Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Surgeons Weld Wounds Shut With Surgical Laser

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the amazing-laser dept.

Medicine 151

Ruach writes "The promise of medical lasers goes beyond clean incisions and eye surgery: Many believe that lasers should be used not just to create wounds but to mend them too. Abraham Katzir, a physicist at Tel Aviv University, has a system that may just do the trick and is proving successful in its first human trials."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is real? (5, Interesting)

Michael_gr (1066324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907125)

Now that is a surprise. That always struck me as funny, the way they just beamed at some wound and it closed.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907147)

It would be interesting if this could be used in the creation of people like Wolverine, only the body doesnt need mingboggling regeneration capabilities, they just weld the wounds shut. Sign me up!

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (1)

1stvamp (662375) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907491)

People like Wolverine..........as long as they can take time out after every injury to run a "fricken' laser" beam over their wounds.

What if... (4, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907543)

...they had lasers on the INSIDE beaming out when ever their flesh is pierced? You know, like having lasers in the blood.
How come Marvel didn't yet come up with such an awesome character?
Would such a combination make the character some kind of a weird Wolverine-Cyclops hybrid?
What would Jean Grey think about that?

Re:What if... (1)

1stvamp (662375) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907929)

She'd probably try to guiltily screw it before dying for the 64^10th time...for a while.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (2, Funny)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907499)

What kind of rod does one use for that weld?

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (5, Informative)

trburkholder (307597) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907767)

From TFA:

"All a surgeon has to do is move the pen's tip along the cut, strengthening and sealing the weld with a solder of water-soluble protein."

It looks a lot like very controlled cooking and I suspect the protein used to connect the tissue denatures in the process. It's not welding, it's hot-melt glue.

Still very cool.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (2, Interesting)

Robocoastie (777066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909089)

hmm isn't that a modern way of the old heat a knife over a fire then burn the wound closed with the side of it like on movies?

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (2, Interesting)

SpiderClan (1195655) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909277)

I would imagine it's much less painful and leaves less of a scar.

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (2, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909579)

hmm isn't that a modern way of the old heat a knife over a fire then burn the wound closed with the side of it like on movies?

I think the modern version of that would be using superglue. Both effective but fairly brutal & 'last resort'.

Misuse of closing-wounds-with-beams thing (2, Interesting)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908079)

"Imagine that sort of device in the hands of your unscrupulous friends. They would sneak up behind you and seal your ass shut as a practical joke. The devices would be sold in novelty stores instead of medical outlets."

- Why real life will never be like star trek, The Dilbert Future, by Scott Adams

Re:So Trek's closing-wounds-with-beams thing is re (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25908141)

I think I fist saw this in Logan's Run...

Laser? (0, Redundant)

slider2800 (1058930) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907131)

Was there a shark attached to it?

Re:Laser? (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908017)

yep, that's a cliche. but a shark-decal on both sides would be an awesome in-joke for those geeky doctors!

The real news (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907135)

As usual, the summary misses the interesting bit. Using lasers to seal wounds is old news - I first read about it in the Readers Digest about a decade ago. What's new here is a mechanism to prevent overheating.

Re:The real news (2)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907231)

This shit needs to make it to battlefield medics sooner than later.

Re:The real news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907313)

Do you want to see babykillers live and keep doing the white man's dirty work?

Re:The real news (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907325)

Do you want to eat a bag of dicks?


/I know, I know...don't feed the troll...but just...damn.

Re:The real news (1)

TheRealZero (907390) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908391)

+1 "Yeah eat a bag of baby dicks!" - Macktastic

Re:The real news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907315)

I'm probably just old fashioned, but I believe eliminating battlefields is a better solution. End war, means end need for cool medial lasers on the battlefield sooner rather than later.

A man can dream, can't he?

Re:The real news (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907417)

Hmm... conflict is an essential part of evolution. Ending wars is a nice dream... But in reality, it's just nice for the oppressor. Because no wars always means, that something/someone is extremely predominant. Those who think otherwise will normally fight for their way. If they can't, it's because of a horribly strong oppression.

The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.
So in reality, you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.

What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us (if you want an example, think of a group, where it is generally accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him), as long as they do not hurt anyone (eating someone of that group, who thinks that way too, is not hurting someone), we have no right so tell them what to do.

One great example could be the USA. There you have the more liberal areas and people. And the (from my pov!) religious fanatics.
They could both live happy, if they just had their own countries. And why the hell not? They could still work together in areas that they both agree on or need each other for.

That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.
Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.

Oh, and if we must have a world government, then at least I want to be the leader. ;)

Re:The real news (2, Interesting)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907789)

yerch, and here come the isolationist libertarians, trotting out their ideology as if they've realised some perfect universal order that no one else gets.

First, the word "evolution" is a very bad one to use as a justification, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something more akin to "progress".

The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.

And just under it

What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us ... we have no right so tell them what to do.

So "all opinions are relative and there is no universal truth" and that statement is a universal truth that must be acknowledged and accepted.

Cultural relativity can only extend so far, and a group where it is "accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him" is far beyond that if for no other reason than the passive acceptance of such practices is as much a choice and changes your own group in the same way as choosing to combat those practices would.

Diverse groups may be more prone to argue within themselves, but they are less subject to the extreme conflict that arises between polar opposites in the form of states.

Give me the snarky '08 election over the neverending conflict faced by Israel, the american civil war over the second world war, the war for independence over the crusades.

Re:The real news (3, Interesting)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907839)

> Hmm... conflict is an essential part of evolution.

Maybe, but war isn't. Many bacteria and plants and herbivores happily live their lives without ever being at risk of being killed by their own kind. A 'war' against others of your kind is something very few species do (I guess ants can be considered an exception).
Let's not use 'evolution' as an excuse for war. Even if war was part of evolution, the whole thing that defines us humans is that we can mostly ignore what would happen in nature.

> The illusion, that we can do without conflicts (which sometimes end in wars), comes from the illusion that there is one global truth, when in reality, everything is relative.

If we have two countries whose citizens have exactly the same culture and beliefs about the world, when country A wants something from country B and country B won't give that thing to A, there is a conflict. So even with a 'global truth' people will have conflicting interests.
Personally I believe there is such a thing as a universal truth, and science is creating increasingly acurate theories about this truth. The problem is that many people (myself included) have misconceptions about this truth, and incomplete knowledge, and, most importantly, consider their culture to be part of this truth.

> What we must realize, is that, no matter how disgusting and strange the views of others look to us (if you want an example, think of a group, where it is generally accepted to rape everybody you see, and then eat him), as long as they do not hurt anyone (eating someone of that group, who thinks that way too, is not hurting someone), we have no right so tell them what to do.

Fair enough, but in this particular example it might be best to inform these people about 'our' culture so they can make a choice. And what about a culture that abuses a particular group (let's say, women) and believes that anyone who tries to leave their culture must be tortured and killed? Or a culture wherein it is not allowed to learn about other cultures?

> That's why I oppose something like big countries and world governments: Because, if you disagree, there is no place you could go to anymore.

I don't see the problem with big countries, if many, many people have the same culture, they should be able to live in one (big) country. I agree a world government would suck, though. Even when it had very little power over its people, governments tend to slowly take more and more power without giving it back.

> Before I realized this, I thought, a world government where everything is peaceful, would be an ideal. In theory: Yes. In reality, there is no such thing, as long as there is evolution.

Stop the evolution thing, please. Evolution is never a cause of things, it is the result.

> Oh, and if we must have a world government, then at least I want to be the leader. ;)

My vote goes to cowboyneal!

Re:The real news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907873)

...you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.

You don't have enough imagination.

If the planet can be nuked into oblivion, it's not unthinkable that everybody else can be killed. It's irrational to do so. I believe history shows there's no shortage of irrational people that might try.

A planet with one person left on it, has one point of view.

Re:The real news (1, Offtopic)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907933)

we have no right so tell them what to do

The hell we do. Philosophers have been arguing the point for ages, but at the end of the day I do believe there are such things as absolute morals. I do not believe such morals should arise from such arbitrary things as the haphazard religious writings that float around this planet, but rather should be based on common sense and deliberate thought.

A society which thinks it's perfectly OK to rape anyone in sight and then eats them blatantly violates everything that was ever said about human rights pretty much anywhere in this world. There is probably not a government on the planet right now that would get behind that notion, even though opinions on homosexuality, the death penalty, adultery, and women's rights are still highly debated amongst nations.

Hence, I cannot disagree more with you. Such a society *should* be changed. This by no means I condone what the United States are doing in Iraq at this moment, because I suspect that the US' brand of "help" has cost well over half a million Iraqi's their lives for a conflict in which the US helped put the ousted regime in charge in the first place.

conflict is an essential part of evolution

If you study natural selection long enough, you would realize that Survival and Reproduction are essential to evolution. Obviously, if you win all conflicts by means of violence, you will evolve to the point where your race will be violent, physically strong and psychologically aggressive.

In today's society, however, mere physical survival has become commonplace and evolution of humans will likely have more to do with our minds than with our raw capacity for killing the other bloke. Hence I would argue that the prerequisites for further human evolution have evolved beyond conflict or rather the violent resolution thereof.

Those who think otherwise will normally fight for their way

In a parliamentary democracy which is governed by consensus such as The Netherlands and to a large extent the European Union, we tend to guarantee each individual's rights to his thoughts and his free speech. Within the boundaries of a body of law that does exclude killing and raping anyone in sight, of course.

If there are particular items on which you disagree, you are free to do so. You are furthermore free to start a political party (yes, you *can* have more than two of those), and you are free to try and get a seat in parliament, your municipality or your city council or even the government to see if you can swing popular opinion to the degree where your view becomes policy.

I feel that many of the laws we have in The Netherlands are perfectly reasonable, and I feel that as a citizen I ultimately have the power to debate/change the ones that don't. Whether I choose to do so or not is a question of commitment versus the degree to which the less reasonable laws affect me. You could say it's a matter of Return on Investment.

If other parties that live in The Netherlands would start fighting over those bits, I would argue they are being either very primitive about things or they have fringe views which they know will never see the light of day in legislation anyway. Instead of doing the decent thing and simply moving to a society that adheres to their views, these uncivilized individuals would then resort to violence to get their way at the expense of the will of the majority of citizens.

In other words: You're full of shit. It is completely beyond me, from a scientific, logical, political and moral perspective, how your post could have been modded +4 insightful.

Re:The real news (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908047)

ah, i'm just gonna be a simple-minded fool about this. you said evolution is all about survival and reproduction. that's true (although survival isn't always a necessity, think of the widow spider). then, you proceed to claim that we no longer need to worry about survival. arguable, but true so far. what interests me here is that the only goal left is reproduction..

if we were to "reproduce" with the same enthousiasm that we kill others with... does that mean we should solve our problems the bonobo way?

and does anyone care to debate this little point with me? i'd like to hear another view on this :P

Re:The real news (1)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908119)

Obviously, your statement was nuanced differently than mine. When I said survival and reproduction are essential, to me that means the ability to survive long enough to reproduce one's gene-set as well as facilitating the survival of your offspring so they can pass on that set of genes.

Secondly, when I said physical survival is commonplace, I meant that mere physical strength or a capacity towards violence will not necessarily make you more or less successful at reproducing in today's society, which changes the ballgame quite a bit.

And lastly, I don't see why you say "if we were to" in that sentence. We already reproduce with the same enthusiasm that we kill others with. If we are to stand a chance of surviving as a species, we either need to branch out into space or we need to find a way to curb our reproduction. It's either that or drastically increasing the killing bit.

Having said that, we are now self-aware and we are aware of quite a few of the principles that drive evolution, so you could argue that we are starting to get into the position where we can engineer our evolution, for better or worse.

Re:The real news (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908207)

well, i was joking just now. but you provided some very good points. still, you avoided the main point of my last post, whether we could learn anything from bonobo society. i guess not though, since we'd have to find another way to vent any aggression.

hey, that reminds me... what do you think, would it be possible to completely weed out aggression from a society or is it too deeply ingrained in our being?

Re:The real news (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908355)

> hey, that reminds me... what do you think, would it be possible to completely weed out aggression from a society or is it too deeply ingrained in our being?

Should we want to weed out aggression from a society? I don't think so. I think in some situations, aggression is the right course of action (or simply the fun thing to do, I for one enjoy a little senseless murder and mayhem now and then when playing videogames. Sometimes so-called 'friendly' NPCs really need to get shotgunned in the face). A better goal would be to eliminate aggression in situations where it is uncalled-for.

Re:The real news (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909921)

Of course, when Ayaan Hirsi Ali became too dangerous to have around the Netherlands kicked her out. Yes, I know there are some extenuating circumstances regarding this action, but having followed the story, I believe that she would have been allowed to stay and hold her seat in Parliament if the people of the Netherlands had not been afraid of Muslim violence.

