Lets Give it Cancer!

[Ciran]

Ok, before we begin, I'd like for it to be known that this comes from a near complete lack of understanding as to how cancer works, and a limited understanding of algae. Ready? Too bad, lets go!

So, from what I do understand, algae is very important. It creates somewhere around 75% of the Oxygen in the atmosphere, and is the basis of the food chain for most of our watery ecosystems (like grass is on land). Now, supposedly, there's some type of algae shortage in the world. Caused by I have no clue, and by how much I don't know, but, that's not the important thing here (my idea would still stand, regardless). And, it might be playing a part in the vast drops in marine life population across the world, in addition to all our overfishing and pollution/destruction of habitats.

Now that we've gotten all the "things" that I "know" out of the way, lets dive into my ignorance...What if we found a way to give algae cancer, as a means of creating a huge bloom in quantity? As far as I'm aware, cancer (or, maybe just some types of it) causes cells to constantly reproduce, instead of only reproducing some set amount of times, or with disregard to resources or something. As far as I am also aware, algae, or at least most forms of it, are single cell plants or plant-like things. Wouldn't this result in a huge bloom of algae? And wouldn't that, in turn, cause a huge explosion in marine life populations, starting all the way at the bottom of the chains, and a huge boost to the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere?

So, what do you think?
Can algae even get cancer?
If it could, do you think we'd be able to find a way to do so on a grand enough scale that it would matter?
If we did, would the algae even continue to serve it's purpose?
Would the animals that feed off of it get cancer as a result, and so on, up the food chain?

I'd like to reiterate that I am not a biologist, I am not a doctor, I am not a botanist, and I am not an ecologist.

Basically, there is one good reason this wouldn't work; cancer cells JUST grow. They stop whatever they were doing at the time (and in addition stop the cells around them) and then just expand (this cease of function would mean they would also cease to process carbon monoxide and therefor stop producing oxygen).

 

[emeraldrafael]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

 

[Naleh]

To Naleh

Fierst of, yeah, I dont knwo hwo to shorten quotes to a certain phrase from the post.

Secondly, when? Lets say you do have somethign that cnacers kills. I've seen the study done before where people thought that was a good idea. BUt you are still giving them CANCER! Its goes back to what i just said. you are intentionally harmning someone. NAd I;'v seen when chemo goes wrong. and it SUCKS when it does, ebcuase thats usually a last resort kinda deal, becuase it acn go bad, or do more harm then good. But I'm not goign to debate chemo's usefulness.

Who knows when? You can't predict the future of technology. Noone would have thought the science behind the atomic bomb would later be used to track substances around the body. Noone would have thought lightning would one day be used to start hearts. The point is that cancer might one day work for humanity - or, of course, it might not. Which is why you have to look at each idea on its own merits and not just discard it because it involves something bad.

 

[emeraldrafael]

To Naleh

Fierst of, yeah, I dont knwo hwo to shorten quotes to a certain phrase from the post.

Secondly, when? Lets say you do have somethign that cnacers kills. I've seen the study done before where people thought that was a good idea. BUt you are still giving them CANCER! Its goes back to what i just said. you are intentionally harmning someone. NAd I;'v seen when chemo goes wrong. and it SUCKS when it does, ebcuase thats usually a last resort kinda deal, becuase it acn go bad, or do more harm then good. But I'm not goign to debate chemo's usefulness.

Who knows when? You can't predict the future of technology. Noone would have thought the science behind the atomic bomb would later be used to track substances around the body. Noone would have thought lightning would one day be used to start hearts. The point is that cancer might one day work for humanity - or, of course, it might not. Which is why you have to look at each idea on its own merits and not just discard it because it involves something bad.

So if i said i wanted to solve a problem in the brain... lets say there's too much pressure on it it happens, i forget wat its called. Lets say the brain is too big for the skull, or the skull is to small for the brain. My idea was to ask the person what function of the body they were willing to lose, and i could cut that way, so the brain fits easier. We should actually CONSIDER this act as "could be future medicine".

 

[zehydra]

Cancer also affects other functions of cells, and most likely will kill whatever function the out of control algae cells also had.

Also, some algae is single celled, so the question of cancer for these would be moot.

 

[lacktheknack]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Referring you to your challenge, where you said "a living being", NOT "a human being".

I'd never advocate infecting a human. When did that come into the picture? This topic is on cancerous algae!

 

[emeraldrafael]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Referring you to your challenge, where you said "a living being", NOT "a human being".

I'd never advocate infecting a human. When did that come into the picture? This topic is on cancerous algae!

I'm just one of those people that views all life as sacred. And this is going of what you siad. We are not using this algea to cure cancer. So you have to test on animals, test on humans to know, like you do with all drugs/treatments. Becuase YOU said in your post that started this, that you want to do this as a cure. And when you do this, you must test on ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO SEE THAT IT WORKS. Thats how the cure for polio worked, how the cure for chicken pox worked, and how the cure for any other disease is made and tested.

 

[Firoth]

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Why did this become about giving people cancer? I don't recall anything even close to that in my original hypothesis. And I made this thread to DISCUSS the POSSIBILITY of this working or not working. All you've done is throw it out the window because I said a bad word. That's no better than Bible thumpers throwing stem cell research out the window, something that has already proven itself a possible life saver in the face of many things.

 

[lacktheknack]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Referring you to your challenge, where you said "a living being", NOT "a human being".

I'd never advocate infecting a human. When did that come into the picture? This topic is on cancerous algae!

I'm just one of those people that views all life as sacred. And this is going of what you siad. We are not using this algea to cure cancer. So you have to test on animals, test on humans to know, like you do with all drugs/treatments. Becuase YOU said in your post that started this, that you want to do this as a cure. And when you do this, you must test on ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO SEE THAT IT WORKS. Thats how the cure for polio worked, how the cure for chicken pox worked, and how the cure for any other disease is made and tested.

A. Algae aren't animals. They're plants.

B. I'd much sooner kill a cow than a person. Is that bad?

 

[lacktheknack]

To Naleh

Fierst of, yeah, I dont knwo hwo to shorten quotes to a certain phrase from the post.

Secondly, when? Lets say you do have somethign that cnacers kills. I've seen the study done before where people thought that was a good idea. BUt you are still giving them CANCER! Its goes back to what i just said. you are intentionally harmning someone. NAd I;'v seen when chemo goes wrong. and it SUCKS when it does, ebcuase thats usually a last resort kinda deal, becuase it acn go bad, or do more harm then good. But I'm not goign to debate chemo's usefulness.

Who knows when? You can't predict the future of technology. Noone would have thought the science behind the atomic bomb would later be used to track substances around the body. Noone would have thought lightning would one day be used to start hearts. The point is that cancer might one day work for humanity - or, of course, it might not. Which is why you have to look at each idea on its own merits and not just discard it because it involves something bad.

So if i said i wanted to solve a problem in the brain... lets say there's too much pressure on it it happens, i forget wat its called. Lets say the brain is too big for the skull, or the skull is to small for the brain. My idea was to ask the person what function of the body they were willing to lose, and i could cut that way, so the brain fits easier. We should actually CONSIDER this act as "could be future medicine".

...wut?

Nothing you posted here makes sense, as swollen brains are fixed different ways, cutting a brain apart doesn't work the way you seem to think... and if it did, and they said "yes", then why not?

 

[emeraldrafael]

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Why did this become about giving people cancer? I don't recall anything even close to that in my original hypothesis. And I made this thread to DISCUSS the POSSIBILITY of this working or not working. All you've done is throw it out the window because I said a bad word. That's no better than Bible thumpers throwing stem cell research out the window, something that has already proven itself a possible life saver in the face of many things.

becuase I asked when adding cancer is ever good and they others have said that when you want to find a cure for it. besides that, it has no scientific reason to work. You need reason, or some kinda of idea that is Plausable for htis to be taken seriously. Give me reason, why this will work. ebcuase as was said, cancer kills cells. or changes them, yes they change.

 

[SimuLord]

Or you could dump fertiliser into the oceans. That would up the algae population at a much lower cost.

