Radiation

[Jason Thompson]

If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?

That would depend entirely upon the units the dosimeter reported in. If you have four dosimeters, do you add their readings together to get your total dose? If not, why not?

There really is no question about the CraTER data. It is presented in cGy/day, which means that every data point represents a calculated daily dose based on the radiation detected in that time period. Units are everything. Again, you seem determined to imply some other calcualtions have to be done or have been done with the data, just so you can avoid acepting that the graph proves you wrong, repeatedly, in every way,

[onebigmonkey]

You are still working on the assumption that they went straight through the middle of them.

[timfinch]

If you had a pocket dosimeter that measured radiation when you pressed a button and you pressed that button hourly then after one day would you dosimeter reflect your total esposure or would it simply reflect the exposure you had received in the 24 seconds of actual measurement?

That would depend entirely upon the units the dosimeter reported in. If you have four dosimeters, do you add their readings together to get your total dose? If not, why not?

There really is no question about the CraTER data. It is presented in cGy/day, which means that every data point represents a calculated daily dose based on the radiation detected in that time period. Units are everything. Again, you seem determined to imply some other calcualtions have to be done or have been done with the data, just so you can avoid acepting that the graph proves you wrong, repeatedly, in every way,

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

[Jason Thompson]

What actually are the units of the 24 daily readings?

cGy/day, as is clearly stated in the data file and on the y-axis of the graph.

In your mind how does the detector convert discrete readings into daily averages

It's not hard to do. If it picked up 0.001Gy in one hour then it only has to multiply by 24, doesn't it?

and if it does then why isn't their a single reading for each day?

Who knows? Maybe because this way it shows just how much fluctuation there is over time. Maybe they wanted a more comprehensive data set. Just because it doesn't match your naive expectatuions doesn't make it suspect.

The fact remains, the data are presented in cGy/day, therefore it matters not one jot what you think is going on, those are what the numbers represent.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

[timfinch]

You are still working on the assumption that they went straight through the middle of them.

No, I am not.  I assumed the most conservative measure possible.  I assumed the VAB consisted entirely of the lowest radiation level ever measured in it.  I took all of the other levels out.  I sweetened the pot.  Now climb in and stew.  How do you like me now?

[timfinch]

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

[Abaddon]

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.

[timfinch]

I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.  Pull up a chair and feast at the table of your inequities.  Calculate your way out of the VAB.  Use what ever numbers you can anally extract.  It matters not.

[nomuse]

Then the data would be labeled with the sample time frame. They don't just slap labels on these things randomly.

[Abaddon]

Then the data would be labeled with the sample time frame. They don't just slap labels on these things randomly.

No they don't. How do they "slap" them on? You don't know, do you?

[timfinch]

Jason, interpret the data anyway you want but there is no way to retain your personal integrity in doing so.  There would be only one reading for each day if it was as you insist and we know it isn't so deal with it.

No, that is what you expect. If it was not as I state why is it presented in cGy/day in the first place?

It probably represents the rate for that discrete period of time.  I'd say it represents an hour.  What do you say?  if it represents the daily rate for that hour how would you interpret the data different to arrive at a actual daily rate?

I say you have again demonstrated that you do not understand graphs or even raw data. It is amusing wathcing you flail about in total ignorance of the subject matter.

Abaddon, here is a wonderful opportunity for you to step in and provide much needed clarity.  Start with this question.  Why are there multiple daily doses for the same day?  Do we pick one or sum them or average them  Help us find a path through this radiation minefield.

[timfinch]

Dear Moderator, It seems many of my questions go unanswered.  I am not complaining but I wanted to point it out in case I was accused of such a dastardly act and was banned once again.

[Luke Pemberton]

I thought the CraTer Data was off the table.

That's not what said or implied. There are conclusions that can be drawn from the CRaTER data, lots of them. We are saying that the dose from GCR would be lower in Cycle 20 owning to the increased activity of that cycle.

It draws nicely on the notion that SPEs are discrete events that does not mean that space is a region of searing radiation. That much I owe you, I'll be fair on that point. It shows quite clearly that once discrete events are removed, the GCR background is quite survivable on a short mission. Some HB's would cite astronauts receiving hundreds of rem.

The issue with the CRaTER data is that you won't accept that it refutes your initial premise of <0.22 for all the reasons discussed. So it's really up to you. Your initial claim was fallacious. So in some ways it is off the table, but in others it remains. It serves as a useful exercise in the merit of using scientific data to present a case for the hoax. Namely that there is no merit, you'll always have an apples and oranges comparison with the actual dosimeters.

[nomuse]

You are taking a set of measurements performed by averaging of the dosimeter tags sewn to the flightsuit (I assume...that's the most likely place to be looking at total flight dose taken in situ) of astronauts inside a spacecraft passing through multiple potential ionizing sources of wildly fluctuating magnitude, and comparing them against an off-the-cuff back-of-the-envelope attempt to sum up the data from a completely different set of instruments using nothing but arithmetic averaging, with no attempt to even define the range of variation.

And even when you start throwing in random multipliers you are still getting answers that are closer to NASA's than the error range of either method. I'd say every bit of work you are doing validates NASA's data (or, to be more honestly, fails to demonstrate anything).