Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 655749 times)

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1470 on: April 08, 2018, 02:30:39 AM »
AtomicDog, and you are like a dog with a bone.  Let's not concentrate on the box rather let us examine the contents.  If you have any appreciation for radcon procedures then you know in you heart and mind that you would never expose the astronauts to an internal radiation hazard.  You know this so why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1471 on: April 08, 2018, 02:45:16 AM »
You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.

In a reasoned debate with educated people, why should I have to show you data lower than 0.24mGy/day to prove the point that if an average[/quote] level of 0.24mGy/day exists there must by definition have been periods below and above that level?

What you're asking us to do is provide supporting data to uphold the definition of a word. Why should we do that when you are the one misusing the word?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1472 on: April 08, 2018, 02:47:40 AM »
You have no problem with using the averages of the dosimeter readings so why would you have a problem with NASA establishing an expected range of radiation based on averages?

Nowhere in the document you cite does NASA say they have established a range with a minimum of 0.24mGy/day. What they say is that is the average level recorded during solar max and that it may be expected to be higher during solar min. You are the one adding all sorts of misinterpretation to the statement.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1473 on: April 08, 2018, 02:49:59 AM »
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1474 on: April 08, 2018, 02:51:45 AM »
You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.

In a reasoned debate with educated people, why should I have to show you data lower than 0.24mGy/day to prove the point that if an average
level of 0.24mGy/day exists there must by definition have been periods below and above that level?

What you're asking us to do is provide supporting data to uphold the definition of a word. Why should we do that when you are the one misusing the word?
[/quote]
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.  It all smoothes out over the averages.  If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1475 on: April 08, 2018, 02:53:52 AM »
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.

It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.

Things like this don't help your case either.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1476 on: April 08, 2018, 03:02:44 AM »
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.  I hope this puts an end to this.  As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1477 on: April 08, 2018, 03:05:35 AM »
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.

In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.

Quote
It all smoothes out over the averages.

Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.

In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:

0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21

Or this:

0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1

Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.

Quote
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1478 on: April 08, 2018, 03:07:29 AM »
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.

It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.

Things like this don't help your case either.
You did take note that I established a solar maximum GCR as the minimum mission dose possible didn't you?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1479 on: April 08, 2018, 03:09:13 AM »
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.

That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.  The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1480 on: April 08, 2018, 03:10:59 AM »
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.

In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.

Quote
It all smoothes out over the averages.

Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.

In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:

0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21

Or this:

0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1

Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.

Quote
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
Does it make a difference?  It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses.  If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1481 on: April 08, 2018, 03:11:37 AM »
To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.

It has already been pointed out by several people, including the document you cited to keep pulling out your average GCR lelevs, that the Apollo missions happened during solar max.

Things like this don't help your case either.
You did take note that I established a solar maximum GCR as the minimum mission dose possible didn't you?

Irrelevant. The point is you suggested we'd have to do some other digging to find out when in the solar cycle the missions occurred. Clearly that is not required since the information was provided in your own source material.

ANd yes, we did note tat you established solar max as providing the minimum GCR dose, but you still don't actually have any supporting information as to what that minimum is. Only the average calculated.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1482 on: April 08, 2018, 03:14:37 AM »
I don't understand why anyone who finished high school doesn't know the difference between an arithmetic scale and a logarithmic scale.

Tim, we all know the difference between an arithmetic and a log scale. Stop shifting the goalposts and answer the question: provide evidence that the CraTer graph is not a log scale but is instead some other kind of 'exponential' scale, which is neither a log or an arithmetic scale, as you orginially stated.
This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.

That is just nonsensical. How have you determined that it is an arithmetically scaled graph? The only vaues called out on the axis are the powers of ten, which are equidistantly spaced on a log scale but not an arithmetic one. You cannot have your cake and eat it. It is one or the other.  The key difference is where you think the values, say, 20,, 30, 40, 50 etc fall between the 10 and 100 labels on the axis. Where is your evidence to answer that question?

Two ways to be sure.  You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.  The graph does that.  The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.  If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervals

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1483 on: April 08, 2018, 03:16:36 AM »
I'll catch you guys tomorrow.  It is late and I require beauty sleep to maintain my dashing good looks.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1484 on: April 08, 2018, 03:27:12 AM »
The article cited a range of 1 rem/day at solar maximum to 2.5 times that at solar minimum.  Although it is reasonable to expect to go below that range in some instances it also reasonable that you would go above that limit occasionally.

In fact it is reasonable to concude that half the data would be above and half below. That is how these calculations work, after all.

Quote
It all smoothes out over the averages.

Yes, it does, but the point you seem determined to miss is that no information is given about the actual recorded range or the time over which any data above or below the average was recorded, or the time over which the average was calculated.

In simpler terms, you have no information as to whether the data looked like this:

0.22, 0.26, 0.21, 0.27, 0.24, 0.10, 0.38, 0.20, 0.28, 0.24, 0.25, 0.23, 0.21

Or this:

0.38, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.21, 0.20, 0.1

Same average, totally different impacts in terms of when you fly the mission.

Quote
If perchance there existed an article that stated a measured reading below this value during the apollo 11 mission then I might be able to justify the low mission dosages.

You're the one making the claims about what the average actually means, so you're the one responsible for providing the data. And no matter how many time you say it, you have absolutely not done so. What you're asking us to do is rovide data to disprove your baseless interpretation.
Does it make a difference?  It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses.  If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.

Of course the cumulative dose is important. Assuming each of those numbers is a daily dose, let's see what happens if we fly a mission of five days' duration at any time during the period covered by those numbers.

First set:

Day 1-5 - 0.22+0.26+0.21+0.27+0.24 = 1.20 (mean 0.24/day)
Day 4-9 - 0.27+0.24+0.10+0.38+0.20 = 1.19 (mean 0.24/day)
Day 9-13 - 0.28+0.24+0.25+0.23+0.21 = 1.21 (mean 0.24/day)

Second set:

Day 1-5 - 0.38+0.28+0.27+0.26+0.25 = 1.44 (mean 0.29/day)
Day 4-9 - 0.26+0.25+0.24+0.24+0.23 = 1.22 (mean 0.24/day)
Day 9-13 - 0.22+0.21+0.21+0.20+0.1 = 0.94 (mean 0.19/day)

See the difference?

The fact remains you have no idea how to extrapolate the average given in your source document to any given two week lunar mission period, because there just isn't the information available to you to determine if we are looking at data more like my first or second examples. You therefore have no basis to draw your conclusion.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain