text:
Río Tinto: A Geochemical and Mineralogical Terrestrial Analogue of Mars
Microgravity-Induced Fluid Shift and Ophthalmic Changes
Designing with Protocells: Applications of a Novel Technical Platform
Protein and Essential Amino Acids to Protect Musculoskeletal Health during Spaceflight: Evidence of a Paradox?
10.3390/life4030491
Chancellor, J. C.
Scott, G. B. I.
Sutton, J. P.
Space Radiation: The Number One Risk to Astronaut Health beyond Low Earth Orbit
Jeffery C. Chancellor
Graham B. I. Scott
1,3 and
Jeffrey P. Sutton
1,4,*
National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), and Center for Space Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 6500 Main Street, Suite 910, Houston, TX 77030-1402, USA
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Dwight Look College of Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3003 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3003, USA
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, 6500 Main Street, Suite 910, Houston, TX 77030-1402, USA
Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 6500 Main Street, Suite 910, Houston, TX 77030-1402, USA
Life 2014, 4(3), 491-510; https://doi.org/10.3390/life4030491
Received: 10 June 2014 / Revised: 6 August 2014 / Accepted: 21 August 2014 / Published: 11 September 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Response of Terrestrial Life to Space Conditions)
Projecting a vision for space radiobiological research necessitates understanding the nature of the space radiation environment and how radiation risks influence mission planning, timelines and operational decisions. Exposure to space radiation increases the risks of astronauts developing cancer, experiencing central nervous system (CNS) decrements, exhibiting degenerative tissue effects or developing acute radiation syndrome. One or more of these deleterious health effects could develop during future multi-year space exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO). Shielding is an effective countermeasure against solar particle events (SPEs), but is ineffective in protecting crew members from the biological impacts of fast moving, highly-charged galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) nuclei. Astronauts traveling on a protracted voyage to Mars may be exposed to SPE radiation events, overlaid on a more predictable flux of GCR. Therefore, ground-based research studies employing model organisms seeking to accurately mimic the biological effects of the space radiation environment must concatenate exposures to both proton and heavy ion sources. New techniques in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics and other "omics" areas should also be intelligently employed and correlated with phenotypic observations. This approach will more precisely elucidate the effects of space radiation on human physiology and aid in developing personalized radiological countermeasures for astronauts.
space; radiation; radiobiology; omics; cancer; degenerative tissue effects; central nervous system effects; acute radiation syndrome; galactic cosmic radiation; solar particle events
The space environment beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) contains several types of ionizing radiation. Most of the energetic particles found in interplanetary space are from the solar wind, which produces a constant flux of low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation. For missions outside of LEO, galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) will contribute a significant portion of the radiation dose accumulated by astronaut crew members. GCR ions originate from outside our solar system and contain mostly highly energetic protons and alpha particles, with a small component of high charge and energy (HZE) nuclei moving at relativistic speeds and energies [1]. In addition to GCR, unpredictable and intermittent solar particle events (SPEs) can produce large plasma clouds containing highly energetic protons and some heavy ions that may cause a rapid surge of radiation both outside and within a spacecraft (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The interplanetary space environment showing the toxic combination of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and (largely) proton radiation due to solar particle events (SPEs). Figure courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Future human spaceflight missions potentially include Moon bases, rendezvous with a near-Earth object (NEO), such as an asteroid, and, eventually, habitations on the surface of Mars. For current space missions in LEO, the shielding provided by the Earth's magnetic field attenuates the major biomedical effects of space radiation exposures. The risks of space radiation will, however, become more onerous, as future spaceflight missions to an NEO or Mars require extended transit beyond the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere.
In 2006, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) issued a report entitled, "Information Needed to Make Radiation Protection Recommendations for Space Missions Beyond Low-Earth Orbit" [2]. The report contains a comprehensive summary of the current evidence for radiation-induced health risks and makes recommendations on areas requiring further experimentation to enable future space missions beyond LEO. Specifically, the report states "Current space radiation guidelines pertain only to missions in LEO and are not considered relevant for missions beyond LEO. The acceptable levels of risk for space exploration beyond LEO have not been defined at this time and need to be dealt with before sending manned missions to colonize the moon or to deep space, such as a mission to Mars" [2]. Moreover, the NCRP report emphasizes the need for identifying and validating biomarkers for reliable early detection of adverse effects, improving radiation biodosimetry by providing accurate estimates of cumulative radiation doses and identifying increased personal risks for individual astronauts, due to genetic predisposition to the effects of space radiation.
Subsequently, in 2008, the National Research Council released another report "Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration" [3]. The expert authors found that the "lack of knowledge about the biological effects of, and responses to, space radiation is the single most important factor limiting the prediction of radiation risk associated with human space exploration" [3].
Exposure to charged particles representing a wide array of atomic numbers, energies, dose rates and resulting secondary radiation cascades can induce health effects that are associated with both SPE and GCR exposures. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has identified four primary biomedical risks that may pose significant health concerns for astronaut crews exposed to the interplanetary radiation environment during exploration missions. These four space radiation risks are carcinogenesis, degenerative tissue effects, CNS decrements and acute radiation syndrome [4,5,6,7].
2. The Pernicious Interplanetary Space Radiation Environment
Radiation outside of LEO is composed of a toxic milieu of GCR and particles (predominantly protons) expelled from the Sun during SPEs. This mixture of radiation modalities represents the most significant physical impediment to safe human space exploration.
2.1. Galactic Cosmic Radiation
GCR nuclei originate from outside our solar system and are high-LET relativistic particles, possessing sufficient energies to penetrate any shielding technology used on current mission vehicles [8]. The GCR spectrum consists of approximately 87% hydrogen ions (protons) and 12% helium ions (alpha particles), with the remaining 1%–2% of particles being HZE nuclei with charges ranging from Z = 3 (lithium) to approximately Z = 28 (nickel) [9]. Ionized transition metals, such as iron (Z = 26), are biologically harmful, as no reasonable amount of spacecraft material can shield them (Figure 2). Electrons and positrons make up about 1% of the overall GCR spectrum, but are considered a minor biological hazard, since they are easily stopped by even a modest amount of spacecraft shielding.
Figure 2. Relative abundance of GCR nuclei from hydrogen (Z = 1) to iron (Z = 26) [1].
The fluence of ionized nuclei that make up GCR is inversely proportional to the solar cycle and decreases by a factor of two during solar maximum [10]. The GCR fluence rate and spectrum outside of LEO have been generally characterized through measurements made by unmanned spacecraft, such as the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft that, over the period December 2011 through July 2012, carried the Mars Curiosity rover to the red planet [11]. Recent evidence has therefore demonstrated that the absorbed dose and dose equivalent from incident particles can be well estimated in advance of future exploration class space missions.
The large ionization power of GCR ions makes them a major health threat to astronauts and constitutes one of the most important barriers impeding plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. GCR particle energies are sufficient to penetrate several centimeters of biological tissue or other organic and inorganic materials. Shielding only partially reduces the doses experienced inside a spacecraft, given the penetrating ability of HZE ions [8]. While thicker shielding could in theory provide more protection, deploying a sufficient mass of shielding into space is limited by the practical capabilities of current spacecraft launch systems.
During transit outside of LEO, every cell nucleus within an astronaut would be traversed, on average, by a hydrogen ion every few days and by heavier HZE nuclei (e.g., 16O, 28Si, 56Fe) every few months [12]. Therefore, in spite of their low flux, HZE ions constitute a deleterious biological threat and contribute a significant amount to the cumulative GCR dose that astronauts will incur outside of LEO.
2.2. SPE Radiation
Dangerous and unpredictable SPEs can produce large quantities of energetic protons with fluences in excess of 109 protons/cm2 [5]. SPEs consist largely of low-LET protons with energies ranging up to 1 GeV/n that can be shielded relatively easily by spacecraft hulls. Even so, there can be very high density fluxes of protons with energies greater than 30 MeV that can be of concern to astronauts in thinly-shielded vehicles and habitats [13,14]. SPE dose rates are variable over the course of an event and range from zero to 100 mGy/h inside a space vehicle and from zero to 500 mGy/h for an astronaut exposed during an extravehicular activity (EVA) on missions outside of LEO [6]. The frequency of SPEs is proportional to sunspot activity, and SPE occurrences wax and wane with the phase of the 11-year solar cycle, peaking when equatorial sunspot activity is highest. The phase of the solar cycle, however, does not determine the intensity of SPEs, and some of the largest measured solar events have occurred during off-peak periods, when there has been a significant reduction of observed sunspots (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Energetic SPEs affecting low Earth orbit (LEO) space missions since 1991 are plotted as a function of the solar cycle. Shown here are events (red circles) that have been measured since 1991 to 2013 and include Solar Cycle 22 (partially), 23 and 24 (partially). Energetic solar events contain a higher fluence of >100 MeV protons that can penetrate typical spacecraft shielding and significantly impact the health of astronauts.
Exploration missions outside of LEO will include interplanetary transits, and shielding provided by the spacecraft may not be able to completely protect astronaut crews from the effects of an SPE. Furthermore, it is likely that crewmembers will be exposed to multiple SPEs during such missions. For example, five SPE events were recorded during the recent transit of the MSL spacecraft from Earth to Mars [11].
2.3. Intravehicular Radiation
The interaction of energetic SPE protons and heavy-charged GCR particles with the spacecraft structure can produce an additional, secondary intravehicular radiation hazard. Secondary particles produced in nuclear fission reactions include protons, alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons and heavy-charged particles. Created by passing through spacecraft shielding, these fission products can deliver a significant fraction of the total mission dose and have the ability to damage critical cellular components when passing through the tissues of the body.
A very small amount of radionuclides are used by spacecraft instrumentation, but the majority of crew exposures are due to the complex external radiation environment.
3. Biomedical Consequences of Exposure to Space Radiation
It remains unclear how moderate to large magnitude SPEs, when combined with continuous GCR exposure, will affect the health and performance of astronaut crews during interplanetary transits.
SPEs have a unique dose distribution with respect to whole body irradiation. For instance, skin doses are 5–10-times higher than those experienced by internal organs, because of its superficial location and susceptibility to absorption in the low energy spectra of protons and nuclei [15]. SPE radiation and the synergistic effects of spaceflight can place the crew at significant risk for prodromal effects (e.g., nausea and vomiting), skin injury, hematological changes and immune system dysfunction. The current assessment is that the risk of death is low as a result of a major solar event or the combined effect of multiple SPEs. A similar claim pertains to the accumulated GCR exposure over the course of exploration class missions to Mars, the Moon or an asteroid.
However, the morbidity risk and unique toxicity profiles remain poorly understood. This incomplete understanding persists, despite the existence of a significant body of literature describing the effects from anticipated absorbed dose ranges. Calculation of radiation exposures to astronauts in a detailed and realistic way is challenging because of the complexity of the radiation environment, the shielding effects of the vehicle and/or space suit and human anatomy and physiology. Uncertainties with respect to dose toxicity and the complex variation in SPE and GCR spectra likely to be encountered in future exploration missions underscore the need for models that are capable of identifying particle energy and species on an event-by-event basis. Additionally, integrating microdosimetry measurements with radiobiological studies are essential to reducing the uncertainties in dose projections during mission planning, spaceflights and to inform post-flight research on astronaut health.
Exposure to space radiation affects multiple organs and physiological systems in complex ways (Figure 4). NASA categorizes the biomedical consequences into four risk areas. Each is discussed in the remainder of this section.
Figure 4. Select health effects due to space radiation exposures.
3.1. Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation Exposure
The main radiation health risks to astronaut crews on exploration missions are degenerative vascular changes, genetic mutations and cancer [2]. While the International Space Station (ISS) has been continuously crewed for fifteen years, with each astronaut spending an average of six months in space, there are limited data to evaluate the degenerative tissue effects that may arise due to a high radiation dose delivered over several months [16].
To address the non-cancerous, late effects of radiation appearing months or years after exposure, the authors of the 2006 NCRP Report recommended that experiments be conducted using protracted or extended exposure times and low dose rates of protons, heavy ions and neutrons in energy ranges that are relevant to the space radiation environment outside of LEO. Specifically, the authors of the report recommended that analyses be conducted to study the effects of protracted radiation exposures on the lens of the eye, whole-body vasculature, gastrointestinal tract, gonadal cell populations, hematopoietic and immune systems and fertility.
With respect to the different qualities of space radiation that may be encountered, the high LET radiation found in the GCR spectrum can directly or indirectly damage biomolecules (e.g., proteins, DNA, lipids), as well as organelles and cellular structures. The resultant radiation-induced increase in oxidative stress levels has been shown to exacerbate some degenerative tissue changes that are normally associated with aging (e.g., cardiovascular disease and cataract formation). In addition, it is thought that certain aspects of spaceflight, such as microgravity, as well as the artificial and confined environment may accentuate degenerative tissue responses. No studies to date have adequately assessed the possibility of synergism between high-LET radiation and the stresses of the space environment.
Epidemiological studies on atomic bomb survivors in Japan, radiotherapy patients and occupationally-exposed workers have characterized the association between moderate to high doses of low-LET radiation and the long-term development of degenerative tissue effects, such as heart disease, cataracts, immunological changes and premature aging [17,18,19,20]. These findings are supported by laboratory studies using animal models [21,22,23,24,25,26]. However, the risks for these same effects occurring after low dose rate or HZE nuclei exposures are more difficult to assess, due to the multifactorial nature of the diseases and their long latency periods. Furthermore, there is only a small probability that low-LET radiation from SPEs will reach high enough doses to cause degenerative tissue effects. It also remains unclear whether low-dose (i.e., <0.5 Gy) exposures influence the same biological mechanisms that have been shown to be involved in disease progression following moderate- to high-dose SPE radiation exposures. Likewise, as with high-LET radiation, little information is available regarding the role of individual susceptibilities and possible synergistic effects with other spaceflight factors [7].
The 2006 NCRP Report directly addressed the utility of genomic, proteomic and, by extension, potentially other omics studies to elucidate the effects of space radiation on living systems. Specifically, the authors of this report stated, "It has been suggested that genetic screening of individuals for evidence of radiosensitive genes may become an important future criteria for selection of candidates for missions beyond LEO." This report went on to explain, "The study of space radiation effects on various tissues of the body has revealed a previously unappreciated role for low-dose tissue remodeling involving stromal cell populations as well as cytoskeletal rearrangements in individual cells. These epigenetic effects involve changes in protein expression independent of the rapidly expanding work on direct radiation effects on gene expression. What is clear is that a different complement of genes and phosphorylated proteins is activated by exposure to low doses of conventional radiations, compared to the complement activated by higher doses of radiation. The ultimate medical consequences of perturbations in both genetic and epigenetic endpoints is, however, completely unknown. The radio-sensitivity of tissue-specific stem cells and endothelial cells remains a concern" [2].
The linkage between DNA lesions (including point mutations, insertions and deletions, as well as intra- and inter-chromosomal rearrangements) and carcinogenesis is well-established [27]. What is far less clear is whether genetic mutations are also implicated in late or degenerative radiation effects, such as circulatory system decrements. To date, there has been little research relating DNA genetic and epigenetic damage to degenerative radiation-induced tissue effects at the low doses associated with the space environment found outside of LEO.
