5 ms·

> In 1903, Pierre Curie, after observing burns on his arm left by the chunk of radium that he tied to it for 10 hours, concluded that he had discovered a cure f

by pdknsk 13y ago

> In 1903, Pierre Curie, after observing burns on his arm left by the chunk of radium that he tied to it for 10 hours, concluded that he had discovered a cure for cancer. That's some uneasy irony.

acqq 13y ago
Related: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388?image=1 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioac... Pierre Curie died 1906, Marie lived till 1934: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie "Although her many decades of exposure to radiation caused chronic illnesses (including near blindness due to cataracts) and ultimately her death, she never really acknowledged the health risks of radiation exposure." All that doesn't diminish the significance of her work.
- randywaterhouse 13y ago
  I agree, her thoughts absolutely don't diminish the significance. The kind of science that isn't on the frontpage today [0] is driven by facts, empirical analysis, and of course theoretical postulation. I, for one, am glad that we can recognize scientists for their contributions to humanity, not taking away from their work by citing curious personal beliefs (as we see here). So, bravo acqq, just wanted to elaborate my thoughts on your comment :) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6623830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6623830
- dnautics 13y ago
  Pierre didn't die of cancer - he slipped off the sidewalk was run over by a carriage. Amazingly, he missed the horses, and the front wheels, but his head was smashed by one of the rear wheels; part of his skull wound up on Marie's dress, and the supposed story is that Marie never washed her dress - kept wearing it until her daughter Irene finally convinced her to burn it in a pyre.
netpenthe 13y ago
they use radiation to treat cancer tho, so i guess he did
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  This is true, but radiation therapy is near-exclusively recommended to people who are expected to die before the new, radiation-caused cancer kicks in. It was a point of contention with my mother's father.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    I don't know what kind of cancer your mother's father suffered from, but that's not true at all. There are a number of cancers for which radiation therapy is very effective and indicated as the first line of action before chemotherapies. Check your facts before posting : http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/radiation http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/radiati...
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Or in conjunction with. Surgery, chemo and radiation therapy together are very common.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      OK, fair enough. It was just prostate cancer; I might have been thinking of the likely side effect being cancer when it was really bowel damage (listed on that page). His doctor believed radiation was indeed the best option, and my mother (also a doctor) generally agreed; he didn't like the idea of the side effects. The thinking, never expressed to him, was that his severe alcoholism was likely to kill him before they developed, but they were expected to develop if that didn't happen. Chemotherapy has extremely nasty side effects, so it's not unreasonable for radiation to be the first line of defense even when radiation is guaranteed (or near-guaranteed) to cause severe problems later on. Looking at the common side effects again, I'd take chemotherapy before infertility, but a lifetime of chronic diarrhea might well be better than going through chemo. I also note that that page says "in general, the lifetime risk of a second cancer is highest in people treated for cancer as children or adolescents", which is definitely in harmony with the idea that radiation therapy looks better and better the less time you expect to live after getting it. I'd be happy to unphrase my upper comment, but it seems I can't. :/
caf 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_therapy
pygy_ 13y ago
Yes and no. Radiotherapy is still a cornerstone of cancer treatment.

by pdknsk 13y ago

> In 1903, Pierre Curie, after observing burns on his arm left by the chunk of radium that he tied to it for 10 hours, concluded that he had discovered a cure for cancer. That's some uneasy irony.

acqq 13y ago

Related: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388?image=1 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioac... Pierre Curie died 1906, Marie lived till 1934: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie "Although her many decades of exposure to radiation caused chronic illnesses (including near blindness due to cataracts) and ultimately her death, she never really acknowledged the health risks of radiation exposure." All that doesn't diminish the significance of her work.

randywaterhouse 13y ago
I agree, her thoughts absolutely don't diminish the significance. The kind of science that isn't on the frontpage today [0] is driven by facts, empirical analysis, and of course theoretical postulation. I, for one, am glad that we can recognize scientists for their contributions to humanity, not taking away from their work by citing curious personal beliefs (as we see here). So, bravo acqq, just wanted to elaborate my thoughts on your comment :) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6623830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6623830
dnautics 13y ago
Pierre didn't die of cancer - he slipped off the sidewalk was run over by a carriage. Amazingly, he missed the horses, and the front wheels, but his head was smashed by one of the rear wheels; part of his skull wound up on Marie's dress, and the supposed story is that Marie never washed her dress - kept wearing it until her daughter Irene finally convinced her to burn it in a pyre.

netpenthe 13y ago

they use radiation to treat cancer tho, so i guess he did

thaumasiotes 13y ago
This is true, but radiation therapy is near-exclusively recommended to people who are expected to die before the new, radiation-caused cancer kicks in. It was a point of contention with my mother's father.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  I don't know what kind of cancer your mother's father suffered from, but that's not true at all. There are a number of cancers for which radiation therapy is very effective and indicated as the first line of action before chemotherapies. Check your facts before posting : http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/radiation http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/radiati...
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Or in conjunction with. Surgery, chemo and radiation therapy together are very common.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    OK, fair enough. It was just prostate cancer; I might have been thinking of the likely side effect being cancer when it was really bowel damage (listed on that page). His doctor believed radiation was indeed the best option, and my mother (also a doctor) generally agreed; he didn't like the idea of the side effects. The thinking, never expressed to him, was that his severe alcoholism was likely to kill him before they developed, but they were expected to develop if that didn't happen. Chemotherapy has extremely nasty side effects, so it's not unreasonable for radiation to be the first line of defense even when radiation is guaranteed (or near-guaranteed) to cause severe problems later on. Looking at the common side effects again, I'd take chemotherapy before infertility, but a lifetime of chronic diarrhea might well be better than going through chemo. I also note that that page says "in general, the lifetime risk of a second cancer is highest in people treated for cancer as children or adolescents", which is definitely in harmony with the idea that radiation therapy looks better and better the less time you expect to live after getting it. I'd be happy to unphrase my upper comment, but it seems I can't. :/

caf 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_therapy

pygy_ 13y ago

Yes and no. Radiotherapy is still a cornerstone of cancer treatment.