Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 650331 times)

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1500 on: April 08, 2018, 09:42:55 AM »
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.


Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me.  We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?
No, you are intentionally posting abject nonsense with no aim other than to get the crank badge of honour, a ban.

That is all you are doing, no more, no less.

For your own reasons you are unaware that you are thus portraying yourself as an idiot. It is obviously an act. If, as it seems, you wish to be seen by everyone as an idiot, then have at it. Knock yourself out.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1501 on: April 08, 2018, 10:19:30 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.
Then Howcome you were utterly unable to answer my question about a simple graph?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1502 on: April 08, 2018, 10:59:42 AM »
Two ways to be sure.  You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.  The graph does that.

And your proof of that is what? Show me any data point on that graph that is converted and not just plotted.

Quote
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.

No, it doesn't. It has a bunch of dotted lines which line up with the major divisions on each axis. As has already been pointed out, you can see this is certainly true if you look at the 100 point on the y-axis. There are no minor divisions marked on the y-axis.
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 11:13:44 AM by timfinch »

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1503 on: April 08, 2018, 11:06:15 AM »
While we're discussing KREEP:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/

Quote
KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12

Think about that Tim.

I see were you are going.  Because Kreep had not been discovered, it was not a danger for the apollo 11 crew.  Why didn't I think of that?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1504 on: April 08, 2018, 11:10:04 AM »
The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle

Tim  do you understand the following points:

1: GCR is modulated by slar flux: higher solar activity = lower GCR
2: Solar cycle 24 (the CraTer data) was less active than solar cycle 20
3: It therefore follows that whatever the lower values in cycle 24, cycle 20 would have experienced overall lower CGR because of the higher solar flux in cycle 20?
Did you not forget that at the first sign of CraTer Data rejection, I wanted to move on.  It is others that insist we reinvent the wheel and break the chart down.  I am a victim in this train wreck.  I am willing to use the CraTer day but I don't think anyone will like the results I provide so let's let it go.  OK?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1505 on: April 08, 2018, 11:12:09 AM »
why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?

You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.
This attitude is very odd from someone who claims to have worked with nuclear vessels, but, yes, it's literally impossible avoid all radiation, given that the food we eat and therefore our bodies contains traces of radioactive isotopes. If my boyfriend spends the night, I am exposed to more radiation than if I sleep alone. Sure doesn't stop me from wanting that as frequently as feasible, and I certainly don't fear any health risks as a result.
What is odd is you compare two unrelated things and arrive at what you believe is a sane conclusion.  Now that is just strange.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1506 on: April 08, 2018, 11:15:43 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. 
Really?

You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.
Correct.
The graph does that.
Wrong.
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.
Oops, utterly wrong.

If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervals
Wrong.

What is your answer about my graph?

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1507 on: April 08, 2018, 11:17:28 AM »
I have answered all except one and that is because he is dishonest.  I m the one that is being left unanswered.  I have asked for one data point.  A single one and yet no answers me.

Several people have repeated shown you how you're misinterpreting the radiation data. They have asked you to look at the data instead of the graph. They have asked you to import the data into Excel and generate a graph yourself, just like they have done. You have refused to do that. Why?

Maybe you should follow the thread.  I have actually did that and posted the results.


Maybe you should be careful about the kind of attitude you direct at me. I'll let the people asking you the questions decide whether you responded adequately.
Maybe you should be careful in how you accuse me.  We wouldn't want everyone to think that you are not impartial and are trying to railroad me out of here now would we?
No, you are intentionally posting abject nonsense with no aim other than to get the crank badge of honour, a ban.

That is all you are doing, no more, no less.

For your own reasons you are unaware that you are thus portraying yourself as an idiot. It is obviously an act. If, as it seems, you wish to be seen by everyone as an idiot, then have at it. Knock yourself out.

I am sure you believe that I have fostered an unrelenting respect for your keen intellect and powers of reasoning, right.  Well, hang on to that thought, rare jewels are valuable.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1508 on: April 08, 2018, 11:19:35 AM »
Concentrations of Thorium and Uranium from Granitic Rocks in NW Spain

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969705002032

Uranium concentrations in the rock varied between 5.3 and 27.7 mg kg-1 and Thorium concentrations from 5.5 to 50.7 mg kg-1

Concentrations of radioactive elements in lunar materials

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/97JE03267

If you look at the table, there's a whole range of samples, from evolved rocks, KREEP rich impact breccias, mare basalts. This pretty much covers the lunar sample set, and lo and behold the concentration of Uranium and Thorium are quoted in units of micro grams kg-1.

There's a lovely logarithmic graph too, showing a plot of the concentrations.

Therefore, we can conclude, at least in one instance, that soils on Earth contain higher concentrations of Uranium and Thorium by mass. Looks like we are going to have to evacuate most of Cornwall and Dundee.

Tim, do you know how the moon was formed?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 11:49:26 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1509 on: April 08, 2018, 11:22:24 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. 
Really?

You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.
Correct.
The graph does that.
Wrong.
The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.
Oops, utterly wrong.

If it had been a logarithmic graph then the tick marks would have been spaced at logarithmic intervals
Wrong.

What is your answer about my graph?

My answer to your graph question is google up an image of a logarithmic graph and figure out why the CraTer graph does not look like that image.  I have tried to spoon feed you but you won't swallow ;-)

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1510 on: April 08, 2018, 11:31:17 AM »
Here, I googled it for you.  Does the CraTer graph look like this?  This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1511 on: April 08, 2018, 11:33:09 AM »

My answer to your graph question is google up an image of a logarithmic graph and figure out why the CraTer graph does not look like that image.  I have tried to spoon feed you but you won't swallow ;-)
No tim, my question requires a single word answer. "Log" or "Linear".

The reason that you are incapable of providing a single word answer and resort to irrelevant google searches is that you don't know. Sure, you try to hide your abject ignorance by posting hastily googled images of no relevance, but the established fact that you have no clue what you are talking about remains for all to see. This thread will be cited everywhere you try to present such BS all over the internet.

Face it. Your credibility is not a boomerang. Once you throw it away, it isn't coming back.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1512 on: April 08, 2018, 11:34:04 AM »
Jason, this is really getting embarrassing.  Simply plot the raw data and see if it matches the CraTer data graph.  Then convert the plot to log and see if it matches.  Come on man!

I have already told you this is exactly what I did. When the CraTer data are plotted in Excel and the y-axis changed to a log scale they do indeed match up. In fact it was you who repeatedly refused to do this simple exercise.
"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 Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1513 on: April 08, 2018, 11:34:22 AM »
Here, I googled it for you.  Does the CraTer graph look like this?  This can't be has hard as you are making it seem.
And this is what kind of graph?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1514 on: April 08, 2018, 11:35:02 AM »
Did you not forget that at the first sign of CraTer Data rejection, I wanted to move on.  It is others that insist we reinvent the wheel and break the chart down.  I am a victim in this train wreck.  I am willing to use the CraTer day but I don't think anyone will like the results I provide so let's let it go.  OK?

Evasion of questions noted, thank you. You didn't want to move on, you wanted to abandon it the moment the flaws in your interpretation were pointed out.
"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