Slashdot Mirror
Study: Astronauts Who Reach Deep Space 'Far More Likely To Die From Heart Disease' (independent.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: Astronauts who venture into deep space appear to be much more likely to die from heart disease, according to a new study. In another sign that leaving planet Earth is fraught with danger and a potential blow to hopes of establishing a colony on Mars, researchers discovered deep space radiation appears to damage the body's cardiovascular system. They reported that three out of the seven dead Apollo astronauts died as a result of a cardiovascular disease, such as a heart attack or stroke. Although the numbers are small, that rate of 43 percent is four to five times higher than found among astronauts who flew in low Earth orbit or who did not actually go into space, according to a paper in the journal Scientific Reports. In an attempt to test whether the higher numbers of cardiovascular deaths were simply a statistical blip or a genuine sign of the effect of traveling into deep space, the scientists exposed mice to the same type of radiation that the astronauts would have experienced. After six months, which is the equivalent of 20 human years, the mice showed damage to arteries that is known to lead to the development of cardiovascular disease in humans.
I don't see why this would be a surprise but at the statistical rigor level we're talking about dozens of people being used for heart studies. Even with NASA's predilection for perfection there's no way to isolate deep space causal to heart disease or much else with as few individuals as we're ever measuring from.
but we will be able to do wonders in medicine in a few hundred years. Just wait for it, we can replace the whole cardiovascular system if we want to.
Also, all we have to achieve is that they survive long enough on mars to procreate and raise the child to be big enough to survive on its own. Having machines raise a child is more challenging, but it still can be realized.
Nobody needs to survive on mars for 60 years. Less than 2 centuries ago, most humans didn't reach the age of 40.
FTFA:
We do however know a lot about the effects of terrestrial radiation on human heath... a long-term side effect of radiation therapy to the chest area can be a increased risk of heart disease... apparently. :-/
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Did anybody bother to control for the prevalence of smoking and other environmental factors that may not be in play for most individuals 50 years later?
Mission Control looked like a nicotine hotbox half the time back then, and astronauts rotated through as CAPCOM. And that's not even starting to consider what else they may have been deliberately or accidentally exposed to during the early space program.
A sample size of seven is too small to draw any conclusions. The radiation hypothesis makes sense, though.
"Although the numbers are small, that rate of 43 percent is four to five times higher". The number being this small means the results are not in any ways even near being statistically significant, and the conclusion is there is no conclusion to be made except someone needs to refresh their knowledge of the binomial distribution. It is not a scientific result if you cannot make a scientific argument to back it up. In other news, in 100% of known spacefaring species, the first individual of that species to reach orbit does not die from heart disease.
I agree that the sample size of 7 is rot, the 95% confidence interval around a binomial with 3/7 is 10%-82%, in other words: "we don't have a clue". /. summary actually link to the source, so here it is:
However, neither TFA nor the
Michael D. Delp, Jacqueline M. Charvat, Charles L. Limoli, Ruth K. Globus & Payal Ghosh, Apollo Lunar Astronauts Show Higher Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: Possible Deep Space Radiation Effects on the Vascular Endothelium, Nature Scientific Reports (open ac
Interestingly, they do claim statistical significance on the 7 astronaut "study", but I don't have time atm to have a better look...
Did they take into account the average sex life of your "I've landed on the moon" astronaut?
Obviously they are not going to be able to do a massive double-blind study of astronauts (preferably clones) all sent to space, all at the same time. There has to be an elimination of unimportant variables.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
It looks to me like the humans rates where merely what triggered the interest in testing the mice. It's the mice that are said to have the statistically significant rate, not the humans.
Indeed, the sample size is small, but how are they supposed to get a larger sample? They did the logical followup, which is a mouse study that confirmed the (limited) human results.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Perhaps astronauts who go into deep space are feted and find themselves traveling more, eating out more, being in more smoke filled environments, stressing out in front of large audiences etc. A few days in space might not be what did it but everything that came after. Or maybe it's just a statistical blip from a small sample size.
Indeed, the sample size is small, but how are they supposed to get a larger sample?
Send more men? I'm sure if they get the research grant NASA will be willing to help them out...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It seems that all astronauts who died from hearth problem, have enough time after spaceflight to rise children. So, small rise of probability of heart attack doesn't prevent creation of successful colony.
Remember, how much chances have first British colonists in the North America to survive just a first winter.
As far as I remember, people in British East-India company have about 90% chances of dying from tropical fevers and cholera before returning to England. This haven't prevented Britain to rule India for two centuries.
...people with heart disease are far more likely to become cosmonauts who reach deep space.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
I agree that the sample size of 7 is rot, the 95% confidence interval around a binomial with 3/7 is 10%-82%
Wrong test. The article says that "that rate of 43 percent is four to five times higher than found among astronauts who flew in low Earth orbit or who did not actually go into space". So the background rate is between 1/4 and 1/5 of 43% ... let's guess 10%. Out of 7 astronauts in deep space, we would then expect 0.7 deaths from heart disease. From a binomial distribution, the probability of getting 3 or more is 2.6%.
So, for the hypothesis that astronauts who went to deep space have an elevated risk of heart disease compared to those who did not, we can say that it is supported, with 97.4% confidence. Still not great - it's an a posteriori hypothesis, and we don't know how wide a hypothesis space we're testing - but certainly better than you've suggested.
In an attempt to test whether the higher numbers of cardiovascular deaths were simply a statistical blip or a genuine sign of the effect of traveling into deep space, the scientists exposed mice to the same type of radiation that the astronauts would have experienced. After six months, which is the equivalent of 20 human years, the mice showed damage to arteries that is known to lead to the development of cardiovascular disease in humans.
Well, no. The scientists slammed the mice with ~6-12 months' worth of radiation in ten minutes. Yeah, they probably had artery damage. Stuff like that happens when you stick a mouse in the microwave.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Indeed, the sample size is small, but how are they supposed to get a larger sample?
You don't. You just admit that the sample is to small to draw meaningful conclusions. The error bars here have to be enormous.
They did the logical followup, which is a mouse study that confirmed the (limited) human results.
Mice aren't humans last I checked and while mouse models are very useful you are limited in how far you can extrapolate the findings to humans. Basically this finding is something that should make scientists go "huh, that's curious - we should follow up on this once we have more data".
As others have pointed out the sample size is too small to be scientifically valid, but even if you want to draw conclusions from it, how about the astronauts that went into deep space lived 11.9 years LONGER than those that did not fly, and 9.2 years longer than those that made LEO? Plus many of them are still alive in the 70s and 80s.
They reported that three out of the seven dead Apollo astronauts...
I count eight
Alan Shepard
Edgar Mitchel
Jack Swigert
James Irwin
Neil Armstrong
Pete Conrad
Ronald Evans
Stuart Roosa
Pete Conrad died in a motorcycle accident. Is that justification to exclude him? With him, the rate drops to 37%. Regardless, if we wait a decade or so the sample size will be much higher.
The number of people that went into deep space is far too small a sample size to draw any kind of conclusion from.
This study could not separate the effect of microgravity from radiation. But a mouse centrifuge on the ISS could be used to test for space radiation at Earth, Mars and lunar gravitation levels. You could even test for all these levels at once with a "three story torus."
Aha! Got a Canadian here!
What is the rate of heart disease in all of the astronaut core? You can't draw solid conclusions from a sample size of seven individuals that were carefully selected based on their traits. Honestly, you have no idea if this holds true for the general public, it could just be that the people who are qualified and selected to be astronauts have a higher incidence of heart disease.
Edit: test for gravitation at...
All life is going to go extinct when this planet is consumed by the dying sun. Deal with it.
I think we have more pressing problems than those that are 500million years away.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
They has to expose the mice to a 20 year equivalent of radiation to see the effect, how does that confirm the results? 1 of the 7 astronauts also died in a motorcycle accident, does that mean deep space radiation increases your chance of being killed on a motorcycle by several orders of magnitude?
I'm sure all the booze, broads, and general partying that surrounded these astronaut heroes for years had nothing to do with it.
Proverbs 21:19
How can this be considered a valid study when the sample size is so small? Furthermore, we haven't been back to the Moon in almost 50 years. Healthcare and fitness has come a long way since then.
This is more than likely due to the fact that McDonalds will sponsor this great trip into the void.
If you're going to make that connection, you might as well say we call Radiation Poisoning skin cancer, too. The cause is not the name of the effect.
That is easy to get a larger sample.
Pack all the politicians in Congress and who are currently running for positions and launch them into space. We can check on them in a few years.
Plus it will solve a HUGE problem down here at the same time.... It's a WIN-WIN!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes it does.
