Apollo Astronauts Dying Of Heart Disease At 4-5x The Rate Of Counterparts

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Here is more bad news for would-be astronauts; ionizing radiation in deep space may greatly increase the chances of cardiovascular disease. While the study only queried 77 astronauts, experiments with mice suggest that radiation damages blood vessels, bringing about heart attacks and strokes.

…Delp and coauthors compared health data on 42 astronauts that had traveled into space—seven of which got past the magnetosphere and to the Moon—to the medical records of 35 astronauts that were grounded for their careers. The death rate from cardiovascular disease among the Apollo lunar astronauts was a whopping 43 percent, which is around four to five times the rate seen in the non-fliers and low-fliers (nine and 11 percent, respectively).
 
The person that develops affordable and portable radiation shielding will be heralded as the next messiah.
 
This is crap science. How can you draw conclusions from such a small sample size. They wear radiation badges just like people at doctor offices or hospitals. They would know if they got radiation poisoning. Are there risks from being in space? Yep. Are there risks to living next to a power sub-station with all of the transformers? Yep.
 
This user comment from the dailymail version of this story was interesting:

"Fascinating to see the breadth and depth of journalistic scrutiny accorded this 'Science'. I suppose we can ignore the size of the sample - seven people - that would be nit-picking I suppose. But how about we look at a few facts: 1. Actually 24 guys have left low earth orbit. 2. 8 (last I checked) have died. Which considering the remaining guys are in their eighties is pretty good. 3. If we subtract Armstrong and Mitchel who died in their 80s, and Shepard who died at 74 of leukaemia, and Conrad who at 69 died from a motorcycle crash ... that leaves 4 guys. 4. Swigert died of cancer at 51, and Roosa died of pancreatitis at 61. 5. Yes, Jim Irwin had a heart problem - but he actually HAD a heart incident ON the moon - long before radiation could have affected him. Pre-existing condition finally got him age 61. 6. Which leaves Ron Evans who died of a heart attack at age 56. Yes. One man out of 24 that fits the hypothesis. Sort of. Science, 2016 calibre. No wonder we haven't gone back."
 
Nukester said:
This is crap science. How can you draw conclusions from such a small sample size. They wear radiation badges just like people at doctor offices or hospitals. They would know if they got radiation poisoning. Are there risks from being in space? Yep. Are there risks to living next to a power sub-station with all of the transformers? Yep.
Click to expand...


These badges don't account for high energy cosmic rays coming from higher orbit. Unless we find a way to protect astronauts from this type of exposure, deep space travel will be impossible.
 
fdiaz78 said:
These badges don't account for high energy cosmic rays coming from higher orbit. Unless we find a way to protect astronauts from this type of exposure, deep space travel will be impossible.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!"
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges"
“Badgers? Badgers? We don’t need no stinking badgers”
 
alxnet7227 said:
This user comment from the dailymail version of this story was interesting:

"Fascinating to see the breadth and depth of journalistic scrutiny accorded this 'Science'. I suppose we can ignore the size of the sample - seven people - that would be nit-picking I suppose. But how about we look at a few facts: 1. Actually 24 guys have left low earth orbit. 2. 8 (last I checked) have died. Which considering the remaining guys are in their eighties is pretty good. 3. If we subtract Armstrong and Mitchel who died in their 80s, and Shepard who died at 74 of leukaemia, and Conrad who at 69 died from a motorcycle crash ... that leaves 4 guys. 4. Swigert died of cancer at 51, and Roosa died of pancreatitis at 61. 5. Yes, Jim Irwin had a heart problem - but he actually HAD a heart incident ON the moon - long before radiation could have affected him. Pre-existing condition finally got him age 61. 6. Which leaves Ron Evans who died of a heart attack at age 56. Yes. One man out of 24 that fits the hypothesis. Sort of. Science, 2016 calibre. No wonder we haven't gone back."
Click to expand...
I was going to post a similar thing in MUCH less detail... but yeah. I guess because it happens with mice....
 
May have missed it but didn't see any attempt in the article that separated the 18(Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,17) that had exposure to lunar dust from the 9(Apollo 8,10,13) that didn't.
 
