<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_2320247</id>
	<title>Scientists Crack 'Entire Genetic Code' of Cancer</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1260965700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Entropy98 writes <i>"Scientists have unlocked the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8414124.stm">entire genetic code of skin and lung cancer</a>.  From the article: 'Not only will the cancer maps pave the way for blood tests to spot tumors far earlier, they will also yield new drug targets, say the Wellcome Trust team. The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure. The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure. From this, the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke. Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancer.' Yet another step towards curing cancer.  Though it will probably take many years to study so many mutations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Entropy98 writes " Scientists have unlocked the entire genetic code of skin and lung cancer .
From the article : 'Not only will the cancer maps pave the way for blood tests to spot tumors far earlier , they will also yield new drug targets , say the Wellcome Trust team .
The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure .
The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure .
From this , the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke .
Although many of these mutations will be harmless , some will trigger cancer .
' Yet another step towards curing cancer .
Though it will probably take many years to study so many mutations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entropy98 writes "Scientists have unlocked the entire genetic code of skin and lung cancer.
From the article: 'Not only will the cancer maps pave the way for blood tests to spot tumors far earlier, they will also yield new drug targets, say the Wellcome Trust team.
The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure.
The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure.
From this, the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke.
Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancer.
' Yet another step towards curing cancer.
Though it will probably take many years to study so many mutations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467378</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's mainly in case you ever want to sue any girl you knock up for patent infringement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mainly in case you ever want to sue any girl you knock up for patent infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mainly in case you ever want to sue any girl you knock up for patent infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470086</id>
	<title>Re:The extrapolation for lung cancer is badly flaw</title>
	<author>John Newman</author>
	<datestamp>1259697240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's a pack a day for 47 years, which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility, but still an awful lot of smoking.</p></div></blockquote><p>Never worked in a VA hospital, eh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) You measure smoking history in "pack-years" (actually packs/day * years). 47 is pretty unremarkable. It's not until you hit triple digits that it seems extraordinary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a pack a day for 47 years , which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility , but still an awful lot of smoking.Never worked in a VA hospital , eh ?
: ) You measure smoking history in " pack-years " ( actually packs/day * years ) .
47 is pretty unremarkable .
It 's not until you hit triple digits that it seems extraordinary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a pack a day for 47 years, which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility, but still an awful lot of smoking.Never worked in a VA hospital, eh?
:) You measure smoking history in "pack-years" (actually packs/day * years).
47 is pretty unremarkable.
It's not until you hit triple digits that it seems extraordinary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468680</id>
	<title>Re:Powers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure. From this, the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke.</p></div><p>At 1 &amp;1/2 packs a day for 20 some years, that puts me about 14,600 mutations to date... which means I'm safe for at least another 10 years, right? So far no cancer...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...still waiting for my X-Men powers though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure .
From this , the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke.At 1 &amp;1/2 packs a day for 20 some years , that puts me about 14,600 mutations to date... which means I 'm safe for at least another 10 years , right ?
So far no cancer... ...still waiting for my X-Men powers though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure.
From this, the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke.At 1 &amp;1/2 packs a day for 20 some years, that puts me about 14,600 mutations to date... which means I'm safe for at least another 10 years, right?
So far no cancer... ...still waiting for my X-Men powers though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467952</id>
	<title>Re:Benign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't make fun of cancer? yes you can sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't make fun of cancer ?
yes you can sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't make fun of cancer?
yes you can sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018</id>
	<title>Better yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we can make cigarettes that don't cause cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can make cigarettes that do n't cause cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can make cigarettes that don't cause cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467086</id>
	<title>Re:Cold turkey</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1259674260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!</p></div><p>Maybe, but if you only smoke the other 14, you should be OK.</p><p>Unless the 15th one isn't labeled, then it's harder.<br>
&nbsp; <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me ducks</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator ! Maybe , but if you only smoke the other 14 , you should be OK.Unless the 15th one is n't labeled , then it 's harder .
  /me ducks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!Maybe, but if you only smoke the other 14, you should be OK.Unless the 15th one isn't labeled, then it's harder.
   /me ducks
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468850</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1259687040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like you need an introduction to our good buddy "Very Large Numbers". Unfortunately, while it is easy to write a very large number, it is hard to convey a real affective appreciation of what <i>large</i> means. People kind of glaze out, and anything with more than a dozen zeroes starts to look pretty much the same.<br> <br>

It is, indeed, extraordinarily unlikely that a given high-energy photon striking a cell will cause it to become cancerous. However, very long odds add up quickly when you consider the number of sufficiently high-energy photons your skin will encounter over years of sun exposure(and, even so, it isn't as though skin cancers affect 100\% of the population).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like you need an introduction to our good buddy " Very Large Numbers " .
Unfortunately , while it is easy to write a very large number , it is hard to convey a real affective appreciation of what large means .
People kind of glaze out , and anything with more than a dozen zeroes starts to look pretty much the same .
It is , indeed , extraordinarily unlikely that a given high-energy photon striking a cell will cause it to become cancerous .
However , very long odds add up quickly when you consider the number of sufficiently high-energy photons your skin will encounter over years of sun exposure ( and , even so , it is n't as though skin cancers affect 100 \ % of the population ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like you need an introduction to our good buddy "Very Large Numbers".
Unfortunately, while it is easy to write a very large number, it is hard to convey a real affective appreciation of what large means.
People kind of glaze out, and anything with more than a dozen zeroes starts to look pretty much the same.
It is, indeed, extraordinarily unlikely that a given high-energy photon striking a cell will cause it to become cancerous.
However, very long odds add up quickly when you consider the number of sufficiently high-energy photons your skin will encounter over years of sun exposure(and, even so, it isn't as though skin cancers affect 100\% of the population).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468252</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vaporizers are one way an individual could reduce the particulate matter in the inhaling of most any substance that otherwise needs to be superheated.  Most use one for smoking dope but it is just as viable for tobacco.  Insert head shop jokes here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vaporizers are one way an individual could reduce the particulate matter in the inhaling of most any substance that otherwise needs to be superheated .
Most use one for smoking dope but it is just as viable for tobacco .
Insert head shop jokes here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vaporizers are one way an individual could reduce the particulate matter in the inhaling of most any substance that otherwise needs to be superheated.
Most use one for smoking dope but it is just as viable for tobacco.
Insert head shop jokes here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467344</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1259675880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</p></div><p>That's just it, though - the patent is granted for the isolation, refinement, or modification of the gene. The issue is what is considered 'naturally occurring.' Chemical composition patents are granted based on the assumption that the composition isn't just sitting around and easy to get at.</p><p>The policy question is whether just protecting the process used to isolate something is enough, rather than protecting the actual thing itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway ? That 's just it , though - the patent is granted for the isolation , refinement , or modification of the gene .
The issue is what is considered 'naturally occurring .
' Chemical composition patents are granted based on the assumption that the composition is n't just sitting around and easy to get at.The policy question is whether just protecting the process used to isolate something is enough , rather than protecting the actual thing itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?That's just it, though - the patent is granted for the isolation, refinement, or modification of the gene.
The issue is what is considered 'naturally occurring.
' Chemical composition patents are granted based on the assumption that the composition isn't just sitting around and easy to get at.The policy question is whether just protecting the process used to isolate something is enough, rather than protecting the actual thing itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467134</id>
	<title>Misleading...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a terrible summary.  There is no *single* cancer genome.  They sequenced the genome of one cancer biopsy.  There are probably as many different cancer "codes" (also a horribly misleading term) as there are tumors in the world.</p><p>Cancer is not a single disease, it is a phenomenon, like evolution.  This would be like sequencing the genome of two organisms and claiming to've "cracked the evolution code".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a terrible summary .
There is no * single * cancer genome .
They sequenced the genome of one cancer biopsy .
There are probably as many different cancer " codes " ( also a horribly misleading term ) as there are tumors in the world.Cancer is not a single disease , it is a phenomenon , like evolution .
This would be like sequencing the genome of two organisms and claiming to 've " cracked the evolution code " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a terrible summary.
There is no *single* cancer genome.
They sequenced the genome of one cancer biopsy.
There are probably as many different cancer "codes" (also a horribly misleading term) as there are tumors in the world.Cancer is not a single disease, it is a phenomenon, like evolution.
This would be like sequencing the genome of two organisms and claiming to've "cracked the evolution code".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473144</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1261064400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great post.  Despite what you say, I believe that the death rate for cancer will be near zero by 2100.  Yes, it may always be with us, but at that point, it may be just an inconvenience (like baldness is now).</p><p>On a pedantic note, my "faulty logic flag" went up, when I read this:</p><blockquote><div><p>More than 30\% of cancer is preventable via avoiding risk factors (which suggests that 70\% of it is not preventable at all).</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually "More than 30\% of cancer is preventable" means just the opposite of what you said.<br>If "More than 30\% of cancer is preventable" is a true statement, then the statement "70\% of it is not preventable" must be a false statement.</p><p>It's possible for "69.999\% to be not preventable", but impossible for "70\% to be not preventable".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post .
Despite what you say , I believe that the death rate for cancer will be near zero by 2100 .
Yes , it may always be with us , but at that point , it may be just an inconvenience ( like baldness is now ) .On a pedantic note , my " faulty logic flag " went up , when I read this : More than 30 \ % of cancer is preventable via avoiding risk factors ( which suggests that 70 \ % of it is not preventable at all ) .Actually " More than 30 \ % of cancer is preventable " means just the opposite of what you said.If " More than 30 \ % of cancer is preventable " is a true statement , then the statement " 70 \ % of it is not preventable " must be a false statement.It 's possible for " 69.999 \ % to be not preventable " , but impossible for " 70 \ % to be not preventable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post.
Despite what you say, I believe that the death rate for cancer will be near zero by 2100.
Yes, it may always be with us, but at that point, it may be just an inconvenience (like baldness is now).On a pedantic note, my "faulty logic flag" went up, when I read this:More than 30\% of cancer is preventable via avoiding risk factors (which suggests that 70\% of it is not preventable at all).Actually "More than 30\% of cancer is preventable" means just the opposite of what you said.If "More than 30\% of cancer is preventable" is a true statement, then the statement "70\% of it is not preventable" must be a false statement.It's possible for "69.999\% to be not preventable", but impossible for "70\% to be not preventable".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467156</id>
	<title>Fuck yea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smoke 'em if you got 'em!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoke 'em if you got 'em !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoke 'em if you got 'em!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467806</id>
	<title>Cancer of other things</title>
	<author>amazingxkcd</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that these scientists got the genetic code for skin and lung cancer, should we get them to figure the genetic code for the stupidity cancer? I think so, it will be hard, but very well rewarding</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that these scientists got the genetic code for skin and lung cancer , should we get them to figure the genetic code for the stupidity cancer ?
I think so , it will be hard , but very well rewarding</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that these scientists got the genetic code for skin and lung cancer, should we get them to figure the genetic code for the stupidity cancer?
I think so, it will be hard, but very well rewarding</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468338</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA? </p></div><p>It's a DNA BSOD, the reason why your veins are blue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA ?
It 's a DNA BSOD , the reason why your veins are blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA?
It's a DNA BSOD, the reason why your veins are blue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467606</id>
	<title>Re:The extrapolation for lung cancer is badly flaw</title>
	<author>dragonjujotu</author>
	<datestamp>1259677500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the summary actually says it's 30,000 mutations for skin cancer and 23,000 for lung cancer, but at least you got it right in your math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the summary actually says it 's 30,000 mutations for skin cancer and 23,000 for lung cancer , but at least you got it right in your math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the summary actually says it's 30,000 mutations for skin cancer and 23,000 for lung cancer, but at least you got it right in your math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467124</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cancer is basically when your cells are broken and are spawning hellish death cells to kill you.  These cells 'break' when they mutate.   Errors in the DNA has long been assumed as the cause of the cells turning to cancer, so if they found 30k errors in the DNA of melanoma VS standard issue skin cells..  and that one of those 30k errors may be causing cancer.

Yes, it is like finding 30k haystacks...  however its better then the infinite # of haystacks we had before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancer is basically when your cells are broken and are spawning hellish death cells to kill you .
These cells 'break ' when they mutate .
Errors in the DNA has long been assumed as the cause of the cells turning to cancer , so if they found 30k errors in the DNA of melanoma VS standard issue skin cells.. and that one of those 30k errors may be causing cancer .
Yes , it is like finding 30k haystacks... however its better then the infinite # of haystacks we had before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancer is basically when your cells are broken and are spawning hellish death cells to kill you.
These cells 'break' when they mutate.
Errors in the DNA has long been assumed as the cause of the cells turning to cancer, so if they found 30k errors in the DNA of melanoma VS standard issue skin cells..  and that one of those 30k errors may be causing cancer.
Yes, it is like finding 30k haystacks...  however its better then the infinite # of haystacks we had before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30474210</id>
	<title>trust me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't look cool. You just look like an addict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't look cool .
You just look like an addict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't look cool.
You just look like an addict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30474440</id>
	<title>heh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>80\% of the smokers never get lung cancer. 80\% of the people with lung cancer don;t have family history with lung cancer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>80 \ % of the smokers never get lung cancer .
80 \ % of the people with lung cancer don ; t have family history with lung cancer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>80\% of the smokers never get lung cancer.
80\% of the people with lung cancer don;t have family history with lung cancer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082</id>
	<title>Yea, stop smoking tobacco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem...  Everyone switch to pot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , since it 's cigarette smoke that 's the problem... Everyone switch to pot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem...  Everyone switch to pot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30558848</id>
	<title>Re:Benign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261825860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's absolutely disgusting.  Cancer is not funny in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's absolutely disgusting .
Cancer is not funny in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's absolutely disgusting.
Cancer is not funny in any way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have very little background in this area. But I'm curious. If skin cancer is caused by exposure to the sun, then it must be different for each patient? Because it's cause isn't inherited it seems to me that each patient with skin cancer has a unique and individual genetic cause to their skin cancer. Something akin to snow flakes. Perhaps once they find the absolute minimum change within the genes of an otherwise healthy human to having skin cancer, headlines can claim that scientists "crack entire genetic code of cancer."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have very little background in this area .
But I 'm curious .
If skin cancer is caused by exposure to the sun , then it must be different for each patient ?
Because it 's cause is n't inherited it seems to me that each patient with skin cancer has a unique and individual genetic cause to their skin cancer .
Something akin to snow flakes .
Perhaps once they find the absolute minimum change within the genes of an otherwise healthy human to having skin cancer , headlines can claim that scientists " crack entire genetic code of cancer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have very little background in this area.
But I'm curious.
If skin cancer is caused by exposure to the sun, then it must be different for each patient?
Because it's cause isn't inherited it seems to me that each patient with skin cancer has a unique and individual genetic cause to their skin cancer.
Something akin to snow flakes.
Perhaps once they find the absolute minimum change within the genes of an otherwise healthy human to having skin cancer, headlines can claim that scientists "crack entire genetic code of cancer.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980</id>
	<title>Powers</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1259673600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancer</p></div><p>And some will give you super powers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although many of these mutations will be harmless , some will trigger cancerAnd some will give you super powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancerAnd some will give you super powers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470138</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261080120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other other hand you do smell a lot better now, and we thank you for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other other hand you do smell a lot better now , and we thank you for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other other hand you do smell a lot better now, and we thank you for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472260</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261057920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.</p></div><p>I'm in the exact same situation. Once I got rid of my <a href="http://www.etsy.com/view\_listing.php?listing\_id=15291146" title="etsy.com" rel="nofollow">stylish accessory</a> [etsy.com], that's exactly what I was thinking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I miss that I no longer look cool.I 'm in the exact same situation .
Once I got rid of my stylish accessory [ etsy.com ] , that 's exactly what I was thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.I'm in the exact same situation.
Once I got rid of my stylish accessory [etsy.com], that's exactly what I was thinking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471896</id>
	<title>Comparative genomics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261054020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the key benefits to this kind of technology will be the potential for comparative genomics to be performed.  This will provide the means to discount the vast majority of the "passenger" mutations whilst singling out the drivers.  It works, as the name suggests, by taking the genomes of many cancers and comparing them.  If you see mutations occurring over and over again in the same genes, regulatory sequences etc. this is a sign that the target of that mutation is doing something important.</p><p>Obviously, if you compare multiple gliomas, for example, you will draw out glioma specific mutations (as well as being able to define subtypes of glioma based on mutations).  If you were to go broader and compare all types of blood cancers, say, then you would pick out targets important in the development of those cancers etc.</p><p>Obviously we currently have a complete genome for only two cancers but within the next decade the improvement in sequencing will see this rise exponentially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the key benefits to this kind of technology will be the potential for comparative genomics to be performed .
This will provide the means to discount the vast majority of the " passenger " mutations whilst singling out the drivers .
It works , as the name suggests , by taking the genomes of many cancers and comparing them .
If you see mutations occurring over and over again in the same genes , regulatory sequences etc .
this is a sign that the target of that mutation is doing something important.Obviously , if you compare multiple gliomas , for example , you will draw out glioma specific mutations ( as well as being able to define subtypes of glioma based on mutations ) .
If you were to go broader and compare all types of blood cancers , say , then you would pick out targets important in the development of those cancers etc.Obviously we currently have a complete genome for only two cancers but within the next decade the improvement in sequencing will see this rise exponentially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the key benefits to this kind of technology will be the potential for comparative genomics to be performed.
This will provide the means to discount the vast majority of the "passenger" mutations whilst singling out the drivers.
It works, as the name suggests, by taking the genomes of many cancers and comparing them.
If you see mutations occurring over and over again in the same genes, regulatory sequences etc.
this is a sign that the target of that mutation is doing something important.Obviously, if you compare multiple gliomas, for example, you will draw out glioma specific mutations (as well as being able to define subtypes of glioma based on mutations).
If you were to go broader and compare all types of blood cancers, say, then you would pick out targets important in the development of those cancers etc.Obviously we currently have a complete genome for only two cancers but within the next decade the improvement in sequencing will see this rise exponentially.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467488</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness for the free market!</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259676720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the patent system that will allow them to have a monopoly so that they'll make (hopefully) plenty of money as incentive and financing to keep researching for other things, show others that they can make money by helping people, the best and brightest will see that they don't have to go into law or medicine or finance to make it "big" or just make enough to pay off their student loans - which will be very important in the near future as college tuition continues its double digit inflation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the patent system that will allow them to have a monopoly so that they 'll make ( hopefully ) plenty of money as incentive and financing to keep researching for other things , show others that they can make money by helping people , the best and brightest will see that they do n't have to go into law or medicine or finance to make it " big " or just make enough to pay off their student loans - which will be very important in the near future as college tuition continues its double digit inflation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the patent system that will allow them to have a monopoly so that they'll make (hopefully) plenty of money as incentive and financing to keep researching for other things, show others that they can make money by helping people, the best and brightest will see that they don't have to go into law or medicine or finance to make it "big" or just make enough to pay off their student loans - which will be very important in the near future as college tuition continues its double digit inflation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469496</id>
	<title>Re:Powers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit, I'm going out and buying a carton!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit , I 'm going out and buying a carton !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit, I'm going out and buying a carton!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467024</id>
	<title>This is good news.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome our cure for cancer finding overlords.<p>Both my parents died from it and I suspect I probably will too.  Or maybe not if they can find a cure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our cure for cancer finding overlords.Both my parents died from it and I suspect I probably will too .
Or maybe not if they can find a cure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our cure for cancer finding overlords.Both my parents died from it and I suspect I probably will too.
Or maybe not if they can find a cure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</id>
	<title>Benign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I didn't use to like skin cancer, but it grows on you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't use to like skin cancer , but it grows on you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I didn't use to like skin cancer, but it grows on you</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467478</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1259676660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?</p><p>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</p></div><p>Both are good questions.  And to the latter, I would say it is likely because most of our peers, politicians, and people involved in everything we do in life, do not understand these specific things to any degree to which they can make better INFORMED decisions about them.  Most people don't understand what is going on in most sciences, but develop opinions on it anyway; in turn, we shape our cultures and politics in a somewhat similar form (yes, the corps will influence politics heavily with their lobbying/influence, no need to reply to me with that obvious fact).  Education, or lack of in this case, is what is key here.  The more people know, the better decisions they can make.   In even a quick look at so many things that have value/importance to our lives, one can easily discern the impact of the layman's assumption on the field as a whole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty ? Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway ? Both are good questions .
And to the latter , I would say it is likely because most of our peers , politicians , and people involved in everything we do in life , do not understand these specific things to any degree to which they can make better INFORMED decisions about them .
Most people do n't understand what is going on in most sciences , but develop opinions on it anyway ; in turn , we shape our cultures and politics in a somewhat similar form ( yes , the corps will influence politics heavily with their lobbying/influence , no need to reply to me with that obvious fact ) .
Education , or lack of in this case , is what is key here .
The more people know , the better decisions they can make .
In even a quick look at so many things that have value/importance to our lives , one can easily discern the impact of the layman 's assumption on the field as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?Both are good questions.
And to the latter, I would say it is likely because most of our peers, politicians, and people involved in everything we do in life, do not understand these specific things to any degree to which they can make better INFORMED decisions about them.
Most people don't understand what is going on in most sciences, but develop opinions on it anyway; in turn, we shape our cultures and politics in a somewhat similar form (yes, the corps will influence politics heavily with their lobbying/influence, no need to reply to me with that obvious fact).
Education, or lack of in this case, is what is key here.
The more people know, the better decisions they can make.
In even a quick look at so many things that have value/importance to our lives, one can easily discern the impact of the layman's assumption on the field as a whole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471116</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Hian Bosu</author>
	<datestamp>1261046460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No they will not patent this.  The work was done by the <a href="http://www.sanger.ac.uk/" title="sanger.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute</a> [sanger.ac.uk] that is funded (unsurprisingly) by the  <a href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/" title="wellcome.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">Wellcome Trust</a> [wellcome.ac.uk] which is a big medical research charity. The Sanger Institute releases all of its research into the public domain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No they will not patent this .
The work was done by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute [ sanger.ac.uk ] that is funded ( unsurprisingly ) by the Wellcome Trust [ wellcome.ac.uk ] which is a big medical research charity .
The Sanger Institute releases all of its research into the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they will not patent this.
The work was done by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute [sanger.ac.uk] that is funded (unsurprisingly) by the  Wellcome Trust [wellcome.ac.uk] which is a big medical research charity.
The Sanger Institute releases all of its research into the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30476020</id>
	<title>Re:Powers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261076580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the last one wasn't from the cigarettes... are you sure you didn't eat a tengu?  Either way, eat more tengus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the last one was n't from the cigarettes... are you sure you did n't eat a tengu ?
Either way , eat more tengus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the last one wasn't from the cigarettes... are you sure you didn't eat a tengu?
Either way, eat more tengus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469016</id>
	<title>Re:Might be okay, might not.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cars aren't so bad, as other posters pointed out.</p><p>What annoys me are people burning trash in home furnaces. Yes, that might be not a problem at your place, but it is at many, including mine. Formally banning it doesn't seem to do the trick...</p><p>The resulting smoke is choking even for smokers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars are n't so bad , as other posters pointed out.What annoys me are people burning trash in home furnaces .
Yes , that might be not a problem at your place , but it is at many , including mine .
Formally banning it does n't seem to do the trick...The resulting smoke is choking even for smokers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars aren't so bad, as other posters pointed out.What annoys me are people burning trash in home furnaces.
Yes, that might be not a problem at your place, but it is at many, including mine.
Formally banning it doesn't seem to do the trick...The resulting smoke is choking even for smokers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467244</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1259675280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not necessarily. If they can find a protein corresponding to one of these mutations that is not produced in a healthy cell: presto, instant cancer test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
If they can find a protein corresponding to one of these mutations that is not produced in a healthy cell : presto , instant cancer test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
If they can find a protein corresponding to one of these mutations that is not produced in a healthy cell: presto, instant cancer test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30475094</id>
	<title>Worse....</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1261072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....They found 30,000 needles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....They found 30,000 needles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....They found 30,000 needles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468336</id>
	<title>Re:Might be okay, might not.</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1259682660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why car drivers that complain about cigarette smokers annoy me.  The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it.  Yes, I drive, and no I don't smoke, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and claim that my air pollution is better than their air pollution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why car drivers that complain about cigarette smokers annoy me .
The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it .
Yes , I drive , and no I do n't smoke , but I 'm not going to be a hypocrite and claim that my air pollution is better than their air pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why car drivers that complain about cigarette smokers annoy me.
The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it.
Yes, I drive, and no I don't smoke, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and claim that my air pollution is better than their air pollution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468312</id>
	<title>Still no cure for cancer, but hey!</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1259682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>// Not sure where I was going with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>// Not sure where I was going with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>// Not sure where I was going with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469332</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>SteveWoz</author>
	<datestamp>1259690880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many well intentioned people contribute millions of dollars to increase the rate of death from cancer. They donate to heart research. If you don't die of a cardiac problem, you're more likely to die from cancer. Or you can give money for cancer research and increase the rate of death from cardiac arrest. The total death rate is constant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many well intentioned people contribute millions of dollars to increase the rate of death from cancer .
They donate to heart research .
If you do n't die of a cardiac problem , you 're more likely to die from cancer .
Or you can give money for cancer research and increase the rate of death from cardiac arrest .
The total death rate is constant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many well intentioned people contribute millions of dollars to increase the rate of death from cancer.
They donate to heart research.
If you don't die of a cardiac problem, you're more likely to die from cancer.
Or you can give money for cancer research and increase the rate of death from cardiac arrest.
The total death rate is constant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471564</id>
	<title>A slightly more technical summary</title>
	<author>Hrshgn</author>
	<datestamp>1261050480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nature has a nice summary of the original research paper published in the same journal:

<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html" title="nature.com">http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html</a> [nature.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature has a nice summary of the original research paper published in the same journal : http : //www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html [ nature.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature has a nice summary of the original research paper published in the same journal:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html [nature.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467744</id>
	<title>If this is true</title>
	<author>TheRecklessWanderer</author>
	<datestamp>1259678400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is true, does that not mean (by cause and affect) that there is a provable direct relation between cigarette smoking and cancer?  Would that not indicate that a lawsuit is in order?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true , does that not mean ( by cause and affect ) that there is a provable direct relation between cigarette smoking and cancer ?
Would that not indicate that a lawsuit is in order ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true, does that not mean (by cause and affect) that there is a provable direct relation between cigarette smoking and cancer?
Would that not indicate that a lawsuit is in order?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471778</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.</p></div><p>Surprise! You didn't look cool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I miss that I no longer look cool.Surprise !
You did n't look cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.Surprise!
You didn't look cool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467734</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>dikdik</author>
	<datestamp>1259678340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that any number of debilitating and lethal diseases can be seen this way and that population control should be proactive. If we can cure cancer, it would seem that population control through education would be a far better way to ensure population control without the horrible pain and suffering that the afflicted and their loved ones endure.
<p>
I realize that birth control education/legislation/etc. brings up an entirely new conversation (one I'm not trying to start here) but I'd pretty much support anything that would have kept friends and family from dying a slow, painful death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that any number of debilitating and lethal diseases can be seen this way and that population control should be proactive .
If we can cure cancer , it would seem that population control through education would be a far better way to ensure population control without the horrible pain and suffering that the afflicted and their loved ones endure .
I realize that birth control education/legislation/etc .
brings up an entirely new conversation ( one I 'm not trying to start here ) but I 'd pretty much support anything that would have kept friends and family from dying a slow , painful death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that any number of debilitating and lethal diseases can be seen this way and that population control should be proactive.
If we can cure cancer, it would seem that population control through education would be a far better way to ensure population control without the horrible pain and suffering that the afflicted and their loved ones endure.
I realize that birth control education/legislation/etc.
brings up an entirely new conversation (one I'm not trying to start here) but I'd pretty much support anything that would have kept friends and family from dying a slow, painful death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467210</id>
	<title>So will this mean?</title>
	<author>tlpintpe</author>
	<datestamp>1259675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this change how the tobacco companies are viewed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this change how the tobacco companies are viewed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this change how the tobacco companies are viewed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468138</id>
	<title>biochemistry noob asks:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't "crack" slightly sensationalistic?<br>Seems like this type of endeavors have recently been fairly routine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't " crack " slightly sensationalistic ? Seems like this type of endeavors have recently been fairly routine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't "crack" slightly sensationalistic?Seems like this type of endeavors have recently been fairly routine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468772</id>
	<title>patents don't work financially</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.</i></p><p>No, it is not.  Research is expensive, but a lot of that is already paid for by taxes.  Furthermore, the resulting medicines are themselves very profitable and expensive, and a lot of that profit is, again, derived from the government.</p><p>Additionally, market forces aren't working: profitable drugs (the ones drug companies have an incentive to develop) are not the drugs that people actually need.  Drug companies love to develop drugs that reduce the symptoms of uncurable diseases and need to be taken for life; the drugs we actually need are drugs that cure diseases with a single dose.  They also prefer to develop lifestyle drugs and drugs for common but harmless ailments, instead of developing drugs for curing serious disease.</p><p><i>According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.</i></p><p>We'd have to increase public funding for research and clinical trials somewhat, but on balance, we'd pay a lot less and get better drugs.</p><p>The market works for a lot of things, but it doesn't work well for either research or drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying whether or not I agree with that , but that 's the way it is.No , it is not .
Research is expensive , but a lot of that is already paid for by taxes .
Furthermore , the resulting medicines are themselves very profitable and expensive , and a lot of that profit is , again , derived from the government.Additionally , market forces are n't working : profitable drugs ( the ones drug companies have an incentive to develop ) are not the drugs that people actually need .
Drug companies love to develop drugs that reduce the symptoms of uncurable diseases and need to be taken for life ; the drugs we actually need are drugs that cure diseases with a single dose .
They also prefer to develop lifestyle drugs and drugs for common but harmless ailments , instead of developing drugs for curing serious disease.According to them , without patents , there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.We 'd have to increase public funding for research and clinical trials somewhat , but on balance , we 'd pay a lot less and get better drugs.The market works for a lot of things , but it does n't work well for either research or drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.No, it is not.
Research is expensive, but a lot of that is already paid for by taxes.
Furthermore, the resulting medicines are themselves very profitable and expensive, and a lot of that profit is, again, derived from the government.Additionally, market forces aren't working: profitable drugs (the ones drug companies have an incentive to develop) are not the drugs that people actually need.
Drug companies love to develop drugs that reduce the symptoms of uncurable diseases and need to be taken for life; the drugs we actually need are drugs that cure diseases with a single dose.
They also prefer to develop lifestyle drugs and drugs for common but harmless ailments, instead of developing drugs for curing serious disease.According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.We'd have to increase public funding for research and clinical trials somewhat, but on balance, we'd pay a lot less and get better drugs.The market works for a lot of things, but it doesn't work well for either research or drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</id>
	<title>Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA?  Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient's body?  It appears that, far from finding the needle in the haystack, they've found 30,000 haystacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA ?
Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient 's body ?
It appears that , far from finding the needle in the haystack , they 've found 30,000 haystacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it mean that melanoma has 30,000 errors in the DNA?
Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient's body?
It appears that, far from finding the needle in the haystack, they've found 30,000 haystacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467486</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness for the free market!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. Now we just need to get the political groups who favor laissez-faire to stop firing scientists as soon as they get into office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Now we just need to get the political groups who favor laissez-faire to stop firing scientists as soon as they get into office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Now we just need to get the political groups who favor laissez-faire to stop firing scientists as soon as they get into office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468712</id>
	<title>Michael Chin</title>
	<author>mikorangester</author>
	<datestamp>1259685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the reasons why slashdot is good is because its readers tend to be aware of the state of the technology. Thanks commenters for precise answers to some very stupid genetic advertising. And yes, skin cancer grows on you....:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons why slashdot is good is because its readers tend to be aware of the state of the technology .
Thanks commenters for precise answers to some very stupid genetic advertising .
And yes , skin cancer grows on you.... : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons why slashdot is good is because its readers tend to be aware of the state of the technology.
Thanks commenters for precise answers to some very stupid genetic advertising.
And yes, skin cancer grows on you....:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467118</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1259674560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient's body? It appears that, far from finding the needle in the haystack, they've found 30,000 haystacks.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Not quite.  It's more like they ** think ** they've found a map to the 30,000 needles in a single haystack and they hope that the haystacks (individual humans) are similar enough that they can generalize a bit on how to find the other needles in other haystacks.<br> <br>
FTFAbstract:</p><blockquote><div><p>All cancers carry somatic mutations. A subset of these somatic alterations, termed driver mutations, confer selective growth advantage and are implicated in cancer development, whereas the remainder are passengers. Here we have sequenced the genomes of a malignant melanoma and a lymphoblastoid cell line from the same person, providing the first comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from an individual cancer. The catalogue provides remarkable insights into the forces that have shaped this cancer genome. The dominant mutational signature reflects DNA damage due to ultraviolet light exposure, a known risk factor for malignant melanoma, whereas the uneven distribution of mutations across the genome, with a lower prevalence in gene footprints, indicates that DNA repair has been preferentially deployed towards transcribed regions. The results illustrate the power of a cancer genome sequence to reveal traces of the DNA damage, repair, mutation and selection processes that were operative years before the cancer became symptomatic.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The researchers state (and I haven't really had time to look at the article) that they have identified all, or at least the vast majority, of mutations from a <i>single cancer</i> and furthermore have managed to characterize (see above) the mutations.  Other researchers have done similar research for other cancers.  The idea is that, after all of this information is digested, somebody can use this knowledge to figure out better treatments for cancers.  Of course, this remains to be seen.  It's reasonable but by no means certain.  The babble at the end of the BBC article is typical hyperbole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient 's body ?
It appears that , far from finding the needle in the haystack , they 've found 30,000 haystacks .
Not quite .
It 's more like they * * think * * they 've found a map to the 30,000 needles in a single haystack and they hope that the haystacks ( individual humans ) are similar enough that they can generalize a bit on how to find the other needles in other haystacks .
FTFAbstract : All cancers carry somatic mutations .
A subset of these somatic alterations , termed driver mutations , confer selective growth advantage and are implicated in cancer development , whereas the remainder are passengers .
Here we have sequenced the genomes of a malignant melanoma and a lymphoblastoid cell line from the same person , providing the first comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from an individual cancer .
The catalogue provides remarkable insights into the forces that have shaped this cancer genome .
The dominant mutational signature reflects DNA damage due to ultraviolet light exposure , a known risk factor for malignant melanoma , whereas the uneven distribution of mutations across the genome , with a lower prevalence in gene footprints , indicates that DNA repair has been preferentially deployed towards transcribed regions .
The results illustrate the power of a cancer genome sequence to reveal traces of the DNA damage , repair , mutation and selection processes that were operative years before the cancer became symptomatic .
The researchers state ( and I have n't really had time to look at the article ) that they have identified all , or at least the vast majority , of mutations from a single cancer and furthermore have managed to characterize ( see above ) the mutations .
Other researchers have done similar research for other cancers .
The idea is that , after all of this information is digested , somebody can use this knowledge to figure out better treatments for cancers .
Of course , this remains to be seen .
It 's reasonable but by no means certain .
The babble at the end of the BBC article is typical hyperbole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it that the one melanoma they looked at had 30,000 differences from the other cells in the patient's body?
It appears that, far from finding the needle in the haystack, they've found 30,000 haystacks.
Not quite.
It's more like they ** think ** they've found a map to the 30,000 needles in a single haystack and they hope that the haystacks (individual humans) are similar enough that they can generalize a bit on how to find the other needles in other haystacks.
FTFAbstract:All cancers carry somatic mutations.
A subset of these somatic alterations, termed driver mutations, confer selective growth advantage and are implicated in cancer development, whereas the remainder are passengers.
Here we have sequenced the genomes of a malignant melanoma and a lymphoblastoid cell line from the same person, providing the first comprehensive catalogue of somatic mutations from an individual cancer.
The catalogue provides remarkable insights into the forces that have shaped this cancer genome.
The dominant mutational signature reflects DNA damage due to ultraviolet light exposure, a known risk factor for malignant melanoma, whereas the uneven distribution of mutations across the genome, with a lower prevalence in gene footprints, indicates that DNA repair has been preferentially deployed towards transcribed regions.
The results illustrate the power of a cancer genome sequence to reveal traces of the DNA damage, repair, mutation and selection processes that were operative years before the cancer became symptomatic.
The researchers state (and I haven't really had time to look at the article) that they have identified all, or at least the vast majority, of mutations from a single cancer and furthermore have managed to characterize (see above) the mutations.
Other researchers have done similar research for other cancers.
The idea is that, after all of this information is digested, somebody can use this knowledge to figure out better treatments for cancers.
Of course, this remains to be seen.
It's reasonable but by no means certain.
The babble at the end of the BBC article is typical hyperbole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022</id>
	<title>Cold turkey</title>
	<author>capebretonsux</author>
	<datestamp>1259673840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I just quit.
<br>
<br>
(Actually, I've been smoking less and less this week, haven't - and won't - buy a new pack once this last one's gone.  With this news, the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I just quit .
( Actually , I 've been smoking less and less this week , have n't - and wo n't - buy a new pack once this last one 's gone .
With this news , the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I just quit.
(Actually, I've been smoking less and less this week, haven't - and won't - buy a new pack once this last one's gone.
With this news, the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472138</id>
	<title>Re:Cold turkey</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1261056540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!</p></div><p>Maybe, but if you only smoke the other 14, you should be OK.</p><p>Unless the 15th one isn't labeled, then it's harder.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me ducks</p></div><p>Now there's a business idea: packets of cigarettes with every fifteenth cigarette labelled for your cancer-free pleasure. I am sure the tobacco industry will love it.</p><p>Next up, we will just sell packets of cigarettes with all the fifteenth ones removed.</p><p>And the good news is: I won't even patent this business method! I am giving it away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator ! Maybe , but if you only smoke the other 14 , you should be OK.Unless the 15th one is n't labeled , then it 's harder .
/me ducksNow there 's a business idea : packets of cigarettes with every fifteenth cigarette labelled for your cancer-free pleasure .
I am sure the tobacco industry will love it.Next up , we will just sell packets of cigarettes with all the fifteenth ones removed.And the good news is : I wo n't even patent this business method !
I am giving it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 1 in 15 smokes stat is a real motivator!Maybe, but if you only smoke the other 14, you should be OK.Unless the 15th one isn't labeled, then it's harder.
/me ducksNow there's a business idea: packets of cigarettes with every fifteenth cigarette labelled for your cancer-free pleasure.
I am sure the tobacco industry will love it.Next up, we will just sell packets of cigarettes with all the fifteenth ones removed.And the good news is: I won't even patent this business method!
I am giving it away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468366</id>
	<title>Re:Benign Christmas sale, free shipping discounts</title>
	<author>Edwards1984</author>
	<datestamp>1259682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.kkshoe.com/" title="kkshoe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.kkshoe.com/</a> [kkshoe.com]   Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Buy now proposed a "Christmas gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar. Activities As of December 26 commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, kkshoe will provide service for you all, welcome to 1. sport shoes : Jordan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes. 2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T- Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc. 3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,etc. 4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,etc.For details, please consult <a href="http://www.kkshoe.com/" title="kkshoe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.kkshoe.com/</a> [kkshoe.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.kkshoe.com/ [ kkshoe.com ] Hello , dear ladies and gentlemen , Buy now proposed a " Christmas gift ' .
A rare opportunity , what are you waiting for ?
Quickly move your mouse bar .
Activities As of December 26 commodity is credit guarantee , you can rest assured of purchase , kkshoe will provide service for you all , welcome to 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike , adidas , Puma , Gucci , LV , UGG , etc .
including women shoes and kids shoes .
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts , Bape T-Shirts , Armani T- Shirts , Polo T-Shirts,etc .
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody , hoody , AFF hoody , GGG hoody , ED hoody ,etc .
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans , jeans , Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc.For details , please consult http : //www.kkshoe.com/ [ kkshoe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.kkshoe.com/ [kkshoe.com]   Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen, Buy now proposed a "Christmas gift '.
A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for?
Quickly move your mouse bar.
Activities As of December 26 commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, kkshoe will provide service for you all, welcome to 1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc.
including women shoes and kids shoes.
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T- Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc.
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc.
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc.For details, please consult http://www.kkshoe.com/ [kkshoe.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope. There's been a large reduction in cancer deaths due to research and treatment advances (I'm a two time cancer survivor, 1 a stage 4 of the neck) so cancer is having a much smaller reduction on population than it used to. Also, since cancer occurs after the reproductive years in the vast majority of cases there is no breeding it out of the system. If cancer killed people before they reproduced then the genetic causes of cancer would be eliminated pretty quickly.</p><p>You can support your family and get support at the American Cancer Society Cancer Support Network (http://csn.cancer.org/). A lot of people there going through the same things you and your friends are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
There 's been a large reduction in cancer deaths due to research and treatment advances ( I 'm a two time cancer survivor , 1 a stage 4 of the neck ) so cancer is having a much smaller reduction on population than it used to .
Also , since cancer occurs after the reproductive years in the vast majority of cases there is no breeding it out of the system .
If cancer killed people before they reproduced then the genetic causes of cancer would be eliminated pretty quickly.You can support your family and get support at the American Cancer Society Cancer Support Network ( http : //csn.cancer.org/ ) .
A lot of people there going through the same things you and your friends are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
There's been a large reduction in cancer deaths due to research and treatment advances (I'm a two time cancer survivor, 1 a stage 4 of the neck) so cancer is having a much smaller reduction on population than it used to.
Also, since cancer occurs after the reproductive years in the vast majority of cases there is no breeding it out of the system.
If cancer killed people before they reproduced then the genetic causes of cancer would be eliminated pretty quickly.You can support your family and get support at the American Cancer Society Cancer Support Network (http://csn.cancer.org/).
A lot of people there going through the same things you and your friends are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470378</id>
	<title>Nominee for Exaggeration of the Millenium</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1261082040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though the story is newsworthy, this has the misleading title of the century. They didn't unlock it. They sequenced it. There's a big, big difference. It's the difference between having a map of South America and doing Sharon Stone on the throne of the Lost City of Gold.</p><p><a href="http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/sequencing.html" title="umich.edu">http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/sequencing.html</a> [umich.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though the story is newsworthy , this has the misleading title of the century .
They did n't unlock it .
They sequenced it .
There 's a big , big difference .
It 's the difference between having a map of South America and doing Sharon Stone on the throne of the Lost City of Gold.http : //seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/sequencing.html [ umich.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though the story is newsworthy, this has the misleading title of the century.
They didn't unlock it.
They sequenced it.
There's a big, big difference.
It's the difference between having a map of South America and doing Sharon Stone on the throne of the Lost City of Gold.http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/educ/dnapr/sequencing.html [umich.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469724</id>
	<title>Re:Two preventable cancers</title>
	<author>The Bean</author>
	<datestamp>1259694120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not see the difference between these cancers and any others.  There is no preventable and unpreventable class system.</p><p>Whether the mutations occurred as a result of cigarette smoke, sunlight, red meat, physical damage (think asbestos) or just some other chance event, cancer is cancer is cancer for the most part.</p><p>Maybe they can build</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not see the difference between these cancers and any others .
There is no preventable and unpreventable class system.Whether the mutations occurred as a result of cigarette smoke , sunlight , red meat , physical damage ( think asbestos ) or just some other chance event , cancer is cancer is cancer for the most part.Maybe they can build</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not see the difference between these cancers and any others.
There is no preventable and unpreventable class system.Whether the mutations occurred as a result of cigarette smoke, sunlight, red meat, physical damage (think asbestos) or just some other chance event, cancer is cancer is cancer for the most part.Maybe they can build</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467802</id>
	<title>Re:Might be okay, might not.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer. It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.</p><p>Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking.</p></div><p>Marijuana: pick the buds, dry them, grind it up, then smoke<br>Cigarette: pick the leaves, dry them, add hundreds of chemicals, grind it up, then smoke</p><p>I thought it was well understood that cancer is mostly caused by the incredible amount of additives that get put into cigarettes. I wonder if putting the chemical frankenstein that is cigarette tobacco into a vaporizer would cause less damage than smoking normally does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're joking , but there 's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer .
It 's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer , and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.Weirdly , however , large studies seem to indicate that there is n't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking.Marijuana : pick the buds , dry them , grind it up , then smokeCigarette : pick the leaves , dry them , add hundreds of chemicals , grind it up , then smokeI thought it was well understood that cancer is mostly caused by the incredible amount of additives that get put into cigarettes .
I wonder if putting the chemical frankenstein that is cigarette tobacco into a vaporizer would cause less damage than smoking normally does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer.
It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking.Marijuana: pick the buds, dry them, grind it up, then smokeCigarette: pick the leaves, dry them, add hundreds of chemicals, grind it up, then smokeI thought it was well understood that cancer is mostly caused by the incredible amount of additives that get put into cigarettes.
I wonder if putting the chemical frankenstein that is cigarette tobacco into a vaporizer would cause less damage than smoking normally does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256</id>
	<title>Thank goodness for the free market!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
It's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism.  If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation didn't have the profit motive behind them, who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research, that is, if the project had even gotten off the ground at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism .
If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation did n't have the profit motive behind them , who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research , that is , if the project had even gotten off the ground at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism.
If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation didn't have the profit motive behind them, who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research, that is, if the project had even gotten off the ground at all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469550</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>backslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1259692620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congrats on that. How did you beat stage 4 cancer of the neck? What was the treatment (what were the main drugs)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. also how long have you been cancer free.</p><p>Can you be a little specific like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. how was it diagnosed and how did they start off the treatment and did they use combination therapy.</p><p>Did you have a particular genetic disposition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats on that .
How did you beat stage 4 cancer of the neck ?
What was the treatment ( what were the main drugs ) .. also how long have you been cancer free.Can you be a little specific like .. how was it diagnosed and how did they start off the treatment and did they use combination therapy.Did you have a particular genetic disposition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats on that.
How did you beat stage 4 cancer of the neck?
What was the treatment (what were the main drugs) .. also how long have you been cancer free.Can you be a little specific like .. how was it diagnosed and how did they start off the treatment and did they use combination therapy.Did you have a particular genetic disposition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467670</id>
	<title>Insurance companies must be excited</title>
	<author>dippityfisch</author>
	<datestamp>1259677920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah let me see...my crystal ball says that in the future you will be excluded from insurance cover if your DNA shows cancer markers. What about that job you applied for? Your DNA says that you may have a propensity for borderline personality disorder...go straight to management!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah let me see...my crystal ball says that in the future you will be excluded from insurance cover if your DNA shows cancer markers .
