Radiation

[timfinch]

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

[Jason Thompson]

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

It is based on orders of magnitude, rather than a standard linear scale, so the value represented by each equidistant mark on the scale is the value at the previous mark multiplied by a constant.

Logarithmic scales are also used in slide rules for multiplying or dividing numbers by adding or subtracting lengths on the scales.

Yes, we know all that. It doesn't actually disgree with what we have been saying. It does not say anything about changing the data, only how the y-axis is divided and marked out.

I will repeat: you can download this data set and plot the graph yourself in less time than you've spect arguing about the scale. Why will you not do it?

[timfinch]

Consider this article from a Nasa web site.

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

I am not sure but I think 1 millirad/hour is equal to .24 mgy/day.  Correct me if I am wrong.  This article was written back in the seventies.

[timfinch]

At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?  You wanted to compare apples to apples.  Well eat you apple my hearty.

[Jason Thompson]

At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?

We'll quite happily use Apollo data. The issue here is your refusal to actually address the issues in your interpretation of the CraTer data, and the obvious tactic of throwing something else at the wall in the hope it will stick.

You do not understand the data you are presenting. That much is clear.

[Luke Pemberton]

A log scale makes it easy to compare values that cover a large range, such as in this map
A logarithmic scale is a nonlinear scale used when there is a large range of quantities. Common uses include earthquake strength, sound loudness, light intensity, and pH of solutions.

All you are doing here is confusing the issue between a graph axis that is scaled using a log scale and measurements that are based on converting known quantities to a logarithm to make orders of magnitude estimate comparisons. For example, the pH of a solution is given by:

pH = -log₁₀[H⁺]

Where [H⁺] is the concentration of hydrated hydrogen ions. This is useful in chemistry as we can quickly compute differences in hydrogen ion concentration. An acid with a pH of 1 has a hydrogen ion concentration 1000 time greater than an acid with a pH of 4.

A more familiar example. An earthquake of magnitude 8 releases 100 times more energy than an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.

A log scale on a graph has major units that change by a single power of 10, and the data is plotted without conversion to logs (unless relationships to monomials is desired).

There really is no more than to it than this. Now go look at the data and find where the minima meet your criteria and plot the data using a log scale. You'll find that there is nothing nefarious about the data or the graph.

[Luke Pemberton]

At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?  You wanted to compare apples to apples.  Well eat you apple my hearty.

... but we did use the CRaTER data, it was you that did not look at it, so that's rather an hollow accusation to make.. You brought it here, you made the premise, then it was pointed out that data did not support your premise by us. We used the data.

We've now got to the crux of the problem: You interpreted the graph incorrectly, you won't actually look at the data to perform a rudimentary analysis to support your hypothesis, you think a quick inspection of graphs is sufficient to carry out science, once that data was finally presented to you on a plate, you do not understand averages and representing data in graphs.

You are dealing with engineers and scientists at this forum. Your assertion did not stand scrutiny as you hand waved and dodged. So why should we dance around again with new data?

[timfinch]

At first you didn't want to use CraTer data and now you don't want to use Apollo era data?  You wanted to compare apples to apples.  Well eat you apple my hearty.

... but we did use the CRaTER data, it was you that did not look at it, so that's rather an hollow accusation to make.. You brought it here, you made the premise, then it was pointed out that data did not support your premise by us. We used the data.

We've now got to the crux of the problem: You interpreted the graph incorrectly, you won't actually look at the data to perform a rudimentary analysis to support your hypothesis, you think a quick inspection of graphs is sufficient to carry out science, once that data was finally presented to you on a plate, you do not understand averages and representing data in graphs.

You are dealing with engineers and scientists at this forum. Your assertion did not stand scrutiny as you hand waved and dodged. So why should we dance around again with new data?

But you claimed it was not valid because it was a different solar cycle but now it is valid?

[timfinch]

If the Axis looks like this then it is logarithmic

[Luke Pemberton]

But you claimed it was not valid because it was a different solar cycle but now it is valid?

You are confounding to points:

First point, and the most important was your premise: the CRaTER data does not fall below the figure of 0.22 mG/day. We've now shown you that is incorrect. We wanted to examine your initial premise, so were prepared to use the CRaTER data which you would no interrogate. We have used the CRaTER data, which your brought here, you have not. We were asking about the validity of your claims based on the data, not the validity of the data

Second point: The CRaTER data was taken in cycle 24, which is a less active cycle than 20. This would suggest that the CRaTER data would have been lower in cycle 20 as the GCR flux would be higher. Therefor using the CRaTER data would not be valid for an event in 1969.

The logic is one of inductive proof. The first is whether your claim is valid, the second if your assumption of using the data for Apollo is valid. Two different things.

[timfinch]

I am comfortable using CraTer Data.  The only sticking point is whether the CraTer graph is linear or logarithmic.  If each of the divisions in a grid represent the an equal amount and they are evenly spaced then the graph is linear.  If the divisions are offset by the logarithm then it is logarithmic.  Are the ticks evenly spaced?

[timfinch]

I presented you with Apollo GCR data.  It is stated cislunar space was at 1 millirad/hr or .24 mgy/day.  Let's compare apples to apples.

[timfinch]

Now if we used 1969 data it is plain to see that Apollo 11's daily dose is less than cislunar space background radiation.  I believe it is your move.


Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface. These values are expected to double at the low point in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is considered by most authorities not to be of serious concern for exposures of less than a few years. Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiations is dependent on the development of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of long-term manned missions outside the Earth's geomagnetic influence.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm

[Luke Pemberton]

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we measure the dose each day with a detector in space, this gives us a sequence in arbitrary units.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?

[timfinch]

Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space** and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.

Interesting. It would appear that the dose is less on your highly radioactive surface than in cisluanr space. Any comments?

Now let's take a key point about this data and the CRaTER data. See that word in bold - average. Let's investigate the idea of an average and actual dosimeter readings. Let's say that we have 15 days in a row and the dose rate in millirads measured by a detector in space each day follows the sequence.

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

What is the average daily dose for the 15 days?

What would you average dose read for a mission that occurred during the first 5 days?

Now compare your received dose for the mission with the average daily dose recorded by the detector in space. What can you say about the notion of average dose and actual measured dose over a mission?

Accumulated total dose divided by mission duration is the way to go. I see nothing wrong.  Stay with me.  How can Apollo 11 have less dosage than cislunar background radiation?  How does that work?