Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

You said a lot about nothing.  GCR is the background radiation of cislunar space and aluminum provides no shielding and the Apollo craft had no hydrogenous shielding capable of attenuating GCR's so it's mission dose should reflect as a minimum the background GCR + VAB transit + 30% to 40% greater lunar exposure.  It doesn't.

I said a lot about you cherry picking data pertaining to secondary fragmentation by aluminium, particularly when you are citing research that for missions with greater integrated fluxes of high energy protons than the Apollo missions. The problem of aluminium and secondary radiation was raised by you I believe, but I'm not sure why you want to apply that issue to Apollo with its mission times. The issue lends itself well to the ISS and the SAA, but not Apollo.

Jay has already questioned you on your knowledge of fluxes for GCR > 10 MeV. That's quite important to understand the issue of GCR dose and the lack of substantial shielding in cislunar space.

[timfinch]

You guys keep bringing up comparison of astronauts exposure to various medical doses and or lethal comparisons.  I do not claim a lunar transit is necessarily lethal.  It can be if you are on the wrong side of a solar event.  What I do claim is there is a minimum exposure that you get during a lunar transit and Apollo 11 definitely did not get that minimum amount.  Their is no current testing that was done in the last 10 years that can support a lunar landing.  Everything that is available today says that it was not done 50 years ago.

[timfinch]

You said a lot about nothing.  GCR is the background radiation of cislunar space and aluminum provides no shielding and the Apollo craft had no hydrogenous shielding capable of attenuating GCR's so it's mission dose should reflect as a minimum the background GCR + VAB transit + 30% to 40% greater lunar exposure.  It doesn't.

I said a lot about you cherry picking data pertaining to secondary fragmentation by aluminium, particularly when you are citing research that for missions with greater integrated fluxes of high energy protons than the Apollo missions. The problem of aluminium and secondary radiation was raised by you I believe, but I'm not sure why you want to apply that issue to Apollo with its mission times. The issue lends itself well to the ISS and the SAA, but not Apollo.

Jay has already questioned you on your knowledge of fluxes for GCR > 10 MeV. That's quite important to understand the issue of GCR dose and the lack of substantial shielding in cislunar space.

What is your point?  Are you implying that due to the length of the Apollo mission that they did not encounter GCR or that such a small window made any GCR inconsequential?  What ever you are claiming, how does it address the point that I espouse which is Apollo 11 mission dosage is not representative of a lunar transit?

[timfinch]

I have a question for the collective.  Looking at the path the Apollo craft took through the VAB, is it safe to to assume that the lowest point of exposure was as it passed through the Southern Alantic Anomaly?  If we assumed that the background radiation of the SAA was present for the entire 2 hour transit each way, would that act as a minimum baseline in your opinion?  If not then why not?

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

[Luke Pemberton]

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

[Luke Pemberton]

What is your point?  Are you implying that due to the length of the Apollo mission that they did not encounter GCR or that such a small window made any GCR inconsequential?  What ever you are claiming, how does it address the point that I espouse which is Apollo 11 mission dosage is not representative of a lunar transit?

I'm asking you why you are cherry picking data that pertains to research conducted to address secondary radiation aboard the ISS, which undergoes transit through the SAA.

[timfinch]

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

[timfinch]

What is your point?  Are you implying that due to the length of the Apollo mission that they did not encounter GCR or that such a small window made any GCR inconsequential?  What ever you are claiming, how does it address the point that I espouse which is Apollo 11 mission dosage is not representative of a lunar transit?

I'm asking you why you are cherry picking data that pertains to research conducted to address secondary radiation aboard the ISS, which undergoes transit through the SAA.

What are you going on about?  The principles of nuclear reactions are applicable to all environments and conditions.  What is this ISS data set you are talking about?  I am at a loss to understand what you are rambling about.

[Luke Pemberton]

What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.

Good, now we are getting to the vaguery of your argument regarding the radioactivity of the moon. You are using words like possibility. You cannot quantify the relative degree of nuclear transmutations that take place, whether they are fragmentation types, secondary radiation production or radiation from isotope production. What do you know of the half lives of these isotopes you claim are produced? What proportion of the secondary radiation are pions or neutrons? What proportion of the energy is simply deposited in the target material.

It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.

The radiation is no more that that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technicians. I have friends who are X-ray technicians, and they live happy and healthy lives.

What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.

Quantify the radioactivity. Don't bother as I know you won't do that. Despite me telling you several times, why are you washing over the fact that a scientist that works on CRaTER has reported the dangers are no more than the annual dose received by workers in the nuclear industry and certain mining industries? Why do you cite CRaTER to support your case, but ignore this fact? This reminds me of those that cite Mauldin to purport evidence against the veracity of Apollo, despite Mauldin clearly writing about the authenticity of the missions. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.

The samples actually show strong indication of interactions with GCR. You are aware that exposure to ionising radiation effects materials in other ways? You do know this, right?

How radioactive should the rocks be? Again consider the half life of the isotopes you claim are produced, how the radiation from the isotopes produced compares to the natural radiation of the rocks.

Do I need to continue?

No.

[onebigmonkey]

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?

[onebigmonkey]

I have a question for the collective.  Looking at the path the Apollo craft took through the VAB, is it safe to to assume that the lowest point of exposure was as it passed through the Southern Alantic Anomaly?  If we assumed that the background radiation of the SAA was present for the entire 2 hour transit each way, would that act as a minimum baseline in your opinion?  If not then why not?

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

What makes you think they passed through the SAA?

[Luke Pemberton]

What are you going on about?  The principles of nuclear reactions are applicable to all environments and conditions.  What is this ISS data set you are talking about?  I am at a loss to understand what you are rambling about.

You raised the issue of particle fragmentation in aluminium, and I'm asking you for context.

I'm not rambling, maybe making an assumption about your reference material as I know the work of the principal researchers in this field. So, to be fair let's start again.

What data or reference source are you using regarding particle fragmentation in aluminium? It's important when discussing Apollo.

[timfinch]

I have a question for the collective.  Looking at the path the Apollo craft took through the VAB, is it safe to to assume that the lowest point of exposure was as it passed through the Southern Alantic Anomaly?  If we assumed that the background radiation of the SAA was present for the entire 2 hour transit each way, would that act as a minimum baseline in your opinion?  If not then why not?

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts

What makes you think they passed through the SAA?

The inclination of orbit for TLI?

[timfinch]

What are you going on about?  The principles of nuclear reactions are applicable to all environments and conditions.  What is this ISS data set you are talking about?  I am at a loss to understand what you are rambling about.

You raised the issue of particle fragmentation in aluminium, and I'm asking you for context.

I'm not rambling, maybe making an assumption about your reference material as I know the work of the principal researchers in this field. So, to be fair let's start again.

What data or reference source are you using regarding particle fragmentation in aluminium? It's important when discussing Apollo.

Tis is just one of many but it is light reading so it should be easily digestible.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays

[timfinch]

Any high energy particle with the energy to split an atom can cause the creation of a radioactive isotope that in turn
gives off a neuton that can cause an additional isotope formation.

Now for that gotcha moment. So any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom undergoes this mechanism, every single one? You're telling me that every single GCR with the energy to split a nucleus, will induce fission and produce secondary neutrons and produce radioactive isotopes, or are you saying that any high energy particle (GCR) with the energy to split an atom has the potential to undergo this mechanism. Be clear what I am asking you here, as I am looking for a clear distinction.

In any case, the primary point is that the secondary radiation created by GCR is no more than that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in a year. Your notion that the moon's surface is a barren radioactive wasteland that is not survivable is wrong. A point you seemed to wash over.

I am not telling you every interaction produces the fission of an atom, What I am telling you is the possibility exist at the energy levels of protons of GCR to cause fission.  It does not matter if the resultant radiation is lethal to people in the short term or even the long term.  What is important is the fact that it is radioactive.  The implications are far reaching.  If moon dust is radioactive then the samples are forgeries.  If the samples are forgeries then the landing was faked.  Do I need to continue?

What makes you think no radioactive material was recorded in Apollo samples?

The Space Suit Neil Armstrong was on display in museums and schools for years.  It was heavily coated with dust which should have been radioactive.  If it had been then it would not have been on public display.  I have researched for months looking for any indication that lunar regolith is radioactive and have found nothing.  There is indications of low levels of radiation in moon rocks but nothing on lunar dust.