Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

Show me on this graph...

NO, for the love of god, the actual NUMBERS!

How difficult is this for you to understand? Earlier in the thread you were shown a set of numbers copied and pasted from the data that graph is based on. You have those numbers at your disposal via the link on the graph for the GCR rate. You can look at the DATA. Why will you not do it?

[Luke Pemberton]

Show me on this graph...

NO, for the love of god, the actual NUMBERS!

How difficult is this for you to understand? Earlier in the thread you were shown a set of numbers copied and pasted from the data that graph is based on. You have those numbers at your disposal via the link on the graph for the GCR rate. You can look at the DATA. Why will you not do it?

I've produced a screenshot that illustrates example numbers. It was not difficult to pop into a spreadsheet and put in a conditional format.

I understand the CAPS LOCKS frustration, but once more this leads to me the usual conclusion of this is (a) wilful ignorance or (b) inability to grasp the underlying information.

I'm going with (b) and the I've quickly scanned this on the internet... therefore it means lions are herbivores that eat pink penguins.

I'm still deciding whether it's I realise I am wrong, but I will carry on regardless now.

[Jason Thompson]

Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.

[Jason Thompson]

I've produced a screenshot that illustrates the numbers. It was not difficult to pop into a spreadsheet and put in a conditional format.

And very nice it is too, thank you.

Tim, for reference, this is how actual science works. When we have a graph and the data at our disposal, actual analysis is done on the data, not by blowing up the graph and trying to figure out where a line falls.

[timfinch]

I have looked at the numbers and I cannot begin to imagine how you believe Apollo 11 could have operated in cislunar space, transited the VAB and landed on the moon and have received only .22 mgy/day.

Thag is NOT what I asked. Do you acknowledge that GCR rates less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in the data you presented to us or not?

Show me on this graph where you see a dose rate of less than .2 mgy/day.  I blew it up and still don't see it.  I would have used the graph from 1969 but it was expended when the astronauts ran out of toilet paper.

I have attached a section of data used to plot the graph. I ran the whole set of data through a spreadsheet - in excess of 64000 days worth of data. Not quite the computations that require a computer the size of tennis court, but nonetheless I hope this helps.

There are 6 detectors abroad CRaTER. The green cells highlight those detectors that meet your requirement, the green cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day. The red cells where the dose is greater 0.22 mGy/day.

On a particular day, the percentage of times when all detectors were below your requirement was 64%. Now remember, this data is taken in cycle 24. Apollo occurred in cycle 20 where solar activity was greater.

The values in the cells are in cGy/day.

That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.  I could be wrong in this matter but it seems plausible on the surface.

[Luke Pemberton]

Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.

Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest 

[Jason Thompson]

Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest 

Sorry, that was addressed to Tim. I know you can interpret a log graph correctly.

[Luke Pemberton]

That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.  I could be wrong in this matte but it seems plausible on the surface.

It's not impressive really.

If all the numbers are less than 0.22 mGr/day and you take an average, will your average be:

• greater than 0.22 mGr/day?
• less than 0.22mGr/day?

[timfinch]

Also, you are not interpreting the y-axis correctly. Most of those dotted lines correspond to the x-axis divisions. This is a logarithmic y-axis. There are no subdivisions marked between the major graduations. This matches with the numbers.

If you chose to interpret as logarithmic that is your prerogative.  Just because the axis is exponential does not make the graph logarithmic.    We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic. 

[Jason Thompson]

That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.

And what average do you expect when you take a bunch of values for a given day that are all below 0.22?

Now do you, or do you not, acknowledge that the data does show that GCR rates of less than 0.2mGy/day were recorded in that data set?

[Luke Pemberton]

Phew... for a minute. I was of course being flippant when I said 'I probably won't understand his explanation.' given the patronising tone. Honest 

Sorry, that was addressed to Tim. I know you can interpret a log graph correctly.

I know, but when you joined the fray tonight, I thought for a minute you accepted Tim's point of the ordinate being exponential. It's only now you came back to that issue.

It's the weight you carry on this forum. I walked off for a minute muttering to myself when you first posted... 'I'm sure it's logarithmic, but I'll take Jason's word here.'

[timfinch]

That is quite impressive but I was of the opinion that to obtain an accurate indication of exposure because each of the detectors are different that you had to average the values.  I could be wrong in this matte but it seems plausible on the surface.

it's not impressive really.

If all the numbers are less than 0.22 mg/day and you take an average, will your average be:

greater than 0.22?
less than 0.22?

What are you saying?  The graph doesn't represent the actual data?  Tell me it isn't so.  How can we trust scientist if they can used a spreadsheet to reproduce a graph.  Preposterous!

[Jason Thompson]

We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.

How, exactly? SHow me, precisely, how that y-axis is anyhting but logarithmic. Considering that there are two sets of dotted lines, one corresponding to x-axis divisions and one to y-axis. Especially note the posiition of the horizontal line where the 10^0 y-axis value is.

Now tell me why I should interpret that graph as anything other than an industry standard logaithmic scale, and the answer the question I have asked you half a dozen times now. WHy will you not look at the numbers?

[bknight]

So it is recap time once again.

1.  I am wrong in believing Apollo 11"s reported mission daily dose does not represent of an actual lunar transit.
2.  I am wrong in believing the lunar surface is radioactive.
3.  I am wrong in believing that GCR levels have never been recorded lower than .2mgy/day
4.  I am wrong in believing that a transit of 4 hours through the VAB following any path will add a significant radiation dose.
5.  I am wrong in believing that a lunar orbit is a higher exposure rate than travel in deep space and cislunar space.
6.  Finally, I am wrong in believing no lunar mission can have a dose rate less than background radiation of cislunar space.

Did I cover everything?

If this set of statements is your admission that yes Apollo missions occurred as recorded. Further you participated in two forums and have had you head handed to you and finally an admission of error is really good.
If you mean it welcome back to the real world.

[Luke Pemberton]

We must agree to disagree but I think the graph would work against you if it was logarithmic.

The ordinate is logarithmic as it goes up in powers of 10. The graph cannot work against us, because as we've pointed out the graph shows the trends, but the numbers support the analysis. That's how science is done.