Radiation

[timfinch]

Do you not read these post.  I did not say it.  They did.  They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%.  Why is that concept difficult to understand?

[molesworth]

It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.

When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?

[timfinch]

This log graph thing is beyond your pay grade.  You fail to read the definitions or embrace the concepts involved but it is not important because whatever number you derive from the graph is still too high to add to the VAB transit, lunar orbit and a lunar landing without exceeding .22 mgy/day.  The logarithmic graph is a distraction that you are using to avoid the issue.  Deal with the facts.  Show some backbone and integrity.

[timfinch]

It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.

When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?

I have no interest in spoon feeding you and doing your homework for you.  Google is your friend.

[timfinch]

I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.

[Luke Pemberton]

Do you not read these post.  I did not say it.  They did.  They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%.  Why is that concept difficult to understand?

So why do you keep reiterating the point of the moon being radioactive? On one hand you talk about radioactive dust, the next you talk about radiation levels. There is a difference between radioactive and radiation. Understand that point, and then try to school me.

The radiation levels may be rise by 30 to 40%, this does not mean activity of the moon due to radioisotope activity is raised by 40%. The radiation levels rise due to secondary mesonic, electromagnetic and neutron radiation. No one ever challenged you on this point.
 
The moon rocks and the soil will have natural radioactivity. Just like the soil and rocks of Earth, Mars, Venus or any other rocky satellite. It's wrong for to suggest that they are prohibitively harmful. Even the CRaTER scientist have written that the levels are no more than a uranium miner or X-ray technician will receive in a year.

But eh? Go figure, some dude on the internet that cannot read a logarithmic scale has blown the whole shebang, but does not know the difference between radioactivity and radiation.

[Luke Pemberton]

I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.

You don't understand the documented evidence. That's the point. You don't understand the difference between radiation level and radioactivity. Do me, and others, the courtesy: go away and understand that simple point.

[molesworth]

It is definitive proof that they never landed on the moon.  It is all a fabrication and a mental slip on their part.  They would never openly admit to inhaling radioactive moon dust voluntarily.  If they had indeed taken samples of moon dust prior to the landing then they would have been aware that is was a radioactive hazard.  You don't have to read between the lines.  They spelled the deceit out in bold capitalized letters.

When was the risk of dust inhalation quantified?  i.e. was it before or after any of the Apollo missions?  And please don't just copy and paste a wall of text as a reply...

Also, what is the calculated risk from brief periods of inhaling dust, as in the typical stay of an Apollo mission, as opposed to long-term colonisation?

I have no interest in spoon feeding you and doing your homework for you.  Google is your friend.

Really?  That's such a lame excuse.  If you've really looked into this, and consider short-term exposure to regolith dust to be extremely dangerous, then you should have the information readily to hand.

I certainly can go and find the answers, although I expect it may take some time to find the required details.  The question is, would this data support or refute your claims???

[molesworth]

I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.

Well, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!! 

[Luke Pemberton]

Well, I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that!! 

I was 

[Abaddon]

This log graph thing is beyond your pay grade.  You fail to read the definitions or embrace the concepts involved but it is not important because whatever number you derive from the graph is still too high to add to the VAB transit, lunar orbit and a lunar landing without exceeding .22 mgy/day.  The logarithmic graph is a distraction that you are using to avoid the issue.  Deal with the facts.  Show some backbone and integrity.

Given that you have demonstrated that you don't understand log graphs AT ALL, you have no standing to make any such statement.

[Abaddon]

I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.

What is your opinion of the AP8/AE8 model?

[timfinch]

Do you not read these post.  I did not say it.  They did.  They told you it was so high that it raised lunar orbit radiation above background levels by 30 to 40%.  Why is that concept difficult to understand?

So why do you keep reiterating the point of the moon being radioactive? On one hand you talk about radioactive dust, the next you talk about radiation levels. There is a difference between radioactive and radiation. Understand that point, and then try to school me.

The radiation levels may be rise by 30 to 40%, this does not mean activity of the moon due to radioisotope activity is raised by 40%. The radiation levels rise due to secondary mesonic, electromagnetic and neutron. No one every challenged you on this point.
 
The moon rocks and the soil will have natural radioactivity. Just like the soil and rocks of Earth, mars, Venus or any other rocket satellite. It's wrong for to suggest that they are prohibitively harmful. Even the CRaTER scientist have written that the levels are no more than a uranium miner or X-ray technician will receive in a year.

But eh? Go figure, some dude on the internet that cannot read a logarithmic scale has blown the whole shebang, but doe not know the difference between radioactivity and radiation.

Realizing radiation diminishes as a function of distance, it is safe to assume that the surface is indeed higher.  In the articles that I have posted and reposted several times, states that the GCR and Solar flux is producing a neutron flux that is elevating lunar orbital radiation.  They did not say it was from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in moon rocks.  Do yourself a favor and read the definition  of a logarithmic graph.  This is truly difficult watching you make a fool of yourself.

[Abaddon]

I have presented documented evidence.  Do me the same courtesy.  In your rebuttal demonstrate that it is not merely your opinion but that it is corroborated by a reputable source.

I could do that, but any such documentation would contain lots of graphs and we have already established that you are unable to read those.

[timfinch]

You guys have nothing.  Character assassination is the only tool you bring to the table.  Not one single documented rebuttal.  I would be ashamed of myself if I were in your shoes.