Chemo therapy is the same natural radio wave which we shoot as laser beams through the methane gas filled atmosphere...

The Co2 filled atmosphere which is developed due to our lack of vegetation which would otherwise consume the co2 produce us with oxygen, and food, along with the animals who create natural fertilizer to enrich the ground which our produce grows from...

Want me to really blow your mind? Radiation and Chemotherapy wouldnt have a purpose if it werent for the unbalanced habitat that we created by not only taking more from the system than we put in, but that which we put in is only a artificial manipulation, made up of a variety of lesser amounts of the resources which we overconsumed..

Maybe oceanic research would be more beneficial than the energy wasted in space research. Which at the end of the day, satellites used for the surveillance over us, and thankfully the internet connection which is allowing us a somewhat of a chance tor us to resolve conflict and to unite against the manipulators..

answer me this...when you look into the night sky, do you desire the ability to look down over our own planet? or rather to further our understanding of the rest of our galaxies?

If the tech you engineered were to be based on Oceanic research and understandings instead of that of outer space...do you think we might have seen more beneficial payments with less damage to our planet than that of present day

No you don't understand mass balance and why we fertilize..

Cancer existed long before humans...well what do you mean exactly when referring to cancer? you literally only correct me on the one point which I mistook chemotherapy for radiation therapy .

Why even respond if you as a "scientist" are unable to counteract with a specific answer to my points? Why not just save yourself the embarrassment acting as though you never seen my response?

Because that is true, correct? You are triggered by your sense of pride to respond to a comment challenging the importance of your chosen field of study...wouldnt a confident being want to defeat my claims as precisely as possible, showing ones intellectual superiority ? Or at the least be a professional and enlighten another?

@DesireNoDesires I do not understand mass balance and fertilisers.... hehe please educate me...
Btw, I am a PhD chemist and physicist who worked many years on fertilisers and not just manufactured artificial fertilisers but developed new ones.

But, of course you know better, please educate me oh learned one.

Cancer? What do I mean? Seriously? The causes of cancer are primarily viruses, then cosmic radiation, then potassium-40, UV radiation,then the chemical byproducts of the food we eat... then the modern vices such as alcohol etc...
Remember, you stated that there would be no need for cancer treatments if we did not created this habitat. You implied cancer only exists because of what we did to the environment.

I have no need to feel superior to you, I do not know you and and don’t care what you think of me.

I have defeated your claims very easily with my very firsts response.

I have enlightened you, I gave you just a small number of examples... and you then changed the subject that “some” research is ok (oceanic) and others not (space)... even though that had nothing to do with my response.

You stated that we did not benefited AT ALL, and then contradict yourself that oceanic research is benefiting us.
So what is it, science benefiting us or not?

@Hanno

artificial fertilisers, chemical byproducts of the food we eat...

UV radiation, radiation therapy, cosmic radiation

chemical byproducts of the food, "not only taking more from the system than we put in, but that which we put in is only a artificial manipulation, made up of a variety of lesser amounts of the resources which we over-consumed"

tell me what exactly have we discovered from the studies of space, that has benefited the health of our own planet, without creating a even larger problem in doing so...

tell me why exactly you must develop artificial fertilization, besides correcting a separate man made problem with our ecosystem and certainty that these unnatural implications will not be the cause of a larger problem...

When our fields of academia seem so eager to separate Humans from the natural life cycle on earth...its worrisome to say the least...hehe

@DesireNoDesires I can explain all those things to you . However it will be time consuming and I doubt you actually want to know.
You still have not conceded that your original post was rubbish. You started that there were no positive scientific developments and then tried to make it about space research only.

You repeated my words in a way that suggest you did not understand at all. You group natural phenomena and made made development together.

For example:: chemical byproducts of what we eat. That has nothing to do with artificial fertilisers or or anything man made. It is the natural byproducts all animals create when they process food into energy and useful proteins and fats. These chemical product are removed by ensymes however they still cause damage and caused cancer. This occurs in all animals since long before humans evolved.

UV radiation comes from the sun... it causes suntan and skin cancer. Radiation therapy is a human made treatment, developed by science.
We stop skin cancer with suntan lotion.... science gave us that.

The need for artificial fertilisers are interesting but long one as the development of that dates back from 1840. However I have the feeling I will waste my time telling that to you.