The space shuttle Challenger explosion on Jan. 28, 1986, with its seven-member crew was the most traumatic disaster of its type in history. It occurred before a live audience, broadcast around the world in real time.
While the causes of the disaster have been covered ad infinitum, there were some little noted reactions that bear touching on.
President Ronald Reagan Addresses the Nation
On the day the Challenger was destroyed, President Reagan was putting the finishing touches on the State of the Union speech. It had been hoped he would be able to mention the space shuttle mission, which would have been in orbit at the time, with Christa McAuliffe, the teacher in space.
Instead, Reagan gave another speech, in a televised address to the nation recorded at the Teaching American History page. The speech, one of the most moving of his presidency, had everything a memorial speech should have. It touched on the sacrifices of the crew and the importance of the space program. It had a historical reference to Francis Drake, who died at sea. It ended with a quote from "High Flight," the greatest aviation poem ever written. He said that the Challenger crew had "slipped the surly bonds of Earth" to "touch the face of God."
Three days later, Reagan journeyed to the Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston to give another comforting speech, this time to the bereaved space workers who felt keenly the devastating loss. He had something fitting to say about each of the fallen Challengers. He gave the requisite vow to continue the space program and to not give up exploration in the face of tragedy.
The Challenger Center
In an attempt to turn tragedy into something positive, the families of the Challenger crew, particularly June Scobee (now June Scobee-Rogers), herself a teacher, created the Challenger Center for Space Flight Education. There are Challenger Centers across the U.S., in Canada, Great Britain and South Korea. The mission of the Challenger Center is to further science education through a variety of programs, including training teachers in the art of teaching science.
Challenger Memorials
There are a number of Challenger Memorials, including one at Arlington National Cemetery and a Space Shuttle Memorial Park near the Johnson Spaceflight Center. The film "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" contained a tribute, "The cast and crew of Star Trek wish to dedicate this film to the men and women of the spaceship Challenger whose courageous spirit shall live to the 23rd century and beyond..." Seven asteroids were named for each of the Challenger crew. According to NASA, craters on the moon have also been named after the Challenger Seven.
Mark R. Whittington is the author ofChildren of ApolloandThe Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.
Forum rules This forum is for OOC discussion about existing roleplays.
Please post all "Players Wanted" threads in the Roleplayers Wanted forum!
Topic Tags:
Forum for completely Out of Character (OOC) discussion, based around whatever is happening In Character (IC). Discuss plans, storylines, and events; Recruit for your roleplaying game, or find a GM for your playergroup.
Post a reply
RolePlayGateway is a site built by a couple roleplayers who wanted to give a little something back to the roleplay community. The site has no intention of earning any profit, and is paid for out of their own pockets.
If you appreciate what they do, feel free to donate your spare change to help feed them on the weekends. After selecting the amount you want to donate from the menu, you can continue by clicking on PayPal logo.
Prostate cancer screening and treatment decisions must act on evidence, not beliefsPublic release date: 25-Jan-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Jerry Berger jberger@bidmc.harvard.edu 617-667-7308 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Current screening system may cause more harm than good
BOSTON Physicians advising men whether to be screened for prostate cancer with a PSA test must rely more on available evidence when recommending screening, biopsies and treatments rather than long held beliefs that PSA-based testing is beneficial for all, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center prostate expert Marc B. Garnick, MD, says.
Writing in the February edition of Scientific American, Garnick states the current system that relies on prostate-specific antigens levels in the blood is "deeply flawed," and physicians must take into account the fact "the PSA test does not tell you if a man has cancer, just that he might have it."
The recent US Preventative Services Task Force's assessment of studies published in 2009 shows more harm than good results from PSA testing, and that evidence favors moving away from aggressive early treatment for all and toward a more cautious, individualized approach an approach currently underway at BIDMC.
"Most people outside the medical community do not realize how flimsy evidence has been in favor of the PSA screening data," says Garnick, who is also an editor-in-chief of Harvard Medical School's Annual Report on Prostate Diseases and associated website.
"In a perfect world, a screening test would identify only cancers that would prove lethal if untreated. Then, men who had small, curable cancers would be treated, and their lives would be saved. Ideally, the treatments would not only be effective, they would have no serious side effects. Such a scenario would justify massive screening and treatment of everyone with a positive test."
However, doctors currently do not have a reliable way to determine which of these small cancers, caught by biopsy, are potentially dangerous and which would not cause harm throughout a man's lifetime. Moreover, all of the current treatments carry significant risks and long term side effects.
Despite successfully preventing a single death from prostate cancer, the number of men who would have to be treated and potentially suffer the consequences of treatment to achieve this prompted the Task Force to recommend against wide spread PSA testing for all men without symptoms of prostate cancer. according to Garnick.
In two studies from 2009, one conducted in Europe and the other in the US, healthy men in their 50s and 60s were randomly divided into two groups; one was periodically screened for prostate cancer using PSA testing or a digital rectal exam, or both. The other group was not offered routine testing, but received standard medical care as needed.
The European study showed that only the men who were tested and treated for prostate cancer had a 20 percent likelihood of dying from the disease, while neither study showed if the men who were tested and treated lived any longer than those who were not offered routine testing. Such a decrease in prostate cancer mortality was not found in the U.S. study.
In the European study, researchers then determined that in order to save one life from prostate cancer, approximately 1,400 men would have to undergo screening, which would result in 48 having to undergo treatment. The remaining 47 could suffer serious side effects, such as incontinence and impotence, as a result of radiation or surgery.
"The overall death rate from all causes was not statistically different in both the screened and unscreened groups," says Garnick. "Unfortunately, the mortality data collected over the past 25 years shows that the natural history of prostate cancer is not as straightforward as my colleagues and I once believed. Many cancers will never cause problems during the patient's lifetime, and hence do not need to be treated, at least immediately."
Results from a long-term Canadian study indicate that the death rate from the disease for men who elect active surveillance, or choosing to delay treatment after a PSA test led to the diagnosis of cancer is 1 percent over 10 years, compared with a 0.5 percent risk of dying from complications in the first month after prostate cancer surgery.
"The point is that the initial decision to forgo treatment is not necessarily the final one. Surgery, radiation and other therapies are still available later on, and most current data indicate that the outcome will not be negatively affected by the delay. Such an approach is improving our ability to tailor treatments for individuals rather than always treating everyone the same," says Garnick.
The outcomes of this decision indicate that doctors and patients need to be clear about their knowledge, and lack of knowledge, from a scientific point of view especially as we discuss these issues with our patients. "We need to have the courage to act on the evidence and not just our beliefs," says Garnick.
###
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is a patient care, teaching and research affiliate of Harvard Medical School, and currently ranks third in National Institutes of Health funding among independent hospitals nationwide. BIDMC is clinically affiliated with the Joslin Diabetes Center and is a research partner of Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. BIDMC is the official hospital of the Boston Red Sox. For more information, visit www.bidmc.org .
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Prostate cancer screening and treatment decisions must act on evidence, not beliefsPublic release date: 25-Jan-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Jerry Berger jberger@bidmc.harvard.edu 617-667-7308 Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Current screening system may cause more harm than good
BOSTON Physicians advising men whether to be screened for prostate cancer with a PSA test must rely more on available evidence when recommending screening, biopsies and treatments rather than long held beliefs that PSA-based testing is beneficial for all, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center prostate expert Marc B. Garnick, MD, says.
Writing in the February edition of Scientific American, Garnick states the current system that relies on prostate-specific antigens levels in the blood is "deeply flawed," and physicians must take into account the fact "the PSA test does not tell you if a man has cancer, just that he might have it."
The recent US Preventative Services Task Force's assessment of studies published in 2009 shows more harm than good results from PSA testing, and that evidence favors moving away from aggressive early treatment for all and toward a more cautious, individualized approach an approach currently underway at BIDMC.
"Most people outside the medical community do not realize how flimsy evidence has been in favor of the PSA screening data," says Garnick, who is also an editor-in-chief of Harvard Medical School's Annual Report on Prostate Diseases and associated website.
"In a perfect world, a screening test would identify only cancers that would prove lethal if untreated. Then, men who had small, curable cancers would be treated, and their lives would be saved. Ideally, the treatments would not only be effective, they would have no serious side effects. Such a scenario would justify massive screening and treatment of everyone with a positive test."
However, doctors currently do not have a reliable way to determine which of these small cancers, caught by biopsy, are potentially dangerous and which would not cause harm throughout a man's lifetime. Moreover, all of the current treatments carry significant risks and long term side effects.
Despite successfully preventing a single death from prostate cancer, the number of men who would have to be treated and potentially suffer the consequences of treatment to achieve this prompted the Task Force to recommend against wide spread PSA testing for all men without symptoms of prostate cancer. according to Garnick.
In two studies from 2009, one conducted in Europe and the other in the US, healthy men in their 50s and 60s were randomly divided into two groups; one was periodically screened for prostate cancer using PSA testing or a digital rectal exam, or both. The other group was not offered routine testing, but received standard medical care as needed.
The European study showed that only the men who were tested and treated for prostate cancer had a 20 percent likelihood of dying from the disease, while neither study showed if the men who were tested and treated lived any longer than those who were not offered routine testing. Such a decrease in prostate cancer mortality was not found in the U.S. study.
In the European study, researchers then determined that in order to save one life from prostate cancer, approximately 1,400 men would have to undergo screening, which would result in 48 having to undergo treatment. The remaining 47 could suffer serious side effects, such as incontinence and impotence, as a result of radiation or surgery.
"The overall death rate from all causes was not statistically different in both the screened and unscreened groups," says Garnick. "Unfortunately, the mortality data collected over the past 25 years shows that the natural history of prostate cancer is not as straightforward as my colleagues and I once believed. Many cancers will never cause problems during the patient's lifetime, and hence do not need to be treated, at least immediately."
Results from a long-term Canadian study indicate that the death rate from the disease for men who elect active surveillance, or choosing to delay treatment after a PSA test led to the diagnosis of cancer is 1 percent over 10 years, compared with a 0.5 percent risk of dying from complications in the first month after prostate cancer surgery.
"The point is that the initial decision to forgo treatment is not necessarily the final one. Surgery, radiation and other therapies are still available later on, and most current data indicate that the outcome will not be negatively affected by the delay. Such an approach is improving our ability to tailor treatments for individuals rather than always treating everyone the same," says Garnick.
The outcomes of this decision indicate that doctors and patients need to be clear about their knowledge, and lack of knowledge, from a scientific point of view especially as we discuss these issues with our patients. "We need to have the courage to act on the evidence and not just our beliefs," says Garnick.
###
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is a patient care, teaching and research affiliate of Harvard Medical School, and currently ranks third in National Institutes of Health funding among independent hospitals nationwide. BIDMC is clinically affiliated with the Joslin Diabetes Center and is a research partner of Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center. BIDMC is the official hospital of the Boston Red Sox. For more information, visit www.bidmc.org .
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Steven Tyler's version of the national anthem might not have qualified him for his own show, "American Idol."
By Gael Fashingbauer Cooper
"American Idol" judge Steven Tyler found his own musical talents being judged Sunday after the Aerosmith frontman?sang the national anthem at Sunday's AFC Championship football game in Foxborough, Mass.
Aerosmith is a Boston-based band, so choosing Tyler to sing at the New England Patriots-Baltimore Ravens?contest seemed like a perfect choice. Tyler even showed his hometown team pride,?clad in a sequined Patriots scarf. But some are still complaining about his rendition, which featured his trademark raspy scream.
Sports blog Deadspin.com was blunt about its verdict, headlining a post "Steven Tyler's 'Star-Spangled Banner' was terrible, but was it the worst ever?"
The?Huffington Post complained that?Tyler "had trouble hitting the signature high note."
ESPN commentator Skip Bayless had even more criticism for Tyler, saying in a tweet: "How could Patriots be inspired by that awful anthem sung by Steven Tyler? At least give him some screaming guitars to camouflage voice."
FOX News panelist Greg Gutfeld wasn't a fan, either, tweeting: "I went outside to put a raccoon out of its misery - then?I realized my neighbor was watching Steven Tyler sing the Star-Spangled Banner."
Some complained that Tyler tweaked the lyrics in several places, including singing "as bomb bursting in air" instead of "the bombs bursting in air" and appearing to sing "oh the land of the free" instead of "o'er the land of the free."
But others appreciated Tyler's rendition. Country singer Jason Michael Carroll tweeted?that he felt Tyler rocked the anthem, adding "I knew 'the scream' was coming! (Tyler) is always amazing!"
What did you think? Watch Tyler's rendition for yourself, and tell us on Facebook.
Stand on the shoulders of giants? Pshaw, how about on the hands and heads of 180,000 very tiny people. This incredible art piece lets you do the latter and look down upon your new helpful friends. More »
Belgrade, Serbia ? Croatia voted in favor of European Union membership in Sunday?s referendum, showing that for most Croats, membership in the economically troubled union still offers hope of economic and political progress for the Balkan nation.
With almost all the ballots counted, the electoral commission announced that 67 percent had voted in favor of joining the bloc, with about 33 percent against. The result confounded recent surveys suggesting that the referendum would be very close. But an approximate turnout of 45 percent suggests that only three in ten Croatian voters are enthusiastic enough about EU membership to have gone to the polling stations to express their support.
On the eve of the referendum, an anti-EU demonstration in Zagreb attended by activists including war veterans turned violent, as demonstrators clashed with police, leading to several arrests.
Croatia is now expected to join the EU on July 1, 2013, subject to the approval of all existing member states.
RELATED: Think you know Europe? Take our geography quiz.
Most of Croatia?s political class and the mainstream parties have strongly backed membership, which President Ivo Josipovic has called ?a turning point in our history.? Accession is expected to bring a range of benefits, including increased access to generous EU funding and improved freedom of movement and employment opportunities for Croatians within and beyond the member states.
Prior to the referendum, campaigners in favor of EU membership argued that a "no" vote would cost Croatia some ?1.8 billion ($2.3 billion) in EU funding over the next three years ? cash that the country sorely needs to revive its economy, flagging like much of the EU.
Accession is also of great symbolic importance to Croatia, bringing to a close its painful post-Communist era, during which it suffered economic collapse, fought a bloody war for independence from Yugoslavia, and became embroiled in the Bosnian conflict.
Croatia is only the second former Yugoslav state to join the EU, after Slovenia, which joined in 2004. Slovenia and Croatia were the two most affluent nations in Yugoslavia, but the former only suffered a brief ten-day war of independence in 1992.
While Croatia prepares to join the EU club of liberal democratic nations, most of its neighbors remain stuck in the slow lane towards membership. In December, EU members voted against starting accession talks with Serbia, which now looks unlikely to join this decade. Bosnia, hopelessly politically divided, is even further from membership, as is Albania. Even tiny Montenegro, a relative success story, is several years from joining.
Given the practical and symbolic benefits of entry to the EU, Croats' lack of enthusiasm for membership ? and the existence of a sizable, vocal minority that is vehemently opposed ? may seem strange.
One reason is the political and economic malaise afflicting the EU and the euro. Many Croats feel uncertain about the EU?s direction and its future. Accession will put Croatia on track to adopt the troubled euro, although not until 2015 or later.
However, some of the most ardent opposition is unrelated to the EU?s present funk. Nationalists, some of them veterans who fought for independence, fear a loss of sovereignty and identity. Fishermen are concerned about opening Croatia?s waters to Italian competitors and small business owners worry about greater regulation from Brussels.
The experience of other post-Communist EU member states, such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary has not been entirely positive. The three have clashed with Brussels over economic policy, reform, and corruption. Hungary in particular has butted heads with Brussels in recent weeks over new laws governing the country's media, courts, and central bank, which prompted the EU to threaten to withhold a loan.
?Croatia joining is certainly positive for the EU, but people see that the benefits of membership may have been overstated,? says Pawel Swidlicki, an analyst at London-based think tank Open Europe, which favors a more economically liberal, decentralized EU.
?They see the current situation with the eurozone crisis and the fiscal pact and worry that they may lose out. After the war, they are reluctant to give up sovereignty. The fisheries policy has been a disaster, and Croatia is a maritime nation, while the EU places a heavy burden on SMEs [small and medium enterprises] in particular. But overall, people in Croatia do see the benefits of membership.?
While the consensus is that both the EU and Croatia will benefit from the Balkan country's accession, conventional wisdom also says that the process is unlikely to be painless.
MOSCOW (Reuters) ? Russian liberal opposition leader Grigory Yavlinsky could be barred from running against Vladimir Putin in a presidential election after officials said Monday there were problems with his registration as a candidate.
Opinion polls show Yavlinsky has no chance of winning the March 4 election but the refusal to let him run would be a slap in the face for leaders of protests by tens of thousands of demonstrators demanding fair elections and political reform.
Central Election Commission officials told Russian news agencies there were errors in about a quarter of the 2 million signatures of support Yavlinsky had submitted as a requirement to enter the election, much higher than the permitted amount.
A final decision on his candidacy is expected to be announced by the commission later this week or next.
Reducing the number of candidates could improve Putin's chances of winning the election in the first round, avoiding a run-off he would face if he does not receive at least 50 percent of the votes cast.
"This is a totally political decision," Yavlinsky, 59, told a news conference, a view shared by other opposition leaders and representatives of the Yabloko party he co-founded.
Yabloko leader Sergei Mitrokhin wrote in a blog: "Putin will decide this matter himself."
Mitrokhin suggested Putin did not want Yavlinsky to run because it could take votes from billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, a liberal contender who he said was backed by Putin.
Mitrokhin also indicated that Yabloko representatives would be unable to monitor the election if Yavlinsky, who has twice run for president and lost, did not take part.
Election officials said Monday Prokhorov's candidacy had been confirmed after he submitted enough signatures.
PUTIN FACES CRITICISM
As independent candidates, Prokhorov and Yavlinsky had to collect 2 million signatures. Candidates from parties in parliament, such as Communist Gennady Zyuganov and nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, did not have to meet this requirement.
Prokhorov, whose assets in an $18-billion business empire include the New Jersey Nets, has dismissed rivals' allegations that he is a Kremlin tool who has been allowed to run to split the opposition and give the election an air of legitimacy.
Putin, 59, was president for eight years from 2000 and ushered his ally, Dmitry Medvedev, into the post in 2008 because the constitution barred him from a third successive term. Putin became prime minister but remained Russia's dominant leader.
Opinion polls suggest Putin will easily win the election but his image has been dented by unusually large protests in Russia since a parliamentary election on December 4 which independent monitors say was slanted to favor his United Russia party.
Tens of thousands of people have taken part in protests since then, mainly in Moscow and St Petersburg, to demand the election be rerun, the election commission chief dismissed and more opposition parties registered.
Human Rights Watch, an international rights monitor, said in its annual report released Sunday that Putin's decision to run for a six-year, third term as president cast a shadow over prospects for political reforms.
It also said pro-government parties had benefited from "disproportionate access to media and abuse of administrative resources."
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_twiU-na6onyKQjDa_naQFmjG51wmPi2Lm83aTF7-bGQS9ccQaUw75FD39NgDBb5-JxZ9cZRxnTHcjvieET5n2aOyOllVYMsCpl9podMwU=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 25-Jan-2012
Share ] 