Cytogenetic data unequivocally reveals that space radiation exposure produces significant damage to cells [28]. Indeed, post-flight chromosomal breaks were first observed using the Giemsa staining technique in the Gemini and Apollo astronauts during the 1960s and early 1970s. This work showed that chromosome breaks were two-fold more frequent in the Apollo astronauts compared to the Gemini astronauts, suggesting for the first time a link between dose and flight duration. Interestingly, the Apollo and Gemini data also showed some inter-individual differences. In hindsight, these findings are not surprising, given the known heterogeneous responses to radiation following even standardized irradiation protocols. Age, sex and immune status are all factors that affect responses to ionizing radiation. Moreover, there are other parameters germane to the space environment, such as microgravity, habitat control and stress.
The ISS was launched in 1998, allowing for the collection of biomolecular data that further informed the response of the human body to space radiation. Additional conclusions could be drawn about the fate of the chromosomal aberrations at time points long after flight and between successive flights. This included the intriguing observation that the yield of chromosomal aberrations decreases some years after a first flight, but without reaching the un-irradiated values. Moreover, a second spaceflight apparently does not proportionately increase the yield of aberrations, suggesting a non-additive or even an infra-additive effect, raising the possibility of a radio-adaptive response in crewmembers (i.e., "radiation hormesis").
In 2008, using multi-color fluorescence in situ hybridization, Cucinotta et al. vividly showed complex chromosomal aberrations in lymphocyte cells involving three or more chromosomes, observed post-mission in ISS astronauts [29], (Figure 5). This work was significant, as it demonstrated gross biomolecular damage at the fundamental DNA level within ISS crewmembers as a result of exposure to space radiation [29].
Notwithstanding this finding, knowledge of the basic mechanisms specific to low-dose radiation, to sequential doses of low-dose radiation and to adaptive responses is still at a rudimentary stage. Experiments utilizing new and more powerful "omics" approaches (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metagenomics, metabolomics and epigenomics) that probe genomic instability and delayed mutagenesis, when tightly correlated with phenotype, may prove to be extremely helpful in quantifying the risks of potential space radiation-induced degenerative diseases.
Figure 5. Examples of two complex aberrations involving three or more chromosomes observed post-mission in astronauts. Chromosomes were hybridized with painting probes for chromosome 1 (red), chromosome 2 (green) and chromosome 4 (yellow). All other chromosomes were counterstained with DAPI (blue). Adapted from Cucinotta et al. [29] and republished with permission from Radiation Research.
3.2. Radiation Carcinogenesis
It still remains to be determined whether the higher doses of radiation incurred during future exploration class missions beyond LEO will increase the threat of cancer for astronaut crews [4]. The elevated risk for astronauts developing cancer during or following a mission is directly related to the dose of radiation received [30]. Shavers et al. determined that the doses received by astronauts during extended ISS missions were typically greater than 70 mSv [31]. Even though it has been well understood that exposure to these and higher doses of radiation can be carcinogenic [30], most of the data available come from epidemiology studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, as well as research employing animal and cell models. These types of studies typically utilized both high dose rates and gamma exposures [3]. There have been no studies conclusively demonstrating that exposures to the unique doses and dose rates found in the space radiation environment will result in an increased risk of cancer mortality when compared to the U.S. population [32,33,34,35,36]. This uncertainty is due to several confounding factors, including: (1) the relatively low doses and dose rates of radiation received during spaceflight in LEO; (2) a wide range of time intervals between spaceflight and the current ages of individual living astronauts; and (3) the small overall sample size of those who have flown in space. These complicating factors collectively limit robust statistical confirmation [16].
A better understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms is still a critical need in quantifying and elucidating the risk of space radiation-induced carcinogenesis. Research efforts focused on studying chromosomal aberrations in astronauts and cosmonauts have been conducted for risk assessment after single and multiple flights. However, interpretation of these studies is limited by significant individual variability and insufficient statistical power [37,38,39,40]. This has led to the dose-limiting guidelines that are currently amongst the highest occupational radiation exposure levels [29], (Table 1).
Table 1. Example career effective dose limits in units of Sieverts as calculated for one-year ISS missions. The radiation exposure-induced average life-loss per death for carcinogenesis is shown in parenthesis [41].
Dose Limit-Male Astronauts (Average Life-Loss Per Death in Years)
Dose Limit-Female Astronauts (Average Life-Loss Per Death in Years)
25 520 mSv (15.7) 370 mSv (15.9)
50 1150 mSv (12.5) 920 mSv (13.2)
55 1470 mSv (11.5) 1120 mSv (12.2)
3.3. Acute and Late CNS Effects from Radiation Exposure
Ionizing radiation can damage the CNS, causing changes to cognitive function, inducing fatigue, and generating performance decrements [2,30,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. However, it is still unclear how SPE, GCR and constituent HZE nuclei negatively impact the CNS at the dose and dose rates found in the space environment [2,52,53]. Highly ionizing HZE nuclei can easily penetrate space vehicle structures and still have sufficient energy capable of heavily damaging cells or creating micro-lesions along their tracks through tissues [54].
Recent studies at NASA's Space Radiation Laboratory using heavy-ion beams to simulate the GCR environment have provided evidence of the CNS health risk for missions outside of LEO. Britten et al. have shown that doses as low as 20 cGy of simulated GCR radiation (1 GeV/u 56Fe particles) can significantly impair learning and memory in a rodent model. These results demonstrate that mission-relevant doses of HZE particles may result in deficits in hippocampus-dependent neurocognitive tasks, most likely due to the perturbation of multiple processes, in addition to killing neuronal cells [55,56].
Further research has shown that similar doses result in the loss of functionality in several regions of the cortex, namely the medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate and basal forebrain. These findings raise the possibility that astronauts on prolonged deep space exploratory missions could develop deficits in executive function [56]. Understanding the mechanisms is complicated, as Rabin et al. have shown that studies modelling the impact of HZE particles on cognitive performance cannot be generalized from radiobiology studies of chromosomal aberrations and carcinogenesis [57].
Space radiation-induced CNS effects are not limited to the effects of HZE particles. Hienz et al. demonstrated that proton radiation caused marked neurocognitive deficits at doses as low as 25 cGy. These dosages are significantly lower than those associated with detrimental CNS changes seen in some cancer patients being treated with clinical radiotherapy, typically at doses of 25–50 Gy. Such doses are well above the predicted mission relevant exposures for missions outside of LEO.
In the studies by Hienz and co-workers, the psychomotor vigilance test [58,59], used by astronauts on the ISS to measure alertness levels, was adapted to assess motor and cognitive functions in a rat model. Susceptibility to radiation-induced CNS changes was measured, and it was shown that the more radiosensitive animals exhibited significant changes in proteins associated with dopamine receptors and transporters in the brain. These results may indicate that dopamine levels have an important role in neurobehavioral response to radiation [60,61].
These research data demonstrate that important changes to the CNS can be expected to occur at mission-relevant dose and dose rate levels. Research is still needed to clearly elucidate the significance to astronaut morbidity. Furthermore, the interpretation of animal-based CNS studies that model the space radiation environment is limited and confounds the development of mitigation strategies and countermeasures.
3.4. Radiation Syndromes Due to SPEs
During long-duration exploration missions beyond LEO, it is anticipated that multiple SPEs will be encountered. Shielding by the spacecraft or surface habitat would most likely be modest, and there is the threat of a single large SPE that could occur during an EVA. It is only during large SPEs (e.g., similar to the August 1972, SPE event) that the dose rate will rise to levels known to have substantive biological effects [62].
Kennedy et al. utilized mouse, ferret and mini-pig models to calculate blood cell and immune system parameters, as well as skin effects, for high dose rate SPE radiation [63,64]. In the mini-pig, it was demonstrated that high doses of SPE-like radiation resulted in adverse effects to the skin, as well as to deeper organs and tissues (e.g., decrease in circulating blood cells [63], lung damage [63] and impaired heart function [64]). Immune system suppression occurred at doses as low as 1.0 Gy. In a mouse model, T-cells did not become activated following exposure to low doses of SPE-like proton radiation, and the animals were susceptible to a non-toxic bacterial challenge of organisms (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae) that are relatively innocuous and ubiquitous on Earth and have been detected aboard the ISS [65,66].
Furthermore, in the mouse model, high dose rate proton exposures resulted in comparable effects on the number of circulating white blood cells that subsequently returned to pre-irradiation levels within 30 days following exposure. In contrast, the blood cell counts (e.g., platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils) did not return to normal, pre-irradiation levels in the mini-pig model following exposure to simulated SPE radiation. These results indicate that the mini-pigs, and other larger species, may be relatively incapable of repairing DNA damage caused by the proton radiation exposure as efficiently as rodents (Figure 6).
Astronauts performing EVAs have compromised shielding that can leave them vulnerable to the effects of unpredictable SPEs. Emesis and retching are known prodromal outcomes following exposures to high doses of radiation and can be detrimental, especially in the confined environment of an EVA suit. Animal studies performed using a ferret model indicate that retching and vomiting occur at doses as low as 50 cGy and can be expected from SPE radiation exposure at doses up to 2 Gy [67,68].
Figure 6. Acute radiation outcomes: (a) Blood cell counts (lymphocytes) following exposure to SPE-like gamma and proton radiation in a mouse model. Graph adapted from Romero-Weaver et al. [69]. (b) WBC counts in a mini-pig model following exposure to SPE-like electron and proton radiation. The WBC counts did not return to normal levels at the 30-day time point, with proton radiation exposure having the more detrimental effect. Graph adapted from Ann Kennedy [70] and reproduced with permission from Life Sciences in Space Research.
Fatigue is also thought to be a likely adverse effect of SPE exposures, and it has been observed in radiotherapy patients receiving therapeutic radiation doses as low as 2 Gy. Using a mouse model, studies suggest that exposure to low-dose rate SPE-like proton radiation leads to an increase in fatigue [71,72].
4. Synergistic Effects and Individual Susceptibility
Results from animal studies examining the synergistic effects of radiation combined with spaceflight environment stressors (i.e., microgravity, environmental constraints, emotional stress) show increased susceptibility to infection, delayed wound healing and decreased survival [73,74,75]. There are medical countermeasures available for the management of different acute injuries (e.g., burn care, wound closure and treatment, trauma minimization and infection control); however, only limited testing has occurred to study the efficacy of these measures and pharmaceuticals when radiation exposure is a concomitant and aggravating factor. There is a need to understand the mechanisms behind the synergistic lethality observed with radiation injury. It is also necessary to define appropriate animal models to determine the efficacy of treatments against damage resulting from radiation when combined with injury and to identify appropriate targets for the development of novel countermeasures [76].
Previous radiobiology research has shown individual differences in responses to radiation at all levels (i.e., molecular, cellular and tissue) of biological organization. The difference in sensitivity has been linked to specific genetic variants implicated in some genetic diseases. However, it still remains unclear how these responses will relate to radiation-induced acute effects and carcinogenesis. Despite recent advances in integrated omics methodologies, genomic sequencing and a growing list of genes implicated with radiation sensitive phenotypes, no direct connections can yet be drawn between observed DNA sequence changes and a corresponding change in radio-sensitivity [27].
5. Research Considerations
There are many considerations to advancing knowledge about and developing operationally feasible countermeasures to combat the harmful effects of space radiation. Among the highest priority considerations are the appropriate simulation of the space environment for Earth-based studies and the selection of relevant animal models.
5.1. Simulating the Space Radiation Environment
In studies involving cells, tissues and model organisms conducted over many decades, radiobiologists typically have investigated exposures to proton and heavy ion sources separately. While this compartmentalized approach to space radiation research has been productive, it also represents a shortcoming in experimental design that is only now being addressed through concatenated and integrated studies addressing both the SPE and GCR effects [77].
Whether focusing on SPE- and GCR-like radiation, there is growing appreciation of the usefulness and limitations of the LET concept in describing a biological effect [78]. The LET of an ionizing particle describes the interaction of radiation with tissue matter and is the basis for determining the radiation quality of differing ionizing particles [10]. However, LET does not adequately describe in a single term all of the features of radiation quality. Two ionizing particles of different atomic numbers having the same LET can have very different track structures and fragmentation contributions.
An additional challenge is that modelling the GCR spectrum, dose and dose rate is complicated. Currently, mono-energetic beams (e.g., 3Li, 12C, 28Si, 56Fe) are utilized at research facilities, and the projected doses for a Mars mission are given using one or more acute heavy ion exposures. This method of delivering the heavy ion radiation in a single acute dose, rather than titrating it in a series of smaller chronic doses delivered over time, does not accurately model low-dose-rate effects. These include the impact on cell growth and the initiation of repair mechanisms. Similarly, radiobiological models and experiments utilizing mono-energetic beams of protons for short periods of time may not fully characterize SPE effects and the associated acute and sub-acute biological responses.
Thus, there are challenges to simulating the space radiation environment and effects. This is tempered by evidence that space radiation exposures at the dose rates expected for a mission to Mars may not induce significant acute or sub-acute biological responses. Nevertheless, there is a gap in knowledge given the limitations in obtaining realistic biological responses to simulated SPE and GCR exposures in the laboratory. More work in this important area is needed to improve our understanding.
5.2. Selection of Appropriate Animal Models
In 2004, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored a workshop entitled, "Animal Models for Radiation Injury, Protection and Therapy". The main goals of the workshop were to identify the most appropriate animal models to evaluate radio-protectors and therapeutic agents (including both preventative measures and post-exposure treatments), to develop accurate and user-friendly biodosimetry methods and to identify gaps in the research infrastructure needed to advance mechanistic studies and product development for protection against, mitigation of and treatment of radiation injury [79].
The group concluded that animal models are applicable to the following two stages of radiation research: (1) mechanisms/discovery; and (2) validation. Each stage requires different animal models. In some instances, it is also possible to investigate radiation therapy patients for validation of the efficacy of protectors, preventative measures and therapeutic agents.
Animal models are utilized in radiobiology studies as surrogates for humans. In general, animal experiments have contributed significantly to our understanding of the mechanisms of disease, but their value in predicting the effectiveness of treatment strategies has limitations [80,81,82]. Using animal models to study the effects of space radiation can generate results that are often difficult to interpret. Some commonly-used animal models do not accurately reflect the pathologies and pathologic response (i.e., outcomes and endpoints) seen in humans, and disparities and genetic differences can also contribute to the difficulty in translating countermeasures into clinical use. These obvious physiological and genetic differences, combined with response-specific disparities between model species (e.g., rodent, porcine, primate), make it difficult to translate research results into clinical outcomes. In particular, the threshold doses required to generate specific measurable physiological effects can be very different between species and even between strains within species [83]. Additionally, the selection of a single animal model for specific organ system studies may prove inadequate due to physiological interactions between organ systems that modify specific radiation toxicities.
Therefore, it is critical to utilize a variety of appropriate animal models for the discovery, validation and eventual clinical utilization of novel biomarkers and countermeasures relevant to protecting astronaut crews from radiation on extended missions beyond LEO.
Space radiation is the number one risk to astronaut health on extended space exploration missions beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. Only 24 human beings have ventured beyond this protective envelope, and then, only for a maximum of approximately 12 days (Apollo 17). This represents a vanishingly short amount of time that humans have spent in the interplanetary radiation medium, certainly relative to the multi-year timeframe for a mission to the Mars.
As humankind prepares to embark on increasingly ambitious and potentially dangerous deep space missions, considerable detailed work is required to better characterize and mitigate, to an acceptable level, the risks associated with space radiation exposures. The veracity of data obtained and the reliability of conclusions drawn from ground-based studies using model organisms will benefit substantially from accurately simulating combined exposures to both protons and heavy ions sources. These need to be delivered in a low-dose regimen and not delivered in a single acute dose. Furthermore, omics techniques should be utilized in an integrated fashion to complement and more completely inform physiological endpoint observations.
The ability of humans to realize our potential by becoming a multi-planet species will hinge on, to a large extent, our ability to appropriately understand, manage, mitigate and overcome the significant dangers and health effects of space radiation.
