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: 36
29
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
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]

Okay you didint read my post
The moon is the problem and has nothing to do with the sun

Here
The Moon surface is baldly exposed to cosmic radiation, some of that type of radiation is very hard to block with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.


why?

AND READ THIS
More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays.

So the sun does not have to spray gamma rays
There are more gamma rays that come from the moon

The problem is that this explains that this is a problem and a solar storm does not even have to ocur hi level of radiation is pressent on the moon
it is just as bad has a solar storm.
Do you see the link now or do i have to explain word by word?
They new it
And they pulled of the gratest hoax.


----
Ps... FredT and parrhesia thanks for robing me of my last 40 points]

Great job.....



[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
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."


More to the point. The average US citizen is exposed to 200 mRems a year


U.S. Average Exposure

Source Exposure in mrem/yr
Cosmic rays 45
External radiation from
radioactive ores, etc. 60
Internal exposure from
radioactive material
ingested into the body 25
Diagnostic X-rays 70
Total: 200
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


Just for kicks, I asked one of our radiologists at work what the average exposure per year is for them and it corelates well with the source listed above. He said about 400-500 mrems a year. Most of out tech are walking around with no problems. So a 500 mrem exposure on a lunar mission is well withing a tolerable level.

[edit on 11/10/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by pepsi78
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."


More to the point. The average US citizen is exposed to 200 mRems a yeaf


U.S. Average Exposure

Source Exposure in mrem/yr
Cosmic rays 45
External radiation from
radioactive ores, etc. 60
Internal exposure from
radioactive material
ingested into the body 25
Diagnostic X-rays 70
Total: 200
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


Just for kicks, I asked one of our radiologists at work what the average exposure per year is for them and it corelates well with the source listed above. He said about 400-500 mrems a year. Most of out tech are waling around with no problems. So a 500 mrem exposure on a lunar mission is well withing a tolerable level.


tfred
If you dont agree with me you dont have to take points away from me
The fact is it was calculated in "REM" and not in "MREM"
if you ceck my last 2 posts you will see what i am talking about.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay you didint read my post


And you haven't been reading my posts, Keen's posts, and Half's posts, and everyone else's. It's all about length of exposure. Sure the moon is highly radioactive, but just because it is doesn't mean it's dangerous. If you understood how radiation affects us, you'd know that the danger is proportionate to time. They weren't on the moon long, not long at all. I agree that several days or weeks constantly on the moon could have caused them serious health issues, perhaps death. But they weren't there that long at all.

If you want a site to say it. Here.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
The fact is it was calculated in "REM" and not in "MREM"
if you ceck my last 2 posts you will see what i am talking about.


No it wasn't! The only thing that was calculated in REM was "allowable exposure limits" in case of a "possible solar event." Man how many times do we need to explain your own sources to you.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Came across this article its not an easy read (For me at least) but it has some pretty good information for those of you that are into facts adn not conjecture

exploration.jsc.nasa.gov...

It also includes some information on the effects of various shielding:

Please note that no shielding on the capsule given 1 AU from the sun would give an exposure of 111 cSv/yr to 0 CM and 65.6 to 5 cm. 1 years time!
FYI: I had to look it up myself, but the cSv refers to Centi Sieverts which are the same as mRem's

[edit on 11/10/05 by FredT]

[edit on 11/10/05 by FredT]

[edit on 11/10/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by pepsi78
Okay you didint read my post


And you haven't been reading my posts, Keen's posts, and Half's posts, and everyone else's. It's all about length of exposure. Sure the moon is highly radioactive, but just because it is doesn't mean it's dangerous. If you understood how radiation affects us, you'd know that the danger is proportionate to time. They weren't on the moon long, not long at all. I agree that several days or weeks constantly on the moon could have caused them serious health issues, perhaps death. But they weren't there that long at all.

If you want a site to say it. Here.

How do you know that , what do you know about gamma rays?
i hate repeating my self.
Go study radiation, go see that the moon is in fact the eqivalent of a
solar storm cause the moon it's self is a big magnet for radiation (not from the sun) but from the traveling particles that comes from out of our solar sistem.
Why argue with simple facts?
Yes they said in case of a solar storm the chart was for a solar storm(oficialy) unoficialy they knew it is the same thing.

The chart was for the moon only it was not for you and me and for the rest
it was for their knolege only.

Go study the moon it's self first than make wild statements
After that you will see the radiation levels on the moon and how the radiation acts on the moon.
How can i evoid that when nasa in it's own statement implys that it would be hard for colonists to make it at all there simply cause of hi radiation


[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Radiation exposure on the Apollo missions:



VII Aug. 1968 120

VIII Dec. 1968 185

IX Feb. 1969 210

X May 1969 470

XI July 1969 200

XII Nov. 1969 200

XIV Jan. 1971 500

XV July 1971 500



500 mrems was the maximum exposure. I like many before me fail to understand what exactly you are arguing here if you are going to first cite then ignore your own sources




[edit on 11/10/05 by FredT]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
[How do you know that , what do you know about gamma rays?


Because I know that damage from radiation takes time. Simple concept dumbed down for you: put a raw chicken into an oven, at 350 degrees. Take it out after 10 seconds. Not changed right? Put it back in, and leave it there for an hour or so. Now it's changed, alot. You'll notice that it took TIME for the matter to be affected. Same principal goes for your microwave, which bombards your food with microwave radiation.

So you want a science site to explain it to you huh? Go here www.clavius.org....

Scroll down to "AN ALTERNATIVE TO SHIELDING" and read about the time concept I have tried to explain to you numerous times.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
i hate repeating my self.


Yeah, so do we, but yet we're still trying to get this into your head...



Why argue with simple facts?


That's a good question, why are you doing it?



Go study the moon it's self first than make wild statements


Heed your own advice...?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Radiation exposure on the Apollo missions:



VII Aug. 1968 120

VIII Dec. 1968 185

IX Feb. 1969 210

X May 1969 470

XI July 1969 200

XII Nov. 1969 200

XIV Jan. 1971 500

XV July 1971 500



500 mrems was the maximum exposure. I like many before me fail to understand what exactly you are arguing here if you are going to first cite then ignore your own sources




[edit on 11/10/05 by FredT]

Why dont you document youre self more
about the moon.
And stop reading the oficial reports do a investigation youre self on the moon.
Do you know the factors of the moon youre self ?
Tell me please maybe i'll be astuned in the next 5 minutes with a explanation

I can not see this has dennyng ignorance simply by takeing my points
away cause you dont got any arguments

All you know is the oficial report "mrems" why dont you find out your self
how many rems are truly there.
I can show you X numbers of articles and some of them even made by nasa.

but then you can take some more points from me instead
this is in youre way dennyng ignorance



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I can show you X numbers of articles and some of them even made by nasa.


Please do. We're tired of waiting for it. I have yet to see 1 piece of information that supports your claims.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   


Because I know that damage from radiation takes time. Simple concept dumbed down for you: put a raw chicken into an oven, at 350 degrees.

no it does not take that much time.
Dose 200 to 300 rem: Nausea and vomiting" FIRST DAY" of exposure
Dose 300 to 600 rem: Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in "first few hours"

Radiation especialy gamma rays can have a impact in a short period of time The only way you can protect your self from gamma radiation is with led shielding.
Storng amound of gamma radiation will just pass within anything.
And there is plenty of that dont belive me go research the moon youre self.

I wanted to make a biger article on this one a nice big one , so i can explain things and put words right and explain why the moon is a big radiation factor.
I wanted to chage my mind and belive man went on the moon so i stayed
up last night researching the moon and how it is afected by radiation.
Guess i cant do that since there are moderators here who cant accept
several things, boiling just cause you cant find a strong point is sad

and i dont think that this is what ats is about.



[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Dose 200 to 300 rem: Nausea and vomiting" FIRST DAY" of exposure
Dose 300 to 600 rem: Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in "first few hours"
Radiation especialy gamma rays can have a impact in a short period of time


There is nowhere near that amount of radiation on the moon. Please show me a source that proves there is. Or are you just wildly speculating?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
You can start here.

science.nasa.gov...
You can form your own opinion if man landed on the moon or not.
Forget the stupid fox documentary.
You can read difrent articles about the moon than form a opinion.
I can not give you all the book marks simply cause i didint book mark them.
But there is plenty of that you can find it.



[edit on 10-11-2005 by pepsi78]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
You can start here.

science.nasa.gov...


Where does that say anything about the actual amount of radiation on the Moon?



You can read difrent articles about the moon than form a opinion.
I can not give you all the book marks simply cause i didint book mark them.
But there is plenty of that you can find it.


Before you said you could give tons and tons... Now you can't give any. Funny how it works like that, isn't it?

Oh, and...
Please check your U2U's

[edit on 11/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Okay fair inoff
I diditn book mark them but i got them like a used link, the link is purple cause i been visiting them.
I will post them it will take some time but i will.

Just think if we get a few rems just for flyng on a plane what would the impact of a radioactive surface be?
I will give you the links i just have to grab them, i was very tierd in the morning i just closed every thing and went to bed.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Just think if we get a few rems just for flyng on a plane what would the impact of a radioactive surface be?


Listen, buddy... You REALLY need to start reading your information. You get mrems, or millirems when not abbreviated, not rems! From your links, a flight from Chicago to Honalulu you get 9 mrems... That equates to .09 rems!



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen



Not once source to back up your claims... how long do you expect to carry this on for?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
First of all you need to understand that the moon is a big spunge for radiation more radiation comes from the moon than from the sun
in fact the moon has a level of radiation biger than mars.
Another fact the moon is brighter in gama rays than the sun, you can look at the moon and say it is a big coctayl of dedly radiation x-rays gama rays
Here is a neutral site
www.space.com...
Some quotes from the site
A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

here is couple of links
www.hq.nasa.gov...
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

This is a good one it shows the radiation covering the moon and giving out details.
www.airynothing.com...

This is a mp3 this i'm convinced it will raise many qestions.
the LEM and the suits just would not provide inof
they didint even know back in the 60's what awaits for them on the moon
Little nuclear explosions on ground level creating even more radiation
creating neutron radiation.
I would advise any one to lisen to this
science.nasa.gov...



NASA also discovered gamma radiation in space. However, not much of it was coming from our sun. Instead, the gamma rays were coming from every direction of the universe.
So? we dont need a storm shower especialy when?

More surprising, NASA discovered that more gamma rays are coming from the moon than the sun. The reason the moon emits gamma rays is that the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that are coming from outside our solar system, and that bombardment causes the surface of the moon to radiate gamma rays.

The surface of the moon is bombarded by atomic particles that come from outer space. However, the particles that hit the moon are traveling at a much higher speed than the electrons in an X-ray machine. The result is that the moon emits powerful gamma rays, not weak X-rays. The moon is a spherical target in a "cosmic gamma ray machine".

If gamma rays appeared purple to our eyes, and if we could travel beyond our atmosphere, we would find that the moon is glowing purple, and that it is much more purple than the sun.


Now i ask would the lem provide suficient protection agaist gamma ray?
How much time did the astronauts spend out there on the moon?


what you dont understand is that

The chart was made for the moon it's self on how would they be exposed
to radiation and not for a sloar storm posibly coming their way.
(simple argument the moon is brighter in gama rays than the sun wich indicates a hi level of radiation)
And i am not the only one saing it
24.73.239.154:8081...

some quotes from the site.
Maximum radiation dosage levels established in advance of Apollo were as follows: 980 rem for feet, 700 rem for the skin, 200 rem for blood forming organs, and 200 rem .

The site incriminates that the belt would not put risk on the astronauts
but it does not deal with the moon it's self .

This is a anti hoax site but it states that maximum dosage expected would be as 980 700 200.So why have it mention it by nasa in the first place if it was not to ocur?
If there was no solar flair why would they mention it, the moon would indicate such events.


The moon landing is fiction but hei i like star trek too




[edit on 11-11-2005 by pepsi78]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join