Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: space radiation & cancer
10kBq jaro

Date:
space radiation & cancer



A pretty good introduction to the subject, IMO..... This type article can help demystify radiation for the lay person -- although a bit more info on the highly variable natural background radiation levels around the world would be very helpful too.... How else are people supposed to find out ? ....from the antinukes ??

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09may_mysteriouscancer.htm?list150959


Mysterious Cancer


Researchers agree that space radiation can cause cancer. They're just not sure how.


May 9, 2005:


Despite urgent warnings from Hollywood, double-jawed aliens are probably not a spacefarer's biggest risk. Radiation is worse. It shreds not flesh, but DNA molecules, and that can cause a multitude of problems. One big one: it can lead to cancer.


Oddly enough, according to cancer specialist Dr. John Dicello of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, radiation "is relatively poor at inducing cancer." Chemicals, he says, can do far more damage, as shown by the strong tie between environmental contaminants and increased levels of cancer.


But for space travelers, radiation is a tremendous worry. That's because astronauts are exposed to far more radiation than we typically encounter on Earth. And it's a different kind of radiation. Cosmic rays from deep space, for instance, are composed of heavier particles than our bodies are used to, and they have little trouble breaking strands of DNA.


Broken DNA, by itself, is not necessarily cause for alarm. DNA strands break all the time. Even a physical blow will do it. "If you hit yourself with a hammer," notes Dicello, "that can do a lot more damage than most radiation exposures." Because this kind of damage occurs so frequently, the body has evolved mechanisms to handle it.


Sometimes, he explains, cells with damaged DNA simply destroy themselves. Other times, they try to repair the damage. Problems start when they do this incorrectly. They might, for example, insert a chunk of DNA in the wrong place. Or they might attach it to the wrong chromosome.


When that happens, it's possible that the mistake will let that cell ignore constraints designed to make cells behave. A cancer can start when altered genes allow the cell and its descendants to multiply too freely.


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/images/mysteriouscancer/DNA3.gif


Right: Space radiation damages DNA.


http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/AboutSRAG/Why/Why.htm


Astronauts have been classified as radiation workers and, monitoring their radiation exposure has been a key requirement for spaceflight since Project Mercury. Terrestrial radiation guidelines are considered too restrictive for space activities. Therefore, NASA has adopted the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) for spaceflight activities. These limits, which are considerably higher than those for terrestrial radiation workers (5 rem per year), are detailed in the table below.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Organ Specific Exposure Limits for Astronauts


Exposure Interval         Blood Forming Organs                        Eye       Skin
30 Days                                          25 rem                               100 rem 150 rem
Annual                                           50 rem                               200 rem 300 rem
Career       150 - 400 rem [200 + 7.5(age - 30) for men]  
                   100 - 300 rem [200 + 7.5(age - 38) for women]  400 rem 600 rem

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So far the story sounds simple: Radiation damages DNA. Repairs are bungled. Cancer ensues.


But it's not so simple, says Dicello, not at all. Radiation can affect human tissue in unpredictable ways, and the chain of events leading from radiation to cancer is vexingly complex. "If I really understood it, I'd probably win the Nobel Prize."


Consider the following: Some astronauts, veterans of long space missions, have "significant chromosome aberrations" in their blood cells1. These aberrations may be "associated with the development of cancer," says Dicello, but they do not, by themselves, cause cancer. For that to happen, cells with aberrations must undergo a series of further mutations. According to the National Cancer Institute, "the number of cell divisions that occur during this process can be astronomically large--human tumors often become apparent only after they have grown to a size of 10 to 100 billion cells.2" Years, even decades, might pass between the onset of the problem, the exposure to radiation, and the appearance of a tumor.


Because of the delay, it's very difficult to determine exactly when or why a cancer starts. That's the bad news.


The good news -- for astronauts and for the rest of us -- is that there are many places along this slow developmental path at which an incipient cancer can be stopped. Indeed, researchers have pinpointed some of the genes involved3 and they're working on treatments targeted directly at those genes.


 


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/images/mysteriouscancer/fig3.gif


Above: Stages of cancerous tumor development.


Understanding how to stop the cancer, however, doesn't necessarily tell us how it starts.


Cells often react in unexpected ways to radiation, notes Dicello. For example, there's a puzzling phenomenon known as adaptive response. Sometimes, when tissue is exposed to damaging radiation, it not only repairs itself, but also learns to repair itself better next time. How that works is still being investigated. [this kind of response is called radiation hormesis]


Furthermore, radiation damage is not always proportional to the amount of radiation experienced. "Our research shows some unusual things," says Dicello. Some types of chromosome aberrations are very sensitive to radiation. "Deliver a low dose, and they take off." Other types of aberrations require much higher doses. Researchers are still trying to sort out which is which … and why?


These uncertainties make it hard to predict how human tissue will react to space radiation. Astronauts, points out Dicello, will encounter at least two kinds of radiation: (1) high-energy cosmic rays from distant exploding stars and (2) less-energetic protons and photons from flares on our own sun -- and they can be exposed to both at the same time.


While researchers know something about how cells respond to each kind of radiation separately, some of Dicello's work suggests that exposure to these two types of radiation mixed together could produce as-yet unpredictable results.


The damage could be less than the two kinds added together -- or it could be more! There could, perhaps, be an adaptive response in which lightweight solar protons stimulate repair processes to help reduce the effects of the heavy cosmic ray ions. Or something totally unexpected could happen.


There's still a lot to learn. Dicello lists some of the questions: "How important is adaptive response? How important is the effect of cells on each other? How important are antioxidants? We don't yet know."


"The answers are important to everyone," he adds. Understanding how the body deals with damaged DNA could help doctors prevent complications from the radiation treatments given to cancer patients. It might help them deal with the fallout from, say, a terrorist's dirty bomb or DNA-problems caused by environmental or chemical pollution.


Eventually, Dicello believes, researchers will figure it out. And when that happens, people on Earth will benefit at least as much as people in space…


…who can then turn to lesser worries, like double-jawed aliens.


 



__________________
GoogleNaut

Date:

Interesting article, thanks Jaro.

I think that radiation shielding--and the necessity to provide it--points to a spacecraft engineering philosophy of 'bigger is better.'

What I mean by that is that larger spacecraft can have crew compartments shielded with water and polyethylene. Even a foot of water would afford good protection, however a meter would be outstanding. Larger spacecraft could have centraly located 'storm cellars' with heavy shielding that would well protect the crew against all but the most energetic cosmic rays.

There has been some work on the concept of magnetoplasma shielding--which is to charge the outershell of the spacecraft to several hundred million volts by using a linear accelerator to fire electrons away. And then enveloping the vessel in a strong magnetic field generated by superconducting magnets. The strong magnetic field prevents the electrons from falling bak onto the ship, and the combination of high positive charge and strong magnetic fields 'deflects' most incoming heavy-ion cosmic rays.

But all of this is a substantial weight penalty--and this requires a big ship.

Such a ship would just about have to be nuclear powered.


__________________
Ashley

Date:

But quantity of radiation is not quite as bad as what form it is in, what secondary effects it produces, and what is producing it.


Most of the forms of "radiation" in space are actually not radiation so much as causes of secondary radiation.  Sub atomic particles travelling at relativistic velocities are not "radiation" in and of themselves, but when they plow through something, (especially the heavier metals used in radiation shields) the split the atoms in that substance and send a stream of heavy ions (which are more immedeatly destructive to biological systems) together with high energy xrays and gamma rays.  So a water shield works better.


On earth, with the atmosphere and radiation belts stopping most of those thing, we only have to worry about the secondary stuff, making the metal shields work better.


try www.oism.org for a book that explains lots of the differences, and could also apply a little to Orion work in general.



__________________
GoogleNaut

Date:

Secondary particle showers from the impact of relatavistic heavy-ions (such as iron nuclei) can produce dramatic cascades. Also some of the heavy ions can be produced from space craft hull materials if the impactor is an energetic cosmic proton.

I understand that the term 'radiation' is somewhat of a misnomer when describing the cosmic and solar particle flux, and I also realize that the affects are different for ionizing and non ionizing radiations, however the overall result is the same: cell damage caused when high energy is deposited into the organelles and the DNA/RNA strands in the nucleus. Disruption of cellular machinery, and possible genetic mutations resulting in possible pre-cancerous lesions are the result of such damage.

This is why I suspect that for long duration space missions, really large vessels will be needed. By decreasing the mean free path of cosmic radiation (i.e., more shielding) this flux can be reduced, but not eliminated. Even Earth's atmosphere cannot stop all showers from reaching the ground, but the overall shielding is excellent.

__________________
Dusty

Date:
RE: Cosmic Rays


I am intregued by cosmic rays, I have read that they can posess energies in excess of 10^20 Ev. Thats as much energy as a bb gun pellet (near enough)   an unbelievable, staggering ammount of energy to be carried by a single nucleus. What in Gods domain is generating these things. (and what would happen if one hit you? )


 


Dusty



__________________
10kBq jaro

Date:
RE: space radiation & cancer


A single particle does not constitute what we call a "radiation flux."


As such, its quite possible that it might pass through your body without hitting anything. Also, it might hit one or two other nuclei, causing them to recoil away.


OTOH, it also depends on whether the incoming high-energy cosmic ray is ionised (ie. charged), in which case it would have a much bigger foot print: like fission fragments recoiling from the spontaneous fission of a uranium atom in a mineral crystal, highly-charged heavy particles leave behind long "tracks" of disturbed matter. These tracks can even be seen under a microscope, if they are etched with acid first, to make them appear wider. You can find photos of these if you do a Google image search on "fission track dating" or similar....


Lighter charged particles like alpha rays also do this, but their range is relatively short -- about the equivalent of the diameter of a single cell, or two, in the body. This makes it practical to use such radiation in cancer treatment -- the short range means that only cancer cells can be targeted (ie. killed), without damaging many normal cells. Two types of cancer treatment techniques use this method -- implanted stents using alpha-radioactive substances, and BNCT - Boron-Neutron Capture Therapy.



__________________
Philipum

Date:

To Dusty:

Cosmic rays in excess of 10^20 Ev are extremely rare - much less than 1 particle per square km per year. The ones that have been seen so far were detected by large arrays of detectors spread on surfaces of square km on the Earth's surface to detect showers of secondary muons created when the high-energy particle interacts with the atmosphere. Alternatively, by night, it is also possible to detect the light emitted by fluorescence in the atmosphere. So, they are detected indirectly, and we do not know which type of particle they are. We have good reason to believe that they are protons. There are experiments at the south pole (AMANDA/ICECUBE) to chance upon detecting ultra-high energy neutrinos but they have not seen much so far.

Now, where they come from... ... that is the big question. They are no known acceleration mechanisms that are capable of accelerating particles to such energies. As far as we know, we can only think of one atronomical object which potentially could do it: active galactic nuclei. But this means that these particles have to travel intergalactic distances before reaching us, but the interaction with the micro-wave background is expected to slow them down under such long distances (this effect is known as the GKZ cutoff), so the mystery remains. By colleting samples of such particles, with sufficiently accurate direction information, we can hope to trace back from which region of the sky they come from and point the telescopes in that direction, to discover... .

__________________
GoogleNaut

Date:

This is a little more off topic--but there have been some proposed mechanisms that explain the anomolously huge energies of some cosimic ray protons. One as Philipum points out, active galacitic nuclei. Others propose super nova explosions, although this can explain the bulk of cosmic rays, it can't explain the really super energetic ones! Another theory (more of a hypothesis really) involves interactions with the Quantum Vacuum. Some of these theories get a "nut case" status from the scientific community, but some genuinely seem to explain or hint at an explaination for the ultra high energy cosmic rays that are peridically observed.

Here is a nice paper entitled "The Lamb Shift and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays." It is a PDF and can be found here:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-r-630-ch36.pdf

The same paper can be obtained in other formats from arxiv.org:

the paper is document:
hep-ph/0207046


A detailed account of the 1991 "Fly's Eye Event" in Western Utah is available in Postscript format at:

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/astrophysics/3e20.html

Realistically, it would be impossible to shield against something like this, even Earth's atmosphere can't shield all of them. Some energy strikes the ground. And if someone happened to be in the central cone of a massive shower--who knows? Instant brain fry perhaps, cancer a definate possibility; out and out death?--well, there are some really strange unexplained deaths that do happen from time to time, but I don't think an ultra energetic cosmic ray is the asnwer there. But one never knows for certain....!

__________________
10kBq jaro

Date:

The Fly's Eye web site is quite interesting.


A couple of other good ones I found some time ago are these two, from Germany :


Atmospheric Cherenkov light due to high-energy cosmic rays:


http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/CosmicRay/ChLight/Cherenkov.html


Air shower Cherenkov light simulations:


http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/CosmicRay/ChLight/ChLat.html


....these imply that one effect you might notice, at night, in the dark, is a flash of blue light.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard