Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


20 mSv/a is actually a fairly low dose. 24 mSv/a is background at an airline cruising altitude. A 20 mSv dose at one shot is the equivalent of a full body CT scan. You aren't getting to really dangerous levels until you get into Sieverts, which are fatal in the 4.5-6 range.

A worker at a nuclear power plant is allowed to be exposed to 50 mSv (excluding normal background radiation) in a year, and is still considered safe.


Right, and according to wikipedia (not a reliable source, I know), 1Sv over a short time period is enough to cause radiation poisoning and possibly death. But that's not how much radiation they were saying the astronauts are exposed to. They were saying they're exposed to a *year's worth" of radiation for a uranium miner. So that would mean that an astronaut is actually exposed to 365 times that amount, which is 7300 mSv/a, or 7.3Sv/a, which would be deadly.

"We are in a period when the radiation risks are elevated, but still tolerable," Spence said, adding that the levels were about what an X-ray technician or uranium miner might normally experience in a year".

news.discovery.com...
edit on 17-2-2013 by kiwasabi because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-2-2013 by kiwasabi because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


But are they talking about a day, a week, a month, or a year? They don't say what they're using to measure it by. If it's a year, then it's the same as a worker is exposed to. If it's a month, then it's more, if it's a day, then it could be, unless they found a way to shield them from it, which is what they're working on. That rate is also based on a consistent exposure rate. The exposure will be anything but consistent. Between shielding, and time exposed, their exposure rate will be much lower.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


But are they talking about a day, a week, a month, or a year? They don't say what they're using to measure it by. If it's a year, then it's the same as a worker is exposed to. If it's a month, then it's more, if it's a day, then it could be, unless they found a way to shield them from it, which is what they're working on. That rate is also based on a consistent exposure rate. The exposure will be anything but consistent. Between shielding, and time exposed, their exposure rate will be much lower.


I was able to track down Harlan Spence's email address, so I emailed to ask. 7.3Sv/a seems very high, but 20 mSv/a seems very low so I'd like to know the exact average.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
He pointed me to the following peer-reviewed paper, specifically Figure 4. The unit of measurement is cSv/year.

prediccs.sr.unh.edu...



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


That looks like it's not going to be a very large dose. I'll have to sit down later, when I'm not tired, and not sitting here biting my nails over a repair bill to actually read all of it.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks, and I hope everything works out with the repair bill. They sure come out of nowhere.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


Ok, I see now. It makes sense. Figure 3 is the dose rate to the Central Nervous System, Blood Forming Organs, Skin, and Lens, figured with different shielding levels, in free space. If you look really really closely, you can see subtle differences in the different parts of the body for the various shielding levels. But essentially they're identical, as the differences are too small to even be called differences. So the shielding level (not the material, just the level) will make no difference as to the exposure.

Figure 4 is the dose-equivalent. That's when we're talking about things such as radiation types, quality of shielding, etc. They're for an extended, one year exposure. They're not fatal levels, but they're approaching. The example used in the paper deals with the 0.3 g/cm2. The limit is 52 cSv for a 25 year old male, 37 cSv for a 25 year old female, 72 cSv for a 35 year old male, 55 cSv for a 35 year old female. With the 0.3 g/cm2 shielding, the exposure rate is between 25 and 35 cSv/yr. So for a 25 year old female, you'd be approaching the exposure limits, and potentially fatal levels. At 1 g/cm2, the Central Nervous System, and Skin levels drop, but the others stay pretty close. At 40 g/cm2 we see a significant drop, and it doesn't go higher than about 27 cSv/yr. The most effective is 100 g/cm2, where it doesn't go over 22 cSv/yr. So the more shielding you have, or the more equivalent shielding you have (they may come up with something that works as well, but doesn't have to be as thick), the more effective it is. Even 0.3 g/cm2 would probably not be fatal, but do you really want to take the chance on being that close? Or sending older astronauts, or all men?

And the bill did hurt as much as I was afraid.
Ah well.

edit on 2/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks for interpreting the paper. How much bigger or smaller is a cSv unit from an Sv? Google isn't helping. And to answer the question earlier, what did he mean by "it's about a year's worth of radiation exposure for a uranium miner"? I guess knowing how cSv compares to mSv and Sv would answer that question.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


A cSv is a centi-Sievert. 1Sv = 100cSv, and 1cSv = 1 REM. It's used for dose equivalent measurements. So 6 Sv, which is considered a fatal dose, would be 600 cSv or 600 REM.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by kiwasabi
 


A cSv is a centi-Sievert. 1Sv = 100cSv, and 1cSv = 1 REM. It's used for dose equivalent measurements. So 6 Sv, which is considered a fatal dose, would be 600 cSv or 600 REM.


Well that is certainly lower than I expected. But then again I expected much more harmful radiation coming from the sun. I still think it's a possibility the moon landing was faked though. After they did 9/11, it made it clear they're willing to lie about anything to get their way.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join