> "Was this a more economical approach than launching those missions on an expendable rocket, and just building brand new satellites?"
Assuming you already have a Space Shuttle, then the answer was apparantely yes. Lloyd's of London, as insurers, paid NASA for the recovery of Westar 6 and Palapa B2. The cost of the recovery was said to be $10m, vs. the $180m insurance value of the satellites (both in 1980s dollars). [1]
I suppose many of today's satellites are relatively cheap and considered more expendable, but back in the 1980s these things were very valuable pieces of kit.
Besides, most of the retrieval missions performed by the Space Shuttles were not "failed" satellites but rather long-life science platforms that were designed to spend time in space and then be returned to earth for analysis. Now days, many of those sorts of missions can be performed on the ISS, but back then the shuttle was the only option.
In this case, hindsight merely justifies the foresight: at no point did satellite return-to-Earth provide any economic justification for the shuttle program, even in conjunction with other imagined benefits.
Highly recommend this irreverent podcast by 2 engineers and former NASA contractors. They get out above their skies on some topics but the shuttle content is fun.
Critical care medic here. Adult CPR at least has some evidence in its favor on a population level, but only as a bridge to using electricity. CPR alone is merely slowing deaths arrival.
There is NO evidence to support any of the commonly used advanced cardiac life support drugs in terms of functioning brain leaving the hospital. Epinephrine (for arrest, not shock or anaphylaxis), atropine, lidocaine, amiodarone, procainamide, digitalis, etc. Its electricity or bust.
The key point is that the AED (automatic electric defibrillator) will tell you if you have a shockable rhythm.
Many modern AED's can be used by untrained people, so if you see a cardiac arrest, find the nearest AED and deliver it and/or follow its (brief) instructions. Once you know this, you'll start tracking the last one you saw, and you'll find them more ubiquitous than you realized (and start advocating for one in your office).
(And if you are doing CPR, the breathing part is less important than the chest compressions. Blood flow is more important than oxygenation. But always/only follow current guidelines/training.)
> (And if you are doing CPR, the breathing part is less important than the chest compressions. Blood flow is more important than oxygenation. But always/only follow current guidelines/training.)
The problem is that this advice is situational.
If electrocution is what caused the cardiac arrest, it is much better to give breaths than compressions. The heartbeat system resets itself before the respiratory system. The problem is then that the heart is back, uses up all its energy reserves, but there is no oxygen to replenish and the heart goes back into arrest.
> If electrocution is what caused the cardiac arrest, it is much better to give breaths than compressions. The heartbeat system resets itself before the respiratory system. The problem is then that the heart is back, uses up all its energy reserves, but there is no oxygen to replenish and the heart goes back into arrest.
Can you provide a reference or citation to this claim and practice?
It is always much better to give "conventional CPR" (breaths and chest compressions) if suitably trained.[1] If not suitably trained you are more likely to a) perform CPR and b) do it effectively if not providing mouth to mouth breathing.[2][3] You can argue about the nuance of particular patient groups where there is potentially a statistically significant benefit of providing conventional CPR over compression only.
Under no circumstances are there benefits to providing rescue breaths without chest compressions (as your comment seems to recommend).
I think it was a while ago down a rabbit hole from the "Kiss of Life" picture talking about respiratory arrest. However, I can't find a substantiated source anymore so I will absolutely defer to your sources.
> Many modern AED's can be used by untrained people, so if you see a cardiac arrest, find the nearest AED and deliver it and/or follow its (brief) instructions.
AEDs are specifically designed to be used by untrained people.
Don't bother doing anything with ventilation unless it's a pediatric patient who arrested specifically because of an airway issue (foreign body, near-drowning). We (EMS) will ventilate with high flow oxygen and intubate on our arrival, but even for us, it still comes a distant second to compressions and electricity.
With adults, blood can remain sufficiently oxygenated for cellular respiration/metabolism for about 8 minutes of compressions. Survival rates for adult CPR as a rough average go down about 10% for every minute of compressions required.
In most countries, by asking the emergency dispatcher when you call for an ambulance. Start chest compressions, get someone to call for an ambulance, then worry about finding an AED.
At least where I live, it's a requirement in order to operate a business. If you go anywhere and ask for their AED and they don't have one they can be shut down.
Sort of. CPR classes are divided into, at least, "CPR" and "BLS". Your basic CPR class may be a hands-only training, but the BLS classes still include rescue breathing and AED use, along with infant care.
Took a BLS course in the last year in the US (PNW)... they barely covered breathing. I'm not actually sure, from taking it, when I would do breathing. They did a lot on the AED. I should re-watch the video.
Ah. I have a current AHA BLS cert. My understanding is, do breathing if you think there is a clear airway, and you have the appropriate PPE depending on the fluids on/around the person's mouth, and either you are doing compressions because there is no pulse or there is a pulse but the person is not breathing on their own. If you do choose to do rescue breathing, it's important to watch for chest rise to ensure that you're not breathing into their stomach, which is ineffective and will induce vomiting if the person regains consciousness.
There is a decision tree there that some people may be uncomfortable with in an emergency.
I welcome corrections from people with better training than mine.
I renew my AHA BLS cert every other year as a requirement for my EMT certification. You do breathing when you have a second rescuer available to do compressions.
I just did my cert in the PNW this month - there was plenty of time spent on breathing, but also emphasis that doing compressions is the important part. Interestingly, the instructor thought this change was mostly due to amateurs being far less comfortable with giving breaths and being likely to refrain from CPR altogether if they thought it was necessary to do the breathing.
FWIW I have done it by video during covid and in a live class before and after, and I did find it much more engaging and memorable in person. It was surprising to realize that, but simply having the additional sense memories seems to have made a big difference to retaining the information.
EMT here. I've had exactly one save in my career from CPR without external defibrillation. That save happened only because of epi, and the patient was disconnected the next day because of brain death.
So yeah, CPR is great but if you don't also have an AED, it's just theater.
Caveat: If you call 911 [in the USA] they will bring an AED! So don't let the fact that you don't own an AED stop you from starting CPR. Just be sure somebody calls 911 also.
Glad you said this. I have delivered cpr twice: once to my lecturer at school, the other to a stranger in the street. Both times they died. The experience of seeing people freak out when they saw their loved one dying completely devastated me out. Still now the memories are painful.
I told my father, who worked in medicine. He recommended that unless there was a defibrillator nearby, I walk away next time I see someone having a heart attack.
Just to be clear, a "heart attack" commonly refers to a myocardial infarction (part of the hear tis being deprived of blood, generally due to an obstruction in a coronary artery). Someone in the early stages of a heart attack will generally (but not always) experience chest pain/etc, anxiety, shortness of breath, etc.
A heart attack can lead to cardiac arrest, where the heart stops beating effectively and the patient loses consciousness. Cardiac arrest is the scenario you're talking about (where CPR is indicated)
> So yeah, CPR is great but if you don't also have an AED, it's just theater.
There’s at least one scenario where this is less true: drowning. An otherwise healthy person, pulled promptly from the water but not breathing, has a chance of being revived with CPR.
There are a lot of drowning situations where an AED or EMT are far away, and CPR should definitely be attempted.
True. And drowning is one of the few CPR scenarios where early ventilation may be more important than early chest compressions. Follow medical direction and local guidelines to be sure.
Manual defibrillators have existed decades longer than automatic ones. Even without an AED immediately available, CPR is useful as long as someone has activated EMS (i.e. called 911). EMS always carries a defibrillator (whether automatic or manual) and CPR buys the patient time until EMS arrives.
My point more precisely should have read "CPR with no possibility of prompt defibrillation is mostly theater."
The most common cause of sudden cardiac death is blocked left anterior descending artery.
Generally this is unknown until it happens.
It kills 250,000 Americans every year.
It would make the most sense for people above 50 with a family history of heart disease to have a CT coronary angiogram or for those above 40 to have a Cardiac Calcium Score to risk stratify for future CTCA.
Distributing AEDs is infrastructure heavy and indiscriminate because you don’t know who actually needs one.
In the UK, in addition to what the sibling comment mentioned about phone boxes, a lot of workplaces now have AEDs on site (eg I know mine does) and they're also common at large-scale events. I don't know if there are any statistics on how much good they've done but that seems like quite a sensible approach to me as you can presumably get quite a lot of population coverage quite cheaply.
By contrast, a CT coronary angiogram I suspect is rather more resource heavy - in particular I suspect having enough qualified cardiologists to interpret the results (not just having CT machines and staff to administer the test) might be a bottleneck (anecdotal, but having had one myself due to family history of heart disease, I had a longer wait for results after the scan than to get the scan itself).
It’s risk stratification vs preventative care. You don’t WANT someone to have a heart attack and require the AED, because you’ve only got a 5-20% chance of making it out of hospital.
These things are not équivalant!!!
Risk stratification for AEDs at work and public events, whereas screening should increasingly be part of the plan particularly if you have a family history (defined as 1 or more relatives who died younger than 65 from a heart attack)
CTCA doesn’t require a cardiologist, just a radiologist, but a cardiologist referral makes it free (in australia) otherwise it’s $500. Which is pretty good really
Quite a lot of people/families can find £500-1000 for something important. The more that can, the cheaper it will become.
AEDs/Defibs are just an expensive battery powered thing, that we just don't bother to discuss. With around an hour or less training, you can expect to be at least 10x more effective than the best CPR. CPR is horrible to deploy and very complicated but I will if I have no choice.
They’re not equivalent though! An AED means your heart muscle has been absolutely trashed and will never be the same again. Plus, there’s still the issue of who actually needs an AED in their house, and if you know that, they’ve probably got an IED.
