Radiation Protection Drug

Researchers at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center may have found a drug that can protect people from radiation poisoning. The drug has been successfully trailed in rodents and looks like it may be able to revolutionize cancer treatment. It may even help protect people who are in jeopardy of developing radiation poisoning that can come from working in an environment where they may be exposed to large doses of radiation. The drug has been labeled as PQ (pharmacological quiescence) and stops enzymes responsible for cell division in their tracks. Although the drug has not been tested on human subjects as yet, the likelihood of it being successful is quite high.

The drug is relatively non-toxic. It is also touted as being effective after the subject has received a dose of radiation. It is fair to suggest that it may help reduce the risks associated with radiotherapy which is often risky due to the potential danger of radiation poisoning. A lot of the time radiotherapy can make the patient exceedingly sick before the patient is able to start recovering from the cancer that radiotherapy is attempting to do battle with. In this regard, PQ can be considered something that will help a lot of people overcome cancer in the long term. Radiotherapy has cost people their lives because the radiation has made them too sick to continue treatment without further risk to the patient’s health.

There is no word on when human trials will begin as yet. It is likely to be soon however in order to get the drug approved for use as soon as possible. It is a relatively cheap drug to produce and will help countless people overcome cancer despite the fact that it is not attacking the cancer. It will enable treatment to continue for those most susceptible to radiation poisoning.

In pictures: Finnish pursuits

The Mobile Phone Throwing World Championships have been held annually since 2000 in Savonlinna. Competitors can be rewarded for style, as well as distance.

Next Image |

Previous Image |

|

previous

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 

Net neutrality talks stall in US

echnology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley

Some fear that rules on how data is treated are going to be ripped up

US regulators have halted closed-door meetings intended to find a way to make sure all web data is treated equally.

The Federal Communications Commission began the meetings after a court limited its net regulation powers.

The FCC faced criticism over the meetings by groups that supported the principle known as net neutrality.

The FCC decision follows reports that Google and Verizon hatched a separate deal to allow faster speeds for web sites that pay for the privilege.

"Any outcome, any deal that doesn't preserve the freedom and openness of the internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable," said FCC chair Julius Genachowski.

Related stories

• Q&A: The network neutrality debate
• Ruling puts US net plans in flux
• Ad campaign to derail US net plan

Both firms denied they were close to an agreement that many fear would lead to a "two-tier internet".

Google said: "We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet".

In a blog post net service provider Verizon also clarified its position.

"As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation," wrote David Fish, executive director of media relations for Verizon.

"To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect," he added.

Despite the public statements, reports that an agreement will soon be announced persist.

During the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe, California, Google boss Eric Schmidt would not be drawn on the issue.

"We have been talking to Verizon for a long time about trying to get an agreement on what the definition of what net neutrality is," he told reporters.

"We are trying to find solutions that bridge between the hard core 'net neutrality or else' view and the historical telecom view of no such agreement."