View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          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.

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 21:13

Misha wrote:I have not backed off the radiation issue. It is my opinion that NASA has not been forthcoming or has obfuscated the radiation issue concerning Apollo. The books and White have reasonably asserted why.


Ok, so let's assume for the sake of the argument that they have. The purpose of this thread is to try and push through that and figure out what has teeth and what doesn't.

Yes, I also focus on the control of the information per my reading of Lifton's and Mitchell's book as an example. So far this book has done a good job showing how information is censored. Yes, this may be tangential, but offers some insight with how radiation in general is handled. The Apollo Press kit in my opinion is the same as W.L. Laurence being conscripted under the National Security State to write for the Pentagon months before the bombs were dropped. Truman read this in his first address to the nation. Could the Press Kit be the same modus operandi to control journalists. I think this is a possibility which needs to be explored. Again, this is about control and Apollo's radiation issue in all likelihood was following the same format.


Of course information is controlled and packaged - it is in the Apollo press kit, and it is in Lifton and Mitchell's book, and any other source. Everyone has their own agenda, and everyone has their own biases - including the authors you are relying on. I've shown some blatant things that White got wrong for example. Does that mean he was deliberately so? I don't have any reason to think that - though of course its possible. But incompetence is always the first thing to consider before going to malfeasance, and I think that's most likely the case with White (at least as far as I've gotten so far). I'll continue going through the series.

The skeptical approach is to try and parse through all that. Not just accept this source or that source but break it down and try to figure out what is reliable and what isn't. That is what I've been trying to do with the analysis in this thread. You've got to be really careful about just reading or watching these guys and coming to the overall conclusion that they make sense, without getting into the nitty gritty and checking to see whether they are reliable.

I was briefly looking at the two books last night that you recommended, with the intention of perhaps buying one of them. The One Small Step seems to be written in a sarcastic tone from what I can see, which would get annoying quickly. The Dark Moon seems to want to go into some sort of ET plot? which raises all sorts of red flags for me. I may be willing to go through one of them (at least one small step seems to have an ebook version) - can you say which you find more credible and which is most worth looking into further?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 21:33

Arouet wrote:
Misha wrote:I have not backed off the radiation issue. It is my opinion that NASA has not been forthcoming or has obfuscated the radiation issue concerning Apollo. The books and White have reasonably asserted why.


Ok, so let's assume for the sake of the argument that they have. The purpose of this thread is to try and push through that and figure out what has teeth and what doesn't.

Yes, I also focus on the control of the information per my reading of Lifton's and Mitchell's book as an example. So far this book has done a good job showing how information is censored. Yes, this may be tangential, but offers some insight with how radiation in general is handled. The Apollo Press kit in my opinion is the same as W.L. Laurence being conscripted under the National Security State to write for the Pentagon months before the bombs were dropped. Truman read this in his first address to the nation. Could the Press Kit be the same modus operandi to control journalists. I think this is a possibility which needs to be explored. Again, this is about control and Apollo's radiation issue in all likelihood was following the same format.


Of course information is controlled and packaged - it is in the Apollo press kit, and it is in Lifton and Mitchell's book, and any other source. Everyone has their own agenda, and everyone has their own biases - including the authors you are relying on. I've shown some blatant things that White got wrong for example. Does that mean he was deliberately so? I don't have any reason to think that - though of course its possible. But incompetence is always the first thing to consider before going to malfeasance, and I think that's most likely the case with White (at least as far as I've gotten so far). I'll continue going through the series.

The skeptical approach is to try and parse through all that. Not just accept this source or that source but break it down and try to figure out what is reliable and what isn't. That is what I've been trying to do with the analysis in this thread. You've got to be really careful about just reading or watching these guys and coming to the overall conclusion that they make sense, without getting into the nitty gritty and checking to see whether they are reliable.

I was briefly looking at the two books last night that you recommended, with the intention of perhaps buying one of them. The One Small Step seems to be written in a sarcastic tone from what I can see, which would get annoying quickly. The Dark Moon seems to want to go into some sort of ET plot? which raises all sorts of red flags for me. I may be willing to go through one of them (at least one small step seems to have an ebook version) - can you say which you find more credible and which is most worth looking into further?



Like all books, these two have their strengths and weaknesses. I personally would recommend Percy and Bennett's book for a good overall view. I however agree with you that the last third of Percy and Bennett's book is beyond the scope of what this forum is looking at. Wisnewski's book is interesting in that it gets into ham operators monitoring Soviet space activity before Sputnik. And, Wisnewski's research concerning that NASA could not at the time show exactly where all 6 LEM descent vehicles were located. Yes, White hits on some of this in his videos.

Arouet, I recommend you read both books to get an overall view of the Apollo controversy. I think this is the best way to go before picking out the minutia you might not agree with. There's a lotta smoke in my opinion. Now how to find the fire after all these years will elude us in the end I fear. What will invariably happen will be a challenge to NASA's record and science measured in authorative faith at the end of the day.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 22:24

Ok, so part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ur7gB3ABo0

After wrapping up his digression on the gloves, he gets back on topic. He says the following:

And knowing that a mere 30 minutes inside the anomaly is enough to fry the hubble, how long can we expect the astronauts to last in it?


This raises a serious issue that I find with White's treatment of these issues - he deals with these topics on a pretty superficial basis and then draws huge conclusions. His framing of this question is all wrong and reflects no depth of thought about the hubble issue.

The belt doesn't "fry the hubble". It fries certain types of electronic equipment on the hubble (or on whatever kind of craft goes through it.) And even then it seems to disrupt more than fry it. Here is an article - yes from the NASA site - explaining the issue: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shutt ... uters.html

The article discusses the various types of computing that is on the shuttles, and notes that most of the in built computers are actually quite primitive compared to modern computers, having only the exact amount of power needed to run the various tasks it is programmed for. It describes how modern laptops are far more sensitive to radiation and that modern laptops would crash when they went into the SAA. Note - it doesn't say that they get fried, or break, but the radiation interferes with their operation. The article explains that the onboard computing doesn't crash because the hardware includes a memory scrubber that prevents the system from reading radiation-changed memory.

Some of the electronic on Hubble are also sensitive to the radiation - and so those parts are taken offline as it passes through the anomaly.

To extrapolate from that to: "And knowing that a mere 30 minutes inside the anomaly is enough to fry the hubble, how long can we expect the astronauts to last in it?" is pure non-sequitur. Frankly, it is misleading. Now it does look like he's going to go into more detail on how the radiation could affect humans in the next segment, and perhaps that will be a valid argument - but this argument here is just not sound.

White basically then moves on to the next topic! He makes no effort to explore the subtleties of the issue, but cryptically asked if this is the reason they faked the hubble repairs?

The rest of the video has a lengthy clip from the fox broadcast, briefly mentions issue re: film in space (so brief that I'm assuming he's going to go into it in more detail later so I'll wait for that to look into that issue), and then goes on to describe what was set out from the beginning, that there is a lot of radiation in the Van Allen belt (why that's not in episode 1 I don't know).

He then features an extended clip from someone named Ralph Renes, who he had had on before. I looked up his website. Rene, who unfortunately passed away in 2008, is described on his site, which is still being maintained as "René is the last name of a mostly self taught "extra bright kid from the slums." Now, being self-taught isn't necessarily a bad thing (afterall - that's what I'm doing right now) but it does make one pause before concluding that someone is an expert. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it is a strange choice.

He also seems to have some pretty off the beaten path physics hypotheses which I'm not qualified to evaluate but to me are red flags. He describes some experiments he did which he claims disproves some newtonian calculations and the like. One of the downsides of not going through a PhD is that you don't learn the tools of good research design. It is possible to pick it up, of course, but there is no indication of that on his site or in the way he describes his experiments. I did a search of his name on google scholar, and outside of his own self-published books, I couldn't find any peer reviewed papers that he has authored - which is concerning.

Again: none of that means that he's wrong, but imo he requires a huge amount of scrutiny and White gives no indication that he has provided that scrutiny.

The other concern is that White seems to be the person administering Rene's site at the present time, and is handling purchases of Rene's publications. White does not indicate his potential conflict of interest in the video. It is unclear whether White is personally benefiting from the funds received or whether they go to Rene's heirs. Still, there is a pretty clear conflict of interest that at the very least should have been disclosed on the video.

Other than linking to Rene's website, he offers no explanation in the video of who Rene is at all and why his opinion should be considered reliable.

He then notes that without any shielding there'd be a lot of radiation. With a thin lead shield it would be as high as 100 vrem per hour. Video cut off there, so I'm assuming he'll go into more in the next part.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 23:08

Ok, onto part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE9tIOwWyo8

From the way part 5 ended, I am hopeful that he's going to get to some real meat here, as he was starting to look at how much radiation an human can take and looking at the shielding issue.

The part continues with Rene's voice describing Van Allen's initial opinons on the belt and then describes the quote that the suggestion that radiation would have been fatal to the Apollo astronauts as nonsense as a "retraction". Well, as we discussed earlier in the thread, I don't think it was a retraction. A decade had passed whereby the radiation had been studied in more detail including the ways to shield it and deal with it. He presents Rene's statement as saying he made a mistake. He didn't. Why is White presenting it as such?

He keeps on repeating Phil Plaitt's comments about hubble shutting down as if that's an answer. I'm sorry, but its not. White has to start asking better questions! He goes on to note that the SAA has radiation levels at about 2.5 rad/hr and that therefore 2.5 rad/hr is enough to jam hubble's instruments. I really don't feel like double checking that fact because again - it asks the wrong question. The right question is what effect would the radiation have on humans, and how much radiation did they get?

he then looks in particular at the shuttle SGS 109 which spent about 10 days in orbit. He calculates that it would have made 23 passes through the anomaly - let's accept that for the sake of the argument. He calculates that it would be 28.7 rem for the crew of the shuttle. He makes no mention of shielding.

He then goes back to Rene, looking at an article about chernobyl quoting 25 rem as an acceptable once in a lifetime dose. He then concludes that the crew received more than the allowable lifetime limits.

Again, this is an example of White not asking the right questions. First of all: the estimate in the time article may or may not be accurate. That is: It may be the 25 rem is ok for a person, and so is 28. These aren't an exact science. But the bigger issue is that just calculating how much radiation is in the SAA does not mean that the astronauts absorbed that amount! He notes that NASA reported that the astronauts absorbed less than 4 rem.

The rest of the part was just maddening. He quotes from someone who reproduced a chart from NCRP-98 - the national counsel on radiation protection and measurements, and claims that since it shows relatively small exposures to radiation, that NASA must be lying about the numbers. Mystifyingly - he doesn't take into account shielding! It is simply inexplicable! It is very misleading. I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but it is hugely misleading and his conclusions are just simply misguided.

Here is an excerpt form the actual report, which White gives no indication of actually having read himself: http://www.workingonthemoon.com/NCRP-98 ... Report.pdf

Recommendations about radiation protection in space cannot be made
without a knowledge of the fluences, energies and charges of the radia-
tions encountered
. The primary sources of radiation in space are con-
ventionally classified into trapped particle radiation, galactic cosmic
radiation and solar particle radiation, The radiation environments
encountered in space are complex.
In earth orbits, exposures are influ-
enced by altitude, inclination of the orbit, shielding and duration of the
mission. Both dose rates and radiation quality vary with altitude
and inclination.

The inclination of low earth orbits (LEO) is important for two masons.
First, certain inclinations involve orbits that traverse the South Atlantic
Anomaly, where the inner radiation belt (the Van Allen belt) is closest
to the earth. Second, at the North and South Poles them is leas shielding
by the geomagnetic field. Thus, in polar orbits, there will be a higher
level of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar particle events (SPEJ will
have a greater impact than in other low earth orbits.

A representative daily dose equivalent in a space station at an altitude
of 450 km at an inclination of 28.5O with 1 g per cm* Al shielding is
of the order of 1 mSv (100 mrem). The dose in one day in such an en-
vimnment is, therefore, about equal to that nscelvsd on earth from natural
sources (other than radon) in a year.
(my underline)


Now, White may want to argue that that is balderdash- that the shielding really doesn't work to that extent - but he doesn't. Instead, he assumes that the numbers are referring to non-shielded radiation amounts, and calls them liars on that basis. If White read the report, why does he present it in such a misleading way. And if he didn't read the report, what does that say about the research he did for his videos?

I'm open to being shown that my analysis here is wrong and that I'm missing something. Afterall, I haven't spent more than a couple days on this material and I am certainly no expert. I'd appreciate it if any of you can show me that I'm just missing something fundamental in how White presents this information. I'll be happy to say that I was wrong if I've made a mistake here.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 01 Jan 2013, 23:52

All good points you bring up Arouet. One can make a reasonable guess why White asks only questions that bring him back to his original premise.
Last edited by really? on 03 Jan 2013, 05:56, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 02 Jan 2013, 00:14

Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydZ8FyTqC0

I'm sorry, but White is just driving me crazy here!

The part starts off pretty good. He brings up two quotes revolving around how quickly the body can recover from minor radiation (ie: not of the stronger solar flare variety). One quote suggests that if exposure is limited to 20 minutes, then in the following 70 minutes the body has time to start repairing before entering again for another round. He contrasts this to someone from the clavius website who says that the body takes hours or days to heal, not minutes. He then makes the fallacious argument that one or both of them must be lying. That comment shouldn't matter because of course he's then going to follow this up but looking into the matter more deeply, right? And tell us what he thinks the implications of either statement are and whether he thinks either of them are correct? BUT NO! He then moves on to the topic I predicted he would spend more time on: the film issue! The film issue is a valid issue and should be discussed but why cut off his analysis of the first two quotes where he did? He leaves us with his conclusion that they are lying, and provides absolutely no further insight into why he brought this up, or why we should conisder this issue important.


So let's track down these quotes and see if we can figure out the implications:
Here is the first quotation, taken from this article: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... st04may_1/

The third kind of radiation, which surrounds Earth in areas known as Van Allen belts, consist mostly of decayed products from galactic cosmic ray interactions that have been trapped by Earth's magnetic field.
Some of this trapped radiation is confined to a region above the coast of Brazil, known as the South Atlantic Anomaly. "The Space Station goes through that Anomaly roughly five times a day," says Badhwar. The passage takes, at most, 22 or 23 minutes. That's good, he says.

"If you go through the trapped radiation belt in less than twenty minutes or so, then for the next seventy minutes the body has time to do some repair to the damage done by the radiation.” The radiation from solar flares can actually do more harm, he says, simply because it comes at a rate that doesn't give the body time to recover.


Here's the full clavius quotation: http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]

This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.


Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.

The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it's not as if there's a clearly demarcated boundary. It's a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?

A short, intense exposure is safer than continuous or periodic exposure at lower intensity.


White interprets these two quotations as contradictory. A close read doesn't bear that out.

The first quote suggests that the body has some time over the 70 minutes following exposure to "do some repair to the damage done by the radiation." This is not contradicted by the statement that 90 minutes is not enough time to recover. The first quote refers to some repair. Necessarily, if the cells regenerate completely within hours or days then some repair will be done in the first hour.

Unfortunately, White then drops the issue and doesn't tell us why he thinks the actual apollo plan would not have been safe. Perhaps he'll come back to this issue in future parts.


Ok, on to the film issue, which raises some interesting questions and I'd certainly like to know more about it. He plays the same clip that he played in the previous part of the guy from kodak explaining how film generally is impacted by radiation - so how do we have all these pictures?

He then plays a later clip by the same guy who explains in that clip that the primary effect of radiation on film is to contrast. "The tests that were done indicated that the storing of the film magazines in special containers within the CSM (which was itself shielded to some degree from radiation) was obviously enough."

