Radiation

[nomuse]

NASA does not claim a baseline of 0.24. A NASA report quotes a value from a research paper. There is no indication of how that value is derived and how it relates to dosimeters worn against a constant wear garment under other clothes and inside a vehicle. All values cited are very broad scattergun ones. In order to work out what is actually going in you need to look at the fine detail.

I did a quick search for the paper referenced but it isn't showing up on anything I have access to.

Ain't I nice, though? I'm letting a straight-line conversion from REM to Gray go without comment.

I think if Tim actually read the paper he's linking...well, here they are commenting that the luminous paint (well, tip inserts) on some of the toggle switches are in the same rank of radiological hazard as GCR. That, and they bring up the secondary neutron activation in lunar soil and dismiss it in about the same paragraph.

[timfinch]

No counter data whatsoever?  Just going to run with your gut feel.  Screw what NASA says...

[timfinch]

I'm intrigued.  What do you think the level of GCR was back in 1969?

[nomuse]

They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)

[timfinch]

They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)

GCR?

[raven]

Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.

Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

Did you forget what got you to this point?  I claimed color is learned, right?  Did I not prove  that?

Colour prescription is partly a learned phenomena, for example, cultures that do not have words for  certain colours do have a harder time distinguishing them with similar colours they do have words for, but that's a far, far cry from saying we just saw it as 'clear' as you claimed, and your timing was off for what even the article claimed was the first recorded use of a word for blue in a language.
 By over a whole flipping order of magnitude!
You might try and back-pedal and  move the goalposts, but you're still wrong, dude.

[timfinch]

Raven, this Bud is for you:  http://www.iflscience.com/brain/when-did-humans-start-see-color-blue/

MY recent reading in the history of color NAMES, with a concentration on the Bronze Age empires of the Mediterranean (my current focus of interest), written incidentally by a group of experts in the field, tells me that pop-sci article you linked to is clickbait garbage. I'd give you the real story, but you lack the linguistic, ethnographic, and history of technology background to understand it.

Besides, one word: Ultramarine. No, not Space Marine Mary Sue smurfs, the pigment. In its original form as derived from lapis lazuli, this ultra-expensive pigment was used in paintings of central figures, especially the Virgin Mary. If the colour blue was just seen as 'clear' until 400 years ago, as our buddy boy Timfinch claims, why would they go to the trouble and massive expense of importing this costly and rare mineral just to make a clear glaze, when this could be done in other ways at the time. Seriously, this claim just lays stupid upon stupid in new and startling ways.

Did you forget what got you to this point?  I claimed color is learned, right?  Did I not prove  that?

Colour prescription is partly a learned phenomena, for example, cultures that do not have words for  certain colours do have a harder time distinguishing them with similar colours they do have words for, but that's a far, far cry from saying we just saw it as 'clear' as you claimed, and your timing was off for what even the article claimed was the first recorded use of a word for blue in a language.
 By over a whole flipping order of magnitude!
You might try and back-pedal and  move the goalposts, but you're still wrong, dude.

I admit it.  I am wrong.  Can I go now?

[nomuse]

What's this? A spark of integrity?

[timfinch]

Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

[nomuse]

Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

How do you mean?

Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.

[timfinch]

Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

How do you mean?

Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.

You have my undivided attention.  Explain how the numbers are wrong

[VQ]

They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)

GCR?

Gish gallop. You've been obsessing over VAB for 100+ pages of discussion.

[nomuse]

Is everyone afraid to talk about GCR levels being higher that Apollo 11 mission dose?

How do you mean?

Just for an argument, allow the two numbers you are playing with now. Still doesn't work. Your math is wrong.

You have my undivided attention.  Explain how the numbers are wrong

Naw. My attention is back in the Ancient World. I'm gonna go with Socratic Method (modified).

[timfinch]

They also touch on one of my personal sanity checks. Starfish Prime vastly increased the trapped electrons in the VARB. That's one nuke. Spread over a volume that's several times the whole Earth. We've set off, what, some five hundred nukes within the thin envelop of air of one Earth and the effects on the majority of humanity were negligible. That doesn't make the VARB particularly impressive.

(Yeah, I know...electrons, low energy electrons at that...but the idea is there.)

GCR?

Gish gallop. You've been obsessing over VAB for 100+ pages of discussion.

My audience is a bit slow but I am patient.

[timfinch]

Intellectual cowardice is such an ugly thing and it is hard to witness.  I'm off to bed where I don't have to see the spectacle of it.