46 thoughts on “Space Radiation”

  1. Another reason folks need to move beyond NASA. As long as NASA is in the loop there will be “risk avoidance.” Risk avoidance is the entire foundation of the bureaucratic approach, making sure that first nothing goes wrong, and second, if something goes wrong, you are able to blame someone else for it.

      1. What’s disheartening about this is the way people manage to find racism and sexism in the most ridiculous places. Someone coined a term, un-ironically, a few years ago, “micro-racism.”

        As I said to a friend, this is some kind of Zeno’s Paradox where no matter how far we come, the greivance mongers won’t let up.

          1. I won’t grant “by definition”.

            If you do accepts that just “men fly more than women” is the definition of discrimination, then it is literally (no, -not- figuratively) impossible to eliminate discrimination. Because everyone is a unique individual. “Oh, so you’re discriminating against -gingers-“. Or whatever.

            True double-blind testing on any criteria I can think of will not normally end up precisely “non-discriminatory-by-that-definition” with only -one- criteria being tested. Even doing “heads-tails” as the criteria will yield a perfect split a shockingly low percentage of the time. And that’s before you add the fourteen-other co-criteria and drive the “perfect equanimity” chance to roughly zero. Even if it -is- the median, the mean, and the mode of each individual distribution.

          2. Oh please, Al. If you say “we’re not going to let you fly on this mission because you’re a woman” then you’re discriminating against women. It’s really hard to see how that isn’t discrimination.

            How much risk of cancer later in a life an astronaut wishes to take should be up to them. NASA, or whoever the employer is, should be concerned with who is going to get the job done. That’s it.

          3. That isn’t what you wrote.

            I wasn’t arguing about NASA or what’s actually happening, but instead what you wrote as “by definition”.

            I’ll agree that accepting risk is something we should be allowing competent adults to accept on their own behalf across the board: The only responsibility of the employer is to state the known issues up front. (This isn’t how the lawsuits -will- work, but it should be.)

          4. “NASA lets men fly more missions than women, they discriminate against women, by definition.”

            Trent, this is where I point out that not all discrimination is bad.

  3. Simple really.  For something like an Inspiration Mars mission, select from women who no longer want children and who have had their ovaries and uterus removed.

    1. Okay, so you go to a job interview and they say “yep, you’re perfect, exactly what we’re looking for.. oh, but do you have your testicles? Yeah, you’re going to need to have those removed if you want the job.” What do you think of this scumbag?

      1. What difference does it make what you, or the job applicant thinks of “this scumbag”? I thought you were a libertarian.

        “This scumbag” can hire whomever “this scumbag” wants, for whatever reason.

          2. He does, for a start, that’s why he wanted to hire me.

            The whole point of this discussion is that most of us care about discrimination against women, and so simply speaking out is enough.

          3. He sure can, and I can tell everyone that he’s a scumbag.

            Well, Mr. Waddington, I sense you might not be a good fit for this job. Next.

      2. When I was in nuke subs (back to the Cold War…) everyone had their wisdom pulled, healthy or not. Equivalent? No. Similar idea, with much higher stakes? Perhaps – although it was based on not interrupting a mission, not a health risk. The employee has a choice, though – is there an analogy to women who, at risk, get pre-emptive mastectomies?

          1. BS, radiation exposure can and would affect the mission.

            You can argue if the percentage is significantly different between men and women to discriminate; but to say radiation exposure has no affect on the mission at all is just ignorant. At the very least, developing strategies for shielding against radiation will affect spacecraft design and weight. We used to argue whether to develop a column of drinking water where astronauts could shelter during spikes for solar flares during interplanetary travel. How thick would that column need to be? How much additional weight would that be? What happens when the water goes from potable to grey? Maybe we just add other forms of shielding that’s lighter on the outside. But interplanetary radiation exposure is far greater than a day in the sun on earth, and the health effects would affect the mission.

            The above ignores the discussion of radiation exposure on electronic components, which also could affect the mission.

  4. Frankly, if women astronauts are willing to accept a higher risk of cancer and indemnify NASA in a legally binding way, I say let ’em fly.

    But you know damn well that someone would sue, no matter how many times they were warned, so I don’t blame NASA at all, and again, I point out to Trent that not all discrimination is bad.

      1. Sure, I’ll take that stand, Trent. You came in and said ” NASA lets men fly more missions than women, they discriminate against women, by definition.”

        Would you say that discriminating against women by not allowing them to be in combat roles in the Army, knowing that, on average, women are weaker than men and have a more difficult time meeting the fitness/strength requirements, is bad? If so, are you willing to have a female squadmate in combat, knowing she may not be able to pull you to safety if you are shot or in a vehicle rollover?

        I don’t have one little bit of a problem with NASA discriminating in this way, because it’s keeping women’s risk of cancer down–which in any other context would be considered a good thing–and because, at the end of the day, the astronauts are free to leave if they don’t like the policy. And, as I mentioned, it’s also protecting NASA–i.e., the taxpayers–from a lawsuit.

