Radiation

[timfinch]

What is this but a damn lie?

3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?

So the two graphs are different? and one shows a 3D rendering?

[Abaddon]

What is this but a damn lie?

3D spatial reasoning. You simply cannot figure it out, can you?

So the two graphs are different? and one shows a 3D rendering?

Nope. I mean you are unable to figure out a three dimensional trajectory represented in a two dimensional illustration.
 

[timfinch]

Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher.  In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.

Yet the same authors from the CRaTER team tell us that the levels at the surface are no more that that received by a uranium miner or X-ray technician in one year. Are you going to acknowledge this point?

They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.

Yet you have been arguing the dust is radioactive, prohibitively so. Have you not?  You are the one that presented this argument in context of GCR producing fission products. Did you not? If you cannot understand the distinction between radiation and radioactivity, don't lambaste others after the event.

Do yourself a favor and read the definition of a logarithmic graph.  This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.

And despite this, you've even computed the median data yourself, and found that the value fell below your threshold that you misread from the graph. I don't think you have a right to call anyone a fool seaman Tim.

Were you not the one that said Solar Cycle data was not applicable and was to be disregarded.  Why is it such a point of contention?  Why do you continue to use this distraction?  I have told you repeatedly that any value you get is to high to justify a .22 mgy/day exposure.  If cislunar space were zero, the transit through the vab and lunar orbit and lunar landing would have caused it to exceed .22 mgy/day.  Don't you see that?  Do the math.  I brought this point up to demonstrate that cislunar space is the lowest radiation area a lunar transit experiences and if you remained in LEO you would get as high a dose rate as demonstrated by the leo missions of the Space Shuttle and Apollo.

[Luke Pemberton]

I simply posted them.

No truer word said. You simply posted them, but have complete disregard, understanding or context for their content. You clearly don't understand the difference between radiation level, radioactivity and secondary radiation. You misread a graph which was the basis of your argument. Your argument was refuted very quickly based on your error. You've brought data to the table based on a less active cycle, yet fail to understand how you are making a fallacy or equivalence. You have cited average data, data that was taken prior to the missions, data from ground based monitors, and have had it carefully explained why you cannot use averages. The most laughable aspect of this whole thread, is the data you first brought to the table should illustrate this point to you when you presented your analysis earlier today.

The fact you are stubborn, inept at analysis, cannot interpret graphs and do not understand the source materiel you cut and paste, is your responsibility. It is for you to carry out your homework diligently. You fell short of that mark when pressed by people that have expertise.

Your moan that we refute your argument without presenting data ourselves. That is not how science works. We are examining your case based on the scrutiny of your hypothesis and expertise. We can only make judgement based on the data you present and the way you present your understanding of the relevant science and engineering. That is the scientific process. You have presented an hypothesis, and we reject is based on your arguments. You cannot lay the burden of proof on others if your argument does not hold water.

[Abaddon]

TLI for the hard of thinking.

[timfinch]

I simply posted them.

No truer word said. You simply posted them, but have complete disregard, understanding or context for their content. You clearly don't understand the difference between radiation level, radioactivity and secondary radiation. You misread a graph which was the basis of your argument. Your argument was refuted very quickly based on your error. You've brought data to the table based on a less active cycle, yet fail to understand how you are making a fallacy or equivalence. You have cited average data, data that was taken prior to the missions, data from ground based monitors, and have had it carefully explained why you cannot use averages. The most laughable aspect of this whole thread, is the data you first brought to the table should illustrate this point to you when you presented your analysis earlier today.

The fact you are stubborn, inept at analysis, cannot interpret graphs and do not understand the source materiel you cut and paste, is your responsibility. It is for you to carry out your homework diligently. You fell short of that mark when pressed by people that have expertise.

Your moan that we refute your argument without presenting data ourselves. That is not how it science works. We are examining your case based on the scrutiny of your hypothesis and expertise. We can only make judgement based on the data you present and the way you present your understanding of the relevant science and engineering. That is the scientific process. You have presented an hypothesis, and we reject is based on your arguments. You cannot lay the burden of proof on others if your argument does not hold water.

You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

[Luke Pemberton]

Were you not the one that said Solar Cycle data was not applicable and was to be disregarded.  Why is it such a point of contention?

No. I said you cannot extrapolate data from one solar cycle to another, I did not say you can disregard the solar cycle data. The second bolding doesn't even make sense. It's a point of contention as it's a fallacy of equivalence.

The solar cycle modulates the GCR flux. The greater the solar activity the less the GCR flux in the inner solar system. So, the data from cycle 20 (Apollo missions) is likely to be lower than you CRaTER data as that cycle was more active than the current cycle (24). Hence your CRaTER data may be even lower. Several people have addressed this with you a multitude of times.

[Luke Pemberton]

You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.

[Abaddon]

You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.

He is getting so badly spanked I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

[Luke Pemberton]

He is getting so badly spanked I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

Just as you think that he understands a point one makes, he goes back on it. He did say that the moon is made radioactive by the GCR flux, he did didn't he? Yet in his last few posts he seemed to dismiss this notion and even made reference to the authors 'didn't say that moon was made radioactive.' Yet two day ago he was talking about nuclear fission. Somehow, he managed to go back and turn it on me as though I was building a strawman.

Then there was the comment that I said we can dismiss the solar cycle data. That doesn't even make sense. I, and several others, said you can't use data taken in solar cycle 24 in an attempt to prove something did not happen almost 50 years ago. Was that point made clear to you and others? I need to check my sanity at this point.

[bknight]

You sir, are dishonest, disingenuous and an intellectual coward.  I am done with you and will no longer respond to your comments.

I thank you for partaking. I've managed to get to Uranus with this thread. I never thought I'd say those words in public.

ROTFLMAO

[jfb]

You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

Ahem.

[timfinch]

You guys are being disingenuous.  You have provided not a single fact or data to support your position that cislunar background radiation was low enough to justify Apollo 11's .22 mgy/day exposure level.  You insist they they found a low radiation path through the VAB but cannot provide any data to reflect such a path exist.  You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.  You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.  I expected better from you and I am sorely disappointed.  I am embarrassed for you.

Ahem.

It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion if you are willing to accept the consequences.

[Luke Pemberton]

I know Tim is shunning me now, but this is for the rest for the forum:

You refuse to accept the verifiable data that proves the surface of the moon is more radioactive than cislunar space and that lunar orbit is more radioactive than cislunar space.

This highlights my point about radioactivity. Tim mixes up ionising radiation with radioactivity. Tim has taken the crater data that describes radiation levels raised by 30-40% in orbit, and has managed to falsely interpret this as increased 'radioactivity' of lunar soils. Of course, the other fallacious aspect is the 'radioactivity' of the moon is prohibitive to operating safely on the lunar surface. The CRaTER scientists have stated that the hazard from secondary radiation is no more than an X-ray technician will receive in a year.

You have all the evidence you need to arrive at a logical conclusion yet you distract yourself with the definition of log graphs and my technical competence.

Rightly so. As Tim is mixing the concepts of radioactivity and radiation, he has no technical competence in this domain. It the lack of competence that ensures his argument does not meet scrutiny.

[Luke Pemberton]

It has been pointed out that is data is not applicable to the apollo missions

Good, you accept that point.

but I am willing to use it as the basis of my assertion

...but your assertion was the levels cannot fall below 0.22 mGr/day, and they clearly do. Your assertion no longer has a basis. The data shows this clearly.

if you are willing to accept the consequences.

What consequences?