Radiation

[bknight]

its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol

He has yet to join and remains in YT where he can post nonsense without a lot of contradiction.

[JayUtah]

its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol

And I wish I could point you to the IMDb debate forum where Jarrah White had his head handed to him on this very point.  Tatters of the debate are still there, but Jarrah went back and deleted all his posts so that he could make up whatever he wanted about how it went.  The climax came when he posted one of his profanity-laced diatribes for which he was once justly infamous.  He knew IMDb moderators would delete it, whereupon he could claim that he was being censored, since by that time the debate wasn't going well for him.  That guy is a real piece of work.

Anyway, Jarrah demonstrated in that debate that he couldn't tell the difference between a merely detectable flare and one that had any sort of significance for biology or engineering.  He couldn't do the basic calculus needed to compute fluences (integration of flux/energy over time, which provide a basis for estimating biological effect).  He couldn't describe the difference between classes and types of solar events.  He couldn't describe the basic concepts behind any of the measurements in the tables he was quoting.  One of the other participants who lived in Jarrah's town arranged for Jarrah to present his findings before actual astrophysicists right there.  Jarrah ignored it.  As I said above, the point is not to be swayed by ignorant handwaving about Big Scary Numbers.

[benparry]

lol that doesn't surprise me at all. I remember watching a video on YT entitled why Jarrah is wrong regarding radiation. it was quite amazing. I think Jarrah fits into my psychology point on a previous thread. He believes because he wants to. I was part of a FB group not too long back that contained a member who described you Jay as clueless lol this was the very same man who said that NASA used moonbounce to fool the world into believing they were receiving signals from space. another gent from that group tried to tell me he couldn't believe that 18 tonne of LM just floated on down to the moon. when I explained to him his error I didn't get a reply lol

[Bryanpoprobson]

Jarrah believes because it would destroy his little business empire if he didn’t.

[Count Zero]

its's quite interesting Jay but Tim's final try on this was to share with me a page from Moon fakers website.

it quoted the 1400 flares detected and i knew i had seen that on your website. i shared that with Tim while politely pointing out that Moon Faker is the work of Jarrah lol

And I wish I could point you to the IMDb debate forum where Jarrah White had his head handed to him on this very point.  Tatters of the debate are still there...

Sadly, not even those remain.  IMDB closed and deleted all of their discussion fora a year or two ago.

[benparry]

Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated I think he still wants to post some comments but he has asked if I can copy and paste a question here for anyone’s thoughts

Ben, can you do me a favor?  It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me, so I was wondering if you could post this comment for me:  If we remove the Van Allen Belt from consideration and only consider GCR exposure in cislunar space, it can be seen that based on the 7 month data of the MSL/RAD that background radiation is approximately 450 ugy (.45 mgy) per day.  This would indicate that as a base line all lunar flights should have as a minimum exposure rate of at least .45 mgy/day.  If consideration is given to the fact that GCR radiation is 20 times more damaging and shielding for GCR is best provide by hydrogenous material, then the baseline should be at least a magnitude higher.  Of the Nine lunar missions, 5 achieved daily doses of approximately .4 mgy/day or higher, while four didn't.  If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment then all but one of the flights (Apollo 14) show uncharacteristically low exposure rates.  How do you explain this?

[Mag40]

Sadly, not even those remain.  IMDB closed and deleted all of their discussion fora a year or two ago.

There is this debate if you can call it that, which covers radiation and features Jarrah White being very rude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130321060652/http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com:80/group/apollo-hoax/message/224?threaded=1&var=1

As you can see Jarrah really does get fairly well battered by jayutah!

[JayUtah]

"...should be magnitude higher" is not how it works.  Gray is a measure of absorbed dose.  The quality factor for biological purposes does not enter into it in the way he's attempting.  Further, while low atomic number materials are optimal, that doesn't mean that other materials like aluminum are unsatisfactory or ineffective.  Aluminum is, in fact, the material of choice for unmanned equipment shielding.  GCR fluctuates.  7-month averaged data cannot be expected to match 2-week averaged data.

Who's more likely to be right?  The entire astrophysics community, or a guy from YouTube named Tim?  That's not meant to be insulting; it's a serious question.  The world's astrophysics community is well aware of the reports from Apollo.  And there are plenty of fully qualified astrophysicists, health physics specialists, and the like who are not at all sympathetic to the United States and have no reason to keep whatever secrets people think the U.S. is keeping.  The only people who seem to question the Apollo approach to handling radiation seem to have just Googled their way along within a short time of making the claim.  Why isn't the parsimonious conclusion that radiometry is not as simple as claimants make it out to be?

