It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 35
29
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.


Well sure but that doesn’t mean instant death, or heavy burns, or even nausea.
And Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert died of cancer in 1982.



980 rem for feet
700 rem for the skin
200 rem for blood for organs
200 rem for the eyes


There is a mysterious lack of sources in your entire post. Where did you get these numbers?
The numbers I found here;
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Says the maximum radiation actually measured was 1.14 rads(1rad=1rem) on Apollo 14. Not some guess before hand.

Even if we go with your numbers they would have been total exposure spread out over the entire mission. Now Apollo 11 was 8 plus days, divide your numbers by 8 and you get;
122.5 per day feet
87.5 per day skin
25 per day blood/organs
25 per day eyes.

The foot exposure is not enough to cause burning.
The skin exposure is not enough to cause burning.
If we assume that the blood exposure is the one that would make you vomit then it’s not enough to do that.
And the eyes are pretty safe too.
Of course I would have to ask that you provide some proof of your numbers cause I can’t find that info any place.


next




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone

boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.


Well sure but that doesn’t mean instant death, or heavy burns, or even nausea.
And Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert died of cancer in 1982.



980 rem for feet
700 rem for the skin
200 rem for blood for organs
200 rem for the eyes


There is a mysterious lack of sources in your entire post. Where did you get these numbers?
The numbers I found here;
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Says the maximum radiation actually measured was 1.14 rads(1rad=1rem) on Apollo 14. Not some guess before hand.

Even if we go with your numbers they would have been total exposure spread out over the entire mission. Now Apollo 11 was 8 plus days, divide your numbers by 8 and you get;
122.5 per day feet
87.5 per day skin
25 per day blood/organs
25 per day eyes.

The foot exposure is not enough to cause burning.
The skin exposure is not enough to cause burning.
If we assume that the blood exposure is the one that would make you vomit then it’s not enough to do that.
And the eyes are pretty safe too.
Of course I would have to ask that you provide some proof of your numbers cause I can’t find that info any place.


next

If you accept the facts it is your choice
above 400 your got burns
above 200 you get sick and you dont play golf no ,you vomit and you are incapacitated.
200 will do it to get you ill .

here a definition
www.radiation-scott.org...
500 will almost kill you especialy if you wonder all day on the moon

you are arguing with simple plain facts
At 500 rems you just dont stand up and wave if you refuse to belive it it is your choise when at 100 you start vomiting
You dont understand gama radiation.
Hiddeing something and negateing will do no good.
A lie the 500 of rems wond do it when at a hundred for one day you start feeling sick




[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
www.radiation-scott.org...


I'm taking this from the source you provided...



U.S. astronauts in Earth orbit or on Moon missions received modest effective doses.... Neither the effective dose equivalent nor effective dose should be used in evaluating the risk for threshold-type effects (e.g., death from destruction of bone marrow).



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
No matter how you take it they should of been real sick when they got back.
The moon is full of gamma, x ray radiation

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: www.hq.nasa.gov...

when we see facts like this i am sure to say man never went to the moon
you can see at nasa own page that radiation is a concern for them
cause they simply dont see how they can build a colony on the moon.
When the moon harvests radiation of all type in large quantities
Gamma rays
Beta rays
X rays
And they played golf on the moon what a joke






[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Here are the official stats from a NASA website: www.hq.nasa.gov...


Okay... Where?

If you're going to put up some information at least put the link to it. Don't just throw up the main link or a link to something else and hope we can find what the Sam Hill you're talking about. This isn't the first time you've done it, but it better be the last.

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Well kenkid here lets see
after we see this one we will find out how much have the astronauts
have been exposed.

Nuclear radiation contains gamma rays so we have gamma on the moon corect?
But first let's see what dosage of radiation will take
One at the time
To make a point i will present a sites that have a neutral point of view
and does not have to do with the apollo missions but does have to do with radiation.
Good site neutral, only about the radiation and how it afects humans.
www.mothersalert.org...
This site does not defent or incriminate the astronauts and it is not about the missons.
It contains just plain facts.
example from the site:
•Dose 0 to 25 rem: No detectable clinical effect in humans.