Re:The real news (1)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908027)

So in reality, you will never have a whole planet with one point of view, or even with 100% compatible views.

Any human planet, anyway.

Re:The real news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25908407)

You're a fucking dumbass. Damn right we have a right to tell people to stop it - or kill them if they disagree - if they find rape and cannibalism normal.

There IS an universal truth, coming from that evolution you mistakenly say supports your view.

Destroying members of your own species is bad, and any viewpoints leading to this are bad.

"Kill the nonbelievers" is an amusing way to put it. We should kill all those who don't believe that killing the nonbelievers regarding anything else is a bad thing.

Re:The real news (2, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909841)

The important thing is that we can actually figure out how to deploy this laser technology on the battlefield without the cooperation of those who desire to use violence to satisfy their desires. How do you propose getting those who desire violence to cooperate in ending wars?

Re:The real news (1)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907329)

The shit in question was probably developed with the battlefield in mind in the first place. Just like Superglue, which was developed so seal off wounds of injured soldiers.

Re:The real news (4, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907505)

Cuz that's what medics want to carry. A large battery pack with a small laser, while humping a guy back to the aid station. Or maybe a gas generator.

Hell, it could be dual use. As a weapon, it can blind enemy combatants or slice open their skin, but when the enemy gets closer, you bend over a wounded comrade and claim to be a medic, and that it's your laser scalpel/magical healing device.

Re:The real news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907643)

while humping a guy back to the aid station

You wouldn't get that in the British Army!

(hump meaning sex)

Re:The real news (4, Interesting)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907759)

You are right on that. My sister was doing laser cellular reconstructive surgery ( Transoral Laser Microsurgery ) 12 years ago with a Neodymium Yttrium Arsenic Garnet ( Nd YAG ) 100 watt continuous laser. Here is a link to that laser created in 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nd-YAG_laser [wikipedia.org] . I would have RTFA, but it was slashdotted already. I still think if a shark did it, that would be news.

Sharks! (1)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907155)

This would be great if your leg had been bitten by a shark!

Re:Sharks! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907247)

Cauterizing lasers, for the conscientious shark.

So Jedi should really be called Jedi Doctors (-1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907161)

because lightsabres cauterize the limbs they chop off.

Re:So Jedi should really be called Jedi Doctors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907373)

/. NEEDS a "-1 Stupid" Moderation function.

Optimal Temperature (4, Funny)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907163)

First, they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius).

I don't envy the test subjects.

Re:Optimal Temperature (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907213)

Oh, don't worry they didn't start by decreasing by one degree on someone counting down from 500 Celsius. They started at 425. It cooks french fries quite well. The article doesn't mention the use of anesthetic or painkillers.

So yeah, being a test subject would suck! But, you probably get $20 for your time. And a 'consult' with a doctor.

Re:Optimal Temperature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907429)

Don't worry, those pigs will still provide tasty ham.

Re:Optimal Temperature (2, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907579)

In Israel?

Re:Optimal Temperature (1)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908023)

I'll have you know that I've bought and eaten some of the most splendid ham, pork chops and ribs I have tasted to date in Israel. The Wadi in Haifa has a lot of Christian Arabs that sell outrageously good meat, including pork. Alright, I do have a spot of trouble sourcing real raw bacon, because the climate here causes butchers to only sell the stuff smoked or cured, but that's besides the point.

Furthermore the national supermarket chain "Tiv Tam" (for Russians by Russians) has pork, albeit of inferior quality and freshness to the Wadi. The benefit of that supermarket is though that they also sell Dutch cheeses, excellent pickled herring, belgian waffles, stroopwafels and in some branches even my brand of garlic sauce and liquorice.

For while the true Laser will bring you life... (1)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907175)

... the false Laser will take it from you.

Incisions aren't similar; nonsense comparison made (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907177)

TFA "compares" two wounds (http://www.technologyreview.com/files/22023/laser_x220.jpg) and then states that "After 30 days, the laser-bonded scars ... appeared smaller than those done with a needle and thread" - and yet it is pretty obvious that this is because the laser-bonded scars were smaller incisions to start off with. In terms of prominence of the remaining scar, it looks like there's not a lot in it, but that perhaps the laser-bonded scar has either a darker area or a scab still remaining in the middle. Perhaps next time, they should compare results with incisions of identical length?

Re:Incisions aren't similar; nonsense comparison m (4, Informative)

myxiplx (906307) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907289)

No, TFA shows two sample pictures, and TFA didn't do any comparison at all, especially not any based on these particular pictures. The *doctors* compared wounds on ten patients and decided that the laser-bonded scars were healing better, which is what the article reports.

The point of the pictures isn't so *you* can second guess the doctors (who believe it or not know an awful lot more about this than you do). They are there to give a quick visual impression of what's going on, to complement the real detail contained in the text of the article.

If you really want to double check the results, go find the original research paper. However I think you'll find it's rather longer and not quite so interesting to read.

Another Technological Advance From Israel (-1, Flamebait)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907183)

And yet so many love to hate Jews and the Jewish State nevertheless. Go figure. . .

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1)

Surreal Puppet (1408635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907229)

You can hate and love something at the same time, for different reasons.

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907241)

Israel gets an obscene amount of investment from the US. You pour vast sums of money into research labs, you get a lot of inventions and ideas.

It has nothing to do with religion

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (2, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907541)

That's actually a common misconception.

US foreign aid to Israel is limited to commodities purchased back from US companies: Israel cannot spend that money in any other way.

The money goes back to US companies like Boeing or Lockheed martin when Israel purchases fighter jets.

You can rest assured, that university research projects in Israel don't see a dime from US tax payer money. (Unless it's some US D.O.D joint effort)

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907589)

Nope they just have a lot of money that they would've otherwise spent on those things to spend on research instead

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (2, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907627)

The foreign aid to Israel is given out since the US recognizes the strategic importance of Israel in the middle east - it is vital to promote US interests in the area.

And yes, the game is played both ways. Both US and Israel gain from the foreign aid - i just don't want people to think that the US is spending money in Israel without gaining anything from it. The US is not a philanthropic organization and Joe six pack is definitely not funding the Jews because they tricked him into it.

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1)

dcam (615646) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907811)

Honest question, what does the US gain from the money it gives to Israel? Is that gain cancelled out by the negative views of the US throughout region as a result?

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1, Offtopic)

erikina (1112587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907925)

The US gets to stop an country getting annihilated, that shares similar values and willing to get its hands dirty (at the expense of political backlash). And no, the gains are not canceled out as the people that hate Israel are not the sort of people that ever would not hate the United States.

I've got a great story after talking with a girl who fled Iran after her family was persecuted for not being Islamic (belonged to some weird minor regional religion). Though it's an anecdote, I've come to believe the Muslims hate people for not belonging to their religion. And even if it was only 5% (Although, I'm inclined to believe it's much much higher) it's completely incompatible with our society. Imagine if 5% of Christians started stoning atheists..

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (2, Insightful)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908095)

First of all, plenty of Christians have killed and will kill a non-believer. It's documented well, and countless times.

Funnily enough 10% of Jews in Israel *will* also stone your ass if you drive through a particular street on a Shabat, if you happen be Palestinian and live near certain settlers and if you dare to drive/eat/smoke in their vicinity on a Yom Kippur.

Believe me. I live here. The latter example actually took place in Akko recently. An Arab drove through Akko (which is an Arabic city), ended up on a Jewish street, got stones thrown at his car and subsequently *he* was arrested for it.

Then there are the boys who immigrate from Russia who get bullied into circumcising themselves at the age of 20 by their peers in the Army. That one's about brainwashing *and* self-mutilation as a consequence of it, and that's still done by the more secular Jews, that's not even the work of your 10% of orthodox fringe idiots.

Now my boy would be considered Jewish because his mother is an Israeli Jewess, so don't come to me and cry anti-semitism for what I've just pointed out either, please.

Having said that, I think the Christians should be very, very quiet about the Muslims killing those who are not Muslim because we all know what religion brought on the Spanish Inquisition, which hunts, the 100 year war, the Crusades and many other calamities that were aimed towards non-believers.

In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.

So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims. Christians and Jews are just part of the same mob, however.

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1)

erikina (1112587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908263)

First of all, you have based your entire reply around attacking my religion. Which is funny, as I'm an outspoken atheist (check my post history, or take my word for it). The example I gave was only because if I said the same things I do today in many parts of the world I'd be killed for it.

First of all, plenty of Christians have killed and will kill a non-believer. It's documented well, and countless times.

Sure it's happened lots historically, but all present day cases are really just psychopaths.

Funnily enough 10% of Jews in Israel *will* also stone your ass if you drive through a particular street on a Shabat, if you happen be Palestinian and live near certain settlers and if you dare to drive/eat/smoke in their vicinity on a Yom Kippur.

It cuts both ways. There are many mountain regions in Israel that you can't go without also risking being stoned.

Believe me. I live here. The latter example actually took place in Akko recently. An Arab drove through Akko (which is an Arabic city), ended up on a Jewish street, got stones thrown at his car and subsequently *he* was arrested for it.

And hopefully that is more the exception than the rule. But keep in mind the solution isn't to be peaceful when faced with a violence. I think it would be relevant to cite the holocaust..

Then there are the boys who immigrate from Russia who get bullied into circumcising themselves at the age of 20 by their peers in the Army. That one's about brainwashing *and* self-mutilation as a consequence of it, and that's still done by the more secular Jews, that's not even the work of your 10% of orthodox fringe idiots.

It happens in the US military too, so you can hardly call it religiously motivated (more conformity).

Now my boy would be considered Jewish because his mother is an Israeli Jewess, so don't come to me and cry anti-semitism for what I've just pointed out either, please.

Why would I? You've said nothing remotely anti-Semitic.

Having said that, I think the Christians should be very, very quiet about the Muslims killing those who are not Muslim because we all know what religion brought on the Spanish Inquisition, which hunts, the 100 year war, the Crusades and many other calamities that were aimed towards non-believers.

The Christians certainly can't be critical of Muslim history (they were imo much worse) but at least they've progressed. :P

In 1987 George Bush Sr said an atheist can never be considered a citizen and an atheist can never be considered a patriot. Because this is one nation under God. And he got elected president. Twice. And then his son. Twice.

I chucked at this. Your counter example to a religion that sanctions the killings of "infidels" is a *comment* pandering to the hard religious.

But even so, I'm surprised someone could believe that (along with things like 'there are no atheists in the fox holes'). And I honestly don't like the religious any more than you, nor would I ever vote for a party that supports state religion in any respect (Unless it was atheism, I'd be all up for that :P). But even so, I can admit they're really not being actively aggressive to my choice (or lack of) religion.

So please climb off that horse and shut up about the Muslims. Humanists and an atheists can say something about Muslims. Christians and Jews are just part of the same mob, however.

So I can climb back on? :P And yes, I agree that Christians and Jews can be lumped in the same boat.

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25908393)

Calling in Moderation Ordinance Off-Topic! Or MOOT for short.

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25909931)

George Bush Sr was president for one term. Also, the past does not justify the present. If people are being killed simply because they don't share a faith they are still BEING KILLED. It doesn't matter that roles may have been reversed 50, 100, or a thousand years ago, that is done and gone. Everyone should complain and complain loudly regardless of their faith. So please climb off that horse and realize that this is about people and we all have equal rights to complain Christian, Atheist, Musilm and Jew.

Re:Another Technological Advance From Israel (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907343)

Yeah, next they'll be knocking the Nazi's even though they made massive advances in rocket technology. Why can't everyone realise that as long as you make scientific breakthroughs people should love you regardless of anything else.

Disclaimer: I have no issue with Judaism and its followers, I just want to show the logical flaw in AA's post.

Doesn't this invalidate (3, Funny)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907211)

sharks with friggin lasers on their heads?

I mean the poor thing is going to keep biting and not understand why the pray wont die.

Re:Doesn't this invalidate (1)

powerspike (729889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907261)

not at all, now they can rip your leg open, close it up, and have another go...
so sharks will be able to play with their food now :p
it's just like having a play toy that keeps giving..
I'm never going to the beach again...

Re:Doesn't this invalidate (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907653)

I'm sure that the prey prays that it won't die.

The whole point. (3, Interesting)

Surreal Puppet (1408635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907251)

The whole point of this new method is that you can cauterize a wound without charring the flesh, instead just melting it. The optimal temperature for this is, apparently, 60-70 deg. C., and this is maintained using feedback from an infrared sensor on the "soldering pen". They apparently also use a water soluble protein as "solder". The scars on in the TFA pictures look real nice. Wonder if the wound will hurt more or less than a conventionally sealed wound?

