NASAJPL Facebook Fans Design Fantasy Space Vacation

Artist's concept of a family road trip through the universe
Some creative space vacation ideas from fans of the NASAJPL Facebook Page inspired an artist's concept of a family road trip through the universe.

We got some super-creative ideas from people on the NASAJPL Facebook page when we asked this question: "Planning a summer trip? Talk to your friends and family -- if you could design your dream space vacation, where would you go?"

As promised, we're posting a small sampling of comments here, but you can read all the comments, or post your own ideas at http://www.facebook.com/NASAJPL.

Eoghan Lappin: Moon for breakfast. Mars for lunch. Titan for dinner. Then all the way to Gliese 581d on a trip of a lifetime (Because it would take that long at least!) Epic road trip! ๐Ÿ˜€

Brian Hinson: I'd barbecue kabobs on Pele on Io.

Adam Steineck: I'd go to a watery planet with lots of beaches orbiting a binary star system so the sun would never set ๐Ÿ™‚

Madhur Patel: My dream vacation would be the 'Asteroid belt' between Mars and Jupiter. It would be fun to go from Mars to Jupiter jumping on the asteroids on the way using a pogo-stick and taking breaks on some of the bigger asteroids like Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea ! ๐Ÿ™‚

Mike Kaberline: I would go to Mars to get Spirit unstuck and dust off the solar panels of Spirit and Opportunity.

Devon Sklair: I would go to Pluto. That way I could pass all the planets in the Solar System on my way there and hang out in the Kuiper Belt. Maybe I'd establish relations with some Plutonians. ๐Ÿ™‚

Raees Kolah: I guess I would like to visit Andromeda galaxy and after that have a dinner with my best friends on Mars.

Grieg Pedersen: I used to have a photo of the Pleiades on my wall, framed in a window frame. I'd love to have that view from my bungalow.

Bob Breit: While my family is from Mintaka in Orion, that is a generational vacation. At this time I would enjoy a rip roarin' ski trip to Enceladus. The jets are fabulous in summer! I could spend the entire season roaming the Saturnian moons and the balloon trip around Saturn is quite a day I hear. I CAN'T WAIT!

Jeff Kuyken: How about a base jump from the Mars moon Phobos followed by a leisurely stroll up to the summit of Olympus Mons! ๐Ÿ˜‰

Sarah Hill: I'd go to Alpha Centauri to see if there are any planets there with a moon with tall blue people.


View my blog's last three great articles...

Image Analysis as a Tool for Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers in Breast Cancer โ€“ How Reliable Is It?

Definiens Digital Pathology Webinar Series:

Image Analysis as a Tool for Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers in Breast Cancer – How Reliable Is It?

June 30th, 11am EDT (4pm GMT)

Register: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/434138978

In this talk, Dr. Marilyn Bui and Mark Lloyd of the Moffitt Cancer Center will discuss their assessment of Definiens Tissue Studio for analysis of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in breast cancer.

The agenda for the webinar will be:

? Current standards in IHC and pathology
? Advantages of automated image analysis
? How Definiens Tissue Studio is used for digital pathology image analysis
? Case study comparing Definiens Tissue Studio analysis results with “gold standard” immunohistochemistry Her2 and ER best practices.
? Results

Speakers:

Dr. Marilyn Bui – Scientific Director, Analytic Microscopy Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida

Mark Lloyd – Staff Scientist, Analytic Microscopy Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida

CAM in โ€œObamacareโ€

On March 30th, President Obama signed the final piece of healthcare reform legislation concluding an epic battle that ultimately lead to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The bill enforces the largest change to US healthcare for decades and has provided an opportunity for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) advocates to be federally endorsed in our future healthcare system. This entry is an attempt to present excerpts from the PPACA itself that could lay the groundwork for incorporating CAM into the future healthcare system.

