Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

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...

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.

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.

He pointed me to the following peer-reviewed paper, specifically Figure 4. The unit of measurement is cSv/year.

prediccs.sr.unh.edu...

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.

reply to post by Zaphod58


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The reason(s) for Apollo 13...

It was dramatic, lending realism to it.

They didn't know how to fake 1/6 g realistically, so they made up yet another excuse.

Apollo 11 was filmed as grainy as possible, in black & white, to limit the problem.

Apollo 12 had an 'accident' which supposedly destroyed the camera lens, and they couldn't film anything at all. Sure, that's it!


No problem in getting to the moon, and landing on the moon, and walking on the moon. But it's very difficult to remember not to point a camera directly at the Sun!

Sigh..

a reply to: hugediscovery\


The grainy footage of the moon make me reminiscent of something???? Oh yes faked UFO shots where you just cant get enough detail.

Nobody had ever seen the moon close up, in full color.

Apollo 11 brought a color movie camera to the moon, which was used for cabin footage. They used a black & white camera for grainy footage of the first landing!

Only in Apollo-land, where logic is upside-down. topsy-turvy!

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody had ever seen the moon close up, in full color.

Apollo 11 brought a color movie camera to the moon, which was used for cabin footage. They used a black & white camera for grainy footage of the first landing!

Only in Apollo-land, where logic is upside-down. topsy-turvy!

Wrong, as usual. They took color photographs of the Moon from orbit. They took color photographs on the surface. The live television coverage was in black and white, and is surprisingly good considering television was still a new technology when the camera was designed, and the signal had to be transmitted over 300,000 kilometers using a relatively weak battery.
See for yourself.

a reply to: turbonium1

Apollo 12 had an 'accident' which supposedly destroyed the camera lens,

False.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody had ever seen the moon close up, in full color.

Apollo 11 brought a color movie camera to the moon, which was used for cabin footage. They used a black & white camera for grainy footage of the first landing!

Only in Apollo-land, where logic is upside-down. topsy-turvy!

Wrong, as usual. They took color photographs of the Moon from orbit. They took color photographs on the surface. The live television coverage was in black and white, and is surprisingly good considering television was still a new technology when the camera was designed, and the signal had to be transmitted over 300,000 kilometers using a relatively weak battery.
See for yourself.

Look at any other footage, from the same era, and try to find anything worse than the Apollo 11 footage. Or nearly as crappy, at least.

Nothing would be that crappy, unless it is MEANT to be that crappy.

A 'weak battery' doesn't excuse the crappy footage, either. All the footage is consistently as grainy, throughout. A weak battery is not consistent, which means the transmission would vary in strength, and the footage would simply be intermittent. It doesn't cause footage like this,

How would the batteries work perfectly for everything else, except for transmitting a few minutes of lunar footage? Nonsense.

Weak batteries didn't affect hours of color footage they transmitted on the way to the moon, but it did for a few minutes of black & white footage? As if.

The truth is that they had a color camera. If they had actually landed on the moon, they would have used their color camera on the lunar surface. Nobody would choose a black & white camera to film the lunar surface, if they had half a brain.

But it's really not about using one's brain, is it?.

In 1969 President Nixon talked with Armstrong on the Moon via a landline in real time from the oval office...
I'll let you think on that awhile...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
In 1969 President Nixon talked with Armstrong on the Moon via a landline in real time from the oval office...
I'll let you think on that awhile...

What's the problem?

His phone would of been connected to a switch board that linked him to the relay stations that link to the Apollo comms...just how communications work, then and now.

Huh? No really, what is your point, you really are not that silly...right? You're making a funny, yes?

Edit: Earth Moon Earth Communication < Read and understand, it explains your "real time" bit.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

It never happened because the comunication based on distance happened at faster than light speed...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad57080c18d5.jpg[/atsimg]


To be honest, hoax or no hoax, it was needed at the time. There will always come a time when a nation must reinvigorate the population, to get their creative jucies flowing again.

We needed something to beleive in that would capture our imaginations. The Space program did that, and still does to this day.

Why?

Because it's next. Because we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is on a timeline of explorations and this is What's next.

Who is "we"?