And here we go, even better than Van Allen's original article. Ha ha ha ha...ha ha ha.
"ARTICLE IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE, SEPT. 1997
THE VAN ALLEN ENIGMA
By Phylis and James Collier
...Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of
time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the
intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.
That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles.
The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation.....
...Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer
belt was equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.
Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race
through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been
developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft
itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was
...Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or another
substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In
other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration. One of the most interesting of
Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays....
.... It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become
an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the
65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable
additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus? We had to speak to Van Allen.
Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up
after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article in 1959 was merely
"Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.
"Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them." In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively
mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the
astronauts from the radiation he once called deadly. When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said,
"It must have been a sloppy statement." So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line
of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist
actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal? ..."