What about that job you applied for ?
Your DNA says that you may have a propensity for borderline personality disorder...go straight to management !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah let me see...my crystal ball says that in the future you will be excluded from insurance cover if your DNA shows cancer markers.
What about that job you applied for?
Your DNA says that you may have a propensity for borderline personality disorder...go straight to management!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468310</id>
	<title>my power</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1259682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>being stuck at -1 and they tell me i can post 2 times a day and really its only 1</p><p>cool huh wicked website power</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>being stuck at -1 and they tell me i can post 2 times a day and really its only 1cool huh wicked website power</tokentext>
<sentencetext>being stuck at -1 and they tell me i can post 2 times a day and really its only 1cool huh wicked website power</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471762</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The raw data and the results are all as open source asap providing the sequence data is non identifiable.</p><p>Some groups do do defensive patenting but this data will be as freely available as possible</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The raw data and the results are all as open source asap providing the sequence data is non identifiable.Some groups do do defensive patenting but this data will be as freely available as possible</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The raw data and the results are all as open source asap providing the sequence data is non identifiable.Some groups do do defensive patenting but this data will be as freely available as possible</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467450</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous Psychopath</author>
	<datestamp>1259676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?</p><p>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</p></div><p>The genes aren't patentable. The methods they developed probably are. Patents are there to provide incentive for the research to take place at all. There may be some problems on how long patents last and process issues, but fundamentally they are supposed to provide incentive to invest in research and science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty ? Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway ? The genes are n't patentable .
The methods they developed probably are .
Patents are there to provide incentive for the research to take place at all .
There may be some problems on how long patents last and process issues , but fundamentally they are supposed to provide incentive to invest in research and science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?The genes aren't patentable.
The methods they developed probably are.
Patents are there to provide incentive for the research to take place at all.
There may be some problems on how long patents last and process issues, but fundamentally they are supposed to provide incentive to invest in research and science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468212</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1259681460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</p></div><p>.......no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research. According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.<br>I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.</p></div><p>The reality is business people / drug companies do not invest in drug research period.</p><p>Business investment tends to goes into marketing the drug its the university's and research institutes that do the drug research.</p><p><a href="http://www.uab.edu/reynolds/MajMedFigs/Index.htm" title="uab.edu">http://www.uab.edu/reynolds/MajMedFigs/Index.htm</a> [uab.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway ? .......no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research .
According to them , without patents , there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.I 'm not saying whether or not I agree with that , but that 's the way it is.The reality is business people / drug companies do not invest in drug research period.Business investment tends to goes into marketing the drug its the university 's and research institutes that do the drug research.http : //www.uab.edu/reynolds/MajMedFigs/Index.htm [ uab.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?.......no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research.
According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.The reality is business people / drug companies do not invest in drug research period.Business investment tends to goes into marketing the drug its the university's and research institutes that do the drug research.http://www.uab.edu/reynolds/MajMedFigs/Index.htm [uab.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467418</id>
	<title>Re:The extrapolation for lung cancer is badly flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. Most confusing summary.</p><p>Are they saying that all 30,000 mutations are the DIRECT result of exposure to sunlight, or are they saying an initial mutation caused by sunlight exposure was then multiplied by cell division/replication?</p><p>If it was the first case, how did they determine the cause of each mutation? If it was the second case, the question still remains--How did they determine the cause of ANY of these mutations?</p><p>"Whatever. Smoking is still awful for you, but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying."</p><p>Yes, terribly annoying, but apparently it gets them grant money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
Most confusing summary.Are they saying that all 30,000 mutations are the DIRECT result of exposure to sunlight , or are they saying an initial mutation caused by sunlight exposure was then multiplied by cell division/replication ? If it was the first case , how did they determine the cause of each mutation ?
If it was the second case , the question still remains--How did they determine the cause of ANY of these mutations ? " Whatever .
Smoking is still awful for you , but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying .
" Yes , terribly annoying , but apparently it gets them grant money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
Most confusing summary.Are they saying that all 30,000 mutations are the DIRECT result of exposure to sunlight, or are they saying an initial mutation caused by sunlight exposure was then multiplied by cell division/replication?If it was the first case, how did they determine the cause of each mutation?
If it was the second case, the question still remains--How did they determine the cause of ANY of these mutations?"Whatever.
Smoking is still awful for you, but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying.
"Yes, terribly annoying, but apparently it gets them grant money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473224</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1261064820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes.</p><p>On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.</p></div></blockquote><p>148,000 cigarettes, at today's prices (a quarter per cigarette) is $37,000.  Wow.  You smoked a Lexus.</p><p>I think you'd look a hell of a lot cooler in a Lexus than with a butt on your lips.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes.On the other hand , I miss that I no longer look cool.148,000 cigarettes , at today 's prices ( a quarter per cigarette ) is $ 37,000 .
Wow. You smoked a Lexus.I think you 'd look a hell of a lot cooler in a Lexus than with a butt on your lips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes.On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.148,000 cigarettes, at today's prices (a quarter per cigarette) is $37,000.
Wow.  You smoked a Lexus.I think you'd look a hell of a lot cooler in a Lexus than with a butt on your lips.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467554</id>
	<title>Re:Better yet</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1259677080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=electronic+cigarette" title="google.com">Like this?*</a> [google.com]
<p>* (possibly perhaps maybe)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like this ?
* [ google.com ] * ( possibly perhaps maybe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like this?
* [google.com]
* (possibly perhaps maybe)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469410</id>
	<title>The Problem is,</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1259691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this poster savagely mocking the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., or is he one of the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p><p>"<i>It's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism. If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation didn't have the profit motive behind them, who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research, that is, if the project had even gotten off the ground at all!</i>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this poster savagely mocking the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest /. , or is he one of the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest /. ?
" It 's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism .
If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation did n't have the profit motive behind them , who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research , that is , if the project had even gotten off the ground at all !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this poster savagely mocking the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest /., or is he one of the Randroids and Glibertarians that infest /.?
"It's exhilarating to see such visceral confirmation of the superior efficiencies of free market capitalism.
If the scientists working for this cancer research corporation didn't have the profit motive behind them, who knows how long it would have taken for them to reach this point in their research, that is, if the project had even gotten off the ground at all!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472234</id>
	<title>Re:Better yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261057380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But will they make you look cool?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But will they make you look cool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will they make you look cool?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467116</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1259674500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect they looked at tissue from a bunch of melanomas and have generated data showing where they differ from normal samples.</p><p>But 30,000 errors in the DNA doesn't mean those cells were exposed to 30,000 mutating events (the 1 for every 15 cigarettes or whatever).  Generally what happens is that a cell gets mutations in a few critical locations and then subsequent issues during cell division do dramatic damage to the genome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect they looked at tissue from a bunch of melanomas and have generated data showing where they differ from normal samples.But 30,000 errors in the DNA does n't mean those cells were exposed to 30,000 mutating events ( the 1 for every 15 cigarettes or whatever ) .
Generally what happens is that a cell gets mutations in a few critical locations and then subsequent issues during cell division do dramatic damage to the genome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect they looked at tissue from a bunch of melanomas and have generated data showing where they differ from normal samples.But 30,000 errors in the DNA doesn't mean those cells were exposed to 30,000 mutating events (the 1 for every 15 cigarettes or whatever).
Generally what happens is that a cell gets mutations in a few critical locations and then subsequent issues during cell division do dramatic damage to the genome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467722</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>ImOnlySleeping</author>
	<datestamp>1259678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ICGC's policies and guidelines are very specific, <a href="http://icgc.org/icgc\_document/policies\_and\_guidelines/" title="icgc.org" rel="nofollow">http://icgc.org/icgc\_document/policies\_and\_guidelines/</a> [icgc.org]

"The objective of ICGC policy regarding intellectual property (IP) policy is to maximize public benefit from data produced by the Consortium. It is the view of the ICGC members that this goal is achieved if the data remain publicly accessible without any restrictions."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ICGC 's policies and guidelines are very specific , http : //icgc.org/icgc \ _document/policies \ _and \ _guidelines/ [ icgc.org ] " The objective of ICGC policy regarding intellectual property ( IP ) policy is to maximize public benefit from data produced by the Consortium .
It is the view of the ICGC members that this goal is achieved if the data remain publicly accessible without any restrictions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ICGC's policies and guidelines are very specific, http://icgc.org/icgc\_document/policies\_and\_guidelines/ [icgc.org]

"The objective of ICGC policy regarding intellectual property (IP) policy is to maximize public benefit from data produced by the Consortium.
It is the view of the ICGC members that this goal is achieved if the data remain publicly accessible without any restrictions.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468170</id>
	<title>The "real" cause of cancer</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1259681160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>After much research and thought, I've come to the conclusion that white mice actually cause cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After much research and thought , I 've come to the conclusion that white mice actually cause cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After much research and thought, I've come to the conclusion that white mice actually cause cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472804</id>
	<title>Re:Comparison</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1261062600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd bet comparing them is NP-Complete and even W[1] Hard or W[2] Hard (looks like an instance of Max-Clique or Dominating-Set)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd bet comparing them is NP-Complete and even W [ 1 ] Hard or W [ 2 ] Hard ( looks like an instance of Max-Clique or Dominating-Set )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd bet comparing them is NP-Complete and even W[1] Hard or W[2] Hard (looks like an instance of Max-Clique or Dominating-Set)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470070</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259697120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 5000 Purine base are lost daily from the DNA in each human cell because the body's normal heat breaks their linkages. Thousands of nucleotides in each cell are also damaged each day by free radicals created in the normal process of metabolism, which results from routine eating and breathing. Our bodies continuously repair this damage with few mutations. The common cancers (such as skin and lung) are caused by fairly specific mutations at specific places in the DNA which the repair mechanisms tend to "miss". The task for the scientists will be finding the few mutations within those tens of thousands that are actually responsible for the cancerous behavior.</p><p>Daniel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 5000 Purine base are lost daily from the DNA in each human cell because the body 's normal heat breaks their linkages .
Thousands of nucleotides in each cell are also damaged each day by free radicals created in the normal process of metabolism , which results from routine eating and breathing .
Our bodies continuously repair this damage with few mutations .
The common cancers ( such as skin and lung ) are caused by fairly specific mutations at specific places in the DNA which the repair mechanisms tend to " miss " .
The task for the scientists will be finding the few mutations within those tens of thousands that are actually responsible for the cancerous behavior.Daniel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 5000 Purine base are lost daily from the DNA in each human cell because the body's normal heat breaks their linkages.
Thousands of nucleotides in each cell are also damaged each day by free radicals created in the normal process of metabolism, which results from routine eating and breathing.
Our bodies continuously repair this damage with few mutations.
The common cancers (such as skin and lung) are caused by fairly specific mutations at specific places in the DNA which the repair mechanisms tend to "miss".
The task for the scientists will be finding the few mutations within those tens of thousands that are actually responsible for the cancerous behavior.Daniel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468828</id>
	<title>Re:Better yet</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1259686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty much anything that involves inhaling delicious incomplete-combustion products is bound to be a bad plan(it doesn't get the anti-drug crusaders upset, so nobody really cares; but chronic inhalation of the smoke from nasty little heating/cooking fires in the unventilated shacks of the developing world causes <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/index.html" title="who.int">enormous morbidity and mortality</a> [who.int]). Outside the chem101 and/or <i>very</i> carefully tweaked laboratory world of perfect hydrocarbon combustion into carbon dioxide and water vapor, breathing combustion products is pretty much always a bad plan.<br> <br>

On the plus side, if you just want to deliver nicotine, we have plenty of ways to do that, in pretty much any quantity and release curve you fancy, with health risks no greater than those imposed by the nicotine directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much anything that involves inhaling delicious incomplete-combustion products is bound to be a bad plan ( it does n't get the anti-drug crusaders upset , so nobody really cares ; but chronic inhalation of the smoke from nasty little heating/cooking fires in the unventilated shacks of the developing world causes enormous morbidity and mortality [ who.int ] ) .
Outside the chem101 and/or very carefully tweaked laboratory world of perfect hydrocarbon combustion into carbon dioxide and water vapor , breathing combustion products is pretty much always a bad plan .
On the plus side , if you just want to deliver nicotine , we have plenty of ways to do that , in pretty much any quantity and release curve you fancy , with health risks no greater than those imposed by the nicotine directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much anything that involves inhaling delicious incomplete-combustion products is bound to be a bad plan(it doesn't get the anti-drug crusaders upset, so nobody really cares; but chronic inhalation of the smoke from nasty little heating/cooking fires in the unventilated shacks of the developing world causes enormous morbidity and mortality [who.int]).
Outside the chem101 and/or very carefully tweaked laboratory world of perfect hydrocarbon combustion into carbon dioxide and water vapor, breathing combustion products is pretty much always a bad plan.
On the plus side, if you just want to deliver nicotine, we have plenty of ways to do that, in pretty much any quantity and release curve you fancy, with health risks no greater than those imposed by the nicotine directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468224</id>
	<title>Re:The extrapolation for lung cancer is badly flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html) reports that it's 15 mutations per cigarette smoked.  BBC got it wrong.</p><p>FTA: "The team estimates that every cigarette smoked results in 15 mutations."</p><p>Thereby making it only 100 packs needed to cause cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the article in Nature ( http : //www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html ) reports that it 's 15 mutations per cigarette smoked .
BBC got it wrong.FTA : " The team estimates that every cigarette smoked results in 15 mutations .
" Thereby making it only 100 packs needed to cause cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1143.html) reports that it's 15 mutations per cigarette smoked.
BBC got it wrong.FTA: "The team estimates that every cigarette smoked results in 15 mutations.
"Thereby making it only 100 packs needed to cause cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467634</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty much on target.  UV light is absorbed by DNA, and it causes changes like Thymine-Thymine dimers (ATCG are DNA bases, a T-T dimer is when two adjacent T's on the same strand bind to each other).  Cells have DNA repair mechanisms, some of which are accurate, others of which are not.  If the repair is inaccurate you have a mutation in a semi-random location (needs something like two adjacent thymines, and it probably needs to not be in it's condensed storage form).  A mutation in each of about 8 genes that control the cell cycle will lead to uncontrolled replication and further mutation.  Certain types of cells are vulnerable to different things, and require certain genes to be knocked out (or overexpressed) to form certain types of cancer.  It's all very random, but there are trends within each type of cancer (hence its behavior).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty much on target .
UV light is absorbed by DNA , and it causes changes like Thymine-Thymine dimers ( ATCG are DNA bases , a T-T dimer is when two adjacent T 's on the same strand bind to each other ) .
Cells have DNA repair mechanisms , some of which are accurate , others of which are not .
If the repair is inaccurate you have a mutation in a semi-random location ( needs something like two adjacent thymines , and it probably needs to not be in it 's condensed storage form ) .
A mutation in each of about 8 genes that control the cell cycle will lead to uncontrolled replication and further mutation .
Certain types of cells are vulnerable to different things , and require certain genes to be knocked out ( or overexpressed ) to form certain types of cancer .
It 's all very random , but there are trends within each type of cancer ( hence its behavior ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty much on target.
UV light is absorbed by DNA, and it causes changes like Thymine-Thymine dimers (ATCG are DNA bases, a T-T dimer is when two adjacent T's on the same strand bind to each other).
