Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    A New Mode of Cancer Treatment

    (www.science.org)
    322 points atomroflbomber | 14 comments | 03 Aug 23 08:12 UTC | HN request time: 1.241s | source | bottom
    1. shireboy ◴[03 Aug 23 12:08 UTC] No.36984694[source]▶
    Going to have to start following this Derek Lowe guy. He also had a good balanced bit on room temp superconductor. Well done science reporting without the hyperbole.
    replies(5): >>36984741 #>>36984911 #>>36985057 #>>36987338 #>>36989131 #
    2. flobosg ◴[03 Aug 23 12:13 UTC] No.36984741[source]▶
    You’re in for a treat! Check out his “Things I Won't Work With” series.
    replies(1): >>36984880 #
    3. jaggederest ◴[03 Aug 23 12:25 UTC] No.36984880[source]▶
    One of the classics, his take on Chlorine Trifluoride (!!!!)

    https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/sand-won-t-save-yo...

    "It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water --- with which it reacts explosively."

    - John D Clark, Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants

    replies(2): >>36985726 #>>36986843 #
    4. thenipper ◴[03 Aug 23 12:27 UTC] No.36984911[source]▶
    Plus he pitched a no hitter for the Red Sox in 2002. What a well rounded guy.
    replies(1): >>36988108 #
    5. ethbr0 ◴[03 Aug 23 12:39 UTC] No.36985057[source]▶
    > Well done science reporting without the hyperbole.

    He's been doing it for 20 years.

    https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/05/derek-lowe-chemist-blogg...

    He also had an excellent series on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates during the height of the COVID media insanity. It was one of the few places to get a balanced, informed take on different approaches. Specifically, discussing the uncertainty bounds around results.

    Definitely a gifted science communicator. (No small skill, to distill but not pol/dilute!)

    6. wiredfool ◴[03 Aug 23 13:38 UTC] No.36985726{3}[source]▶
    That’s a very interesting book if you have a passing knowledge of chemistry. Findable on the web in pdf form.
    replies(3): >>36985782 #>>36986037 #>>36991645 #
    7. WaffleIronMaker ◴[03 Aug 23 13:41 UTC] No.36985782{4}[source]▶
    That's a good option, though I also enjoyed the audiobook of Ignition! on Audible.
    8. r2_pilot ◴[03 Aug 23 13:59 UTC] No.36986037{4}[source]▶
    Ignition! has also now been reprinted and is well worth the purchase and read.
    replies(1): >>36986772 #
    9. wiredfool ◴[03 Aug 23 14:51 UTC] No.36986772{5}[source]▶
    Cool, when I read it it was pdf or $300 used copies.
    10. vanderZwan ◴[03 Aug 23 14:57 UTC] No.36986843{3}[source]▶
    After which I recommend continuing with: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-wor...
    11. realPtolemy ◴[03 Aug 23 15:36 UTC] No.36987338[source]▶
    In case you’ve missed it. His blogposts at Science.org are available here: https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline

    I’ve had it bookmarked for a couple of years. Worth visiting twice or trice a year, or even more frequently.

    12. FeteCommuniste ◴[03 Aug 23 16:32 UTC] No.36988108[source]▶
    Haha, had to check that one to be sure (two different people).
    13. kgwgk ◴[03 Aug 23 17:41 UTC] No.36989131[source]▶
    I used to read his blog regularly and his name in the submission title is what caught my attention. It has been removed for some reason - not an improvement in my opinion.
    14. rtsil ◴[03 Aug 23 20:49 UTC] No.36991645{4}[source]▶
    I have a rusty, high-school knowledge of chemistry and Ignition made me love it (well, the part of it that is prone to explosion and corrosion). And I confirm, it's available in paper form.