karensmansker on lung cancer

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by karenmansker, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Cancer is Mostly Random, Study Confirms

    KSM comment: Genetics is an important role, as are random mutations in causing cancer. IMO, cancer involves breaking of weak hydroben bonds and erroneous recombination of DNA/RNA and their nucleotides by numerous causes. Cancerous growth is experienced by most everone - likely numerous times during one's life. But (fortunately) the body's 'recovery system' is good at repairing itself so these temporary cancer episodes resolve. Final irreparable cancerous growth is usually terminal when the damage becomes uncontrollable and cannot be repaired.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/healthtrending/cancer-is-mostly-random-study-confirms/ar-BByE3uS?li=BBnbfcL
    HSIRI

    // [Mod Note: This thread has been split from lung cancer in Biology & Genetics]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Another hypothetical commentary by KSM: Another very probable 'cause' of lung cancer is radon - a colorless, odorless naturally-occuring gas. Radon ultimately derives from parent uranium (via radium) in various extant conditions. Uranium is a common trace element in phosphate-rich sedimentary rocks, sandstones, limestones, and crystalline igneous rocks (e.g., granite). The dangers from radon involve the production of radioactive daughter products and highly-charged (~ 3-7 MeV alpha particles. Alpha particles are positively-charged helium nuclei that, once produced by radon decay, tend to 'plate' out on airborne dust particles (and other substrates). This is one reason why second-hand smoke offers significant health risks: Primary smokers inhale/exhale smoke (which is risk-enough) and radon gas. Passive and exhaled smoke particles offer a great substrate for charged alpha particles electrostatically plating onto the smoke particles. Non-smoking persons in the 'smokey' environment - also inhaling and exhaling particulates and radon gas - are then the recipients of dust and smoke particles onto which the alpha particles have 'plated' (attached to). Inhalation of such particulates with attached alpha particles, sets the stage for physical attachment to bronchial and alveolar surfaces in the lung. Once thus attached, the alpha particles release significant ionizing discharges that are capable of damaging exposed cell surfaces and recombinant nucleotides via breaking of weak molecular hydrogen bonds. Less frequent direct decay of inhaled radon gas is also a source for adverse ionizing impacts from produced alpha particles. Other health risks from radon-produced daughter-products exist, but are not discussed here. (HSIRI)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,088
    karenmansker - did your mommy and / or daddy smoke tobacco around you? If so, I understand now... Wow...

    "helium nuclei from radon decay... "plated" out on airborne dust particles... alpha particles attached... significant ionizing discharges... recombinant nucleotides... inhaled radon gas... adverse ionizing impacts... produced alpha particles..."

    And my personal favorite: "radon-produced daughter-products"...

    perhaps you should write a song

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,805
    One small question: where is the "here" in which these health risks from radon-produced daughter products are not discussed?

    Are these your own words, or are you quoting from an unacknowledged source? If the latter, can we know what it is?
     
  8. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Exchemist: Nowhere did I say the article supported my claim (NOTE: ONLY a CLAIM, not a scientifically proven fact - if the CLAIM seems valid -or not - I will leave that future research to others)! You are correct in that Tomasetti was discusssing random "mutations" - where did I ever claim otherwise? Plus, I was providing the article that I referenced for the readers' benefit - I was NOT addressing your referenced information. Sure . . . smoking is not a good/healthy habit (BTW: but neither is smoking dope!); but simply breathing can also be unhealthy, when you right get down-to-it . . . . in addition to inhalation of existing toxics/other (personally unhealthy), exhaling contributes to global warming (worldwide unhealthy) by the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (HAHA!HA! . . . humor here indicated, in case some readers have no sense of such)
     
  9. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Exchemist: BTW: a definition: CLAIM (verb) = to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
     
  10. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    I hereby acknowledge and solemnly 'swear' (so help me God!, if I had a Bible handy) thatI composed this comment as I was then logged-on to Sciforums - all is based on my past research and experience. My general and other professional knowledge may have indeed been influenced by information of others that I may have researched or spoken with over the past 40 years, or so . . . . don't remember all of those sources or individuals' names, however. Is THAT good enough for you, Exchemist?

    WTF "here" are you talking about 'not being discussed'? (HSIRI)
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,805
    The last line of your recent contribution, which reads like an extract from somebody's research paper and certainly not like somebody responding on an internet forum: "Other health risks from radon-produced daughter-products exist, but are not discussed here. (HSIRI)"


    By the way, who or what is HSIRI and how does it differ from KSM?
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,805
    Claim (noun): an assertion of something as fact.

    You said "Cancerous growth is experienced by most everone - likely numerous times during one's life. "

    And then referenced an article that did not support that statement.
     
  13. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Exchemist: Whatever . . . . . . Go phish/troll elsewhere! . . . . . your demands for proof of another's claims shows your intolerance for other's ideas lest they meet YOUR criteria. That's not how civil discourse/intercourse equitably evolves among colleagues.

    ps/FYI . . . . discussed this with my VA medical doctor today . . . . he agreed that my claim has merit! . . . . . so have at it!
     
