Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Aram Langhans wrote: > 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. yup, and with so much to know, so much to learn, so many questions that remain, it's easier to just go with your gut, belief systems are such time savers, perhaps that is why many now take their beliefs for reality. Steve > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information