Radiation

[Obviousman]

1 mrem/hr = .24 mgy/day
1 mrem =.01 mgy

And the quoted figure to which you applied those calculations?

[nomuse]

Yeah, I see it.

I see we have to add significant figures to the list of things Tim needs to learn about.

What now?  You don't like this number or is it the source of this number?  Why are you unhappy, It is written in black and white?

Sometimes the timing is just perfect:

So realizing that NASA itself claims a baseline GCR level (.24 mgy/day) greater than the daily mission dose of Apollo 11 (.22 mgy/day) you can see the source of my consternation can't you?

Yes, I can certainly see a sense of consternation. Someone paid those teachers and instructors. Someone actually graduated you.

[timfinch]

Raven, how do you like me now?

Showing your ignorance yet again. Nothing there says we saw it as clear or that blue was 'invented'. If the sky had been clear, we'd just see the sky as . . . black, which we'd never have identified with a hypothetical clear glaze that somehow later became called blue. Plus, you said 400 years, and even the article says the first mention of blue in a language was from 4,500 years.

That is just one of many articles on the subject.  I slipped a decimal point.  It happens.

[timfinch]

NOMUSE,  do you accept that GCR for apollo 11 was .24 mgy/day or do you have a different number that you think is more appropriate?

[nomuse]

Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"

[timfinch]

Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"

The whole point is lost on you isn't it?  You are one of those kids that find the box the toy came in more interesting than the toy aren't you?

[nomuse]

Tim, last year one of our engineers asked me to lathe a part to 120.00 millimeters. I went back to him to clarify the drawing. Do you understand why that conversation needed to take place?

[timfinch]

Tim, last year one of our engineers asked me to lathe a part to 120.00 millimeters. I went back to him to clarify the drawing. Do you understand why that conversation needed to take place?

You are a bit dense?

[raven]

Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.

Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

[onebigmonkey]

NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.

[nomuse]

Now, if you had said "humans didn't perceive it as a specific color" we might have sighed and moved on. Saying it was CLEAR is wrong. The tree is still falling and making a sound, regardless of whether there are ears to record it, much less the word, "Timber!!"

The whole point is lost on you isn't it?  You are one of those kids that find the box the toy came in more interesting than the toy aren't you?

What's the toy in this box? I don't think I was ever clear on what point you were trying to make.

[timfinch]

NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.

Looking under NASA's dress are we?  So because NASA did not outline the source of it's research in the article you discount it as fictitious.  In the absence of any conflicting data what choice have you but to accept it at its face value?

[nomuse]

Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.

Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

And boy, does lapis lazuli get around in ancient texts (I swear, if I have to read one more person described as having hair of lapis lazuli.......!)

[timfinch]

Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.

Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

Did you forget what got you to this point?  I claimed color is learned, right?  Did I not prove  that?

[timfinch]

Tell me,  is it difficult to go through life with little or no intellectual integrity?  If I were like you guys I would have rope burns on my neck.