Apollo still producing science
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
"Possible" also implies "don't really know".
It's a survey that actually tells us nothing. Of course, those who have already decided that manned spaceflight beyond low earth orbit is a waste of time will jump on such a story as it reinforces their already held prejudices.
For the record, the sample size is 27. There were 9 Apollo missions to the moon -
8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
For the record you wrong regarding the sample size clearly you haven't read the research paper (its not a story) you may like to view this video if you have trouble reading It's a survey that actually tells us nothing. Of course, those who have already decided that manned spaceflight beyond low earth orbit is a waste of time will jump on such a story as it reinforces their already held prejudices.
For the record, the sample size is 27. There were 9 Apollo missions to the moon -
8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
https://youtu.be/Q7G6myUwFLc The original post was about Apollo still producing since and clearly it is which is quite intreaging you may wish to actually take time to read it and understand what the sample size is. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901.pdf
Einion Yrth said:
So, deep space travel causes death from cardiovascular disease, let's look at this;
Total number of people to have ventured beyond LEO: 24
Of whom 7 have died, of those seven 3 died of cardiovascular problems and one of those three, Jim Irwin, appears to have been suffering from a pre-existing condition when he flew. So that's 2 and a bit from 24, none unreasonably young.
Stats tell me that cardiovascular disease kills around one in four Americans anyway.
Conclusion: poor sample size, no apparent correlation, certainly no evidence of causation. No-one's saying that deep-space flight is entirely safe, but this "study" looks pretty poor.
Total number of people to have ventured beyond LEO: 24
Of whom 7 have died, of those seven 3 died of cardiovascular problems and one of those three, Jim Irwin, appears to have been suffering from a pre-existing condition when he flew. So that's 2 and a bit from 24, none unreasonably young.
Stats tell me that cardiovascular disease kills around one in four Americans anyway.
Conclusion: poor sample size, no apparent correlation, certainly no evidence of causation. No-one's saying that deep-space flight is entirely safe, but this "study" looks pretty poor.
You didn't mention the mice and other cohorts looking at the authors you should know better than to say no evidence of causation.
Eric Mc said:
Nice to see that you feel the need to keep the tone of debate at your usual level.
You can see why I am dissuaded from discussing things with you.
Eric I was not looking for a debate, if you had read the research paper you would have found some good solid research which when comparing the cohorts and the research with mice is nicely triangulated, therefore robust and published so it can be peer reviewed. had you done so you would not have said the numbers were wrong. You can see why I am dissuaded from discussing things with you.
The OP was 100% spot on Apollo is still producing science and thanks to this research it is showing up areas of further research and development needed.
Oh and that Video is quite informative too.
Eric Mc said:
For the record, the sample size is 27. There were 9 Apollo missions to the moon -
Lovell, Young and Cernan made the trip twice. The sample size is 24, of whom 17 are still alive and well into their 80's. The "study" is a nonsense."Mice", FFS, get a grip. Although actually that raises an interesting question; how many mice have flown beyond LEO, and on which missions.
Getting away from dubious medical research matters - Apollo definitely can still give new scientific results.
A lot of the moon rocks have still to be examined - and often examination of rocks that were originally researched in the 70s and 80s but using new techniques can yield new results. For instance, a few years ago, it was discovered that moon rocks that were thought to be totally devoid of "volatile" elements were discovered to actually contain some.
And, of course, the lunar laser reflectors can still be used.
A lot of the moon rocks have still to be examined - and often examination of rocks that were originally researched in the 70s and 80s but using new techniques can yield new results. For instance, a few years ago, it was discovered that moon rocks that were thought to be totally devoid of "volatile" elements were discovered to actually contain some.
And, of course, the lunar laser reflectors can still be used.
Einion Yrth said:
The "study" is a nonsense."Mice", FFS, get a grip. Although actually that raises an interesting question; how many mice have flown beyond LEO, and on which missions.
Really? I suspect your comment is a wind up however if you can understand and critically review the report which contains the mice research as well and tell the authors of a scientific publication that they have it wrong including disproving the ANOVA stats, I reckon everyone would be impressed. Animal Studies. All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees at Florida State University, NASA and Brookhaven National Laboratory, conforming to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Eighth edition, 2011).
Forty-four male C57BL/6 mice (Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME), 16 weeks of age, were individually housed at the Brookhaven National Laboratory animal facility at Long Island, New York. Animals were maintained in a controlled environment (12:12 hour light-dark cycle, 24 ± 2 °C) and provided food and water ad libitum. Mice were randomized by body mass to one of four groups: control (Con, n = 11), hindlimb unloaded (HU, n = 11), total body irradiated (TBI, n = 11), and the combined TBI and HU (TBI+HU, n = 11). One week a er the conclusion of the unloading treatment for the HU and TBI+HU groups, the mice in all four groups were shipped to Florida State University, individually housed in the animal vivarium under controlled environmental conditions (12:12 hour light-dark cycle, 24 ± 2 °C) and provided food and water ad libitum.
Scientific RepoRts | 6:29901 | DOI: 10.1038/srep29901 8
Hindlimb Unloading. Mice were hindlimb unloaded via tail traction for 14 days according to the methods of Morey-Holton et al. as previously described19,20,38. A er the 14-day unloading treatment, animals were released from the unloading apparatus to move freely in standard cages for 6–7 months until the time to conduct the vas- cular experiments. Control mice were individually housed in their normal cage environment.
