> Is it possible as of today or conceivably possible in the near future
> to bank your own bone marrow?

>Yes, but it is fairly expensive.  What is not usually realize is there is
>considerable pain in removing bone marrow, a cost associated with the
>procedure and the storage preparation and temperatures over time run into
>big bucks.

> If someone were to do this and eventually had a need to transplant his
> own bone marrow back in, wouldn't there be a risk that he would just
> get the disease again, since his marrow may have been prone to getting
> that disease in the first place?

> Russ

> >Yes, but it is fairly expensive.  What is not usually realize is there is
> >considerable pain in removing bone marrow, a cost associated with the
> >procedure and the storage preparation and temperatures over time run into
> >big bucks.

> If someone were to do this and eventually had a need to transplant his
> own bone marrow back in, wouldn't there be a risk that he would just
> get the disease again, since his marrow may have been prone to getting
> that disease in the first place?

> Russ

> >Yes, but it is fairly expensive.  What is not usually realize is there is
> >considerable pain in removing bone marrow, a cost associated with the
> >procedure and the storage preparation and temperatures over time run into
> >big bucks.

> Let us assume for the moment that the possible disease risk factor is
> a non issue (healthy soul), also that the cost for accommodating this
> procedure is equally a non issue (the extraction pain being a given),
> where I'm thinking along the lines of a serious backup plan for
> extended space travel, where the primary craft would be shielded
> effectively against those solar maximum events, however, it's the
> majority of other extended time spent traveling while being thoroughly
> (TBI) radiated by the solar minimum, that which is creating by far the
> greater accumulative risk factor, whereas by some fairly recent and
> quite official NASA records is indicating as much as 2.5 times a solar
> maximum event being created by just the solar minimum as secondary
> radiation, all of this while situated within the sort of shield that
> would be necessary for fending off those occasional solar maximum
> events.

> Say 2+years worth, much of which the spacecraft is receiving a rather
> serious sunburn and, of the occupants getting the benefit of all of
> that secondary TBI, possibly to death unless there's a happy ending
> that'll make things all better. For this to go well, or as well as can
> be expected, there may even be a need of in-route injections, where
> small amounts of your own bone marrow could be safely kept with the
> benefit of greatly improved shielding (possibly including a small
> electro-magnetic containment shield), as otherwise you'll need to
> holdout on medications until returning home.

> The overall mission dosage (2+ year accumulative) being 200 rem (2 Sv)
> places the half way point at 100 rem (1 Sv), thus there's not all that
> much room if any for error. Since this is a slow build and assuming
> there's being medication continually taken along the way, chances are
> that such an extended 200 mrem TBI might not be nearly as potent as
> receiving a short term 100 mrem dosage, thus survival without a bone
> marrow backup plan is probably at best 95% to the good.

> If there were 20 folks onboard, knowingly allowing one of them to die
> off before reaching home and/or obtaining their banked bone barrow is
> not a satisfactory outcome.

> Some of your input on such an extended TBI dosage timeline may need to
> be taken into further consideration, as well as the prospect of
> creating a sufficiently extra-shielded containment for the onboard
> bone marrow. Of course, I can think of any number of entirely Earthly
> benefits for this procedure as well.

> Brad Guth / IEIS

>If someone were to do this and eventually had a need to transplant his
>own bone marrow back in, wouldn't there be a risk that he would just
>get the disease again, since his marrow may have been prone to getting
>that disease in the first place?

> Yes, but it is fairly expensive.  What is not usually realize is there is
> considerable pain in removing bone marrow, a cost associated with the
> procedure and the storage preparation and temperatures over time run into
> big bucks.

>>If someone were to do this and eventually had a need to transplant his
>>own bone marrow back in, wouldn't there be a risk that he would just
>>get the disease again, since his marrow may have been prone to getting
>>that disease in the first place?

>Unfortunately I don't have the reference, but there was a case reported
>maybe ten years ago in which a leukemia patient received a BMT from her
>brother.  She did well, but a few years later developed a *different*
>leukemia, derived from the transplanted marrow -- the leukemic cells were
>XY.  A few years after that, her brother developed that form of leukemia.
>I don't know what the outcome was for these two people, but it showed
>that malignant cells can exist for many years without developing into a
>cancer, something which is widely suspected, but very difficult to
>demonstrate.

> >>If someone were to do this and eventually had a need to transplant his
> >>own bone marrow back in, wouldn't there be a risk that he would just
> >>get the disease again, since his marrow may have been prone to getting
> >>that disease in the first place?

> >Unfortunately I don't have the reference, but there was a case reported
> >maybe ten years ago in which a leukemia patient received a BMT from her
> >brother.  She did well, but a few years later developed a *different*
> >leukemia, derived from the transplanted marrow -- the leukemic cells were
> >XY.  A few years after that, her brother developed that form of leukemia.
> >I don't know what the outcome was for these two people, but it showed
> >that malignant cells can exist for many years without developing into a
> >cancer, something which is widely suspected, but very difficult to
> >demonstrate.

> Perhaps someone will discover a method someday to determine which
> cells will cause future disease and also find a method to separate
> them.  Then banking your own marrow will be more feasible.  Once a
> disease sets in, your banked marrow could be stripped of the type of
> cells that caused the disease, before it is transplanted back in.  By
> the time that happens, they may find a cure that would obviate the
> need for the BMT altogether!

>> >>If someone were to do this and eventually had a need to transplant his
>> >>own bone marrow back in, wouldn't there be a risk that he would just
>> >>get the disease again, since his marrow may have been prone to getting
>> >>that disease in the first place?

>> >Unfortunately I don't have the reference, but there was a case reported
>> >maybe ten years ago in which a leukemia patient received a BMT from her
>> >brother.  She did well, but a few years later developed a *different*
>> >leukemia, derived from the transplanted marrow -- the leukemic cells were
>> >XY.  A few years after that, her brother developed that form of leukemia.
>> >I don't know what the outcome was for these two people, but it showed
>> >that malignant cells can exist for many years without developing into a
>> >cancer, something which is widely suspected, but very difficult to
>> >demonstrate.

>> Perhaps someone will discover a method someday to determine which
>> cells will cause future disease and also find a method to separate
>> them.  Then banking your own marrow will be more feasible.  Once a
>> disease sets in, your banked marrow could be stripped of the type of
>> cells that caused the disease, before it is transplanted back in.  By
>> the time that happens, they may find a cure that would obviate the
>> need for the BMT altogether!

>Lets assume you plan ahead and store your BM at 25 years of age.
>At 60 you get leukemia or whatever and need a transplant.
>Even if you have leukemic precessors in your young stored marrow,
>(unlikely) they may need 35 years to develop again, by which time you
>are 95 and ready to die.

>The cancerous cells are/were always there,

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:53:33 -0700, Russell Patterson

> >The cancerous cells are/were always there,

> there is no reason to assume that.

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:53:33 -0700, Russell Patterson

>>The cancerous cells are/were always there,

>there is no reason to assume that.

>bob