  14. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    exchemist: I provided the 'last line' because I surmised that picky persons would try to 'claim' that my post did not include health effects due to many harmful daughter-products that are 'produced within the radioactive decay chain that is well-understood by most 'chemists'. And thanks for the compliment that the 'last line' reads like an extract from somebody's research paper! . . . made my day!!
    .
    FYI: HSIRI is not the same as KSM - with little thought, knowledgeable persons will know the difference!
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,640
    He is actually well within his rights to question you. The challenge of - and defense of - assertions falls very squarely within the bounds of civil discourse.

    And the rules - the ones you agreed to when you signed up, support it too:
    You know what the rules don't support? Calling someone a troll simply for asking you to back up your claims.
     
  16. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    OK . . . . . . since I have sometimes been accused of trolling in my history here, I think it appropriate that I can apply the same standard when I recognize it (trolling) . . . . . also, to satiate your (and Mods) arguments with me, I hereby change my claims to opinions, IMO, or IMHO (pick one)! I will (try) to refrain from making any claims, or stating any facts that are not documented with sources, but I reserve the right to post my opinions (etc.). I ask only that other members (and Mods) do the same. Any remarks that I make that are outside of the mantra framework of the Standard Model or other facts documented as such should be construed by any reader as my opinions.

    How's that? . . . or do you wish to pursue this idiocy further ?
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,640
    That would be fine.

    That is the standard here, and the standard in any intelligent discussion. I'm not where you came from that you would call it "idiocy", but you didn't get to be a scientist without knowing this.
     
  18. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Recognition of such is not rocket science and yes, I got to be a scientist anyway.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,640
    I don't want to put too fine point on it, but you've piqued my curiosity. If producing, verifying and backing up facts are idiotic in your view, what has driven you to be a scientist? It seems antithetical.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,728
    Mod Note

    No, but you made a claim and then provided a link, which gives every impression that said link supported your argument. In short, it was misleading and deceptive.

    He has every right to question your comments and the links you provide, and he especially has every right to question why your links have nothing to do with what you are actually saying. Just as he has every right to ask you to support your argument. Which you are yet to do.

    Your use of (HSIRI) in brackets after paragraphs and the end of your posts gives the impression that you are quoting this from another source or that it is attributed to another source. Is this source HSIRI Theraputics, by any chance? If these are your own words and your opinion/comment, why do you seem to be attributing it to another source?

     
    exchemist likes this.
  21. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Once again, a typical karenmansker post:

    "HAHA!HA! . . . . I'm right because I am a scientist . . . . HAHA!HA! . . . . you're all wrong!"
     
  22. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Dave et. al: How long do you intend to continue THIS _______ (fill in the blank)? Sorry for piquing your curiosity.

    You have misunderstood. " . . . producing, verifying and backing up facts" . . . I certaininly have no issues with. You have erroneously assigned YOUR understanding of that (pre) assumption to my 'view'. The idiocy is that this conversation yet continues. I clarified my usages regarding the term "claim" (be it verb or noun). I never presented my any claim as a proven, tested, verified "fact" - only my belief that what I stated was a viable comment for consideration, from my experiential perspective. I simply planted a viable (IMO) IDEA (<--- NOTE!) - whether you, exchemist, or any other Sciforum members agree or disagree with my 'claim' is of little interest to me. In time, all truths 'will out'.

    BTW (if you missed my earlier post): "ps/FYI . . . . discussed this with my VA medical doctor today . . . . he agreed that my claim has merit! "
     
  23. karenmansker HSIRI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    Bells, I provided a link to an interesting current article regarding mutations and cancer. I preceded that link-post with my 'comment' regarding MY ideas for cancer initiation and growth. Nowhere (show me, please!) where I connected the two issues (comment and article link)



    I made NO ARGUMENT anywhere within my post. I simply made my comments, based on my experiential knowledge and never linked them to the article. Therefore, I owe no support for any argument. I SIMPLY stated my belief that the "claim" was viable!




    Your 'impression" regarding the use of (HSIRI ) is INCORRECT. If I were quoting from ANY source, that source would be duly included in the post. NO it is NOT HSIRI Theraputics - NEVER heard of them!!. If you must KNOW (and I doubt that is a Sciforums "rule") . . . . HISRI is my personal notation, to myself, used to remind myself of the context within which I prepared the (any of my) posts - it means (ready for this?) . . . . .HOW SIMPLE IT REALLY IS . . . .please don't advertise this secret! (HAHAHA!) (<--- ALSO not a post source!)


    You see, Bells. . . . I'm not really such a 'basket case' scientist as others would have you believe. I do have a Ph.D. in the sciences and faith in myself and my ideas, and am not reluctant to express my ideas, whether they are mainstream (e.g., SM) or not. To me it is somewhat humorous (and sad!) that many so called 'scientists' are afraid of others' innovative and challenging ideas . . . such fear certainly (IMO) (<--- again NOT a source!) restricts the development of new knowledge.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2017

Share This Page