Slashdot Mirror


Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons

sciencehabit writes: NASA hopes to send the first round-trip, manned spaceflight to Mars by the 2030s. If the mission succeeds, astronauts could spend several years potentially being bombarded with cosmic rays—high-energy particles launched across space by supernovae and other galactic explosions. Now, a study in mice suggests these particles could alter the shape of neurons, impairing astronauts' memories and other cognitive abilities. In the prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with executive function, a range of high-level cognitive tasks such as reasoning, short-term memory, and problem-solving, neurons had 30% to 40% fewer branches, called dendrites, which receive electrical input from other cells.

73 comments

  1. Some of us are safe by Jodka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Problem: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons.

    Solution: Tin foil hats.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use the same tech that they used with the Apollo moon shots.

    2. Re:Some of us are safe by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Tin foil is beneath government budget levels. We must now gold plate the interior of our space ships.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this what /. comes up with these days or my old ears do not get the whooozing sound?

    4. Re:Some of us are safe by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      "Really short mission" technology, while it simplifies many problems quite considerably, is pretty limiting...

    5. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Problem: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons.

      Solution: Tin foil hats.

      It's all part of the government conspiracy to get us to wear tin foil hats. That's why for years I have been wearing my... oh wait.

    6. Re:Some of us are safe by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I thought the space capsules were essentially wearing those already?

      Revised news headline: Astronauts leave earth the best, fittest and brightest of us; come back as space jocks.

    7. Re:Some of us are safe by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Hypothesis: Super Powers would be awesome.

      Conclusion: Hell yeah!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Some of us are safe by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      They have some but not total radiation shielding. Such shielding is very heavy and thus very expensive to put into orbit.

    9. Re:Some of us are safe by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      [I]Problem: Space Radiation May Alter Astronauts' Neurons.

      Solution: Tin foil hats.[/I]

      True for the short term, but given enough time subjected to a new environment over generations we will evolve defenses. Lead is a solution too, it doesn't have to be gold and it can be applied as an additive in paint on an interior layer of a craft that is out of contact of humans.

    10. Re:Some of us are safe by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      errr...

      Hang on a sec.

      So you are saying that they have less shielding than a tin foil hat??

      If not, then you have missed my point entirely...

    11. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone knew what the fuck a "whooozing sound" was, then maybe...genius.

    12. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing about high-energy radiation: sometimes a little shielding is worse than no shielding, because there is a chance the high-energy photon shoots right through without hitting anything or with only tearing up one cell, but if it hits your tin-foil first, it might turn into the ion equivalent of shrapnel and damage a whole bunch of cells.

    13. Re:Some of us are safe by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Poor A/C, the rest of us understand; and we understand your, special needs.

    14. Re:Some of us are safe by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Russians excel at this, have you seen Putins plane?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    15. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insufficient... That paint would have to be several feet thick...

      Or just 3 inches of actual lead.

    16. Re:Some of us are safe by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      If anyone knew what the fuck a "whooozing sound" was, then maybe...genius.

      Stick with being an AC. Don't bother getting a id.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    17. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you put 2.5 feet lead then do above many times to emulate it perhaps a small amount a gold an dlead in da paint and put layers of water to abosorb and htne you can use heavy water to help cool your engines

    18. Re:Some of us are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.5 feet of lead is more shielding than we get from the atmosphere down here on Earth.

  2. space stupid by magarity · · Score: 1

    reasoning, short-term memory, and problem-solving

    This is why it is FAR more realistic that engineering problems need to be explained in "stupid captain talk" instead of lengthy dissertations in techno-babble.

  3. Ren was right? by Chas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay! Say it with my (like an asthmatic chihuahua).

    SPACE!!! MADNESS!!!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Ren was right? by DroolTwist · · Score: 1

      Okay! Say it with my (like an asthmatic chihuahua).

      SPACE!!! MADNESS!!!

      I read that in Gilbert Gottfried's voice. lol

    2. Re:Ren was right? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Well, either that or Steve Buscemi humping a nuke.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  4. dig a cave by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    in a small asteroid, live in that. Asteroid dirt should be good shielding material.

    Too farfetched? I think so too, but people were talking about capturing an asteroid and bringing into lunar (or earth) orbit and mining it...

    1. Re:dig a cave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think its all that far fetched at all and bedrock would make awesome shielding. If we learn how to alter their orbits then why the hell not. We spent decades perfecting our drilling tech on earth so why not reuse it on an asteroid?

    2. Re:dig a cave by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      You are thinking too small... I think that is what the moon is for. Hollowed out, with equatorial particle accelerators for propulsion - it is a perfect intergalactic space ship.

    3. Re:dig a cave by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      We were supposed to have that back in 1999.

    4. Re:dig a cave by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The big problem really is that asteroid dirt or any other shielding adds a huge amount of mass, making propulsion that much harder. Trying to move an asteroid to mars with an ion drive isn't going to get there before the astronauts die of old age, and if you're going to bring huge amounts of extra rocket fuel from earth you might as well just build a huge ship with a lot of water around the central crew area for shielding.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:dig a cave by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Wrong, if we do not experience these problems, or at a less obvious level since it affects everyone at the approximate same pace, it is largely due to the Earth's magnetic field which deviates a lot of cosmic rays. Beside that, you should know that cosmic rays that make their way to us can penetrate deep into concrete and Earth's crust. That's why the neutrino observatories are installed in very deep old mines. I doubt any asteroid without a magnetic field can offer a sufficient protection of any kind.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    6. Re:dig a cave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is largely due to the Earth's magnetic field which deviates a lot of cosmic rays

      The Earth's magnetic field is only one part of it, as are the Sun's magnetic field, the heliopause, and the atmosphere. The first three only work on lower energy cosmic rays. For high energy rays, it comes down to just how much material you can put between you and space. If you look at count rates vs altitude, you will find that in the upper atmosphere (~20 km up) it is over a thousand times higher than on the surface (a little higher up and it weakens, due to the lower peak being from secondary particles, but at the top of the atmosphere it is maybe about half of what it is at the peak).

      You don't need to have the insulation that being in a deep mine provides, as humans normally live just fine on the surface. Neutrino detectors and other experiments involve incredibly sensitive experiments that are trying to minimize background as much as possible.

    7. Re:dig a cave by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Granted, radiation shielding isn't particularly effective for vehicles, but it makes perfect sense for habitats. The ISS for example is basically just sitting there, we could instead maneuver a suitably large asteroid into position via the low-energy interplanetary transport network and start hollowing it out. It has a large up front cost in time and/or energy, and we'd probably want to put it in a higher orbit since its increased bulk would add air resistance(and it's unlikely to burn up on reentry if abandoned like the current tin cans), but other than that, job done.

      It can also potentially make sense as cyclic transportation - for example there's the old concept of an Earth-Mars cycler: put an asteroid in a elliptical orbit that almost touches the orbits of both Earth and Mars and build a "cruise ship" inside it. Then you never accelerate it again, aside from station-keeping: instead you use normal spacecraft to transfer your payload between the cycler and Earth when they are in conjunction, and with Mars a year or whatever later when those two come into conjunction. Of course that's a seriously long-term investment for a relatively slow transportation system, but if there's a LOT of radiation-sensitive people/cargo making the trip and not in a hurry, then perhaps it makes sense.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  5. Duh? by allquixotic · · Score: 1

    Exposure to radiation from space is probabilistic, and there have been many more living human-hours down here on Earth than up in space. Isn't it reasonable to assume that at least a handful of people have been unlucky enough to just *happen* to get bombarded with an unusually high amount of gamma radiation, having the same thing happen to them?

    And then there are all these new-fangled manmade sources of gamma rays that we've been blowing up and/or using for electricity since the 40s...

    1. Re:Duh? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      On the other side, it seems like this should fund more research into methods to deflect the path of gamma radiation or transform its state. We know the Earth's atmosphere can do it, so why not develop our own deflection field? After all, we know where most of the gamma rays are coming from, and the rest of them would be just as random as they are here on earth. No need to "block" gamma radiation with something earth-sized; just deflect it enough that it is much less likely to hit a human, and provide a mechanism that will also render some of it non-ionizing by adjusting its moment or frequency. We know that energy can phase shift into matter and back, so why not use this knowledge to our advantage? Shift, bend, and let it shift back, pointing in a safer direction.

    2. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, we know where most of the gamma rays are coming from

      Yeah, the galactic equator, so most of them are coming from a large band, not a single point.

      just deflect it enough that it is much less likely to hit a human,

      Pretty much every bulk way to deflect gamma rays would scatter them, not deflect them in a specific direction. The result is you're just as likely to scatter a ray that would miss into hitting as to deflect one away.

      render some of it non-ionizing by adjusting its moment or frequency.

      There is no magic non-ionizing gammas vs ionizing gammas, it all just comes down to their energy. Pretty much everything above UV, a couple tens of eV, can ionize air. Since gammas from space can reach billions of eV, and a large number of them are at least thousands of eV, you're talking about absorbing 99.99+% of the energy... which is blocking them as that last little bit of energy is trivial to absorb compared to the first 99%.

