Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

That was a bit of a drive by. 

[bknight]

That was a bit of a drive by. 

A pigeon post!!

[Abaddon]

Alrighty then. We have definitively nailed certain facts.

Timfinch cannot read graphs, cannot tell the difference between log and linear scales and cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning.

[timfinch]

http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html

I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?

That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?

[Luke Pemberton]

Timfinch cannot read graphs, cannot tell the difference between log and linear scales and cannot fathom 3D spatial reasoning.

... and is now pigeon posting.

[Luke Pemberton]

Tim

When the astronauts were exposed to the lunar regolith that smelled like gunpowder, what was their location to have been exposed to the regolith?

[timfinch]

LEO?

[Abaddon]

http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/11/what-is-the-difference-between-a-logarithmic-and-arithmetic-chart.html

I asked for your answer not some random website that does not address the specific graph I posted.

What is YOUR answer?

That is NOT an answer. I didn't ask you to post other random graphs, I asked you about the one I posted.

What is YOUR answer?

Still not an answer, timfinch.

[Luke Pemberton]

LEO?

Where must they have been to pick up lunar regolith, which is found on the surface of the moon?

(a) The surface of the moon.
(b) The surface of the moon.

or

(c) The surface of the moon.

[timfinch]

I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you.  The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander.  It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein.  They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.

[Luke Pemberton]

I thought it was obvious but let me spell it out for you.  The lunar lander had no means of decontamination of the astronauts reentering the lander.  It would not have been possible for them not to have inhaled lunar dust and been exposed to the alpha laden particles therein.  They would have known of the dangers and would never expose the astronauts to such a risk if they had indeed landed on the moon.

...but you're citing astronauts telling you they were exposed to regolith they picked up from the surface of the moon, to prove... they didn't go to the moon. That's circular reasoning.

[timfinch]

It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.

[timfinch]

You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

[Luke Pemberton]

It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.

That old chestnut of they couldn't keep a consistent story. Heard it all before. The only problem with this argument is every part of their story is corroborated with photos, transcripts of communication that came from the moon (proven by HAM radio enthusiasts), photographs, film evidence of them working in a lunar environment.

We've explained to you that the moon is not prohibitively radioactive to humans due to GCR irradiation. Please tell us the proportion of radioisotopes produced by the GCR and the half life of each of those radioisotopes.

I've also explained to you that scientists that work in particle accelerators work with proton energies typical of GCR, with fluxes much greater than GCR. Does their equipment become radioactive? No it does not. Irradiation from particles does not make other stuff radioactive. You cannot be more wrong with this illusion of the GCR making the moon's surface a radioactive wasteland.

[Luke Pemberton]

You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.

Although you did it yourself by taking the median for a less active cycle than 20. You're the one being disingenuous. Even when the numbers stare you in the face and you had your fallacy of equivalence explained to you by numerous people, you cannot accept that you were wrong in the first place.

What is really galling is that you came to this forum, having examined a graph by inspection,  found you had read a log scale wrong; and then cannot even put your hand up and say I made an error. Please, save us your sermon on being disingenuous.