"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48dd0d6d$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> > news:48dc0501@news.povray.org...
> >> somebody wrote:
> >>>> Only after the fundamental work has been done by scientists.

> >>> I don't know what that means.

> >> I mean that (for example) research on genetic causes/cures for cancer
> >> wouldn't have been possible at all without high-energy physics
research.
> >>
> >> (Figure out how the structure of DNA was determined, for example.)

> > I'm at this point guessing that you might be a little confused of the
"high
> > energy" part in "high energy physics".

> No. But basic radioactivity was "high energy" back in Curie's day, for
> example. Discounting advanced in basic battery-powered electricity
> because they're not "high energy" ignores the point that they're
> high-energy compared to amber and fur.

1) Radioactivity was not called "high energy physics" back then, nor is it
called that now.
2) I don't deny practical uses of radioactivity.

When I say HEP, I mean HEP.

Post a reply to this message