Cells have DNA repair mechanisms, some of which are accurate, others of which are not.
If the repair is inaccurate you have a mutation in a semi-random location (needs something like two adjacent thymines, and it probably needs to not be in it's condensed storage form).
A mutation in each of about 8 genes that control the cell cycle will lead to uncontrolled replication and further mutation.
Certain types of cells are vulnerable to different things, and require certain genes to be knocked out (or overexpressed) to form certain types of cancer.
It's all very random, but there are trends within each type of cancer (hence its behavior).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471158</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261046880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...that patents on genes are a "necessary evil", because research into genomics is really, really, really expensive...</i></p><p>But it's <a href="http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/genome-sequencing-costs-continue-to.html" title="nextbigfuture.com" rel="nofollow">not expensive anymore!</a> [nextbigfuture.com]. The price of sequencing is dropping like you won't believe it, and even if the computational requirements are high, I suspect that's not such a big barrier to entry with the recent ubiquity of cloud computing. Try google gene sequencing price, and see what you get. What other costs are there, apart from researchers? Did I miss something?</p><p>I fear that by the time the new state of things is realized, one or two companies with good automated sequencing-analysis-patenting scripts will have locked up the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that patents on genes are a " necessary evil " , because research into genomics is really , really , really expensive...But it 's not expensive anymore !
[ nextbigfuture.com ] . The price of sequencing is dropping like you wo n't believe it , and even if the computational requirements are high , I suspect that 's not such a big barrier to entry with the recent ubiquity of cloud computing .
Try google gene sequencing price , and see what you get .
What other costs are there , apart from researchers ?
Did I miss something ? I fear that by the time the new state of things is realized , one or two companies with good automated sequencing-analysis-patenting scripts will have locked up the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that patents on genes are a "necessary evil", because research into genomics is really, really, really expensive...But it's not expensive anymore!
[nextbigfuture.com]. The price of sequencing is dropping like you won't believe it, and even if the computational requirements are high, I suspect that's not such a big barrier to entry with the recent ubiquity of cloud computing.
Try google gene sequencing price, and see what you get.
What other costs are there, apart from researchers?
Did I miss something?I fear that by the time the new state of things is realized, one or two companies with good automated sequencing-analysis-patenting scripts will have locked up the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468004</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>Lotana</author>
	<datestamp>1259680020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry too much about population explosion.</p><p>It is a mystery to me, but somehow human population is controlling itself. And this is without any war, famine or diseases.</p><p>Look for example at Japan: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging\_of\_Japan" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging\_of\_Japan</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>There hasn't been any large conflict there ever since World War Two. Haven't heard of any kind of outbreaks or hunger. Yet the childbirth rates are falling.</p><p>Seems like similar is happening in Europe: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging\_of\_Europe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging\_of\_Europe</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry too much about population explosion.It is a mystery to me , but somehow human population is controlling itself .
And this is without any war , famine or diseases.Look for example at Japan : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging \ _of \ _Japan [ wikipedia.org ] There has n't been any large conflict there ever since World War Two .
Have n't heard of any kind of outbreaks or hunger .
Yet the childbirth rates are falling.Seems like similar is happening in Europe : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging \ _of \ _Europe [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry too much about population explosion.It is a mystery to me, but somehow human population is controlling itself.
And this is without any war, famine or diseases.Look for example at Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging\_of\_Japan [wikipedia.org]There hasn't been any large conflict there ever since World War Two.
Haven't heard of any kind of outbreaks or hunger.
Yet the childbirth rates are falling.Seems like similar is happening in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging\_of\_Europe [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472140</id>
	<title>Re:Better yet</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1261056540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That'd be interesting but not that all helpful when the #1 killer of smokers is <a href="http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/reasonstoquit/a/5ReasonstoQuit.htm" title="about.com">heart disease</a> [about.com], not long cancer. In other words, most smokers won't live long enough to get lung cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be interesting but not that all helpful when the # 1 killer of smokers is heart disease [ about.com ] , not long cancer .
In other words , most smokers wo n't live long enough to get lung cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be interesting but not that all helpful when the #1 killer of smokers is heart disease [about.com], not long cancer.
In other words, most smokers won't live long enough to get lung cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471784</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know, but the outlook is good, the Wellcome trust is a not-for-profit organisation, and was instrumental in protecting the human genome project against takeover by (American) commercial interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know , but the outlook is good , the Wellcome trust is a not-for-profit organisation , and was instrumental in protecting the human genome project against takeover by ( American ) commercial interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know, but the outlook is good, the Wellcome trust is a not-for-profit organisation, and was instrumental in protecting the human genome project against takeover by (American) commercial interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30482408</id>
	<title>Re:Common damage</title>
	<author>Sluggy7</author>
	<datestamp>1261060980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this is an insightful analogy.</p><p>To get significant results, we'll need to analyze the results of firing the rifle at cars thousands of times, and in the case of human genetics, every car is a little different. This study involves four or five cell lines, and they identified one gene with recurrent mutations across them, which may be just by chance. I'd file this under More Research Needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is an insightful analogy.To get significant results , we 'll need to analyze the results of firing the rifle at cars thousands of times , and in the case of human genetics , every car is a little different .
This study involves four or five cell lines , and they identified one gene with recurrent mutations across them , which may be just by chance .
I 'd file this under More Research Needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is an insightful analogy.To get significant results, we'll need to analyze the results of firing the rifle at cars thousands of times, and in the case of human genetics, every car is a little different.
This study involves four or five cell lines, and they identified one gene with recurrent mutations across them, which may be just by chance.
I'd file this under More Research Needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30491430</id>
	<title>Yeah Right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261167540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like the electric car that was created, with plenty of power and everything (see documentary "Who stole the electric car") in the same way someone did find things about cancer that were not only ignored but also discredited :</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuLncndAU0</p><p>So what you read in the above article is nothing more than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... you decide!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the electric car that was created , with plenty of power and everything ( see documentary " Who stole the electric car " ) in the same way someone did find things about cancer that were not only ignored but also discredited : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = JQuLncndAU0So what you read in the above article is nothing more than .... you decide !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the electric car that was created, with plenty of power and everything (see documentary "Who stole the electric car") in the same way someone did find things about cancer that were not only ignored but also discredited :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuLncndAU0So what you read in the above article is nothing more than .... you decide!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469974</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1259696460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smoked for nearly 25 years and stopped a week after taking up snus. Haven't smoked since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smoked for nearly 25 years and stopped a week after taking up snus .
Have n't smoked since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smoked for nearly 25 years and stopped a week after taking up snus.
Haven't smoked since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468108</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1259680620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke."</p><p>I will now become a heavy smoker in hopes of gaining X-Men-like superpowers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke .
" I will now become a heavy smoker in hopes of gaining X-Men-like superpowers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke.
"I will now become a heavy smoker in hopes of gaining X-Men-like superpowers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1259675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</p></div><p>I've read interviews with multiple government and legal officials, whose basic point seems to be that patents on genes are a "necessary evil", because research into genomics is really, really, <i>really</i> expensive, and without patents + licensing fees giving biotech firms some way to recover some of their investment now (as opposed to ten years down, when drugs based on their discoveries could conceivably come to market), no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research. According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway ? I 've read interviews with multiple government and legal officials , whose basic point seems to be that patents on genes are a " necessary evil " , because research into genomics is really , really , really expensive , and without patents + licensing fees giving biotech firms some way to recover some of their investment now ( as opposed to ten years down , when drugs based on their discoveries could conceivably come to market ) , no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research .
According to them , without patents , there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever .
I 'm not saying whether or not I agree with that , but that 's the way it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?I've read interviews with multiple government and legal officials, whose basic point seems to be that patents on genes are a "necessary evil", because research into genomics is really, really, really expensive, and without patents + licensing fees giving biotech firms some way to recover some of their investment now (as opposed to ten years down, when drugs based on their discoveries could conceivably come to market), no businessperson would even think of throwing his money at that kind of research.
According to them, without patents, there would be no research and progress in this field whatsoever.
I'm not saying whether or not I agree with that, but that's the way it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468144</id>
	<title>Re:Benign</title>
	<author>olrik666</author>
	<datestamp>1259680920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad joke!</p><p>If I could, I'd lung at you!</p><p>So please stop these jokes if you can, sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad joke ! If I could , I 'd lung at you ! So please stop these jokes if you can , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad joke!If I could, I'd lung at you!So please stop these jokes if you can, sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467862</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1259679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true that each patient is extremely likely to have a unique 'cancer genome', a specific combination of mutations found only in their tumour. But the vast majority of these will be 'passenger' mutations that aren't relevant to the progress of the tumour. The trick, as you suggest, is to home in on the 'driver' mutations that are really causing the disease. One way to get at these is to look first at the mutations in the coding sequences of known genes (and because of the human genome project and all the work that's followed it, we pretty much know where all the protein-coding genes are located).</p><p>I just had a quick look at both papers, and it turns out that in the lung cancer case, fewer than 100 of the tens of thousands of mutations actually cause an amino acid change in a protein sequence (for the melanoma, the figure is less than 200). This doesn't mean that there aren't other interesting needles to find in the haystack of mutations (e.g. changes in regulatory sequences), but they might as well go after the 'low hanging fruit' first. With current technology, it's very easy to sequence 100-200 genes in a pretty large set of samples from different patients. Any of these genes that turn out to be mutated in multiple tumours immediately become subjects for further study.</p><p>As the technology starts to ramp up and gets cheaper every year, we can begin to go after the less obvious changes. Each of these studies is in effect an entire human genome project (they haven't just done a low resolution map, they've completely sequenced the genomes). Pretty soon we're going to have a large collection of sequenced tumour samples to compare and use to find common alterations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that each patient is extremely likely to have a unique 'cancer genome ' , a specific combination of mutations found only in their tumour .
But the vast majority of these will be 'passenger ' mutations that are n't relevant to the progress of the tumour .
The trick , as you suggest , is to home in on the 'driver ' mutations that are really causing the disease .
One way to get at these is to look first at the mutations in the coding sequences of known genes ( and because of the human genome project and all the work that 's followed it , we pretty much know where all the protein-coding genes are located ) .I just had a quick look at both papers , and it turns out that in the lung cancer case , fewer than 100 of the tens of thousands of mutations actually cause an amino acid change in a protein sequence ( for the melanoma , the figure is less than 200 ) .
This does n't mean that there are n't other interesting needles to find in the haystack of mutations ( e.g .
changes in regulatory sequences ) , but they might as well go after the 'low hanging fruit ' first .
With current technology , it 's very easy to sequence 100-200 genes in a pretty large set of samples from different patients .
Any of these genes that turn out to be mutated in multiple tumours immediately become subjects for further study.As the technology starts to ramp up and gets cheaper every year , we can begin to go after the less obvious changes .
Each of these studies is in effect an entire human genome project ( they have n't just done a low resolution map , they 've completely sequenced the genomes ) .
Pretty soon we 're going to have a large collection of sequenced tumour samples to compare and use to find common alterations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that each patient is extremely likely to have a unique 'cancer genome', a specific combination of mutations found only in their tumour.
But the vast majority of these will be 'passenger' mutations that aren't relevant to the progress of the tumour.
The trick, as you suggest, is to home in on the 'driver' mutations that are really causing the disease.
One way to get at these is to look first at the mutations in the coding sequences of known genes (and because of the human genome project and all the work that's followed it, we pretty much know where all the protein-coding genes are located).I just had a quick look at both papers, and it turns out that in the lung cancer case, fewer than 100 of the tens of thousands of mutations actually cause an amino acid change in a protein sequence (for the melanoma, the figure is less than 200).
This doesn't mean that there aren't other interesting needles to find in the haystack of mutations (e.g.
changes in regulatory sequences), but they might as well go after the 'low hanging fruit' first.
With current technology, it's very easy to sequence 100-200 genes in a pretty large set of samples from different patients.
Any of these genes that turn out to be mutated in multiple tumours immediately become subjects for further study.As the technology starts to ramp up and gets cheaper every year, we can begin to go after the less obvious changes.
Each of these studies is in effect an entire human genome project (they haven't just done a low resolution map, they've completely sequenced the genomes).
Pretty soon we're going to have a large collection of sequenced tumour samples to compare and use to find common alterations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467040</id>
	<title>Two preventable cancers</title>
	<author>Meshach</author>
	<datestamp>1259673960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly the article seems to only reference "preventable" cancers:<blockquote><div><p>The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure.
The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Hopefully this will lead to treatments for other cancers as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly the article seems to only reference " preventable " cancers : The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure .
The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure .
Hopefully this will lead to treatments for other cancers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly the article seems to only reference "preventable" cancers:The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure.
The lung cancer DNA code had more than 23,000 errors largely triggered by cigarette smoke exposure.
Hopefully this will lead to treatments for other cancers as well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</id>
	<title>Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>xrayspx</author>
	<datestamp>1259678400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the things driving me when I began the quitting process was that my back of the napkin math showed I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes.  I had a hard time putting that in terms of anything else.  I couldn't compare it to any other non-reflexive thing.  I haven't signed my name 148,000 times, or tied my shoes.  What have I done 20+ times per day for 20 years?
<br> <br>
Now I learn that that means I have 10,000 cell mutations on top of that.  Neato.  Of course, 10,000 cells is kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the inner surface of my airway.
<br> <br>
To smokers:  Please note his does not mean that I'm not still hopefully addicted to nicotine.  Now it just comes in the form of <a href="http://www.commitlozenge.com/" title="commitlozenge.com">Cherry Commit Lozenges</a> [commitlozenge.com].  They work pretty OK.  I've had maybe 1 cigarette per month for the last 5 months.
<br> <br>
On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things driving me when I began the quitting process was that my back of the napkin math showed I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes .
I had a hard time putting that in terms of anything else .
I could n't compare it to any other non-reflexive thing .
I have n't signed my name 148,000 times , or tied my shoes .
What have I done 20 + times per day for 20 years ?
Now I learn that that means I have 10,000 cell mutations on top of that .
Neato. Of course , 10,000 cells is kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the inner surface of my airway .
To smokers : Please note his does not mean that I 'm not still hopefully addicted to nicotine .
Now it just comes in the form of Cherry Commit Lozenges [ commitlozenge.com ] .
They work pretty OK. I 've had maybe 1 cigarette per month for the last 5 months .
On the other hand , I miss that I no longer look cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things driving me when I began the quitting process was that my back of the napkin math showed I had smoked in the area of 148,000 cigarettes.
I had a hard time putting that in terms of anything else.
I couldn't compare it to any other non-reflexive thing.
I haven't signed my name 148,000 times, or tied my shoes.
What have I done 20+ times per day for 20 years?
Now I learn that that means I have 10,000 cell mutations on top of that.
Neato.  Of course, 10,000 cells is kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the inner surface of my airway.
To smokers:  Please note his does not mean that I'm not still hopefully addicted to nicotine.
Now it just comes in the form of Cherry Commit Lozenges [commitlozenge.com].
They work pretty OK.  I've had maybe 1 cigarette per month for the last 5 months.
On the other hand, I miss that I no longer look cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</id>
	<title>Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty ?
  Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they will patent this so everyone who develops a treatment using techniques discovered here must cough up a royalty?
  Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470814</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261043460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'm gonna need a car analogy for this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'm gon na need a car analogy for this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'm gonna need a car analogy for this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469058</id>
	<title>Patent+Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should patent the cancer genes and start suing everybody with cancer for violating their IP!  They could make a killing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should patent the cancer genes and start suing everybody with cancer for violating their IP !
They could make a killing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should patent the cancer genes and start suing everybody with cancer for violating their IP!
