Would eating heavy atoms lengthen our lives?(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Would eating heavy atoms lengthen our lives?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026841.800-would-eating-heavy-atoms-lengthen-our-lives.html
9 comments
It's kind of funny that the related articles include another one with a completely different thesis:
It's actually complementary, aging has many factors.
Heavy water is supposed to make harder for free radicals to do damage in the first place.
Sirtuins should help with switching on repair mechanisms after damage is done.
And then there are telomeres, our natural kill-switch. There is another article, linked from the sirtuins one, about a possible way to slow down telomeres shortening:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16035-elixir-of-youth-...
BTW All three anti-aging approaches have companies working on the products to commercialize the research (Sirtris was recently bought by GlaxoSmithKline for $720M).
Heavy water is supposed to make harder for free radicals to do damage in the first place.
Sirtuins should help with switching on repair mechanisms after damage is done.
And then there are telomeres, our natural kill-switch. There is another article, linked from the sirtuins one, about a possible way to slow down telomeres shortening:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16035-elixir-of-youth-...
BTW All three anti-aging approaches have companies working on the products to commercialize the research (Sirtris was recently bought by GlaxoSmithKline for $720M).
Wasn't there also some article about how people don't get dumber as they get older, rather, their focus is less and less?
Sort of strange, but if that and all of this really turn out to be true, extending the human lifespan might not be as difficult as we make it out to be.
Sort of strange, but if that and all of this really turn out to be true, extending the human lifespan might not be as difficult as we make it out to be.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Show me the study where a researcher feeds some animal deuterated water and then show how its life is extended by a statistically significant amount.
Before you can actually produce such a study, this entire article is sensationalist and the editors at New Scientist should be embarrassed to publish it.
The article says that up to 35% of body water can be heavy, but after that point it becomes "lethal." What exactly happens to make it lethal, and why has the author assumed that it is "harmless" to drink small amounts? Where's the study showing that small amounts are "totally harmless?"
Before you can actually produce such a study, this entire article is sensationalist and the editors at New Scientist should be embarrassed to publish it.
The article says that up to 35% of body water can be heavy, but after that point it becomes "lethal." What exactly happens to make it lethal, and why has the author assumed that it is "harmless" to drink small amounts? Where's the study showing that small amounts are "totally harmless?"
The wikipedia article on Heavy water has some interesting comments to some of your later questions.
In particular, it seems that high levels of deuterated water inhibits formation of the mitotic spindle, thereby preventing cell division.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
In particular, it seems that high levels of deuterated water inhibits formation of the mitotic spindle, thereby preventing cell division.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
Normally isotopes don't cause chemical changes, but with hydrogen they do. Deuterium is twice as heavy as hydrogen, so it moves slower, and is less reactive - for some reactions this can make a big difference. With the other isotopes the change in mass isn't anywhere near that.
This makes sense. But has any human being-- or any animal in nature-- ever ingested deuterium in any significant amount? How can you not know if this will change ever-so-slightly the way DNA transcription takes place, or example?
I just think it's kind of irresponsible for a reporter at a science publication to make cavalier statements about things like this-- "It's completely safe..."-- without having any science to back them up.
I just think it's kind of irresponsible for a reporter at a science publication to make cavalier statements about things like this-- "It's completely safe..."-- without having any science to back them up.
Articles on health are the worst. The pattern is so repetetive - first comes some study that under some circumstances some substance or excercise of something would cause something - then comes the refutations and even articles about the reverse effects. It is alwasy so sensationalistic and so unfounded. What I would like to read is a study about that effect - it has some pretty obvious causes - after all healt is something that everyone is very intimately concerned about - but still I would like to read a detailed analysis of that mechanism.
Deuterated bonds can be up to 80 times stronger than those containing hydrogen.
That seems likely to alter chemical behaviour (as researchers found). I'm not a chemist, but it seems reasonable to consider compounds with such bonds as different compounds. Why should we think of carbon-12 and carbon-13 as variations of carbon, instead of distinct elements - if they have different chemical behaviour?
The blackbox testing tells us that 35% heavy water is lethal, but doesn't tell why. It's possible - and even likely - that it is the very bonds we wish to protect that become lethal if strengthened 80 times.
The final "heavy babies" grayed paragraph at the end is fascinating (in case you skipped it: babies have more carbon-13, and their mothers are unusually depleted with it around the time of birth.)
