Radiation

[timfinch]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.

[Abaddon]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

What? Repeating it 6 times wasn't enough?

What? Handing you the actual data on a silver platter isn't enough?

The Americans, the Russians, the Europeans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians and several private companies all agree, but you are a special snoflake, is that right?

On top of that, those of us who are graduate scientists, engineers, aerospace engineers and so forth on this board all know you are abjectly wrong and have told you so over and over. But you, who are no more than a grunt who spent some time in a submerged tube, think you know better that the enormous body of knowledge and hard work that got us to where we are. I think not.

[gillianren]

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Even I can understand where you're wrong on the background radiation issue.  Do you know how bad that makes you look?

But okay.  Let's look at this.  You are insisting that it is much more logical that it's all faked than that you don't understand something.  Things that would need to be faked without the hoax being exposed in some obvious way even decades later.

1.  The footage
2.  The photographs
3.  The live transmissions
4.  The telemetry
5.  The tracking by amateurs
6.  The tracking by powers hostile to the US
7.  The soil samples
8.  The rock samples
9.  The fact that the Apollo stack was a naked-eye object while in LEO
10.  The remnants of the landings left so that future probes have imaged them

Am I missing anything?  I'm sure I am.  But that they somehow faked that is more logical than that you don't understand something?

[Abaddon]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.

Again?

[molesworth]

I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.  I am sure most of you were unaware that the surface of the moon was so radioactive that the radiation from the surface of the moon raises the background radiation in lunar orbit by 30 to 40%.  Now do I need to inform everyone that radiation from a plane source diminishes as a function of distance, so that it is reasonable to assume the surface radiation is greater than the radiation reflected back into lunar orbit.  Let us discuss the implication of these facts.

Lunar dust doesn't have a "radioactive alpha particle content", it contains isotopes which emit alpha particles.  I'm no radiation expert, but even I know that (and have undestood the distinction since high school).

What you haven't quantified is the level of risk presented by the dust, and the expected health impact of short-term exposure.  For example, are the health risks higher or lower than for uranium miners, coal miners, nuclear workers, or any other similar group?

[Abaddon]

Why am I the only voice of dissention?

Frankly, because you are the one harbouring crank beliefs.

What do you guys do when I am not here, stroke each others egos and massage each others sensibilities?

We wait for the next loon with the next version of crankery.

If this was truly a useful site there would be a healthy discourse but all I here is one voice.  What is up with that?

Healthy discourse might happen if you ceased with the lies.

[Luke Pemberton]

I am sure until I brought the subject up, most of you were unaware that moon dust was a health hazard due to it's radioactive alpha particle content.

My bold. So the moon dust contains alpha particle and the alpha particles are radioactive. Words have meanings, and you don't know what they mean.

[timfinch]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

[gillianren]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

[timfinch]

We continue to fuss over the aesthetics and refuse to embrace the issue.  Is that a bit disingenuous?

[Luke Pemberton]

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

That's easy then. The figure you cite is an average, therefore by definition there are occurrences where the GCR background is less than 0.24.

Case closed your honour! We're done then.

[Abaddon]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.

But you yourself posted the data that proves you wrong. If you are unable to read your own data nobody here can help you. Seek a remedial course at your nearest school.

[timfinch]

Gillanren,  let me say it again.  I don't have to know how the magic trick was accomplished.  knowing that there is no magic is sufficient.  The fact that only the apollo mission have seen man leave the confines of the VAB and then only during the late sixties and early seventies.  if it was so easy that it could be accomplished with less computing power than that of a hand held calculator you have to know that with the advances made in the interim it should be a breeze.  After all, the hard part had already been accomplished...eight times...

The hard part is the budget.

It would be except for the fact that every major industrial nation desires to go the moon.  The Japanese, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, The French,Germans, Italians, and a host of others.  Private ventures are in place to send tourist to the moon.  Money is not the issue.

[gillianren]

No, what's disingenuous is your belief that you have somehow revealed an issue that no one in fifty years has ever thought of before that tanks the Apollo missions even if literally everything else about it holds up.  What's disingenuous is your belief that a single thing is enough to destroy all the other evidence, even if you can't explain how any of the fake worked.  The simple fact is, you are wrong about standards of evidence.  "I don't understand [thing]" is still the more likely explanation than "therefore it's all fake."  You can't admit it.  Ergo, you are the one who is arguing from a perspective of faith.

[bknight]

Gillianren, you are like that wild eyed spectator, who after watching a magician perform a magic trick is convinced that because she knows of know way to accomplish the feat then it truly must be magic.  To you I say nay, moose breath.  If a thing can't be then it isn't.  It doesn't matter that I know how the trick is performed, all I need to know is that it can't be done and as a consequence it must be a trick.

In short, nothing will convince you that you're wrong?  Please answer this question either "no, nothing will convince me I am wrong" or "yes, [thing] will convince me I am wrong."

I told you befor and I will repeat it.  I will be convinced I am wrong if they do it again and do so with similar mission dosages.  I will also admit to being wrong if anyone can provide data to indicate that GCR background radiation was significantly less than the .24 mgy/data NASA claims existed during the apollo missions. So in a word "Yes" I can be convinced I am wrong.

Data does need to be significantly lower to average out to .24, just have sufficient number of lower values.

Show me the data and I will be silenced.

I'm not sure that the Apollo missions recorded continuous radiation data as did CRaTER or the Curiosity voyage.  However you have been show in tow separate calculations that the data if recorded would have met the average value of .24, If anyone knows whether or not the values were stored on a continuous basis or just calculated the average from the dosimeter divided by the number of days?  I suspect that is how the number was derived.
But with the CRaTER data dipping below .2 for long periods of time in a greater flux environment than Apollo leads to a conclusion that the data for 69-72 would be lower than the CRaTER data.