They could make a killing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496</id>
	<title>Might be okay, might not.</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1259676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?</p></div><p>I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer.  It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.</p><p>Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there <a href="http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer" title="webmd.com">isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking.</a> [webmd.com]  Other research suggests that <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">THC reduced lung cancer growth.</a> [sciencedaily.com]  However, pot smokers are at elevated risk for <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">other lung diseases</a> [sciencedaily.com] that come purely from breathing hot smoke all the time.</p><p>So, if you're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana, consider going with methods other than smoking.  You may not get cancer from smoking, but it's still not good for you, and there are much safer ways to get high.  (They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke, which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , since it 's cigarette smoke that 's the problem... Everyone switch to pot ? I know you 're joking , but there 's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer .
It 's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer , and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.Weirdly , however , large studies seem to indicate that there is n't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking .
[ webmd.com ] Other research suggests that THC reduced lung cancer growth .
[ sciencedaily.com ] However , pot smokers are at elevated risk for other lung diseases [ sciencedaily.com ] that come purely from breathing hot smoke all the time.So , if you 're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana , consider going with methods other than smoking .
You may not get cancer from smoking , but it 's still not good for you , and there are much safer ways to get high .
( They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke , which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer.
It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking.
[webmd.com]  Other research suggests that THC reduced lung cancer growth.
[sciencedaily.com]  However, pot smokers are at elevated risk for other lung diseases [sciencedaily.com] that come purely from breathing hot smoke all the time.So, if you're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana, consider going with methods other than smoking.
You may not get cancer from smoking, but it's still not good for you, and there are much safer ways to get high.
(They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke, which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471634</id>
	<title>Re:Benign</title>
	<author>CookedGryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1261051140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That reminds me of the awesome Tim Minchin song<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx3kMBoeZh0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx3kMBoeZh0</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me of the awesome Tim Minchin songhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Yx3kMBoeZh0 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me of the awesome Tim Minchin songhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx3kMBoeZh0 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467640</id>
	<title>Re:Powers</title>
	<author>Mister\_Stoopid</author>
	<datestamp>1259677740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck with that.  I smoked 45 cigarettes yesterday and all I got was fast metabolism 1, deformed body 1, and teleportitis without TC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that .
I smoked 45 cigarettes yesterday and all I got was fast metabolism 1 , deformed body 1 , and teleportitis without TC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that.
I smoked 45 cigarettes yesterday and all I got was fast metabolism 1, deformed body 1, and teleportitis without TC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471880</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1261053900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'The problem here is that you're no longer dealing with a normal human tumor; you're selecting for tumor cells that grow in the artificial tissue culture environment.'</p><p>That's a good point. Both studies also used cell lines derived from metastases rather than the primary tumour, so we're already potentially dealing with a selected (though interesting) subclone even before the cells hit the culture dish. Not sure why they chose cell lines for the pilot study - perhaps because these lines were already well analysed by other methods, or because they could be confident that they were sequencing a pure population of tumour cells, or just to ensure they had lots of material to work with. In the lung cancer paper, it's mentioned that primary tumours of this subtype are rarely removed surgically, so it may be hard to get hold of good quality material.</p><p>'The second problem is that you're not sure what to compare the tumor sequence with. Due to privacy concerns, you almost never know who actually gave the tumor that was made into a cell line (as an aside, look up the HeLa cell line and its sordid history) so you have to compare to the human genome project. The problem here is that there are differences between people and you can't tell whether the "mutation" you see is just a normal variation or actually something in the tumor'</p><p>Both studies took account of this by sequencing normal DNA from the same donor, so they must have obtained appropriate samples and consent. For the reasons you mention, this is really the only sensible way to proceed at this point (lots of previously unknown polymorphisms are turning up in each new normal genome that's sequenced, so it would be hard to pick out tumour-specific changes without a matched normal reference).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The problem here is that you 're no longer dealing with a normal human tumor ; you 're selecting for tumor cells that grow in the artificial tissue culture environment .
'That 's a good point .
Both studies also used cell lines derived from metastases rather than the primary tumour , so we 're already potentially dealing with a selected ( though interesting ) subclone even before the cells hit the culture dish .
Not sure why they chose cell lines for the pilot study - perhaps because these lines were already well analysed by other methods , or because they could be confident that they were sequencing a pure population of tumour cells , or just to ensure they had lots of material to work with .
In the lung cancer paper , it 's mentioned that primary tumours of this subtype are rarely removed surgically , so it may be hard to get hold of good quality material .
'The second problem is that you 're not sure what to compare the tumor sequence with .
Due to privacy concerns , you almost never know who actually gave the tumor that was made into a cell line ( as an aside , look up the HeLa cell line and its sordid history ) so you have to compare to the human genome project .
The problem here is that there are differences between people and you ca n't tell whether the " mutation " you see is just a normal variation or actually something in the tumor'Both studies took account of this by sequencing normal DNA from the same donor , so they must have obtained appropriate samples and consent .
For the reasons you mention , this is really the only sensible way to proceed at this point ( lots of previously unknown polymorphisms are turning up in each new normal genome that 's sequenced , so it would be hard to pick out tumour-specific changes without a matched normal reference ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The problem here is that you're no longer dealing with a normal human tumor; you're selecting for tumor cells that grow in the artificial tissue culture environment.
'That's a good point.
Both studies also used cell lines derived from metastases rather than the primary tumour, so we're already potentially dealing with a selected (though interesting) subclone even before the cells hit the culture dish.
Not sure why they chose cell lines for the pilot study - perhaps because these lines were already well analysed by other methods, or because they could be confident that they were sequencing a pure population of tumour cells, or just to ensure they had lots of material to work with.
In the lung cancer paper, it's mentioned that primary tumours of this subtype are rarely removed surgically, so it may be hard to get hold of good quality material.
'The second problem is that you're not sure what to compare the tumor sequence with.
Due to privacy concerns, you almost never know who actually gave the tumor that was made into a cell line (as an aside, look up the HeLa cell line and its sordid history) so you have to compare to the human genome project.
The problem here is that there are differences between people and you can't tell whether the "mutation" you see is just a normal variation or actually something in the tumor'Both studies took account of this by sequencing normal DNA from the same donor, so they must have obtained appropriate samples and consent.
For the reasons you mention, this is really the only sensible way to proceed at this point (lots of previously unknown polymorphisms are turning up in each new normal genome that's sequenced, so it would be hard to pick out tumour-specific changes without a matched normal reference).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469460</id>
	<title>So hide in the basement and don't smoke</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1259692020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See - it's just not a problem for most of us pasty white boy types<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See - it 's just not a problem for most of us pasty white boy types : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See - it's just not a problem for most of us pasty white boy types :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470276</id>
	<title>Joint</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1261081080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how many joints does it take to get a mutation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many joints does it take to get a mutation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many joints does it take to get a mutation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472124</id>
	<title>Common damage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261056420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you fire a rifle at a running car, it might survive several shots and still keep running.  Some of the shots go through the windows, some through the doors, and some just bounce off the pillars.  But some shots could poke holes in the body and leave underlying parts exposed.  Then further shots might puncture the gas tank or the radiator.  A little less likely, shots might break the fuel pump or electric distributor.  And just maybe a shot will interrupt the ignition circuit.</p><p>Even though any particular car's damage will be unique, the damage that made cars stop running will be common.  Most will involve the gas tank or radiator.  And a few will involve smaller parts.</p><p>A study like this is looking for those major parts which are likely to be damaged in cancer cells. It might also reveal common patterns of damage which disabled protective mechanisms and left those key part vulnerable.  Then you might have an idea of how to detect critical damage, how to repair subcritical damage, how to armor critical areas, and how to completely disable malfunctioning cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you fire a rifle at a running car , it might survive several shots and still keep running .
Some of the shots go through the windows , some through the doors , and some just bounce off the pillars .
But some shots could poke holes in the body and leave underlying parts exposed .
Then further shots might puncture the gas tank or the radiator .
A little less likely , shots might break the fuel pump or electric distributor .
And just maybe a shot will interrupt the ignition circuit.Even though any particular car 's damage will be unique , the damage that made cars stop running will be common .
Most will involve the gas tank or radiator .
And a few will involve smaller parts.A study like this is looking for those major parts which are likely to be damaged in cancer cells .
It might also reveal common patterns of damage which disabled protective mechanisms and left those key part vulnerable .
Then you might have an idea of how to detect critical damage , how to repair subcritical damage , how to armor critical areas , and how to completely disable malfunctioning cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you fire a rifle at a running car, it might survive several shots and still keep running.
Some of the shots go through the windows, some through the doors, and some just bounce off the pillars.
But some shots could poke holes in the body and leave underlying parts exposed.
Then further shots might puncture the gas tank or the radiator.
A little less likely, shots might break the fuel pump or electric distributor.
And just maybe a shot will interrupt the ignition circuit.Even though any particular car's damage will be unique, the damage that made cars stop running will be common.
Most will involve the gas tank or radiator.
And a few will involve smaller parts.A study like this is looking for those major parts which are likely to be damaged in cancer cells.
It might also reveal common patterns of damage which disabled protective mechanisms and left those key part vulnerable.
Then you might have an idea of how to detect critical damage, how to repair subcritical damage, how to armor critical areas, and how to completely disable malfunctioning cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470006</id>
	<title>Re:Cold turkey</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259696700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...once this last one's gone"? You haven't quit yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...once this last one 's gone " ?
You have n't quit yet ; p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...once this last one's gone"?
You haven't quit yet ;p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216</id>
	<title>The extrapolation for lung cancer is badly flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cancer cells start accumulating mutations as a consequence of rapid cell division and poor quality control on DNA replication; they also have problems keeping their chromosomes intact. This is called "genomic instability" and it is a hallmark of cancer.<p>The critical point here is that most of these mutations are acquired *after* the cancer gets going, regardless of whether the mutagen in question is still being administered.</p><p>Therefore, it's not proper to infer a linear relationship between the dose of mutagen and the number of mutations.</p><p>Beyond that, the numbers involved in that extrapolation seem to have been pulled out of thin air, and I question whether they knew the smoking history of the individual who donated the material that created that cell line. (The lung cancer  in question had 30,000 mutations, so by their logic the smoker must have smoked 345,000 cigarettes, or 17,250 packs of 20. That's a pack a day for 47 years, which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility, but still an awful lot of smoking.)</p><p>Whatever. Smoking is still awful for you, but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancer cells start accumulating mutations as a consequence of rapid cell division and poor quality control on DNA replication ; they also have problems keeping their chromosomes intact .
This is called " genomic instability " and it is a hallmark of cancer.The critical point here is that most of these mutations are acquired * after * the cancer gets going , regardless of whether the mutagen in question is still being administered.Therefore , it 's not proper to infer a linear relationship between the dose of mutagen and the number of mutations.Beyond that , the numbers involved in that extrapolation seem to have been pulled out of thin air , and I question whether they knew the smoking history of the individual who donated the material that created that cell line .
( The lung cancer in question had 30,000 mutations , so by their logic the smoker must have smoked 345,000 cigarettes , or 17,250 packs of 20 .
That 's a pack a day for 47 years , which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility , but still an awful lot of smoking. ) Whatever .
Smoking is still awful for you , but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancer cells start accumulating mutations as a consequence of rapid cell division and poor quality control on DNA replication; they also have problems keeping their chromosomes intact.
This is called "genomic instability" and it is a hallmark of cancer.The critical point here is that most of these mutations are acquired *after* the cancer gets going, regardless of whether the mutagen in question is still being administered.Therefore, it's not proper to infer a linear relationship between the dose of mutagen and the number of mutations.Beyond that, the numbers involved in that extrapolation seem to have been pulled out of thin air, and I question whether they knew the smoking history of the individual who donated the material that created that cell line.
(The lung cancer  in question had 30,000 mutations, so by their logic the smoker must have smoked 345,000 cigarettes, or 17,250 packs of 20.
That's a pack a day for 47 years, which is admittedly within the bounds of possibility, but still an awful lot of smoking.)Whatever.
Smoking is still awful for you, but this kind of nonsensical extrapolation without regard to detail is terribly annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471950</id>
	<title>For those who still chase gohsts check BrianPeskin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261054500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are looking in the wrong place for the cure.</p><p>Google Brian Peskin and the explanation on what this disease actually is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are looking in the wrong place for the cure.Google Brian Peskin and the explanation on what this disease actually is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are looking in the wrong place for the cure.Google Brian Peskin and the explanation on what this disease actually is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30483656</id>
	<title>are you sure nicotine not a carcinogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1172650/Chewing-nicotine-gum-increase-risk-mouth-cancer.html</p><p>from wiki:<br>nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop, though this also remains to be proven.</p><p>so its quite possible that pure nicotine itself promotes cancer, if only by decreasing the chance that a harmful mutation wont be stopped by one of the bodies safety mechanisms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1172650/Chewing-nicotine-gum-increase-risk-mouth-cancer.htmlfrom wiki : nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis , which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells ( programmed cell death ) .
Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous , the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop , though this also remains to be proven.so its quite possible that pure nicotine itself promotes cancer , if only by decreasing the chance that a harmful mutation wont be stopped by one of the bodies safety mechanisms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1172650/Chewing-nicotine-gum-increase-risk-mouth-cancer.htmlfrom wiki:nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death).
Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop, though this also remains to be proven.so its quite possible that pure nicotine itself promotes cancer, if only by decreasing the chance that a harmful mutation wont be stopped by one of the bodies safety mechanisms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467770</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259678520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, but it is somewhat inherited, because pasty white boy is far more likely to get cancer than ultra-dark black man, because his melanin doesn't block the sun and lets more mutations happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but it is somewhat inherited , because pasty white boy is far more likely to get cancer than ultra-dark black man , because his melanin does n't block the sun and lets more mutations happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but it is somewhat inherited, because pasty white boy is far more likely to get cancer than ultra-dark black man, because his melanin doesn't block the sun and lets more mutations happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468156</id>
	<title>Re:Thank goodness for the free market!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget the massive number of medical breakthroughs that have come from the labs of for-profit drug companies. Not all medical research is done this way. Much is done through private foundations and government grant research. They can all co-exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget the massive number of medical breakthroughs that have come from the labs of for-profit drug companies .
Not all medical research is done this way .
Much is done through private foundations and government grant research .
They can all co-exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget the massive number of medical breakthroughs that have come from the labs of for-profit drug companies.
Not all medical research is done this way.
Much is done through private foundations and government grant research.
They can all co-exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468572</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>DebateG</author>
	<datestamp>1259684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So I work in biological sciences, and I have the special privilege of having the guy who sequenced the first cancer genome working down the hall from me (he's also my thesis committee).
</p><p>
There is now technology to sequence entire genomes very quickly using massive parallel sequencing. Ideally, if you were sequencing a tumor from a single person, you would get tissue from the tumor and also from the non-tumor (usually skin) and sequence them at the same time. Then you compare the two to distinguish what is simply variation in each person's genetics and what is acquired by the tumor. In my opinion, that's the best way to do things and probably the most informative because you're looking a tumor in a real person that is subject to all the selective evolutionary pressures that occur in people.
</p><p>
These groups didn't take that approach for reasons unclear to me. Instead, they sequenced cancer cell lines. If you cut out a person's tumor and stick it in a test tube with various growth factors, it will almost certainly die within a week or so. However, you occasionally get some cells that can grow in this situation because they've acquired some mutation that lets them grow in tissue culture. You then expand and passage these cells until they grow rapidly in culture. The problem here is that you're no longer dealing with a normal human tumor; you're selecting for tumor cells that grow in the artificial tissue culture environment. The second problem is that you're not sure what to compare the tumor sequence with. Due to privacy concerns, you almost never know who actually gave the tumor that was made into a cell line (as an aside, look up the HeLa cell line and its sordid history) so you have to compare to the human genome project. The problem here is that there are differences between people and you can't tell whether the "mutation" you see is just a normal variation or actually something in the tumor.
</p><p>
These are the important limitations you have to consider when evaluating these papers.
</p><p>
Now, on to your question. They have 30,000 changes in the DNA compared to their reference "normal" genome. Nearly all of those are in "junk" DNA: as far as we know, they don't code any genes or anything else that regulates genes. Of the ones that are in interesting regions, the vast majority of them are called synonymous mutations which means the DNA is changed but due to the way it is interpreted, the protein that it makes is identical (to use a computer analogy, imagine that an the opcode for JMP was changed from 01 to 02 but both 01 and 02 are translated by the computer as JMP).
</p><p>
Now, a certain number of mutations aren't like that. They either lead to truncated proteins, alter the amino acid sequence of proteins, alter mRNA splicing, etc. There are also other genetic changes such as duplications where the gene sequence is unchanged but may be copied several times to increase the gene dose. These are really the interesting things because they alter protein function or gene dose. From a brief reading, it looks like there are around 100 of these.
</p><p>
Now, it's really difficult to tell whether these mutations are really relevant to cancer progression. Some of them might just happen due to tumors just mutating really fast and not really affect the cancer progression one way or another; they are so called "passenger" mutations that just come along for the ride. You can introduce these mutations into cells in lab to see if they do anything, but the real test is to sequence a bunch of human cancers and see if certain mutations are recurrent. This work is currently underway and will prove very informative about how genetically heterogeneous tumors really are.
</p><p>
So, in short, there are about 100 haystacks. Further sequencing of other tumors will show if these are relevant to cancer in general. In my personal opinion, I think that further sequencing will identify very few common mutations and everyone's cancer will be essentially unique in the mutations it acquires. That will force us to completely rethink how we view cancer on a broader scale as not a single disease but a collection of highly related diseases that need to be treated individually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I work in biological sciences , and I have the special privilege of having the guy who sequenced the first cancer genome working down the hall from me ( he 's also my thesis committee ) .
There is now technology to sequence entire genomes very quickly using massive parallel sequencing .
Ideally , if you were sequencing a tumor from a single person , you would get tissue from the tumor and also from the non-tumor ( usually skin ) and sequence them at the same time .
Then you compare the two to distinguish what is simply variation in each person 's genetics and what is acquired by the tumor .
In my opinion , that 's the best way to do things and probably the most informative because you 're looking a tumor in a real person that is subject to all the selective evolutionary pressures that occur in people .
These groups did n't take that approach for reasons unclear to me .
Instead , they sequenced cancer cell lines .
If you cut out a person 's tumor and stick it in a test tube with various growth factors , it will almost certainly die within a week or so .
However , you occasionally get some cells that can grow in this situation because they 've acquired some mutation that lets them grow in tissue culture .
You then expand and passage these cells until they grow rapidly in culture .
The problem here is that you 're no longer dealing with a normal human tumor ; you 're selecting for tumor cells that grow in the artificial tissue culture environment .
The second problem is that you 're not sure what to compare the tumor sequence with .
Due to privacy concerns , you almost never know who actually gave the tumor that was made into a cell line ( as an aside , look up the HeLa cell line and its sordid history ) so you have to compare to the human genome project .
The problem here is that there are differences between people and you ca n't tell whether the " mutation " you see is just a normal variation or actually something in the tumor .
These are the important limitations you have to consider when evaluating these papers .
Now , on to your question .
They have 30,000 changes in the DNA compared to their reference " normal " genome .
Nearly all of those are in " junk " DNA : as far as we know , they do n't code any genes or anything else that regulates genes .
Of the ones that are in interesting regions , the vast majority of them are called synonymous mutations which means the DNA is changed but due to the way it is interpreted , the protein that it makes is identical ( to use a computer analogy , imagine that an the opcode for JMP was changed from 01 to 02 but both 01 and 02 are translated by the computer as JMP ) .
Now , a certain number of mutations are n't like that .
They either lead to truncated proteins , alter the amino acid sequence of proteins , alter mRNA splicing , etc .
There are also other genetic changes such as duplications where the gene sequence is unchanged but may be copied several times to increase the gene dose .
These are really the interesting things because they alter protein function or gene dose .
From a brief reading , it looks like there are around 100 of these .
Now , it 's really difficult to tell whether these mutations are really relevant to cancer progression .
Some of them might just happen due to tumors just mutating really fast and not really affect the cancer progression one way or another ; they are so called " passenger " mutations that just come along for the ride .
You can introduce these mutations into cells in lab to see if they do anything , but the real test is to sequence a bunch of human cancers and see if certain mutations are recurrent .
This work is currently underway and will prove very informative about how genetically heterogeneous tumors really are .
So , in short , there are about 100 haystacks .
Further sequencing of other tumors will show if these are relevant to cancer in general .
In my personal opinion , I think that further sequencing will identify very few common mutations and everyone 's cancer will be essentially unique in the mutations it acquires .
That will force us to completely rethink how we view cancer on a broader scale as not a single disease but a collection of highly related diseases that need to be treated individually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So I work in biological sciences, and I have the special privilege of having the guy who sequenced the first cancer genome working down the hall from me (he's also my thesis committee).
There is now technology to sequence entire genomes very quickly using massive parallel sequencing.
Ideally, if you were sequencing a tumor from a single person, you would get tissue from the tumor and also from the non-tumor (usually skin) and sequence them at the same time.
Then you compare the two to distinguish what is simply variation in each person's genetics and what is acquired by the tumor.
In my opinion, that's the best way to do things and probably the most informative because you're looking a tumor in a real person that is subject to all the selective evolutionary pressures that occur in people.
These groups didn't take that approach for reasons unclear to me.
Instead, they sequenced cancer cell lines.
If you cut out a person's tumor and stick it in a test tube with various growth factors, it will almost certainly die within a week or so.
However, you occasionally get some cells that can grow in this situation because they've acquired some mutation that lets them grow in tissue culture.
You then expand and passage these cells until they grow rapidly in culture.
The problem here is that you're no longer dealing with a normal human tumor; you're selecting for tumor cells that grow in the artificial tissue culture environment.
The second problem is that you're not sure what to compare the tumor sequence with.
Due to privacy concerns, you almost never know who actually gave the tumor that was made into a cell line (as an aside, look up the HeLa cell line and its sordid history) so you have to compare to the human genome project.
The problem here is that there are differences between people and you can't tell whether the "mutation" you see is just a normal variation or actually something in the tumor.
These are the important limitations you have to consider when evaluating these papers.
Now, on to your question.
They have 30,000 changes in the DNA compared to their reference "normal" genome.
Nearly all of those are in "junk" DNA: as far as we know, they don't code any genes or anything else that regulates genes.
Of the ones that are in interesting regions, the vast majority of them are called synonymous mutations which means the DNA is changed but due to the way it is interpreted, the protein that it makes is identical (to use a computer analogy, imagine that an the opcode for JMP was changed from 01 to 02 but both 01 and 02 are translated by the computer as JMP).
Now, a certain number of mutations aren't like that.
They either lead to truncated proteins, alter the amino acid sequence of proteins, alter mRNA splicing, etc.
There are also other genetic changes such as duplications where the gene sequence is unchanged but may be copied several times to increase the gene dose.
These are really the interesting things because they alter protein function or gene dose.
From a brief reading, it looks like there are around 100 of these.
Now, it's really difficult to tell whether these mutations are really relevant to cancer progression.
Some of them might just happen due to tumors just mutating really fast and not really affect the cancer progression one way or another; they are so called "passenger" mutations that just come along for the ride.
You can introduce these mutations into cells in lab to see if they do anything, but the real test is to sequence a bunch of human cancers and see if certain mutations are recurrent.
This work is currently underway and will prove very informative about how genetically heterogeneous tumors really are.
So, in short, there are about 100 haystacks.
Further sequencing of other tumors will show if these are relevant to cancer in general.
In my personal opinion, I think that further sequencing will identify very few common mutations and everyone's cancer will be essentially unique in the mutations it acquires.
That will force us to completely rethink how we view cancer on a broader scale as not a single disease but a collection of highly related diseases that need to be treated individually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472008</id>
	<title>Lightweight!</title>
	<author>PinkyDead</author>
	<datestamp>1261054980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quit 4 years, 3 months, 9 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes and 52 seconds ago.</p><p>And I don't miss them at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quit 4 years , 3 months , 9 days , 7 hours , 14 minutes and 52 seconds ago.And I do n't miss them at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quit 4 years, 3 months, 9 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes and 52 seconds ago.And I don't miss them at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470168</id>
	<title>Re:Benign</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1261080300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you have a something else growing in your speech centre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you have a something else growing in your speech centre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you have a something else growing in your speech centre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468656</id>
	<title>Re:Might be okay, might not.</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1259685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it.</p> </div><p>Drivers don't generally back their cars up next to your face inside an enclosed room and then gun the engine, do they?</p><p>Nor do smokers have catalytic converters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it .
Drivers do n't generally back their cars up next to your face inside an enclosed room and then gun the engine , do they ? Nor do smokers have catalytic converters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it.
Drivers don't generally back their cars up next to your face inside an enclosed room and then gun the engine, do they?Nor do smokers have catalytic converters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564</id>
	<title>Population and cancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This pains me to say - a couple of friends of the family have been diagnosed with cancer- one very dear to me and with limited time to live, the other a very decent man and doesn't know his chances yet.
<p>
I can't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion. If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me wouldn't suffer, but we'd be even less sustainable and eventually we'd see wide spread poverty and famine. So the question becomes: If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us don't suffer, what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing?
</p><p>
I don't have easy answers. I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This pains me to say - a couple of friends of the family have been diagnosed with cancer- one very dear to me and with limited time to live , the other a very decent man and does n't know his chances yet .
I ca n't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion .
If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me would n't suffer , but we 'd be even less sustainable and eventually we 'd see wide spread poverty and famine .
So the question becomes : If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us do n't suffer , what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing ?
I do n't have easy answers .
I certainly do n't like watching friends and family die , and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This pains me to say - a couple of friends of the family have been diagnosed with cancer- one very dear to me and with limited time to live, the other a very decent man and doesn't know his chances yet.
I can't help but think that cancer is acting as a brake on the population explosion.
If we cured cancer tomorrow these people who are dear to me wouldn't suffer, but we'd be even less sustainable and eventually we'd see wide spread poverty and famine.
So the question becomes: If we do gather the knowledge we need to cure various forms of cancer so that those dear to us don't suffer, what are we going to do to balance things out and prevent the population from skyrocketing?
I don't have easy answers.
I certainly don't like watching friends and family die, and would like to see a proper cure instead of various poisons in the form of radiation and drugs that take their toll on the person as much as the disease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30477696</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good, another scary number</title>
	<author>LeadSongDog</author>
	<datestamp>1261082520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> What have I done 20+ times per day for 20 years?</p></div><p>Cough?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What have I done 20 + times per day for 20 years ? Cough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What have I done 20+ times per day for 20 years?Cough?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470448</id>
	<title>Re:Patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261082700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This research has been largely funded by the Wellcome Trust (NOT to be confused with Wellcome of Glaxo-Wellcome) who are ademently aposed to patents on any form of genetic information. This is the main reason that they funded the Human Genome Project through the Sanger Institute.</p><p>Any research undertaken under the Trust's funding must be put into the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This research has been largely funded by the Wellcome Trust ( NOT to be confused with Wellcome of Glaxo-Wellcome ) who are ademently aposed to patents on any form of genetic information .
This is the main reason that they funded the Human Genome Project through the Sanger Institute.Any research undertaken under the Trust 's funding must be put into the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This research has been largely funded by the Wellcome Trust (NOT to be confused with Wellcome of Glaxo-Wellcome) who are ademently aposed to patents on any form of genetic information.
This is the main reason that they funded the Human Genome Project through the Sanger Institute.Any research undertaken under the Trust's funding must be put into the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468044</id>
	<title>Misleading title...</title>
	<author>hahn</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saying they've "cracked" the code to these two cancers (skin and lung) is not really as big a step as the title implies.  They've found the genetic mutations associated with the cancers.  That's probably the easy part (and it wasn't so easy).  The problem in studying cancer is that the function of genes is often dynamic and interdependent.   Think of a room with 30,000 light switches.  Sometimes light switch #5 will turn on the light bulb, but sometimes it won't.  It depends on whether light switch # 7, 100, and 10542 are all on simultaneously or not.  And if switch #2742 is on, the light, if it's on, will be very dim.  This why even though we give a cancer a single name - e.g. "melanoma" - there are often very different mutations present, any one or multiple ones which can affect the person's survival, but not necessarily all the time.  There are cancers which reliably result from single mutations, but the most common ones are due to mutations in many many different genes.  To the point that most cases of cancer can or should be considered unique.
<br>
<br>
IMHO, where I think the results of these studies may be most helpful with regards to treating people successfully is figuring out which mutations cause the cancer to <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9891219" title="nih.gov">spontaneously regress</a> [nih.gov], whether it's by self-destruction or immune mechanisms.  Even then, maybe it's not even because of a cancer mutation.  Maybe some people possess some genetic trait in their immune system that allows them to destroy cancers.  In which case, too many people would be looking in the wrong haystack for a needle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying they 've " cracked " the code to these two cancers ( skin and lung ) is not really as big a step as the title implies .
They 've found the genetic mutations associated with the cancers .
That 's probably the easy part ( and it was n't so easy ) .
The problem in studying cancer is that the function of genes is often dynamic and interdependent .
Think of a room with 30,000 light switches .
Sometimes light switch # 5 will turn on the light bulb , but sometimes it wo n't .
It depends on whether light switch # 7 , 100 , and 10542 are all on simultaneously or not .
And if switch # 2742 is on , the light , if it 's on , will be very dim .
This why even though we give a cancer a single name - e.g .
" melanoma " - there are often very different mutations present , any one or multiple ones which can affect the person 's survival , but not necessarily all the time .
There are cancers which reliably result from single mutations , but the most common ones are due to mutations in many many different genes .
To the point that most cases of cancer can or should be considered unique .
IMHO , where I think the results of these studies may be most helpful with regards to treating people successfully is figuring out which mutations cause the cancer to spontaneously regress [ nih.gov ] , whether it 's by self-destruction or immune mechanisms .
Even then , maybe it 's not even because of a cancer mutation .
Maybe some people possess some genetic trait in their immune system that allows them to destroy cancers .
In which case , too many people would be looking in the wrong haystack for a needle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying they've "cracked" the code to these two cancers (skin and lung) is not really as big a step as the title implies.
They've found the genetic mutations associated with the cancers.
That's probably the easy part (and it wasn't so easy).
The problem in studying cancer is that the function of genes is often dynamic and interdependent.
Think of a room with 30,000 light switches.
Sometimes light switch #5 will turn on the light bulb, but sometimes it won't.
It depends on whether light switch # 7, 100, and 10542 are all on simultaneously or not.
And if switch #2742 is on, the light, if it's on, will be very dim.
This why even though we give a cancer a single name - e.g.
"melanoma" - there are often very different mutations present, any one or multiple ones which can affect the person's survival, but not necessarily all the time.
There are cancers which reliably result from single mutations, but the most common ones are due to mutations in many many different genes.
To the point that most cases of cancer can or should be considered unique.
IMHO, where I think the results of these studies may be most helpful with regards to treating people successfully is figuring out which mutations cause the cancer to spontaneously regress [nih.gov], whether it's by self-destruction or immune mechanisms.
Even then, maybe it's not even because of a cancer mutation.
Maybe some people possess some genetic trait in their immune system that allows them to destroy cancers.
In which case, too many people would be looking in the wrong haystack for a needle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473318</id>
	<title>I'm Safe</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1261065240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will just throw away every 15th smoke, that should about do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will just throw away every 15th smoke , that should about do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will just throw away every 15th smoke, that should about do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467126</id>
	<title>//HACK ..?</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1259674560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacking would be to add or change something on that code on a original but cheap way to produce a practical result. Chop chop.. hack hack.</p><p>The article sounds more like deassembling the code. but IANGE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacking would be to add or change something on that code on a original but cheap way to produce a practical result .
Chop chop.. hack hack.The article sounds more like deassembling the code .
but IANGE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacking would be to add or change something on that code on a original but cheap way to produce a practical result.
Chop chop.. hack hack.The article sounds more like deassembling the code.
but IANGE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473000</id>
	<title>evolution fixes everything?</title>
	<author>doug141</author>
	<datestamp>1261063740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>If cancer killed people before they reproduced then the genetic causes of cancer would be eliminated pretty quickly.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Doesn't the presence of childhood diseases that have genetic causes, like cystic fibrosis (to name ONLY ONE), falsify this logic? Heck, doesn't childhood CHOKING have a genetic cause (genes place that windpipe where it is, after all, sure is good for speech though). Doesn't the same genetic trait that causes sickle cell help defend against malaria? Maybe life-form design involves trade-offs, some of which we know of, and some are yet-to-be-discovered.</p><p>

Secondly, this logic fails a whole different way by assuming grandparents don't help survival of their young.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If cancer killed people before they reproduced then the genetic causes of cancer would be eliminated pretty quickly .
Does n't the presence of childhood diseases that have genetic causes , like cystic fibrosis ( to name ONLY ONE ) , falsify this logic ?
Heck , does n't childhood CHOKING have a genetic cause ( genes place that windpipe where it is , after all , sure is good for speech though ) .
Does n't the same genetic trait that causes sickle cell help defend against malaria ?
Maybe life-form design involves trade-offs , some of which we know of , and some are yet-to-be-discovered .
Secondly , this logic fails a whole different way by assuming grandparents do n't help survival of their young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If cancer killed people before they reproduced then the genetic causes of cancer would be eliminated pretty quickly.
Doesn't the presence of childhood diseases that have genetic causes, like cystic fibrosis (to name ONLY ONE), falsify this logic?
Heck, doesn't childhood CHOKING have a genetic cause (genes place that windpipe where it is, after all, sure is good for speech though).
Doesn't the same genetic trait that causes sickle cell help defend against malaria?
Maybe life-form design involves trade-offs, some of which we know of, and some are yet-to-be-discovered.
Secondly, this logic fails a whole different way by assuming grandparents don't help survival of their young.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467054</id>
	<title>This is bad news.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this will all be copyrighted. So only those with $$$ will be saved because only those with $$$ are worth anything.</p><p>Right? Obviously the Christians will disagree with that statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this will all be copyrighted .
So only those with $ $ $ will be saved because only those with $ $ $ are worth anything.Right ?
Obviously the Christians will disagree with that statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this will all be copyrighted.
So only those with $$$ will be saved because only those with $$$ are worth anything.Right?
Obviously the Christians will disagree with that statement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468384</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cancer isn't some magical disease that turns up.  It's literally coding errors (for the most part).  If you want a computer analogy, it's like expecting an hard drive as old as you are not to have any bad sectors - it's possible, but it ain't gonna stay like that forever.  And if those errors are in the wrong places - the whole thing becomes a mess that destroys itself.  Of course, a lot of the time those errors go unnoticed for decades or even forever if they are in an unimportant part of the code.  And there's a certain amount of "error checking and correction" going on in various reproductive processes of the cells that lessens the impact.</p><p>Cancer is, basically, the MTBF of a human.  If something else doesn't get you, cancer will eventually catch you up by sheer random statistics - enough time exposed to the sun (not even in a sunny country, or deliberate exposure), or a million and one other factors (which is why *everything* is stated in the news as "causing cancer"), and the cell's DNA "bits" will flip and it'll go crazy and stop all its highly-evolved self-limiting processes until it starts to take over your body.  With some people it happens within their first year of life, some people live to 100 and never see it... but live long enough and you'll get cancer.</p><p>You can extend life, you can treat cancer, in theory you can "cure" it (i.e. push its statistical error rate outside the lifespan of a human) but it'll always be there.  Try and find someone who's lived past 40/50 and hasn't had either several friends/relatives or themselves have it / die from it... we've all been there.  I can name five serious (two fatal) off the top of my head just from blood relations and I'm only 30 - and those are just the ones I know about.</p><p>Cancer isn't a brake on population growth - the genetic factors are rarely subject to natural selection as others have pointed out - it's just the natural lifespan of a human.  We didn't have it very much a few thousand years ago because we weren't living long enough for it to have a big effect.  In the future, it will always be there even if we "trick" our way around it (there are animals that live longer than us and don't see such a high rate of mutation).  Just look at the primary methods of treatment for a condition which sinks billions of pounds of research money - surgically cut it out, poison it or nuke it.</p><p>Pulling some stats from the wiki:  Cancer causes 13\% of all deaths worldwide and 25\% of all deaths in the US.  More than 30\% of cancer is preventable via avoiding risk factors (which suggests that 70\% of it is not preventable at all).  It's a statistical function, not a disease, and the more exposure you have to things, the more your chances go up (but, some would argue, the more your quality of life would go down).  Nothing brings those chances down below their base rate, though.  It can be made more survivable, less painful, less affecting, but you can't "stop" it.  Change your lifestyle and you have more effect than researching drugs that few can afford, won't be effective and will have terrible side-effects - the story of all medicine ("Since 1971 the United States has invested over $200 billion on cancer research... Despite this substantial investment, the country has only seen a five percent decrease in the cancer death rate in the last 50 years").  Who here wants to give up alcohol and sex and modern living to live longer?  I would guess few.  Same as everything else on the planet: Live life, enjoy and if you exercise and take care you'll extend your average lifespan.  You could still get cancer tomorrow, though.</p><p>Cancer is what you're left with if you've survived everything else.  In the brutal, inhumane terms of statistics, it's not very important in terms of sustaining the planet / population or anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancer is n't some magical disease that turns up .
It 's literally coding errors ( for the most part ) .
If you want a computer analogy , it 's like expecting an hard drive as old as you are not to have any bad sectors - it 's possible , but it ai n't gon na stay like that forever .
And if those errors are in the wrong places - the whole thing becomes a mess that destroys itself .
Of course , a lot of the time those errors go unnoticed for decades or even forever if they are in an unimportant part of the code .
And there 's a certain amount of " error checking and correction " going on in various reproductive processes of the cells that lessens the impact.Cancer is , basically , the MTBF of a human .
If something else does n't get you , cancer will eventually catch you up by sheer random statistics - enough time exposed to the sun ( not even in a sunny country , or deliberate exposure ) , or a million and one other factors ( which is why * everything * is stated in the news as " causing cancer " ) , and the cell 's DNA " bits " will flip and it 'll go crazy and stop all its highly-evolved self-limiting processes until it starts to take over your body .
With some people it happens within their first year of life , some people live to 100 and never see it... but live long enough and you 'll get cancer.You can extend life , you can treat cancer , in theory you can " cure " it ( i.e .
push its statistical error rate outside the lifespan of a human ) but it 'll always be there .
Try and find someone who 's lived past 40/50 and has n't had either several friends/relatives or themselves have it / die from it... we 've all been there .
I can name five serious ( two fatal ) off the top of my head just from blood relations and I 'm only 30 - and those are just the ones I know about.Cancer is n't a brake on population growth - the genetic factors are rarely subject to natural selection as others have pointed out - it 's just the natural lifespan of a human .
We did n't have it very much a few thousand years ago because we were n't living long enough for it to have a big effect .
In the future , it will always be there even if we " trick " our way around it ( there are animals that live longer than us and do n't see such a high rate of mutation ) .
Just look at the primary methods of treatment for a condition which sinks billions of pounds of research money - surgically cut it out , poison it or nuke it.Pulling some stats from the wiki : Cancer causes 13 \ % of all deaths worldwide and 25 \ % of all deaths in the US .
More than 30 \ % of cancer is preventable via avoiding risk factors ( which suggests that 70 \ % of it is not preventable at all ) .
It 's a statistical function , not a disease , and the more exposure you have to things , the more your chances go up ( but , some would argue , the more your quality of life would go down ) .
Nothing brings those chances down below their base rate , though .
It can be made more survivable , less painful , less affecting , but you ca n't " stop " it .
Change your lifestyle and you have more effect than researching drugs that few can afford , wo n't be effective and will have terrible side-effects - the story of all medicine ( " Since 1971 the United States has invested over $ 200 billion on cancer research... Despite this substantial investment , the country has only seen a five percent decrease in the cancer death rate in the last 50 years " ) .
Who here wants to give up alcohol and sex and modern living to live longer ?
I would guess few .
Same as everything else on the planet : Live life , enjoy and if you exercise and take care you 'll extend your average lifespan .
You could still get cancer tomorrow , though.Cancer is what you 're left with if you 've survived everything else .
In the brutal , inhumane terms of statistics , it 's not very important in terms of sustaining the planet / population or anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancer isn't some magical disease that turns up.
It's literally coding errors (for the most part).
If you want a computer analogy, it's like expecting an hard drive as old as you are not to have any bad sectors - it's possible, but it ain't gonna stay like that forever.
And if those errors are in the wrong places - the whole thing becomes a mess that destroys itself.
Of course, a lot of the time those errors go unnoticed for decades or even forever if they are in an unimportant part of the code.
And there's a certain amount of "error checking and correction" going on in various reproductive processes of the cells that lessens the impact.Cancer is, basically, the MTBF of a human.
If something else doesn't get you, cancer will eventually catch you up by sheer random statistics - enough time exposed to the sun (not even in a sunny country, or deliberate exposure), or a million and one other factors (which is why *everything* is stated in the news as "causing cancer"), and the cell's DNA "bits" will flip and it'll go crazy and stop all its highly-evolved self-limiting processes until it starts to take over your body.
With some people it happens within their first year of life, some people live to 100 and never see it... but live long enough and you'll get cancer.You can extend life, you can treat cancer, in theory you can "cure" it (i.e.
push its statistical error rate outside the lifespan of a human) but it'll always be there.
Try and find someone who's lived past 40/50 and hasn't had either several friends/relatives or themselves have it / die from it... we've all been there.
I can name five serious (two fatal) off the top of my head just from blood relations and I'm only 30 - and those are just the ones I know about.Cancer isn't a brake on population growth - the genetic factors are rarely subject to natural selection as others have pointed out - it's just the natural lifespan of a human.
We didn't have it very much a few thousand years ago because we weren't living long enough for it to have a big effect.
In the future, it will always be there even if we "trick" our way around it (there are animals that live longer than us and don't see such a high rate of mutation).
Just look at the primary methods of treatment for a condition which sinks billions of pounds of research money - surgically cut it out, poison it or nuke it.Pulling some stats from the wiki:  Cancer causes 13\% of all deaths worldwide and 25\% of all deaths in the US.
More than 30\% of cancer is preventable via avoiding risk factors (which suggests that 70\% of it is not preventable at all).
It's a statistical function, not a disease, and the more exposure you have to things, the more your chances go up (but, some would argue, the more your quality of life would go down).
Nothing brings those chances down below their base rate, though.
It can be made more survivable, less painful, less affecting, but you can't "stop" it.
Change your lifestyle and you have more effect than researching drugs that few can afford, won't be effective and will have terrible side-effects - the story of all medicine ("Since 1971 the United States has invested over $200 billion on cancer research... Despite this substantial investment, the country has only seen a five percent decrease in the cancer death rate in the last 50 years").
Who here wants to give up alcohol and sex and modern living to live longer?
I would guess few.
Same as everything else on the planet: Live life, enjoy and if you exercise and take care you'll extend your average lifespan.
You could still get cancer tomorrow, though.Cancer is what you're left with if you've survived everything else.
In the brutal, inhumane terms of statistics, it's not very important in terms of sustaining the planet / population or anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467652</id>
	<title>"Entirely Caused By Sun" - Show Me The Evidence!</title>
	<author>idealego</author>
	<datestamp>1259677800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure."<br>This is obviously such a ridiculous statement that I'm surprised it made it into the BBC article.<br>Show me the evidence that almost 100\% of DNA errors in skin cells or skin cancer cells are caused by sun exposure...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure .
" This is obviously such a ridiculous statement that I 'm surprised it made it into the BBC article.Show me the evidence that almost 100 \ % of DNA errors in skin cells or skin cancer cells are caused by sun exposure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The scientists found the DNA code for a skin cancer called melanoma contained more than 30,000 errors almost entirely caused by too much sun exposure.
"This is obviously such a ridiculous statement that I'm surprised it made it into the BBC article.Show me the evidence that almost 100\% of DNA errors in skin cells or skin cancer cells are caused by sun exposure...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467200</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that something as random as sun exposure causing enough of just the right errors to trigger cancer is akin to the midevil theories of spontaneous generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that something as random as sun exposure causing enough of just the right errors to trigger cancer is akin to the midevil theories of spontaneous generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that something as random as sun exposure causing enough of just the right errors to trigger cancer is akin to the midevil theories of spontaneous generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30477002</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, the article makes no sense</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1261080000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I suppose calling them "errors"  begs the question. You can't call something an error unless there is a "correct " value you can point to.</p><p>However,  it's probable that most sets of thirty thousand random mutations generate something other than cancer; probably lots of non-viable genomes. From the cancer genome's point of view what we call thirty thousand "errors" amounts to things going amazingly, fortuitously "right".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I suppose calling them " errors " begs the question .
You ca n't call something an error unless there is a " correct " value you can point to.However , it 's probable that most sets of thirty thousand random mutations generate something other than cancer ; probably lots of non-viable genomes .
From the cancer genome 's point of view what we call thirty thousand " errors " amounts to things going amazingly , fortuitously " right " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I suppose calling them "errors"  begs the question.
You can't call something an error unless there is a "correct " value you can point to.However,  it's probable that most sets of thirty thousand random mutations generate something other than cancer; probably lots of non-viable genomes.
From the cancer genome's point of view what we call thirty thousand "errors" amounts to things going amazingly, fortuitously "right".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30505742</id>
	<title>Re:Population and cancer</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1261339800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a customer many years ago, who was an oncologist.  He said the main reason we see cancer so much these days is because we live long enough to get cancer.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a customer many years ago , who was an oncologist .
He said the main reason we see cancer so much these days is because we live long enough to get cancer.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a customer many years ago, who was an oncologist.
He said the main reason we see cancer so much these days is because we live long enough to get cancer.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467084</id>
	<title>Comparison</title>
	<author>Jkasd</author>
	<datestamp>1259674200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that they should do this with cancer cells from several different patients and compare them to find out which mutations actually trigger the cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that they should do this with cancer cells from several different patients and compare them to find out which mutations actually trigger the cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that they should do this with cancer cells from several different patients and compare them to find out which mutations actually trigger the cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30476020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30477002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30558848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30482408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30505742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30474210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30483656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30475094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30477696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2320247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30483656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30505742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30476020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30477002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467770
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472124
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30482408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30475094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30469974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30473224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30474210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30477696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30466960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30471634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30470168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30558848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30468144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30472804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2320247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2320247.30467652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
