Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. - Sir Isaac Newton
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
2009 Nuclear Medicine - Group 4
21 comments:
837640
said...
The group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this particular technology to exist. They said that the radioactivity of the isotopes are used to as a beacon for the medicine to target the specifically target cells. The defense stated that the radioactivity of the medicine is very dangerous and could harm people. The waste created cannot be easily disposed of and remains present for over two hundred thousand years. It also has fatal effects. The defense stated that the use of nuclear medicine can help cure cancer and specific targets a cell and releases a signal so the medicine will target it and no other cell. I am in favor of the defense because its arguments make the most sense to me.
This group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this technology to exist. The arguments in defense of this technology are that it can treat some cancers, mostly of the bones. However, I feel that the prosecution has a more convincing argument. The prosecution stated that nuclear medicine leaves behind toxic waste. Because these wastes do not break down very easily, they can last for up to 200,000 years. The effects on human life can be fatal. I think that the prosecution made the best claim and I don't think nuclear medicine should be used. 019045
The group addressed the unique nature of radioisotopes that allow nuclear medicine to exist. Radiation emitted from an unstable nucleus found in the medicine allows it to target specific cells where disease is found. Radioactive tracers can detect diseases such as thyroid conditions and heart disease. The radioactive isotopes can treat certain types of cancer, especially cancer in bones. Radioactive isotope technology is the only method known today to treat certain conditions. Despite arguments for nuclear medicine, using radioactive tracers is extremely dangerous because they leave behind waste that is left for nearly two hundred thousand years. Nuclear medical technology can prove to be fatal. Based on the evidence presented, I am in favor of nuclear medicine because the evidence for nuclear medicine is more convincing than the evidence against it. 026610
Yes i do believe that the group properly identified the nature of the radioisotope. The defending arguements of nuclear medicine are that it can cure many types of cancer such as bone cancer. Some prececuting arguments are that nuclear medicine treatments can be harmful and potentially fatal to the patients. In this case, i would have to side with the defense, because based on the evidence presented, nuclear medicine has more positives than negatives. -643470
The group cleverly addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear medicine to exist. The prosecution argued that when exposed to dangerous nuclear waste left behind, the effects can be fatal. The defense stated that tracers can be used to detect conditions such as thyroid and heart disease as well as to treat bone cancer. The defense also argued that no other method is nearly as effective, and for that reason I agree with the defense of nuclear medicine. 110740
This group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this particular technology to exist. The prosecution stated that radioactive tracers in medicines are left in stockpiles for years, and are not easily destroyed. It may take over 200,000 years for radioactive material to decay, and the effects it has on humans can be fatal. The defense argued that radioactive tracers detect thyroid conditions and heart disease, as well as certain types of cancer, especially bone cancer. There is no other substitute for radioactive tracers because of the radiation emitted from the unstable nucleus of an atom trying to become stable. In medicine, the tracer is used as a signal and medicine as an attack against individual diseases. To me, the defense's argument makes the most sense because diseased or sick people can greatly benefit from the use of radioactive tracers. 304540
I really do believe that this group addressed the unique nature of the radioisotope that allows nuclear medicine to exist. The defense said that nuclear medicine can treat bone cancer, and tracers can locate tumors. Also, there is not another effective method to treat this. The prosecution said that the medicine produces harmful waste, and there is no way to dispose of such waste, which can last a very long time. I think that the defense it correct, and that nuclear medicines should be able to be used. 496040
The group did adress how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this technology to exsit. The defense states that the medicine can help to treat bone cancer. The prosecution stated that the waste remains for 200,000 years. Also, the effect on the life of the person can be fatal. i agree most with the defense because of its ability to treat cancer of the bones.
The group adressed how radioisotopes allows for this tecnology to exist. The pros of this tecnology is it can help identify cancer cells in the human body. The cons of this tecnology is that the effects of it could kill the patient, and that the waste from it will stay dangerous for 200,000 years. I believe that the pros of possibly curing cancer outway the possibily of the death of a terminably ill person. 244860
Yes, this group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They had stated that the radiation emitted from unstable nuclei tries to become stable. The radiation is used as a signal and the medicine as an attack on the disease. The defense stated that the use of nuclear technology for medicine can help to prevent thyroid conditions and heart diseases as well as treat certain forms of cancer, expecially bone cancer. The prosecution said that the harmful waste left behind by radioactive medicines and tracers is left to stockpile storage facilities. This waste can last up to 200,000 years and the effects could be fatal if exposed to them. I agree with the defense for they had more facts than the prosecution.
Yes, this group did address the unique characteristics that allow this techonology to exist. The defense stated that radioactivity can be used to treat bone cancer and radioactive tracers can detect thyroid conditions and heart disease. The prosecution stated that it leaves behind waste that can last up to 200,000 years which can be harmful to human life. I agree with the defense because it has helped make advancements in medicine. 734970
This group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this aprticular technology to exist. The arguments in defense of this technology are that it can be used to treat certain forms of cancer, and radioactive tracers can be used to detect things such as thyroid conditions. The prosecution argued that this type of treatment can be dangerous because it leaves behind toxic wastes that can last for 200,000 years. Based on the evidence provided I'm going to side with the defense, because this technology is the most effective way to treat these diseases. 044880
The group did address how the unique nature of radioisotopes permits nuclear medicine to exist and be used. The defense stated that it can be used to detect diseases. Radioistopes can treat cancer, especially bone cancer, because of radiation and their attacks on individual diseases. Those against nuclear medicine said that it produces harmful waste, it is not easily destroyed or stored, it lasts over 200,000 years, and people can die when exposed to nuclear waste. Both sides made sense, but I am against nuclear medicine because it is dangerous and can have disastrous effects. There are other ways to treat and detect diseases. 398715
Radioisotopes are unique in tracers to identify certain cancers. The prosecutor explains that tracers can be extremely dangerous, with fatal effects, and waste that cannot be easily disposed of. The defendant tells that nuclear medicine and help detect cancers, they mark certain areas on cancers, like bone cancer, where medicine is then used. I'm not sure which side to take, the prosecution made the most sense to me, so I'll stick with that. 064337
Thisgroup thoroughly expressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that alllows this particular technology to exist. The prosecution focused on the medical aspects of nuclear technology in that the radioactivity is extremely life threatening and can harm many people. They also stated that the nuclear waste cannot be disposed of and can possibly remain for hundreds of thousands of years. The defense completely contradicted the medical arguement in that they stated it can cure cancer. Im not sure which side I mostly agree with due to a lack of information. 375740
The group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The prosecution argued that nuclear medicine leaves behind toxic wastes that can last up to 200,000 years. Also, exposure to nuclear medicine could be fatal. The defense argued that nuclear medicine can detect diseases such as thyroid cancer and heart disease. They also argued that nuclear medicine can treat some cancers, especially bone cancer. They also argued that no other method is nearly as effective. I think that the defense made the best arguments and made more sense to me. The defense stated more convincing arguments therefore I think that nuclear medicine should be used.
The group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows Nuclear Medicine to work. The defense argued the radioactivity in the isotopes can target cells, and that tracers can be used to detect cancer and heart disease. The prosecution argued that despite this, the radioactivity is harmful to humans, and will remain present for at least two hundred years afterward. I am siding with the prosecution, because what is the point of trying to heal yourself when there is a definite chance of having radioactive leftovers? 279460
This group said how the nature of radioisotopes allowed them to be used in medicine. The prosecution stated that the use of radioisotopes in medicine could have fatal effects on the patient. However, the defense stated the many useful properties of radioisotopes in medicine, such as a cure for cancer and other useful effects. Therefore, I think the benefits of this technology outweigh the risks. 134280
The group did address the nature of the radioisotope that allows nuclera medicine to be possible. The prosecution said nuclear medicine has left over waste that can stay radioactive for two hundred thousand years. They also siad it can have harmful of even fatal side effects. The defense said that the medicine can be very helpful in cure cancer ant thyroid conditions because it allows doctors to target only the effected cell. I would side with the prosecution because to me the risks outweigh the benefits. -472840
Group 4 did a good job of explaining the nature of a radioisotope that allows Nuclear Medicine to exist. In defense of Nuclear Medicine, the Group said that it treated some cancers, especially in the bones. Radioactive tracers can help find some diseases. Although Nuclear Medicine does have its advantages in helping people, the toxic waste of Nuclear Medicine ultimately weighs out the pros. The waste is not easily broken down and can take a long long time to break down. It can have deadly effects on humans and therefore, I personally see it as contradictory to use Medicine that can possibly hurt more than help. 140860
21 comments:
The group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this particular technology to exist. They said that the radioactivity of the isotopes are used to as a beacon for the medicine to target the specifically target cells. The defense stated that the radioactivity of the medicine is very dangerous and could harm people. The waste created cannot be easily disposed of and remains present for over two hundred thousand years. It also has fatal effects. The defense stated that the use of nuclear medicine can help cure cancer and specific targets a cell and releases a signal so the medicine will target it and no other cell. I am in favor of the defense because its arguments make the most sense to me.
