Study finds cosmic rays increased heart risks among Apollo astronauts

First topic message reminder :

Apollo astronauts who ventured to the moon are at five times greater risk of dying from heart disease than shuttle astronauts, U.S. researchers said on Thursday, citing the dangers of cosmic radiation beyond the Earth’s magnetic field. The study by researchers at Florida State University and NASA found that three Apollo astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, or 43 percent of those studied, died from cardiovascular disease, a finding with implications for future human travel beyond Earth.

The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, was the first to look at the mortality of Apollo astronauts, the only people so far to travel beyond a few hundred miles (km) of Earth. It found that the chief health threat to the Apollo astronauts came from cosmic rays, which are more prevalent and powerful beyond the magnetic bubble that surrounds Earth. NASA disputed the findings, saying it was too early to draw conclusions about the effect of cosmic rays on Apollo astronauts because the current data is limited.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/study-finds-cosmic-rays-increased-heart-risks-among-apollo-astronauts/

The exposure would have been high level and to whole body...


Cancers would have been much more expected...

Tommy Monk wrote:

The exposure would have been high level and to whole body...


Cancers would have been much more expected...

Exposure to different types of radiation, for different durations, creates varied medical conditions. The astronauts were pretty well shielded from truly dangerous radiation but probably got the equivalent of a CT scan. People in some parts of Britain actually receive the equivalent dose of radiation every year and have few ill effects.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The exposure would have been high level and to whole body...


Cancers would have been much more expected...

(1)
Exposure to different types of radiation, for different durations, creates varied medical conditions.

(2)
The astronauts were pretty well shielded from truly dangerous radiation but probably got the equivalent of a CT scan.

(3)
People in some parts of Britain actually receive the equivalent dose of radiation every year and have few ill effects.

1 - This is true when speaking generally from an overall perspective... but it is not an argument against what I said.

2 - False and false... not well shielded at all... and subjected to very much higher levels of radiation throughout every minute of supposed journeys than what one person would get from one CT scan...

3 - False... a whole body CT scan is about 50msv... the average person in uk would be getting about 2msv over a whole year...

Again Tommy does not understand the phsyics, multipled by speed.

Didge wrote:Again Tommy does not understand the phsyics, multipled by speed.

Dodge... I understand it all perfectly well... while you struggle to even spell some of it correctly...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:Again Tommy does not understand the phsyics, multipled by speed.

Dodge... I understand it all perfectly well... while you struggle to even spell some of it correctly...!

Actually Tommy, you have failed to demonstrate you understand any of this.

This is also your last chance to correctly address me as Didge

Otherwise i will simply send you to Coventry

Your choice

Ok dodge...

Tommy Monk wrote:


Ok dodge...

Enjoy Coventry

This is now my last post to you, until you learn some manners.

Enjoy it, as it will bug you more than me, as you thrive on debate

All the best Tommy

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The exposure would have been high level and to whole body...


Cancers would have been much more expected...

(1)
Exposure to different types of radiation, for different durations, creates varied medical conditions.

(2)
The astronauts were pretty well shielded from truly dangerous radiation but probably got the equivalent of a CT scan.

(3)
People in some parts of Britain actually receive the equivalent dose of radiation every year and have few ill effects.

1 - This is true when speaking generally from an overall perspective... but it is not an argument against what I said.

2 - False and false... not well shielded at all... and subjected to very much higher levels of radiation throughout every minute of supposed journeys than what one person would get from one CT scan...

3 - False... a whole body CT scan is about 50msv... the average person in uk would be getting about 2msv over a whole year...

1) You were saying cancer would be more likely than heart disease, and since the astronauts weren't exposed to the kind of, or as much of, the radiation you think they were, it's an important point.

2) Where's your source for that information? All my research says the equivalent of a CT scan.

3) I didn't say the "average person in the UK," did I? I said people in some parts, so please pay better attention. In places like Cornwall, people are exposed to about a CT scan worth of radiation yearly.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


1 - This is true when speaking generally from an overall perspective... but it is not an argument against what I said.

2 - False and false... not well shielded at all... and subjected to very much higher levels of radiation throughout every minute of supposed journeys than what one person would get from one CT scan...

