Alain Fournier wrote:

Le Nov/20/2016 à 10:20 AM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/19/2016 at 4:31 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/17/2016 at 11:39 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 11:49 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Nov/15/2016 at 12:13 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article , says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says...
Before we worry about what pathological microcobes might or might
not be found on Mars, I would suggest we focus on getting a
gravity lab into LEO ASAP so that we can study the known. We have
exactly TWO data points on this subject. 0G == Bad 1G == Good .1G
== Unknown (not there long enough) .38G == Unknown All other
points between 0G and 1G also *unknown*.

Ask the Japanese when they are done with their mouse/centrifuge
experiments on ISS.

The US CAM module never made it to ISS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri...dations_Module

The centrifuge would have provided controlled acceleration rates
(artificial gravity) for experiments and the capability to:

* Expose a variety of biological specimens that are less than 24.5
in (0.62 m) tall to artificial gravity levels between 0.01g and
2g.

So, it could have held creatures larger than mice, but wouldn't have
been able to accomodate human beings from the looks of it.


True, but how often are mice, rats, and etc. used for stand-ins for
humans in early research? It would have been a start, but NASA didn't
complete it and launch it.


It wouldn't have been enough of a 'start' to be helpful. If you want
to take 50 years to get an answer, starting with mice is the way to
go. You still have to build a human test facility.

Such experiments with rodents can be very useful. That's why we do them.
They aren't enough but they are useful.

Imagine we had kept rats at one third g for 30 months. If the outcome
had been:
1) The rats have lost bone mass to the point that we can't bring them
back to a functional state on Earth.
OR
2) The reduced gravity is sufficient to mostly avoid adverse health effects.

In either case, we can't extrapolate the results to humans.


Exactly. Which is why you don't waste the years and years to test
with rodents. You've got to test with humans anyway, so just do it.


But after
outcome 1), many people would be willing to go to Mars and hope for the
best. You would still want to be careful and monitor for health
degradation. But the risks seem reasonable.

After outcome 2) most people would want to do more experiments before
going to Mars.


I think you got your outcomes flipped.

Yes you are correct on that.

But I think you're wrong in
any case. I think you'd get about the same number of people willing
to go with no testing, unsuccessful rat testing, or successful rat
testing. I don't think you see a significant swing until you've got
human test results.

There will always be some who will try to get a Darwin award.

Sorry, but something being bad for rats doesn't make it bad for
people, so I think your "Darwin award" comment is a bit off.

I know that something bad for rats doesn't make it bad for people. I
said above that "we can't extrapolate the results to humans".


Yet you said "Darwin Award", as if people could and should do such an
extrapolation and those who did not were stupid.


But if it is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans.


So you think you CAN extrapolate from rats to humans, even though
you've said that you cannot extrapolate from rats to humans.

No you can not extrapolate from rats to humans. If it is lethal to rats
you can't conclude it is also lethal for humans. But if you have no
other evidence, you can say it is likely lethal to humans. The word
likely is important here.

Uh, you just extrapolated from rats to humans.

No I am not extrapolating. I am not saying that you can conclude that if
it is lethal to rats then it is lethal to humans. That would be
extrapolating. I am saying that if it is lethal to rats it is likely
lethal to humans. Those two things aren't the same.


Perhaps not, but both are extrapolations from rat data to human
beings. Do you not know the meaning of 'extrapolation'?


But I guess from a
guy who doesn't accept definitions from the dictionary when those
definitions don't suit his needs I will just have to accept that you
won't agree.


I guess a guy who doesn't know the difference between a primary
definition, a secondary definition, and the same word having multiple
definitions (like your example of "circuit") can just go perform
anatomically unlikely acts on himself.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson