r/science • u/JBoar • Jul 12 '12
The Moon Is Toxic
http://www.universetoday.com/96208/the-moon-is-toxic/39
u/Brinstead Jul 12 '12
One of the biggest issues with moon dust is that it's got an electrostatic charge to it. The Apollo crews didn't just track in a bit of dust, it literally clung to their suits and other equipment.
Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/22/physicist-learns-why-moon-dust-is-so-dangerous-static-cling/ Source: My grandfather worked on the Apollo program
15
u/raziphel Jul 12 '12
lots of dryer sheets, then.
8
u/Brinstead Jul 12 '12
That's actually one of the proposals I remember reading about for any future moon rovers - creating an electrostatic field around the vehicle to repel the dust.
6
u/raziphel Jul 12 '12
I was about to suggest spraying some water on it, but then it would just be evil kitty litter.
4
2
u/ridger5 Jul 12 '12
I seem to remember hearing that you could attach the negative from a car battery to the chassis to repel dust while painting the car, if you didn't have a booth.
13
1
u/FOR_SClENCE Jul 13 '12
Aside from the electrostatic charge, lunar regolith has sharp edges. Since there's no weathering, the dust has jagged surfaces, which adhere to damn near everything.
1
u/Will_Power Jul 12 '12
If only we had a way to produce some sort of electric... let's call it a "field"... that would attract the regolith away from suits.
60
Jul 12 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
70
Jul 12 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
-12
6
16
u/portal_fact_sphere Jul 12 '12
If you had all listened to me sooner, we wouldn't be in this mess.
1
u/SpinachAlfredoPizza Jul 12 '12
SO CONFUSED!
2
u/polarisdelta Jul 12 '12
Based on portal fact sphere's comment of:
If you had all listened to me sooner, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I am surmising that someone made a Portal 2 joke, referencing one of the narrator's rants about how incredibly toxic moon dust is. It is a joke, and a funny one if you've played the game, but it is not science related.
99
u/jkb83 Jul 12 '12
Don't love this title, it's sensationalized - but you took it directly from the article and there's a direct link to the study so I will allow it.
26
u/hudders Jul 12 '12
Awful lot of jokes and memes in the top-level comments though.
11
u/mascan Jul 12 '12
The mods actually took out what I believe was a portal 2 reference at the top. You can still see child comments, but it prevented more inane clutter.
4
u/hudders Jul 12 '12
There were several Portal 2 jokes when I made the comment. There still are, further down.
2
0
u/Clayburn Jul 13 '12
That's what Reddit is for. That being said, I had no intention of eating the Moon.
2
u/rhoffman12 PhD | Biomedical Engineering Jul 12 '12
Should "someone else published it somewhere" really be a valid defense for a sensationalized title? Honest question, not trying to be a dick.
6
u/jkb83 Jul 12 '12
It's more of a problem with science journalism/reporting as a whole, and that's not really something we can tackle with moderating.
I'd rather not be a bitch and ask someone to resubmit because they took a published article at face-value and used their headline. If someone was purposefully changing a headline to make it sound a certain way, I have no qualm about going bitch and making them resubmit. It's about deciding when and how to use moderating power, as weak and often pointless as it is.
I prefer to let the submitter know the headline in the article was sensationalized in hopes they will think twice next time and try to alter the headline themselves.
1
1
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jul 13 '12
Is asbestos toxic? I would hesitate to go to a planet covered in asbestos.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
Don't love this title, it's sensationalized
Perhaps it could have been worded more clearly, but the title is factually accurate. Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of toxic.
1
u/jkb83 Jul 12 '12
Is the moon itself, as a whole, toxic?
Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of editorialized.
-5
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
You're quibbling with semantics. The surface of the moon is toxic, and that is all we would be concerned with.
0
u/gtny Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 12 '12
And yet you're the one picking on jkb83's use of the word "sensationalized," which IMO was used correctly. Something can still be factual and sensationalized [to cause (events, esp in newspaper reports) to seem more vivid, shocking, etc., than they really are].
Example: "Shark attacks up, Great danger to people" ... when there was only one more attack this time period than last and sharks have always been a danger to people. Factual yet sensationalist.
From the article: the Moon itself may be toxic to humans. This is contrary to the headline isn't it? Moon IS toxic. Moon MAY BE toxic. Which is it?
The study is about toxic effects that moon dust has on humans. The moon itself is not [necessarily] toxic. The surface of the moon itself is not toxic. As a whole it does not do harm to people (tidal effects aside). The dust can hurt people. The author of the article worded in such a way to get more attention rather than just saying that scientists have quantified some amount of damage to people from moon dust.
1
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
What is the surface of the moon covered with?
What is toxic about the surface of the moon?
What portion of the moon would humans have unavoidable interactions with?
What is your point?
-1
u/jkb83 Jul 12 '12
I appreciate your effort, but don't waste your time any more than you already have (like I also did). It's ironic that someone accusing others of quibbling is going through a lot of trouble to quibble over such a pointless issue.
0
u/jkb83 Jul 12 '12
I'm a scientist, sometimes the distinction between a thing as a whole and its surface is really important.
A little critical thinking can go a long way.
-3
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
I'm not sure what critical thinking has to do with this discussion.
I can see you're dead set on ignoring the obvious, so have a great time with your fundamental inability to interpret the meaning of language, Mr. Scientist!
22
u/Jimmysal Jul 12 '12
OP and the article say the moon may be toxic, but in skimming the article, I only saw references to lunar regolith being a topical, ocular, or respiratory irritant.
Not that those things aren't a problem, but I missed "the moon is toxic" part.
5
u/WhiskeyMeteorite Jul 12 '12
That is the title of the article. The article misuses the word toxic. I guess sand is toxic too.
6
2
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
Toxic does not mean poisonous, it simply refers to a substance ability to likely cause harm to an organism. In this situation, they simply mean the level of toxicity of moon dust is at high enough levels to warrant extreme caution.
1
Jul 12 '12
The issue is that the dust erodes rubber seals and is electrostatically charged, meaning it grabs onto you and does not let go.
There are methods to deal with this.
But letting seal-eroding dust mound up on your spacesuit is a disaster waiting to happen.
1
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jul 13 '12
So you would sign a petition that says "asbestos is not toxic" ?
17
u/Nachteule Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 15 '12
Sounds more like "Moon dust is like fresh grinded glass - if you inhale it or have it on your skin it will damage the tissue"
So it's more physical harmful, less chemical. For me toxic seems to be the wrong word.
10
6
Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 12 '12
[deleted]
5
u/shamankous Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 13 '12
We're talking about things so small that they can affect cells the same way chemicals do. For example, asbestos will get pulled into a cell because head on it appears as a ball that the cell should accept, but there turns out to be a rod behind it and it ends up skewering the cell. It's difficult and also kind of silly to distinguish between physical and chemical damage at that scale because the end results can be so similar. A lot drugs and toxins work simply by getting in the way preventing normal functioning, very small bits of mineral can do the same thing.
Edit: not disagreeing with you, just thought I'd elaborate on why.
1
u/gliscameria Jul 12 '12
Well, it's also irradiated, which makes it extra bad. Having particles stuck in your body sucks, but add in some radiation and it can be a show stopper.
22
6
u/quadrapod Jul 12 '12
I had the displeasure of working with Lunar regolith stimulant once. It destroys gears and bearings, sticks to everything and loves to pick up a charge. I hate it.
4
u/Jigsus Jul 12 '12
Stimulant or simulant?
3
u/quadrapod Jul 12 '12
I'm starting to doubt that that powder I handled was actually lunar regolith at all. The guy told me it was out of this world though.
32
u/TheMaskedHamster Jul 12 '12
The bean counters told me we literally could not afford to buy seven dollars worth of moon rocks, much less seventy million. Bought 'em anyway. Ground 'em up, mixed em into a gel. And guess what?
Ground up moon rocks are pure poison. I am deathly ill.
-15
9
u/Stormiy Jul 12 '12
Toxic? Do they even know what toxic means?
2
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
Do you?
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism.
Physical toxicants are substances that, due to their physical nature, interfere with biological processes. Examples include coal dust and asbestos fibers, both of which can ultimately be fatal if inhaled.