Scarring (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907253)

Wouldn't this leave some rather ugly scars?

A clean cut can heal in a way that has minimal impact. When you melt flesh you're doing lasting, siginificant changes that doesn't really heal. You'll change a thin white line that fades with a tan to a large pink splotch on the skin that won't really ever go away.

Re:Scarring (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907291)

Heh, I think you're underestimating how *tiny* lazor beams can get. With this, there should be *zero* evidence of scarring, once the skin grows over.

Re:Scarring (1)

ijakings (982830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907391)

It says right there in TFA that the doctors believed that the scar looks and is healing better than the conventionally sealed wounds.

Infact theres a discussion about this not very far up the page from this comment.

Re:Scarring (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907475)

The photo evidence they show isn't convincing on that front. The wound on the top is still healing and tender but the wound on the bottom is mostly healed but with that ugly crater.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading through every single comment...

Re:Scarring (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908041)

Ted Stevens voice: NO.

sealing up your drunk buddy's butthole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907361)

Someone predicted that as soon as something like this gets invented that a bunch of med students would get drunk and seal up the butthole of someone who passed out.

Shark surgeons? (1)

inflame (1339495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907427)

So will we have to be underwater for the surgery?

The end of natural (5, Funny)

tzot (834456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907435)

Breasts, I mean. This is going to be heavily used to close incisions of breast augmentation surgery. We shall lose a weapon in our arsenal of 'true-fake' wars.
We are doomed.

Re:The end of natural (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907607)

Now, now. However tiny scars may get, fakes are still fairly easy to spot. The bigger they are, the easier it is to spot them.
Talk about Captian Obvious.

Re:The end of natural (1)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907913)

Knowing if breasts are natural or not is not a big problem anymore. Nowadays, with all this advanced technology in surgery, it is becoming difficult to know if the WHOLE woman is fake or not.

Re:The end of natural (1)

Chrisje (471362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908035)

Come on now! You can easily feel whether they are man-made or not, and if that fails you can still ascertain it by looking at the degree to which they wiggle (or not) during a shag.

Besides... who cares, really? If it pleases you it pleases you.

Re:The end of natural (1)

Yaotzin (827566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908339)

Who cares? Bigger breasts == Win!

Re:The end of natural (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909595)

Breasts, I mean. This is going to be heavily used to close incisions of breast augmentation surgery. We shall lose a weapon in our arsenal of 'true-fake' wars.

It's already been lost. I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel. And it didn't cost all that much more than the kind where they slice the boob instead. Its probably only good for 10 years though and she will have to get cut on the boob in order to have them removed/replaced.

Very, very brave people (1)

biscuitlover (1306893) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907525)

TFA states that several people underwent clinical trials... for a FLESH-WELDING LASER.

Anyone who hears those words and still goes in for experimental surgery is probably the bravest person on the planet. I salute you!

How the button panel of the device will look like (1)

Dirk Becher (1061828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907583)

[Stun] [Cure] [Kill] [Charge]
[Laserpointer] [Flashlight] [Blue Light] [Disco] - Never mix up with blue light - it might be embarassing!
[Self Destruct][Help][Big Surprise][Not-So-Big Surprise]
[Undo] ;)

Waaaait just a minute. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25907887)

I'm confused here, hasn't stuff like this been done for a long time now? (pre 2000 at least?)

I know they have been using them to cut pre 2000 for sure, but i'm sure i remember seeing flesh welding lasers. (and to burn away tattoos as well)

Anyone else? Or did i seriously just wake up in the wrong universe today.
It doesn't seem right to me, the sky is blue, i was pretty sure this was Winter, not the middle of Hazlug.

Re:Waaaait just a minute. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908681)

The new thing with this seems to be the automatic temperature control. It maintains the optimal temperature (~65C) for making a smooth weld and thus minimizes charing/scaring/etc.

65 Celcius melting point of skin? (3, Interesting)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25907897)

they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius)

Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath, and doesn't a sauna reach up to 110C ? Second, since when does a skin melt?

Who can give some more indepth information about this?

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908055)

O.k., since a sauna reaches up to 110C, you should be able to stick your hand in a pot of boiling water with no ill effects.

