Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[delphonso]

Carcinogens.

[ChairmanPoo]

I find the whole ordeal dubious. You simply wouldnt find anything like that in a hospital lab. I'm honestly struggling to think of anything that could reliably cause cancer in the short amount of time they supposedly spent with the guy.

Of course, given the lack of info (best I can figure this is all rumors) anything goes.

[Starver]

They could be introducing 'normal' biological samples to carcingens in order to understand how to detect/treat such ailments. But the biocontrol that fails in order to make significant direct health issues in the studying students as well would already be deemed unworthy by many other metrics.

Unless the claim is that it's an Ebb Cade/Albert Stevens sort of thing.

(I stand by my 'natural clustering' explanation, either misunderstood or misused in order to persecute the(/a) doctor. I have little evidence for my assumption, but there's notably even less for it being otherwise.)

[ChairmanPoo]

But I cant think of anything that would cause cancer that fast, even less without causing other obvious noticeable symptoms much sooner than cancer.

I'd agree with the chance clustering... assuming any of this is real. To me it stinks of an urban legend developing in real time.

[Maximum Spin]

The phrase "tumor promoter" usually refers to gene sequences that induce tumors, like in genetic engineering, not carcinogens.

[EuchreJack]

If any of this is real, "tumor promoter" could mean "cancer researcher", in which case their ability to diagnose cancer in their students could very well cause three students to "get" a serious cancer diagnosis in the lab...since they were not diagnosed outside of the lab for their pre-existing condition.

I don't see much point in this. I can spout off similar random bizzaro articles from US tabloids (or Fox News).

To any junior reporters, here is some advice on properly writing a news article.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Structure of a News Report
Headline: It tells what the story is about.
Byline: It tells about the writer of the story.
Lead: Covers the most important facts.
Body: Includes a detailed account of the event/occurrence.
Ending: Talks about the solution or something to think about.

The 5 W questions are things that we ask when we want to gather information and gain a broad understanding of a particular topic or situation.
They are Who, What, When, Why and Where. Sometimes people will also ask 'How' something happened or took place, and this is referred to as 5 Ws and 1 H.

Most amateur reporters are prone to emphasize the "Why" far far far too much. In all truth, it is the least important unless the reporter has a direct quote from someone on the "why". Save the idle speculation for the readers. Instead, make sure to emphasize Who are the people, What did they do, When did it happen, Where did it occur. "How" should either be a connection from one set of facts to another set of facts, or perhaps an explanation to the read of the process that a similar set of facts lead to a similar result.

[delphonso]

The phrase "tumor promoter" usually refers to gene sequences that induce tumors, like in genetic engineering, not carcinogens.

Could be, yeah. I took it as a loose translation, but if it's specific... then the entire story is even more far-fetched. Unless the researcher was secretly hitting students with CRISPR.

[EuchreJack]

The phrase "tumor promoter" usually refers to gene sequences that induce tumors, like in genetic engineering, not carcinogens.

Could be, yeah. I took it as a loose translation, but if it's specific... then the entire story is even more far-fetched. Unless the researcher was secretly hitting students with CRISPR.

Sounds like a dating app, like the researcher was secretly hitting on the students with CRISPR.  Guess the school would rather not talk about the STDs...

[zhijinghaofromchina]

It is strange to see the title of this thread changing from republic of China to China then two Chinas and lastly Taiwan and China…

I think Taiwan and China mainland would be a better choice.


I do think that this would make the people from Taiwan and China mainland feel better.

[WealthyRadish]

Looks like it was initially just "Republic of China" (meaning only Taiwan) and then changed once to "Taiwan and China" (meaning both Taiwan and the mainland).

In western countries, it's recognized that Taiwan is functionally an independent country and it's treated as completely separate from the People's Republic of China on the mainland (i.e. using the word "China" alone never refers to both Taiwan and the mainland, in the west the word only refers to the mainland).

The PRC officially does not recognize this (and has been able to diplomatically compel most governments into avoiding official statements implying Taiwan's functional independence) but in reality the PRC has no direct power over the government of Taiwan and the United States maintains this status quo by threatening to attack the PRC if they invaded Taiwan (though even the United States government will not officially claim that Taiwan is a separate country).

Even the Taiwanese government leaves its own status ambiguous, not declaring itself independent but also implicitly accepting its status as a sort of American bargaining chip (now a valuable possession for western countries in its own right as their primary semiconductor producer). This ambiguity is purely a polite fiction, because ultimately western countries are perfectly happy to give a few cheap meaningless words to the PRC diplomats while continuing to make whatever deals they like with Taiwan separately.

[Starver]

A rather broad "it's complicated!" treatment on relevent (non-'mainland') attitudes to this whole issue here... In case anybody is interested.

(For the benefit of our "mainland China" friend, who probably still can't cross The Great Firewall to read themselves (and it's long[1]!), it essentially talks to/about various... let's say "Formosans"[2]... and what they see/hope for the future (independence/reunification, in whatever way), and why the potential for this conversation is itself not what Beijing would like, in the light of the upcoming elections. Young and old, disillusioned and confident, looking inwards/across the straits/out towards the rest of the world. A wide sweep, seemingly.)


[1] Republishing as a copypasta all in a spoiler, with or without illustrating pictures, would be too cheeky I think. Cutting bits out would play 'editor' too much, or be seeable as that. Something shorter might be fair game for a "whole article quote", perhaps, but wouldn't have covered as much nuance.

[2] Just to be more or less equally wrong in terminology. Any newer term is going to be right to some and wrong for others, but I would have to play favourites according to which side I honour with the more acceltable term.

[bloop_bleep]

We could call it "ROC and PRC discussion thread."

[ChairmanPoo]

We could call it Cathay and Formosa thread!

[Starver]

Counterpart report to the above one, talking to people on (and some from) the other side of the straight. Starts with a "love across the divide" tale. Looks at the attitudes of tourists and locals and nominal-immigrants, as well...

(And, even geologically, it's complicated... Eurasian/Yangtzean? Or only even there because of the Philippines and Okinawan pushing and shoving?)

[EuchreJack]

Considering that I created this thread to highlight the saber rattling of China threatening to invade Taiwan, I am unlikely to change the title to anything suggesting that to be legitimate.
I have however backed down from the more provocative title.