/sci/ - Science & Math

It's biologists... what do you expect them to do? Science?
No; we will have to wait for physicists to step in to save the world again. Probably by accelerating sperm in the LHC to discover what fundamental force is sperm's enemy.

Probably because we have so many sperm and it only takes one to successfully make a baby. We also have in vitro fertilization. And honestly, I don't think many people would be upset if it suddenly became harder to have a baby. A little built in birth control might be a nice thing.

Not sure about the cancer part, but I think the reason it isn't a bigger deal is that if sperm count really did drop it would be totally valid for people to just be having sex all the time trying to get pregnant, which is kind of sweet.

i blame masturbation and internet porn

Wouldn't testing variables on mice be a suitable experiment over a few generations? Since this seems to be happening so quickly, why don't they see how the outliers of the study live and test their environment, like water, chemicals etc

>>5395826
God's way of stopping exponential growth from destroying humanity

>>5395826

Kudos to the person that made that graph.

>>5395842
while it may be a nice little bonus, it isn't going to be lasting very long until you can't have children at all.
And then what was a nice little benefit has just become an irreversable extinction source that nobody has bothered to study because it was ''convenient''

it also appears that testicular cancer is linked too, so it suggests whatever is happening is not something we want to continue.

>>5395855
If you are 40ish or younger and in good health you will almost certainly live long enough for us to discover the key to aging and death. And thats assuming we aren't all just digitized intelligences by 2050.

All part of the globalist's plans to kill off humanity. Everything that we eat and drink and breath effects our bodies, and if you put in garbage food and fluoridated water, with your consent or not, you are going to receive garbage, you reap what you sow. You know those Genetically Modified Organisms they are trying to get into your stores(GMOs) without labeling them, the ones that made hamsters infertile, with stunted growth and other disturbing mutations, yeah don't eat those, eat fresh natural food and your offspring will prosper.

its all the estrogen analogues we're throwing into the environment

I would imagine that it's related to the production of synthetic chemicals at very low concentrations, and their synergistic effect that's not yet fully understood. The more of these synthetic chemicals in your body, the greater the chance that you possess a combination that has a greater combined toxicity than the sum of each individual compound. There have been some famous papers about the effects of pharmceuticals at environmental concentrations that have looked at this phenomenon, I believe. Think of all the PCBs, PAHs, dioxins...etc with very high partitioning into lipids (fats), pharmaceuticals that accumulate in the body, and so forth.

There are also studies showing a decline in the quality of our genes over the last few thousand years as modern medicine and sanitation have allowed those with weaker genetics to survive long enough to reproduce.

>>5395826
>where it will be extremely difficult for humans to reproduce at all by 2050

This would solve a few problems.

Besides by 2050 there's no reason to think we could just have invitro with near 100% success every time.

>>5395930
>no reason to think we couldn't

It's fucking late..

>>5395868
This. The next three or four decades will see us automating personal healthcare with the assistance of intelligent agents and extremely advanced medical instruments. The majority of serious medical issues will be met and bested by then and there will be clear road maps to find practical treatments for the few ailments that remain.

>>5395868
>>5396068
No, thats silly. The idea that we will reach this state in the next 40 years is ridiculous. None of us posting here today will live to see the end of aging and death.

I fucking wish I was wrong about this one, but I'm really not.

>>5396077

The very concept of 'posting' something on the internet is only about 20 years old (mostly since this 'internet' thing that facilitates 'posting' is only that old). Given how quickly new technologies like this can reshape society, what gives you confidence in your predictions about the next 40 years?

>>5396097
>The very concept of 'posting' something on the internet is only about 20 years old (mostly since this 'internet' thing that facilitates 'posting' is only that old).
No. The web is only ~20 years old. The internet existed before the web, and people posted before the web. USENET being a prime example.

Fifteen years ago, people would have laughed at me if I told them what my smartphone can do now.

>>5396102
Regardless of whether or not his particular example of how inconceivably fast technology progresses was correct, it just seems like wishful thinking when people speak about us finding the cure for aging within 40 years, especially when they speak about it like it would be available to anyone who wanted it.

We can't even fully manipulate the genetics of our offspring yet, and we've been predicting that that is just around the corner since we discovered what DNA was. When you think about how complex we are, it seems completely impossible that we will find the solution to aging AND work out all its kinks (of which there will be countless) AND that it will be readily available to everyone.

