Radiation

[timfinch]

Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.

That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.

[timfinch]

The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.

[Luke Pemberton]

I have got to ask the question.  Does it make sense that averaging in the SPE induced spikes would result in an average below 0.22 mgy/day?

You really are clutching at straws. The plots that you have been shown clearly show the data regularly falls below the floor level you set, thus refuting your initial claim. If you remove the SPEs events it will decrease the mean and median. However, you have been shown in the abscence of SPE events the GCR dose falls below your threshold of 0.22 mGr/day for large periods of the solar cycle.

[Luke Pemberton]

The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.

No one disregards it. The Apollo era data is an average, so it has values above and below the value you cite. You cannot simply use average data to compare a real mission profile, as you will always have some form of discrepancy. By using an average we could present calculations that authenticate Apollo, but you will dismiss them, if we present calculations that support your claims you will embrace them. We are in a no win situation with you, as you want to make this a simple case of using an average. You want to make this problem simple, we are addressing the true complexity of the problem.

Quite frankly, coming from someone that cannot interpret a simple graph and confused radioactivity with radiation, I find it very difficult to actually take you seriously now.

Any comment on the van Allen dose calculations. I'm waiting with great interest to see you critique the method and the science behind those calculations. 

[Abaddon]

Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

You need to post your sources

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-difference-between-flares-and-cmes

and read them.

I am confused.  Are you implying the solar flares are harmless and it is the CME's that pose the greatest danger to astronauts?

No, that is your peculiar fantasy. It is risible that you attempt to foist your crankery on others. Please stop doing it.

People who engage in that level of crackpottery usually buy a ban in short order on this site. I am hoping that this will not happen in your case. It is not often that a chew toy is thrown.

[MBDK]

Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.

That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.

No, that is how things work.  If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate.  In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose.  You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.

You are the one who thinks their doses were too low.  Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position.  The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates.  You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem.  YOU made the accusation.  YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.

[Luke Pemberton]

It is not often that a chew toy is thrown.

Harsh... but fair.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

Tim, why are you entirely unable to grasp the point of this log scale business?

Where is your example of the 'exponential' scale you claim was used? The one that goes up like a log scale but with the numbers between the powers of ten equidistant? The one where the distance between 10 and 20 is the same as the distance between 300 and 400, or 8000 and 9000, or 0.005 and 0.006? That is what you were insisting the CraTer graph was, after all.

Or, prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale. Show us exactly what makes you conclude that.

Ah. See attached. Timfinch posted a graph as an example of a log graph. I reposted the exact same graph with the minor divisions removed. Timfinch was bamboozled by that. He clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

Try reading this out loud, slowly.  You can do it, I know you can.

Tim, I know what an arithmetic scale is. The point, that you seem to totally unable to grasp, is that not only is the physical distance on the scale the same for every number, so is the numerical difference. You have yet to show us that any graph exists where the marks are equidistant but the numerical difference between them is not, with the exception, as you keep missing also, of a log scale where only the powers of 10 are equidistant.

Now show us an example of your 'exponentional' scale, and prove that the CraTer graph is not a log scale, as you have been asked to do repeatedly.

[Jason Thompson]

Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

I know it takes 8 minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach earth. Why don't you comprehend the difference between the light and the particle shower? It has been explained many times already.

[Abaddon]

The fact that they disregard all of the apollo data should tell you all you need to know.

But wait, It is your claim that the Apollo data is faked and not data at all. Can you not see that there is a problem here? You cite Apollo data as real and then cite Apollo  data as evidence  of fakery.

It cannot be both.

Seems to me that you are on delusional planet sausage claiming that a carrot is a spaceship.

[Jason Thompson]

KREEP
The lunar geochemical component KREEP contains trace amounts of the radioactive elements Thorium and Uranium. Regolith dust formed from this rock is a serious health hazard.

The radiation given off is Alpha particles (helium nuclei) and they do not penetrate very effectively. The direct radiation is stopped by any pressure vessel wall and even a well designed layer of spacesuit material. The problem is that if the dust is ingested into the human body, the particles will lay directly on lung or intestine tissue and are carcinogenic. Ingestion of the dust must therefore be rigorously limited.

KREEP is concentrated in the Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms) and Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains) with a major concentration south of Crater Copernicus. This region covers about 40% of the Earth-facing side of the Moon. Based on the small number of lunar samples returned, low KREEP regions measure 8% or less of the radioactive elements in their dust compared to the high KREEP regions. With current technology, the entire high KREEP region is not acceptable for any long-term human settlement or manned mining operation.

The high KREEP region contains many sites of interest to science, particularly those of volcanic origin. Even short scientific expeditions there will require special procedures to prevent ingestion of dust and the removal of dust from all returning equipment.

Radon Gas
Another source of dangerous radiation is the radon gas that is created in the decay of trace amounts of uranium found naturally in lunar rocks. This gas is very heavy and concentrates in low areas. This type of radiation is easily stopped by even a thin layer of material, but radon is carcinogenic if ingested directly into the body.

Even though sensitive scientific equipment has been able to detect radon on Luna, the quantity of radon gas is such that it can be ignored. The lunar atmosphere is so thin that the most massive component, Argon, is present in only 30,000 particles per cubic centimeter, that is 2 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter. Radon is so scarce that it is not even mentioned in the list of components in the lunar atmosphere article. See the Moon Fact Sheet from NASA.

