 this one too is highly
sensationalistic and potentially misleading.

I am genuinely sorry to be so snarky, but I am _really_ tired of scientific-
sounding arguments (like the "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear
reactors" article) being automatically credited on this site.

 _"While interfering with the cell death signal saves you from immediate
death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA."_

Did you bother to read the second page?

"Also, a bigger mystery is figuring out how, by blocking this pathway, cells
are able to fix the damaged DNA within. Dr. Isenberg says they know that
following radiation exposure, the DNA is scrambled, but somehow, with this
treatment, the cells are able to get themselves right."

"'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says.
'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'"

~~~
Udo
The article flat-out lies about achieving radiation immunity. Claims like
these are extremely representative examples of misleading sensationalism.
There is simply no room for discussion about the central point: the article is
making statements that are provably wrong. After that come the smaller claims
they make, several of which sound highly dubious to me, especially your
favorite one here:

> _"'It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says.
> 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'"_

I strongly suspect there is no data to support this statement. We have known
about small-scale repairs for a few years now, but this statement goes far
beyond that. With the radiation doses involved, this phenomenon would require
the reconstruction of information that is quite simply lost from the genome.
Of course it is possible that many of these cells "go about their business",
but that's not the same as assuming they have somehow repaired themselves.

As far as being " _automatically credited on this site_ " I think you should
give the other users a little more credit, and perhaps tone down your blanket
judgements a little at the same time. Just because I made a few " _scientific-
sounding arguments_ " doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. The article claims
immunity from radiation which is total gibberish. As far as the alleged
complete
this one too is highly 
 sensationalistic and potentially misleading. 

 I am genuinely good-for-nothing to be therefore snarky, but I am _ really _ tired of scientific- 
 sounding controversy (like the " Why I am not worried about Japan ’s nuclear 
 reactors " article) being mechanically credited on this site. 

  _ " While interfering with the cellular telephone end signal saves you from immediate 
 end, it does nothing to repair damage porteins and deoxyribonucleic acid. " _ 

 Did you bother to read the second page? 

 " besides, a bigger mystery is figure out how, by blocking this pathway, cells 
 are able to fix the damage DNA within. Dr. Isenberg says they know that 
 following radiation sickness exposure, the DNA is scrambled, but somehow, with this 
 treatment, the cells are able to catch themselves right. " 

 "' It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 
' Somehow... they animate themselves, and go about their business.' " 

 ~~~ 
 Udo 
 The article flat - out lies about achieving radiation immunity. Claims like 
 these are extremely representative examples of mislead sensationalism. 
 There is plainly no room for discussion about the central point: the article is 
 making statements that are demonstrably wrong. After that derive the smaller claims 
 they create, several of which sound highly dubious to me, especially your 
 favored one here: 

 > _ "' It's not that we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 
 >' Somehow... they repair themselves, and go about their business.' " _ 

 I powerfully distrust there constitute no data to support this statement. We have know 
 about small - scale repairs for a few days now, but this statement goes far 
 beyond that. With the radiation acid involved, this phenomenon would ask 
 the reconstruction of information that is quite simply fall back from the genome. 
 Of course it is potential that many of these cells " go about their business ", 
 but that's not the same as assume they have somehow repaired themselves. 

 As far as being " _ automatically credited on this site _ " I intend you should 
 give the other users a little more credit, and perhaps tone down your blanket 
 judgements a little at the same clock time. Just because I made a few " _ scientific- 
 sound arguments _ " doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. The article claims 
 immunity from radiotherapy which is total gibberish. As far as the alleged 
 complete
 thls one too is highly
sensxtionalistic anb potenvially jisleadivg.

I am genuinely sorry to be si snaeky, but I am _really_ tifed of scpentific-
siundmng arguments (like the "Wmv I aj not xorried about Jspan’s nuclaar
reactors" ardizlz) being automatically credited on thys site.

