Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Explorers & Workers
  Study: Apollo astronauts prone to heart disease

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Study: Apollo astronauts prone to heart disease
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-28-2016 01:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Florida State University release
Apollo astronauts experiencing higher rates of cardiovascular-related deaths

Members of the successful Apollo space program are experiencing higher rates of cardiovascular problems that are thought to be caused by their exposure to deep space radiation, according to a Florida State University researcher.

In a new paper in Scientific Reports, FSU Dean of the College of Human Sciences and Professor Michael Delp explains that the men who traveled into deep space as part of the lunar missions were exposed to levels of galactic cosmic radiation that have not been experienced by any other astronauts or cosmonauts. That exposure is now manifesting itself as cardiovascular problems.

"We know very little about the effects of deep space radiation on human health, particularly on the cardiovascular system," Delp said. "This gives us the first glimpse into its adverse effects on humans."

This is the first study looking at the mortality of Apollo astronauts. The Apollo program ran from 1961 to 1972, with 11 manned flights into space between 1968 and 1972. Nine of those flew beyond Earth's orbit into deep space. The program is most notable for landing men on the moon as well as the failed mission of Apollo 13 that inspired the popular 1995 Ron Howard film.

Delp's research is of special interest now as the United States and other nations, plus private organizations, make plans for deep space travel. NASA has unveiled plans for U.S. orbital missions around the moon from 2020 to 2030 in preparation for a manned flight to Mars. Russia, China and the European Space Agency are all looking at lunar missions. And SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, has proposed landing humans on Mars by 2026.

As a group, astronauts are highly educated and have access to top medical care, meaning their healthcare outcomes are generally better than the general population. But the group of men in the Apollo program experienced different environmental conditions than anyone else in the world when they traveled into deep space.

Delp found that 43 percent of deceased Apollo astronauts died from a cardiovascular problem. That is four to five times higher than non-flight astronauts and astronauts who have traveled in low Earth orbit.

Of the 24 men who flew into deep space on the Apollo lunar missions, eight have died and seven were included in the study. The eighth — Edgar Mitchell — died after the data analysis had been completed.

Delp and his colleagues also exposed mice to the type of radiation that Apollo astronauts would have experienced. After six months — the equivalent of 20 human years — the mice demonstrated an impairment of arteries that is known to lead to the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in humans.

"What the mouse data show is that deep space radiation is harmful to vascular health," Delp said.

Delp is working with NASA to conduct additional studies on the Apollo astronauts regarding their cardiovascular health.

This research was funded by National Space and Biomedical Research Institute and the NASA Space Biology Program. Other authors on the paper include Jacqueline Charvat from Johnson Space Center, Charles Limoli from University of California Irvine, Ruth Globus from the NASA Ames Research Center and FSU postdoctoral researcher Payal Ghosh.

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 07-28-2016 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have serious reservations about drawing too many conclusions based on the data available. While there may certainly be a link between deep space radiation exposure and various diseases, there are multiple reasons why one should avoid jumping to conclusions:
  • They are using an extremely small population from which to base their findings. To be clear, their calculation of 43% of deaths is based on the deaths of only three people: Neil Armstrong, Jim Irwin, and Ron Evans. Such a small sampling group is statistically irrelevant.

  • Cardiovascular disease is the leading killer of Americans. In such a small sampling group as lunar-flown Apollo astronauts, it only takes an extra death or two from a particular disease to really shift the percentages. Irwin experienced cardiac irregularities while on the lunar surface, so it could be argued that he may have had a predisposition to heart problems before he ever flew to the moon.

  • Comparing against other astronauts who have only flown in low earth orbit will not necessarily provide a valid comparison, unless one only compares against astronauts of the same age group. Shuttle astronauts comprise the majority of the flown astronaut population, and are generally younger than the Apollo astronauts. Therefore, Shuttle astronauts who have passed to date are more likely to have succumbed to other diseases or accidents more common to a younger population. As they age, one can expect to see a rise in deaths associated with older populations... including cardiovascular disease.
Once the day (sadly) arrives when all 24 lunar travelers are no longer around, it may be interesting to note the statistical causes of death. It should be noted that the 16 remaining lunar voyagers are over the age of 80 now and are among an age group where cardiovascular disease is significantly more common.

So even if a large percentage of the astronauts succumb to the most common killer of Americans, one must be cautious to draw too many conclusions.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-28-2016 03:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To be fair, the study's author acknowledges the limitations of the available data. Quoting The New York Times:
Dr. Delp said his team felt that it was important to release their findings, even with shortcomings.

"What it does is point to the fact that we need a lot more study on this," he said. "One of the things that NASA and others have been most concerned about with space radiation is cancer. The cardiovascular system has barely gotten mentioned."

"With only 10 years before people are planning to send people back to deep space, we thought, 'We can sit on this study, or we can try to get it out there,'" Dr. Delp said. "We felt it was important enough to get it out."

