View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 25 Dec 2012, 02:48

Ok, so this is an offshoot from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1496

The topic of this thread is to just discuss the radiation issue in the moon hoax debate. That is: Do concerns about radiation poisoning, particularly from the area that has been called the Van Allen belt make it implausible that the astronauts went to the moon as alleged by NASA, given that none seem to have suffered from serious radiation effects.

This is to be a no-insult thread and I'll ask Ninja to delete portions of posts from either side of the debate that contain such insults (if you could leave the substantive part that would be great - maybe just add a {portions removed for violating thread rules] in place of the deleted portion). That is: no calling people pseudoskeptics, or paranoid, or delusional, or closed-minded, or not worth talking to. The idea is to try to have an actual, mature discussion, and perhaps even come to a resolution on this one issue (might be wishful thinking! But we can dream, right?). I'll also ask Ninja to move posts dealing with other aspects of the moon hoax debate over to the main thread.

Also: while I'm not going to say don't post videos, I would suggest trying to rely primarily on written sources that we can all access for free on the net. It makes it much easier to discuss. Also, please try and source your material. Don't just make a claim that such and such is possible or not, or true or not, without posting your reasons for believing that. If you're relying on someone else, cite the source and link to the original material.

Ninja has offered to move the relevant posts over on the other thread over to this one, so I'll let her do that then we can continue the discussion.

I'll set out my background on this topic from the get-go: I have not researched this topic in depth in the past. I believe in general that man did go to the moon, but I'm open to looking at the evidence against it. But I want to do so in a structured way, as I've described in the posts that Ninja is about to move over.

This is an experiment to see what we can achieve as a forum. It it works, we can try it out on other subtopics of this debate, or on other topics entirely.

If it fails - oh well! It's worth a try I think!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 25 Dec 2012, 02:56

I commend you for having a go. I'll be interested to see where this leads, so good luck.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Dec 2012, 21:26

Arouet - On this one, I'll let you decide what goes and stays. To make it simple, just use red font in any standard reply for deletions and I'll take it from there. That way you can keep the conversation flowing. No need to give instructions, just use red font.

Also, you will need to give a clue as to what you want moved 'here' from 'there' (where?).
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby ProfWag » 25 Dec 2012, 22:05

Kudos to arouet for wanting to examine this subject logically.

As for the radiation belts, the following is from the Health Physics Society:

"The radiation levels were too low to be lethal. Astronauts on Apollo missions were exposed to radiation from the Van Allen belts (trapped particles) and the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) background. There were no solar particle events of any significance during these missions; hence, there were no dose accumulations from them. Radiation exposures for the transits through the trapped belts were kept very low by transiting quickly through them. Since the Apollo mission lengths were only a week or two, there were also no significant accumulations of radiation dose from the GCR background. Thus doses were well below thresholds for any measurable radiation effects, including lethality. Average exposures to Apollo crews measured by onboard dosimetry were 4.1 mGy (0.41 rad) absorbed dose and 12 mSv (1.2 rem) dose equivalent for the mission duration."

Larry Townsend, PhD
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q753.html

Now, I guess we could believe what Mr. Jarrah White says (albeit in 3rd person) or we can believe what an organization who specializes in radiation actually says. Personally, I vote for Dr. Townsend.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Dec 2012, 22:40

ProfWag wrote:Now, I guess we could believe what Mr. Jarrah White says (albeit in 3rd person) or we can believe what an organization who specializes in radiation actually says. Personally, I vote for Dr. Townsend.

Why do we have to "believe" what anyone says? Can't we simply explore all the details from various sources before going into a right or wrong scenario?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby ProfWag » 25 Dec 2012, 22:53

NinjaPuppy wrote:Why do we have to "believe" what anyone says? Can't we simply explore all the details from various sources before going into a right or wrong scenario?

Because to form a personal conclusion on a subject based on evidence, we have to have confidence in the source. I used the word "believe," but if you would prefer, we could say that I have more "confidence" in Dr. Townsend than Jarrah White. Better?

And Merry Christmas to you Ninja... :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 25 Dec 2012, 23:40

NinjaPuppy wrote:Also, you will need to give a clue as to what you want moved 'here' from 'there' (where?).


Didn't you say you would move the radiation posts over from the main thread once I set up an OP?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 26 Dec 2012, 01:40

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Now, I guess we could believe what Mr. Jarrah White says (albeit in 3rd person) or we can believe what an organization who specializes in radiation actually says. Personally, I vote for Dr. Townsend.

Why do we have to "believe" what anyone says? Can't we simply explore all the details from various sources before going into a right or wrong scenario?


It's a matter of trust or confidence as PW said. Do I trust the collective knowledge of learned people or do I trust the voice of one person ? A person from all intents and purposes whom appears not to have the same level of knowledge of even one learned person and whom seems too have an axe to grind.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby NinjaPuppy » 26 Dec 2012, 04:25

Arouet wrote:Didn't you say you would move the radiation posts over from the main thread once I set up an OP?

Yes. The problem is that I have no idea as to where to find the exact posts that you want here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 26 Dec 2012, 05:48

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Arouet wrote:Didn't you say you would move the radiation posts over from the main thread once I set up an OP?

Yes. The problem is that I have no idea as to where to find the exact posts that you want here.


ok, no problem, I'll do so manually.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:23

Ok, I'm going to copy some of the relevant posts over from the other thread:

I'll indicate when I'm done, so please don't make any posts in between. Thanks!