CAM proponents tout a few sections in the PPACA as a victory for their cause. One of these sections is 3502, entitled Establishing Community Health Teams To Support The Patient-Centered Medical Home, which endorses government grants “to establish community health teams,” which are defined as “community-based interdisciplinary, interprofessional teams.” It goes on to say that such a ‘team’ may include, “doctors of chiropractic, [and] licensed complementary and alternative medicine practitioners.”1

The requirements of such a health team are listed and one of them reads, “to provide support necessary for local primary care providers… [and] to provide coordination of the appropriate use of complementary and alternative (CAM) services to those who request such services.” What this entails, is that there will be an influx of federal spending into CAM services with the enactment of the new bill.

Fortunately, the section provides other requirements for ‘health teams’ such as,

to support patient-centered medical homes, defined as a mode of care that includes… safe and high-quality care through evidence-informed medicine, appropriate use of health information technology, and continuous quality improvements.

Health teams will also be required to (bear with me here),

provide support necessary for local primary care providers to… provide quality-driven, cost-effective, culturally appropriate and patient- and family-oriented healthcare… [and] collect and report data that permits evaluation of the success of the collaborative effort on patient outcomes, including collection of data of patient experience of care and identification of areas for improvement.

This could mean that, although CAM will be supported by our federal plan, there will be some restrictions in place requiring it to adhere to an ‘evidence-informed’, ‘quality-driven’ and ‘cost-effective’ form of medicine. Guidelines may be implemented to track the progress and efficacy of health teams using CAM therapies. If this were true, I would suspect an initial rise in government-funded CAM but a downfall in the long run. A new surge of government-sponsored data should separate cost-effective treatments from sham if CAM therapists are held to such standards.

Unfortunately, the government has a poor track record of declaring therapies ineffective. Nowhere has this been more obvious than in The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which has been criticized for spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars on studies of CAM and never confirming the efficacy of a single therapy nor declaring any as ineffective. This shows that federally funded data gathered about CAM might similarly never actually lead to meaningful conclusions or changes in our healthcare. If this were true, CAM incorporated into the healthcare system would stay for the ride regardless of its efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Another section of the PPACA, supported by herbalists, is number 4206: Demonstration Project Concerning Individualized Wellness Plan[2]2. The section describes the establishment of “a pilot program to test the impact of providing at risk populations an individualized wellness plan… that is designed to reduce risk factors for preventable conditions.” The program will include nutritional counseling and will provide dietary supplements that have health claims approved by the FDA. Examples include calcium supplementation for those at risk of osteoporosis and prenatal folic acid to decrease the incidence of neural tube defects. Seeing as this is guided by the FDA’s recommendations I can only join in with the approval of such a “wellness plan”, and expect it to be a big hit in the new healthcare system. Since herbalists see this as an opportunity for the government to incorporate their therapies into these wellness plans, I hope that the program will continue to adhere to FDA recommendations, especially if it is approved for wide-scale use.

On other fronts, chiropractors have found a niche in the soon-to-be National Healthcare Workforce Commission as described in section 5101 of the PPACA. “The Commission,” as it is referred to, will be responsible for analyzing and disseminating information to the federal government, state and local agencies, Congress, healthcare organizations, and professional societies about the US healthcare workforce. It will develop “evaluations of education and training activities to determine whether the demand for healthcare workers is being met.”

In so doing, it will recommend to the government which institutions deserve grants in order to “develop a fiscally sustainable integrative workforce that supports a high-quality, readily accessible healthcare delivery system that meets the needs of patients and populations.” It will also “study effective mechanisms for financing education and training for careers in healthcare.” Put more simply: the Commission will be channeling tax dollars to different healthcare institutions based on their analysis of demand in our healthcare system.

The Comptroller General, Gene L. Dodaro, will appoint the members of the Commission no later than September 30th of this year. It will consist of 15 members representative of the healthcare workforce, employers, third-party payers, representatives of consumers, State or local workforce investment boards, and educational institutions. It seems like there will be a host of different viewpoints and interests influencing the recommendations that this commission will be making.

Therein lies the problem. The section about the Commission specifically defines the ‘healthcare workforce’ as, “all healthcare providers with direct patient and support responsibilities,” and specifically includes licensed CAM practitioners and chiropractors within the definition. If proponents of such CAM therapies infiltrate the Commission, taxpayers could end up funding disproportionate amounts of money to medical institutions unsupported by science.

Another section of the PPACA that has been hailed as a victory by CAM proponents, especially chiropractors, is section 27063, which prohibits health insurance discrimination against any “health care provider who is acting within the scope of that provider’s license or certification under applicable state law.” Chiropractors, who feel that they are being ‘discriminated’ against within the medical community, see this as an end to their problems. Interestingly, section 2706 is colloquially dubbed the “Harkin amendment”, after it was introduced by the Iowa Senator himself. David Gorski has written about him on a number of occasions. Tom Harkin is the man most responsible for the creation of the aforementioned NCCAM and also the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, which allows “herbal supplement” manufacturers to make dubious health claims with little or no regulation.

The section itself is simply entitled Non-Discrimination in Health Care and prevents insurance companies from discriminating against particular medical modalities. At first glance this seems like a free pass for CAM, especially with the American Chiropractic Association s (ACA) claims that the inclusion of this provision has “potential for positive, long-range impact on [their] profession and the patients [they] serve.”  But the provision itself makes a point to address that, “nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a group health plan, a health insurance issuer, or the Secretary [of Health & Human Services] from establishing varying reimbursement rates based on quality or performance measures.

If this provision is calling for an end to discrimination of health modalities that is not based on quality or performance, than I don’t understand why CAM proponents are so happy about this. Don’t they understand that it’s their quality and performance that is under scrutiny and that these characteristics are determined by science? It’s as if the ACA believes the main reasons they are ‘discriminated against’ are not based on evidence at all. I actually agree with the proposition that heath care modalities shouldn’t be discriminated against for unscientific reasons.

On a more positive note, the PPACA bill has in it a section on immunization 4and describes a new program that will come into effect to maximize vaccinations throughout the country. This is a huge blow to the anti-vaccine movement, which has been surprisingly quiet about this. Hopefully, it will help more patients to be vaccinated, especially those without the resources to do so.

In summary, we should be prepared for an infiltration of CAM therapies into the new healthcare system that will come into effect starting this year. The PPACA healthcare bill is not a disaster for science-based medicine by any means but it is not bulletproof either. The bill specifically mentions its endorsement of CAM and the more it acts on this, the more difficult it will be to eradicate passionately advocated therapies with no evidence supporting them in the years to come. Now is the time to ensure that the US healthcare system does not begin to excessively promote sham therapies. Otherwise, we will risk developing a new foundation to our healthcare system that incorporates scientifically unsound medicine.

References

  1. Page 395 of the PPACA (http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf )
  2. p458 of the PPACA
  3. p42 of the PPACA
  4. p453 of the PPACA

ABOUT THE GUEST BLOGGER: Matt Roman is a Polish-American, who immigrated to the Unites States in 1985 and studied neuroscience and chemistry at Franklin and Marshall College. He is currently enrolled as a medical student at Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland. His interest in complementary and alternative medicine began with his involvement in courses and research at The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia before he became immersed in the skeptical movement and a science-based approach to medicine. He hopes to specialize in internal medicine in the United States and enjoys blogging about a diverse range of general science topics. A different version of this post first appeared on the blog Science-ology in March 2010.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

Would You Buy This Bandini?

It's amazing how such a little car can have such a huge price tag. This 1955 Bandini Siluro twin-cam, which we had a chance to ogle at Amelia Island this year, not only has excellent racing history and a concours-worthy restoration, but it's being sold by Cliff Reuter, the man who seemingly has

HHS to spend $250 million to increase number of primary-care providers – Washington Post


TopNews United Kingdom (blog)
HHS to spend $250 million to increase number of primary-care providers
Washington Post
The Health Resources and Services Administration will use some of the money to repay the loans of medical school graduates who agree to practice primary ...
Primary Care Docs in Short SupplyLos Angeles Times
Health reform grants expected to ease primary care doctor shortageVentura County Star

all 54 news articles »

PETAnauts Are Persistent

Animal Rights Hijackers Take Over NASA's TWTRCON Feed

"As NASA public affairs specialist Stephanie Schierholz took to the stage at Monday's TWTRCON to weigh in on "customer service," animal defenders elsewhere took to their Twitter accounts and took over the #TWTRCON hashtag--specifically weighing in on NASA's plan to fund a misguided, cruel, and wasteful experiment in which dozens of squirrel monkeys would be blasted with harmful space radiation."

PETA Comes To Houston To Take On NASA, Houston Press

"Commuters on the Gulf Freeway will get a new billboard to ponder sometime soon: "NASA: Take a Giant Leap for Mankind. Stop Torturing Monkeys," it will say."

Light Industrial Steel Sheds Statistics

I'm stuck Guys

OK, this is home work in some kind of way. I have searched and asked Google and the Australian bureau of statistics but have no luck finding such basic(?) information. Here is my question:

How many corrugated iron, steel, light industrial sheds, structures are there and how many

NCBI ROFL: Study proves hot baseball players more likely to pummel you with their balls. | Discoblog

Temper and Temperature on the Diamond: The Heat-Aggression Relationship in Major League Baseball.

spacing is important

The Tampa Bay Rays and the Boston Red Sox fight in a bench-clearing brawl in the second inning of a game on June 5, 2008. The brawl started when Red Sox player Coco Crisp charged the mound after being hit by a pitch by Tampa Bay pitcher James Shields.

“Archival data from major league baseball games played during the 1986, 1987, and 1988 seasons (total N = 826 games) were used to assess the association between the temperatures at the games and the number of batters hit by a pitch during them. A positive and significant relationship was found between temperature and the number of hit batters per game, even when potentially confounding variables having nothing to do with aggression were partialed out. A similar relationship was found for games played during the 1962 season. The shape of this relationship appears to be linear, suggesting that higher temperatures lead major league pitchers to become more aggressive in pitching to batters.

temper

Thanks to David for today’s ROFL!

Image: flickr/ncbronte

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Impact of Yankee Stadium Bat Day on blunt trauma in northern New York City.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Proof that NCBI ROFL reduces aggression!
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: I’m pretty sure this is how the Civil War started…

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!


SF Cell Phones Will Come With Radiation Labelingโ€”But No Interpretation | 80beats

CellphoneBenchAfter a 10-to-1 vote in the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco stands poised to force cellphone makers to display the level of radiation their phones emit next the phone’s display in a store. It would become the first American city to do so.

The mayor, Gavin Newsom, supported the measure and will probably sign it into law. If he does, the rules will be phased in February next year, and violators who don’t provide the information will be charged up to $300. Predictably, the move is lauded as progressive and pro-consumer if you ask supporters and cast as a misleading ordinance if you ask the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. But what does it actually mean?

The number in question is called the specific absorption rate, or SAR. It’s a measure of how much of the phone’s radio frequency energy gets absorbed into a person’s tissue. Although no clear picture has emerged of what effects cell phone radiation has on health (though there are plenty of interesting and contradictory studies), there are already legal upper limits for the SAR of phones. Here in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for testing those levels and won’t allow anything higher than 1.6 watts per kilogram of body weight. In Europe the cap’s a little higher—2 watts per kg.

The SAR for phones is already accessible. It’s just harder to get than it would be under the San Francisco rules. In its briefing on cellphones and health, the American Cancer Society notes that the number is available inside the battery compartment for many phones. If it’s not there, and you want to know, you can enter your phone’s FCC identification number on that organization’s Web site. Just last month CNET published a database of which phones are the best and the worst when it comes to radiation… but made sure to say that “the jury is still out” on health effects.

But soon, if you live in San Francisco, the number could be staring you in the face. So should you buy a Samsung phone with an ultra-low SAR rather than a Motorola with a higher one, even if you like the Motorola better? While the weight of evidence hasn’t shown any connections between cellphones and cancer or other ill health effects, it could be a tough decision for some people. That’s probably part of the reason the industry opposes such rules: It’d be better for them if you buy with your gadget lust and not your brain.

