Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nature's 2 billon year old Nuclear reactor

  1. Nov 13, 2005 #1
    a natural 2 billon year old nuclear reactor was found arfrica
    http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/natures-nuclear-reactor0204/
    What I think is intersting about is that each nuclear reaction lasted exactllay
    30 min not 25 not 32 but exactally 30 min.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 26, 2005 #2
    Interesting topic. I can't make your link work.
     
  4. Nov 27, 2005 #3
  5. Feb 4, 2006 #4
    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...
     
  6. Feb 5, 2006 #5

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2006
  7. Feb 19, 2006 #6
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2006
  8. Feb 19, 2006 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A lot of that is conspiracy theory, Raza, but drug companies most certainly do look to the natural world for drugs.
     
  9. Feb 19, 2006 #8

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  10. Feb 19, 2006 #9
    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.
     
  11. Feb 19, 2006 #10

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nature's 2 billon year old Nuclear reactor
  1. Nuclear Reactor (Replies: 18)

  2. Nuclear reactor (Replies: 6)

  3. Nuclear reactor (Replies: 16)

  4. Nuclear Reactor (Replies: 1)

Loading...