[pjmlp]

Cancer treatment goes back to particle physics research at CERN, the Web was born there, cloud was previously known as Grid Computing at CERN,

Three examples of how humanity would not be as we know it today without CERN.

As Alumni, there are many other changes that trace back to CERN.

We don't sit only on the H1 beer garden and go skiing.

[mikkupikku]

I understand how linacs and even small compact syncrotrons can have practical medical and industrial applications, and I understand that in the past CERN has developed technology and produced research which is relevant to hardon therapy.

What I don't understand, and maybe you can clarify, is how the very largest gargantuan accelerators can ever have practical relevance. How can effects and products which can only be studied with accelerators that are many miles large ever have application in hospitals unless those hospitals are also many miles large? Not going to lie, I get "NASA invented Tang" vibes whenever this subject comes up; like the medical applications of small accelerators are obvious and parsable to the public, so they are used to sell the public on accelerators the size of small countries.

[pjmlp]

Because of the engineering effort required to build such systems, that no one has built before, means there is a gigantic amount of R&D discoveries that can be eventually applied in other fields outside particle physics.

Mechanical, electronic, informatics, chemistry, physics,...

Hence why CERN eventually created an industry collaboration office, responsible for finding business partners that would like to make a business out of such discoveries.

https://knowledgetransfer.web.cern.ch/activities-services/co...

[SoftTalker]

> the Web was born there

The internet existed, hypertext existed, it was just happenstance that it was put together there. It would have happened somewhere, maybe not exactly the same protocol but the same end result.

[pjmlp]

Indeed and we are all still waiting for Xanadu.

[bonsai_spool]

> Cancer treatment goes back to particle physics

Are you speaking about proton therapy? I don’t think there’s any evidence that works better than alternatives

[pjmlp]

What matters is that exists, and is another possibility for treatments.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/

[bonsai_spool]

I disagree that any new possibility for treatments should be lauded. The theoretical side of things is fine, but many new treatments are far more expensive than existing options without offering improved outcomes.

This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.

[pjmlp]

Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.

Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

[bonsai_spool]

> Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.

> Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

There is no way to know whether these people would have been served better by receiving radiation therapy. Your statement is tantamount to believing in prayer.

[pjmlp]

I know they are better than not having received anything at all.

[somethingsome]

What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?

It can deliver radiations to the brain that will peak at the exact position of the cancer, and reduce irradiation in sane tissues. The 'better' is 'less irradiation to sane tissues' that in turn reduces the risk for new cancers.

Note: I'm not expert on the matter, but I had technical visits to IBA and know several PhDs that work there

[bonsai_spool]

> What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?

I mean exactly that, clinical trials demonstrating that proton therapy is superior to radiation therapy. This is not a question about the physics but about how patients respond (and whether the expense of delivering proton therapy outweighs the expected marginal benefits).

[somethingsome]

As a non expert, I can't pronounce myself on the subject, I found this recent study:

https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/proton...

But on the subject of discoveries and practical uses, the IBA cyclotrons are also used for other purposes than proton therapy: cleaning exotic fruits from dangerous substances and personalized medicine.

[bonsai_spool]

This may be one of the good cases, then. I'm not an expert in cancer but I am a biologist and physician. The head and neck cancer (here) and various pediatric indications get the most attention but it has felt that proton therapy has been seeking an indication for almost 40 years now.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

The study was designed to show non-inferiority, which doesn't preclude their ability to show an improvement. It would be helpful to see other studies before determining that proton therapy is better (or even non-inferior) to radiation therapy. It's certainly much more expensive, which shows up in the study as many subjects being denied insurance coverage.

Edit: This is now in the weeds, but the per-protocol participants didn't fare better than the intention-to-treat participants, which one might expect since insurance approval lead to dozens of subjects changing treatment arms.

[somethingsome]

In Europe at least, many insurances cover it if you have the right criterias.

From my visits, they mostly focus on children that have some very nasty cancers, the IBA hospitals are all designed with children in mind (to avoid stressing them), and from my memory, a unique hospital is often enough to treat a whole country for the kind of cancer they target.

Now, if it is on par with classical radiotherapy BUT it gives less subsequent problems, it might be worth the cost as subsequent problems can be as expensive or even more than the original treatment. It becomes an actuarial issue to know where is the tradeoff.