Study finds cosmic rays increased heart risks among Apollo astronauts

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 data is very limited, and you have to remember the diet of the generation these guys came from as well. Definitely merits further study, though.

Actually it makes perfect sense being that they were subjected to higher doses and you are forgeting something more important. It further proves they did go to the moon

or of course they sat in a desert somewhere and ate loads of bacon butties......

Don't talk rubbish dodge...


Heart disease % death falls well within the expected for wider population...


This proves they didn't go anywhere... as the massive levels of radiation would have resulted in massive levels of cancer and deaths from cancer related diseases...

Which shows you know nothing, how long did they spend going through the belt tommy?
How much radiation would they have effected them by?
Please dont talk bollocks Tommy as if you do i will post up the science to make you lok very silly

Ohhhh... you're gonna post up science...!?


Scary...

And you fell prey to that fear by backing down lol




Here chew on this

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Didge wrote:Which shows you know nothing, how long did they spend going through the belt tommy?
How much radiation would they have effected them by?
Please dont talk bollocks Tommy as if you do i will post up the science to make you lok very silly

I think you are confused...


Are you saying they were exposed to higher levels of radiation or not...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:Which shows you know nothing, how long did they spend going through the belt tommy?
How much radiation would they have effected them by?
Please dont talk bollocks Tommy as if you do i will post up the science to make you lok very silly

I think you are confused...


Are you saying they were exposed to higher levels of radiation or not...!?

  

PMSL

I did post the information for you and then you ask me that.

Never denied it would be higher but its on for how long and if it would be so damaging based on the little time going through the belt.

Hilarious dummy question posed

What are you claiming that I have not stated Tommy?



Its all here

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Wait, is Tommy also a moon-landing conspiracy theorist?

Good god, I couldn't write a character that laughable, he'd be too unrealistic!

1)  Why do you keep invoking a deity?  And a Good one?

2)  Yes Tommy believes the Moon landings are a hoax based on being very gullible

Always have to wonder why they never made it back though.

eddie wrote:Always have to wonder why they never made it back though.

Roger Rabbit?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I think you are confused...


Are you saying they were exposed to higher levels of radiation or not...!?

  

PMSL

I did post the information for you and then you ask me that.

Never denied it would be higher but its on for how long and if it would be so damaging based on the little time going through the belt.

Hilarious dummy question posed

What are you claiming that I have not stated Tommy?



Its all here

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

And exposure to high levels of radiation causes what...?





Clue... it doesn't cause you to live to a ripe old age and die of heart problems just like you'd find in similar % rate as rest of population who hadn't been exposed to same radiation...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


  

PMSL

I did post the information for you and then you ask me that.

Never denied it would be higher but its on for how long and if it would be so damaging based on the little time going through the belt.

Hilarious dummy question posed

What are you claiming that I have not stated Tommy?



Its all here

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

And exposure to high levels of radiation causes what...?





Clue... it doesn't cause you to live to a ripe old age and die of heart problems just like you'd find in similar % rate as rest of population who hadn't been exposed to same radiation...

Based on what Tommy?

Provide the scientific evidence against the study

In your own time

Something that's always puzzled me, i'm not doubting the landing but when the Lander took off from the moon a camera followed the take off as the lander left the Moon surface, did they leave someone behind to take pictures or was it a remote control camera?

I always wondered why they never really made it back.

nicko wrote:Something that's always puzzled me,  i'm not doubting the landing but when the Lander took off from the moon a camera followed the take off as the lander left the Moon surface,  did they leave someone behind to take pictures   or was it a remote control camera?

There were cameras on the lunar rovers Nicko

Dodge... the only increased risk from high levels of cosmic radiation would be increased risk of cancers...


The fact these astronauts managed to live long enough (cancer free) to have instead died from cardiovascular reasons (which kills 1 in 3 Americans anyway), would suggest ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS...


1. Exposure to high levels of radiation DOESN'T increase risk of cancers.

OR

2. The 'astronauts' didn't get exposed to high levels of radiation.


The first one we know to be completely untrue... it is an irrefutable fact that exposure to high levels of radiation DEFINITELY DOES increase risk of cancers!!!


And the only way the 'astronauts' would not have suffered exposure to high levels of radiation... is if they never left earth's atmosphere!!!

Tommy I asked you for the science and you instead repeat the opinion you gave, followed up by your trademark lol

That says to me you have absolutely no comprehension what you are talking about.

Your forgot option 3 Tommy.

The astronauts were exposed to high levels of radiation, but they passed through this so quickly, that it had some effect, but a small effect. One though that caused their life expectancy to diminish by a few years by increasing their chances of heart desease and also cancer based on risk and small but permenant damage.

Now how do I know this?

Well, if you have an ability to understand this, you will of course be able to counter factually, if you think I am wrong.

Why do I know you will fail?

All you have to do is lok to the astronauts themselves and what happened to them.