>>5396127

Funnily enough, aging is not a genetic issue in itself. It's MOSTLY due to telomere length, and certain cells that don't replace themselves fast enough with age.

The second problem is easily solved. Once we cure cancer, we cure aging.

just the world correcting itself.

nothing to see here.

>>5395826

Because no-one gives a shit. There are too many people on the planet already. I couldn't give a fuck if i was sterile, i have no intention of breeding.

>>5396127

>We can't even fully manipulate the genetics

We could if we tried, but bio majors have no balls and don't want to touch germline modification because the ludd public will lynch them.

fucking biofags man.

>>5396145
And you think tackling aging and death would be any less of an ethical issue?

>>5396129
I'm going to assume you meant death in your second paragraph, because the idea that once we cure cancer we cure aging is obviously silly. My counter to that is that death happens in ways besides cancer. We still shit ourselves every time some new version of the flu crops up. And what about the fact that you are born with every neuron you will ever have, and cells are continually dying due to natural causes (and not only telomere shortening) every second? You need some way to renew every cell in your body indefinitely, and not lose the information stored in those cells when they die to completely fix aging.

>>5396127
>cure for aging within 40 years

I don't see it as something to be cured but managed. Our bodies just eventually break down but I believe in 30-40 years we will have the tech to rebuild large sections of our bodies and slow the degradation process to a crawl. That coupled with automation bringing healthcare costs down leads me to think the kind of medical treatment that not even a millionaire could afford today will be within reach for the average middle class citizen in 2040-50.

I don't believe in immortality, everybody dies but I also don't think my body is made of impossible to understand magic stardust either or that death is something we should just embrace when there is so much more to being alive. I don't even see this as an optimistic view I'm talking /40 years/, thats an ice-age in technological development time.

It still floors me that otherwise intelligent people can't seem to understand that not only is technology increasing but the rate of technological progress is increasing.

Everything you ever dreamed about and a ton of shit you could never even imagine could become reality within the next few decades.

>>5396188

You fail to understand the roadblocks that get run into while developing your fantasy technology.

>>5396158

>And you think tackling aging and death would be any less of an ethical issue?

Refusing to die or attempting to prolong your life is unethical?

>>5396204
There have always been roadblocks there is nothing that can not be overcome.

>>5395868
We already know why we age and more or less how to stop it genetically, we just have to be able to have a practical way of engineering genetically perfect embryos.

>Humans destroy environment
>Environment destroys humans
Sounds like nature is going to win.

>>5396237

>Humans destroy environment
>Humans learn to stop doing it before environment destroys humans

fix'd...hopefully :/

>>5396215
Overpopulation is unethical.

>>5396188
I personally wish it were possible slow down technological progress in many areas. Life is changing so quickly that we can't assess the societal impacts that one technological revolution has before the next one replaces it. We regard nearly every technological advance as beneficial, and adopt it without evaluating its advantages/disadvantages within the context of definable goals, which themselves are ill-defined.

>>5396240
>Kaczynski was right!
(tongue-in-cheek, not suggesting you've adopted his views on the 'solution' to said problem)

>>5395826
Because people don't give a shit about men's health issues. Women's health issues are major problems which deprive them of life and vitality. Men's health problems are the result of a man being a pussy.

According to statistics from the American Cancer Society, there are 242,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed each year; by comparison there are 227,000 new cases of breast cancer (in females) diagnosed each year.

When was the last time you saw a pink ribbon or a walk-a-thon for prostate cancer?

I rest my case.

Clearly humanity is not an unlimited resource. As the number of humans increase, the potency of each human decreases. Children nowadays are much more likely to have crippling diseases, adults are at risk for all manner of illnesses and conditions.

Back when there were less people in the world, we all had more human-stuff in us, keeping us strong and ensuring our survival. Now we're so diluted as to be meaningless.

>>5396239

Human nature to breed. Suck it up.

Also human nature to not want to die. Suck it up.

>>5396240

>I personally wish it were possible slow down technological progress in many areas

You don't belong here.

>>5396240
You are, objectively, the worst possible kind of human being.

>>5396389
Human nature is unethical

>>5396406

Your mums unethical

>>5396239
I'm not sure you understand what ethics are, there's nothing unethical about proliferation of life.

>>5396434
Too many people is an objectively bad thing though. This planet would be far better off if Third World population growth was massively reduced and then reversed.