The authors thank Ann Kennedy for providing Figure 6 and acknowledge Lisa Simonsen and Janice Huff of NASA's Human Research Program in critiquing and validating core ideas in the manuscript. Dorit Donoviel, Amanda Smith Hackler, Tracy Johnson and Ron Gilmore provided helpful suggestions for improvement. The authors (Jeffery C. Chancellor, Graham B. I. Scott and Jeffrey P. Sutton) acknowledge support from the National Space Biomedical Research Institute through NASA cooperative agreement NCC 9-58. Support from the Friedkin Chair for Research in Sensory System Integration and Space Medicine (to Jeffrey P. Sutton) is also acknowledged.
Jeffery C. Chancellor, Graham B. I. Scott and Jeffrey P. Sutton contributed to the conception and design of the review, organized the data, drafted the manuscript, provided intellectual content and reviewed and approved the completed manuscript.
Simpson, J.A. Elemental and isotopic composition of the galactic cosmic rays. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 1983, 33, 323–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Information Needed to Make Radiation Protection Recommendations for Space Missions Beyond Low-Earth Orbit; NCRP: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Committee on the Evaluation of Radiation Shielding for Space Exploration; Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council. Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of Space Exploration; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Cucinotta, F.A.; Durante, M. Evidence Report: Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis; National Aeronautical and Space Agency: Houston, TX, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Cucinotta, F.A.; Wang, H.; Huff, J.L. Evidence Report: Risk of Acute or Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure; National Aeronautical and Space Agency: Houston, TX, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Wu, H.; Huff, J.L.; Casey, R.; Kim, M.H.; Cucinotta, F.A. Evidence Report: Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events; National Aeronautical and Space Agency: Houston, TX, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Huff, J.L.; Cucinotta, F.A. Evidence Report: Risk of Degenerative Tissue or other Health Effects from Radiation Exposure; National Aeronautical and Space Agency: Houston, TX, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Cucinotta, F.A.; Kim, M.H.; Ren, L. Evaluating shielding effectiveness for reducing space radiation cancer risks. Radiat. Meas. 2006, 41, 1173–1185. [Google Scholar]
Badwar, G.D.; O'Neill, P.M. Long-term modulation of galactic cosmic radiation and its model for space exploration. Adv. Space Res. 1994, 14, 749–757. [Google Scholar]
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Radiation Protection Guidance for Activities in Low-Earth Orbit; NCRP: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
Zeitlin, C.; Hassler, D.M.; Cucinotta, F.A.; Ehresmann, B.; Wimmer-Schweigruber, R.F.; Brinza, D.E.; Kang, S.; Weigle, G.; Bottcher, S.; Bohm, E.; et al. Measurements of energetic particle radiation in transit to mars on the mars science laboratory. Science 2013, 340, 1080–1084. [Google Scholar]
Cucinotta, F.A.; Nikjoo, H.; Goodhead, D.T. The effects of delta rays on the number of particle-track traversals per cell in laboratory and space exposures. Radiat. Res. 1998, 150, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Guidance on Radiation Received in Space Activities; NCRP: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
Townsend, L.W.; Cucinotta, F.A.; Wilson, J.W.; Bagga, R. Estimates of hze particle contributions to spe radiation exposures on interplanetary missions. Adv. Space Res. 1994, 14, 671–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kim, M.H.; George, K.A.; Cucinotta, F.A. Evaluation of skin cancer risks from lunar and mars missions. Adv. Space Res. 2006, 37, 1798–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Longnecker, D.E.; Manning, F.J.; Worth, M.H., Jr. Review of Nasa's Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health; National Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Darby, S.C.; McGale, P.; Taylor, C.W.; Peto, R. Long-term mortality from heart disease and lung cancer after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: Prospective cohort study of about 300,000 women in us seer cancer registries. Lancet Oncol. 2005, 6, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hayashi, T.; Kusunoki, Y.; Hakoda, M.; Morishita, Y.; Kubo, Y.; Maki, M.; Kasagi, F.; Kodama, K.; Macphee, D.G.; Kyoizumi, S. Radiation dose-dependent increases in inflammatory response markers in a-bomb survivors. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2003, 79, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kodama, K.; Fujiwara, S.; Yamada, M.; Kasagi, F.; Shimizu, Y.; Shigematsu, I. Profiles of non-cancer diseases in atomic bomb survivors. World Health Stat. Q. 1996, 49, 7–16. [Google Scholar]
Preston, D.L.; Shimizu, Y.; Pierce, D.A.; Suyama, A.; Mabuchi, K. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat. Res. 2003, 160, 381–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ainsworth, E.J. Early and late mammalian responses to heavy charged particles. Adv. Space Res. 1986, 6, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Casadesus, G.; Shukitt-Hale, B.; Stellwagen, H.M.; Smith, M.A.; Rabin, B.M.; Joseph, J.A. Hippocampal neurogenesis and psa-ncam expression following exposure to 56fe particles mimics that seen during aging in rats. Exp. Gerontol. 2005, 40, 249–254. [Google Scholar]
Tribble, D.L.; Barcellos-Hoff, M.H.; Chu, B.M.; Gong, E.L. Ionizing radiation accelerates aortic lesion formation in fat-fed mice via sod-inhibitable processes. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 1999, 19, 1387–1392. [Google Scholar]
Wang, Y.; Schulte, B.A.; LaRue, A.C.; Ogawa, M.; Zhou, D. Total body irradiation selectively induces murine hematopoietic stem cell senescence. Blood 2006, 107, 358–366. [Google Scholar]
Yang, V.V.; Ainsworth, E.J. Late effects of heavy charged particles on the fine structure of the mouse coronary artery. Radiat. Res. 1982, 91, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yeung, T.K.; Hopewell, J.W. Effects of single doses of radiation on cardiac function in the rat. Radiother. Oncol. 1985, 3, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Potential Impact of Individual Genetic Susceptibility and Previous Radiation Exposure on Radiation Risk for Astronauts; NCRP: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Maalouf, M.; Durante, M.; Foray, N. Biological effects of space radiation on human cells: History, advances and outcomes. J. Radiat. Res. 2011, 52, 126–146. [Google Scholar]
Cucinotta, F.A.; Kim, M.H.; Willingham, V.; George, K.A. Physical and biological organ dosimetry analysis for international space station astronauts. Radiat. Res. 2008, 170, 127–138. [Google Scholar]
National Research Council. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: Beir V; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
Shavers, M.R.; Zapp, N.; Barber, R.E.; Wilson, J.W.; Qualls, G.; Toupes, L.; Ramsey, S.; Vinci, V.; Smith, G.; Cucinotta, F.A. Implementation of alara radiation protection on the iss through polyethylene shielding augmentation of the service module crew quarters. Adv. Space Res. 2004, 34, 1333–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hamm, P.B.; Billica, R.D.; Johnson, G.S.; Wear, M.L.; Pool, S.L. Risk of cancer mortality among the longitudinal study of astronaut health (lsah) participants. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1998, 69, 142–144. [Google Scholar]
Hamm, P.B.; Nicogossian, A.E.; Pool, S.L.; Wear, M.L.; Billica, R.D. Design and current status of the longitudinal study of astronaut health. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 2000, 71, 564–570. [Google Scholar]
Peterson, L.E.; Pepper, L.J.; Hamm, P.B.; Gilbert, S.L. Longitudinal study of astronaut health: Mortality in the years 1959–1991. Radiat. Res. 1993, 133, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behnken, R.; Barratt, M.; Walker, S. Presentation to the Institute of Medicine-Ethics Principles and Guidelines for Health Standards for Long Duration and Exploration Spaceflights; National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Van Baalen, M.; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA. Personal communication, 2014.
Durante, M.; Snigiryova, G.; Akaeva, E.; Bogomazova, A.; Druzhinin, S.; Fedorenko, B.; Greco, O.; Novitskaya, N.; Rubanovich, A.; Shevchenko, V.; et al. Chromosome aberration dosimetry in cosmonauts after single or multiple space flights. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2003, 103, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
George, K.A.; Durante, M.; Wu, H.; Willingham, V.; Badwar, G.D.; Cucinotta, F.A. Chromosome aberrations in the blood lymphocytes of astronauts after space flight. Radiat. Res. 2001, 156, 731–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
George, K.A.; Durante, M.; Willingham, V.; Cucinotta, F.A. Chromosome aberrations of clonal origin are present in astronauts' blood lymphocytes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2004, 104, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horstman, M.; Durante, M.; Johannes, C.; Pieper, R.; Obe, G. Space radiation does not induce a significant increase of intrachromosomal exchanges in astronauts' lymphocytes. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2005, 44, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA). Nasa space flight humans system standard, volume 1: Crew health. In Space-Permissible Exposure Limit (SPEL) for Space Flight Radiation Exposure Standard; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
Butler, R.W.; Haser, J.K. Neurocognitive effects of treatment for childhood cancer. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 2006, 12, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Castro, J.R.; Chen, G.T.; Blakely, E.A. Current considerations in heavy charged-particle radiotherapy: A clinical research trial of the university of california lawrence berkeley laboratory, northern california oncology group, and radiation therapy oncology group. Radiat. Res. Suppl. 1985, 8, S263–S271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fabrikant, J.I.; Lyman, J.T.; Frankel, K.A. Heavy charged-particle bragg peak radiosurgery for intracranial vascular disorders. Radiat. Res. Suppl. 1985, 8, S244–S258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Keime-Guibert, F.; Napolitano, M.; Delattre, J.Y. Neurological complications of radiotherapy and chemotherapy. J. Neurol. 1998, 245, 695–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kjellberg, R.N.; Hanamura, T.; Davis, K.R.; Lyons, S.L.; Adams, R.D. Bragg-peak proton-beam therapy for arteriovenous malformations of the brain. N. Engl. J. Med. 1983, 309, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Levy, R.P.; Fabrikant, J.I.; Frankel, K.A.; Phillips, M.H.; Lyman, J.T. Stereotactic heavy-charged-particle bragg peak radiosurgery for the treatment of intracranial arteriovenous malformations in childhood and adolescence. Neurosurgery 1989, 24, 841–852. [Google Scholar]
Schultheiss, T.E.; Kun, L.E.; Ang, K.K.; Stephens, L.C. Radiation response of the central nervous system. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1995, 31, 1093–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Steinberg, G.K.; Fabrikant, J.I.; Marks, M.P.; Levy, R.P.; Frankel, K.A.; Phillips, M.H.; Shuer, L.M.; Silverberg, G.D. Stereotactic heavy-charged-particle bragg-peak radiation for intracranial arteriovenous malformations. N. Engl. J. Med. 1990, 323, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Suit, H.; Goitein, M.; Munzenrider, J.; Verhey, L.; Blitzer, P.; Gragoudas, E.; Koehler, A.M.; Urie, M.; Gentry, R.; Shipley, W.; et al. Evaluation of the clinical applicability of proton beams in definitive fractionated radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1982, 8, 2199–2205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tofilon, P.J.; Fike, J.R. The radioresponse of the central nervous system: A dynamic process. Radiat. Res. 2000, 153, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Research Council. Hze-Particle Effects in Manned Spaceflight; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
National Research Council. Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions:Biological Issues and Research Strategies; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Todd, P. Stochastics of hze-induced microlesions. Adv. Space Res. 1989, 9, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Britten, R.A.; Davis, L.K.; Johnson, A.M.; Keeney, S.; Siegel, A.; Sanford, L.D.; Singletary, S.J.; Lonart, G. Low (20 cGy) doses of 1 GeV/u 56Fe-particle radiation lead to a persistent reduction in the spatial learning ability of rats. Radiat. Res. 2012, 177, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lonart, G.; Parris, B.; Johnson, A.M.; Miles, S.; Sanford, L.D.; Singletary, S.J.; Britten, R.A. Executive function in rats is impaired by low (20 cGy) doses of 1 GeV/u 56Fe particles. Radiat. Res. 2012, 178, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rabin, B.M.; Joseph, J.A.; Shukitt-Hale, B. Heavy particle irradiation, neurochemistry and behavior: Thresholds, dose-response curves and recovery of function. Adv. Space Res. 2004, 33, 1330–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Drummond, S.P.; Bischoff-Grethe, A.; Dinges, D.F.; Ayalon, L.; Mednick, S.C.; Meloy, M.J. The neural basis of the psychomotor vigilance task. Sleep 2005, 28, 1059–1068. [Google Scholar]
Lim, J.; Dinges, D.F. Sleep deprivation and vigilant attention. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2008, 1129, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Davis, C.M.; Roma, P.G.; Brady, J.V.; Hienz, R.D. Neurobehavioral effects of space radiation on choice impulsivity. In Proceedings of the 18th Biannual Meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics' Humans in Space Symposium, Houston, TX, USA, 11–15 April 2011.
Hienz, R.D.; Davis, C.M.; Weed, M.R.; Guida, P.M.; Gooden, V.L.; Brady, J.V.; Roma, P.G. Neurobehavioral effects of space radiation on psychomotor vigilance and reaction time tests. In Proceedings of the 18th Biannual Meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics' Humans in Space Symposium, Houston, TX, USA, 11–15 April 2011.
Parsons, J.L.; Townsend, L.W. Interplanetary crew dose rates for the august 1972 solar particle event. Radiat. Res. 2000, 153, 729–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wilson, J.M.; Sanzari, J.K.; Diffenderfer, E.S.; Yee, S.S.; Seykora, J.T.; Maks, C.; Ware, J.H.; Litt, H.I.; Reetz, J.A.; McDonough, J.; et al. Acute biological effects of simulating the whole-body radiation dose distribution from a solar particle event using a porcine model. Radiat. Res. 2011, 176, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanzari, J.K.; Wan, X.S.; Wroe, A.J.; Rightnar, S.; Cengel, K.A.; Diffenderfer, E.S.; Krigsfeld, G.S.; Gridley, D.S.; Kennedy, A.R. Acute hematological effects of solar particle event proton radiation in the porcine model. Radiat. Res. 2013, 180, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanzari, J.K.; Romero-Weaver, A.L.; James, G.; Krigsfeld, G.S.; Lin, L.; Diffenderfer, E.S.; Kennedy, A.R. Leukocyte activity is altered in a ground based murine model of microgravity and proton radiation exposure. PLoS One 2013, 8, e71757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, M.; Holmes, V.; Ni, H.; Sanzari, J.K.; Kennedy, A.R.; Weissman, D. Hindlimb suspension and spe-like radiation impairs clearance of bacterial infections. PLoS One 2014, 9, e85665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
King, G.L. Characterization of radiation-induced emesis in the ferret. Radiat. Res. 1988, 114, 599–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanzari, J.K.; Wan, X.S.; Krigsfeld, G.S.; King, G.L.; Miller, A.; Mick, R.; Gridley, D.S.; Wroe, A.J.; Rightnar, S.; Dolney, D.; et al. Effects of solar particle event proton radiation on parameters related to ferret emesis. Radiat. Res. 2013, 180, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Romero-Weaver, A.L.; Wan, X.S.; Diffenderfer, E.S.; Lin, L.; Kennedy, A.R. Effect of SPE-like proton or photon radiation on the kinetics of mouse peripheral blood cells and radiation biological effectiveness determinations. Astrobiology 2014, 13, 570–577. [Google Scholar]
Kennedy, A.R. Biological effects of space radiation and development of effective countermeasures. Life Sci. Space Res. 2014, 1, 10–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
York, J.M.; Blevins, N.A.; Meling, D.D.; Peterlin, M.B.; Gridley, D.S.; Cengel, K.A.; Freund, G.G. The biobehavioral and neuroimmune impact of low-dose ionizing radiation. Brain Behav. Immun. 2012, 26, 218–227. [Google Scholar]
York, J.M.; McDaniel, A.W.; Blevins, N.A.; Gullet, R.R.; Allison, S.O.; Cengel, K.A.; Freund, G.G. Individually ventilated cages cause chronic low-grade hypoxia impacting mice hematologically and behaviorally. Brain Behav. Immun. 2012, 26, 951–958. [Google Scholar]
Maks, C.J.; Wan, X.S.; Ware, J.H.; Romero-Weaver, A.L.; Sanzari, J.K.; Wilson, J.M.; Rightnar, S.; Wroe, A.J.; Koss, P.; Gridley, D.S.; et al. Analysis of white blood cell counts in mice after gamma- or proton-radiation exposure. Radiat. Res. 2011, 176, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanzari, J.K.; Wambi, C.; Lewis-Wambi, J.S.; Kennedy, A.R. Antioxidant dietary supplementation in mice exposed to proton radiation attenuates expression of programmed cell death-associated genes. Radiat. Res. 2011, 175, 650–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wilson, J.M.; Krigsfeld, G.S.; Sanzari, J.K.; Wagner, E.S.; Mick, R.; Kennedy, A.R. Comparison of hindlimb unloading and partial weight suspension models for spaceflight-type condition induced effects on white blood cells. Adv. Space Res. 2012, 49, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
DiCarlo, A.L.; Poncz, M.; Cassatt, D.R.; Shah, J.R.; Czarniecki, C.W.; Maidment, B.W. Medical countermeasures for platelet regeneration after radiation exposure. Report of a workshop and guided discussion sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD, March 22–23, 2010. Radiat. Res. 2011, 176, e0001–e0015. [Google Scholar]
National Space Biomedical Research Institute. National Space Biomedical Research Institute Request for Applications Nsbri-Rfa-13–02 to Establish A Center for Space Radiation Research (Csrr); National Space Biomedical Research Institute: Houston, TX, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Blakely, E.A.; Lauriston, S. Taylor lecture on radiation protection and measurements: What makes particle radiation so effective? Health Phys. 2012, 103, 508–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Augustine, A.D.; Gondre-Lewis, T.; McBride, W.; Miller, L.; Pellmar, T.C.; Rockwell, S. Animal models for radiation injury, protection and therapy. Radiat. Res. 2005, 164, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hackam, D.G.; Redelmeier, D.A. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA 2006, 296, 1731–1732. [Google Scholar]
Perel, P.; Roberts, I.; Sena, E.; Wheble, P.; Briscoe, C.; Sandercock, P.; Macleod, M.; Mignini, L.E.; Jayaram, P.; Khan, K.S. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2007, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hackam, D.G. Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ 2007, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Davis, C.M.; Roma, P.G.; Armour, E.; Gooden, V.L.; Brady, J.V.; Weed, M.R.; Heinz, R.D. Effects of x-ray radiation on complex visual discrimination learning and social recognition memory in rats. PLoS One 2014, 9, e104393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chancellor, J.C.; Scott, G.B.I.; Sutton, J.P. Space Radiation: The Number One Risk to Astronaut Health beyond Low Earth Orbit. Life 2014, 4, 491-510. https://doi.org/10.3390/life4030491
Chancellor JC, Scott GBI, Sutton JP. Space Radiation: The Number One Risk to Astronaut Health beyond Low Earth Orbit. Life. 2014; 4(3):491-510. https://doi.org/10.3390/life4030491
Chancellor, Jeffery C., Graham B. I. Scott, and Jeffrey P. Sutton. 2014. "Space Radiation: The Number One Risk to Astronaut Health beyond Low Earth Orbit" Life 4, no. 3: 491-510. https://doi.org/10.3390/life4030491
Life, EISSN 2075-1729, Published by MDPI


It is so easy to have a negative attitude.
The truth is that we create our own success, and an important way that we do that is by having a positive attitude. I have written before about the importance of having a personal vision statement. The primary purpose of creating a personal vision statement is to visualize yourself having accomplished the goals you have established. This creates for us a vision of what we look and feel like when we have accomplished our goals. This is a powerfully positive step that gives us a jumping off point toward achievement. It is work, and it is rewarding.
How rewarding would it be to know that every night, when you put your head down on your pillow, you know without a doubt that you have positively impacted someone else's life?
How would it feel to know that every day you have done or said something that made someone else feel better about himself or herself?
As people, we have a tremendous amount of power to influence each other, and we have have a tremendous daily opportunity to make that influence incredibly positive. When someone tells me that something I wrote or said has had a positive impact on them, it is more gratifying that I can express. It validates me and encourages me to continue and to improve. It makes me feel better than chocolate ice cream!
So, here is my promise to you. If you develop a practice of positively encouraging those around you, you will benefit more than they will. Your success will multiply, because your outlook is positive. I guarantee it.
Don't believe me? Prove it.


Surgical Arts of Inland Empire is committed to protecting your privacy online. We make every effort to safeguard your personal data. We comply with all HIPAA requirements with the use of our website, including the gathering of personal information and online security.
Surgical Arts of Inland Empire will not send you any unsolicited information via email or any other form or means regarding commercial offers or advertisements without prior consent. We value our patient's privacy and relationship and will make every attempt to safeguard this.
This site contains links to other sites. Advice given and opinions expressed throughout providers' sites are those of the provider, not of Surgical Arts of Inland Empire. Surgical Arts of Inland Empire expressly disclaims all liability for any actions taken or not taken by you based upon any or all advice given or any service provided by the provider to you.
This website resource allows you to learn information related to certain health topics and find additional information by linking you to other health related web sites. Due to the nature of this web site, Surgical Arts of Inland Empire cannot check or verify the accuracy of information contained other web sites.
The inclusion of any link to such sites does not imply endorsement, sponsorship, or recommendation by Surgical Arts of Inland Empire of these sites. Inland Cosmetic Surgery does not warrant the accuracy of information obtained from these web sites. You are advised to conduct your own thorough review of the health service provider ("provider") prior to retaining or taking advice from that provider.
Surgical Arts of Inland Empire is not responsible for the privacy practices of other sites that are linked to us.
All materials on this server and this Internet site, including the site's design, layout, and organization, are owned and copyrighted by Surgical Arts of Inland Empire and are protected by U.S. and international copyrights.
This document explains in detail how we use your Protected Health Information (PHI) which is any information about you that could identify you, your past, present, or future physical or mental health condition(s). Your acknowledgement of receipt of this document will be required the first time you receive services after April 14, 2003, at Surgical Arts of Inland Empire.
Treatment - we keep a record of each visit and/or admission. These records may include your test results, diagnoses, medications or other therapies. These records are used and disclosed to allow doctors, nurses, spiritual care and other health care and clinical staff providers to offer high quality care to meet your needs.
Payment - we maintain a record of and may use and disclose information related to, services and supplies you receive at each visit and/or admission, so that we can be paid by you, an insurance company, or a third party. We may tell your health plan and other payors about an upcoming treatment or service, which requires their prior approval and authorization.
Health Care Operations - we use and disclose your medical information to improve the services we provide, to train staff and students, for business management, and for customer service purposes.
Your information may be shared amongst other health care providers, third party payors and our Business Associates to facilitate treatment, payment or health care operations.
Surgical Arts of Inland Empire and its employees are committed to protecting patient privacy.


Patricia Ann "Patty" Cooper, 74 years of Winchester, passed away Wednesday, September 5, 2018.
Patty was born January 26, 1944 in Cincinnati, OH., the daughter of the late Nathan and Yvetta Mae (Bracken) Kirkpatrick.
Patty was a member of the Winchester United Methodist Church and had served on the Adams County Board of Elections.
Patty is survived by her husband Tommy Cooper; one daughter and son-in-law, Tiffany and Nick Brown of Bethel, OH.; four sons and daughter-in-law, Tate and Pam Cooper of West Chester, OH., Scott (Shan) Cooper of Greenville, SC., Chad Cooper of Cincinnati, OH., Chance Cooper of Houston, TX.; 8 grandchildren and 1 great grandchild; one sister, Beverly (Jim Musgrave) Kirkpatrick of Cincinnati, OH.; and a host of friends.
Funeral services will be held 10:00 A.M. Monday, September 10, 2018 at the Winchester United Methodist Church, 70 East Street, Winchester, OH. 45697.
Pastors Greg Roberts and Al Bolte will officiate with burial following in the Cherry Fork Cemetery.
Friends may call Sunday, September 9, 2018 from 5:00 P.M. until 7:00 P.M. at the Winchester United Methodist Church.
Bradford Sullivan Funeral Home in Winchester is in charge of funeral arrangements.
To send flowers to the family of Patricia Ann "Patty" Cooper, please visit our Heartfelt Sympathies Store.


