Interesting - but long - article on ageing

[Larry_Oldtimer]

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/sep04/0904age.html

Excerpt: "Living organisms already have numerous mechanisms of repair—for example, cells killed by everything from scratches to sunburn are continuously replaced by new ones, which are formed by stem cells, cells that can multiply to form many types of tissue. Scientists have been studying what's called the hormesis effect, the observation that a little bit of poison activates an organism's self-repair mechanisms, having the side effect of protecting it against other hazards than the poison itself. If we could learn to control such a protective effect, we might be able to slow or prevent the loss of cells and systems that leads to aging.

And the eco-whackos want the environment to have not a trace of any toxin. Might not be the wisest thing to do in light of the above. Could likely cause far more harm than help.

[kathleen]

And the eco-whackos want the environment to have not a trace of any toxin. Might not be the wisest thing to do in light of the above. Could likely cause far more harm than help.


I have no idea what kind of eco-whackos you are encountering but the ones I know never expressed the futile and stupid idea of eliminating all toxins from the environment. Therefore I suspect you are making this last part up. ;)

The idea would be silly to anyone with just a smidgen of scientific education - there are natural toxins in the environment, natural radiation and natural pollution. The stuff we are adding to it isn't helpful, healthy or nice to either our own bodies or the environment but it is impossible to make the world toxin-free.

What this doesn't mean is that it is even futile trying to eliminate the man-made stuff we are adding the whole mess - because it isn't. A healthy lifestyle includes avoidance of some of these nasties - including eliminating the junk in our food supply and at least trying to clean up the air we breath and the water we drink. Because, despite the denials of the anti-environmentalists, all of this stuff has an adverse affect on our personal health. Yet it's up to the people to decide how much risk they wish to take (and to actually understand the risk itself). We moved from the city partly because of the awful, yucky, dirty, disease-filled, pollution-saturated environment. Country living fits our personal goals and lifestyle. We noticed it almost immediately when we moved to this small town - we could actually smell nothing in the air we breathed - the air was fresh.

Other people might not want to leave the city because of employment opportunities or access to services or whatever. It's up to them. Others might not mind working at a chemical plant or building their home on a bulldozed and covered up garbage dump. Again, it's up to them to make that decision.

As long as they know that any consequence of that decision is not anyone's fault but their own.

[kathleen]

Living organisms already have numerous mechanisms of repair—for example, cells killed by everything from scratches to sunburn are continuously replaced by new ones, which are formed by stem cells, cells that can multiply to form many types of tissue.

Another theory of ageing suggests that there is a timeclock in each cell and that after a certain number of predetermined cell divisions (or replacements) that's it - it stops replicating itself and dies.

Scientists have been studying what's called the hormesis effect, the observation that a little bit of poison activates an organism's self-repair mechanisms, having the side effect of protecting it against other hazards than the poison itself.

This is exactly the same thing we are learning about disease and stress on the human body. It appears that a certain amount of both is necessary for good health. Any infection or virus we get potentially boosts our immunity to any future illnesses and a small amount of stress is also useful in cell repair and coping mechanisms.

If we could learn to control such a protective effect, we might be able to slow or prevent the loss of cells and systems that leads to aging.

This is more than a bit of a reach. It's all theory now anyway. We don't even know for sure how much of this is involved in the ageing process or if it is the only thing involved.

[truelies]

..............................The idea would be silly to anyone with just a smidgen of scientific education...........................


Surely you do not think that the Loons at Earth First and ELF are either rational or scientific?????????

[kathleen]

Surely you do not think that the Loons at Earth First and ELF are either rational or scientific?????????


I do understand that there are fanatics in every group - and that the environmental crowd is not immune.

I'm not so heavily involved in the movement that I once was but I have never encountered crazy loonies in the groups I associated with (well, not real crazy crazies anyway). Most of the people were just like me - ordinary, average people (mostly students) with a concern for the environment, doing the things they could to help - organizing inner city gardens (that project was a blast to work on), getting politically active, attending protests, educating those interested in the issue, etc, etc.

I was never one to advocate putting spikes into trees or liberating lab animals. Just for your information. :)

[truelies]

.................I was never one to advocate putting spikes into trees ...................


That is good- I have seen the damage to human beings that spiking does.

[kathleen]

That is good- I have seen the damage to human beings that spiking does.


I can only imagine how horrid the effect is.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, actions like this defeats the whole purpose of the movement. You want people to listen to your message, not make them hate you.

[arod]

I have no idea what kind of eco-whackos you are encountering but the ones I know never expressed the futile and stupid idea of eliminating all toxins from the environment. Therefore I suspect you are making this last part up. ;)

Actually the idea is presently finding an outlet for expression in California, where draconian regulations on the emissions from IC engines have, ironically enough, produced the most insidious water pollution problem yet encountered by requring the use of MTBE in gasoline.

[wendy]

From Thomas Sowell:


Did you know that people in the wealthy San Francisco suburb of Sausalito, across the bay, own 80,000 acres of land in Kenya? What are they doing with it? They are setting it aside as a nature preserve, in order to keep poor people in Kenya from hunting animals for food on those 80,000 acres.

There are laments from Wildlife Works of Sausalito, the owners of the land, that poachers are hunting in this sacrosanct wilderness anyway and that 20 percent of the meat sold in Nairobi comes from animals killed in this preserve. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "With half the population living below the poverty line, the temptation to poach for bush meat is strong."

What are rich people doing, in the first place, trying to stop poor people on the other side of the world from getting something to eat? They are feeding their own egos by hindering poor Africans from feeding themselves.

It's not a racial thing. The green zealots would stop anybody from doing anything they don't approve of. They talk grandly about "protecting" this, "preserving" that, or "saving" something else.

From what? From other people. Nor is this just a matter of buying up things to keep them out of other people's hands. Far more often, green zealots want the government to deprive other people of the right to use land or resources for their own purposes, rather than for the recreational or other purposes preferred by the green zealots.

MORE (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040924.shtml)