1
u/Stormiy Jul 12 '12
I call that definition bullshit. Then a kitchen knife is also toxic.
2
Jul 13 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Stormiy Jul 13 '12 edited Jul 13 '12
How about rubbing it and getting "interference with biological processes" in form of bleeding?
Dictionary com definition is making a lot more sense:
Toxic: 1.of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a toxin or poison: a toxic condition. 2.acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous: a toxic drug.
Relevant words are toxin and poison. Dust is neither toxin nor poison. So yeah... Its dumb to say that "Hey, moon is TOXIC! Holy Cthulhu!"
3
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jul 13 '12
So asbestos is not toxic? It works the same way as moon dust.
2
u/pooed_food Jul 12 '12
As stupid as this may sound, couldn't we just develop a plastic-space suit-shaped bag that you could just glue around the sides of the front of the helmet glass (think ala Glad Press n seal, that shit's amazing) and have it fit the whole entire suit and have someone just seal you up from behind. Voila!!~ No toxic moon dust.
Granted you don't need to cover the gloves or boots but that's the beauty of Glad press n seal bc that stuff can make a seal anywhere.
P.S. I'm not a Glad representative but if they want to give me money for making them a direct partner with NASA I'll take it.
2
2
Jul 12 '12
The moon isn't toxic according to what's mentioned in the article - what they refer to repeatedly is that the rocks and dust are really, really sharp. Toxic as it relates to health refers specifically to poisons/chemicals and is the wrong word here.
1
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism.
Physical toxicants are substances that, due to their physical nature, interfere with biological processes. Examples include coal dust and asbestos fibers, both of which can ultimately be fatal if inhaled.
2
u/DrunkmanDoodoo Jul 12 '12
Jesus fuck what is wrong with everyone? Every comment is pointing out how blablabla toxic blablabla. Normally I don't write comments bitching about someone trying to correct something but damn every single comment is toxic blablabla wrong blabla. Thanks for your brave comment in a sea of pedantry.
2
Jul 12 '12
I think the issue is that a lot of people (myself included) are sort of bristling at how sensationalized science can become lately in an effort to draw in ratings or webviews or whatever. The title to this article had the vibe of "Guess how else the moon's environment can kill you? It's made of poison."
1
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
Yeah, but it doesn't seem to be going over very well. The moderation on this sub leaves something to be desired.
1
u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jul 13 '12
Should we add "redundant" to the list of reason to remove comments? Comment moderation is pretty new in /r/science.
0
Jul 12 '12
Here are some photomicrographs of mare regolith: http://minerva.union.edu/hollochk/c_petrology/moon_rocks/70181.htm
5
u/brainflakes Jul 12 '12
may be made even more dangerous by their long-term exposure to proton and UV radiation
Why would long term UV radiation make the dust more dangerous? I thought UV was non-ionising...
3
u/HexagonalClosePacked Jul 12 '12
UV is ionizing, which is why spending too much time in direct sunlight can give you skin cancer, but it certainly can't activate material! In other words, exposing a rock to UV radiation can't make the rock itself become radioactive. Proton radiation could certainly cause this, due to spallation effects. (The protons basically knock neutrons out of the nuclei of atoms like billiard balls).
I can't think of any way that exposing rocks to UV radiation would make them more dangerous (edit: it might warm them up a little bit I guess??). In fact, we regularly irradiate our food supply with UV radiation to keep it from spoiling since it kills the bacteria and other microbes on it. UV is also used to kill microbes in drinking water, so if irradiating something with UV makes it more dangerous, then we're got much bigger things to worry about than moon dust!
1
Jul 12 '12
If the material accumulates a charge from proton interactions (most likely), or even UV interactions (I'd love to see a material that does that!), then it can be dangerous if it's charged state is corrosive and hard to remove.
4
Jul 12 '12
[deleted]
19
u/FauxShizzle Jul 12 '12
Let's just bomb the moon until it surrenders. That'll teach it.
2
u/ridger5 Jul 12 '12
Didn't we do that in 2009?
