Radiation Inoculations

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:00 pm

Possible.

celeritas · Post by **celeritas** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:31 pm

we have radiation countermeasures in the real world, mostly developed by the US military. i don't know their mechanism of action, but there are people out there (like at DARPA) who's job it is to figure out crazy stuff like that.

i mean, these are the sort of folks who would think up a weaponized antibiotic-resistant anthrax-ebola-plague hybrid for which we have no treatment or vaccine. no joke. the soviets worked that one out.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:10 am

celeritas wrote: i mean, these are the sort of folks who would think up a weaponized antibiotic-resistant anthrax-ebola-plague hybrid for which we have no treatment or vaccine. no joke. the soviets worked that one out.

Well it's not like there's any known countermeasure for a fusion bomb, either.

Doctor: It's too Dangerous Captain!
Janeway: Give me eighty billion CCs of biothrezianenianenianenian
Doctor: Okay, I have no grounds to give it you but I will anyway
Janeway: Good, so this will definitely protect me from a ground zero nuclear blast?
Doctor: Just try to make sure that you only get blasted by one bomb, even I can't protect against two fusion bombs, that'd be absurd, right?

celeritas · Post by **celeritas** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:17 am

Thorin wrote:Well it's not like there's any known countermeasure for a fusion bomb, either.

sure there is

its called deterrence!

</sarcasm>

precisely my point. there are people out there today who sit around and think of agents that cause human morbidity and mortality, methods to make those agents even more lethal, and delivery systems to ensure the most efficient spread of such agents.

i know its not particularly shocking. i just find it disappointing that even though we've gone to the moon and eradicated smallpox, it doesn't seem we're that much removed from catapulting corpses over somebody's wall a medieval siege.

DSG2k · Post by **DSG2k** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 3:21 am

The term "radioprotection" is often used (especially in the French) to describe the concept of pre-treating people who are to be exposed to radiation to protect against the damaging effects.

This is not like throwing in repairs before the fact so they activate after . . . this is the inclusion of materials/drugs/whatever that will make the protein and DNA damage minimalized, preventing the damage before it happens.

Example using manganese-based radioprotection ideas, referencing the same organism as in the OP.

So the concept is not without modern precedent.

Of course then there's the terminology of "radiation inoculation" that folks deride. As used today, "inoculation" is not as specific a term as it once was . . . it basically just refers to any way to impart immunity or protection against specific threats.

I daresay that "radiation inoculation" is a more precise term than "radioprotection", as the latter's use of the common and many-meaninged term "radio" could produce confusion (especially spoken), whereas the former does not.

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:19 am

The idea that words can change meaning is very possible, it is several hundred years in the future.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:27 am

Exactly, look at the word 'rifle'. Even the 'rifles' we use today are not rifles in the proper sense.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:29 am

Rochey wrote:Exactly, look at the word 'rifle'. Even the 'rifles' we use today are not rifles in the proper sense.

The ones we use today are proper rifles, in that they have spiral groves down the inside of the barrel, but certainly most sci-fi uses "rifle" to refer to any type of longarm.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:36 am

Really? Well, that just shows my lack of knowledge of military weapons.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:39 am

The word "rifle" refers to the grooves inside the barrel ("rifling") which spin the bullet, making its flight more stable, and so improving range and accuracy. For example, the Challenger 2 MBT has a rifled main armament, while the Abrams and Leopard 2 have smoothbore guns.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:46 am

Yeah, I knew what rifeling meant. I was just unaware that modern weapons used it.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:20 pm

Didn't I use that example in a thread about two months ago?

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:31 pm

Good luck trying to find that old post.

A few times I have wanted to look up a post I remember reading but I have no bloody idea were it was. Its not like the topics help much since they only stay on topic for the first 5 posts.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:39 pm

Well, I know a way to help.
Look at how many pages there are, if there's more than five then its becuase you and me started arguing about something. That might narrow it down a bit.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:42 pm

I know the feeling. One solution would be a few mods/admins to be appointed with the job of chopping out OT lines of discussion into their own threads as they form, and allowing the original to continue as previously. IIRC the TR-116 thread ended up going full circle back to the original topic via borg drone shields, Borg ship shields, and who knows what else.