Cancer can wait. This is defiantly way more beneficial. Researchers in Russia have revived a fertile plant from the remains of 32, fruit that was found buried w
x
Click to expand

Cancer can wait

Cancer can wait. This is defiantly way more beneficial. Researchers in Russia have revived a fertile plant from the remains of 32, fruit that was found buried w

This is defiantly way more beneficial

Researchers in Russia have revived a fertile plant
from the remains of 32, fruit that was
found buried within the burrows of ancient
squirrels deep in the Siberian ice.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+408
Views: 25571
Favorited: 20
Submitted: 09/22/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to xusifixer Subscribe to fucking-facts submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - brainstormer (09/22/2013) [-]
oh my god.... this guy actually did it
User avatar #6 to #4 - guiguito (09/23/2013) [-]
danm you beat me to it by 12 hours.
User avatar #2 - carnivoreapples (09/22/2013) [-]
how do you mean "cancer can wait"?
archeologists or biologists can't cure cancer you know
User avatar #15 to #2 - threeeighteen (09/23/2013) [-]
I think he means like humanities collective effort or something.
User avatar #29 to #2 - poowpoow (09/23/2013) [-]
Well not with that attitude!
#42 to #2 - olicoooombs (09/23/2013) [-]
There already is a cure for cancer. The main problem being it's illegal.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tghUh4ubbg
User avatar #48 to #42 - vincetacular (09/23/2013) [-]
Suuuuurreeeee. No mater how much I'd love it it's simply not true. THC is a painkilling agent at best.
#49 to #48 - olicoooombs (09/23/2013) [-]
Did you not watch the video? It's not just THC. It also has CBD. Which has curing properties.
User avatar #50 to #49 - vincetacular (09/23/2013) [-]
Curing effect yes but it is not strong enough to cure cancer (it's tested on mice, chances are it's different for humans but I doubt it)
#53 to #50 - olicoooombs (09/24/2013) [-]
Well it's more effective than chemotherapy.
You need to login to view this link
#45 to #2 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
Yes, because Biologists know nothing of the Human body and how Cancer affects it...
User avatar #51 to #45 - carnivoreapples (09/23/2013) [-]
nope, unless they have a medical degree, which would make them a doctor
#5 to #2 - xusifixer (09/22/2013) [-]
its called humor. dont over think it
#39 to #2 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
"biologists can't cure cancer" ... hmm
User avatar #46 to #2 - Kingsteveooo (09/23/2013) [-]
And neither can you with that attitude!
#3 to #2 - boothead (09/22/2013) [-]
************ , they can try.
#1 - harbydeath (09/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#34 - exhaustedheadcase (09/23/2013) [-]
this is how it starts. some needs to contact sam neill and tell him to get ready
User avatar #44 to #34 - dudeimlikeadude (09/23/2013) [-]
this movie was just on tv
#8 - floggnawstalgia (09/23/2013) [-]
Aww 			****		 science
Aww **** science
User avatar #31 - UndeadWasabi (09/23/2013) [-]
i want that ******* fruit.
User avatar #38 to #31 - skulldan (09/23/2013) [-]
give me 2 million and i will get you that fruit
User avatar #43 to #38 - justtoobasic (09/23/2013) [-]
Give me 2 million and you'll never see my ass again.... After I get you that fruit.
User avatar #37 - waterwerks (09/23/2013) [-]
They found the squirrel from ice age as well.
#33 - therite (09/23/2013) [-]
It's happening...
#32 - dendo ONLINE (09/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #40 - scapegrace (09/23/2013) [-]
This happened in February of last year. I never even heard about it...
User avatar #36 - KayThanxBye (09/23/2013) [-]
I NEED TO KNOW MORE!!!
#7 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
how do they know its that old?
User avatar #10 to #7 - floggnawstalgia (09/23/2013) [-]
They do this thing called carbon dating
User avatar #9 to #7 - agrofenlas (09/23/2013) [-]
Carbon dating?
#11 to #9 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
carbon dating has been shown to unreliable because carbon has not yet met equilibrium...
#21 to #11 - anon (09/23/2013) [-]
what the **** are you talking about?

They measure the age by looking a radioactive particles of carbon, and depending on the amount remaining, they can figure out the age by looking at that isotopes half-life.
#22 to #21 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
yes... i know. but because the soil and air and rock and everything hasn't gotten to the point where it contains the same amount of carbon, called equilibrium, it is an ineffective way of measuring time.
#23 to #22 - MaliciousMike (09/23/2013) [-]
and how does the amount of carbon matter when they are measuring the amount of an isotope left, and can estimate the amount that was there beforehand from the decayed material?
#24 to #23 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
because it means that the amount of isotopes in every living creature is different. once we reach equilibrium, then all of us will have the same amount. if im confusing you im sorry. im obviously not an expert on the subject. but nonetheless, i was shown, very clearly, that since carbon is constantly being created and deteriorated, it wouldn't be acurately measurable until it reaches equilibrium. which it hasn't.
#25 to #24 - MaliciousMike (09/23/2013) [-]
your right, its not accurately measurable, so no its not exactly 360,000,000,000,000 years old, its roughly that old give or take a few thousand years.

And yes they can measure how much was there, as they know what isotopes of carbon usually decay into, and looking at the nearby particles to find those decayed particles, sort of like looking at the wear marks on a concrete pier to determine wave height. This is not a extremely accurate method, but they can get a approximate age, which is better than random guessing at the moment.
#26 to #25 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
boom, i learned something! thank you, i really appriciate it. where can I learn more?

btw... if they can get it within a couple thousand years, why did the bones of a wooly mammoth fossil test one year on its leg, but 100,000 years later on another part of its body? was it because of where, or how it was buried? any guess? i genuinely want to know.
#28 to #26 - MaliciousMike (09/23/2013) [-]
im not an expert on it, so i couldn't tell you, my guess would be that there was a greater amount of the decayed matter on that part of its body was greater, weather or not it was from the isotope decaying or not. Im going to guess they would have taken additional tests on different parts of it as well as repeating the test to be sure the test is outputting accurately.
#30 to #28 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
sooo... that would make it unreliable...
User avatar #47 to #30 - battledude (09/23/2013) [-]
yes, chosing one sample from a pile of dirt from the ground is very inreliable.

thats why the do 100s and look at the median
User avatar #35 to #30 - datgermanguy (09/23/2013) [-]
They actually use many different isotopes from various elements to verify carbon dating.
#27 to #26 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
also, it only said 32,000 how did you get 32 trillion years? just a question?
#52 to #27 - MaliciousMike (09/23/2013) [-]
exaggeration to make a point good sir
User avatar #41 to #25 - psydoc (09/23/2013) [-]
Without taking sides, I think this is the basic idea:

While something is living, it cycles through carbon, thus maintaining about the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as is found in the atmosphere. When it dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, and the amount of carbon-14 decreases based on its half-life. Using the known half-life of carbon-14 we can estimate how long ago something died.

I think he's trying to say the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere 3,200 years ago is an unknown (which I've heard claimed before), thus he's questioning the accuracy. I can't speak to the accuracy one way or another.
User avatar #12 to #11 - agrofenlas (09/23/2013) [-]
Here come the crusades to ruin my day.
If you tell me the earth is only 6000 years old, and flat next, there goes your credit.
#13 to #12 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
im just asking man, jeez
User avatar #14 to #13 - agrofenlas (09/23/2013) [-]
There was no question mark behind your statement, and religious people who try to discredit science rub me the wrong way. Sorry.
#16 to #14 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
no ,i was asking how they know? im not here to rub you the wrong way... im not here to rub you at all. im not discrediting science, science got a lot of stuff right. so does religion, but religion got **** wrong too.
User avatar #17 to #16 - agrofenlas (09/23/2013) [-]
Well, honestly, they probably have some way of doing things in some lab somewhere. I wouldn't know, I'm not a scientist.

or a lizard from outerspace.
#18 to #17 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
lets go with the lizard theory
User avatar #19 to #18 - agrofenlas (09/23/2013) [-]
I'm a lizard!? Not even I know, do you know what this mean... I don't.
#20 to #19 - timcripemagic (09/23/2013) [-]
i am a psychic entertainer, ill try my hand at seeing what the universe holds.
...
hmmm...
this past year has been hard for you... lots of ups and downs... and now you have a lot of decisions to make. about your health... your wealth... and your relationships...
you try to work hard at your passions and dreams but there were some passions from your childhood that never came to fruition...
let me go deeper into my trance...
im seeing that you are a taurus or perhaps a capricorn... taking a distant third would be scorpio.
you have strong opinions and visions... you often try your hand at creative things. and while you get frustrated, you are not the kind of person to give up easily...
hmmm...
im not going deep enough.
i must delve into the very soul of the universe and ask our lord and savior, flying raptor jesus.
...
...
well...
according to him...
millions and millions and millions of years ago, in a past life.... you were a lizard... a massive lizard... a t-rex.
he says he was there when you passed... as the meteor came from the sky... your last words were...
yolo...
yolo? wtf?
 Friends (0)