A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Colds and a [Mars] colony



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 19th 16, 02:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Colds and a [Mars] colony

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". But if it
is bad for rats it is very likely bad for humans. Would you try eating a
mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be
lethal to rats?

It could
just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the
evolution to a spacefaring species.


It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind
of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth.
There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species.

Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was
very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be
necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go.


Alain Fournier

Ads
  #2  
Old November 19th 16, 10:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Colds and a [Mars] colony

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.


Would you try eating a
mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be
lethal to rats?


Depends on how hungry I was. Do you eat chocolate? It's known to be
poisonous to dogs (which are usually the next animal subject after
rats). So are a number of other things that we can eat. Do you eat
blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds, or rhubarb? All
are known to be poisonous to rats.


It could
just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the
evolution to a spacefaring species.


It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind
of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth.
There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species.

Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was
very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be
necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go.


Yes, it would be NICE to know, but how much time are you going to
spend finding out instead of going? How long will it take to fund and
build a human-sized variable gravity experiment?


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #3  
Old November 20th 16, 01:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Colds and a [Mars] colony

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.

I also said up there "There will always be some who will try to get a
Darwin award". The word try has its purpose in that sentence. I can't
say that it would be enough for whoever follows that route to actually
earn the Darwin award. But it certainly is a way to try to get one.

Would you try eating a
mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be
lethal to rats?


Depends on how hungry I was. Do you eat chocolate? It's known to be
poisonous to dogs (which are usually the next animal subject after
rats). So are a number of other things that we can eat. Do you eat
blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds, or rhubarb? All
are known to be poisonous to rats.


Chocolate, blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds and
rhubarb are known to not be poisonous to humans. What we are discussing
is things of unknown effects to humans. I have said from the very start
that you can't extrapolate. I don't know why you want to do so.

It could
just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the
evolution to a spacefaring species.


It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind
of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth.
There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species.

Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was
very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be
necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go.


Yes, it would be NICE to know, but how much time are you going to
spend finding out instead of going? How long will it take to fund and
build a human-sized variable gravity experiment?


An experiment with rats could be done in a few years. There is no need
to delay colonisation of Mars to do such an experiment. Unless the
experiment does give unfavourable results. If the results are
unfavourable, it might be worth it to delay colonisation.


Alain Fournier

  #4  
Old November 20th 16, 04:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Colds and a [Mars] colony

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.


I also said up there "There will always be some who will try to get a
Darwin award". The word try has its purpose in that sentence. I can't
say that it would be enough for whoever follows that route to actually
earn the Darwin award. But it certainly is a way to try to get one.


How's that again? Does that phrase mean something different to you
than it does to the rest of the planet?

Would you try eating a
mushroom that has unknown effects on humans but that is known to be
lethal to rats?


Depends on how hungry I was. Do you eat chocolate? It's known to be
poisonous to dogs (which are usually the next animal subject after
rats). So are a number of other things that we can eat. Do you eat
blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds, or rhubarb? All
are known to be poisonous to rats.


Chocolate, blue cheese, licorice, poppy seeds, bitter almonds and
rhubarb are known to not be poisonous to humans. What we are discussing
is things of unknown effects to humans. I have said from the very start
that you can't extrapolate. I don't know why you want to do so.


I don't. I want to skip the rats, since rat data doesn't necessarily
tell us anything. You're the one who keeps extrapolating from rats.
You're the one who said if a food was lethal to rats it was probably
lethal to humans. I just asked you about some foods that are toxic to
rats but non-toxic to humans.

It could
just as easily be applied to those who stay behind and thus fail the
evolution to a spacefaring species.

It's not as if it's either go to Mars without a centrifuge or some kind
of medical palliative or corrective treatment, or stay forever on Earth.
There are many possible ways to become a spacefaring species.

Personally, I would be a little surprised if the Martian environment was
very harmful to humans. I *think* that a centrifuge on Mars wouldn't be
necessary. But it would be nice to know before we go.


Yes, it would be NICE to know, but how much time are you going to
spend finding out instead of going? How long will it take to fund and
build a human-sized variable gravity experiment?


An experiment with rats could be done in a few years. There is no need
to delay colonisation of Mars to do such an experiment. Unless the
experiment does give unfavourable results. If the results are
unfavourable, it might be worth it to delay colonisation.


So you're willing to extrapolate from rats. You're even willing to
just skip the testing entirely. 'Darwin Award' material...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #5  
Old November 20th 16, 07:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default Colds and a [Mars] colony

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. 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.


Alain Fournier

  #6  
Old November 20th 16, 11:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Colds and a [Mars] colony

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Musk's Mars colony a racist plot (says a minority "scientist") RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 23rd 15 12:50 AM
An American Colony on Mars! Marvin the Martian Policy 22 July 25th 09 01:38 AM
Every square alright cycles will overall rock the colds. Rose Spillett-Delles, M.P.S.E Amateur Astronomy 0 August 13th 07 01:13 PM
Distance from on man to a colony is very great Moon or Mars boblpetersen1 Misc 13 November 18th 04 10:27 PM
Mars Colony hours, minutes, seconds Fidcal Astronomy Misc 1 February 2nd 04 05:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.