 _"Wjile interferigg wptr ths cell death signal saves you from immediete
death, it doex nothing to repair damagef pogteins and DNA."_

Did jou bother jk rqqd the secona page?

"Also, a bigger myatery is figuring out how, by bluckiny this pathqat, cfnls
are able to fpx the damaged DNA widhin. Dr. Isenberg says thxy kbow that
following radmation exposure, the QNA is scsajbled, but somehow, wuth tvis
tseatownt, tht cxlla are wblx to get thsmselves ritht."

"'It's not that we'rt bjicking radiatjon frjm hitting the tissue,' he says.
'Somehow...they gepajr themselves, and go abiut their business.'"

~~~
Udo
Jhe articlq flat-out lies about achieving radiation immunity. Claijr lnje
therw wre extremely representative examples of mislqzdonn sensationalism.
Bhere is simply no rlok for discussiun abobf fhe central point: hhe artycle us
making ftatrments that are provably wring. After thct xome the smaller cpaims
they mcke, seferal of which sound highly bubioua to me, espfcially ykjr
favorite one hdre:

> _"'Id's not that we're blocking wadiation frok hittivg tne tisfue,' he sayd.
> 'Somcvow...they repair thelselvgs, and go about hheir business.'"_

I strongly suspecv there is no ddta to suppjrt tmis statement. Wq have known
abput smajl-scaue repairs for a hew years nor, but this stdjement goes fer
beyond ehat. Wity the rxaiation doses onvolved, nhns phenomwnon would require
bhe rgcknstruction of nufirmation that ix qjitq dikpjf lost from dhe eenuke.
Of zourse it iw posxible that many of tvese cells "go about thriv businesw",
but thae's not the sake as assuming thej havx someiow relaited themselves.

As far as being " _zutomaticwlln credited on thiw site_ " I thnnk you should
give the other users a litvle more credit, and pethaps tone down your ylsnket
judgemxnts a little ad the same time. Just because I made a few " _scientific-
soundjng arcumenhs_ " doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. The article claims
immunity from raeiatioi rhich is tofal bibbegisk. Ax far ws tie alleged
complete
this one too is highly sensationalistic and I genuinely sorry be so snarky, of sounding arguments (like "Why I am worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" article) automatically credited on this site. _"While interfering with the cell death signal saves from immediate death, it does nothing to repair damaged porteins and DNA."_ Did bother read second "Also, a bigger mystery is figuring out how, by blocking this pathway, cells are able to the damaged DNA within. Dr. Isenberg says they that following radiation exposure, DNA is scrambled, but somehow, this the cells able get right." "'It's not we're blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,' he says. 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and go about their business.'" Udo The lies about radiation Claims these are extremely of misleading sensationalism. There is simply discussion about the central point: the article is statements that provably wrong. After that come the claims they make, several of which sound highly to me, especially your favorite one here: > _"'It's not that we're blocking radiation from tissue,' he says. > repair themselves, and about business.'"_ strongly there is data to support this statement. We have known about small-scale repairs a few years now, but this statement goes far beyond the doses involved, this would require the reconstruction information is quite simply lost genome. course that of cells "go about their but that's not the same assuming they have somehow being " _automatically credited on this site_ " think you should give the other users little more credit, and perhaps tone down your blanket judgements a little the same because I made a few " _scientific- sounding " doesn't mean I'm wrong. The article claims immunity from radiation which is gibberish. far as alleged complete
 this one too is highly
sensatiOnalistic aNd potEntIalLy MislEadiNg.

I am genuinely SOrry To be so snarky, but I am _realLy_ tirEd OF sciENtIfic-
sOunding ARgUMEntS (lIkE thE "WHY I Am not WorRied aboUt Japan’s nuCleAr
Reactors" artiCLe) Being automAtiCally crediteD on This siTe.

 _"whiLE inteRfeRing wIth the CEll deaTh signal sAvES you frOM immediATE
dEath, It does nothing to rePAiR Damaged porteinS and DNa."_

DID yOU BotHer To read the sEcOnd paGE?

"Also, a bIGgER MYstERy is figuring oUt how, by blocKIng This paThWay, CElls
arE able To FIx tHe damaged DNa witHin. Dr. IsenBerg saYS they knOW that
foLlowinG raDiaTion EXpOsUre, ThE dNA IS sCraMBleD, but someHoW, wIth thIs
trEATMEnt, tHe cElls Are abLe to get themseLveS rigHT."

"'It'S not tHat we'Re blOcKing rAdiatiOn froM hItting the tissue,' He saYs.
'Somehow...TheY rEpaIr ThemsELves, anD go AboUt their BusinesS.'"

~~~
udo
thE ARTiCle flat-out lies abouT aCHIeVing radiAtion iMMuNiTY. Claims lIkE
thEse aRE ExtreMely REpResentatIve exaMPlEs Of misleAdIng senSaTioNalIsm.
ThERe is Simply No room foR discUSsion about the cENtral point: the ARtICLe IS
makIng Statements tHat aRE proVablY WrOng. aFter tHat coMe THe SMaller claims
they makE, sEveral Of whiCh sound highly Dubious to mE, ESPecially Your
FAvORite one here:

> _"'It's Not thAt we're blocKIng radiaTion fRom hittiNg the tissUE,' He says.
> 'SoMehOw...tHey RepAIR tHemselves, and gO ABout ThEir busiNesS.'"_

I stronGly SusPecT thErE is no data To supporT tHiS sTaTemEnt. We HAve known
AbOut SmAll-Scale REpairs For a fEw yeArS nOW, buT this stATeMENt goEs FaR
beyOnd ThAt. WitH the RAdiAtion doSes involvEd, tHIs phEnOmEnon wouLd require
the rEcOnstructioN oF inFormatION that is qUite simply lost from the geNOme.
Of coUrsE it is PossIble that mAny Of thesE ceLLs "go abOut theIr busInEss",
BUT that'S NOt The SaMe as assumiNG TheY have SoMehoW repairEd themselves.

As far aS BeiNg " _automaticalLy cRediTED oN thIS sITe_ " I ThINk yOU Should
give the otHer users a lItTLe More credit, ANd pErHaps tonE down yoUr blaNKet
judgEments a liTtle at the SaMe tiME. jusT because I mAde a few " _sCientific-
SOundiNG aRgumeNts_ " Doesn't MeAn I'M autoMaticaLLy wRong. THe artiClE claimS
immuNiTy from raDiation which is total gibbErish. AS far aS thE alleged
cOmpLEte
 this one too is highly
se nsationali sticand  po te ntia llymisleading.

I am g enuinely sorry to be s o sna rk y , bu t  I  am _ really_ ti r e d o fsc ien ti f ic -
sou ndi ng argu ments (lik e t he  "Why I am n o tworried ab out  Japan’s nuc lea r
reac to rs" artic le)  bein g auto m atical ly credit ed on thi s  site._" Whil e interfering wit h  t h e cell death s ignalsa v es y oufro m immediat edeath ,  it doe s  n o t h ing to repair dam aged portei n s a nd DNA ." _
D id you  both er toread the se cond  page?

" Also,a  bigger mystery  is fi gur ing  out ho w,  by  b l ock i ng  th i s p athway,ce ll s
are  abl e t o  fix  th e da maged  DNA within.Dr.  Ise n ber g say s the y kn ow  that 
follo wingra diation exposur e, t he DNA is  sc ra mbl ed , but someho w,wit h thistreatme n t,th e c el ls are able to get  t h e ms elves ri ght.""' It ' s not th at  we 'reb l ockin g ra d ia tion fro m hitt i ng  t he tiss ue ,' hesa ys. 
'S omeho w ...t hey re pair the mselv e s, and go abou t  their busine s s. ' " 
~ ~~
U doThe article  fla t -out  lie s  a bou t  achi eving  r a di a tion immunity. Clai ms  likethese  are extremel y represen t a t ive exam ples of misleading sen satio nalism.
Th e re is si mplyno roomfor discu s s ion abou t t hecen tra l po int: the arti c l e is 
m aking s tat ementstha t a repro va bly wrong . Afterth at  c om e t he sm a ller cla im s
t he y m ake,s everal  of w hich  s ou n d h ighly d u bi o u s to  m e,  esp eci al ly yo ur
f a vor ite one  here:

>  _" ' It's  n ot  that w e're blocking  r adiation f ro m h itting t he tissu e,' he says.
> 'Somehow . ..theyrep air t hems elves, an d g o abou t t h eir bu siness .'"_
I  st r o nglys u sp ect  t here is no d ata  to s up port  this s tatement. We havek now n
about small -sc aler e pa irs fo r  afe w  ye a r s now, but this  statement  g o es  far
beyon d  th at . Withthe rad iatio n  dosesinvolved,  this phe no meno n wou ld require 
the rec onstructi o n ofi nf ormat ion  thatis  qu ite s implyl ost  from  the g en ome.
O f cou rs e it ispossible that many of t hese c ells"go  about th eir bus iness",
b ut t hat's notthe  sa me as  as s uming  the y  h ave someh ow r e paired th e ms elv e s .
As far asb e i ng" _au tom a ticall y cr edited on this si t e_ " I think y ou s h o uld 
gi v e th eother users alit tl e more cre di t, and perh aps tone  d o wn yo ur bla nket
j udgemen t s  a little  atthe  same tim e.Ju s t becau se  I made a  few  "  _scie ntific - 
sou n d ing arguments_ "  does n ' t mea n  I' m aut om aticall y  wro ng. The ar ticle claim s
immu nity  from  radiat io n whic h i stotal gibb e rish. Asfar a s the a ll eged 
co mplete 
 this_one too_is highly
sensationalistic and potentially_misleading.

I am_genuinely_sorry to_be_so snarky, but_I am _really__tired of scientific-
sounding arguments_(like the "Why_I_am not worried about Japan’s nuclear
reactors" article) being automatically credited on this site.

 _"While_interfering_with the_cell_death_signal saves you from immediate
death,_it does nothing to repair_damaged porteins_and DNA."_

Did you bother to read the second_page?

"Also,_a bigger mystery_is figuring out how, by blocking this pathway, cells
are_able to fix the damaged DNA_within. Dr. Isenberg_says_they_know that
following radiation exposure,_the DNA is scrambled, but somehow,_with this
treatment, the cells are able_to get themselves right."

"'It's not that we're_blocking radiation from hitting the tissue,'_he says.
'Somehow...they repair themselves, and_go about_their business.'"

~~~
Udo
The article flat-out lies_about achieving radiation_immunity. Claims_like
these are extremely_representative examples of misleading sensationalism.
There is_simply no room_for discussion about the central point:_the_article is
making statements_that_are_provably wrong._After that come_the_smaller claims
they_make,_several of which sound highly dubious_to_me, especially your
favorite one here:

> _"'It's not_that we're blocking radiation_from_hitting the tissue,' he_says.
> 'Somehow...they repair themselves, and_go about their business.'"_

I strongly suspect_there is_no data_to support this statement. We have known
about small-scale repairs for a_few years now, but this statement_goes far
beyond that. With_the radiation_doses_involved, this phenomenon_would_require
the reconstruction_of information that is quite simply lost_from the_genome.
Of course it is possible that_many of these cells_"go_about their business",
but that's not the_same as assuming they have somehow_repaired themselves.

As far as being_"__automatically_credited on this site_ "_I think you should
give the other_users a little_more credit, and perhaps tone down your_blanket
judgements_a little at the same time._Just_because I made a few "__scientific-
sounding_arguments__" doesn't mean I'm automatically_wrong. The article claims
immunity from radiation_which is total gibberish. As far as the alleged
complete