>>5396438

>>5395849
Know this is a troll, but evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense. As population continues to boom, we may be evolving counter measures to prevent it from getting too big.

You guys are really just making it too difficult. It's fucking biology, not physics.

The sole reason for the reduction in concentration is internet porn. It was only in the 1980s when the internet was even created, the internet which was global.

At first only rich people had a connection, which is seen in the graph, up until the year 19951998 it was slowly and steadily going down. Then the commercialization, privatization happened, but it was still expensiveish.

I don't know what happens in the slight bump, but after that I guess that porn sites get even more popular and stuff just goes batshit crazy

>>5396127
Do you think that within 40 years we'll know enough about aging and death to prolong our lives 200 years? Within 200 years, do you think we'll be able to prolong our lives 2000 years? And within that time, we could THEN perfect a cure for aging?

>>5396455
Yes not wanting there to be too many people makes me a Nnazi, has nothing to do with the fact that the Third World is where the population is increasing.

>>5396461
>I don't know what happens in the slight bump
Craigslist and internet dating sites.

>>5396458

This is not how evolution works...

>>5396496
So how is it wrong?

>>5396509

Evolution has no "goal". It's a passive process. Without "selective pressure" (environmental circumstances that weed out the unadapted) there is no change. Evolution functions because the "unfit" go extinct. If everyone survives, regardless of genetic material, then there is no evolutionary "progress".

We will not have a readily accessible cure for aging and death that will be useable before every single one of us alive today is dead. I know that hurts, but its highly unlikely that this technology will be one of those "once we figured out this one thing, everything else opened up" like the discovery of penicillin. Here are the reasons I believe this:
>Aging is not only the result of telomere shortening in cells, as so many of you seem to believe.
Yes, when cell's telomeres shorten past a critical length those cell's reproduction will shut down. If we could prevent the shortening of telomeres (and do so in a manner that does not cause any unwanted side effects) we could allow our cells to divide indefinitely. However, there are many other causes of aging. Mutations do not only either cause cancer or not, in which case they are harmless. Mutations build up over time, and the chances that you have mutations that are causing your cells to damage your body overall increase with age. They might even be mutations that don't affect the reproduction of the cell, so the mutation is carried along indefinitely. In fact, this is one of the reasons that cells have telomeres, and so in order to make lengthening them an effective cure for aging, you've also got to make sure you aren't propagating cells with mutations somehow. Aging is also caused by the accumulation of nasty stuff over time. Shit builds up in arteries, stomach lining, meninges, etc, that the body has no answer to. Aging is also caused by the death of cells which do not divide. Almost all of the neurons we have are the same ones we had when we were born. They die at a faster rate than they are generated, and they aren't even generated in all parts of the brain. So we would need to develop some method to regrow neurons and essentially turn what was supposed to be a permanent fixture into a continuously updating fixture, like most of the body's other cells. The list could go on, but I'm not a biologist and

CONT

it may still be natural evolution as fertility isnt that big of a pressure anymore for men. in the past people had sex and had a kid , now they decide to have a kid, then have sex for it and continue until they have 1 or 2, then stop trying.

>>5397030
>Almost all of the neurons we have are the same ones we had when we were born.
wat. my head was a tenth of the size then, where were they all?

>>5396518
>If everyone survives
I think you meant reproduce.

>>5396509
The only ways i can think of lower sperm count could evolve would be if it was attractive, or if populations with high sperm count died.

And neither is observed.

>>5397052
or if it was a neutral mutation.

>>5397030
even in biology there is no consensus as to what the causes of aging are. Oh yeah, and we need to fix all of these problems without causing any nasty side effects.
>Problems will arise at age 130 that we don't even have a name for right now.
Look at problems that the elderly of today face, like arthritis, alzheimers, etc. We didn't even know these things would be an almost universal problem for 70+ year olds before it was the norm for people to reach that age. Think about how many other problems we have yet to discover. Do you think the rate of the occurrence of these kinds of problems will decelerate or accelerate as we push lifespan longer? It will take time to discover these problems and find a solution to them.
>There will be ethical issues.
This is a classic failure of scientists that we always seem to run into blindly. Scientists see only the progress, and forget that some people are religious, some people have stupid principles that they will cling to incredibly strongly, and some people are just plain stupid. Stem cells are still an issue even though we are not removing them from fetuses. People just think they are evil. People are dumb, don't forget that.
>You will not be able to afford it.
You wont. This will not be some pill you pop that fixes telomere shortening, cleans out your arteries, and stimulates the growth of neurons. When we get it, this will be implants, it will be growing cells in cultures and injecting them, and it will be expensive.

I'm not ignoring the exponential rate of growth of technology. I'm just being practical and appreciating how complicated the human body is and how complicated the issue is.

>>5397078
a large part of the population does not care about the 2nd and 3rd greentext.

>>5395826
>Why is this not a bigger deal
>4 news articles about 4 different studies

It looks to me like scientists are working on this fairly hard.
It's not up to the scientists to make things big deals or not. It is up to society. And society has a short attention span.

>>5397030
>lmost all of the neurons we have are the same ones we had when we were born
retard.

>>5397052
Lower birthrates are strongly correlated with having higher quality of life, less stress, better income, better heath care, better access to food; housing; work; and medicine, more intelligence, longer life spans, etc.

Also this is common sense <span class="math">adaptation[/spoiler], not evolution which has poor scientific proof behind it.

There are a lot of health problems linked to pollution. For some reason we don't give it the same importance as we give to other common health hazards such as smoking. This is also a reason why electric cars are a move in a good direction. Yes they don't get rid of pollution but I'm sure that it would elevate the pollution levels of big cities nonetheless.

>>5397102
>not evolution which has poor scientific proof behind it.

I sure as fuck hope you're not saying that evolution has poor scientific proof behind it.

>>5397086
It doesn't matter if they do or don't care about the ethical issues. Other people do and they will slow down research. Also, the claim was that we would have access to it, not that 1% of the richest people in the world would have access to it.

I want evidence pointing to how easy it is going to be to solve aging before I believe that its going to exist within our lifetime. I've presented things that I think will successfully slow research and prevent accessibility to "anyone under the age of 40" and most of us.

>>5397096
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron#Nerve_regeneration
Alright.

>>5397119
>Inductive argument, no base case
>No clearly defined mechanism for when one specie breaks off from another were they're no longer can cross-breed and truly become distinct
>Lack of modern-era evidence for macroevolution of anything with more than a few cells
>Irreproducible
>Hand-wavy arguments boils down to "lots of time" = "improbable events must always happen"

>>5397146
We're not turning this into another fucking prove evolution thread. You don't have to prove it or anything else in science rigorously. Its the best theory we've got, and it fits the vast majority of the evidence.

"Its just a theory" is literally one step away from your argument.

>>5397030
>>5397078

>Aging is not only the result of telomere shortening in cells, as so many of you seem to believe.
I agree. I believe it's multiple processes in the body that produce observable degradation over time, processes I believe can be slowed down with proper treatment or even entirely substituted with synthetic or new biological versions. I don't think is a stretch to say this tech can be developed in the next half century of building on what we know now and utilizing tools we will have in the next decade to better understand those processes and new ones we may discover.

>Problems will arise at age 130 that we don't even have a name for right now.
That may be true but I really don't see that as a valid reason NOT to pursue managed aging. The goal is to stabilize people's health/cognition over extended periods of time, the only way to get good at that is to do it with real people with the support of advanced testing techniques and computational models. If we can find a way to stabilize a person's health at "40-50" we may avoid the problems of today's "130" altogether.

>There will be ethical issues.
If people want to die let them. If people want to live longer healthier lives let them. I really don't see the dilemma in that.

>You will not be able to afford it.
You're assuming that our economy and healthcare system will be exactly as it is now in 30 to 40 years. It won't be. I don't think it could be even if we wanted it to. In 40 years what we think of as prohibitively expensive now will be like child's play. Think: Throwing out flexible paper thin computers like an old used up notepads or more on topic 3D printing complex organs from our own cells.

I don't think it will be easy but I do think it's likely.

>>5397194
>"That may be true but I really don't see that as a valid reason NOT to pursue managed aging."

I'm not trying to give reasons why we shouldn't pursue a cure for aging. I'm presenting reasons why developing this technology will move slower than those wishful thinkers seem to believe. Obviously it would be awesome if we did have it in 40 years and I fully support development of this technology.

>"If people want to die let them. If people want to live longer healthier lives let them. I really don't see the dilemma in that."

Again, you miss my point. I see no ethical dilemma. Other people will and that will slow down research. Look at how much it has affected stem cell research that at one point we used stem cells from aborted fetuses. Or, look at how much ethical issues slow down research into genetic modification. It just gets bogged down in a quagmire of the political system and lack of funding because no one wants to put their name on something tinged by ethical issues. I'm not presenting reasons why researching this is bad, i'm presenting reasons why it will take longer than you think it will.

As for affording it, its true, all of that stuff may be much cheaper and I didn't take that into account. What about the fact that a company does not simply charge someone for the cost of the materials? If everyone had access to this and it wasn't cost prohibitive, there would be serious overpopulation issues. It would actually be beneficial for everyone to make this something that only the extremely wealthy or otherwise important people had access to.

>>5397159

> You don't have to prove it or anything else in science rigorously

What? Are you kidding me?

> You have to have faith; you have to believe.

That's what you just said.

Because we need more people.

>>5397254
>It's the only theory we have that fits the majority of the evidence so it makes sense to use it rather than giving up completely
not the same thing at all you fucktard, science is not the same as math and bio is not at all the same as physics, if we relied on rigorous proof for everything in bio the field literally would not exist at all

if we don't get any more neurons, why does our brain volume increase from 350cc to 1400cc as we grow? is it just fat?

>>5396402
I'm actually one of the few people here doing scientific research. I'm using next generation nano-lithographic tools to make reactors that may help me understand certain biological phenomena. So I use, and I'm around advanced technology nearly every day that I'm in the lab.

What I'm asking for is caution, or at the very least more careful consideration of the consequences. Some advances like faster transport, for example, are necessary but people need to be aware that this also limits our social interaction. Take a 40 hour train ride across China and you'll see how wonderful it is to meet people, play games, share food and stories, discuss important topics with strangers...etc. Other advances are unnecessary but convenient, such as the ubiquity of social media. This may increase our social interaction, but at the same time it trivializes relationships. In other cases, it's the overall direction of progress that causes unforeseen problems. An increase in the ability to multitask, for example, but a decrease in critical thinking ability.

Perhaps this wouldn't apply in the medical field, however, where rapid technological progress is almost always a good thing.

>>5397300
Our brains do grow new neurons. For example, binge drinking can damage the brain, but if you abstain for about a week, there will be a huge burst in the growth of new brain cells.

>>5397249
>this technology will move slower than those wishful thinkers seem to believe.
I see entirely where you're coming from I've seen people online with some very inflated expectations of what this may be capable of in the short term (1000 Years!!!) but the underlying timeline of four decades for a working widely available version seems feasible. Looking over the last forty years of medical tech progress shows us no less really.

>I see no ethical dilemma. Other people will and that will slow down research.

I think that will slow down it's mainstream adoption but not necessarily research. This is literally a life and death matter for everyone so once the baby boomers start really dropping like flies the money will go where it can help them the most including extended health projects. If they for some reason fight it..they won't be around very long anyway.

>Serious overpopulation issues
This is kind of a different subject but I think people tend to overstate overpopulation issues a bit. The main issues are food, energy, healthcare and to a lesser extent (not in my eyes) education. What you find when you /really/ look into it is that the real issue is equitable distribution of resources and our first world resistance to change what works well for us now.

Oil, old farming practices, expensive pharmaceuticals and healthcare, schools that just don't work, It's great if you can afford it or own it but most people can't or don't so we live in fear of ignorant (first world) people starving in the streets, dieing of a super flu without central heating...and it raising our taxes.

This is old news in the third world and something we are already working to limited success to change. We already know how we are doing things now is untenable for the next 100 years and once we have to, either by hook or crook we will change with the times to support our growing population and lift the third world with us past our backwards approaches to these problems.

end wall of text.

>>5397363
Then again faster trains might mean america might pay to use trains again, and I won't have to spend 3 hours alone in a car every other week when I drive across the state of KANSAS.

Is there any state more empty to drive across? I mean I love the rural culture and the rural environment. But damn it's just me zoned out staring out a window.

>>5397405
but it was just said that over 90% are created before birth.

>>5397405
>>5397300

Here you guys go. Another source fer ya.
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2006/12/07/no-new-brain-cells-for-you-settling-the-neurogenesis-debate/

China and India make up nearly 40% of the world's population. I really am not interested in having my standards of living go to shit because the chinese and indians fuck like monkeys.

>>5397159
>You don't have to prove it or anything else in science rigorously

You can't control, prove, or predict it. Shooting an arrow into a wall and then drawing a bull's eye around it isn't science. Theories have to make predictions otherwise they're just speculations a tad better than the theory that aliens did it or all of string theory.