text:
Michela Ravasio
8 Smart Podcasts That Will Break Up Your Winter Of Binge-Watching
By Shannon Willoby
"I don't have time for it." That's the excuse I hear most often when I ask people if they listen to podcasts.
But, you actually do. You just haven't realized it yet.
Take your morning or evening commutes, for example. Instead of thinking about the rage-inducing traffic, all the work you didn't get done or how you really hate that certain annoying co-worker, you could put on an awesome podcast instead. You can also listen while you're in the bathtub, taking a walk, doing your makeup or cooking.
See? You do have time for podcasts. Here are eight of the best podcasts out there that will make you laugh, teach you something awesome or inspire and motivate you:
1. "Invisibilia"
"Invisibilia" (Latin for all the invisible things) is about the invisible forces that control human behavior — ideas, beliefs, assumptions and emotions — and it's one of the best podcasts I've ever listened to. Every episode, from the one about the real-life cyborg to the one about the blind man who can see, is enthralling from beginning to end.
2. "Grammar Girl"
You don't have to be a writer or a grammar nerd to enjoy this podcast. "Grammar Girl" (Mignon Fogarty) talks about common grammar issues that plague us all, from when to use "less" or "fewer" to silly topics like if you need to capitalize "the Force" from "Star Wars."
Plus, if you find the topic of one episode boring, you can skip it and move on to the next since there's no story line to follow. This is one of the best podcasts to listen to if you want to improve your in-person and written communications.
3. "Call Your Girlfriend"
For long-distance besties everywhere, "Call Your Girlfriend" is hosted by two IRL BFFs, Ann Friedman and Aminatou Sow. The podcast is smart, funny and interesting (like the two co-hosts), and topics range from politics and sex to female empowerment and jeggings.
4. "Welcome To Night Vale"
This podcast is weird, witty, hilarious and fun. It's about a fictional town, Night Vale, where literally anything can happen.
For example, at one point, a "Glow Cloud," a cloud that rains various small creatures — such as lizards and crows — and smells faintly of vanilla, descends upon the town. The writing is incredibly clever, and the narrator, Cecil, will crack you up every time you listen.
5. "Women Of The Hour"
Hosted by Lena Dunham and produced by BuzzFeed, this podcast features conversations with women about love, sex, work, bodies, friendship and more. If you want to be inspired by amazing, successful women (like Emma Stone and Jemima Kirke) and women you haven't heard of before (like the outstanding Mindie Lind, a musician and singer who was born with no legs, but still rides a skateboard), then this one is a must-listen.
6. "LadyGang"
You know how you love brunches with your besties? Especially the ones that offer bottomless mimosas?
Well, that's what this celebrity-driven podcast was inspired by. Each week, a celebrity joins the hosts (Keltie Knight, Jac Vanek and Becca Tobin) to discuss what Hollywood is really like. "LadyGang" is funny, honest and interesting.
7. "Serial"
You've probably heard people talking about "Serial" (a podcast that explores true-crime mysteries) since it's one of the more popular and well-known podcasts out there. But even if you haven't, you'll definitely find the suspenseful "Serial" so interesting and addicting (season one specifically) that you'll actually look forward to your daily commute so you can give it a listen.
8. "Guys We F****d"
This podcast is described as the "anti slut-shaming podcast," and it lives up to its name in every way. The podcast hosts, Corinne Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson, talk about sex in an unapologetic, honest and raunchy way. Basically, it's how you and your best friends talk about sex when no one else is around.
What do you think the best podcasts are?
This article was originally published on The Local Lifestyle.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Car accidents are sometimes unavoidable, but you can handle one with confidence when you hire a car accident attorney. This type of attorney can help you receive compensation for damages that may have resulted from the accident. So that you receive the right legal advice during this stressful time, be sure to hire one of these attorneys using these tips.
Unfortunately, not all attorneys will prove helpful when dealing with a car accident. You need to make sure they specialize in car accidents. A specialty attorney will be more familiar with these types of personal injury cases.
They can thus put together a sound case based on the evidence that's available. Attorneys with a car accident specialty are also more familiar with traffic laws in your area. They can use these to your advantage when putting together your case.
How much you pay for these legal services can vary quite a bit from attorney to attorney. So that you don't overspend and put yourself in a financial hole, you need to gather some price estimates from several different attorneys.
First, find out how the attorney charges. It may be by the hour or per visit. Calculate these totals and see which attorney is the most reasonable. If you're looking to save some money, you might go with a car accident attorney with a little less experience. They may charge cheaper rates to gain some clientele for their newly established practice.
Future success is often predicated on past accomplishments, and this certainly rings true for car accident attorneys. If you can, try to find out the win-to-loss ratio of the car accident attorney you're planning on working with.
The attorney should give you this information without any hesitancy. You know you're in good hands when the attorney wins more cases than they lose. If the attorney doesn't disclose this information to you, then this is a pretty glaring red flag. You might be better off choosing an attorney who's confident in their practice and is more open with their case history.
Even though car accidents can happen out of nowhere, yours will be less stressful to deal with when you receive assistance from a car accident attorney. As long as you take your time hiring one of these specialists and focus on the right areas of their practice, you shouldn't have any trouble dealing out justice to the party who hit your vehicle.


