Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/02/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: DoesScreeningSaveLives?: Scientific American And a bit more to think about
From: leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram Langhans)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:37:12 -0800
References: <648443990.984896.1328723469087.JavaMail.root@sz0090a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net><C0EB1A36-8041-4282-8B53-B1D1BD48C992@gmail.com><BLU139-DS14B7689A4CF81AA94AAD11B87B0@phx.gbl><984A53A3-C7B4-438A-ACD3-174FCFF20568@gmail.com><CAFfkXxvsxocYs_Wygu0p4yj6Kb1WrneY3ZmVxT_OFbF3ghj-Ag@mail.gmail.com><CF785EE6-371F-46AD-80AD-40297DE8FADE@gmail.com><BLU139-DS14C64566F5835689AF928CB87B0@phx.gbl> <CAFfkXxvgQW1XrDW-s3hD+ojS2g=ATMQT6VzUsgUhp+kgiem0-g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the info, Sonny.  I wonder what the per/year outlay for Apollo 
was, as you give the /year for NCI.  There is no question that more could be 
spent on cancer research, let alone treatment.

I take one exception to using the Apollo as a comparison for the search for 
a cure for cancer.  Landing a man on the moon was a great technological 
feat, but it required not much new in the way of basic science.  F=ma is the 
basic science and has been known since Newton.  Protect the occupants and 
supply sufficient force and you are on your way.  Even the astronauts gave 
tribute to this in their voyage.  "I think Isaac Newton is doing most of the 
driving now." (? Bills Anders, Apollo 8 Commander)  I do not mean to slight 
the efforts of all the people involved in program, and we owe much to the 
program for giving us the things we enjoy today.  The space program has been 
the thrust of most of our technology advances (along with the military) and 
even medical technology advances.  I was and remain a huge fan of NASA.

But there is a lot of basic science about cancer we do not understand. 
Cancer is a genetic disease, and even with the Human Genome Project, there 
is a lot we do not know.  I have worked at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer 
Research Center in Seattle on and off for the last 15 years as a teacher of 
teachers.  It is amazing the work that is done there, and how many 
unanswered questions remain.  In the 70's when President Nixon declared war 
on cancer, I don't think any scientist thought there was a chance of doing 
this in the same timeframe as project Apollo.  They knew that the basic 
science was lacking, which was not the case for Apollo.  I think that if an 
Apollo type push was begun today, it would have a much better chance of 
making a real dent in cancer, since so much more is known today than in 
1971.  Not that there is the desire to do so with the present state on the 
economy.

Aram, ranting on...







-----Original Message----- 
From: Sonny Carter
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:53 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: 
DoesScreeningSaveLives?: Scientific American And a bit more to think about

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> 
wrote:

"At times she would make comments akin to; we can land a man on the moon
but...."

According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost
of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or
approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars).

National Cancer Institute?s budget for FY 2010 was $5.1* billion, excluding
the additional $1.3* billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
funds received by the Institute for spending in FY 2009 and FY 2010.
Overall, NCI?s budget has been relatively flat in recent years. During the
period from 2005 through 2010, the NCI budget averaged $4.9* billion per
year.

Other budgets on interest:

Peace corps ----325 million a year
NASA -------------- 19 Billion a year
Afghanistan----- 170 Billion a year


---- Sorry for my ranting.  I just thought it related to the issue of
prostrate cancer.

It certainly is, Aram.



-- 
Regards,

Sonny
http://sonc.com/look/
Natchitoches, Louisiana

USA



Replies: Reply from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: DoesScreeningSaveLives?: Scientific American And a bit more to think about)
In reply to: Message from john.o.newell at comcast.net (J. Newell) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does Screening Save Lives?: Scientific American)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does Screening Save Lives?: Scientific American)
Message from leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram Langhans) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does ScreeningSave Lives?: Scientific American)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does ScreeningSave Lives?: Scientific American)
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does ScreeningSave Lives?: Scientific American)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does ScreeningSave Lives?: Scientific American)
Message from leica_r8 at hotmail.com (Aram Langhans) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does ScreeningSaveLives?: Scientific American And a bit more to think about)
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] OT (very) The Great Prostate Debate: Does ScreeningSaveLives?: Scientific American And a bit more to think about)