Radiation

[timfinch]

Once again we try to distract from the real issue.  The fact that the astronauts were breathing radioactive dust.  Throw up all the smoke screens you want.  Create any diversion you can.  It won't alter the fact that it is proof of a hoax.

[nomuse]

So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Proof of what?

That's the problem with arguing by copy-paste; it doesn't include an actual statement followed by a relevant citation.

[MBDK]

timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day?  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.

NOTE:  Edited to insert a question mark.

[timfinch]

So let me guess.  The eight lunar missions just happened to land in the only safe places on the moon.  Places were the neutron radiation and the radioactive kreep were non-existent.  Is that what I should believe?

[nomuse]

Ah, cross post.

I was off munching on a handful of potassium 40. No, I'm not concerned about negative outcome. I made sure to get unsalted peanuts.  (I've also had a gamma emitter injected into my blood, but never mind that).

I will admit the article doesn't claim short visits to the Moon are healthy. It also does not claim they are not. It is entirely concerned with not just long duration stays, but long-duration stays with unusual exposure to what it calls "High KREEP" regions (aka more active materials.)

[AtomicDog]

So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.

Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

[timfinch]

timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day.  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.

Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine.  Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to.  Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation.  To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.  But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?

[MBDK]

So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.

Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I believe an interstellar cloud of helium atoms stripped of their electrons could be considered to be "laden with Alpha particles".

[timfinch]

So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.

Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

I am starting to believe you are not reading these articles because the article specifically states the elements that decay to produce the alpha particles.  Words do have meaning but they have less meaning when you don't read them or comprehend them.

[nomuse]

Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set. Especially since the gif leaves off the units.

[timfinch]

So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.

Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but I believe an interstellar cloud of helium atoms stripped of their electrons could be considered to be "laden with Alpha particles".

I believe there is no limit that you will not exceed in trying to deflect from the issue.  Let the semantics occupy your attention, why don't you?

[timfinch]

Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set.

Do I need to explain the data table to you?

[AtomicDog]

So tell me AtomicDog, does the article meet your criteria for proof?

Can you show me where "alpha laden particles" appears in that article?

I am no help with comprehension.  After school age it is irreparable.

Allow me to help you. Alpha particles are PRODUCED by heavier nuclei. They do NOT exist as separate entities until they are EMITTED by nuclei, and because they travel at thousands of miles per second upon emission, they ONLY exist for fractions of a second until they are absorbed by another atom or they absorb free electrons to become neutral helium.

It is impossible for ANYTHING to be LADEN with alpha particles.  In science, words have meaning. Your words show me that your knowledge of nuclear physics is lacking.

I am starting to believe you are not reading these articles because the article specifically states the elements that decay to produce the alpha particles.  Words do have meaning but they have less meaning when you don't read them or comprehend them.

Right. Alpha particles do not exist until the decay events occur. Then they are gone. Nothing is "laden". You should have known that.

[nomuse]

Incidentally, I hope you aren't calling that gif table generated from Crater data a "graph," or claiming it is in any way substantial analysis of the data set.

Do I need to explain the data table to you?

Nay -- it was funny the first time but it has lost its humor value.

[MBDK]

timfinch, I have provided data from the source you claimed as your evidence, and showed you exactly where that data from each and every detector was well below .22mGy/day, which is obviously less than .24mGy/day (I believe that was around post # 486).  Since that data directly contradicts your claims, AND since it was during a solar cycle that is documented to be less intense than cycle 20, which was during Apollo 11's journey, it also directly correlates that the relative radiation levels were even lower for Apollo.  You have yet to respond directly to this fact.  I ask that you do so now.  Do you accept that the data you provided shows time frames where the daily average dose rate was less than .22mGy/day.  Do you understand the concept that that a more active solar cycle results in lower radiation levels in cislunar space?  These are direct questions, please answer them in a like manner.

Why you continue chasing after Crater data when you won't accept is as proof I can't imagine.  Most assuredly you can find isolated patches but I am sure you are aware that the detectors are sensitized to different types of radiation and I am sure you are aware that only a compilation of data would reflect the biological damage an astronaut would be exposed to.  Now if you can find a 10 day window that averages less than .22 mgy/day that would be interesting but it would mean nothing because you still have to account for the transit through the VAB, the lunar orbit and lunar surface radiation.  To be sure if the apollo missions had a correspondingly lower GCR you would have to look at where in the cycle they were in.  If they were in solar minimum in an exceptionally active solar cycle there is no reason to believe that they had a exposure less than that stated by NASA.  But I digress as NASA stated a range of .24 to 6.0 for the apollo mission and we believe everything NASA say's don't we?

I provided a 5 day window with the additional comment that it was a random sample during 2013 with similar data for long stretches before and after the data I quoted.  Other people have graphed and analyzed the data in even more detail with the same conclusions my post came to.  I didn't post more data as my point was made and verifiable and to prevent clutter.  Would you feel better if I posted 30 days of consecutive data that falls within the range I noted?

I have already noted that the Apollo 11 mission (as well as the other Apollo missions, with Apollo 11 being closest to the peak) corresponded to the solar maximum of cycle 20, just as the data I picked from cycle 24 corresponds to the solar maximum of that cycle.  You are making false statements while neglecting to recall the ones that were actually made.