        1. Your first example is a good one – as it actually involves the ability to do the job. The correct way to “discriminate” here is by actually letting women have the opportunity and then weeding out whoever doesn’t perform – men or women.

          But what the hell does risk of cancer later in life have to do with being able to do the job?

          If it’s really about protecting NASA from lawsuits, shouldn’t they actually wait until there’s a lawsuit to set the precedent? If that’s really the reason, I, personally, hope they get sued for sexual discrimination.. the irony would be delicious.

          1. Women do get the opportunity to be astronauts and men face the same problem of getting turned down for missions due to too high a lifetime of exposure. IIRC, the article said only 3 astronauts out of the entire group qualified for that year long mission.

            Also, I don’t think you are using the word discriminate in the right way.

            If people don’t meet all of the requirements for a NASA mission, welcome to the largest club on Earth, it doesn’t mean they are facing workplace discrimination based on gender.

          2. “If it’s really about protecting NASA from lawsuits, shouldn’t they actually wait until there’s a lawsuit to set the precedent?”

            That idea sounds…what’s beyond incompetent? It should be plainly obvious to anyone with average intelligence and a background in modern history that not being proactive here is a bad idea. I mean, read item 2 here: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/09/dispatches-from-california.html

            “A few weeks ago I was advised by a senior case-worker at the California Department of Labor that the only safe harbor left for employers is to FORCE employees to take an unpaid lunch. This means they clock in and back out, this means they have to leave the job site (because if a customer happens to ask them a question, then they are “working”), and this means we have to ruthlessly enforce it. Or we are liable for scads of penalties. So, we find ourselves at the bizarre crossroads of making working through lunch a firing offense”

            There’s a decent analogy: we will not allow you to do something that may result in you suing us.

  5. Speaking of trips to Mars, it looks like Mars One fell far short of its goals.

    http://www.space.com/22556-private-mars-one-colony-applications.html

    Private Mars Colony Project Undaunted by Application Shortfall
    Rob Coppinger, SPACE.com Contributor
    August 28, 2013 07:00am ET

    [[[With just a few days left in the application process, the nonprofit Mars One Foundation has received about 165,000 submissions from prospective Mars colonists — a far cry from the 1 million that officials had originally targeted in April before opening the process.]]]

  7. It isn’t discrimination based on gender but discrimination based on the chance to get cancer. What if someone had the BRCA gene? That can effect men and women. Does it change things when people other than women could also be excluded for cancer risks due to reasons other than gender?

    1. You mean by what shoddy science says about cancer risk as a result of radiation exposure.. clearly, astronauts selection should be based on who has the lesser carbon footprint.

      1. Anything to say about what I actually wrote?

        You are alledging gender based discrimination and this is not the case regardless of how you view the quality of the science behind cancer risk. The quality of the science is an entirely separate issue and so is whether or not NASA should have any radiation exposure criteria in selecting astronauts.

          1. Oh I “get” what you are laying down. I just think you are full of it on this one.

            NASA doesn’t view or treat women as inferior despite your attempts to frame the discussion as workplace discrimination against against women.

            You bounce from discrimination to bad science without ever adressing what you really want to say. Which is you don’t think radiation risk should be a factor in selecting astronauts. But instead of arguing that point you jump right on gender discrimination as a way to avoid dealing with the risks of radiation.

            I might even agree with you but we will never know because you are stuck on screaming about nonexistent gender discrimination. How can we even discuss the real or imagined dangers of radiation exposure and cancer when you lead off like that?

            I even provided an example of a genetic link to cancer that effects both men and women and could disqualify someone from being an astronaut and instead of saying you don’t care about cancer risks you fall back on,”NASA hates women.”

            Whatever your position on radiation and cancer is, come right out and say it and stop playing the bigot game.

          2. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is, the outcome is that women get “turned down” earlier than men do. They’re discriminated against because of their gender.

            you fall back on,”NASA hates women.”

            When did I say that? You crossed the civility line a long time ago. Please pull your head out of your ass.

          4. No Trent, they get turned down due to increased risk of getting cancer, not gender. How do we know this? Because men can be turned down for the same reason and it wont be long before genes like the one I mentioned will also be a factor if it isn’t already.

            I gave you some good advice on a better way to argue (for what I think you really want) but it is also clear you get off on being a dick and are not really interested in talking about cancer risks and whether or not people should have the choice to accept them.

            Did you even read the linked article?

  9. This variety of discrimination is downright stupid for several reasons. Some of them:

    As already said, whose decision is it to take the risk?

    All other things being equal (which they probably aren’t – female and male physiology really are a fair bit different) I would have thought that the ovaries are better protected from radiation than are the testicles. Simply because they are under 15cm or so of other tissue, and I would have thought that body tissue – mainly water – is a fairly good shield against protons. Not much difference, but it’s there.

    On the issue of BRCA genes; it is little remembered that men can get breast cancer too, and it’s usually worse by the time it gets detected. This is only an issue when they get back, of course.

    Women might actually make better astronauts anyway, simply because on average they are smaller than men; less mass to move and less consumables requirements. And IIRC women have better manual dexterity, too.

Comments are closed.