You're not the first to have this idea, the problem is algal blooms rock the ecosystem they're in, fuck up the water & kill off a lot of other life.

What he said. Although you could always just neglect to chlorinate your swimming pool. No life to kill off and anyone who's ever had a pool go green on 'em should know just how easy it is to make happen.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Referring you to your challenge, where you said "a living being", NOT "a human being".

I'd never advocate infecting a human. When did that come into the picture? This topic is on cancerous algae!

I'm just one of those people that views all life as sacred. And this is going of what you siad. We are not using this algea to cure cancer. So you have to test on animals, test on humans to know, like you do with all drugs/treatments. Becuase YOU said in your post that started this, that you want to do this as a cure. And when you do this, you must test on ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO SEE THAT IT WORKS. Thats how the cure for polio worked, how the cure for chicken pox worked, and how the cure for any other disease is made and tested.

A. Algae aren't animals. They're plants.

B. I'd much sooner kill a cow than a person. Is that bad?

A. Its been considered as both.

B. regardless, after you find what works on the cow, you have to test on humans, and cows and humans are different. wat works for them, doesnt work for humans. No human i know of, can live off eating grass like a cow does.

 

[emeraldrafael]

To Naleh

Fierst of, yeah, I dont knwo hwo to shorten quotes to a certain phrase from the post.

Secondly, when? Lets say you do have somethign that cnacers kills. I've seen the study done before where people thought that was a good idea. BUt you are still giving them CANCER! Its goes back to what i just said. you are intentionally harmning someone. NAd I;'v seen when chemo goes wrong. and it SUCKS when it does, ebcuase thats usually a last resort kinda deal, becuase it acn go bad, or do more harm then good. But I'm not goign to debate chemo's usefulness.

Who knows when? You can't predict the future of technology. Noone would have thought the science behind the atomic bomb would later be used to track substances around the body. Noone would have thought lightning would one day be used to start hearts. The point is that cancer might one day work for humanity - or, of course, it might not. Which is why you have to look at each idea on its own merits and not just discard it because it involves something bad.

So if i said i wanted to solve a problem in the brain... lets say there's too much pressure on it it happens, i forget wat its called. Lets say the brain is too big for the skull, or the skull is to small for the brain. My idea was to ask the person what function of the body they were willing to lose, and i could cut that way, so the brain fits easier. We should actually CONSIDER this act as "could be future medicine".

...wut?

Nothing you posted here makes sense, as swollen brains are fixed different ways, cutting a brain apart doesn't work the way you seem to think... and if it did, and they said "yes", then why not?

becuase it could work as future medicine. or seem plausible. whihc is what you said adding cnacer could be used as. and the point of it is its UNETHICAL! call me scientific or close minded, but i will not accept an idea without good rational thought, reason, or cause for it to work. and niether will any other self respecting scientist.

 

[lacktheknack]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Referring you to your challenge, where you said "a living being", NOT "a human being".

I'd never advocate infecting a human. When did that come into the picture? This topic is on cancerous algae!

I'm just one of those people that views all life as sacred. And this is going of what you siad. We are not using this algea to cure cancer. So you have to test on animals, test on humans to know, like you do with all drugs/treatments. Becuase YOU said in your post that started this, that you want to do this as a cure. And when you do this, you must test on ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO SEE THAT IT WORKS. Thats how the cure for polio worked, how the cure for chicken pox worked, and how the cure for any other disease is made and tested.

A. Algae aren't animals. They're plants.

B. I'd much sooner kill a cow than a person. Is that bad?

A. Its been considered as both.

B. regardless, after you find what works on the cow, you have to test on humans, and cows and humans are different. wat works for them, doesnt work for humans. No human i know of, can live off eating grass like a cow does.

Fine, so you test the cure you find in a cow on something more humanlike, adjust and proceed, repeat until you've done it on chimps, then you test the final product on a cancer patien-

OH, WHAT THE HELL.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/this%20thread%20has%20derailed.jpg

 

[emeraldrafael]

Just tell me one time that it was good to add cancer to a living being and that things turned out for the better. Tell me that please, i beg you, correct me.

