might also be interested in Project Orion, a proposal to use nuclear bombs for spacecraft propulsion. This would have the advantage of leaving all the radioactive debris in space. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they wanted to uses nuclears also for launching the ship, so there would have been a good deal of fallout on earth. And, if the ships are not constructed in space (or on the moon), how else would it be possible to get ships of the proposed size into orbit? 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some variations of Orion that require nuclear detonations (a lot of them) for takeoff, and some which would use chemical rockets for takeoff (either as a whole or parts that would be later assembled). I recall seeing an animation someone had done once showing how one would take off with the bombs — it's a bunch of exponentially bigger and bigger bombs, a whole bunch of them. I can't find it right now, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that "such ideas were quashed as soon as the long-term effects of radioactivity on people became fully known." They were fully known in the 1960s and 1970s, when the main investigations into these technologies took place. All of the designs proposed would have been made to fully contain the explosions underground, and the radioactive byproducts (e.g. radioactive water or flibe), which the US had a pretty good track record of doing by that point, with a few notable exceptions. There are a lot of things that stopped those programs, but new knowledge about the results of nuclear explosives was not one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public attitudes in the US shifted away from nukes about the time of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Prior to that, most people believed the government's assurances that nukes were safe. Afterwards, it became politically impossible even to start a nuclear power plant in the US, much less do something as risky as detonating nuclear bombs to generate power. So, while scientists may have known about the risks of radioactivity earlier, the public didn't fully appreciate them, at that time. (The earlier images of people watching nuclear detonations, with sunglasses on, shows they weren't much concerned.) StuRat (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the Partial Test Ban Treaty was also a factor - although it excluded underground tests, according to the article it was initially negotiated with an eye toward it possibly being a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty like what was adopted much later. Any project that relied on periodic underground nuclear detonations would have blown a hole, so to speak, in those negotiations. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you're a bit wrong about your chronology. Public opinion turned away from atmospheric nuclear testing by 1963. That's why the PTB was pushed through, why Linus Pauling got the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. etc. etc.; TMI had nothing to do with that. What you see starting around 1981-82 is an increased fear of nuclear war (what some historians called "Cold War II", with Reagan and all that), but that's well after this sort of research had stopped. The types of photos you are talking about are 1. from the 1950s, and 2. only of people who are actually in the nuclear establishment (who have different opinions on nukes, generally, from that of the general public). Even by the 1950s the fallout issue was known publicly (the Castle Bravo incident publicized that for the first major time) and you start getting all of the "fallout is bad" push back (Godzilla, Them!, and many, many other mutated-monster movies, plus "fallout clouds killing everyone" lit and films); by the early 1960s you can find all sorts of discussions of fallout in really general interest periodicals like Readers' Digest and the like. The definitive book on this subject (which is an excellent book, by the way — a really quite fun read) is Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Harvard University Press, 1988). Pretty good beach reading, if you ask me...

Wnt — the PTB played a role but not in quite the way you mean. It was because of the PTB that they started heavy investment in underground testing, which is exactly the kind of research that makes you able to do things like Project Gnome and PACER and other of these approaches. So I would see the PTB as actually a spur to this sort of research, and I don't think it's a coincidence that all of the projects on this front start around the same time the PTB was being debated. CTBT is much much later, but certainly it would affect any current work in this direction. The US gov't had no problem with underground testing, though, between 1963 and 1992, and tested literally hundreds of nuclear weapons during that time, some of which for "civilian" purposes. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there was once a discussion here on the ref desk about using a nuke to contain the Deepwater Horizon oil leak. AFAIK there had been some experiments of this kind carried out in Russia, but that idea never got off the ground. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that as well but immediately attributed that to media sensationalism. Who ever heard of stopping a leaking pipe by blowing up the end of the pipe that is leaking? Googlemeister (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Adair, for one. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red used explosions to blow out the fires on a burning well, not to stop the leak. Fire wasn't really that much of an issue with the BP leak 5,000 ft underwater. Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plant breathing at night and fresh morning air