[JayUtah]

It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me...

It will, but LunarOrbit (who approves the accounts) checks in only every so often.  This is actually a fairly low-traffic site.  Nothing nefarious, you can assure him.  The debate side of the forum only works if there are people to offer debatable opinions and arguments.

[benparry]

brill thanks again jay i'll let him know

[bknight]

It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me...

It will, but LunarOrbit (who approves the accounts) checks in only every so often.  This is actually a fairly low-traffic site.  Nothing nefarious, you can assure him.  The debate side of the forum only works if there are people to offer debatable opinions and arguments.

Yes and IF he has had an account that was banned the same IP address won't be allowed back into the forum.  LO is good at detecting socks. 

[Jason Thompson]

If we remove the Van Allen Belt from consideration and only consider GCR exposure in cislunar space, it can be seen that based on the 7 month data of the MSL/RAD that background radiation is approximately 450 ugy (.45 mgy) per day.

For that 7 month period, yes. What did the data in that period actually look like? I'm currently doing a project investigating news reports of the ISS in the British press, and over a 20 year period there's an average that is heavily skewed by the fact that reporting on Tim Peake's mission in 2015/2016 meant that more articles appeared in the press in that period than in the rest of the 20 years put together. Large peaks and high variability skew averages badly. The cislunar radiation environment is heavily dependent on the Sun, and we know that's not a steady source, with quiescent periods and flares of widely ranging magnitudes.

This would indicate that as a base line all lunar flights should have as a minimum exposure rate of at least .45 mgy/day.

No. See above. Also consider the rain analogy. You can't conclude, based on average rainfall, that everyone going outdoors on any given day should come in with a minimum level of wetness.

If consideration is given to the fact that GCR radiation is 20 times more damaging

The source for that claim is what? And again, 20 times more damaging than what? Radiation doesn't scale that way. Few things do. Too many variables are being ignored. Another analogy: people have survived being impaled with huge objects, but other have died from a relatively tiny gunshot wound.

and shielding for GCR is best provide by hydrogenous material,

Best doesn't mean only, and in terms of spacecraft there are other considerations besides effectiveness of radiation shielding that have to be taken into account. Structural and thermal properties for starters.

then the baseline should be at least a magnitude higher.

No, for the reasons given.

If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment

Which parts of the VAB, what levels and kinds of radiation are there, and how intense were they?

Your friend is still making too many oversimplified assumptions about radiation. Jay's question is valid: these data have been published for decades, and if no actual experts in the relevant fields are finding fault with it, why does your friend think his conclusions are valid?

[bknight]

Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated I think he still wants to post some comments but he has asked if I can copy and paste a question here for anyone’s thoughts

Ben, can you do me a favor?  It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me, so I was wondering if you could post this comment for me:  If we remove the Van Allen Belt from consideration and only consider GCR exposure in cislunar space, it can be seen that based on the 7 month data of the MSL/RAD that background radiation is approximately 450 ugy (.45 mgy) per day.  This would indicate that as a base line all lunar flights should have as a minimum exposure rate of at least .45 mgy/day.  If consideration is given to the fact that GCR radiation is 20 times more damaging and shielding for GCR is best provide by hydrogenous material, then the baseline should be at least a magnitude higher.  Of the Nine lunar missions, 5 achieved daily doses of approximately .4 mgy/day or higher, while four didn't.  If the 4 hours plus trips through the VAB are included in the assessment then all but one of the flights (Apollo 14) show uncharacteristically low exposure rates.  How do you explain this?

Ben, please post a link to this YT video.  I searched today and couldn't find this specific one.

[LunarOrbit]

Hey guys just got a message from Tim asking if his account had been activated

It doesn't look like that web site is going to admit me

I think I have just approved the account. It was the only one with Tim in the name anyway. I apologize for the delay. I often only check the forum using the Tapatalk app on my phone, and it doesn't notify me of new members.

[timfinch]

Thanks for the add.  Let me start off by saying that I don't necessarily believe it is impossible to travel to the moon.  I believe that current technology has not advanced to the point that it can be done safely.  I believe sixties technology was wholly incapable.  I believe the Apollo missions to the moon if they occurred at all were unmanned.  I believe the truth of the deception can be deduced from the space mission data conducted this century.  I am ready to prove my beliefs.  Let's do this.