I'm impressed we have made it 10 posts in and no one has argued that humans have even never been to space. This must be an older crowd here.
 
westrock2000 said:
I'm impressed we have made it 10 posts in and no one has argued that humans have even never been to space. This must be an older crowd here.
Click to expand...
I resemble that remark.

Conspiracy theories never hold up when critical thinking is applied.
 
Jim Kim said:
I resemble that remark.

Conspiracy theories never hold up when critical thinking is applied.
Click to expand...

I did watch some videos about one recently that argues that "black" people here in America are not from Africa, but actually native Americans. Pretty interesting stuff. Just have to pick your battles.
 
westrock2000 said:
I'm impressed we have made it 10 posts in and no one has argued that humans have even never been to space. This must be an older crowd here.
Click to expand...

We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's
dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go.
 
Dead Parrot said:
May have missed it but didn't see any attempt in the article that separated the 18(Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,17) that had exposure to lunar dust from the 9(Apollo 8,10,13) that didn't.
Click to expand...

I like that you say "seperated the 18" and leave the number 18 outside of the parenthesis of the publicly known missions.

I like yer style dude....very subtle

giphy.gif
 
Didn't people from that generation generally smoke themselves to death and drop dead of a heart attack or stroke before age 60? That along with the small sample size makes this kinda useless.
 
Nukester said:
How can you draw conclusions from such a small sample size
Click to expand...

Maybe because the actual pool of available sample subjects is pretty damned small to begin with, perhaps? I mean, there's not many actual astronauts anymore and aside from the one or two that get sent to the ISS every once in a while we don't have a lot to work with in the first place. They're not comparing the subjects against the entire population, just other astronauts and there just aren't that many to work with in the first place.

I don't even need a detailed long complicated study to know that humans just aren't designed for operation in space for long periods of time and you can be damned sure no matter what kind of shielding or habitats are provided, it's simply not someplace we're supposed to be but we're stupid enough as a species to keep thinking we are "explorers" and we've just got to get the fuck off this planet at some point.
 
The scientific issues aside (the tiny amount of sample size makes this dubiously scientifici), I think it's simply trying to get the science community to investigate this further, rather than being the authority.
 
alxnet7227 said:
This user comment from the dailymail version of this story was interesting:

"Fascinating to see the breadth and depth of journalistic scrutiny accorded this 'Science'. I suppose we can ignore the size of the sample - seven people - that would be nit-picking I suppose. But how about we look at a few facts: 1. Actually 24 guys have left low earth orbit. 2. 8 (last I checked) have died. Which considering the remaining guys are in their eighties is pretty good. 3. If we subtract Armstrong and Mitchel who died in their 80s, and Shepard who died at 74 of leukaemia, and Conrad who at 69 died from a motorcycle crash ... that leaves 4 guys. 4. Swigert died of cancer at 51, and Roosa died of pancreatitis at 61. 5. Yes, Jim Irwin had a heart problem - but he actually HAD a heart incident ON the moon - long before radiation could have affected him. Pre-existing condition finally got him age 61. 6. Which leaves Ron Evans who died of a heart attack at age 56. Yes. One man out of 24 that fits the hypothesis. Sort of. Science, 2016 calibre. No wonder we haven't gone back."
Click to expand...

Don't bring facts to a science fight. That just isn't how it is done today. Don't you know anything?
 
Tiberian said:
Maybe because the actual pool of available sample subjects is pretty damned small to begin with, perhaps? I mean, there's not many actual astronauts anymore and aside from the one or two that get sent to the ISS every once in a while we don't have a lot to work with in the first place. They're not comparing the subjects against the entire population, just other astronauts and there just aren't that many to work with in the first place.

I don't even need a detailed long complicated study to know that humans just aren't designed for operation in space for long periods of time and you can be damned sure no matter what kind of shielding or habitats are provided, it's simply not someplace we're supposed to be but we're stupid enough as a species to keep thinking we are "explorers" and we've just got to get the fuck off this planet at some point.
Click to expand...
So if you don't have a large enough sample that makes it OK to declare baseless assumptions as science?

How do you know where humans are "supposed" to go? If we go by environmental resistance we never should have left the savannas. So unless you live there you're a hypocrite.
 
Tiberian said:
Maybe because the actual pool of available sample subjects is pretty damned small to begin with, perhaps? I mean, there's not many actual astronauts anymore and aside from the one or two that get sent to the ISS every once in a while we don't have a lot to work with in the first place. They're not comparing the subjects against the entire population, just other astronauts and there just aren't that many to work with in the first place.

