nature's 2 billon year old Nuclear reactor

scott1

a natural 2 billon year old nuclear reactor was found arfrica
http://www.discover.com/web-exclusiv...r-reactor0204/
What I think is intersting about is that each nuclear reaction lasted exactllay
30 min not 25 not 32 but exactally 30 min.

Paulanddiw

Interesting topic. I can't make your link work.

moose

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusiv...r-reactor0204/

That one will work.... only problem was that it went into the archives I guess

tehfrr

Oklo is great, I hope to see it in person someday. It is something I often bring up when I start getting that whole "nuclear power is bad because splitting atoms not natural" argument. Even if that were the case I dont see why it would matter, but hey, whatever...

Morbius

tehfrr,

Yes - also tell the "it's not natural" crowd that modern medicines are not
natural - you should be allowed to die from infections and diseases as
happened many years ago.

It's also not "natural" for people to fly in airliners, or live in brick houses....

For our entire existence, the human race has sought to do better than
"natural".

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Raza

There are many naturals cures out there that we don't even know about. Instead of researching in drugs, why not research on naturals cures, I think they should take a different approach at cancer research through a natural way. I also heard that drug companies are trying to hide the natural cures so they won't lose money.

They argue that they don't want unnatural materials in their body.

russ_watters

A lot of that is conspiracy theory, Raza, but drug companies most certainly do look to the natural world for drugs.

Morbius

I couldn't disagre more. I think that with scientific understanding we can
do better than what nature has done.

Saying that we should just research "natural cures" is like saying that we
should be on the lookout for where nature downed a tree over a stream,
or formed a natural arch - and that's the way we will supply our need
for bridges. We should find "natural bridges" and transport them to
where we need to ford a waterway.

Look at a bridge like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco or the
Mackinac Bridge in Michigan - engineers with a knowledge of science
can do much much better than nature can. Nature never built anything
like either of these two bridges.

Likewise with medical research. Especially now that pharmaceutical
makers have the tools of molecular biology at their disposal. Like the
engineers that can do better than nature at building bridges; these
scientists can and will exceed the capabilities of nature here also.

Again, what makes a "natural" material better? Look at someone who
has had an artificial part installed in their body. The materials used are
stronger, more inert, impervious to infection....

I don't see why people put things they label as "natural" on some
pedastal - they don't deserve to be on the pedastal.

The goal of science and engineering is to do BETTER than nature, and
do BETTER than natural. In that, we've suceeded to a great extent.

I don't get the "back to nature" crowd - our ancestors were there and
LEFT - for a reason.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Raza

I can't say that I disagree with you. I just feel that research on natural cures are left behind because they are considered "not technologized" or a "thing of the past" For example, in China, pharmacist are allowed to practice natural cures by mixing herbs to cure dieases which have the same effect as drugs but the difference is that it is just natural. Also, how many medicines do you know which have a permanent "fix" to your problem?

Futhermore, read this
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/herbs2.htm

Even though they are trying to sell their books, they is a lot of information in this website.

Morbius

Raza,

Yes - there's a lot of JUNK SCIENCE on that website.

Do you really believe the part where Shirley claims that the bacteria
are intelligent, and they are, in essence, "ganging-up" on humans?

If antibotics are over-used and abused; the fact that strains that are
resistant to the antibiotic used end up coming to the fore is just simple
"natural selection".

How ANYBODY can believe that it's a result of an "intelligence" is beyond
me.

That's why I'm appreciative of those that operate this website. We have
here an opportunity for people to get good answers to their scientific
questions; and combat junk science websites.

I agree that there is a problem with the over use of antibiotics - but that
is not the fault of the pharmaceutical companies - it's the fault of a
public that believes there's a "magic pill" that can fix their problem. In
essence, it's the fault of the pharmaceutical companies being "too
successful"; the public's expectations are exaggerated.

In the Bay Area, we have the radio program of Dr. Dean Edell, who is
also carriied nationally. He tells how doctors will tell their patients that
an antibiotic won't cure their viral infection - but the patients hound the
doctor because they "just know" there's a "magic pill" for them.

Unfortunately, the doctors "give in" when they shouldn't - and antibiotics
are used when they should not be. I don't think that's a problem with
medicine - it's a problem with educating the public.

Do you think the Chinese herbologists really understand what their potions
are doing? Why is a cure "better" just because it's "natural".

Pharmaceutical companies research BOTH potential medicines that are
found in nature - as well as those that are synthesized chemically.

There are many drugs that are derived from plants. Morphine, for example
is derived from the opium poppy. But scientists can extract the part of
the opium poppy - the morphine - that has the medicinal effect, and
leave behind the rest of the material that is either inert, or has deleterious
effects.

Scientists understand the chemical structure of morphine and why it works.
Can these herbologists make the same claim?

I've had infections - for example a stubborn respiratory infection - that
a course of the prescribed antibiotic completely destroyed the infection.
That's a permanent fix as far as I'm concerned. Unless I run into some
other pathogen which then takes up residency - I'm good to go.

I don't expect an antibiotic to provide me immunity from any and all
pathogens that I may run into. If the antibiotic knocks out whatever
I have - that's permanent.

Pathogens that infect me in the future - will be taken care of by a
future course of some other antibiotic.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist