Another Source Of Cosmic Rays

[hazelm]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170904093452.htm

 

Stellar corpse sheds light on origin of cosmic rays.  New research suggests that the entire zoo of electromagnetic radiation streaming from Crab Nebula has its origin in one population of electrons and must be produced in a different way than what scientists had thought.  The results have implications of how cosmic rays attain their incredible energies.  (summarized from Science Daily).

 

The article mentions - as has been known for a long time - that these rays are physically harmful to space travelers and plane crews.  Other online articles say the same.  But, none that I have found say in what way they do harm.  I have two questions wanting more information.

 

1.  Exactly what physical problems are caused by these rays? 

 

2.  They say these rays bounce off Earth.  So, are they also harmful - even if less so - to those on Earth who do not do space travel? 

 

Thank you.

Edited September 5, 2017 by hazelm

[exchemist]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170904093452.htm

 

Stellar corpse sheds light on origin of cosmic rays.  New research suggests that the entire zoo of electromagnetic radiation streaming from Crab Nebula has its origin in one population of electrons and must be produced in a different way than what scientists had thought.  The results have implications of how cosmic rays attain their incredible energies.  (summarized from Science Daily).

 

The article mentions - as has been known for a long time - that these rays are physically harmful to space travelers and plane crews.  Other online articles say the same.  But, none that I have found say in what way they do harm.  I have two questions wanting more information.

 

1.  Exactly what physical problems are caused by these rays? 

 

2.  They say these rays bounce off Earth.  So, are they also harmful - even if less so - to those on Earth who do not do space travel? 

 

Thank you.

I've never heard about cosmic rays bouncing off Earth. What would reflect them? 

 

My understanding is that a lot of them hit atoms in the upper atmosphere and are converted to showers of lower energy particles and rays. But as they are one variety of what is called "ionising radiation", I should think they cause damage to the biochemistry of the body just like other radiation, i.e. by creating ions and breaking chemical bonds, notably in DNA, and thus giving rise to the risk of cancer. 

[hazelm]

Answer to first question:  I have no idea.  The article says "The origin of cosmic rays, high-energy particles from outer space constantly impacting on Earth, is among the most challenging open questions in astrophysics."   Impacting:  come into forcible contact with another object"  (object = Earth?)  Does that make sense?  Or, am I misreading?

 

Answer to second.  Without going back and re-reading the entire article,  I believe hitting atoms was mentioned.  If not there, then in another article I brought up in trying to read more on the subject.  At any rate, the damage is to blood chemistry.  That is what I wanted to know.   And, of course, they are more powerful out in space than when they reach Earth - if they do.  Right?  Thank you again.

[exchemist]

Answer to first question:  I have no idea.  The article says "The origin of cosmic rays, high-energy particles from outer space constantly impacting on Earth, is among the most challenging open questions in astrophysics."   Impacting:  come into forcible contact with another object"  (object = Earth?)  Does that make sense?  Or, am I misreading?

 

Answer to second.  Without going back and re-reading the entire article,  I believe hitting atoms was mentioned.  If not there, then in another article I brought up in trying to read more on the subject.  At any rate, the damage is to blood chemistry.  That is what I wanted to know.   And, of course, they are more powerful out in space than when they reach Earth - if they do.  Right?  Thank you again.

Ah OK. Impacting does not mean bouncing off, it just means hitting. 

 

Not just blood chemistry, but the chemistry of living tissue in general. DNA is in every cell in the body and almost all of these, (apart from the brain and heart, I think?) are dividing, in order to replace cells that die off naturally. So DNA damage always risks the development of the uncontrolled  mutations that lead to cancer. 

 

On the Earth's surface we are protected to some degree by the atmosphere, which intercepts a lot of cosmic rays and creates slower moving particles that are unlikely to reach the surface of the Earth and do us harm. Out in space, this shield is not present. 

[OceanBreeze]

 

On the Earth's surface we are protected to some degree by the atmosphere, which intercepts a lot of cosmic rays and creates slower moving particles that are unlikely to reach the surface of the Earth and do us harm. Out in space, this shield is not present. 

 

No problem!

 

Mars trip to use astronaut poo as radiation shield

[hazelm]

Ah OK. Impacting does not mean bouncing off, it just means hitting. 

 

Not just blood chemistry, but the chemistry of living tissue in general. DNA is in every cell in the body and almost all of these, (apart from the brain and heart, I think?) are dividing, in order to replace cells that die off naturally. So DNA damage always risks the development of the uncontrolled  mutations that lead to cancer. 

 

On the Earth's surface we are protected to some degree by the atmosphere, which intercepts a lot of cosmic rays and creates slower moving particles that are unlikely to reach the surface of the Earth and do us harm. Out in space, this shield is not present. 

So, the answer is "Stay home on Earth".  :-)

[hazelm]

No problem!

 

Mars trip to use astronaut poo as radiation shield

True, Ocean Breeze and thanks for the reminder.

[exchemist]

No problem!

