Marie Curie: Why her papers are still radioactive | Hacker News Reader

Marie Curie: Why her papers are still radioactive

csmonitor.com

115 pointsarjn35 comments

It's amazing to see scientists experimenting on themselves!

I've always been impressed by what Barry Marshall did.

For years it was common knowledge that ulcers were caused by stress, spicy food, and excess acid. A "bland diet" was the prescribed palliative care for ulcers. There was no cure. And ulcers could - and often did - lead to stomach cancer.

Dr. Marshall thought that that the bacterium H. pylori might be the cause. But the idea that bacteria could thrive in the acidic environment of the stomach was thought to be ridiculous.

So he tested the theory by drinking a solution of H. pylori and giving himself ulcers.

He had a biopsy taken on himself to prove it was the bacteria, and then cured himself with a course of antibiotics - the same way ulcers are cured today.

Ulcers are not a chronic disease any more, and stomach cancer has become rare.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-...

I don't think Marie or Pierre knew the ill effects of exposure to high doses of radiation. Nobody did. They had no idea (at that time) how dangerous it was.

> They had no idea (at that time) how dangerous it was.

This reminds me that every time Fukushima is mentioned on HN, the discussion is immediately dominated by people who claim that radiation exposure is not harmful (or even that it is healthy) and that contamination is not an issue in the province. To be fair, I think these days it's an ideological problem, whereas back then they just didn't have enough data and models about what's going on.

"But the idea that bacteria could thrive in the acidic environment of the stomach was thought to be ridiculous." Deinococcus radiodurans can survive acid and high levels of radiation, among other things.

Well, that explains the second part of the name. And the first, I guess.

> 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.

Pierre Curie died 1906, Marie lived till 1934: 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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/radiati...

Or in conjunction with. Surgery, chemo and radiation therapy together are very common.

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. :/

It's not uncommon to find that the treatment for some disease or symptom also carries a risk of causing it. Having a cell flip and become malignant is a probabilistic event, and radiation only changes the probability. If you already have a malignancy, it's worth taking your chances with future cancers to cure the one you already have.

Another explanation for why survivors of childhood cancer would have a high rate of recurrence is that they were prone to getting cancer in the first place, and they carry that tendency into adulthood.

> Another explanation for why survivors of childhood cancer would have a high rate of recurrence is that they were prone to getting cancer in the first place, and they carry that tendency into adulthood.

Don't take this as an expert opinion, but I lean slightly against that idea. For example, the linked fact sheet notes that young girls who are treated in the chest for hodgkin's lymphoma (one of the rare types of cancers that young people get) have an elevated lifetime risk of ordinary breast cancer. That's less of a "recurrence" and more of a "second cancer".

Relatedly, the types of cancer that young people get, and that old people get, aren't all that similar.

That's what I meant; I didn't mean to say it had to be the same cancer. If the breast cancer was located in the same breast and same area that was irradiated (assuming the radiation was local and not systemic), that would make a strong argument that it was likely secondary to the childhood treatment. The fact that the second cancer was breast cancer isn't all that convincing by itself, because it's an all-around common cancer.

My point was that it's another explanation that has to be considered. It doesn't mean the explanation you proposed could not be valid.

> 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.

Well one potential explanation is that any treatment you get during childhood usually carries a higher risk than on adults. I haven't seen data suggesting that radiation treatment in adults increase the risks of cancer, and by the way radiation is now extensively used in many diagnostic tools and it is generally accepted that low dose of radiations are harmless or even beneficial (while the media keeps screaming that any level of radiation causes cancer, which is nonsensical).

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

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

It's very interesting to read some of the pop literature of the time. The Conan and Oz stories both refer to radium very positively as a mystical technology capable of essentially anything, which advanced societies would naturally use where they could.

People today don't look the same way, I think, on the idea of a city set deep underground, where all the lighting is provided by radium set into the walls.

Marie Curie lived to be 66 at a time when the life expectancy in France was around 45. It's true her husband and co-experimenter, Pierre Curie, only lived to be 46 - he was killed by a heavy horse-drawn cart!

Perhaps we are a little too paranoid about the risks of radiation.

And smoking isn't unhealthy, because my dad is still alive and kicking at 80 years old, right?

This is the reason why the size of the samples are important.

I assume you meant life expectancy at birth. That is very different from life expectancy at adult ages.

The former can be skewed downwards much by many babies not surviving their first few days. It would be much more productive to compare the average life expectancy of those who died from natural causes with Marie's, or at least those of adults.

Fascinating. I'm quite impressed she lived to the ripe old age of 66.

please, Marie Curie.

This is one time I'm actually hoping for the title to be edited!

I do not understand - is there an error in the submission title ?

Marie Skłodowska-Curie is her "correct" name in some sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marie_Curie_Sk%C5%82odowsk... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

It's worth pointing out she used the full version of her name herself.

It's a good cautionary tale about how we should react to new science and technology.

While knee-jerk rejection can be annoying, skepticism is warranted!

What topics have the potential to surprise us with unforeseen downsides? I'd guess nano particles and GMOs, off the top of my head.

With the advent of the FDA, the likelihood of something similar to radium as a cure for cancer is unlikely. Although, I sometimes think with experimental international stem cell therapy or kombucha, there's bound to be something...

I'm shocked by Eben Byers death, related in the article, and all that radioactive quackery.

Homeopathy (to name one) today is a joke compared to what we've done in the past. Radioactive toothpaste!

I hope there's no equivalent nowadays.

> I hope there's no equivalent nowadays.

Quackery isn't quite as bad as radioactive toothpaste or heroin syrup to calm the baby, but it's still pretty bad.

People with HIV are told to stop taking "poisonous" ARV meds, and to drink a concoction of lemon juice, garlic, ginger, etc. This isn't some obscure quack either, it's the president of a country, and the health minister of that country. When the deputy health minister spoke out she was sacked. (http://www.irinnews.org/report/73679/south-africa-deputy-hea...)

Matthias Rath is, in my opinion, the embodiment of evil. His scams have killed very many people. (http://www.irinnews.org/report/83497/south-africa-final-chap...)

People talk about the evils of big pharma, and that they're only in it for the money. Pharma does have many problems, but the solution isn't to go to the greedy quacks selling vitamins as a cure for all cancer or a cure for AIDs/HIV. And Rath made a lot of money from selling vitamins.

Here's another snake oil "cure" for HIV/AIDS. (http://www.irinnews.org/report/94679/africa-snake-oil-salesm...)

There are many examples from the developed world too. I link to the African stories because the statistics were just so mind-boggling when HIV/AIDS was at its worst.

I've always wanted to go into the library archives of Iowa State University with a Geiger counter and visit the physics journals from the Manhattan project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com