I don't even need a detailed long complicated study to know that humans just aren't designed for operation in space for long periods of time and you can be damned sure no matter what kind of shielding or habitats are provided, it's simply not someplace we're supposed to be but we're stupid enough as a species to keep thinking we are "explorers" and we've just got to get the fuck off this planet at some point.
Click to expand...

I suppose you don't live in a house that protects you from the elements? No coat in the winter or sunscreen in the summer?

Who decides what we as a species are 'supposed' to do?
 
Nukester said:
This is crap science. How can you draw conclusions from such a small sample size. They wear radiation badges just like people at doctor offices or hospitals. They would know if they got radiation poisoning. Are there risks from being in space? Yep. Are there risks to living next to a power sub-station with all of the transformers? Yep.
Click to expand...
It's obvious they just released this "phony" research to cover up that the Moon landing didn't actually happen. The $170 Billion (equivalent in 2005 dollars) that they spent on the Apollo missions was actually given to Stanley Kubrick. Notice his biggest movie, 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, was given a name with the year he would last produce a film, 2001? Coincidence, nope. The dollars he received for faking the landing was used to finance his biggest movie in 1968, more than enough time to stage a fake landing.

Also, aliens.
 
M76 said:
So unless you live there you're a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Think you need to look up the definition of "hypocrite" and then work on it a bit. If you can't survive in space without detrimental health effects - which are obviously happening to astronauts who spend extended time periods in space - then my point still stands.

Darunion said:
I suppose you don't live in a house that protects you from the elements?
Click to expand...

I did specifically say that no amount of shielding or habitats provided will make a difference; there's only so much one can be protected from outside of Earth's atmosphere aka our home at least for the time being since some folks just wanna get the fuck off the planet pretty bad. :)

We're not talking Interstellar here, at least not for many many decades to come if we don't destroy ourselves first. That's my bet since I am a human being so it's pretty much - as a Terminator knows (at least in fictional theory) - a given that we're going to do just that sooner or later: some stupid fucking human is going to do just the wrong thing and it's going to cost all of us everything.
 
Tiberian said:
Think you need to look up the definition of "hypocrite" and then work on it a bit. If you can't survive in space without detrimental health effects - which are obviously happening to astronauts who spend extended time periods in space - then my point still stands.
Click to expand...
I know perfectly what it means. Would you survive without detrimental health effects for example the winter in Canada if you didn't have special shielding, houses and heating? Of course not. So my statement stands. You're a hypocrite if you say we shouldn't go to space because we can't survive there without special protection. As we couldn't survive without our technology on at least 90% of earth if I include water bodies.

As technology advanced people moved closer and closer to the arctic. First they had fur coats later shacks and now central heating. Space is just as inhospitable as the arctic was for the 10th century human. But technology will improve and we'll have better radiation shields, artificial gravity and so and so.

The 10th century human wasn't able to cross the pacific ocean either. Now it's a regular uneventful trip. The same will happen to space, then the solar system, then the galaxy, then the universe. If the stupid idiots fighting over morals and whose made up deity is better won't kill us first.
 
M76 said:
You're a hypocrite if you say we shouldn't go to space because we can't survive there without special protection.
Click to expand...

Then you actually don't know what the word hypocrite means so here:

Simple Definition of hypocrite
  • : a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs
Click to expand...

At no point did I say or behave in any respect other than what I said: I said we're not designed to operate in space for long periods of time (didn't want to actually quote myself but I guess I just did) and that is my belief 100% hence there's no hypocrisy going on at all - my statement is fully congruent to the matter being discussed at hand. I don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know the facts, a lifetime of being fascinated with all things space and NASA related gives me enough of those.

Nothing that science is going to do is going to alleviate the situation unless it creates an entire planet with the same or very similar actual gravity conditions (which is a big part in why those detrimental health effects are happening) along with many other aspects that we as a life form are just not cut out for.

If you wish to believe otherwise then we simply have a disagreement - my actual beliefs align with what I know 100% across the board.
 
Tiberian said:
Then you actually don't know what the word hypocrite means so here:



At no point did I say or behave in any respect other than what I said: I said we're not designed to operate in space for long periods of time (didn't want to actually quote myself but I guess I just did) and that is my belief 100% hence there's no hypocrisy going on at all - my statement is fully congruent to the matter being discussed at hand. I don't have to be a "rocket scientist" to know the facts, a lifetime of being fascinated with all things space and NASA related gives me enough of those.

Nothing that science is going to do is going to alleviate the situation unless it creates an entire planet with the same or very similar actual gravity conditions (which is a big part in why those detrimental health effects are happening) along with many other aspects that we as a life form are just not cut out for.

If you wish to believe otherwise then we simply have a disagreement - my actual beliefs align with what I know 100% across the board.
Click to expand...

And that definition literally 100% fits you. As you say we shouldn't go to places (in this case space) we are "not designed to operate in". Yet you're not living in the savanna human's were designed for. Therefore you're a hypocrite. Which part of that you think is not accurate?

Heating in your house doesn't create a savanna, it just alleviates the effects of the cold.

I couldn't find a better candidate for exemplifying hypocrisy than what you present here.
 
As the saying goes, "What we have here... is a failure... to communicate." ;)
 
That Van Allen radiation belt ain't no joke apparently.
 
The stigma of knowing the real truth - that we never went to the moon - is too much for their hearts to bear. :D
 
The huge problem becomes, the most common written cause of death is cardiac arrest. Once you're old and more likely to be out of shape, pretty much anything can push you over the edge by overstraining your heart. For example. 60 year old man who is fine otherwise and has no health problems, goes out to shovel show. Has heart attack. That goes into the category of 'heart disease' related deaths, even though it's technically because he was a dumb ass for doing something he's not in shape to do.

I see physicians write this (heart attack, aka myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest) as the cause of death for most people. It's rarely the cause; it's the result. It's a result of something else overtaxing the heart and lung's ability pump enough blood to the rest of the body. If the cause of stress had not occured, the person would likely live another ten or more years.

I asked one of the doctors why they just left it like that, even when the person had end stage cancer, renal disease, a stroke that had made them unable to function, or any number of other serious health problems that would actually be the cause of the heart attack. His answer? 'They died of a heart attack. If their heart was still beating, they'd still be alive. So, they died of a heart attack'.

So there you go. The numbers we get about heart disease causing death are way overblown, and have been for at least the 45 years that I've been observing what actually gets written down on the death certificates.
 
buhbuhfet said:
unpossible, people blame the poor jew without any real evidence? that's so unfair, damn those antijews
Click to expand...

I always laugh when I see some of those idiots blaming Spielberg for creating pro-Jew propaganda film and greedy Jew's money making machine (Schindler's List) to further conceal the '"truth" that Holocaust never supposedly happened in the first place and is a lie made by Jews to create sympathy. Disgusting really.
 
what is their average age of death...these guys are not exactly spring chickens any more...

Edgar Mitchell died at 85
Neil Armstrong died at 82
Pete Conrad died at 69
James Irwin was the youngest at 61
Buzz Aldrin age 86
Alan Bean age 84
Alan Shepard 74
David Scott is 84
John Young age 85
Charles Duke age 82
Harrison Schmitt age 81

only 2 of these guys did not beat the average of 76 years for men in the USA. The average of the guys living is an impressive 82.3 years. The average of the men who died is 72.25 below the general population by about 2 years but the sample size is small. As a group, they will have outlived the general population by at least 6 years.
 
Last edited:
Mistral said:
I always laugh when I see some of those idiots blaming Spielberg for creating pro-Jew propaganda film and greedy Jew's money making machine (Schindler's List) to further conceal the '"truth" that Holocaust never supposedly happened in the first place and is a lie made by Jews to create sympathy. Disgusting really.
Click to expand...

well who really cares about holocaust anymore? did it happen like "they" say it did? maybe, maybe not, either way you have no right to cry holocaust while you're murdering Palestinians, sorry
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
only 2 of these guys did not beat the average of 76 years for men in the USA. The average of the guys living is an impressive 82.3 years. The average of the men who died is 72.25 below the general population by about 2 years but the sample size is small. As a group, they will have outlived the general population by at least 6 years.
Click to expand...

Yep. Thats a reflection of picking astronauts who are physically top-shelf kind of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top