Martian Dust May Pose Health Risk To Humans Exploring Red Planet, Study Finds 69
A new study warns that toxic Martian dust contains fine particles and harmful substances like silica and metals that pose serious health risks to astronauts, making missions to Mars more dangerous than previously thought. The Guardian reports: During Apollo missions to the moon, astronauts suffered from exposure to lunar dust. It clung to spacesuits and seeped into the lunar landers, causing coughing, runny eyes and irritated throats. Studies showed that chronic health effects would result from prolonged exposure. Martian dust isn't as sharp and abrasive as lunar dust, but it does have the same tendency to stick to everything, and the fine particles (about 4% the width of a human hair) can penetrate deep into lungs and enter the bloodstream. Toxic substances in the dust include silica, gypsum and various metals.
"A mission to Mars does not have the luxury of rapid return to Earth for treatment," the researchers write in the journal GeoHealth. And the 40-minute communication delay will limit the usefulness of remote medical support from Earth. Instead, the researchers stress that limiting exposure to dust is essential, requiring air filters, self-cleaning space suits and electrostatic repulsion devices, for example.
"A mission to Mars does not have the luxury of rapid return to Earth for treatment," the researchers write in the journal GeoHealth. And the 40-minute communication delay will limit the usefulness of remote medical support from Earth. Instead, the researchers stress that limiting exposure to dust is essential, requiring air filters, self-cleaning space suits and electrostatic repulsion devices, for example.
causing coughing, runny eyes and irritated throats (Score:3)
Theres stuff that does that here on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that the article may be exaggerating the danger of the Martian dust just a tad. Unlike Moon dust, this stuff has actually been through some weathering, so it's not as razor sharp as moon dust can get. So the main problem is Mars astronauts inhaling it, and there's no reason for that to happen. It would be pretty easy to set up a shower for astronauts to clean off dust before entering a habitat. It could be in an outdoor tent connected to the airlock with an insulated water tank (with in
Re: causing coughing, runny eyes and irritated thr (Score:2)
This is not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most unrealistic parts of The Martian was his relative immunity to Martian dust. The MC goes on countless Mars walks and yet barely has an issue with dust getting into his vehicle or the habitat. A proper airlock would have a wash cycle or at least a blow off. A proper habitat would have to maintain high humidity. A vehicle would struggle with interior dust after just a few mars walks, since it would not have room for a proper clean.
Here on Earth, we have more water and more gravity. It will take a lot of air filters and a lot of water to keep the dust out of people's lungs over there.
Re: (Score:1)
One of the most unrealistic part was the flight to Mars.
In real life you're guaranteed to pick a radiation dose on the way that will leave you very, very sick when you get there. And then you'll step into an environment that will give you your yearly dose on Earth in under 10 days only from the secondary neutron flux.
Martian dust will be the least of your problems.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
"The Apollo missions successfully navigated the Van Allen radiation belts with minimal health risks to astronauts. The spacecraft's aluminum hull provided effective shielding, reducing radiation exposure to harmless levels. Additionally, the rapid transit through the belts—approximately 52 minutes—limited exposure to about 13 rads, well below hazardous thresholds. Overall, the mission planning and spacecraft design ensured that the radiation doses received were within safe limits for the crew."
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-conten... [nasa.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'm not sure I believe it though, to be frank.
Re: (Score:2)
The longest Apollo mission lasted what, 12 days?
Your shortest flight to Mars is probably 7 months that way, and another 7 months back.
You're significantly more likely to pick an SPE on the way.
You won't have medical facilities to be treated.
But good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason for Musk to make the flight. He's so sure it'll work. Let him prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no objections.
It wants to be buried there anyway.
Don't care how it gets those six feet over itself, or how radioactive they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I don't think the radiation would be an acute danger, but I certainly have no problem if Musk wants to go to Mars to bury himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I already asked for your sources in another post. But I have to ask:
You won't have medical facilities to be treated.
Treated how exactly? Cancer would typically take decades exactly. Even if you ended up with acute radiation poisoning, which is highly unlikely with the amount of shielding you would have on a trip to Mars and the unlikelihood of an unpredictable event that would be a danger to astronauts but not to people on Earth, what would an Earth doctor be able to do anyway? It's mostly down to pain management, IV fluids (maybe blood), and medicat
Re: (Score:2)
Treated how exactly?
Anything radiation-related.
Heart disease, eyesight issues, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and other "digestion" problems, pissing and shitting blood, skin rashes. You know, the whole shebang.
Hair loss and bloody piss will probably not be a big issue for the ketamine kid, but the others on board may notice.
There are about 5 or 6 hospitals worldwide that can treat the full bouquet at once - to an extent - and none of these will be on the "starship" or on Mars, although the marsonauts will need all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything radiation-related.
Heart disease, eyesight issues, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and other "digestion" problems, pissing and shitting blood, skin rashes. You know, the whole shebang.
I didn't ask about symptoms, I asked about treatments. Have you ever been to a doctor? Aside from prescriptions like eyedrops (maybe eyeglasses), anti-nausea pills, dietary advice, skin creams, etc. all of which can be in a medicine cabinet on the ship and prescribed from Earth, the basic actual "treatment" from doctors for all of these things is to wait and see if they go away. If they're from acute radiation poisoning, they pretty much either will, or you'll die and all of the things medicine can do to st
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't ask about symptoms
Whatever, space cadet.
You seem to be taking for granted again that they will necessarily have to deal with acute radiation poisoning. Why?
Because you don't get a large dose without getting sick, my ignorant friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever, space cadet.
Well, I didn't. I asked specifically about treatment. That's perfectly logical in light of your concern that medical treatment would not be available. It's up to you to clarify why it would not be available when telemedicine, a well stocked set of medical supplies, and trained personnel in the form of the astronauts themselves would be available. As far as "space cadet", I'm assuming that's meant to be an insult? I mean, I don't really get the point.
Because you don't get a large dose without getting sick, my ignorant friend.
Once again one Sievert is about the lower limit for acute
Re: (Score:1)
You get an extra point from Sam for the utm_source=chatgpt.com query parameter in your link.
No reason to do any thinking anymore, just repost those "AI" trufs.
The stupid, it has taken over.
Re: This is not surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
sound?
Re: (Score:2)
In real life you're guaranteed to pick a radiation dose on the way that will leave you very, very sick when you get there. And then you'll step into an environment that will give you your yearly dose on Earth in under 10 days only from the secondary neutron flux.
The part about the radiation dose on the way there is not really right. You would not get even half a Sievert on the way there, even ignoring shielding. A full Sievert within a short period of time would be required to make you acutely ill and we're talking about it being spread out over a months long trip.
As for "the secondary neutron flux" on Mars, what do you mean? Are you talking about Bremsstrahlung radiation from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere? 10 days? That is very not right. Do you care to provi
Re: (Score:2)
The part about the radiation dose on the way there is not really right.
Says who on the basis of what? The whole of humanity has only had about 70 interplanetary missions over its whole history. None of these were manned. Only 2 or 3 have had dosimetry as more than an afterthought and had some sort of a dedicated instrument. We have a really inadequate understanding of the space radiation environments, even in LEO, nevermind further out in space.
There are only vague guesstimates about what you're going to get on a "mission to Mars", and even the "half a sievert" that some pull
Re: (Score:2)
Says who on the basis of what? The whole of humanity has only had about 70 interplanetary missions over its whole history. None of these were manned. Only 2 or 3 have had dosimetry as more than an afterthought and had some sort of a dedicated instrument. We have a really inadequate understanding of the space radiation environments, even in LEO, nevermind further out in space.
Says all the space agencies and physicsts and astronomers on the basis of all the studying they've done of it. We really actually do have a pretty good understanding of the space radiation environments. I don't know if you know this, but the Earth is in space, and we conduct plenty of radiation experiments on Earth both at the surface and high in the atmosphere. Despite the protective effects of the atmosphere, we can still get pretty good ideas about the general radiation environment in space from that. Oh
Re: (Score:2)
Says all the space agencies and physicsts and astronomers
Hardly. But you don't know many of them, or their work.
but the Earth is in space, and we conduct plenty of radiation experiments on Earth both at the surface and high in the atmosphere
Indeed. And we've conducted very few in interplanetary space, as I pointed out, and it turns out that this is the subject under discussion here. Since we know very little, any conclusions are, as I pointed out, mostly guesswork, a fact of life that is widely acknowledged by the space environment monitoring community.
Once again, massive craft, predictable and highly directional solar events, ability to turn the craft so that the bulk of the engines and fuel tanks are between the sun and the astronauts, and solar storm shelter, permanent or made by temporarily stacking extra supplies around the astronauts. Reduces the radiation exposure to negligible. That's also ignoring that the solar radiation you have to be concerned about in those events is charged (hence the aurora) and it has been shown that you could, in fact, magnetically shield a spacecraft against it.
Once again, ignorance.
"Massive craft" is meaningless without specifying actual mass and its stopping power. Do you have at least an idea ab
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. But you don't know many of them, or their work.
Well I've only known a few people in the general field and only really discussed space radiation with one astronomy professor, but what they said pretty much exactly what I am saying (also, back then I was a bit more naive so I had an exaggerated concern about space radiation like you. Oh, then there's my father who I have discussed it with and his office at UC Davis used to be on the opposite site of the wall from where a whole bunch of radioactive isotopes were stored behind shielding made from stacked le
Re: (Score:2)
So you need to design your spacesuit system so that you leave the outside of the suit on the outside of the habitat. Without really stressing the design, you could probably get the volume needing a washdown to ... 15 litres per suit?
Re: (Score:2)
But please so let me know how many 150 year olds you think aught to be collecting SS.
You can basically just keep recirculating the water used for cleaning. The dust will filter out just fine with perfectly mundane filters. You might also have to deal with dissolved substances like perchlorate, etc. but there are plenty of ways to do that. You could also just let it accumulate in your wash water until it achieves saturation and the excess settles out of solution and you just wash mostly with the contaminated water to get rid of the dust, then switch to purified water just for the final rinse
Re: (Score:2)
Um. Oops. The quote in that last post was stuck in my copy buffer from another post. I meant to quote: "Here on Earth, we have more water and more gravity. It will take a lot of air filters and a lot of water to keep the dust out of people's lungs over there." Mea Culpa.
Electrostatic field would be a solution (Score:1)
It's also toxic (Score:3)
From most chemical analysis that has been done on the surface, Martian soil/dust is thoroughly saturated with perchlorates. These are toxic and highly oxidizing chemicals, basically a component of many solid rocket fuels.
Mars is a hostile place to visit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with perchlorates in dust isn't that they're oxidizers. They are directly poisonous to humans, they shut down the thyroid gland which regulates metabolism. Breathing martian dust = breathing poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, nevertheless, at least once a year, Americans breathe in quite a lot of them and don't have any significant acute health issues. As long as they're washed off before astronauts come in, they probably won't even get a fourth of July's worth of perchlorate per year in their system.
Re: (Score:2)
For values of "saturated" that get up to a couple of percent by volume.
Agreed, perchlorates are definitely not nice chemicals. But on a scale of bulk poisoning, they're probably as important as ... oh, the hydrocarbon vapours you inhale at the petrol pump. They're not nice chemicals either, and they can do some spectacularly un-nice things to people ; but their effects can be mitigated.
It has been a few decades since I last tried getting a lead o
Re: (Score:2)
Your first cycle of Martian cannon-fodder will probably die of radiation poisoning. My bet would be they're given the choice of capital punishment without painkillers versus Martian visit with painkillers and a slim possibility of parole if they live to get back.
Typical predictions for radiation exposure on an approximately three year mission including the trip there, a stay on Mars, and the trip back are barely more than a Sievert, not even counting all of the radiation precautions that are possible. One Sievert is basically the minimum threshhold for acute radiation sickness, and that's only in a short timespan. Basically, 1.5 Sieverts would be the radiation dose limit for a radiation worker over thirty years. So, sure the trip would be ten times more acute, but
Re: (Score:2)
Great. So to have, say, 1000 man-years work in the first decade of the Martian colony, you probably only need to ship 105~110 cannon-fodder. You want some leeway to account for the fairly high probability that there will be several murders in that decade. Obviously, you wouldn't ship any weapons. Sharpenable metal, stuff like that. They'l
Re: (Score:2)
I was only talking about radiation dangers, though I'm not sure why Mars colonists would go all post-apocalyptic cannibal/Lord of the Flies. As tar as the man-years of work out of the colonists, .952 to .909 man years per year per person doesn't actually seem like a particularly bad rate. Of course, the kind of people who would volunteer for this sort of thing tend to be highly motivated, so I think you would get more than a man year per year out of them typically. In any case, I know you've spent your shar
Re: (Score:2)
Perchlorates are also highly soluble in water. So pretty easy to wash off. It's not like anyone is proposing astronauts go for a stroll on the surface without a suit and touch or breath toxic substances directly. Also, another neat fact about perchlorates is that they're loaded with extractable oxygen. So they're actually potentially a great resource.
We're not even sure what Mars is made of (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I vote we send Elmo there to collect thee facts.....using AI.
Re: (Score:2)
ferrihydrite((Fe3+)2O30.5H2O)
If I'm not mistaken, you could get water from that by heating it, so that sounds like a good thing for potential in situ resource utilization.
UP next from the No Shit Sherlock dept... (Score:3)
... the 2 year journey to Mars might also be bad for human health.
I mean seriously - the composition of the martian soil has been known for a long time and even without the abrasive dust the perchlorates in it alone would destroy the lungs PDQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everyone seem to assume that people are going to be walking around on the Martian surface just breathing in dust. Have humans suddenly become immune to vacuum and ceased to need oxygen while I wasn't looking? Because that would be really neat.
Have you been to India? (Score:3)
Does not matter (Score:2)
You will always find fools, I mean true explorers, who would sacrifice themselves.
Re: Does not matter (Score:2)
Microplastics (Score:1)
Send Musk now !! (Score:2)
Not worth going (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just going to say it, loud and clear: it is not worth going to Mars. There is no real benefit - none -for humans to set foot on that planet. The entire idea is built more on fantasy than on logic. Mars is a barren, hostile rock with virtually no atmosphere, no breathable air, and no magnetic field to shield us from cosmic radiation. We romanticize it like it’s some kind of bold frontier, but the reality is that Mars is a place that doesn’t want us there, and we’re spending billions trying to pretend otherwise.
Radiation levels alone should be enough to stop the conversation. NASA’s own research confirms that a round trip to Mars would expose astronauts to dangerous levels of radiation, well beyond what’s considered safe. And that’s just the journey. On the surface, there’s nowhere to hide. Add to that the extreme cold - averaging around minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and the paper-thin atmosphere made mostly of carbon dioxide, and it becomes clear that the whole notion of colonizing Mars is more of a survivalist hallucination than a serious strategy for the future.
There’s also this myth that we’ll “learn things” by going there. But we’ve already sent rovers, orbiters, and landers that have returned far more valuable data than any human could in that environment. If it’s science we’re after, robots can do it safer, cheaper, and better. The real motivation behind Mars is ideological - a desperate belief that we can abandon Earth and start fresh. But that’s not going to happen. Mars isn’t a backup plan. It’s a diversion.
We are a one-planet species. That’s not pessimism: it’s reality. The idea that we’re destined to become interplanetary is a comforting illusion in the face of real planetary crises. If we can’t manage to maintain a functioning biosphere on a planet already perfectly suited for life, how exactly do we expect to build one from scratch on a dead world?
Meanwhile, there are other, smarter ways to invest in space. Asteroid mining, for example, could actually yield something useful - vast quantities of rare metals and minerals that we need here on Earth. That’s not science fiction; it’s economically and technologically feasible within a couple of decades, and it wouldn’t involve risking lives or building impossible habitats. Orbital manufacturing is another promising avenue. In microgravity, we can make materials that are impossible to produce on Earth - like ultra-pure fiber optics or advanced pharmaceuticals. These things have real, near-term commercial value and could revolutionize industries down here where it matters. My opinion of Elmo has severely dropped recently, but I'd be more impressed if SpaceX were focusing on these than a retarded Mars mission.
Even solar power satellites, beaming clean energy back to Earth from orbit, offer a potential solution to our climate crisis, while staying grounded in reality. And let’s not forget planetary defense - actually protecting Earth from asteroid impacts, which is a very real and existential threat. That’s space investment that could literally save humanity.
So no, Mars is not the answer. It’s a distraction. It's a tech billionaire's fever dream sold to us as progress. If we’re going to dream big, let’s dream wisely. Let’s invest in ideas that serve this planet - because it’s the only one we’ve got. But, hey, it's his money, right? Right?
Re: (Score:3)
Hard truths. Near-future sci-fi involving interplanetary travel and colonization is like mecha anime, it's fun but requires a lot of bummer realities and often a few laws of physics to be ignored (kudos to The Expanse and FLAG for trying real hard to make it work though). If we figure out warp drives and other Star-Trek-level near-fantasies, then becoming a multiplanetary species might become a realistic possibility. Until then, Earth is all we've got and we need to assume it's all we'll ever have.
Re: (Score:2)
kudos to The Expanse and FLAG for trying real hard to make it work though
Oh please, The Expanse? I mean, I wasn't going to bother to point out all of the exaggerations and misunderstandings about the dangers of Mars because I was just done... but holding up The Expanse? Sorry, but the Expanse makes Deep Impact look like well thought out hard Science Fiction.
Re: Not worth going (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"30 foot concrete walls"? Why on Mars would you need 30 foot concrete walls? Radiation is, of course, a real concern, but the bizarre fantasies people seem to have about the actual extent of the problem or what would be required for reasonable protection are astounding. This is supposed to be a nerd site. Why don't you do the math on how much concrete you would actually need to provide similar protection to Earth's atmosphere before posting stuff like this?
Re: Not worth going (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even ten feet of concrete will provide more radiation protection than you would really need. It's not like you actually need to get the radiation levels down to the extremely safe levels at sea level on Earth. In any case, is there any reason you think that you need to have all of the mass be concrete instead of regolith, water, other supplies, etc.?
Re: Not worth going (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what it is, it will need the same density so will be just as heavy.
Yes, but the critical difference see, is that you don't have to bring regolith (and probably water, or at least not as much water) with you. That's kind of important since you wrote "It's at least ten feet. Enough that it is not possible to bring the required protection to Mars." So, it's kind of relevant that you don't need to bring it with you since it's already there. As for the other stuff, everything else I mentioned is stuff you need to bring anyway, you just position it so that it also provides radia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing is, it's all a pipe dream anyway. Elon Musk isn't known for making good predictions. He might have an ambition to send people to Mars, but we don't even know all of the logistics, let alone be able to resupply settlers often enough to keep them alive. We are about as far from sending people to Mars, as we are from having Gen AI.
Re: Not worth going (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's a predator who preys on optimism through use of a Reality Distortion Field (and generous helpings of just plain lying). He harvests ideas from old covers of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics and rehashes previously unsuccessful ideas (electric cars, Iridium) because the technology they were lacking has advanced (maybe not enough in the case of Starlink) enough to make them viable now. Other enthusiasts for the idea then get excited. I, personally have always been quite interested in the prospect of
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you, except your point about robotic explorers vs humans. With a proper lab and boots and eyes on the ground a geologist could learn more about mars in a week than a robotic rover can learn in months. Granted that is just one small area we would be talking about. But we've now had robots doing science on mars for many years, so at this point I agree a human wouldn't gain us a lot more useful knowledge.
But I think Musk needs to go there personally to verify this.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we are doomed to extinction, when the sun expands (if not before that)
If we do not leave earth, as a species, nothing we have done as a species will have ever mattered.
Whether it happens in a hundred years, a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. Unless we go to the stars. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes... and all of this... all of this was for nothing unless we go to
That's fine (Score:2)
Martian class action suits (Score:2)
"Have you been exposed to harmful dust on Mars? Call the offices of Dewey, Cheetham and Howe to get the compensation we...you deserve!"
Pollen hit a new record of over 14,000.... (Score:2)