 

Mars trip to use astronaut poo as radiation shield

The interesting thing about this, I thought,  is the observation that water makes a better radiation shield than metals. Apparently this is because it is the atomic nuclei that do the shielding and so a small internuclear distance, i.e. small atoms, is what you want. Most metal atoms are a lot larger than hydrogen and oxygen. The fact that water is liquid at such high temperatures for a small molecule (due to hydrogen bonding) allows a high density of nuclei to be achieved - and thus, voila, a good shield. 

[hazelm]

The interesting thing about this, I thought,  is the observation that water makes a better radiation shield than metals. Apparently this is because it is the atomic nuclei that do the shielding and so a small internuclear distance, i.e. small atoms, is what you want. Most metal atoms are a lot larger than hydrogen and oxygen. The fact that water is liquid at such high temperatures for a small molecule (due to hydrogen bonding) allows a high density of nuclei to be achieved - and thus, voila, a good shield. 

Maybe that is why they want to find water on an exoplanet?  Swim like a fish?  :-)

[exchemist]

Maybe that is why they want to find water on an exoplanet?  Swim like a fish?  :-)

Haha, but no. That is because water is almost certainly the best solvent for use in any conceivable biochemistry. Consequently the presence of water is seen as almost a prerequisite for life to have developed.

[hazelm]

Haha, but no. That is because water is almost certainly the best solvent for use in any conceivable biochemistry. Consequently the presence of water is seen as almost a prerequisite for life to have developed.

There is a new theory out now that life may have begun in volcanoes, not in oceans.  Scientific American, August 2017, has an article about it.  Maybe you've seen it?  It doesn't say a lot so far as I can see but it's a thought.

[exchemist]

There is a new theory out now that life may have begun in volcanoes, not in oceans.  Scientific American, August 2017, has an article about it.  Maybe you've seen it?  It doesn't say a lot so far as I can see but it's a thought.

It will still need water. There is a fair amount of water vapour in volcanic gases and there will be ground water heated by the magma. 

[hazelm]

It will still need water. There is a fair amount of water vapour in volcanic gases and there will be ground water heated by the magma. 

Right.  What it is favoring is the exchange between wetness and dryness.  The feeling seems to be that they need both alternately.  So they say.

[exchemist]

Right.  What it is favoring is the exchange between wetness and dryness.  The feeling seems to be that they need both alternately.  So they say.

I can't quite follow this. Do you mean the hypothesis in the Scientific American article is that alternating wet and dry conditions may have helped give rise to life? Sounds interesting. 

[hazelm]

I can't quite follow this. Do you mean the hypothesis in the Scientific American article is that alternating wet and dry conditions may have helped give rise to life? Sounds interesting. 

That is how I am reading it but don't trust me.  There is an explanation as to why the authors think dry spells are necessary.  I can try to find it again.  Or, if you want the entire story, it is  in the August issue.  Let me see what I can find before I take off.

 

All right.  Forgive this half-cup of information but I must be shutting down in a minute.  (David) Deamer's idea was that simple molecular building blocks might join into longer information-carrying polymers like nucleic acids needed for primitive life to grow and replicate -- when exposed to the wet-dry cycles characteristic of land-based hot springs.  (Scientific American, August 2017. page 31)

 

There is a great deal more there.  That is just the start of the explanation as to what might happen.  Must go now.  hazelm

Edited September 7, 2017 by hazelm

[exchemist]

That is how I am reading it but don't trust me.  There is an explanation as to why the authors think dry spells are necessary.  I can try to find it again.  Or, if you want the entire story, it is  in the August issue.  Let me see what I can find before I take off.

 

All right.  Forgive this half-cup of information but I must be shutting down in a minute.  (David) Deamer's idea was that simple molecular building blocks might join into longer information-carrying polymers like nucleic acids needed for primitive life to grow and replicate -- when exposed to the wet-dry cycles characteristic of land-based hot springs.  (Scientific American, August 2017. page 31)

 

There is a great deal more there.  That is just the start of the explanation as to what might happen.  Must go now.  hazelm

Thanks, I've found a link to a summary, here: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-07/uoc--dlb071817.php

 

Deamer I see is a "membrane" man, i.e. one who considers membranes, enclosing what eventually became the contents of the first cells, as the first step in abiogenesis. This summary does not explain how he thinks the cycling between wet and dry led to polymer synthesis. I would probably need to buy Sci Am to find out.

[OceanBreeze]

Thanks, I've found a link to a summary, here: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-07/uoc--dlb071817.php

 

Deamer I see is a "membrane" man, i.e. one who considers membranes, enclosing what eventually became the contents of the first cells, as the first step in abiogenesis. This summary does not explain how he thinks the cycling between wet and dry led to polymer synthesis. I would probably need to buy Sci Am to find out.

 

 

The Atlantic Daily ran an article on Deamer last year. From what I gather, the wet-and-dry cycles are needed to form a concentrate of lipids which are needed for encapsulation of RNA.