OV-105
Member

Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 07-28-2016 04:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for OV-105   Click Here to Email OV-105     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Funny that it was not brought up that none of the astronauts who flew to the moon twice were exposed to twice as much as the others who passed from heart disease. Look at the number of shuttle astronauts who have passed now from cancer? Is it the same or equal to the number of of the population that die from the same cancer?

SkyMan1958
Member

Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011

posted 07-28-2016 05:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SkyMan1958   Click Here to Email SkyMan1958     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would also be interested to know whether the study was adjusted for genetic factors, e.g. were the astronaut's ancestors (mothers, fathers, grandparents, etc.) causes of death cardiovascular related? If so, this would show a predisposition for these sorts of diseases amongst the astronauts themselves.

albatron
Member

Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 07-28-2016 06:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for albatron   Click Here to Email albatron     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And the high incidence of them being smokers.

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 396
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-28-2016 07:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Any epidemiologist would tell you that the population sample size is so small here that the "statistical power" of the disease study is extremely weak, yielding very low confidence levels.

As they say in Texas, "All hat and no cattle."

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 07-28-2016 07:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you look at the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts (Astronaut Classes 1-7) who didn't fly lunar missions, there have been a total of 23 passings. Three of those (Michel, Pogue, and Llewellyn) don't have published causes of death that I'm aware. Of the 20 others, 11 were accidental in nature.

That leaves nine natural deaths among the non-lunar astronauts for which the causes are generally known. Of those deaths, three were due to cardiovascular disease (33% of the total). Two others had other diseases, but ultimately fell to heart attacks or heart failure (bringing the percentage up to 56%). The remaining four were either due to cancer (2) or other health issues (2).

Statistically speaking, the cardiovascular death rate is basically identical to the three lunar-flown astronauts (out of seven total for whom causes of death are publicly known) who died of cardiovascular disease (43%). Certainly, it is not "four or five times higher" as the article states.

Again, it's important to remember that cardiovascular disease (heart disease and strokes) accounts for roughly 29% of all deaths by white males in the United States, followed closely by cancer at around 24%. Those numbers for heart disease and cancer tend to be higher once you get over the age of 60.

While I agree that shielding against deep space radiation is a significant concern for extended missions beyond Earth orbit (primarily for the cancer risk), I simply don't believe there is conclusive evidence that the radiation results in cardiovascular disease... at least not for short-duration missions such as the Apollo missions. If anything, the low gravity environment is likely to have a much more significant impact on cardiovascular health.

Larry McGlynn
Member

Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003

posted 07-28-2016 08:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Larry McGlynn   Click Here to Email Larry McGlynn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a typical premature release of incomplete data to bring attention to a study in order to gain enough notoriety to hope for further grant money to keep the project and the professor's salary alive.

It would appear to be unwarranted and, perhaps, even unethical to release a scientific report while admitting to knowing that there are shortcomings due to lack of data points.

To take 12 humans and interpolate medical data to make a huge assumption that the deep space astronauts had a higher than average death rate from heart disease is not really rational. One twelfth of the moonwalkers died in motorcycle accidents, therefore a majority of the astronaut corp is adverse to motorcycles.

No, this was just another bad study released to gain some headlines in the hope for more grant money.

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 07-28-2016 09:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But Larry, what do you really think? I agree; a very weak study. And from my Florida State.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 07-29-2016 06:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not a doctor by any stretch but to me the numbers would be more significant if the astronauts were dying before their life expectancy due to heart disease? Isn't that only true for Evans and Irwin?

Delta7
Member

Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 07-29-2016 07:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Delta7   Click Here to Email Delta7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've been rather surprised at the number of the early astronauts who are still alive. At this point they've lived well beyond the average current life span for adult males, and in fact many of them show no signs of slowing down.

Nine of the 14 members of the 1963 astronaut group are still alive and all are in their 80s. Only one of them has died from natural causes (Eisele, heart attack). Five of the nine-man 1962 group are still kicking, with only Armstrong dying from natural causes. Five from the six-member 1965 group, 11 of the 19-man 1966 group, seven of the "XS-11" group and four of the seven-man MOL-to-NASA group.

Only the Original 7 group has a lesser number with Glenn (the oldest and earliest born of all the astronauts, and thus far the only NASA astronaut to make it to age 90) the only surviving member.

Although these numbers will eventually tip in the other direction sooner rather than later, I find the current statistics rather remarkable.

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 396
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-29-2016 08:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do have a bit of a background in health physics (although I am not a credentialed HP) so deep space radiation is something I'm interesting in and follow the news on.

The Galatic Cosmic Rays — a small but important part of which are also known as "high (or heavy) Z ions" — clearly pack a punch and have cancer implications... Big DNA splits and gene damage.