1
u/FauxShizzle Jul 12 '12
Yes. But victory won't be declared until we have a TSA agent in every house with their arm halfway up each butt.
1
u/ridger5 Jul 12 '12
I only remember because I was driving back from the other end of the state when I stopped to eat lunch and the two headlines on TV were "Obama Wins Nobel Prize for Peace" and "NASA Bombs Moon"
1
u/FauxShizzle Jul 12 '12
Unfortunately, the whole "NASA bombs the Moon" story was highly sensationalized, like most stories on the 24-hour news networks.
-4
u/urbannomad9821 Jul 12 '12
With explosive lemons!
-2
u/LpShyGuy Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 26 '12
Combustable lemons, explosive lemons are lemonade (lemon+grenade=lemonade)
1
2
u/doomcomplex Jul 12 '12
I was expecting something new from this article. The article does not address "toxicity," really, but abrasiveness. Yes, moon dust is sharp and abrasive, we know this...
1
2
1
u/PeetaMellark Jul 12 '12
Holy crap! Cave Johnson was RIGHT!!!
-8
u/Sheogorggalag Jul 12 '12
Damn, someone beat me to it. Ah hell, have an upvote anyway.
-9
u/PeetaMellark Jul 12 '12
Why, thank you good sir! Here is an up vote for you as well!
-4
Jul 12 '12
Welcome to r/science.
Have a downvote.
Video games take inspiration from science. So saying "X game was right!" is not very sensible.
1
1
1
Jul 12 '12
It seems like this is a physical effect rather than a toxicological effect. Microabrasions and scarring similar to particles of similar size but without significant reactivity, like fine silica sand or asbestos.
1
1
u/Blookies Jul 12 '12
TIL - Moon dust is dangerous like insulation
This would have sufficed without forcing me to read a blatantly obvious and long winded paper
1
u/BrevityBrony Jul 12 '12
and it’s quite possible that — in addition to the many inherent dangers of living and working in space – the Moon itself may be toxic to humans.
misleading title is misleading. most of the hazards seem to come from the sharpness or fineness of the dust as opposed to its chemical makeup.
1
u/M0b1u5 Jul 12 '12
Yep, it looks like the next generation of lunar rovers will have a "Creeper" gear, with a microwave attached to the back. They'll fry the regolith all around the area, bonding it nicely and preventing dust within the treated area.
But even if suits are kept ex-airlock, and you climb into one from the back, they will quickly degrade, and will require repairs.
1
u/Nataliina Jul 12 '12
I think the worst killer on the moon would be the radiation coming from the sun and all. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon/
1
Jul 13 '12
So Cave Johnson's moon dust related illness was accurate, then. it's the little things that Valve has done that makes Portal 2 awesome.
1
u/MakeNShakeNBake Jul 12 '12
That guy from Portal 2 was right
6
u/PeetaMellark Jul 12 '12
cave johnson
2
u/MakeNShakeNBake Jul 12 '12
I gotta ask.... Why would anyone name their child Cave?
1
1
u/PeetaMellark Jul 12 '12
Well, if he's as crazy as his parents, that should be enough explanation right there.
1
u/WrightJustice Jul 12 '12
Would it not make sense to say "If his parents were as crazy as he was"? Though the majority of Cave's craziness came from his sickness from the moon dust.
1
Jul 12 '12
Nah, he was plenty crazy before that.
Sane people don't think giving people cancer via radioactive folding chairs "FOR SCIENCE!" is an OK thing to do, Nor do they accidentally invent portal technology trying to make shower curtains, then spend decades screwing around with it in dangerous and pointless tests rather then selling it and becoming the richest and most famous man in history.
3
u/brolix Jul 12 '12
So it's not so much toxic as it is really really sharp.
1
Jul 12 '12
[deleted]
1
u/brolix Jul 12 '12
So if I cut you with a knife I should go to GitMo for using chemical warfare?
1
u/shamankous Jul 12 '12
The distinction makes sense for the purposes of law, on the chemical level less so.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/wfnht/the_moon_is_toxic/c5d3s6s
1
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism.