If plants release CO2 at night then why morning air is called Oxygen rich and fresh air, it should be carbon dioxide rich.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.51.144 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard morning air called "oxygen rich". The CO2 and oxygen levels in the atmosphere don't vary all that much between day and night (there is a variation, but not enough to make any difference to anything). --Tango (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morning air is fresher because of the smaller amount of pollutants present, not because it has more oxygen. Dauto (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the reduced pollutants are due to factories and cars being used less at night, as well as dew removing particulates from the air. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds like nonsense. Can we have refs or links? μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sounds like nonsense? Dauto (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not going to provide links to prove the obvious, like that fewer cars are on the road overnight. If there's a specific item in question, then tell me. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of the "freshness" of the early morning air also has to do with the fact that a lot of harmful chemicals in the air are created by photochemical processes; for instance, tropospheric ozone is formed by myriad reactions that, for the most part, can only take place with the aid of the sun. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a matter of perception. To me, if the morning air smells "fresher", it's just because it's cooler. That coolness might have some impact on the ability of smells to permeate. Warmer air often seems "smellier" than cooler air. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, for a couple reasons:

1) Many smelly chemicals don't evaporate as well at lower temps.

2) Odor-producing organisms grow more slowly at lower temps. StuRat (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of Biotechnology study, How form (made) optimer?

Sir I take admission in Bsc Biotechnology. I want to cure cancer disease with the help of optimer. I little know about optimer , I think when we collide proton in optimer and proton get more energy. This energy damage carcinogenic cells which cause cancer because some types of cancer cause with the help of UV radition ,when we fall radiation on UV radition lot of energy produce and cancerious cell are damage, but one problem is create i don't know, how i produce rdiation ,how i form optimer, how i collide proton ? I am 12th class student , I think so but not any practice in this work. I know you help me and solve my problem.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan jassi (talk • contribs) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we knew how to cure cancer, we wouldn't be wasting our time on the Wikipedia Reference Desk! It's clear you don't enough about to subject to even get started on your idea, so I suggest you continue studying. After your BSc (and maybe a masters) you can apply for a PhD position and then you can do research into your idea. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I suggest reading Radiation therapy for a start. 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And radiation therapy doesn't so much cure cancer as treat it. That is, certain types of cancers can be reduced, but only at the cost of damaging the surrounding tissue. A more promising "cure", IMHO, is to use genetic engineering to create viruses that can penetrate each cell, identify the cancerous ones by comparing their DNA with a template (taken from your cancer cells earlier), and destroy those which match. This might be a few decades away, but has the potential to be a 100% cure, as this could eliminate cancer cells anywhere in the body, regardless of the surrounding tissue, and including cancer that has metastasised. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use the flu to cure cancer... interesting idea. BTW, I think this idea is actually at the clinical testing stage right now. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some early version of it is, but not the way I envisage it, with each virus quickly programmed to go after a particular section of cancer DNA (or RNA) marker extracted from the patient's cancer cells (during a biopsy). I can't see a "one size fits all" cancer cure, as there are many different varieties of cancer, and I wouldn't expect a single virus to be able to distinguish all cancers from all healthy cells, in all patents. Also, a "safety" needs to be built into the virus, so it can't replicate outside the lab, to prevent it from accidentally spreading. What kind of safety mechanism ? Perhaps it needs some raw ingredient to replicate which isn't found inside humans. Another advantage of this safety would be that you could control the rate at which the cancer is killed, by slowly administering the virus. For some large cancer masses, it might not be good to kill them all at once, as that could result in necrosis. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

But your "virus" would have to be able to separate the DNA strings to compare them with a template. Probably it would be easier to hold the template against the RNA. 5BYv8cUJ (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Optimer Pharmaceuticals" but its products sound like conventional drugs. I found mention of a computer program in a 1995 paper OptiMer but that isn't it either. I'm not aware of "optimer" as a biological term, though certainly it could have been a good coinage for something like an aptamer or other oligonucleotide used for treatment.

The original poster should note that DNA damage such as thymine dimers can cause cancer. Yet radiation therapy and many chemotherapy drugs such as cisplatin damage the DNA to (possibly) cure cancer. Thus, for a person without cancer to take anti-cancer drugs would usually increase his risk of cancer. The reason for this paradox is that cancer cells happen to develop mutations in such a way as to reproduce rapidly, leaving DNA constantly busy and vulnerable, without regard to the usual cellular safety mechanisms. Therefore, they are not ready to stop and wait when DNA damage is found, and can be driven to the point where damage becomes so severe that remaining safety features in place cause the cell to self-destruct.

I think the "protons" refer to proton therapy, a form of hadron therapy, a form of particle therapy, a form of radiation therapy. The chief benefit of this treatment appears to be to greatly increase the price. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]