    3. Re: Duh? by raind2 · · Score: 1

      I think people would expect some isdies, being blasted into space and all

    4. Re:Duh? by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      You joke about gamma rays but there isn't much of difference between X rays and gamma rays from a biological perspective.

      I'd be interested in what happens to those that have received several head CT scans. One head CT scan is about 20 years of background radiation.

    5. Re:Duh? by itzly · · Score: 1

      Gamma rays aren't the most dangerous, even if they have high energy, because they don't interact easily with matter. Just as they pass through the atmosphere, they will often also pass through our bodies without causing damage.

      Dangerous space radiation is in the form of high energy protons. They interact easily with matter, so they cause more biological damage, but are also effectively shielded by our thick atmosphere. They aren't shielded very well by a thin metal hull, because a collision with thin metal would produce a narrow cone of secondary particles.

    6. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they will often also pass through our bodies without causing damage.

      For gamma rays up to ~10 MeV, the mean free path will be about 10 cm or less in water, and hence are quite easily still interacting with the body when passing through it. Higher energy gammas make up a very small part of cosmic rays. Protons on the other hand do interact more easily, but will actually end up with a mean free path above 10 cm once you get above 100 MeV, and the peak in the flux distribution for cosmic rays is above 100 MeV.

    7. Re:Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it reasonable to assume that at least a handful of people have been unlucky enough to just *happen* to get bombarded with an unusually high amount of gamma radiation

      Of course it's reasonable. I've met such people, and trust me, you don't want to make them angry...

  6. Space Madnesssss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ren and stimpy where right.

  7. Wow! Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that Reed Richards would have been even more of a genius?

  8. We'll Know by eyenot · · Score: 1, Informative

    We'll Know, now. See, there are two astronauts who happen to be twins. And they have sent one astronaut into outer space and the other astronaut will stay here on Earth. As time passes on board the International Space Station, we will see whether NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly develops strange new neurochemistry the likes of which humanity has never before seen, or if he stays normal like his brother Mark. Time will tell whether this theory about the brains of people in space twisting and contorting in untold seemingly impossible ways holds water or not.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:We'll Know by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

      The dissection is going to be... awkward.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:We'll Know by ralphsiegler · · Score: 2

      one problem, the ISS is well within the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere from cosmic ray bombardment, so alas that is not a model for interplanetary travel at all

    3. Re:We'll Know by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

      The magnetosphere deflects solar wind. It is not powerful enough to deflect cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation in LEO is 1/2 of interplanetary radiation because of occlusion of the galactic disc by the planet itself.

    4. Re:We'll Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well let's raise it up!

      First throw some money at the problem: couple hundred billion should do. Then we get the shuttles out of museums and refurbish them and send them all up at the some time. Tow the ISS to (say) 100,000 miles. (Yea, I know the shuttle can't go that high so lets up the funding to a trillion dollars and build some bolt-on super-engines). If we do it right, we'll end up with a shuttle that can make it to the moon!

    5. Re:We'll Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You set your sights too low. What about Uranus?

  9. paranormal experiences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must be what is responsible for most paranormal experiences in space. Actually a very common thing.

    Other militaries also deliberately beam signals intelligence from satellites and ground into space dwellers to cause the desired effect.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_noA7-qY26A&index=12&list=PLZYQ6vFyoKvf1bRwcXvPWpQ6xsu_GhGtp

    obamasweapon.com
    drrobertduncan.com

    Attacks happen on the ground too.

  10. Dude.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is my spaceship?

  11. Don't stand in the rain by confused+one · · Score: 1

    So perhaps the astronauts shouldn't spend all their time standing naked out on the airless surface of Mars, letting the universe blast their noggins with relativistic oxygen and titanium ions (yes, I read the article). If you don't want to get wet, you have to come in out of the rain.

  12. What you don't realize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that space apathy also made people's brain regress.

    Every new excuse humanity gives itself for not going into space is turning thousands of budding minds into dudebros instead of nerds.

  13. Fantastic! by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we can expect Fantastic results!

    1. Re: Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here looking for this comment.

  14. Reminds me of a story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An astronaut is sent alone into space, launched to Mars.

    But what happens is that for some reason he gets a lot smarter and uses more and more of his brain capacity.

    Why?

    Leaving the Earth's gravity well apparently killed the parasite shaping his mental energies.

    Goes great, he can do so much better.

    Until he lands on Mars and the Martian parasites invade his brain.

  15. So this is why Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep spending our money to send people to space. They want to kill them just like they want to kill us.

  16. Easy solution by itzly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The solution is easy. Don't send people to Mars, send unmanned rovers. Solves a bunch of other problems too, and saves a lot of money that can be used on other cool stuff.

    1. Re:Easy solution by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Rovers are cool, but they can't compete with the excitement of a crewed mission. Apollo captivated a generation, and there's not even very much to see on the moon.

    2. Re:Easy solution by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Don't send people to Mars, send unmanned rovers. Solves a bunch of other problems too, and saves a lot of money that can be used on other cool stuff.

      But, as always, you get what you pay for.

    3. Re:Easy solution by itzly · · Score: 0

      I think times are different now, with much more sources of entertainment competing for people's attention. A manned Mars mission would be fun for a while, but then people would lose interest and go on with their lives. Also, we didn't have many good pictures of the surface of the moon in the '60s, but we have excellent detailed images and other data from the surface of Mars. In the greater scheme of things, it doesn't really matter if the photo of a Mars rock was taken by a robot or an astronaut.

    4. Re:Easy solution by itzly · · Score: 0

      There's no direct relationship between what you pay and what you get. A dollar spent on an unmanned mission goes much further than a dollar spent on manned missions.

    5. Re:Easy solution by quenda · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apollo captivated a generation,

      Not for long. TV ratings dropped fast after the first landing. Even blowing up Apollo 13's service module was not enough to save the program from early cancellation.

  17. That explains Doom 3... by MenThal · · Score: 1

    Brain goes back to basics, semi zombies go nuts.

    Also, Quake 4. Implants to offset the damage hooked up to central computer creates collective hive mind.

    Suggest they put up a live feed for the inevitable madness to recoup some of the cost of the planned manned flights to Mars.

  18. Advertise Your Movie On Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know they let movie studios advertise their movies on Slashdot. Will one of these astronauts become evil, while the other 4 turn into superheroes and save the world?

  19. Say whaat by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Radiation affects the brain? who would have thunk it!

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  20. Sheilds up by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I thought that if we were going anywhere in the Solar system (which I really hope I can see in my lifetime but I doubt it) that it would be wrapped in a lot of mass. For example I thought ice first because it's water and we would be using it. So if we carry a-lot of water that is what we would be using as shielding. Either that or rocks we can gather up *in* space (maybe a lunar space elevator [a moonstalk iirc?]).

    However for our first small ship and given that cosmic radiation may be a lot more energetic than I think and, given that it adds mass to the space craft then why not just go *inside* a big water tank, which would also be your water supply? At first using separate launches with water tanks, however later, maybe a small ice asteroid we capture with a robot and melt - or even carve into, could be a water supply.

    Speaking about capturing asteroids maybe we can build a fast, nuclear powered robot ship to explore the asteroid belt remotely and leave robotic mission payloads on large asteroids whilst identifying resources. Maybe when it has built up enough speed we can send it out to the Oort cloud for a look around. I know it sounds science fiction but it is not too far outside our technological capabilities, and, if the world pooled resources to achieve it, something that might bring nations together for a common goal. I know, probably just a fantasy, but I am a geek.

    Besides, all children have to start moving out of home sometime.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  21. Metamaterial needed by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anyone is addressing this problem by researching how to deflect the space radiation by designing meta-materials, with a negative refraction index, that would function at the specific energies and wavelengths that would cause damage to neurons. This might take decades, but seems like one possible solution. If you can't block the radiation, move it around you.

    1. Re:Metamaterial needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You couldn't do it with meta-materials, as meta-materials require structures on the scale of wavelength, which in this case are smaller than the size of atoms. That said, regular materials do have a slight negative index of refraction for x-rays, just it is really small and it takes a lot of space and structure to create very weak lenses. You can find work on making lenses using bubbles in tubes of liquids, and other attempts at making things like Fresnel lenses for possible refracting x-ray telescopes (current ones are reflecting).

    2. Re:Metamaterial needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the paper:

      "Dendritic tracing originates from the soma (diameters, 75 to 100 um)"

      This is too large (in rat it is ~10-20 um for the largest cortical neurons), something is wrong. Also they attribute the changes to altered morphology but all they looked at was number of branches etc. Dead neurons have 0 branches which would also bring down the count and explain the lack of dose response, not sure why they do not consider this... I guess either way we would want to avoid the radiation though.

  22. lead on hands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ten you touch the wall and get lead poisoning so one solutio nleading to antoher prob is not the way, GOLD IS BETTER and what you could do with lead is put it as a coating of paint then overtop of that insylation and then normal non leaded paint

  23. Citation Needed by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    A dollar spent on an unmanned mission goes much further than a dollar spent on manned missions.

    [[Citation needed]]

  24. DUH !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mice had it coming, they know what they did !!!