So again, one last time, present to me the evidence and science that the apollo missions did not happen as they did based on physics and time, multiplied by speed?

Put it this way, what effect would their be on people if they travelled through Chernobyl, straight after the disaster. If they drove through the area, basing a comparrison on area size and travel speed to compare the effects?
Have a good evening

Its a game Tommy, callled

Call my bluff and you are about to lose

You keep hinting at the exposure to the incredibly high level of radiation from the 'Van Allen belt'...


Completely failing to consider the exposure to high levels of radiation that would have occured throughout the whole time they were outside of the Earth's atmosphere on each mission...


And also failing to consider that they would each have had to pass through the 'van Allen belt' a second time on return journey too... and at a much slower speed while approaching re-entry to earths atmosphere...


And on top of this... you are showing your complete lack of understanding of the trajectory of which a rocket travels when blasting up and away from earth's surface and into our atmosphere...

Deflection alert

I did not fail, as I certainly consider everything Tommy, hence the example of Chernobyl, and those effected by this. So again Tommy, you are producing a load of hot air not backed up by a single peice of scientif evidence.

I did consider they passed twice through the Van Allen belt twice and looked to Van allen himnself on this Tommy

]"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Now for the third time, back up your claim with evidence

In your own time mate

[color:2b2d=886868]There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel.

This general charge is usually made by people who don't understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.

[color:2b2d=886868]It doesn't matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.

This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.
The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.
But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

[color:2b2d=886868]The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

[color:2b2d=886868]NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the more intense parts of the belts.

True, but the point was to validate the scientific models using hard data, and to ascertain that a spacecraft hull would indeed attenuate the radiation as predicted.

Exposure to high levels of radiation is not immediately fatal...


While the 'astronauts' having absolutely no short term symptoms or adverse effects, and no long term problems from their exposure to high levels of radiation is totally impossible and therefore makes the moon landings totally unbelievable!!!

Deflection yet again

How many times did I ask for you to back up your pseudo science?

You claim you know what you are talking about by repeating and varying that same opinion to try and sound like you do know.

Big expose mate

You just proved you do not.

Read again the evidence I presented before you posted
If you thinks itys wrong, fully explain the chemistry and physics scientifically?

So goodnight and why you are a very good example of someone who believes wrongly that to try and fake what you know. Will only lead to the one thing you want. People to think you are intelligent. You do not need to force that Tommy.
You are intelligent, you are just easily and sadly maipulated and why?
You lack complete trust in many things.
Not everything, but I bet it stems from growing up and a feeling of abandonment.

Get passed the prejudice Tommy and you will see even more people will like you.
As all the humour exposes you to your fears.
You are a nice bloke and I think deep down you like arguing for attention.
I actually now think you are not prejudiced at all.
You only say it for attention

Have to go

Night

I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Ben Reilly wrote:I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Alexa vous a dit?

Ben Reilly wrote:I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Is that a pertception boirn from exprince or a fear of yourself?
People who constantly say this lack trust.
Plain and simple
They may lack trust based on who they are in confindence
That does not mean they will lie and if they do its intention is not hateful, but to seek people to like them.
So some of them are dishonesty in their real lives, but who is there for them?
have we time and again discarded them to oneside because we have given up on them, due to our own lack of patience?

Again you just been badly prejudged. I have been known to do that and in your case and mine its always been due to emotions.
When we reason, we reason well, but the above shows frustration.
Maybe at me, I do not know, again it shows you do actually care.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Alexa vous a dit?

No, es una observacion que he hecho toda mi vida!

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Alexa vous a dit?

No, es una observacion que he hecho toda mi vida!

All your life?

You have only lived some of that life, hence is not all of your life, just part of your life.

All is finate

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Is that a pertception boirn from exprince or a fear of yourself?
People who constantly say this lack trust.
Plain and simple
They may lack trust based on who they are in confindence
That does not mean they will lie and if they do its intention is not hateful, but to seek people to like them.
So some of them are dishonesty in their real lives, but who is there for them?
have we time and again discarded them to oneside because we have given up on them, due to our own lack of patience?

Again you just been badly prejudged. I have been known to do that and in your case and mine its always been due to emotions.
When we reason, we reason well, but the above shows frustration.
Maybe at me, I do not know, again it shows you do actually care.

It's a kind of preconception that people who accuse someone of doing something ie lying, cheating etc are probably guilty of what they're accusing someone of.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Is that a pertception boirn from exprince or a fear of yourself?
People who constantly say this lack trust.
Plain and simple
They may lack trust based on who they are in confindence
That does not mean they will lie and if they do its intention is not hateful, but to seek people to like them.
So some of them are dishonesty in their real lives, but who is there for them?
have we time and again discarded them to oneside because we have given up on them, due to our own lack of patience?

Again you just been badly prejudged. I have been known to do that and in your case and mine its always been due to emotions.
When we reason, we reason well, but the above shows frustration.
Maybe at me, I do not know, again it shows you do actually care.

I've just had the misfortune of knowing some world-class liars in my time (whom I've caught telling true whoppers) and they have all been the sort to think everyone else lies all the time.

People tend to over-assume that others are mainly like them, you know. A friend of mine is convinced that most of the public smokes pot (it's about 1 in 5, actually) because he does. Another friend assumed that because he'd never heard of a band I played for him one time, nobody else had heard of it, either.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Alexa vous a dit?

No, es una observacion que he hecho toda mi vida!

All your life?

You have only lived some of that life, hence is not all of your life, just part of your life.

All is finate

Toda mi vida hasta este punto.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Is that a pertception boirn from exprince or a fear of yourself?
People who constantly say this lack trust.
Plain and simple
They may lack trust based on who they are in confindence
That does not mean they will lie and if they do its intention is not hateful, but to seek people to like them.
So some of them are dishonesty in their real lives, but who is there for them?
have we time and again discarded them to oneside because we have given up on them, due to our own lack of patience?

Again you just been badly prejudged. I have been known to do that and in your case and mine its always been due to emotions.
When we reason, we reason well, but the above shows frustration.
Maybe at me, I do not know, again it shows you do actually care.

It's  a kind of preconception that people who accuse someone of doing something ie lying, cheating etc are probably guilty of what they're accusing someone of.

Its a preconception whether right or wrong.
But when its right.

You tell me, am I wrong?

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I always think that people who constantly say people are lying are probably not very honest in their own lives ...

Is that a pertception boirn from exprince or a fear of yourself?
People who constantly say this lack trust.
Plain and simple
They may lack trust based on who they are in confindence
That does not mean they will lie and if they do its intention is not hateful, but to seek people to like them.
So some of them are dishonesty in their real lives, but who is there for them?
have we time and again discarded them to oneside because we have given up on them, due to our own lack of patience?

Again you just been badly prejudged. I have been known to do that and in your case and mine its always been due to emotions.
When we reason, we reason well, but the above shows frustration.
Maybe at me, I do not know, again it shows you do actually care.

It's  a kind of preconception that people who accuse someone of doing something ie lying, cheating etc are probably guilty of what they're accusing someone of.

That's not really what I said, though ... people who CONSTANTLY accuse others of lying often turn out to be liars.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


All your life?

You have only lived some of that life, hence is not all of your life, just part of your life.

All is finate

Toda mi vida hasta este punto.

My life now. not up until Now, as we are speaking in the present.
Its now that you know.

The point is forever moving

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


All your life?

You have only lived some of that life, hence is not all of your life, just part of your life.

All is finate

Toda mi vida hasta este punto.

My life now. not up until Now, as we are speaking in the present.
Its now that you know.

The point is forever moving

Chinga tu madre, joda!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


My life now. not up until Now, as we are speaking in the present.
Its now that you know.

The point is forever moving

Chinga tu madre, joda!!!

Without the two first words that just means motherfuck

How rude

The point is the present never is, its moviong forward and constant.
So there reall is never a situation of now, as its always passed in our concept of time

comprende\?

'Joda'. I'll file that.

Didge people that accuse people of lying alot do tend to be liars in my experience

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


My life now. not up until Now, as we are speaking in the present.
Its now that you know.

The point is forever moving

Chinga tu madre, joda!!!

Without the two first words that just means motherfuck

How rude

The point is the presdent never is, its moviong forward and constant.
So there reall is never a situation of now, as its always passed in our concept of time

comprende\?

No necesito tu filosofia, cabron.

eddie wrote:'Joda'. I'll file that.

Didge people that accuse people of lying alot do tend to be liars in my experience

Based on your perception?
Or

Science?

How badly do people percieve Eddie?

Now if you can perceive you will know what i am talking about.

People who lie the most are clouded by fear

People who accuse lack trust

Different things eddie

Going from past experience Didge? I can't say it simpler than that.

eddie wrote:Going from past experience Didge? I can't say it simpler than that.

I kinow and that is why its starnge to have someone like me,. for you to know
You are not the only one, neither am I

I didn't understand that post. Might be me but it didn't make sense to me.

eddie wrote:I didn't understand that post. Might be me but it didn't make sense to me.

Then you are not lik me

Take that infomration as you will.

You rely on emotions to form a judgement

Some of us dont

You got all that from me saying I didn't understand your wording?

eddie wrote:You got all that from me saying I didn't understand your wording?

Yep

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I think you are confused...


Are you saying they were exposed to higher levels of radiation or not...!?

  

PMSL

I did post the information for you and then you ask me that.

Never denied it would be higher but its on for how long and if it would be so damaging based on the little time going through the belt.

Hilarious dummy question posed

What are you claiming that I have not stated Tommy?



Its all here

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

And exposure to high levels of radiation causes what...?





Clue... it doesn't cause you to live to a ripe old age and die of heart problems just like you'd find in similar % rate as rest of population who hadn't been exposed to same radiation...

It can also cause heart disease, you know ...