Get your free Information Link by email to find out how you can start your own mail order business part-time from home. Your Link contains videos and detailed information.
consumable products. This is a part-time business that fits around what you are already doing.
Don't miss out on the business growth in Australia.
Join a company and industry that has a successful worldwide presence and achieved over 10 billion dollars in profits last year.
Endorsed by high profile people and top business achievers such as Madeleine Albright and Richard Branson.


text:
19 Apr 2022 U.S. Bancorp Supports Group That Wants Teachers to Discuss Sex With Kindergarteners
Posted at 14:43h in Featured, Free Enterprise Project, Press Releases by The National Center
Washington, D.C. – When confronted today by investor activists with the Free Enterprise Project (FEP), U.S. Bancorp CEO Andy Cecere doubled down on the company's sponsorship of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a group which has vocally opposed a Florida anti-grooming law that protects young students from inappropriate sexual discussions within the classroom.
Ethan Peck
FEP's Ethan Peck submitted the following question at the company's annual shareholder meeting, which was held virtually today:
U.S. Bancorp is a corporate partner of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which has lobbied ruthlessly against Florida's anti-grooming legislation preventing teachers from speaking to children as young as 4 years old about sex and sexuality. In sponsoring HRC, U.S. Bancorp is then, in effect, using its shareholders' assets to fund efforts to indoctrinate young children with radical gender ideology.
Do you believe it's acceptable for teachers to discuss sex with kindergarteners? If not, will you end U.S. Bancorp's sponsorship of HRC given its deeply disturbing agenda?
Since Cecere didn't take shareholder questions directly – as would be customary at an in-person annual meeting – the questions were prescreened and rewritten before being "read" and answered, allowing Cerere to deflect:
I'm gonna paraphrase a question that just came in from the line. And the question is: U.S. Bank is a corporate partner of the Human Rights Campaign, which has taken an active stance on gender education in schools. Why does U.S. Bank support HRC?
I respond to say that we at U.S. Bank prize diversity, and support and work with a number of different organizations across the company, including the Human Rights Campaign. And it is a focus of ours as the way we run our business.
Peck's question, as submitted, can be read here. Cecere's reworded question and answer can be heard here.
"Clearly Cecere made an effort to avoid the PR nightmare that Disney is currently – and deservedly – facing, but he was more committed to pledging his allegiance to HRC," responded Peck after the meeting. "In intentionally not addressing our concern about grooming, and then doubling down on U.S. Bancorp's support for HRC, it's fair to assume that Cecere and the U.S Bancorp board see no issue with teachers discussing sex with kindergartners and will continue to reallocate shareholder assets to professional groomers."
Scott Shepard
"Cecere and his team are frauds," added FEP Director Scott Shepard. "We didn't ask about generalized support for the HRC. We explicitly detailed ways in which HRC is pushing corporations to oppose laws favored by the vast majority of Americans, and lying about every aspect of the law. Support for HRC is support for aggressive fraudulence. And the way the company mangled our question is further fraudulence – fraud against the shareholders who had gathered in this annual meeting and deserved a full answer to the question asked.
"Fraud against shareholders is illegal," continued Shepard. "Spending shareholder assets to fund organizations that are so disgraceful that their behavior is too appalling to bring up in front of shareholders is illegal and disgraceful. U.S. Bancorp must either stop funding the mendacious HRC or explain its position on the Florida law, the Equality Act and other legislation HRC supports and then lies about corporations supporting. If not, it has breached its duties to shareholders in ways that shareholders can and must respond to vigorously."
Conservative investors can learn how to oppose leftism in corporate America by downloading FEP's new "Balancing the Boardroom" guide. Another publication, the "Investor Value Voter Guide," will be released this week. Sign up here to be notified about that publication and about other ways investors can push back on woke capitalism.
Today's meeting marks the 7th time FEP has participated in a shareholder meeting in 2022. To schedule an interview with a member of the Free Enterprise Project on this or other issues, contact Judy Kent at (703) 477-7476.
Launched in 2007, the National Center's Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers' rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, it annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.
FEP activity has been covered by media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Drudge Report, Business Insider, National Public Radio and SiriusXM. FEP's work is prominently featured in Stephen Soukup's new book The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business (Encounter Books) and Kimberley Strassel's 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 60,000 active recent contributors.
Sign up for email updates here. Follow us on Twitter at @FreeEntProject and @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.


As each "Game of Thrones" season-finale shocks us with another twist, millions of fans around the world instantly start debating what will happen in the next season. Eventually there won't be a next season of "Game of Thrones" and that's a sobering reality that is slowly coming into focus.
In the past HBO talked about making ten-seasons of the popular series but as costs rise and actors age, doing ten seasons might not be as possible as the network had envisioned in the past.
So if the actors are getting too popular to keep on the payroll and the children are growing-up too quickly, what can HBO do to appease the millions of fans around the world that wish they had more GoT to watch? Start all over seems to be the going trend with Walking Dead and HBO might follow their lead.
The press had questions about next season of course and eventually someone asked about Jon Snow. I say eventually because that's just what any member of the press seems to do when they are within 300 feet of anyone that is involved with "Game of Thrones" nowadays.
As you can imagine Lombardo didn't offer-up any new information. "Dead is dead is dead. He be dead… Everything I've seen, heard and read, Jon Snow is indeed dead," Lombardo told the press.
Fans know that being dead on "Game of Thrones" doesn't necessarily mean that they are dead forever, but asking anyone on the show to spoil season six secrets is a fad that should die and not be resurrected.


text:
<?php

class controller_Test extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
    /**
     * @var controller
     */
    protected $controller;

    public static function setUpBeforeClass()
    {
        @session_start();
        require_once(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../vendor/autoload.php');
    }

    protected function setUp()
    {
    }

    public function test_show_index()
    {
        ob_start();

        require_once(dirname(__FILE__) . '/../public/controller.php');
        $this->controller = new controller();

        $_SESSION['message'] = 'test_message';
        $this->controller->index();
        $output = ob_get_clean();

        $this->assertContains('Image upload', $output);
        $this->assertContains('test_message', $output);
    }

    public function test_not_select_file()
    {
        ob_start();

        $this->controller = new controller();
        $this->controller->confirm();
        $output = ob_get_clean();

        $this->assertContains('Image upload', $output);
        $this->assertContains('not select file', $output);
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Everybody has that one friend who always has his ear to the ground, who always is one step ahead of everyone else. He's got the snappiest clothes, the newest albums, the best food– and that makes hanging out with him an enlightening (if somewhat humbling) experience. He, for instance, already has been a fan of House Spirits Distillery for some time. Not only that– he's acquainted himself with a few friends in-house, and as a result knows exactly when to stop by for the newest installment of their seasonally-released, limited-edition spirits. Which is convenient, because those small-run collections go fast. Good thing you have that friend. Or maybe, you are that friend? For Portland folks, get them direct from the distillery. Otherwise, find a source by inquiring here.


The Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways. Whenever we are faced with a move, a change, it brings conflicting feelings.
This Pentecost I am in the middle of preparing for a move from my first assignment as a priest to a new assignment later this month. One of my brother priests called it "from one extreme to another" – from two slow-paced, rural parishes to a big suburban parish with a school in a major college town. I have lived here four years, five if you count the times I visited on the weekend as a transitional deacon. The people and the place have left a mark on my heart. Everywhere I look I find more things that belong to me and that I will need to pack and move. I also find things I've bought for the rectory with Church money and wonder if I'll have these same amenities at the new place.
Moving is difficult, not just for me but for the staff and the parish. Each person has to deal with it in their own way. I am filled with conflicting emotions: excitement for the new and unknown and sadness for the places where I experienced God's love. A part of me is happy to leave behind certain people and memories. In the mess of the move, the preparation, the packing, the schedule hassles, the new pastor moving in early, the waiting for the date of the move, it is easy to feel lost and forgotten. Sometimes it feels like the whole world is advancing while I stand still. Temptations multiply to fill oneself with snacks, TV, iced cappuccinos… and indeed some of those things do seem to take the edge off temporarily. It is hard to pray, to sit and be still in the heart even during prayer. Moving brings up emotions and memories from the past, insecurities and fears.
There is something else too, though, or rather someone. There is a presence, a deep peace, a person who is accompanying me, who gives thoughts such as "Be at peace, it will be all right," "Be patient, it will work out," "Keep praying your regular prayers," "Stay quiet," "Watch me work this out." This is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the one we call the Holy Spirit. He is God just like the Father and the Son. He is a person just like the Father and the Son. And His presence is palpable in all those who have been baptized and believe.
By waiting and by calm you shall be saved. In quiet and in trust your strength lies.
The Holy Spirit wants me to be holy, to not freak out, not send a quick reply over email, not make a hasty comment, not indulge. The Holy Spirit wants me to enjoy this experience even amid the pain. The Holy Spirit wants me to have a holy transition and His way is indeed the better, wiser way.
Why be up in arms? Why fear, be anxious? Nothing has importance except my relationship with the Son and the Father in the Holy Spirit. Everything else is fluff. May God bless all our moves and transitions!
Fr. Tom was born in Poland, raised in East Lansing, Michigan, and graduated from Central Michigan University. Since his ordination in 2010 he has been a priest in the Diocese of Lansing. In his spare time he likes to mountain bike and work on basic wood projects.


text:
Senior Spotlight: Tad B. '20 Creates 'The Professional Playbook'
As a senior in high school, you're bound to be asked "what do you want to be or do when you grow up?" according to senior Tad B. '20. He wanted to have more information in order to better answer this question, so he created The Professional Playbook, a website and book to help high school students dive deeper into various professions.
The Professional Playbook aims to help high school students discover how their passion might translate into a professional career. "The goal is to help high school students to lay the foundations for the career of their dreams by helping them understand the journeys of those who have already successfully traveled a similar trajectory," according to the website professionalplaybook.net.
At the beginning of his junior year, Tad had a simple idea that he felt would benefit his community, and took it one step at a time to make it a reality. He started by asking professionals he knew to answer a few questions, then started cold-calling and writing experts in fields he wanted to know more about. He made hundreds of original inquiries and the first edition of the book grew to contain 19 sections (such as consulting, entertainment, engineering, and medical) and interviews from more than 80 experts. Tad self-published the book and website at the beginning of his senior year, but he is still taking new inquires through the website. He has also reached a verbal agreement with a publisher who wants to expand the audience reach to include college students.
In addition to learning from each professional, Tad learned just as much through the project itself: he honed his interview stills, he increased his Photoshop and graphic design abilities, he learned about working with a publisher and website designer, he crafted a project pitch, and he refined personal letters. As editor of the school newspaper, The Hawk Talk, he had basic page layout skills that he grew to more advanced skills. He's grateful to everyone who participated and helped along the way, including the graphic designer who donated his time to create the book cover design because he believes in the project.
Though every field is unique, Tad says there are common take-aways. "Everyone, regardless of field, makes a point to say you have to write and communicate well—whether it's getting resources for a project or leading a team," says Tad. Other common advice included: it's OK to not know what you want to do, encouraging students to explore their interests, the value of internships, and staying tech-savvy.
Tad is interested in economics and data science, but he still plans to "dabble" in various fields as he heads to college in the fall.
Thanks, Tad, for sharing your passion with the community! Current high school students can find a copy of The Professional Playbook in BASIS Independent McLean's Student Resource Center (which Tad also founded) in the Reading Room, and anyone can access at professionalplaybook.net to read or to contribute content about their experiences.
100% of BASIS Independent McLean Upperclassmen Earn AP Scholar Awards
Middle & High School Actors Imagine 'A Simpler Time'
Looking Beyond College Rankings to Find the Best College for Each Student


Destroys confidential documents on a regular basis and establishes an effective secure document destruction program that is easily accommodated by SelectShred. Many organizations use scheduled recurring service for convenience and economy.
Periodic On-site / Mobile Cleanout Paper Shredding (scheduled for once a year) This can be done once a year and can be scheduled in advance. This is typically used by some businesses to dispose of confidential documents at the end of their work season.
One-time On-site / Mobile Purge or Cleanout Shredding This is one-time shredding to destroy a large volume of confidential documents that have accumulated over time. This is typically the case with residential shredding jobs.
On-site Hard Drive Destruction Destroys confidential information that is magnetically stored on computer hard drives.
SelectShred comes to you. The document shredding is done at your location. The chain of custody of your sensitive information is not broken and your information is securely destroyed. You can witness the secure document destruction and you will be issued a certificate of destruction for your record. Your shredded materials are recycled into paper products that can include toilet paper, paper towels, napkins, and tissues. It is reported that recycling one ton of paper saves an average of ten trees.
Areas serviced by SelectShred include: Palm Beach County (Jupiter, Juno Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Riviera Beach, Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, Mangonia Park, Royal Palm Beach, Loxahatchee, Wellington, Greenacres, Palm Springs, Lake Worth, Lantana, Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, Boca Raton), Martin County (Jupiter Island, Hobe Sound, Port Salerno, Sewalls Point, Rio, Ocean Breeze Park, Stuart, North River Shores, Jensen Beach, Palm City, Indian Town), St. Lucie County (Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie West, Hutchinson Island, Indian River Estates, Fort Pierce, White City, Lakewood Park, River Park), Indian River County (Vero Beach, West Vero, Fellsmere, Florida Ridge, Gifford, Indian River Shores, North Beach, Orchid, Roseland, Sebastian, South Beach, Wabasso, Wabasso Beach, Winter Beach).


text:
Alive FM 90.5 – a Popular Community Radio Station from Australia
Alive FM 90.5 broadcasts popular Australian local music. It is a community radio station that broadcasts to Parramatta, Cumberland, and the Hills. At the same time, they provide their listeners with a variety of current affairs-related programs. Breakfast and Drive, with regular news, weather, and traffic updates, Morning Magazine, with news and special guests such as local politicians and personalities, as well as a variety of special interest programs, are among its programs. Because Alive FM 90.5 is a live radio station that broadcasts 24 hours a day, you can listen to programs whenever you want.
Alive 90.5 is a community radio station based in Sydney's Baulkham Hills. The Hills District and parts of Greater Western Sydney are served by the station. This radio station honors Australia's Traditional Custodians of Country and their ties to land, sea, and community.
General Info. –
City: Studios: Baulkham Hills, NSW
Broadcast area: Parramatta, Cumberland and the Hills
Frequency: 90.5 MHz FM
Branding: Your Sound. Your Community.
Format: Adult Contemporary, Community radio
Owner: Cumberland Community Radio Inc.
First air date: 12 December 1992.
Cumberland Community Radio has been broadcasting on 90.5 MHz FM since 1992. Originally known as 'The Sound of Style' and then simply '2CCR,' the station has been known as Alive 90.5 since November 4, 2011.
Alive's mission is to serve its community by broadcasting a diverse range of programs that are appropriate for all groups in the community. Alive 90.5 is a volunteer-run organization that is supported by listener donations, grants, and limited commercial sponsorship.
Cumberland Community Radio was formed in the 1980s by the merger of two groups attempting to establish community radio stations. One group is in the Hills, while the other is in the Parramatta/Holroyd area. The organization began testing broadcasts between 1987 and 1989. The organization was given Building 9 in the Balcombe Heights Estate by Baulkham Hills Shire Council in 1988, and it has remained there ever since. The organization was granted a community radio license in October 1992 and began broadcasting on 90.5 FM on December 12, 1992.
Alive 90.5 began live streaming of its programs over the internet in April 2009. This allows people who live outside of the service area to enjoy the variety of programming provided by Alive 90.5. To support a variety of listening client programs, there are two internet streams: 128 kbit/s Joint Sterero MP3 and 64kbit/s stereo AAC.
The City of Holroyd was originally included in the broadcast area of Alive 90.5. Alive 90.5 updated their logo and broadcast area in late 2017 to include the newly formed Cumberland Council. In May 2016, the City of Holroyd merged with its neighbors to form the new council.
Current programming
Weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., you'll hear a great mix of Adult Contemporary and Oldies. On weekends and after 6 p.m. on weekdays, you can listen to a variety of special interest programs that cater to various music interests, cultures, languages, and communities.
The station's current programming includes a variety of music genres such as adult contemporary, jazz, country, and easy listening. Alive 90.5 also airs programs presented by special interest groups representing interests in Australian music and sport, as well as programs broadcast in languages other than English. During the week, there are also interview-style programs.
Examples of these programs include:
Rajesh Batra
Hit Mix
The Australian Spectrum Show
Sunday Sports Roundup
Positive Energy Show
On weekdays between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. local time, the station broadcasts an Adult Contemporary music format, with public access programming between 6 p.m. and midnight on weekdays and at various times on weekends. Overnight is a cross between Adult Contemporary and Oldies. Live sports commentary will occasionally replace weeknight and weekend programming.
Stream the station online or tune in to 90.5 FM on your radio.
Address: PO Box 977; Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755
Web: www.alive905.com.au/
FaceBook: www.facebook.com/Alivefm90.5/
Insta: www.instagram.com/alive905fm/
Twitter: twitter.com/alive905fm
Youtube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCLTw-98Rw-hLOpLInGjuYbw
Liveonlineradio.net has Alive FM 90.5 in its listings. Just click and enjoy.
Alive FM 90.5 – liveonlineradio.net/alive-fm-90-5
Simon Cowell: Birthday
Top 10 Hungary radio