3 - False... a whole body CT scan is about 50msv... the average person in uk would be getting about 2msv over a whole year...

1) You were saying cancer would be more likely than heart disease, and since the astronauts weren't exposed to the kind of, or as much of, the radiation you think they were, it's an important point.

2) Where's your source for that information? All my research says the equivalent of a CT scan.

3) I didn't say the "average person in the UK," did I? I said people in some parts, so please pay better attention. In places like Cornwall, people are exposed to about a CT scan worth of radiation yearly.

1. And you can show us evidence of this exposure to only one particular kind of radiation, and how this only affects the heart...?

2. You made the claim of astronauts being well shielded and only getting dose of a CT scan... you prove it!?

3. You still haven't quantified what you actually mean by a 'CT scan level of radiation'...?

Please clarify in 'msv'...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


1 - This is true when speaking generally from an overall perspective... but it is not an argument against what I said.

2 - False and false... not well shielded at all... and subjected to very much higher levels of radiation throughout every minute of supposed journeys than what one person would get from one CT scan...

3 - False... a whole body CT scan is about 50msv... the average person in uk would be getting about 2msv over a whole year...

1) You were saying cancer would be more likely than heart disease, and since the astronauts weren't exposed to the kind of, or as much of, the radiation you think they were, it's an important point.

2) Where's your source for that information? All my research says the equivalent of a CT scan.

3) I didn't say the "average person in the UK," did I? I said people in some parts, so please pay better attention. In places like Cornwall, people are exposed to about a CT scan worth of radiation yearly.

1. And you can show us evidence of this exposure to only one particular kind of radiation, and how this only affects the heart...?

2. You made the claim of astronauts being well shielded and only getting dose of a CT scan... you prove it!?

3. You still haven't quantified what you actually mean by a 'CT scan level of radiation'...?

Please clarify in 'msv'...?

There's tons of stuff online that debunks the moon landing hoax theory, just read that. I have better uses for my time

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


1 - This is true when speaking generally from an overall perspective... but it is not an argument against what I said.

2 - False and false... not well shielded at all... and subjected to very much higher levels of radiation throughout every minute of supposed journeys than what one person would get from one CT scan...

3 - False... a whole body CT scan is about 50msv... the average person in uk would be getting about 2msv over a whole year...

1) You were saying cancer would be more likely than heart disease, and since the astronauts weren't exposed to the kind of, or as much of, the radiation you think they were, it's an important point.

2) Where's your source for that information? All my research says the equivalent of a CT scan.

3) I didn't say the "average person in the UK," did I? I said people in some parts, so please pay better attention. In places like Cornwall, people are exposed to about a CT scan worth of radiation yearly.

Like i said, he has failed to demostrate the pshyics, maths and speed and continues to do so.

I did laugh, when he tried reverse psychology by asking you to prove the levels of radiation, when he is has failed to post up any scientic evidence to prove what harm he perceives it would cause. Failing again to understand speed of the Apollo crafts. Its like I said to him, what effect would happen to people driving in a car after the chernobyl disaster.
He avoided answering this like the plague.
I would not further waste your time until he actually posts up some scientific evidence instead of his usual waffle hearsay

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


1. And you can show us evidence of this exposure to only one particular kind of radiation, and how this only affects the heart...?

2. You made the claim of astronauts being well shielded and only getting dose of a CT scan... you prove it!?

3. You still haven't quantified what you actually mean by a 'CT scan level of radiation'...?

Please clarify in 'msv'...?

There's tons of stuff online that debunks the moon landing hoax theory, just read that. I have better uses for my time

I have only asked you to clarify some of the detail of some of the points you have claimed...?


The points of which you have also claimed to be your own informed opinions based on your own extensive research...!?


I know comprehensive research takes a lot of time... but surely you haven't spent so much time researching this subject, and here already on this thread, that you can't spare a couple minutes more just to answer the simple questions I asked, and to clarify some of your points...!?





Come on...?


All the time you spent 'researching' would be wasted if you couldn't share some of the wealth of knowledge you have, with us now...?






And dodge... you still can't even spell what you are pretending to understand!!!