•Dose 25 to 100 rem: Slight short-term reduction in number of some types of blood cells; disabling sickness not common.

•Dose 100 to 200 rem: Nausea and fatigue; vomiting if dose is greater than
125 rem; longer-term reduction in number of some types of blood cells.

•Dose 200 to 300 rem: Nausea and vomiting first day of exposure; then up to a two-week latent period followed by appetite loss, general malaise, sore throat, pallor, diarrhea, and moderate emaciation. Recovery in about three months unless complicated by infection or injury.

•Dose 300 to 600 rem: Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in first few hours; then up to a one-week latent period followed by loss of appetite, fever, and general malaise in the second week, followed by bleeding, inflammation of mouth and throat, diarrhea, and emaciation. Some deaths in two to six weeks. Eventual death for 50% if exposure is above 450 rem; others recover in about six months.

•Dose over 600 rem: Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in the first few hours, followed by rapid emaciation and death as early as the second week. Eventual death of nearly 100%.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And do not forget
The value remains the same in rad, R or rem for this class of radiation(gamma and x ray) . For other types of radiation, their values differ by a factor





]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
•Dose 0 to 25 rem: No detectable clinical effect in humans.


Funny... You keep talking in rems but the most radiation received on ANY of the Lunar mission was 500 mrems. What's an mrem? Why, it's a millirem... 500 equates to 5 rem TOTAL! And, according to your unbiased website, that give "No detectable clinical effect in humans."

Oh, where did I get that 500 mrems from? Why from a link YOU provided! Maybe you could learn to read and fully grasp the information you provide, eh? But I guess just haphazzardly posting stuff works better, doesn't it?

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by pepsi78
•Dose 0 to 25 rem: No detectable clinical effect in humans.


Funny... You keep talking in rems but the most radiation received on ANY of the Lunar mission was 500 mrems. What's an mrem? Why, it's a millirem... 500 equates to 5 rem TOTAL! And, according to your unbiased website, that give "No detectable clinical effect in humans."

Oh, where did I get that 500 mrems from? Why from a link YOU provided! Maybe you could learn to read and fully grasp the information you provide, eh? But I guess just haphazzardly posting stuff works better, doesn't it?

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]


rem stands for mejurment of radiation in man

here
The rem, or" radiation equivalent in man", is the dose of any type of radiation which in man has the same health effect as one roentgen of X-ray or gamma radiation. The rem is the most common unit used to measure health effects of radiation.

Man-rem

About detection it is not dectected if it's below 25

About the 500 rems why dont you come up with the link
it will only show the same chart

I dont care what it says in the sites i only want the chart.
To form a opinion i have provided a neutral site.



[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
About detection it is not dectected if it's below 25


Which I just proved to you it was, using your own sources at that...



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
yes the only problem is that it was above 25
Nasa's own explenation for the exposion of the astronauts on the moon
980 rem for feet
700 rem for the skin
200 rem for blood for organs
200 rem for the eyes


Satisfied?
Can you now make a conclusion?

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Yes it was over 25. In MREMS. There's a HUGE difference between 25 rems, and 500 MREMS.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yes it was over 25. In MREMS. There's a HUGE difference between 25 rems, and 500 MREMS.

it was above 25 rems so what is the point
this is the oficial statement by nasa
980 rem for feet
700 rem for the skin
200 rem for blood for organs
200 rem for the eyes
it uses rems
and now take a look at that neutral site



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
it was above 25 rems so what is the point


WHere does anything say that? The one website you posted ( www.radiation-scott.org... ) even said that the most radiation received was 500 mrems.

So where are you getting your continued information of:


980 rem for feet
700 rem for the skin
200 rem for blood for organs
200 rem for the eyes


Or is it more ficticious information that you're making up or miscontruing for the sake of your own feable argument?

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Do you not understand the difference between MREM and REM? You can take a LOT more mrems than rems and not suffer any effects at all. It takes a LOT of mrems to make ONE rem.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Do you not understand the difference between MREM and REM? You can take a LOT more mrems than rems and not suffer any effects at all. It takes a LOT of mrems to make ONE rem.


Exactly... Hence why 500 mrems is equal to only 5 rems. Which causes no problem for the human body.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
here
24.73.239.154:8081...
when you travel by plane you go on a few rems.
But can you imagine the moon i can not imagine only 5 rems for the moon.

So it answers u'r qestion it was above 25 way above

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Now you look pretty dumb. Do you read your own sources, or what?

Here is quote from that page.

The use of massive shields to protect astronauts against primary cosmic radiation is hardly needed. Even extremely thick slabs of heavy metals would hardly diminish the flux of primary cosmic rays; besides in penetrating such dense matter, a few high-energy protons would create avalanches of secondary cosmic rays that could be more dangerous than the primary ones that caused them".

The booklet points out that within the Van Allen Belts, the most intense radiation levels are high enough to kill astronauts, "within a few days". The Apollo lunar transit through the Van Allen belts was a matter of minutes, not days. The hoaxers are therefore way off in their claims about Van Allen Belt radiation. Corliss concludes that the Apollo astronaut’s time within the belts was "far too short to cause important biological damage".


They spent a few minutes in the belts. That time frame is harmelss. And not only that, but the aluminium hull adequately shielded against the electron radiation.
case closed.

As for the moon radiation, again, the time-frame needs to be taken into account. The effects of radiation are cumulative.. that means it all depends on how long the exposure is. There was no prolonged exposure.

[edit on 10/11/05 by SteveR]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
here
24.73.239.154:8081...


You said you were getting that information from a NASA website. Way to lie about that one!



when you travel by plane you go on a few rems.


No, you get a few mrems.



But can you imagine the moon i can not imagine only 5 rems for the moon.

So it answers u'r qestion it was above 25 way above


Do the math! 500 mrems equals 5 rems. This is like the fifth or sixth time I've said it. Read it, understand it, accept it, move on!

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by pepsi78
here
24.73.239.154:8081...


You said you were getting that information from a NASA website. Way to lie about that one!



when you travel by plane you go on a few rems.


No, you get a few mrems.



But can you imagine the moon i can not imagine only 5 rems for the moon.

So it answers u'r qestion it was above 25 way above


Do the math! 500 mrems equals 5 rems. This is like the fifth or sixth time I've said it. Read it, understand it, accept it, move on!

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]

again not mrems but rems
it was calculated in rems
The exposure, here is another link
it is whre it says introduction it is by nasa it writes small so you wont see it
it does not mention mrems it says clear rems
nasa1997docs.tpub-manual.com...
or here
nasa1997docs.tpub-manual.com...

And then i ask you again to take a neutral site on radiation and do the math
here
The neutral site:
www.mothersalert.org...


it is imposible even if you get out of it alive you will get consistent damage.

Such of exposure will be fatal if not let's asume they got out of it alive.
When we got the facts i dont know why they bother to post it
I guess small writeing is a way of blocking and hideing some of the evidence.
The problem is they cant , it's part of the public record now

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Why don't you READ your sources???

"The hazard posed by a possible large solar particle event was addressed in the Apollo missions"

"allowable exposures for this high-risk mission"

It is a speculative paper, showing the allowable exposures for radiation. It does NOT say those were the doses of radiation suffered by the astronauts. It says those numbers are exposure limits, in case of a possible solar event. Which didn't happen!

The recorded amount of radiation suffered by the astronauts was MUCH less, this is a documented fact.

Look more closely at your sources!

[edit on 10/11/05 by SteveR]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join