This group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this technology to exist. The arguments in defense of this technology are that it can treat some cancers, mostly of the bones. However, I feel that the prosecution has a more convincing argument. The prosecution stated that nuclear medicine leaves behind toxic waste. Because these wastes do not break down very easily, they can last for up to 200,000 years. The effects on human life can be fatal. I think that the prosecution made the best claim and I don't think nuclear medicine should be used.
019045
The group addressed the unique nature of radioisotopes that allow nuclear medicine to exist. Radiation emitted from an unstable nucleus found in the medicine allows it to target specific cells where disease is found.
Radioactive tracers can detect diseases such as thyroid conditions and heart disease. The radioactive isotopes can treat certain types of cancer, especially cancer in bones. Radioactive isotope technology is the only method known today to treat certain conditions.
Despite arguments for nuclear medicine, using radioactive tracers is extremely dangerous because they leave behind waste that is left for nearly two hundred thousand years. Nuclear medical technology can prove to be fatal.
Based on the evidence presented, I am in favor of nuclear medicine because the evidence for nuclear medicine is more convincing than the evidence against it.
026610
Yes i do believe that the group properly identified the nature of the radioisotope. The defending arguements of nuclear medicine are that it can cure many types of cancer such as bone cancer. Some prececuting arguments are that nuclear medicine treatments can be harmful and potentially fatal to the patients. In this case, i would have to side with the defense, because based on the evidence presented, nuclear medicine has more positives than negatives.
-643470
This group did address the unique nature of radioisotopes in their use in the medical field. Specifically they discuss tracers.
Pros: Tracers can be used to located things such as tumors in the body
Cons: The potential danger that radioactive material can create, the imability to properly dispose of radioactive waste
The ruling at the end of the court case determined that the defense won. The video overall supported the use of radioisotopes in the medical field.
The group cleverly addressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows nuclear medicine to exist. The prosecution argued that when exposed to dangerous nuclear waste left behind, the effects can be fatal. The defense stated that tracers can be used to detect conditions such as thyroid and heart disease as well as to treat bone cancer. The defense also argued that no other method is nearly as effective, and for that reason I agree with the defense of nuclear medicine.
110740
This group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this particular technology to exist. The prosecution stated that radioactive tracers in medicines are left in stockpiles for years, and are not easily destroyed. It may take over 200,000 years for radioactive material to decay, and the effects it has on humans can be fatal. The defense argued that radioactive tracers detect thyroid conditions and heart disease, as well as certain types of cancer, especially bone cancer. There is no other substitute for radioactive tracers because of the radiation emitted from the unstable nucleus of an atom trying to become stable. In medicine, the tracer is used as a signal and medicine as an attack against individual diseases. To me, the defense's argument makes the most sense because diseased or sick people can greatly benefit from the use of radioactive tracers. 304540
I really do believe that this group addressed the unique nature of the radioisotope that allows nuclear medicine to exist. The defense said that nuclear medicine can treat bone cancer, and tracers can locate tumors. Also, there is not another effective method to treat this. The prosecution said that the medicine produces harmful waste, and there is no way to dispose of such waste, which can last a very long time. I think that the defense it correct, and that nuclear medicines should be able to be used. 496040
The group did adress how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this technology to exsit. The defense states that the medicine can help to treat bone cancer. The prosecution stated that the waste remains for 200,000 years. Also, the effect on the life of the person can be fatal. i agree most with the defense because of its ability to treat cancer of the bones.
The group adressed how radioisotopes allows for this tecnology to exist. The pros of this tecnology is it can help identify cancer cells in the human body. The cons of this tecnology is that the effects of it could kill the patient, and that the waste from it will stay dangerous for 200,000 years. I believe that the pros of possibly curing cancer outway the possibily of the death of a terminably ill person.
244860
Yes, this group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. They had stated that the radiation emitted from unstable nuclei tries to become stable. The radiation is used as a signal and the medicine as an attack on the disease. The defense stated that the use of nuclear technology for medicine can help to prevent thyroid conditions and heart diseases as well as treat certain forms of cancer, expecially bone cancer. The prosecution said that the harmful waste left behind by radioactive medicines and tracers is left to stockpile storage facilities. This waste can last up to 200,000 years and the effects could be fatal if exposed to them. I agree with the defense for they had more facts than the prosecution.