Additionally, even within the Earth's atmosphere, there now seem to be some clear ties between cardiovascular disease and ionizing radiation. NCRP has a big "million worker study" going on that is looking closely at all these aspects (not GCRs though). And if you aren't aware, more info is coming to light about severe cognitive degradation and neuron destruction from these high Z ionized particles.

Here's a brief popular article on the cognitive implications (not a medical journal piece).

So maybe finally we have a medical explanation on why HAL turned so malicious?

p51
Member

Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 07-29-2016 01:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for p51   Click Here to Email p51     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, at least this would shut up the moon landing hoax nuts to a small degree, as one of their primary incorrect arguments was nobody could go through the Van Allen belts without anything happening to them...
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
I agree; a very weak study. And from my Florida State.
Mine, too (Class of '98). I wasn't too pleased to see my alma-mater involved in a shaky premise like this...

Jonnyed
Member

Posts: 396
From: Dumfries, VA, USA
Registered: Aug 2014

posted 07-29-2016 01:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jonnyed   Click Here to Email Jonnyed     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Did anyone else notice that in the video posted at the beginning of this thread that the featured FSU Dean is wearing a tie with the NASA emblem patterned across it? Strange to have a University Dean wearing a government logo as if he's a federal scientist or official!

Not to make too much of it but it borders on the unsettling, a little bit. I know that some NASA funding went to the school but subliminally implies that Dean speaks for NASA or that NASA endorses the findings of the FSU study?! Best not to wear that tie unless you are indeed directly speaking for NASA.

Michael Davis
Member

Posts: 528
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 07-29-2016 03:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michael Davis   Click Here to Email Michael Davis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My background is in medical physics. Specifically in using high energy gamma and particle beams to treat cancer patients. Given that experience, and combined with a passion for the space program, I’ve often thought about the issues related to radiation exposure on long duration flights.

However I don’t see how this study moves the needle on that topic in any way. As has been mentioned already, the sample size is just too small, the Apollo mission durations too short, and the flights in question produced many very active and fit octogenarian crew-members.

Like others, I toss out Jim Irwin as a study sample. There was a robust CS thread on Irwin a few months back. Whether he had a heart attack during the Apollo 15 mission or not can be debated, but he certainly suffered heart irregularities. I don’t see how his case could legitimately be used in this long term study.

The radiation effects for a flight to Mars is of great concern and may in fact be a show stopper. But this study seems to be more about generating media attention, and perhaps additional funding for the principal investigator, than about serious research on the problem.

Daniel on the Moon
Member

Posts: 354
From: Bronxville, NY
Registered: Jun 2015

posted 07-29-2016 08:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel on the Moon   Click Here to Email Daniel on the Moon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The study itself states its limitations, i.e. "the sample size for "cause-specific" deaths amoung lunar astronauts is small. Therefore, caution must be used in drawing definitive conclusions regarding specific health risks."

Along with previously mentioned family history as a cardiovascular risk factor, poor diet is probably the biggest risk factor, i.e. cholesterol, saturated fats, triglycerides, etc.

I'm also concerned that the study included brain aneurysms and blood clots in the cardiovascular category along with correctly including heart failure, stroke and myocardial infarction!

NukeGuy
Member

Posts: 55
From: Irvine, CA USA
Registered: May 2014

posted 08-01-2016 11:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NukeGuy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder if they also included the radiation exposures for the Gemini 10 (Young, Collins) and Gemini 11 (Conrad, Gordon). These flights flew high enough to get lunar mission equivalent radiation doses. All four astronauts flew lunar missions (2x for Young).

With the exception of Conrad, who died in a motorcycle accident in 1998, they are alive and well.

Wehaveliftoff
Member

Posts: 2343
From:
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 08-07-2016 04:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Wehaveliftoff     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Non-medical opinion here, sample too tiny.

Apollo astronauts living longer than the original estimation of life spans, any cardiovascular disease clearly not shortening their life spans, fortunately.

NAAmodel#240
Member

Posts: 312
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 08-07-2016 04:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NAAmodel#240   Click Here to Email NAAmodel#240     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just to pile on, this Gator alum is unimpressed.

Paul78zephyr
Member

Posts: 675
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 08-11-2016 03:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Paul78zephyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by OV-105:
Funny that it was not brought up that none of the astronauts who flew to the moon twice were exposed to twice as much as the others who passed from heart disease.
And the three who flew to the moon twice — Lovell, Young, Cernan — are all doing just fine.

Buel
Member

Posts: 649
From: UK
Registered: Mar 2012

posted 08-11-2016 05:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Buel   Click Here to Email Buel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sadly, I would question this regarding Young or Cernan.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-11-2016 06:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Since we are not privy to their personal medical records, nor have they made their medical status a matter of public record, I would suggest we refrain on commenting on the medical conditions of living astronauts.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement