reply to post by FoosM
Can't wait for part two.
Happy to oblige.
In the first part of this analysis, I critiqued Jarrah's use of propaganda techniques to tar people who disagree with him and mesmerize his viewers
into accepting his claims without engaging their facilities for critical thinking. Jarrah wisely avoids making direct statements, preferring
innuendo and rhetorical questions. After all, if you don't make a definite statement, you can't be proven wrong, right? Well, Jarrah made a statement
that really threw me for a loop: actual data showed the radiation levels were prohibitive. The reader should ask themselves how they personally
reacted to this bombshell. Did you jump up and cheer because your white knight had finally vanquished the forces of evil? Did you decide to visit a
few other websites to get a more "balanced" view? Or were you skeptical? A skeptic is someone who seeks out the facts for themselves.
As a skeptic, I wanted to know where that table came from, and what data was used to compile it. After all, if Jarrah's figures were correct, the
industry standard of 2500 rem per year for a satellite with 2mm of aluminum shielding was way off: the dataset completely contradicted all those
sputniks, explorers and raccoons, er, rock
oons. Jarrah flashed this on the screen:
A bit hard to read, perhaps by intent. The paper is: "Radiation Protection During Space Flight" by E. E. Kovalev. I wanted to read that paper for
myself, to see why that chart showed such anomalously high readings for the astronauts. A quick search using a name brand search engine revealed that
the paper was downloadable online from Elsevier for $32.50... a bit much for a book I was only going to read once. The university library down the
street from me was closed for the winter vacation. How could I get at the contents of that paper?
One of the great things about genuine researchers is that they document their work. If they quote a source, they provide a footnote that allows one to
track that source down and see the cited material in context. That source then provides references to its sources, and so on, all they way down the
line. The beautiful part about it is that the process can be followed in reverse. I searched for papers that cited Kovalev's work in the hope of
finding his data "through the back door. That's how I found
Before proceeding I should point out 1 sievert (Sv) equals 100 rem. The rem is considered an old and unfashionable unit these days. This is important
because newer works will give their measurements in Sv. An author citing an older work would probably convert the units so they match the units used
in the more recent work. In this paper, I found the following table:
Compare it to the table from Jarrah's video:
Except for the exact wording of the table's title (which was translated from Russian to Czech to English) and the units used, this is clearly an exact
citation of Kovalev's original paper.
Yep, it checks. But what's this?
No shield?! I didn't hear Jarrah say anything about the dose the astronauts would get if they weren't shielded, did you? In order to prove his
"radiation argument," Jarrah had to calculate the dose they would have received if they were floating in the radiation belts stark raving
If they were floating up there naked, they would have much more pressing concerns than radiation. Hm, perhaps this was an honest
mistake... after all the table Jarrah showed us didn't mention that the readings were for an unshielded craft. The problem is, this paper by
Frantiszek Spurny contains a second table, identical in format to the first:
This table shows the dosage received inside a spacecraft with "shields," ie, "walls" one millimeter thick!
It is obvious that both tables come
from Kovalev's original paper. If Jarrah had the original paper in his possession and has actually read it as he would have us believe, he consciously
chose to suppress the table showing the dosages in a spacecraft with much thinner walls than the Apollo. Why? Let's repeat Jarrah's calculations using
390 rem/day = 16.25 rem/ hour
Using Professor Van Allen's estimate of two hours out and two hours back gives us a total dosage of 65 rem, well below the dreaded LD50 of 450 rem.
Now bear in mind that, contrary to Jarrah's repeated insinuations, the CSM had walls much thicker than 1mm. More like 1.25 centimeters, ten times the
thickness of the shielding in the table, reducing the dosage by a factor of ten, yielding a total exposure of 6.5 rem. This is very close to the 1%
guesstimate that Professor Van Allen made in the e-mail Jarrah cites. The actual exposure would have been much less because we assumed that the
maximum value extended throughout the radiation belts.
Think about all this for a moment. Using a Czech intermediary, I have tracked down Jarrah White's original Russian data and used it to confirm a
statement that Jarrah was trying to discredit. He has been caught in the act of perpetrating a lie.
By the way, this paper also debunks the "Russians didn't go to the Moon because they were afraid of radiation" myth:
"Remark: Russian limits higher." What else would you expect from a country that didn't see the need for a containment vessel at Chernobyl, and that
sent seamen into the Kursk's reactor wearing asbestos suits?
Returning to the issue at hand, I have presented strong evidence that Jarrah White has willfully presented material that he knew beforehand was simply
false. I submit that Jarrah White's "MoonFaker" videos are by any reasonable definition a HOAX, and humbly suggest that this thread be moved to the
Happy New Year, everyone!!!
edit on 31-12-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typos and polish style.