233470
Yes, this group did address the unique characteristics that allow this techonology to exist.
The defense stated that radioactivity can be used to treat bone cancer and radioactive tracers can detect thyroid conditions and heart disease.
The prosecution stated that it leaves behind waste that can last up to 200,000 years which can be harmful to human life.
I agree with the defense because it has helped make advancements in medicine.
734970
This group did address how the unique nature of a radioisotope allows this aprticular technology to exist. The arguments in defense of this technology are that it can be used to treat certain forms of cancer, and radioactive tracers can be used to detect things such as thyroid conditions. The prosecution argued that this type of treatment can be dangerous because it leaves behind toxic wastes that can last for 200,000 years. Based on the evidence provided I'm going to side with the defense, because this technology is the most effective way to treat these diseases. 044880
The group did address how the unique nature of radioisotopes permits nuclear medicine to exist and be used. The defense stated that it can be used to detect diseases. Radioistopes can treat cancer, especially bone cancer, because of radiation and their attacks on individual diseases. Those against nuclear medicine said that it produces harmful waste, it is not easily destroyed or stored, it lasts over 200,000 years, and people can die when exposed to nuclear waste. Both sides made sense, but I am against nuclear medicine because it is dangerous and can have disastrous effects. There are other ways to treat and detect diseases. 398715
Radioisotopes are unique in tracers to identify certain cancers. The prosecutor explains that tracers can be extremely dangerous, with fatal effects, and waste that cannot be easily disposed of. The defendant tells that nuclear medicine and help detect cancers, they mark certain areas on cancers, like bone cancer, where medicine is then used. I'm not sure which side to take, the prosecution made the most sense to me, so I'll stick with that.
064337
Thisgroup thoroughly expressed the unique nature of a radioisotope that alllows this particular technology to exist. The prosecution focused on the medical aspects of nuclear technology in that the radioactivity is extremely life threatening and can harm many people. They also stated that the nuclear waste cannot be disposed of and can possibly remain for hundreds of thousands of years. The defense completely contradicted the medical arguement in that they stated it can cure cancer. Im not sure which side I mostly agree with due to a lack of information. 375740
The group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows this particular technology to exist. The prosecution argued that nuclear medicine leaves behind toxic wastes that can last up to 200,000 years. Also, exposure to nuclear medicine could be fatal. The defense argued that nuclear medicine can detect diseases such as thyroid cancer and heart disease. They also argued that nuclear medicine can treat some cancers, especially bone cancer. They also argued that no other method is nearly as effective. I think that the defense made the best arguments and made more sense to me. The defense stated more convincing arguments therefore I think that nuclear medicine should be used.
The group did address the unique nature of a radioisotope that allows Nuclear Medicine to work. The defense argued the radioactivity in the isotopes can target cells, and that tracers can be used to detect cancer and heart disease. The prosecution argued that despite this, the radioactivity is harmful to humans, and will remain present for at least two hundred years afterward. I am siding with the prosecution, because what is the point of trying to heal yourself when there is a definite chance of having radioactive leftovers? 279460
This group said how the nature of radioisotopes allowed them to be used in medicine. The prosecution stated that the use of radioisotopes in medicine could have fatal effects on the patient. However, the defense stated the many useful properties of radioisotopes in medicine, such as a cure for cancer and other useful effects. Therefore, I think the benefits of this technology outweigh the risks.
134280
The group did address the nature of the radioisotope that allows nuclera medicine to be possible. The prosecution said nuclear medicine has left over waste that can stay radioactive for two hundred thousand years. They also siad it can have harmful of even fatal side effects. The defense said that the medicine can be very helpful in cure cancer ant thyroid conditions because it allows doctors to target only the effected cell. I would side with the prosecution because to me the risks outweigh the benefits. -472840
Group 4 did a good job of explaining the nature of a radioisotope that allows Nuclear Medicine to exist. In defense of Nuclear Medicine, the Group said that it treated some cancers, especially in the bones. Radioactive tracers can help find some diseases. Although Nuclear Medicine does have its advantages in helping people, the toxic waste of Nuclear Medicine ultimately weighs out the pros. The waste is not easily broken down and can take a long long time to break down. It can have deadly effects on humans and therefore, I personally see it as contradictory to use Medicine that can possibly hurt more than help. 140860
Post a Comment