That seems likely to alter chemical behaviour (as researchers found). I'm not a chemist, but it seems reasonable to consider compounds with such bonds as different compounds. Why should we think of carbon-12 and carbon-13 as variations of carbon, instead of distinct elements - if they have different chemical behaviour?
The blackbox testing tells us that 35% heavy water is lethal, but doesn't tell why. It's possible - and even likely - that it is the very bonds we wish to protect that become lethal if strengthened 80 times.
The final "heavy babies" grayed paragraph at the end is fascinating (in case you skipped it: babies have more carbon-13, and their mothers are unusually depleted with it around the time of birth.)
They are both variations of carbon because they have the same electronic structure, i.e. the configuration of electrons about C-12 and C-13 is identical (or similarly H-1 and H-2).
I'll make a bad analogy now.
The electronic structure is like a set of hooks attached to the atom. Hydrogen has 1 free hook, carbon 4, and these hooks form chemical bonds. Hydrogen and deuterium have the same set of hooks, as do C-13 and C-14. But deuterium is heavier than hydrogen, and this makes it harder to unhook it when it attaches to another atom, even if the set of hooks is identical.
I'll make a bad analogy now.
The electronic structure is like a set of hooks attached to the atom. Hydrogen has 1 free hook, carbon 4, and these hooks form chemical bonds. Hydrogen and deuterium have the same set of hooks, as do C-13 and C-14. But deuterium is heavier than hydrogen, and this makes it harder to unhook it when it attaches to another atom, even if the set of hooks is identical.
Sorry, that was a suggestion phrased as a question (i.e. I know what isotopes are). I was suggesting a name that signifies operational properties rather than "the" definition of what it is. If heavy water became commonly available, this would undoubtedly occur.
It's like features vs. benefits, which I've been working with over a few weeks, to understand the need for my product, and the gaps left by existing offers in the marketplace. Quite possibly, I'm thinking too much in those terms :-)
It's like features vs. benefits, which I've been working with over a few weeks, to understand the need for my product, and the gaps left by existing offers in the marketplace. Quite possibly, I'm thinking too much in those terms :-)
I prefer them because they have more crunch and don't get as soggy as the lighter atoms after 5 minutes sitting in milk.
This is an idiotic idea and will lead to a) expensive piss, sweat, and breath or b) some horrible disease caused by overly slow chemical reactions. Maybe both.
Could always recycle ...
Sounds like a neat idea worth experimenting - this is obviously very early on in the process though.
[deleted]
I prefer Eternal Paradise to some other decade on this violent Planet.
You are not supposed to downmod things just because you disagree with them - that's the reddit way. You are supposed to downmod worthless stuff that doesn't add to the discussion.
P.S. In case you are atheist: if you can scientifically prove that Eternal Paradise does not exist, I'll be glad (or so) to hear from you!
(Side note: the current situation on our Planet is still that much more than 50% of currently living souls actually do believe in God/Good/Heaven/Paradise; and the already gone ones, actually already know exactly!)
(Side note: the current situation on our Planet is still that much more than 50% of currently living souls actually do believe in God/Good/Heaven/Paradise; and the already gone ones, actually already know exactly!)
Sorry, science doesn't work that way. It's your job to give evidence that some sort of afterlife exists.
(There was a message hidden in there!)
To not believe in afterlife, you explicitly have to not believe it, so even the denying of afterlife is based on a (negative) faith.
Atheists don't seem aware of being their position a simple negative faith response to a positive faith.
To not believe in afterlife, you explicitly have to not believe it, so even the denying of afterlife is based on a (negative) faith.
Atheists don't seem aware of being their position a simple negative faith response to a positive faith.
If you're talking about "strong" atheism (asserting that no god exists) then yes, this is an act of faith as well.
But "weak" atheism is merely a rejection of theism. It is not a proposed hypothesis, but a rebuke of unsupported hypotheses.
But "weak" atheism is merely a rejection of theism. It is not a proposed hypothesis, but a rebuke of unsupported hypotheses.
Sorry, but this is already sophistication (in the archaic sense).
All things that happen must have a cause.
Even Big Bang had its Cause. And since the exact definition of God is: "The only one not caused by anything, but simply 'cause' of Itself", there's no escape here...
All things that happen must have a cause.
Even Big Bang had its Cause. And since the exact definition of God is: "The only one not caused by anything, but simply 'cause' of Itself", there's no escape here...
Where is the option to give 10 points to this comment? ;)