Author Topic: Radiation  (Read 655766 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1515 on: April 08, 2018, 11:36:10 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.

TIm, what happens to that plot if you take out the minor gridlines and leave in only the powers of 10, as in the CraTer graph? Repeatedly posting an image of a log graph as if it proves your point is not actually answering the 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 Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1516 on: April 08, 2018, 11:36:42 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.

Forget the graph Tim. You can say it exponential or arithmetic (whatever, I'm beyond caring), I'll be happy with calling it logarithmic.

The simple point being you managed to misread the graph, arrived at the board telling us the CRaTER data never fell below your threshold value. That's because you misread the graph. That's the nuts and bolts of this argument? When presented with the data, you had that 'uh oh I was wrong moment' and are now trying to back pedal. That's the truth, and you've managed to dig a deeper hole as you just throw more cut and pastes in the hope that something sticks.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 11:48:41 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 Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1517 on: April 08, 2018, 11:41:54 AM »
One further point: exactly what 'log' do you propose the data are converted to, Tim? You'll note much of it (all except a bunch of SPEs) is less than 1. Logarithmic conversion of a number between 0 and 1 provides a negative number. So where are these converted vaues on the CraTer graph?
"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 #1518 on: April 08, 2018, 11:44:03 AM »
If only they hadn't plotted that CraTer data using dotted gridlines this whole business might have been avoided. However, the point about equidistant minor tick marks remains, since a close look at where the y-axis graduations and the dots fall will show they are not actually marking off anything between the numbers, especially if you look at the poisition of the 100 mark on the y-axis.
"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 molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1519 on: April 08, 2018, 12:13:38 PM »
...

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.
Oh no!!  Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again?  :o

Quote
Tim, do you know how the moon was formed?
Well, to quote Britain's answer to Elon Musk, after deep and careful analysis - "I don't know lad... it's like no cheese I've ever tasted..."
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 12:16:02 PM by molesworth »
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1520 on: April 08, 2018, 12:26:25 PM »
Just for fun, let's compare the CraTer graph (top) with the one I made.

Step 1: download data
Step 2: plot the same data sets on a graph
Step 3: Format y-axis to logarithmic scale.
Step 4: Set the axis range to match the CraTer graph (0.0001 to 10000)

That is literally all I did, except change the colours to match. Now, Tim, I have done what you asked. Tell me again how the CraTer graph is not a log scale, given the near-identity observed here.
"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 nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1521 on: April 08, 2018, 12:28:26 PM »
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.

Bolding mine.

Only an end to any hope of you learning how to read graphs.


Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1522 on: April 08, 2018, 12:32:07 PM »
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.
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

...

Returning to my previous question :
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself.  I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted.  Luke has provided some relevant information however.

Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it?  If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1523 on: April 08, 2018, 12:32:41 PM »
Also I have zoomed in on the axis to show how what Tim thinks are minor tick marks on the y-axis are actually nothing of the kind. They are merely dotten gridlines corresponding to the x-axis divisions, which unfortunately in this case lie right alongside the y-axis in this presentation of the graph. That is all.
"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 bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1524 on: April 08, 2018, 12:39:48 PM »
Just for fun, let's compare the CraTer graph (top) with the one I made.

Step 1: download data
Step 2: plot the same data sets on a graph
Step 3: Format y-axis to logarithmic scale.
Step 4: Set the axis range to match the CraTer graph (0.0001 to 10000)

That is literally all I did, except change the colours to match. Now, Tim, I have done what you asked. Tell me again how the CraTer graph is not a log scale, given the near-identity observed here.

Obviously as many have pointed out to tim, the values for less than .24 or .22 (don't know which value you are bonding with) exist in roughly .5 of the time plotted.  And for a bonus, again as many have tried to tell you this data was recorded in a period of sun cycles where those value would be generally higher than those of the 69-72 time period.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 12:41:40 PM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1525 on: April 08, 2018, 12:41:10 PM »
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.
What that should tell you Jason is excel is converting the raw data into logarithmic data and plotting it against an exponential arithmetic scale.  This is not a difficult concept to embrace.  The sale is defined by it's type and units of measure.  If it is in exponentials or natural og or logarithms or what ever.  Why can't we let this go?  It is like a toothache.

Offline timfinch

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
  • BANNED
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1526 on: April 08, 2018, 12:55:06 PM »
In a more serious vein, thanks for finding these Luke.
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

...

Returning to my previous question :
When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?
Tim, you fobbed me off, suggesting I google the answers to these questions myself.  I admit I haven't spent much time on it - at this time of year weekends are taken up more by boat maintenance than anything else - but I haven't found the information I wanted.  Luke has provided some relevant information however.

Since you apparently do have information on the risks and likely doses from short-term dust inhalation, as opposed to the dangers of long-stay colonisation, perhaps you can indulge me and at least post the references to it?  If dust inhalation over a few days is extremely dangerous, then what medical effects would you expect to see in Apollo astronauts if they were on the moon?

Does anyone ever read the articles?  It clearly states :
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.  How can it be more plainly stated.  If you are looking for an amount in grams then I have no answer but consider this article:  Apollo Chronicles: The Mysterious Smell of Moondust01.30.06
Long after the last Apollo astronaut left the moon, a mystery lingers: Why does moondust smell like gunpowder?
Moondust. "I wish I could send you some," says Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan. Just a thimbleful scooped fresh off the lunar surface. "It's amazing stuff."

Feel it--it's soft like snow, yet strangely abrasive.

Taste it--"not half bad," according to Apollo 16 astronaut John Young.

Sniff it--"it smells like spent gunpowder," says Cernan.

How do you sniff moondust?

Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan rests inside the lunar module Challenger. There are smudges of dust on his longjohns and forehead.
Every Apollo astronaut did it. They couldn't touch their noses to the lunar surface. But, after every moonwalk (or "EVA"), they would tramp the stuff back inside the lander. Moondust was incredibly clingy, sticking to boots, gloves and other exposed surfaces. No matter how hard they tried to brush their suits before re-entering the cabin, some dust (and sometimes a lot of dust) made its way inside.

Once their helmets and gloves were off, the astronauts could feel, smell and even taste the moon.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/30jan_smellofmoondust.html

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1527 on: April 08, 2018, 12:58:12 PM »
The scale is defined by it's type and units of measure.

No it's not. The scaling is defined by the dynamic range of the data.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 01:01:38 PM 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 Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Radiation
« Reply #1528 on: April 08, 2018, 01:01:26 PM »
Oh no!!  Do you think my boss would accept it as a reasonable excuse for not going in to work, well, ever again?  :o

I assume your refer to Dundee, the Granite City. Now known as the City of Imminent Radioactive Death.
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 #1529 on: April 08, 2018, 01:12:31 PM »
I want to point out that I have been against using CraTer data ever since the first cry of foul.  For those of you unwilling to let this CraTer thing die a quick death remember this one fact.  The detector has six lenses sensitized to specific bands and types of radiation and that the effective dose is a summation and not an average of the detectors.  So does anyone still want to play with the CraTer data?