Misha wrote:Ok, ProfWag. Instead of Leggos how about Lincoln Logs? Just Kidding. Actually, it was Arouet who suggested taking one piece of evidence and running with it. My biggest contention with Apollo is the radiation issue. ProfWag, have you gone through White's "Radiation Anomaly" series?


Arouet wrote:Ok, let's look at the radiation issue. I understand the basic argument is that we should expect the astronauts that went to the moon to suffer from serious radiation effects, is that right?


really? wrote:
Arouet wrote:Ok, let's look at the radiation issue. I understand the basic argument is that we should expect the astronauts that went to the moon to suffer from serious radiation effects, is that right?


That is the basic argument and it would be correct as far as I know if the astronauts would have spent an amount of time within the belts beyond what was need to traverse through them. Here's one answer.
If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km. http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html


Just from the fact that it only took 3 days to travel 240,000 mile says these astronauts were traveling fast and that the amount of time traversing through these belts which are not that wide to begin with would be just hours at most. I've know this for a long time.


Arouet wrote:Yes, that's exactly the first thing I would have wanted to check out. How much exposure and for how long would be needed to have effects. Flying to Mars and flying to the moon would have drastically different exposure rates. Also passing through a few times would be different than passing through on a regular basis.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:28

ProfWag wrote:I did not watch the videos if that's what you're asking. When watching videos, one is not nearly as attuned yo the accuracy of the information being presented and rarely are the sources revealed so we often don't know the true source if the information. Thoughts just get whizzed by without us stopping to think.
Herre's an example. From Jarrah's website under FAQ of what is the most compelling evidence:

"First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts 10, 11"

The referenced sites are:
10. “Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March 1959.
11. “The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961.

Now, would anyone like to take a stab as to why his very first comment isn't worth a hill o' beans just by doing some quick critical thinking?
My guess is, however, that in his videos series, I would have missed this important note, but you "go on whitch ya' bad self" if you want to worship this guy.


ProfWag wrote:Don't forget the degree of trajectory,the location of the belts themselves, and Gemini 10! (Note, based on his "eulogy" on his homepage, Jarrah himself respects what Neil Armstrong did on Gemini 8 so my guess is he doesn't have an issue with Gemini 10, but I could be wrong since it would throw quite a wrench in his theory if he believes the Gemini 10 mission was as successful as 8.)



SydneyPSIder wrote:In reply to your sudden convenient fixation and derailment onto 'radiation', here's the same portal link to inform research as cited twice above already: http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:28

SydneyPSIder wrote:It's a waste of time feeding the trolls, especially when they get into a tag-teaming frenzy because they're losing a point, but here's a direct quote from the FAQ site cited 3 times now:

[A]s demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.

10. “Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March 1959.
11. “The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961.
12. “Radiation Protection During Space Flight”, E.E. Kovalev. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, December 1983.

Any 'research' published by NASA post-1963 would have to be looked at incredulously as they had decided by the mid-60s that they would have to fake it. Hence you would need independent corroboration from a trustworthy scientific source, if such a thing exists, much like the ESA probe that got a completely different spectographic result from an analysis of actual moon dust than the Apollo team produced in conjunction with American faked results occurring after that. Talk about 'bad science', you guys wrote the book on it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:31

Arouet wrote:Ok, this link shouldn't be considered definitive because its not sourced and its a blog run by a group dedicated to debunking the moon landing conspiracy theory. That said, I find that it provides a good layperson's overview of the issues and even if you don't accept the answers I think we can probably agree that the questions it poses are relevant questions to be asking when evaluating this topic.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html


Arouet wrote:My suggestion is, before we get into a debate over the substance of the answers, let's go back over the Jarah material to see if he addressed the questions.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 27 Dec 2012, 13:31

Arouet wrote:Ok, so I want to now go through the exerpt that Sydney is fond of, to see if White addressed the questions raised. Remember: I'm not looking at substnace except to the extent that the White entry addresses the issue or not.

[A]s demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.


So here what we don't see addressed are a few issues: is the radiation the same at every spot in the belt? How much radiation will cause damage to humans? How long do they have to be in that radiation to sustain damage? Is the source that White relies on (the early Van Allen paper) enough to do more than identify the concern? What efforts did NASA take to address the worries?

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.


Ok, so he starts to recognize these issues, recognizing that there are different measurements at different spots and he refers to a conclusion that Van Allen makes that it would be unsafe for even short durations at the time. It's not clear if White is still referring to the 1960-1961 publication but there is almost a decade after that that NASA worked on this before the date of the flight.

White makes no effort in this article to describe how NASA addressed these issues. He seems to just accept his interpretation of Van Allen as saying its impossible to safely go through it, and leaves it at that, because in the next paragraph he moves on.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.


Now, White is clearly raising an important issue. But he ignores a few things. He doesn't look at the issue of whether it was possible to avoid certain flares and doesn't address whether NASA would have warning about the more dangerous ones. He does note the difference between major and minor ones. What he doesn't do is explain the significance of the numbers he describes. How many MeVs is considered dangeous?

For later in the discussion I'll be interested to try and find out who is more accurate between White and teh Clavius article because they give conflicting information about how many major flares went off during the mission and whether the ship went through them. But let's leave that aside for now, while we identify the questions that need to be asked.

I'm doing this quickly on my lunch break. I'm sure there are questions that I've missed, but I'd like to hear from others on this. Not the substance, but just identifying the right questions to ask and figure out if White has asked them. I have a strong preference for using text for these. An analysis like I just did is MUCH MUCH more cumbersome going off video. That said, if the only White source is a video, I guess we'll have no choice.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests