Unsafe at any dose - exposing psychiatric dogmas – so minds can heal.

When you next interview Robert Hare, please take a critic with you — he has much to answer for, though perhaps politics perverts perennially. Any other medical specialty would not tolerate a fraction of this gross inefficacy — please review the data, especially Mad in America, and the website of that name. Again, there is a terrible lesson still to be learnt, which tv could help. Empowering intent detoxifies psychoses.

From the perspective of a working psychiatrist, it helps to separate these two aspects, so shedding light on this infinitely complex, yet vitally important topic. This chapter therefore starts with its simplest characteristics — consciousness exists, but only when you are awake or unanaesthetised.

Next, comparing consciousness with the field of vision helps — the retina, after all, is neurologically speaking, an outgrowth of the very brain tissue itself. And the striking feature of eyesight is the focal point — a small area of high detail surrounded by blur, and the blurring increases the further you get from that point. Mail will not be published. We should listen to … Bob Johnson posted by Geoff on 24th Feb There are no comments.

Bestselling Series

Please Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Name required Mail will not be published Website. No homes for motorists. Population is a planet emergency but … Land, labour and food Car-free estates of wooden prefabs with inbuilt market gardens. Brilliant climate talk by Kevin Anderson Car-free cities and pedestrian apartheid Are you evil or very evil? Censored by the Overseas Development Institute?

Had we but world enough and time. Global Carbon Budgets and Wildfires What can climate modellers tell us about flying and eating beef? Feeding the geese and robbing the rich Will the new government department sideline climate warnings? Long term labour subsidies. Letter to FT Greening the greenbelt February Jobs, training and video games Does this site use cookies?

Can Richard Layard really be following Percy Bridgman? Lifestyles, Quality of Life and Sustainability Carbon budgets: The core track produces extremely large clusters of ionizations within a few nanometres , which is qualitatively distinct from energy deposition by X-rays and gamma rays ; hence human epidemiology data which only exists for these latter forms of radiation is limited in predicting the health risks from space radiation to astronauts. Microscopic energy deposition in cells and tissues is distinct for GCR compared to X-rays on Earth leading to both qualitative and quantitative differences in biological effects, while there is no human epidemiology data for GCR for cancer and other fatal risks.

The solar cycle is an approximately year period of varying solar activity including solar maximum where the solar wind is strongest and solar minimum where the solar wind is weakest. Galactic cosmic rays create a continuous radiation dose throughout the Solar System that increases during solar minimum and decreases during solar maximum solar activity.

The inner and outer radiation belts are two regions of trapped particles from the solar wind that are later accelerated by dynamic interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. While always high, the radiation dose in these belts can increase dramatically during geomagnetic storms and substorms. Solar proton events SPEs are bursts of energetic protons accelerated by the Sun.

• Покупки по категориям.
• Health threat from cosmic rays.
• The Social Construction of Mental Illness and its Implications for the Recovery Model?

They occur relatively rarely and can produce extremely high radiation levels. Without thick shielding, SPEs are sufficiently strong to cause acute radiation poisoning and death. Of the above factors, all but the first one apply to low Earth orbit craft, such as the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. On 31 May , NASA scientists reported that a possible manned mission to Mars [3] may involve a great radiation risk based on the amount of energetic particle radiation detected by the radiation assessment detector RAD on the Mars Science Laboratory while traveling from the Earth to Mars in — The potential acute and chronic health effects of space radiation, as with other ionizing radiation exposures, involve both direct damage to DNA, indirect effects due to generation of reactive oxygen species, and changes to the biochemistry of cells and tissues, which can alter gene transcription and the tissue microenvironment along with producing DNA mutations.

Acute or early radiation effects result from high radiation doses, and these are most likely to occur after solar particle events SPEs. To date, however, the only pathology associated with space radiation exposure is a higher risk for radiation cataract among the astronaut corps. The health threat depends on the flux, energy spectrum, and nuclear composition of the radiation. The flux and energy spectrum depend on a variety of factors: These factors are incompletely understood. Dose limits depend on age at exposure and sex due to difference in susceptibility with age, the added risks of breast and ovarian cancers to women, and the variability of cancer risks such as lung cancer between men and women.

The quantitative biological effects of cosmic rays are poorly known, and are the subject of ongoing research. Several experiments, both in space and on Earth, are being carried out to evaluate the exact degree of danger. Additionally, the impact of the space microgravity environment on DNA repair has in part confounded the interpretation of some results.

This may be interpreted as an acceptable result for space travel as the cells affected end up with greater energy deposition and are more likely to die without proliferating into tumors. This is in contrast to the current dogma on radiation exposure to human cells which considers lower energy radiation of higher weighting factor for tumor formation.

Relative biological effectiveness RBE depends on radiation type described by particle charge number, Z, and kinetic energy per amu, E, and varies with tumor type with limited experimental data suggesting leukemia 's having the lowest RBE, liver tumors the highest RBE, and limited or no experimental data on RBE available for cancers that dominate human cancer risks including lung, stomach, breast, and bladder cancers. Studies of Harderian gland tumors in a single strain of female mice with several heavy ions have been made, however it is not clear how well the RBE for this tumor type represents the RBE for human cancers such as lung, stomach, breast and bladder cancers nor how RBE changes with sex and genetic background.

Part of the ISS year long mission is to determine the health impacts of cosmic ray exposure over the course of one year spent aboard the International Space Station. However, sample sizes for accurately estimating health risks directly from crew observations for the risks of concern cancer, cataracts, cognitive and memory changes, late CNS risks, circulatory diseases, etc.

It will be difficult for a sufficient number of astronauts to occupy the ISS and for the missions to continue long enough to make an impact on risk predictions for late effects due to statistical limitations. Hence the need for ground-based research to predict cosmic ray health risks. In addition, radiation safety requirements mandate that risks should be adequately understood prior to astronauts incurring significant risks, and methods developed to mitigate the risks if necessary.

In September , NASA reported radiation levels on the surface of the planet Mars were temporarily doubled , and were associated with an aurora times brighter than any observed earlier, due to a massive, and unexpected, solar storm in the middle of the month. Hypothetical early and late effects on the central nervous system are of great concern to NASA and an area of active current research interest.

It is postulated short- and long-term effects of CNS exposure to galactic cosmic radiation are likely to pose significant neurological health risks to human long-term space travel. Likely pathways include heavy ion interactions with retinal photoreceptors [40] and Cherenkov radiation resulting from particle interactions within the vitreous humor. In addition, there were only 24 such astronauts, making statistical analysis of any potential health effects problematic. In the above discussion dose equivalents is units of Sievert Sv are noted, however the Sv is a unit for comparing cancer risks for different types of ionizing radiation.

Furthermore, stating "hypothetical" risk is problematic, while space radiation CNS risk estimates have largely focused on early and late detriments to memory and cognition e. On 31 December , a NASA -supported study reported that manned spaceflight may harm the brains of astronauts and accelerate the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

• Psychological Flexibility as a Fundamental Aspect of Health.
• Health threat from cosmic rays - Wikipedia.
• Course Outline!
• Was sich paart, das trennt sich (German Edition)?
• dr-bob-johnson | ABOUT?

A review of CNS space radiobiology by Cucinotta, Alp, Sulzman, and Wang Life Sciences in Space Research, summarizes research studies in small animals of changes to cognition and memory, neuro-inflammation, neuron morphology, and impaired neurogenesis in the hippocampus. Studies using simulated space radiation in small animals suggest temporary or long-term cognitive detriments could occur during a long-term space mission. Further research is needed to understand if such cognitive detriments induced by space radiation would occur in astronauts and whether they would negatively impact a Mars mission.

The cumulative heavy ion doses in space are low such that critical cells and cell components will receive only 0 or 1 particle traversal. An alternative assumption would be if a tissues micro-environment is modified by a long-range signaling effect or change to biochemistry, whereby a particle traversal to some cells modifies the response of other cells not traversed by particles. There is limited experimental evidence, especially for central nervous system effects, available to evaluate this alternative assumption.

Material shielding can be effective against galactic cosmic rays, but thin shielding may actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation , although thick shielding could counter such too. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that thin aluminium shielding would give a net increase in radiation exposure but would gradually decrease as more shielding is added to capture generated secondary radiation.

Studies of space radiation shielding should include tissue or water equivalent shielding along with the shielding material under study. Studies of aluminum, polyethylene, liquid hydrogen, or other shielding materials, will involve secondary radiation not reflective of secondary radiation produced in tissue, hence the need to include tissue equivalent shielding in studies of space radiation shielding effectiveness.

Several strategies are being studied for ameliorating the effects of this radiation hazard for planned human interplanetary spaceflight:. Special provisions would also be necessary to protect against a solar proton event, which could increase fluxes to levels that would kill a crew in hours or days rather than months or years. Potential mitigation strategies include providing a small habitable space behind a spacecraft's water supply or with particularly thick walls or providing an option to abort to the protective environment provided by the Earth's magnetosphere.

The Apollo mission used a combination of both strategies. Upon receiving confirmation of an SPE, astronauts would move to the Command Module, which had thicker aluminium walls than the Lunar Module, then return to Earth. It was later determined from measurements taken by instruments flown on Apollo that the Command Module would have provided sufficient shielding to prevent significant crew harm. Scientists such as University of Chicago professor emeritus Eugene Parker are not optimistic it can be solved anytime soon.

For instance, a NASA design study for an ambitious large spacestation envisioned 4 metric tons per square meter of shielding to drop radiation exposure to 2. Several active shielding methods have been considered that might be less massive than passive shielding, but they remain speculative.