Isolated Microvessel Studies. Experiments were conducted on 2 mice per day over a 5-wk period. ese studies commenced a er at least 6 months from the time the HU mice were released from the unloading treatment. Animals from each of the four groups were randomly selected for experimentation over the 5-wk experimental period, and one mouse from each group was studied every other experimental day. Mice were anesthetized with iso urane (5%/O2) and euthanized by excision of the heart. Gastrocnemius muscle feed arter- ies running along the super cial white portion of the gastrocnemius muscles from the le and right hindlimbs were isolated and either cannulated and prepared for in vitro experimentation or frozen in liquid N2 and stored at −80 °C for determination of protein content as previously described20,38. Additionally, the le anterior descending artery and branches o this artery (~90–220 μm inner diameter) were dissected free of the surrounding myocar- dium, snap frozen in liquid N2 and stored at −80 °C for determination of protein content.
Evaluation of Vasomotor Properties. In one set of studies, vasodilator responses of feed arteries to the endothelium-dependent vasodilator acetylcholine (ACh, 10−9–10−4 M) and endothelium-independent vasodi- lator Dea-NONOate (10−9–10−4 M) were assessed as previously described20,38. ACh-induced vasodilation was also evaluated following incubation with nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor NG-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME, 10−5 M) and following incubation with the combination of L-NAME with COX inhibitor indometh- acin (10−5 M) as previously reported20,38. Maximal diameter and medial wall thickness were determined a er a 1-hr incubation period in calcium-free physiological saline bu er solution (PSS) with 10−4 M sodium nitroprus- side (SNP) to allow complete smooth muscle cell relaxation.
Immunoblot Analysis. eNOS, SOD-1, XO and NOX-2 protein content in gastrocnemius feed arteries and coronary arteries were assessed via immunoblot analysis. Arteries were isolated, snap frozen and processed as previously described20,40. Primary antibody dilutions were as follows: eNOS (1:150, BD Transduction #610296), Cu/Zn SOD-1 (1:8000, Enzo Life Sciences ADI-SOD-100-F), XO (1:1000, Abcam #109235), NOX-2 (1:1000, Abcam #129068) and β-actin (1:2000, Cell Signaling #4967). Di erences in loading were normalized by express- ing all data as relative densitometry units of the protein of interest versus β-actin
Statistical Analysis. Proportional mortality rates were calculated as the number of deaths from a particular cause divided by the total number of deaths for that particular group or sub-group. e signi cance of di erences in cause-speci c deaths between groups was assessed with Fisher’s exact probability test. Due to this test being considered extremely conservative41, a value of P ≤ 0.10 was considered statistically signi cant42,43. Di erences in age at the time of death and other astronaut characteristics were assessed with a one-way ANOVA and Fisher LSD post-hoc tests.
For the animal studies, a one-way ANOVA and Fisher LSD post-hoc tests were used to detect di erences in body, tissue and vascular characteristics. Vasomotor responses were evaluated using repeated-measures ANOVAs to detect di erences between experimental groups and drug doses or pressure changes. All values are presented as means ± SE. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically signi cant.
Eric Mc said:
Getting away from dubious medical research matters
Tell you what, why not expose yourself and your family including your children and Grandchildren to the same levels of radiation the report is saying is damaging to health if the report is so dubious and you are so certain your right. its not a issue is it? after all your know better than those listed below, after all they know nothing about Science, research, methodology:
Michael D. Delp Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
Jacqueline M. Charvat Wyle Science, Technology and Engineering Group, Johnson Space Center, Houston TX 77058, USA
Charles L. Limoli Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
Ruth K. Globus Space Biosciences Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
Paypal Ghosh Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
Toaster said:
Science has to be accurate and not based on opinion
Global warming, now there's a subject.I don't have a view on the matter under discussion but beyond facts and discussion comes inference. I also know that results can be expressed to make pretty much any case you like, and that there are 'lies, damned lies and statstics'.
If the report suits your views you will believe it, if it doesn't, you'll ignore it.
Simpo Two said:
Global warming, now there's a subject.
I don't have a view on the matter under discussion but beyond facts and discussion comes inference. I also know that results can be expressed to make pretty much any case you like, and that there are 'lies, damned lies and statstics'.
If the report suits your views you will believe it, if it doesn't, you'll ignore it.
Science doesn't work that way there is something called a peer review and critical analysis I don't have a view on the matter under discussion but beyond facts and discussion comes inference. I also know that results can be expressed to make pretty much any case you like, and that there are 'lies, damned lies and statstics'.
If the report suits your views you will believe it, if it doesn't, you'll ignore it.
You do have a view or your would not feel the need to comment and the comment you have made is not one that supports a scientific argument beyond "i don't understand" A statistical model called ANOVA was run and the results published. You can re-run the maths and re-run the experiment or you can proceed to conduct your own Scientific ctitical analysis.
But whatever this does appear to be a good review of the current evidence, now if you think its lies the why not also take the option of being exposed to the same level of Radiation the research says you will be harmful
Anova:
The one-way ANOVA compares the means between the groups you are interested in and determines whether any of those means are significantly different from each other. Specifically, it tests the null hypothesis:
One-way ANOVA Null Hypothesis
where µ = group mean and k = number of groups. If, however, the one-way ANOVA returns a significant result, we accept the alternative hypothesis (HA), which is that there are at least 2 group means that are significantly different from each other.
At this point, it is important to realize that the one-way ANOVA is an omnibus test statistic and cannot tell you which specific groups were significantly different from each other, only that at least two groups were. To determine which specific groups differed from each other, you need to use a post hoc test. Post hoc tests are described later in this guide
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/on...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff