Radiation

[Luke Pemberton]

Tim

With regard to the radiation issue, your initial claim was that the GCR flux made the surface more radioactive when you meant that the radiation levels increased. You initially confused radioactivity with ionising radiation. Can you see why your misunderstanding of basic scientific ideas does not help your cause?

You have finally found an article that tells us that KREEP is radioactive. We never denied the soils and rocks were radioactive when helping you understand the difference between ionising radiation and radioactivity. What levels of radiation does the KREEP present? Please provide a number that a radiologist would require to assess the hazard. At the moment your argument is that its radioactive so it must be bad. Let's put this into context of your source material.

You have found an article that discusses the incorporation of lunar soils in protective habitats for long term missions and the associated increase in radioactivity from those soils. You equated this to the Apollo astronauts being in mortal danger. The exposure from radiation (of all kinds) on a short term mission is significantly less compared with a long term mission. You are using one article to discuss exposure over a long time, and  extrapolating that to the risks for a mission that lasted a few days, all with the hand waving argument that 'radiation is bad mmmm-kay!'. It's apples and oranges again.

As for your one data point being less than 0.24 mGr/day. You brought data to the table, misinterpreted the log scale and drew an erroneous conclusion. We've explained to you that using graphs offers a visual representation but you need to look at the numbers. There are whole swathes of data points below the floor level YOU set. To add, this is for data in a less active cycle compared to the cycle pertinent to the Apollo missions.

To make matters worse, you've presented your median and mean data and don't have the slightest inkling of the difference between a median and a mean. You've even argued that saying a mean average is a little like having a stutter. I wrote in that way for your benefit, to ensure that I was being clear between a mean and a median with you. I've seen scientific material that uses the phrase 'mean average.' So please don't criticise you critics when they are doing their utmost to be clear what they mean, yet you cannot even offer and semblance of understanding scientific terms correctly.

Your initial claim was proven incorrect, and you simply aren't prepared to admit this. That's the issue. You've been caught out like every other blow hard before. You didn't think it through did you?

The really tragic aspect of this debacle, is like Jarrah White and others before you, you've make mistake after mistake with the language of science, but cannot simply put you hand up and say I was wrong. You dig further and further into a hole with your 'cut and paste' argument. Finally you throw that much material at your critics in the hope it sticks, like all the blow hards before, you finish with the refutation of your own claim. Why? Because you have no expertise in this domain, the material that you throw up in the air as your 'proof' becomes contradictory as you attempt to compare material based on different assumptions. In the end you paper over the cracks as you thrash around with scientific ideas that you cannot join together in a coherent manner. You are scientifically illiterate, that's the only conclusion I draw form this thread.

[Jason Thompson]

Two ways to be sure.  You don't convert the data to log on a logarithmic graph.  The graph does that.

And your proof of that is what? Show me any data point on that graph that is converted and not just plotted.

The second is if you look at the CraTer graph each grid has 10 equally spaced tick marks.

No, it doesn't. It has a bunch of dotted lines which line up with the major divisions on each axis. As has already been pointed out, you can see this is certainly true if you look at the 10⁰ point on the y-axis. There are no minor divisions marked on the y-axis.

[Luke Pemberton]

This thing just won't die.  The scales are the axis of a graph and are defined by the units used.  In an arithmetic scale the each of the divisions are equally spaced and represent the same amount. In a logarithmic scale the the divisions are spaced logarithmically and are not evenly spaced.  The CraTer graph is a graph of logarithmic values but they are displayed on an arithmetically scaled graph.  I hope this puts an end to this.  As an aside, back in the day a log graph was used to convert data to logarithms.

... but only a few days ago you argued the CRaTER graph was an exponential graph. Now it's arithmetic. At least be consistent with your gobbledegook.

In any case, your initial argument was there is no data below your threshold value of 0.22. You've been shown to be wrong. Are you ready to concede that you are wrong to say the data in CRaTER does not fall below 0.22?

[Luke Pemberton]

I'll catch you guys tomorrow.  It is late and I require beauty sleep to maintain my dashing good looks.

Maybe you should use the rest period to develop your cognitive reasoning. You seem to be wasting your sleep time there.

[Luke Pemberton]

Does it make a difference?  It is the cumulative dose that interest us or otherwise we wouldn't record mission dosage rather they would be minute or second doses.  If it is the cumulative dose that is important then average is the way to go.

Of course cumulative dose is important, but we're debating your initial point that the CRaTER data never fell below the floor level you set and the merit of averages. Inspection of the data shows your original CRaTER assumption to be a false claim. You came to the board with this claim, are you ready to say you were wrong to make this claim?

What don't you get about these points?

1) You came to the board, said the CRaTER data did not fall below 0.22; all because you read the graph incorrectly. Your initial claim was wrong.
2) We then told you that you cannot use the CRaTER data in any case, as is does not describe Cycle 20.
3) You then cited an average for cycle 20, but you cannot use an average either as the daily dose on consecutive days can fall below the average.


Further, you presented data from ground based monitors that is above your 0.22 floor level. I don't see us all dying from neutron radiation. Does your 0.22 baseline level produce a cumulative dose that is hazardous over a 2 week period?

[Jason Thompson]

So how do you think they should work in the presence of moon dust.  Do you think they would enter into the people compartment and take dust "laden" space suits off without first decontaminating or removing them in a decontamination chamber?  Or do you think that astronauts are expendable so they didn't worry about it?

Or do you think that maybe the radiation levels are not actually significant for the short stay on the Moon? Your own body is emitting beta particles from the small percentage of carbon-14 in your body. You haven't provided any data about the amount of radioactive material in the lunar dust and how this translates to possibe health issues in a short duration mission versus a long one (which is what that KREEP article you keep quoting was actually taking about.

[Jason Thompson]

why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?

You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.

[Jason Thompson]

The same people insisted that the data was inapplicable because it was in a different solar cycle

Tim  do you understand the following points:

1: GCR is modulated by slar flux: higher solar activity = lower GCR
2: Solar cycle 24 (the CraTer data) was less active than solar cycle 20
3: It therefore follows that whatever the lower values in cycle 24, cycle 20 would have experienced overall lower CGR because of the higher solar flux in cycle 20?

[raven]

why don't you admit either they didn't know it was radioactive at the time or they never went.

False dilemma. Why don't you admit the possibility they knew and it was considered acceptably low risk?

You just don't seem to get risk analysis, do you? Eliminate if possible, control if not possible to eliminate, consider tolerability of residual risk. No activity in life is risk-free. Radiation risks aren't some special category where all exposure must be avoided, because this is simply impossible.

This attitude is very odd from someone who claims to have worked with nuclear vessels, but, yes, it's literally impossible avoid all radiation, given that the food we eat and therefore our bodies contains traces of radioactive isotopes. If my boyfriend spends the night, I am exposed to more radiation than if I sleep alone. Sure doesn't stop me from wanting that as frequently as feasible, and I certainly don't fear any health risks as a result.

[onebigmonkey]

While we're discussing KREEP:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/

KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12

Think about that Tim.

[Zakalwe]

While we're discussing KREEP:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/samples/

KREEP was first discovered on Apollo 12

Think about that Tim.

Yeah, but it was recovered by the autonomous robotic landers that were launched  on the massive rockets (that no-one saw, heard or created any seismic events). These robotic landers launched the soil and rock samples (lets not forget that the US robotic sample missions were able to return three orders of magnitude more material, including rocks tens of kilograms in mass, than the USSR missions that returned a few hundred grams) back to Earth. These samples were somehow magically captured in LEO by the astronauts who were launched on the massive rockets that were seen and recorded until they reached LEO where they became invisible.

Yep, thats how it was done.  Totally plausible, not a problem with that scenario, no Sireee.

Of course, the alternative is that the missions happened as described and the above nonsense is the fevered ramblings of some bloke that cant read a graph properly...
In reality, what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"

[smartcooky]

...what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"

...and at the same time, are incompetent enough to have waving flags and C-Rocks all over the place and to lie about things such as radiation which can easily be checked up on by anyone.

[Zakalwe]

...what Tim is offering is another tired variant on the old, threadbare "NASA can do anything, even the impossible, except land men on the Moon and return them as described in the historical canon"

...and at the same time, are incompetent enough to have waving flags and C-Rocks all over the place and to lie about things such as radiation which can easily be checked up on by anyone.

Indeed!
NASA is simultaneously able to create a subterfuge so fiendishly clever that it stands inspection a half-century later by technologies not even dreamed of in the 1960s, yet they were unable to prevent people leaving "false-flag" markers all over the show. I mean, imagine the ability to be able to go to the Moon and plant false footprints that would lay there for 50+ years until a foreign nation put their own Lunar imaging system into orbit.

They've also managed to contain all the leaks and whistleblowers over the decades, yet have never, ever once silenced the tiny number of plucky, brave people like Tim that have rumbled the whole plot.    I certainly know that if there was such a powerful organisation that could keep such a secret then the last thing that I would be doing would be blabbing about it all over the Internet.

I'm following, with interest, the whole implosion of the Cambridge Analytica affair and the impact of it on British democracy. Here's a well funded organisation with links to multi-billionaires, undercover people with very dodgy abilities and highly-connected politicians, yet the whole thing has been exposed after 18 months by a bloke with a silly hairstyle.

Honestly, the mental gyrations that one would have to submit to to believe that Apollo is a hoax is ridiculous. I really do wonder about the mental abilities of the hoax proponents like Tim. I understand (though do not condone) charlatans like Percy, Sibrel, Rene and White et al. as they were in it for the money in their attempts to flog books, magazines and shows.

[bknight]

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.

Again you post a reference that Apollo astronauts were breathing dust.  How can this be if they were only in LEO?

You don't even understand that as others have pointed out to you can't use data captured on the Moon in efforts to prove they didn't go to the Moon.  This is sad really sad.

[Abaddon]

Data has been presented, linked to, sorted, graphed, calculated, extrapolated...by over a half-dozen posters.

Which also doesn't look good on you. You are squinting over a single graph, arguing over and over about how your non-standard interpretation is somehow the correct one -- OTHER people have grappled with the actual underlying data, showing their ability to create that graph, or subject it to other analysis.

I'm sorry did I miss where you posted an official or even not official statement that said cislunar GCR radiation was less than .24 mgy/day during anytime of the apollo missions?  Maybe you could highlight and repost it because I am eager to move on.

Yes you did miss it despite it being posted over and over and over.