Researching a cure for cancer?

Oka, here we go. I thought you would say that. Tell me, when you add it to a human, or anyhting else, lets say a monkey, their usually the last step before human testing. You're intentionally harming a living being, on the hcnace it oculd help. If you dont, you could condemn it to death. so no, i will not take that as the asnwer, becuase if i said i wanted to give someone cancer and test cures on them, I think they would say no.

Augh... the grammarEdited... spelling... it hurts...

Anyways, your post was delightfully vague, so my answer is a perfectly valid one in context of your question.

Fine. I'll say it flat out. I dont accept your answer because you are giving a person cancer, which they would not willingly wnat to be given, with the vague hope that your "cure" would help them. if it doesnt, you scrwed that person forever. If it does, then good, but you make thier life hell while you do, becuase they have to live thinking everyday that cure may not work and i'm going to die. So where does that sound good?

Referring you to your challenge, where you said "a living being", NOT "a human being".

I'd never advocate infecting a human. When did that come into the picture? This topic is on cancerous algae!

I'm just one of those people that views all life as sacred. And this is going of what you siad. We are not using this algea to cure cancer. So you have to test on animals, test on humans to know, like you do with all drugs/treatments. Becuase YOU said in your post that started this, that you want to do this as a cure. And when you do this, you must test on ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO SEE THAT IT WORKS. Thats how the cure for polio worked, how the cure for chicken pox worked, and how the cure for any other disease is made and tested.

A. Algae aren't animals. They're plants.

B. I'd much sooner kill a cow than a person. Is that bad?

A. Its been considered as both.

B. regardless, after you find what works on the cow, you have to test on humans, and cows and humans are different. wat works for them, doesnt work for humans. No human i know of, can live off eating grass like a cow does.

Fine, so you test the cure you find in a cow on something more humanlike, adjust and proceed, repeat until you've done it on chimps, then you test the final product on a cancer patien-

OH, WHAT THE HELL.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/this%20thread%20has%20derailed.jpg

I'll stick by my guns. Its unethical, and no one would do it.

Besides, why wouldnt you use sun to grow more algea? Isnt that the point of highly reflective surfaces like water?

The train is back on tracks.

 

[lacktheknack]

becuase it could work as future medicine. or seem plausible. whihc is what you said adding cnacer could be used as. and the point of it is its UNETHICAL!

Quote one...

call me scientific or close minded, but i will not accept an idea without good rational thought, reason, or cause for it to work. and niether will any other self respecting scientist.

Quote two...

...are unrelated and in the same post.

That said, how is killing cows/chimps any less ethical then refusing to find cures for deadly diseases?

And also, any self-respecting scientist is willing to take a plausible theory (talking about cancer cure here) and test it, and will have a better response to sillier suggestions then "NOOOOOOOOO TARD!" Which is EXACTLY how you responded to the OP.

 

[Firoth]

becuase I asked when adding cancer is ever good and they others have said that when you want to find a cure for it. besides that, it has no scientific reason to work. You need reason, or some kinda of idea that is Plausable for htis to be taken seriously. Give me reason, why this will work. ebcuase as was said, cancer kills cells. or changes them, yes they change.

I'm pretty sure it's already been decided that for one reason or another this wouldn't work, or at least has only a slim chance under the most perfect of circumstances. Most of the posters decided to either explain (rationally and reasonably) the reasons why it wouldn't work, explained what would need to go right in order for this to work, or gave alternate means of achieving the same result. You, on the other hand, decided to be a prick about how everyone is wrong forever and stick your fingers in your ears as a defense.

 

[thedeathscythe]

I don't think plants can get cancer, or at least not in the same way.

But there are catalysts for algae already. It's not like you gotta give em cancer, they just need like humidity, heat, stagnant water and sun, boom, tons of algae. The places that there is a shortage, there is probably something they need missing because of maybe a drought or a drastic change in temperature.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

How about we just stop dumping shit into the ocean and let it build up naturally?

Because that plan isn't going to happen. Not that I support the OP's proposition, but let's face the facts here.