NO ESCAPE TO SPACE!

NO ESCAPE TO SPACE!


No, mankind will not escape from this contaminated, dying, earth,
settle on the moon and Mars and spread his seed to a thousand stars to
proclaim himself immortal.

Medical Science has learned that humans cannot long survive in Space.
That is, Because of the loss of bone tissue due to microgravity and
radiation, mankind cannot make extended journeys to the moon or Mars
and survive there .

Yes, men have stayed for up to a year in space -- but even at a year,
they face irrecoverable bone loss.

The trip to Mars would take (using present technology, and there is
nothing faster in sight) two years. When the crew arrived at Mars,
they would be too weak to establish a landing - and survive!

Both Mars and the Moon have lower gravity, so any astronauts who land
there will continue to lose bone mass and strength.

The judgment is clear; the sentence is certain: Humanity will not
leave this earth.


References:

"A Theoretical Analysis of Vibrational Modes Aimed at Their Use as
Measures of Bone Damage"

Gemunu Gunaratne

Abstract--Extended exposure to microgravity reduces bone mass and
degrades mechanical properties of bone tissue; its most damaging
consequence is the loss of bone strength...
@ http://www.isso.uh.edu/publications/..._gunaratne.htm

And, see the recent study on bone loss in mice exposed to radiation
done at Clemson University.

See:
"Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2006)"
@ http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11512&page=19


And Google:
"bone loss" + "exposed to radiation" http://tinyurl.com/27cqsp
and,
"bone loss" + "exposure to radiation" http://tinyurl.com/ywgv7d



Can Mankind control his destiny? See:
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/control.html


gaedhealic

-+-
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum
-----
Many receive advice, only the wise profit by it. Syrus
..
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth
unto counsel is wise. Pro 12:15
..
"April 1st: National Atheist's Day."
..

I'm sure the nay-sayers painted a similar bleak picture of woe for Columbus,
when he decided to sail West.


wrote in message
ups.com...

NO ESCAPE TO SPACE!


No, mankind will not escape from this contaminated, dying, earth,
settle on the moon and Mars and spread his seed to a thousand stars to
proclaim himself immortal.

Medical Science has learned that humans cannot long survive in Space.
That is, Because of the loss of bone tissue due to microgravity and
radiation, mankind cannot make extended journeys to the moon or Mars
and survive there .

Yes, men have stayed for up to a year in space -- but even at a year,
they face irrecoverable bone loss.

The trip to Mars would take (using present technology, and there is
nothing faster in sight) two years. When the crew arrived at Mars,
they would be too weak to establish a landing - and survive!

Both Mars and the Moon have lower gravity, so any astronauts who land
there will continue to lose bone mass and strength.

The judgment is clear; the sentence is certain: Humanity will not
leave this earth.


References:

"A Theoretical Analysis of Vibrational Modes Aimed at Their Use as
Measures of Bone Damage"

Gemunu Gunaratne

Abstract--Extended exposure to microgravity reduces bone mass and
degrades mechanical properties of bone tissue; its most damaging
consequence is the loss of bone strength...
@ http://www.isso.uh.edu/publications/..._gunaratne.htm

And, see the recent study on bone loss in mice exposed to radiation
done at Clemson University.

See:
"Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2006)"
@ http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=11512&page=19


And Google:
"bone loss" + "exposed to radiation" http://tinyurl.com/27cqsp
and,
"bone loss" + "exposure to radiation" http://tinyurl.com/ywgv7d



Can Mankind control his destiny? See:
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum/main/about/control.html


gaedhealic

-+-
http://www.xprt.net/~servitum
-----
Many receive advice, only the wise profit by it. Syrus
.
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth
unto counsel is wise. Pro 12:15
.
"April 1st: National Atheist's Day."
.

On Mar 29, 4:36 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
On 30/3/07 00:32, in article
. com,

" wrote:
Still peddling your kookscreed?

Look who's talking...

You tell me there are no rocks in space, then you tell Mark Earnest
("G=EMC^2 Glazier") that there is "sand, then rock, to again fuse into
rock planets," in space....

http://tinyurl.com/2nrhyu

Says nothing of the sort, loon! For a start Glazier isn't Mark Earnest, but
then you can't read can you.


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message

Ah... my error...

But I can admit an error, while you can not admit you say one thing
which contradicts something else you've said.

Which is it: There are sand and rocks in space, or there are no rocks
in space?
http://tinyurl.com/2nrhyu



So you are telling Mark that the expanding gas cloud from a Nebula or
Nova COULD condense into sand, then into rock, then into planets....
but you told me there are no rocks in space....

Suffer reading difficulties?

Gas and dust collapse to form larger bodies. What I told you was the near
infinitesimal odds of rogue asteroid in the middle of nowhere loon!

Oh! I like that! (quote you) "the near infinitesimal odds" against
"roge" asteroids....

"Near infinitesimal" -- Do you mean "near infinitesimal" as in the
odds that Big Bang could EVER occur?

Or do you mean "near infinitesimal" as in the odds that pond scum
would form life, and monkies would give birth to humans?

Wow! you can accept the "near infinitesimal" odds of Big Bang and
Evolution, but the near infinitesimal odds that an expanding Nova
remnant would form a cloud of "rogue asteroids" is beyond your
comprehension.

As I said, your credibility is in the crapper.

And, BTW,
All bodies in space are in "the middle of nowhere"...

g

On 30/3/07 19:02, in article
,
" wrote:

But I can admit an error, while you can not admit you say one thing
which contradicts something else you've said.

Which is it: There are sand and rocks in space, or there are no rocks
in space?
http://tinyurl.com/2nrhyu

There are rocks in space - but they have been created around stars. As a
result, it is statistically unlikely they are separate from their
originating body.

Of course, you could simply READ,

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On 30/3/07 19:02, in article
,
" wrote:

Oh! I like that! (quote you) "the near infinitesimal odds" against
"roge" asteroids....

"Rogue"


"Near infinitesimal" -- Do you mean "near infinitesimal" as in the
odds that Big Bang could EVER occur?

Its probability it happened is?


Or do you mean "near infinitesimal" as in the odds that pond scum
would form life, and monkies would give birth to humans?

More religious mumbo jumbo looney


Wow! you can accept the "near infinitesimal" odds of Big Bang and
Evolution, but the near infinitesimal odds that an expanding Nova
remnant would form a cloud of "rogue asteroids" is beyond your
comprehension.

As I said, your credibility is in the crapper.


Projection noted loon. Perhaps if you'd spent less time in the forest and
more in the classroom you wouldn't be such a blithering idiot.


--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On 30/3/07 19:02, in article
,
" wrote:


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message

Ah... my error...

But I can admit an error, while you can not admit you say one thing
which contradicts something else you've said.

There is no contradiction - however there is a lack of understanding on your
part. Which doesn't seem to be unusual.

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On Mar 30, 11:49 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
On 30/3/07 19:02, in article
. com,

" wrote:
But I can admit an error, while you can not admit you say one thing
which contradicts something else you've said.

Which is it: There are sand and rocks in space, or there are no rocks
in space?
http://tinyurl.com/2nrhyu

There are rocks in space - but they have been created

Oh! NOW you are speaking of a CREATOR?

On 30/3/07 20:12, in article
,
" wrote:

A bunch of looney nonsense

So whats with "gaedhealic" then - don't claim to be a Celt now as well do
you, loon?

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

Originally Posted by Phineas T Puddleduck[_2_]

On 30/3/07 20:12, in article
,
" wrote:

A bunch of looney nonsense

Better to be a loon than a gay duck!

On 31/3/07 05:21, in article , "Bork"
wrote:

'Phineas T Puddleduck[_2_ Wrote:
;765072']On 30/3/07 20:12, in article
,
" wrote:

A bunch of looney nonsense


Better to be a loon than a gay duck!

How witty! Noel Coward is spinning in his grave.


How does it feel to know that your only comedic contribution is stolen of
other lamers?

Plonk

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."