However, cellphone makers are correct in a couple of things: First, CNET’s top-rated and lowest rated phones both are within the FCC’s limits, and so both “meet exposure guidelines.” Second, SAR isn’t the only number that matters. For instance, phones emit more radiation when they’re searching for a signal—something to take into consideration if you live far from towers. And, of course, the duration you use a phone has a lot to do with how much radiation your body takes in.

Related Content:
NCBI ROFL: OMG! ur cell phone is mkng u impotent
80beats: Surprise! Study Suggests Cell Phone Use Could Actually Fight Alzheimer’s
80beats: Can You Fear Me Now? Cell Phone Use Not Linked to Brain Cancer
80beats: Cancer Doctor Issues Warning About Cell Phones, And Causes Panic
80beats: Will California Be the First State to Ban the Plastic Shopping Bag?

Image: flickr / Ed Yourdon


New Study: If a Dude Sounds Strong, He Probably Is | Discoblog

armIt’s pretty clear that–in a fight–Darth Vader would crush Jar Jar Binks, Optimus Prime would beat Starscream, and Batman could pummel the Joker. Though some of these fictional characters don’t even look like humans, when it comes to strength, their voices give it all away. New research seems to confirm this: humans, like other animals, can accurately predict physical strength from voice alone.

In a study appearing today in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, researchers asked subjects to evaluate the upper-body strength of speakers from four distinct populations and language groups just by listening to their voices. Even when unfamiliar with a speaker’s language, listeners could tell which men might be good in a fight. The men they judged as sounding brawny were in fact physically stronger as measured by tests of hand grip, chest strength, shoulder strength, and bicep circumference.

As lead author Aaron Sell told Discovery News:

“Information about male formidability would have been important for both sexes over evolutionary time,” said Sell. “Both men and women would have benefitted from knowing who would likely win fights in order to make prudential alliances and for other reasons. Men would need this information to regulate their own fighting behavior. Women would also need this information in order to make effective mate choices.”

They study failed to make a similar link between women’s voices and strength. The study’s authors speculate that this is because early men were more likely to spar. The researchers also couldn’t determine what it was about certain male voices that made them sound strong–it wasn’t just a deep timbre–and say listeners may respond to a complex mix of cues.

For men, the finding proves especially interesting given the non-menacing statement researchers asked English speakers to say: “When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism and form a rainbow.” Apparently this sentence contains all the sounds of the English language, but those certainly aren’t fighting words.

Related content:
Discoblog: Speaking French? Your Computer Can Tell
Discoblog: Penn State’s Football Stadium: Now 50% Louder!
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Did Gollum have schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder?

Image: flickr / ~ggvic~


Life In Space

Most of us think at some point about living in a space station or craft, whether it’s the USS Enterprise or the International Space Station.  Would you live in space given the opportunity?

Many people base their ideas of living in space on science fiction works such as Star Trek, Star Wars, and those incredible Alien movies. They are shocked when they see the inside of a real, functioning space craft like the Apollo 11.  I wonder how many Soyuz crafts you could fit on the bridge of the Enterprise?  Sure, we know there’s a difference between “real life” and “science fiction”, but it’s surprising how many people still believe astronauts have their own private rooms.  Since we’ve had space stations, there have been three astronauts to stay in space for over a year at a stretch, all aboard the Mir.  To give you some perspective, look at this image of the Atlantis docked to Mir:

NASA - Atlantis docked with Mir

Amazing.  There you would be, living in a short gopher hole stuffed with equipment and supplies.  Remember, if they ran out of something, they couldn’t go to the local department store and pick it up.

A lot of strange things happen to a person in space, too.  It’s way beyond certain that you will not survive in space unprotected.  We lost a cosmonaut in a decompression accident in 1971, and we almost lost an astronaut during some NASA tests with near-vacuum conditions in 1965 when his suit developed a leak.  You can research that one, but he remained conscious for 14 seconds, and his last sensation was of the saliva on his tongue boiling (that’s not due to heat; that’s related to lack of pressure).

Even in a protected environment, you would have to deal with a huge problem we haven’t solved as yet; microgravity.  The human body is designed to operate very well in a gravity environment.  In fact, we require it.  Now obviously you aren’t going to run into major problems immediately, although you might not be very comfortable at first.

Over half of all astronauts spend the first couple of days in space nauseated, dizzy, and feeling like they are upside down.  Your body has certain expectations of what the environment is going to look and feel like.  For millions of years, everything was just dandy, until suddenly (with no warning) your big fat brain decides to take your body into space.  Your body will retaliate.  Also, about 60% of your body is water.  Within minutes of entering microgravity most of that water is up around your sinuses.  And it stays there, until you return to gravity.

Those are the fun effects.  Hang around in microgravity long enough, and you start losing bone and muscle mass.  When you lose bone mass, the calcium released into your blood settles in your soft body tissues, most prominently the kidneys.  Muscles not only atrophy (stop working altogether), the type of muscle fibers prominent in the tissue changes.  When you return to gravity, you have a hard time even breathing, much less moving around.  We’re not sure if the body ever fully recovers.  If all that wasn’t enough, your annual radiation dose in low-Earth orbit is ten times that on Earth.  That’s a serious cancer risk.

Those are just the highlights of the physical effects.  We didn’t hit on the psychological problems; the boredom, stress, anxiety, loneliness, lack of privacy, messed up sleep cycles, insomnia, depression… why are we even trying to go into space?  I’m not sure, but I think it has something to do with the need to know, the need to explore.  Also, there’s just something in human nature that MUST push a button if it’s there.  We want to go faster, higher, and further.  We want to see how hot something can get, how cold it can get, how hard it can be pushed; and then push it a little harder.

We want to see what’s over the horizon.

Polarized Lens

I am working on a project that involves a magnifying lens that will be left outside for hours at a time. I realize that the lens will burn things that are under it by focusing the sun. Does anyone know of a way to prevent this burning? The lens needs to be uncovered at all times so adding somethi

Looking for a Used Portable CMM to Purchase

I'm a Quality Manager at a metal buildings component manuf. Need to locate a used CMM - portable, to check profile dimensions on our roof and wall panels (24GA formed sheet-metal, galvalume and painted). Nothing elaborate, just need a basic 3 axis unit to lay out 3D profile and verify dimensional me

Single Lane Private Bridge

1. What size steel i-beams will i need to span a 24 foot wide creek, without center

support. This single lane private bridge will accommodate up to 10 lot owners.

Want bridge to be sturdy enough to support occasional cement truck, etc.

2. would a 3 feet over hang on

Going Nowhere and Everywhere

Destinations in Rhetoric, Eric Sterner, Space News

"The Administrator attempted to put a finer point on the administration's purposes during his Congressional testimony in March, asserting that Mars was the ultimate goal. But, his comments came largely in response to continued Congressional prodding and still were not reflected in the prepared budget material. As such, they had the feel of someone throwing out destinations in order to fend off pointed political attacks. It was not clear that they reflected anything more than the Administrator's personal preference."

Next Steps for the 2011 NASA Budget Proposal, Planetary Society

"The administration continues to do a poor job of making a case for the new program. President Obama's proclamation that more American astronauts will fly to the space station and Earth orbit in the next decade under this new plan does not seem to be understood by many in Congress and in the media. The goal of sending humans into the solar system, and landing on an asteroid by 2025, has aroused some interest and even excitement, but the steps to reach this goal also have not been communicated effectively. The administration sorely needs a spokesperson for the new plan who can clarify the message and inspire public and Congressional support."

The importance of risk for Nasa, Esther Dyson, LiveMint

"Obama did not, however, define the goals tightly, leaving that to Nasa--a sensible and modest approach, but a political mistake. It is never a good idea to replace something with vagueness. Politicians and lobbyists who care only about this year's jobs and next year's votes jumped all over this lack of a plan."