>>5397276
which is why biology isn't a science

>>5397615
this doesn't say why our brains volume increase 4 times when 90% of the brain is there from the start.

>>5397642
Their economies are on the rise soon enough their populations will level off and start to fall just like every other major economic power in the world.

>>5397659

Brain cell count != brain size or mass

Axons, glial cells, etc...

>>5397655
That word science... I don't think you know what it means.

>>5397651
Yes you can. Here are some predictions that have been made concerning evolution:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_science.html
Here are some controlled experiments that have been carried out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

Evolution has stood up to every bit of data we have found in the fossil record, through comparing the DNA of currently living creatures, and through experiments designed to test it. In fact, it has been so successful that it sits on a pedestal nearby Einstein's Theory of Relativity, in that even if evidence was found that disproved evolution, most scientists would call for further study before accepting it as disproven (like how 95% of physicists thought that the neutrinos that were found moving faster than the speed of light was experimental error rather than disproof of relativity).

Heres a good quote for you:
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
-Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

So you see, in science you can never prove any theory. However, when a theory is supported by a vast body of data we generally accept that theory as "true", much as we have accepted the theory of gravity as "true". If you are looking for absolute certainty in your world view, you might try religion.

Why don't you try jerking off the day before you give your sperm sample?

>>5395831
lool

>>5395826
I wouldn't worry about it OP, these things happen. There's no chance we're going to run out of genetic material. In fact we are experiencing a very severe and significant population explosion.
There are a lot of factors to consider as reasons for these things, it's hard to pin-point one exact reason. Any apparent trend is probably a change in lifestyles for those particular generations. Maybe people just fuck more with their junk than they used to, I don't know.

>>5397857
Haha. Good fucking point, if its true that sperm count takes longer than 12 hours to fully recover.

<span class="math"> x/y=sqrt9 <div class="math">

test[/spoiler]</div>

>>5395885
plausible

>>5395855
Something I've always wondered but hasn't there been an increase in cancer ever since the invention microwaves/tvs/modern home living?

Now I'm not stupid enough to say that all radiation is harmful since otherwise with the lack of houses in days of old everyone would have had skin cancer, but is it possible that that the increase in radiation of other wavelengths (and therefore obviously energy levels) are a contributing factor to the growth of cancer?

I personally have little idea as to how exactly cancer is formed but isn't it possible with all of the new different energy levels of radiation which humans are exposed to that some of that energy is of a sufficient energy level (absorption spectrums and all) to excite atoms of DNA and thus somehow lead to cancer?

Again I only studied basic anatomy and microbiology so I don't really cancer is formed and if someone could explain why my idea is stupid and how cancerous cells are actually formed it would help.

>>5397953
>>>/pol/

stay there please

>>5395826

because people fuck more nowadays
that splits the amount of spermatozoes to more jizz

>>5397975
Cancer is caused when ionizing radiation of any type mutates DNA in such a way that the cell's own reproduction mechanism is affected and the cell replicates out of control.

The radiation must be either a photon with a high enough energy to ionize an atom in the DNA, thus breaking the DNA in some manner or another, or a particle that is moving fast enough that bumps into the DNA. Both are called radiation.

The radiation you're thinking of mostly is radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum, spanning from radio to gamma waves. I know radio waves pass right through us without doing much of anything. I can't tell you how the others interact with us much, except that UV only gets as far as the surface of our skin and causes sunburn. I would rest assured that scientists are on top of their shit when determining safe levels of radiation though, after so many of them have died from radiation exposure.

>>5397975
Yes. The potential for cancer has always stayed roughly the same. The difference today is that more people are surviving other diseases long enough to realize their cancer potential.

>>5398291
>Cancer is caused when ionizing radiation

There are many causes of cancer, from oxidative or thermal stresses to viral fuckery (warts are an example of this) or just plain bad luck with a transcription error.

Ionizing part of a DNA molecule is pretty serve, but it's far from the only risk.

>UV only gets as far as the surface of our skin

UV is a pretty wide spectrum. Some wavelengths can penetrate to the live skin layer and cause melanoma.

>>5398419
Righto. Thanks for the coreckshinz.

>>5395826
thank god! i dont want children, and i hate condoms

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/nov04/alcoholabstain110504.html

Creation of new brain cells