Whereas if you can for the same cost have a scan after being reviewed appropriately, you can avoid the heart muscle trashing. That is nothing short of a miracle in terms of the extension of lifespan available
Firstly, the people most at risk of cardiac arrest are unlikely to regain any meaningful quality of life after resuscitation. An AED might bring a very elderly and/or very ill person back from the dead, but more often than not they'll be just barely alive afterwards, which is not an outcome that most people would choose for themselves. People who are close to the end of their natural lives would benefit much more from serious conversations about end-of-life care than expensive gadgets and false hope.
Secondly, most of the risk of cardiac arrest in younger and relatively healthier people is preventable. If you're not a frail elderly person but you consider yourself at risk of cardiac arrest, it's very likely that you're at least one of: obese, sedentary, hypertensive, poorly-managed diabetic. Before you go out and buy an AED, give some serious thought to what kind of state you'd be in after surviving a cardiac arrest and to whether you'd rather take meaningful action to improve your health now.
Some people with cardiac abnormalities might be good candidates for an at-home AED, but they'd generally be better candidates for an ICD. A young and otherwise healthy person with a condition like LQTS, Brugada or severe HCM is at very real risk of sudden cardiac arrest, but the most likely trigger for that arrest would be strenuous physical exercise - something that most of us don't do in our own homes.
> personal history of sudden cardiac death with a persistent risk factor
Personal history, or family history? Maybe this is a technical term? As a non-medic I can’t imagine there are many people who have a history of sudden death AND a persistent risk of it happening again.
"Many" is relative. We are talking about a fraction of a percent of the general population, but if you are looking specifically at the population of people who have some form of long standing heart disease, it's not terribly rare. I don't work in cardiology specifically, and even so I encounter one or two patients a year who have had an ICD placed for reason #3.
Persistent risk factors include things like or overgrowth of muscular heart tissue (which has dozens of causes, but the most common is severe, long standing coronary artery disease) or scarring of the heart after a heart attack.
Persistent risk factors are not rare at all. The thing is that most people who fall into bucket 3 also fall into buckets 1 or 2. So in an ideal world they would have already seen a cardiologist and had an ICD placed before they ever had an episode of SCD. And of course many of those who do have SCD don't survive long enough to have an ICD placed.
If you are interested in reading more, you can search for "secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death" or "secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardisc death." There are some good review articles available online.
I would say yes. Some of the answers here are referring to population stats and you are worrying about your particular circumstances, which is different.
If someone you come across (family, stranger, whatever) keels over you need to, without proper medical knowledge, diagnose the issue and then administer appropriate treatment. Oh and could you do it within a couple of minutes please.
CPR should be a last resort - it can be rather barbaric. A defib has a way better chance of success and won't break your ribs.
A defib costs around £1000 or so. Hopefully that money is wasted.
'Intuitive has been built by the efforts of great people from different walks of life. Our outstanding team, with diverse backgrounds, life experiences, and ideas, has helped pioneer—and continues to be a leader in—the market for minimally invasive, robotic-assisted surgery. Our surgical and endoluminal systems serve a diverse and global community of healthcare professionals and their patients.'
Thanks for the suggestions. I do plan on watching these videos about how the robot does what it does, but only after I put a little more time between me and my surgery!
A vehicle with a similar external sensor array has been parked in a lot near my workplace every weekday at lunch time for the past several weeks. Given the proximity to AC3 at Central and Wolfe, my coworkers and I had all assumed it was an Apple test of some kind.
Accords with the rumor mill surrounding Apple leasing a former Pepsi bottling plant down the street.
I'm getting older and I have poor eyesight. The information density of the old design was a huge distraction for me, making it very difficult to actually read the news.
Whitespace can be incredibly helpful for readability.
What Project Kennedy tried to do and wasn't allowed to once the pitchforks came out, Material Design has successfully accomplished. I spent ten minutes trying to find the setting for a compact layout (like the Kennedy versions of Gmail and News eventually supported). Ugh.
I really do dislike it when tools start "simplifying" at the expense of their most invested users. While that cohort isn't always the most vocal, they're generally the most stable userbase. It really doesn't feel like that additional risk of abandonment is accounted for in the multi-armed bandit testing.
It practice it tends to be the exact opposite. Your most invested users tend to be the most vocal and least likely to represent the majority of your user base. The additional risk of abandonment of the entrenched super-users is usually 1. accepted in favor of appealing to a new, larger group of people 2. usually far less than those users will tell you.
To be fair, there's something that is actually more advanced.
In the settings, you can now block sources you don't ever want to see, by entering names. Before, you had to play the lottery of "wait until this stupid source with auto-generated news items based on stock tickers and press releases shows up in the right bar". That's the only place where you had the option to block them. You couldn't do it in the main section in the middle, which is where they tended to appear most often.
I just added a bunch.
Now, if I could follow Entertainment news about rock bands, without getting junk about the Kardashians and WWE...
For 8 years, this man had the option to walk humanity back from the threat of hair-trigger, launch-on-warning nuclear armageddon. An armageddon that would either destroy humanity in a single day...or perhaps merely starve a few billion in the resulting nuclear winter. From these facts alone, I know everything I need to know about his, and all US presidents, commitment to the health of their citizens, and humanity at large.