The mechanism of the heat transfer is just as important as the temperature.

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25908085)

If you take 110 Celsius saunas I salute your gonads. However sterilized they might be.

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25908549)

Saunas can easily go above 120 Celsius. ... though, I really prefer 80 Celsius.

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (2, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908117)

Have you ever burnt yourself on the stove or something? Then you'd know that skin melts.

65C is way, way, waaaaay above the temperature you'd want in a warm bath and while the air temperature is 110C in a sauna your skin never reaches that temperature, if you stayed in the sauna long enough your skin would melt though(I think you'd die first)

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908159)

they had to determine the optimal temperature at which flesh melts but can still heal (about 65 degrees Celsius)

Firstly, 65C, isn't that the just above the heat of a warm bath, and doesn't a sauna reach up to 110C ? Second, since when does a skin melt?

Who can give some more indepth information about this?

PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez [nih.gov]

Nothing I can find that answers directly to the details in TFA, it is after all original research, but I find a few that are probably among the present research's predecessors, which relate the fact that various collogens are unstable and unfold or 'melt' at temperatures less than 65C, including human lung tissue that's unstable at body temperature. I used "skin melting temperature" -- other search terms may prove more fruitful.

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (4, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908363)

Second, since when does a skin melt?

      Skin isn't just the rigid layer of dead cells covered in keratin that you're used to seeing. Lots of interesting things happen under the basement membrane [wikipedia.org] in the "extra-cellular matrix". Cells aren't just glued to each other but rather they produce and surround themselves with different proteins - some for rigidity and others to allow flexibility and elasticity.

      This matrix becomes more fluid at higher temperatures as the proteins unwind and change shape with the heat. The theory is that if you have two pieces of matrix close enough to each other and increase the temperature, some of the proteins from either side of the wound will entangle with the opposite side, and remain entangled when the temperature is lowered again, kind of like velcro on a molecular level. The trick is to provide just enough temperature to get the proteins to entangle with each other, without putting so much temperature that they end up destroyed.

      Anyway surgeons have known about cauterization for a long time. It helps fix all those little mistakes (oops who put that artery there...). There's nothing more fun than watching a bleeder turn into a brown and black bubbling mess of protein goo - but goo that no longer bleeds.

      It would be interesting to know how this "new" technique holds up under different conditions - sepsis, metabolic disorders like diabetes, etc. And of course how much trouble is the patient in if ever there's a dehiscence [wikipedia.org] ? At least with sutures, the other sutures are there to keep the wound reasonably closed...

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909805)

There's nothing more fun than watching a bleeder turn into a brown and black bubbling mess of protein goo - but goo that no longer bleeds.

You must be one of those surgeons. The ones that, as a surgical case is winding up, they spend inordinate amounts of time frying each and every tiny little "bleeder" that they find. Never mind that, if left alone, the whole mess of them won't account for a few band-aids full of blood. Never mind that the anesthesiologist has just about got the patient extubated. You're just standing there with your little zapper having fun.

I'm pretty sure I've operated with you before....

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25909943)

I'm pretty sure I've operated with you before....

Ah, a voice from the "other" side of the "blood-brain barrier"!

Remember that one way or the other, ALL patients eventually stop bleeding...

You anesthesiologists always want to rush things. No wonder it's always your fault.

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908697)

Are you quite sure you're not getting Celsius and Fahrenheit mixed up?

Re:65 Celcius melting point of skin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25909913)

Seeing that 65 Fahrenheit is a cold bath and 110 Fahrenheit sauna is a very cold sauna, I doubt it.

And yes, 110C is "normal" for a sauna. A bit high, but still within normal range.

A perfect defense. how will they know? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25908039)

Your Honour and Jury members,
I wasn't trying to cut the man in half with my laser, but only to sew him back together. I submit this slashdot article as evidence exhibit A.

The Perfect Crime (1)

hosecoat (877680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908045)

Your Honour and Jury members, I wasn't trying to cut the man in half with my laser, but only to sew him back together. I submit this slashdot article as evidence exhibit A.

Great way (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25908271)

To instantly send the cost of that $7500 surgery to $15,000. After all, SOMEONE has to finance, maintain and insure that $300,000 laser machine because a $2 package of 3-0 nylon monofilament just won't do nowadays. Hey do we still have the machine that goes "bing" [youtube.com] ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?