Radon has also been detected from lunar outgassing events.

http://lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Radiation_Problem

Repeatedly quoting the same articles is not helping your case, tim. I asked for evidence that it was an immediate health hazard. In other words that taking in lunar dust in any quantity whatsoever would be immediately dangerous. Radioactive material is all around us. You have a certain percentage of radioactive material in your body already. It's not the mere existence of radioactive decay that is the probem but the intensity and duration, as we have told you over and over again.

[Abaddon]

Realizing a solar flare travels at the speed of light,

The EM part yes, but the particle shower that is the real hazard, by definition, cannot travel at the speed of light. Why do you insist on ignoring this basic rule of physics?

There are many kinds of eruptions on the sun. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections both involve gigantic explosions of energy, but are otherwise quite different. The two phenomena do sometimes occur at the same time – indeed the strongest flares are almost always correlated with coronal mass ejections – but they emit different things, they look and travel differently, and they have different effects near planets.

Both eruptions are created when the motion of the sun’s interior contorts its own magnetic fields. Like the sudden release of a twisted rubber band, the magnetic fields explosively realign, driving vast amounts of energy into space. This phenomenon can create a sudden flash of light -- a solar flare. Flares can last minutes to hours and they contain tremendous amounts of energy. Traveling at the speed of light, it takes eight minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach Earth. Some of the energy released in the flare also accelerates very high energy particles that can reach Earth in tens of minutes.

The magnetic contortions can also create a different kind of explosion that hurls solar matter into space. These are the coronal mass ejections, also known as CMEs. One can think of the explosions using the physics of a cannon. The flare is like the muzzle flash, which can be seen anywhere in the vicinity. The CME is like the cannonball, propelled forward in a single, preferential direction, this mass ejected from the barrel only affecting a targeted area. This is the CME—an immense cloud of magnetized particles hurled into space. Traveling over a million miles per hour, the hot material called plasma takes up to three days to reach Earth. The differences between the two types of explosions can be seen through solar telescopes, with flares appearing as a bright light and CMEs appearing as enormous fans of gas swelling into space.

I know it takes 8 minutes for the light from a solar flare to reach earth. Why don't you comprehend the difference between the light and the particle shower? It has been explained many times already.

Yes. Well. My humble apologies to LO, but there comes a time to call a moron a moron. I don't much like it, but reality intrudes.

[Jason Thompson]

We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?

[Luke Pemberton]

We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.

Tim, wat exactly do you understand by the word 'average'? You keep citing this range but the article you pulled it from only ever calls the 2.4mGy/day value an average. Why do you insist on referring to it as the minimum? Average and minimum are not synonyms. I am genuinely utterly at a loss to explain this. Can you tell us why you think they mean the same thing?

... and I add that it's been explained to you that solar cycle modulates the GCR flux. The value of 0.24 is the average when solar activity is at a maximum, and the 0.60 is the average when solar activity is at a minimum. Therefore, to even consider these values as a range would be incorrect as you can only apply the average from the solar maximum to Apollo.

Further, I'd like to know if these averages are calculated by taking account of the underlying modulation. For example, is the 0.24 value an average taken for the middle 4 years of the cycle (for example).

In any case, it's been explained to you that the CRaTER data should enable you to see that values about the average can vary considerably. So you cannot use averages to define real missions, where the dose over a few days has the potential to be lower than the average.

[timfinch]

Let's work with 1/10th mission dosage.  We know that the reported range for the apollo missions during solar cycle 20 was 2.4 mgy/day to 6 mgy/day.  Now 1/10 of .22 mgy/day is .022.  Now if we add 1.35 times .24 we get .324 mgy/day while in lunar orbit assuming they spent two days in lunar orbit or on the surface of the moon you can see the total mission dosage comes up short, don't you think?

No, let's work with the actual data.  Your values for their exposures have been shown to be inconsistent with the data you did use, and irrelevant as they were from either average doses over a long time span, or taken from measurements of less intense solar cycle.  Try again. 

The actual data from Apollo is taken from their dosimeters.  Their dosimeters (as long as they functioned properly, and they would know this during their read-out) are their official, legal record for the exposure received.  An ex-nuc should already know this.

That is like defining a word by using the word.  No, if you truly want to prove the deception you can't use the liars words.  You have to corroborate the data external to the claim.  Show me the corroborating data for the apollo claims.

No, that is how things work.  If you accept the instruments aboard the radiation probes are accurate, you need to also accept that the dosimeters are accurate.  In fact they are considered more accurate overall, as this is why they are used for the legal tally of received dose.  You cannot claim one instrument works and another does not with nothing more than your own ignorance as reasoning.

You are the one who thinks their doses were too low.  Everything I have seen, INCLUDING your own source material, has not supported your position.  The data we do have is consistent with every known factor that we know can modulate those dose rates.  You refuse to accept this, and have offered NOTHING that has held up to scrutiny, but that is not my problem.  YOU made the accusation.  YOU support it, or just maybe have the integrity to admit you don't have any collaborating evidence.

I think the dosimeters are accurate and reflect and LEO mission.  If the apollo truly made a lunar transit then the available data external to the mission report should corroborate it.  It doesn't.  You could silence me by showing and NASA statement anywhere that calls out a cislunar background radiation of less than .24 mgy/day.  Show me that one little piece of data and I will apologize to the lot of you and be on my merry way.  Put your data where your mouth is.