0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My proposal prevents ANY of the above
I'll mount an even more thorough research regime .
Even if it's all reflecting , a collection of particles will increase the local Faraday Cage effect .
I assume you're referring to damage .
I really need intermediaries , since I'm not a biologist . I also need experimenters , since I don't have one .
Medicine is my background, and it seems like the question is asking if fire can be used as a surgical tool to extract a presumed localised area of cancerous cells, right?The "hot probe" term as a question is not in any medical journal for any type of medical or surgical process of treatment....
just someone who can see two promising approaches
... hot probes is something the author of this thread needs to address, right? If you read the opening statement of this subject there's a sense of "why bother" with anything hot. Did you not read that?
As I mentioned way back, we already use "hot needles" and indeed cold needles, to destroy small tumors that can be identified and localised.
All in all , possibly another effective arrow in the quiver .
Quote from: opportunity on 06/10/2018 16:49:49... hot probes is something the author of this thread needs to address, right? If you read the opening statement of this subject there's a sense of "why bother" with anything hot. Did you not read that?I did read it, but wondered whether you had read any of the subsequent discussion. In the second post @alancalverd points out, as he reiterates above:Quote from: alancalverd on 06/10/2018 20:40:41As I mentioned way back, we already use "hot needles" and indeed cold needles, to destroy small tumors that can be identified and localised. Whether the point of those probes are hot wire, loops, or RF needles etc, the use of localised heat in cancer treatment is well established in the medical literature. However, the point of the ongoing discussion is the practicality and options for generalised treatment.