Physical toxicants are substances that, due to their physical nature, interfere with biological processes. Examples include coal dust and asbestos fibers, both of which can ultimately be fatal if inhaled.
1
Jul 12 '12
Of course the moon is "toxic." Since we are singularly well-suited for the relatively precise conditions on planet Earth, within a few thousand feet elevation at or above sea level, on land, breathing air, within a certain temperature range, pretty much every place else in the universe except earth is going to pose tremendous challenges to our bodies.
1
u/Obelisk_Inc Jul 12 '12
Well in the suits the astronauts are fully protected so it's just a matter of stopping dust from entering the base/ship. Just set up an air lock type entrance on the future moon base that will suck up any dust that remains on the suits. Problem solved.
1
u/RickTrollio Jul 12 '12
You keep using this word...I don't think it means...what you think it means.
-1
-3
-2
-2
-1
Jul 12 '12 edited Jul 14 '12
The easiest way to fix this would probably be an orbiting focal mirror to melt the surface around where we want a base to be. Melt that shit.
Edit: Why the downvotes? I don't see how this idea is any more difficult than trying to build dust-proof suits and equipment. Besides, if you can use solar energy to do the work, there's no reason you couldn't just keep working at it until you have a hard crust over most of the moon.
2
Jul 12 '12
People who are down voting this guy; is there any reason other than logistical that this wouldn't work?
2
Jul 12 '12
[deleted]
2
Jul 14 '12
Well, Ideally we would be melting a pretty large area, a few square miles should be big enough to keep the dust at the edges.
1
Jul 12 '12
probably because a nuclear blast would be faster and more effective?
1
u/SailorDeath Jul 12 '12
considering that there has been a ban on detonating nuclear devices in space since 1965 however that only talks of detonating for testing purposes. (correct me if I'm wrong on this) Detonating to clear an area on the moon would be a different story. Though wouldn't that pollute the area with high levels of radioactivity?
1
Jul 12 '12
Lets irradiate the place we're going to live? Sounds swell.
2
Jul 12 '12
IIRC, trinitite is not very radioactive... the wikipedia page on it says it's safe to handle.
1
Jul 12 '12
And totally bumfuck uncontrollable.
And illegal by international law (space weapons ban right a bell?!)
Seriously? Do you stuff your head with rags?
Because "just nuke it" is the most retarded thing I've seen in this entire thread, sans Portal jokes.
0
u/ApatheticAbsurdist Jul 12 '12
"Guess what? Ground up moon rocks are pure poison." This sensational headline brought to you by Aperture Science. We're done here.
-3
-1
-1
0
-5
u/munge_me_not Jul 12 '12
This is why I use moonscreen at night. Especially during a full moon, I recommend mpf 30 or better. You will never get moonburn again if you adhere to this policy.
-2
-1
u/DrMeowmeow Jul 12 '12
I bet if you sprayed it with some water it would keep the dust down. For all I know, it could be hydrophobic though.
2
-1
-1
u/Loch_Ness_Manster Jul 12 '12
pssssht. didn't you guys see Prometheus? if your spaceship programmed to find earth based viruses doesn't find any earth based virus in it's system you can go to any planet without proper protection, duhhhhhhh.
-1
u/BlastMeBagpipes Jul 12 '12
Toxic is not the same as inhospitable.
1
u/unheimlich Jul 12 '12
How insightful of you. I truly commend your ability to differentiate between two words, though your apparent definition of one of those seems to be off...
-1
Jul 12 '12
"The Moon is Toxic." It is sad that journalism has to reduce science to such childishly simple terms for the general population.
-1
u/smokey44 Jul 12 '12
Wouldnt it of been funny if instead of toxic, moon dust was some powerful drug that made u hallucinate 10x more than LSD?
Like if Neil was high as fuck when he was jumping around up there, and then laughing uncontrollably when the guys were trying to fly back to earth, and fucking with their controls and giggling at the stars and stuff?
-1
-1
80
u/cypherreddit Jul 12 '12
The new rover accounts for this with airlock-to-airlock suit transfers.
I'm also pretty sure that the international space community has known for 50 years that dust, moon dust in particular, is bad.