Scientists Found Genetic Mutations In Every Astronaut Blood Sample They Studied 46
When they examined decades-old blood samples from 14 NASA astronauts who flew Space Shuttle missions between 1998 and 2001, researchers found that samples from all 14 astronauts showed mutations in their DNA. Futurism reports: While these mutations are likely low enough not to represent a serious threat to the astronauts' long term health, the research underlines the importance of regular health screenings for astronauts, especially as they embark on longer missions to the Moon and beyond in coming years. The specific mutations, as identified in a new study published in the journal Nature Communications Biology, were marked by a high proportion of blood cells that came from a single clone, a phenomenon called clonal hematopoiesis. Mutations like this can be caused by exposure to excess ultraviolet radiation, and other forms of radiation including chemotherapy. In this case, researchers are suspicious that the mutations may have been the result of space radiation.
"Astronauts work in an extreme environment where many factors can result in somatic mutations, most importantly space radiation, which means there is a risk that these mutations could develop into clonal hematopoiesis," said lead author David Goukassian, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in a statement. The blood samples for this latest study were collected from 12 male and two female astronauts ten days before their flight and on the day of their landing. The samples were then cryogenically stored at -112 degrees Fahrenheit for around two decades. The mutations observed in the blood samples resemble the kind of somatic mutations we see in older individuals -- which is interesting on its own, considering the median age of the astronauts was only 42.
"Although the clonal hematopoiesis we observed was of a relatively small size, the fact that we observed these mutations was surprising given the relatively young age and health of these astronauts," Goukassian said. "The presence of these mutations does not necessarily mean that the astronauts will develop cardiovascular disease or cancer," he added, "but there is the risk that, over time, this could happen through ongoing and prolonged exposure to the extreme environment of deep space." Therefore, Goukassian and his team are recommending that NASA should regularly screen astronauts for these kinds of mutations.
"Astronauts work in an extreme environment where many factors can result in somatic mutations, most importantly space radiation, which means there is a risk that these mutations could develop into clonal hematopoiesis," said lead author David Goukassian, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in a statement. The blood samples for this latest study were collected from 12 male and two female astronauts ten days before their flight and on the day of their landing. The samples were then cryogenically stored at -112 degrees Fahrenheit for around two decades. The mutations observed in the blood samples resemble the kind of somatic mutations we see in older individuals -- which is interesting on its own, considering the median age of the astronauts was only 42.
"Although the clonal hematopoiesis we observed was of a relatively small size, the fact that we observed these mutations was surprising given the relatively young age and health of these astronauts," Goukassian said. "The presence of these mutations does not necessarily mean that the astronauts will develop cardiovascular disease or cancer," he added, "but there is the risk that, over time, this could happen through ongoing and prolonged exposure to the extreme environment of deep space." Therefore, Goukassian and his team are recommending that NASA should regularly screen astronauts for these kinds of mutations.
Sooo... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if CO2 had, say zero radiation absorbance (certainly too low a figure), and atmospheric CO2 went to 1% tomorrow (likely to cause some respiratory distress to some people with underlying conditions, but most people can go up to 4-6% before experiencing significant distress), that would change surface radiation doses on the order of 1% - which would be hard to detect against normal biological variation.
That 1% CO2 "laughi
Re: Sooo... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the intended message was supposed to be "we should focus on fixing our current planet rather than try to colonize new ones, since it would require a whole lot less effort and provide a much larger benefit".
That's how I understood it. Getting rid of the billionaires & their wealth-concentrating schemes (artificial scarcity) would be a good start to addressing climate heating issues. Irradiation would be as good a method as any. You know, instead of pandering to them & not really changing anything (so called, "eco-Keynesianism" = Green New Deal) while we still consume & grow & the world burns.
Re: (Score:2)
Something probably went wrong when we stopped hanging advertising executives from the pillory by their nailed-through sex organs.
Re: (Score:3)
Or in turn that it would take way more effort to make Mars livable than it would take to maintain livable conditions on Earth.
Of course when it comes down to it, it's a false dichotomy.
After all these pursuits are not mutually exclusive and as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The radiation on Mars is much more intense than on Earth since there is no protective atmospheric shield.
You lost me at citing Counterpunch, a site devoted to absolute swill. Researchers need to find out what Counterpunch recommends about space radiation specifically, so that we can do the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of them are so wierd.. (Score:2)
... you have to wonder if some of them haven't already been! Or perhaps come from there in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
...when are those billionaires going to the Moon & on to Mars?
As soon as electrostatic shielding is installed on their luxury space yachts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's the Andromeda Strain... (Score:1)
Re: I'm not saying it's the Andromeda Strain... (Score:2)
All we need now is some flashing red lights.
Re: (Score:2)
All we need now is some flashing red lights.
Don't do that! I might seize up!
Completely unsurprising (Score:3)
It would be more noteworthy if they didn't find any mutations. Space is a harsh mistress (to use a term), and our sacks of mostly water are fragile having evolved to live in an environment shielded from most harmful effects of radiation. That some of us would venture beyond that protective environment and subsequently be affected in ways they wouldn't ordinarily be affected should not come as surprise to anyone.
Re:Completely unsurprising (Score:5, Informative)
It would be more noteworthy if they didn't find any mutations.
It would be more than noteworthy. It would be astonishing. Everyone has mutations. On average, people have about 60 inheritable mutations that they did not inherit from their parents. Somatic mutations are even more common. Everyone has millions of them.
TFA is very poorly written. Everyone has mutations. The "real news" is likely that astronauts have a higher rate of mutations, but that's not what TFA says.
Headline (Score:2)
It would be more than noteworthy. It would be astonishing. Everyone has mutations. On average, people have about 60 inheritable mutations that they did not inherit from their parents. Somatic mutations are even more common. Everyone has millions of them.
Well, the /. editor could have written "Scientists Found Genetic Mutations In Every Control Group Blood Sample They Studied" but I'm sure he didn't want to panic everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. This isn't news. This is "Working as expected".
Astronauts get constantly bombarded with cosmic radiation which is known to cause DNA mutations.
It's like saying "100% of astronauts who are held under water for an hour without a suit drown."
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing about space is that people don't currently spend all that long up there. Radiation is most dangerous when something radioactive gets inside your body and stays there, causing a higher rate of mutations and significantly increasing the likelihood of getting cancer.
This will become more of an issue when people try to live on Mars for years or decades.
Re:Completely unsurprising (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
‘Other forms of radiation including chemotherapy.’ My soul groaned a bit about the decline of basic scientific knowledge there.
human penis very smol (Score:2)
YOU WILL NOT GO TO SPACE TODAY.
Re: (Score:2)
we'll be lucky to still be here with a global communications system in 500 years.
We'd be lucky to still be breathing in 500 years
Re: (Score:2)
Humans living in village-size communities rather than cities (archaeological meaning : 5000 or more inhabitants), with horseback as the fastest physical communications metho
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be very surprised if there were NO humans on Earth in 500 years.
My concern is that we're way off the charts in a whole bunch of things. It's not just CO2 any more. Methane emissions are probably well past a tipping point. How much methane is there [nationalgeographic.com] just waiting to escape? How many feedback loops exist which might exacerbate the warming problem? How long does it take the environment to re-establish a stable state if we continue to perturb it? Could you and will we preserve enough people to ride it out in bunkers or whatever?
Maybe the environment is all a lot more stable a
Re: (Score:2)
Are we? I'm a geologist, so just possibly I have a fairly good handle on what the "charts" are.
Tipping point? Yes. Off the charts, no. We're producing it at a higher rate than the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), but the absolute quantities are within the same bounds. We (mammals), as a class of organisms allegedly "dominant" on the planet have seen this before.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we? I'm a geologist, so just possibly I have a fairly good handle on what the "charts" are.
Tipping point? Yes. Off the charts, no. We're producing it at a higher rate than the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), but the absolute quantities are within the same bounds. We (mammals), as a class of organisms allegedly "dominant" on the planet have seen this before.
On the seabed, probably less - the Arctic Ocean is a little shallower today than in the P-E period ; the on-land stores maybe a bit bigger ; overall, roughly comparable. Oh, sorry, data not guesswork. Sorry for that.
Between 100 and 200 thousand years. Check the fossil record - there is a faunal change over (mass extinction + mass replacement) but over all not a wild change in diversity or disparity of life. Mammals survived ; dinosaurs survived (we call them birds, but they're dinosaurs regardless of what we call them) ; crocodiles survived ; whale ancestors continued to wade into the sea, to become whales ; the overwhelming variety of life (microbes) survived with only minor changes.
It is always a minefield to attempt to divine the future.
In very general terms, many animals will likely move to higher altitudes, as well as lattitudes. The so called "breadbaskets" will likely do the same.Some will survive as a species, some won't as things warm up. Let's not forget that methane is both more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, but shorter lived. I can't even hazard a guess. If it is released, the severity of the effect depends on whether it is released quickly or more slowly
Humanity
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to hazard a guess - you only need to look at the records from the last time it happened.
55 million years ago around 6 Ptonnes (peta tonnes, 10^18 kg) of methane got released into the atmosphere in a few thousand years. Consequently the temperatures in the Arctic Ocean reached "comfortable for crocodiles". It took around 100-120 thousand years for the atmosphere
Re: (Score:2)
It took around 100-120 thousand years for the atmosphere to clean itself up, and return temperature to "normal", for the new "Eocene" time (and fossil fauna) period. Several million yfter that, the Himalayas started to rise, chemical weathering of the exposed rock took the carbon dioxide down to our "normal" 350-400 ppm, and the cooler climate resulted in ice caps forming, north and south.
And of course, we define normal as what we had at around the beginning of the industrial revolution, or for many, what the weather was like when they were kids. There really isn't a normal, just what suits us, and from our limited time frame.
That's what we've already got "baked in". What is added in your children's lifetimes (not mine - this isn't news) will make things more difficult for their children..
It may indeed be bleak.
oh, this one is easy (Score:2)
You can remove the mutations through this one simple trick of using screening methods on the transporter beams.
Re: (Score:2)
Species 2? (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
SNPing away at the truth (I'm not saying...But...) (Score:2)
The question is: were these mutations present before they went into space? In other words: Did the aliens get to them while they were in space and wipe their memories? Or are "our" astronauts actually resident aliens who naturally already had this blood before they went up?
Are the mutations by chance related to lizards?
Re: (Score:2)
The question actually is: Can Mulder and Scully be far behind?
which cells? germline cells or others? (Score:2)
Net effect is, any mutation in
control? (Score:2)
So, were samples of humans that had not been to space also stored under these conditions?
Without a control, how can we rule out that storing for 20 years in frozen/artificial conditions is not what introduced the mutations?
And what about testing cells of astronauts recently returned from space, without using any cryo storage?
This is great (Score:2)