If you go to space, your chances of dying on a motorcycle go up drastically. Same amount as your chances of becoming a senator and punching someone.
So if you want a political career, go to space, you will easily become a senator.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And sadly NOBODY has been to deep space.
Everything has been within Earth's and the suns gravity well. Call me when we send people outside the heliosphere and then do research on them as THAT is deep space.
Not the end of the driveway stuff we have done so far.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Us space nutters prefer most work in space to be done robotically, with humans staying inside well-shielded habitats.
(Of course, us space nutters also believe that advances in stem cells, genetic engineering, and drugs will likely be able to address these effects, with no need for robotic surgery.)
Nevertheless, us space nutters would be willing to sacrifice a decade or two of life for the chance to go into space, explore, and contribute to human progress.
It's something Luddites and bourgeois sticks-in-the-mud like you will never understand.
N of 7 with an unmonitored life style.
Even with NASA's predilection for perfection ...
Who's to say that isn't also part of the problem. Perfection has many aspects; perhaps NASA focuses on the wrong things or their focus is too narrow.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
We've known for decades that long-term exposure to zero-g causes all kinds of health problems in humans. Including messing up your eyesight/.
We've also known for decades how to solve this problem. Create some gravity by spinning the spacecraft. If spacecraft is too small to make this feasible, attach a ballast on a tether and have the spacecraft and ballast orbit each other.
http://xkcd.com/893/
Ah, you've solved the small sample size problem. All they need to really do is test all actors who have ever been on a sound stage.
TLDR but I say first demonstrate to land a man on the Moon and bring him back safely before thinking of sending people to Mars. Moon is only three days away where Mars will always be 20 years away (they've been saying we'll put someone on Mars for past 50 years). Though having people on the Moon was done nearly 50 years ago, need to demonstrate it can be done again. i.e. do it occasionally it is a stunt. Do it routinely it is a business.
mfwright@batnet.com
Right now Pharmaceutical Company’s only seem to be interested in manufacturing medicine that will make the big bucks, like the Blue Pill, which really serves no purpose.
For something which you claim serves no purpose they are selling a hell of a lot of those pills. Obviously it serves a purpose for some people.
Being able to achieve an erection is not more important than treating Heart Disease with little to no side effects.
Funny you should say that since Viagra was originally developed for angina and hypertension. It turned out to have little effect on heart disease but they noticed the rather marked side effects and it turned out to be a financial boon for that. They did not set out to develop a drug for erectile problems, they just stumbled across one while trying to develop drugs for heart disease.
Maybe you should acknowledge the fact that curing heart disease turns out to actually be a difficult problem to solve. Especially in light of the fact that drugs that successfully treat heart disease are hugely profitable. If you want to find a place where drug company incentives are poorly aligned with need, heart disease isn't the best place to look.
So if you want a political career, go to space, you will easily become a senator.
Ironically, I'm sure there's some truth to that despite your sarcasm.
We'll likely have nanobot technology before we're ready for large scale deep space exploration. Program the nanobots to repair arteries, you might come back from your space trip in better health than when you left!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Shooting the messengers doesn't solve the problem of
a) everyone ignoring them,
b) a bogus message.
That said, it would be a good start. =)
"Surely pigs would be better anyway."
Yes they would be better subjects, but a rotating porcine torus wouldn't fit on the ISS, aside from the whole problem of ferrying up pig feed. The one big advantage to your idea would be the satisfaction of being able to jettison fig feces loads over the Middle East.
Trip to the Moon is four days and measurably increases the risk of heart disease. What would a six month trip to Mars do?
Nothing? You'd need to bring a hell of a lot of water with you to Mars, so you'd just put it all around the outside of the crew capsule, and it;d be suffucient shield for everything but something like a flare that'd send you to the "storm shelter" anyway.
A weightless environment causes degradation in of muscular systems that takes a disproportionate amount of time to regain muscle tone. It seems logical that the connecting tissues of the cardiovascular system would show changes as well.
The huge question will be what is the long term effect of reduced gravity as opposed to weightless or micro gravity. Until we have research stations on another planet; it is all hypothesis.
NRRPT/RCT
Don't forget to correlate this with the test on mice. It allows a hypothetical deduction. This is, no doubt, offered with cautious consideration.
Does this mean that insurance for space travelers will go up?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.