He then shows Marcus Allen discussing the filming of the ISS, which is says used the same kind of film as Apollo did. He cites an article describing how they had to hurry to take the pictures in under two minutes or the film would have been ruined. He also cites a New York Times article describing how radiation can cause film to fog. The article describes how they apparently shielded the film in bags of water to protect them. White doesn't contradict this.

He brings up that on Apollo, the astronauts did not return the camera to the LEM after two minutes of shooting. He notes that the astronauts ventured out and spent about 7 hours on the lunar surface. He compares the apollo pictures to other lunar pictures and pictures outside chernobyl which show apparent fogging effect from the radiation.

This is certainly an interesting point and is worthy of further exploration. Thankfully, White seems that he's going to continue with the topic in the next part so I'll withhold any analysis here until the segment is concluded.




obviously one or both of them are lying
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 02 Jan 2013, 01:05

Ok, so Part 7 ended on promising note of some real substance. White continues on the film theme in Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McEPM0Sccxk

He shows an expert who did some testing on what I presume to be similar film and showed how exposure to 5 rems fogged and diluted the negatives. So far so good. He brings in a counterpoint from clavius, critiquing the experiment, suggesting that the dosage applied in the experiment was more than the film would have received in space. So far, I like the way White is framing this issue.

White acknowledges a tiny bit of truth to the clavius position. but accuses Winderly (sp? the clavius guy) of misleading his readers. White notes that Winderly appears to be basing his numbers on the low range of space radiation but that the levels of radiation can be significantly higher. He notes that at the low end the film might be safe but not on the high end. He shows some information on lunar xrays, protons and the like.

He notes that clavius critiques Groves for not having used the film and camera that was used on the mission. Winderly in a video claims that he was using an identical camera to that used on Apollo. White says that he wrote to the company, and shows an email reply saying that the camera used on the mission was the only one made of its kind. White reasonably asks how then did Winderley get one?

The part ends there, so again I'll hold off any detailed analysis until the segment is concluded.

I note that this film argument is to this point noticeably better argued than the rest of the series to date. Notice, that it is now entering its third part, indicating the benefit of spending more time on a topic produces a more well rounded and substantive analysis.

I think White raises some good questions here that I would certainly like answered. Let's see how the next part goes.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 02 Jan 2013, 04:32

Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976WArQQHlU

White continues on the film issue.

He completes Winderley's quote about the limits of using a disimilar camera.

White looks at a hubble picture taken while in the anomaly (no reference to his earlier doubting of that fact!) which shows the radiation effect in the SAA. I'm not sure why he refers to this since he has repeatedly brought up Phil Plaitt's quote about turning the hubble cameras off while in the SAA. It does clarify the issue, that the equipment isn't "fried" but rather the radiation interferes with taking a good picture. He quotes Van Allen saying that exposure of film to the SAA would render it unusable. Again, not a surprising point. Not sure why he's focussing on this since the moon photos were not taken from within the SAA.

He makes his point a little clearer by comparing the SAA photo to an ISS photo. He makes the odd comment that if the ISS passes through the SAA several times a day, why are there no photos showing the same radiation effect. He doesn't make clear why he thinks ISS residents would be taking photos while they pass through the SAA. Dramatic music flares at this point I guess to indicate what he thinks is a major point. Does he envision the ISS astronauts spacewalking WHILE passing through the SAA?

He next raises a question that I had as well: he asks whether the astronauts in the ISS are any safer than astronauts in the space shuttles or space walking. He shows a broadcast from the ISS. The astronauts talks about a plant experiment where the plants are exposed to the same levels of radiation as he is. He talks about the background cosmic rays, that they still get those. White seems to think that significant - he even repeats the quote. I'll reproduce it here:

The radiation [will] certainly affect the seeds. Actually, inside the space [station] we still get the background cosmic rays, which are the most devastating radiation. The heavier particles, we still get those. We have some shielding from the solar particles in here, but the cosmic rays still come through the space station."


Wait! He just moves on after that! He doesn't discuss how much radiation actually gets through! He doesn't provide any details about where the ISS astronauts were when they took the photos and why theoretically there should be radiation damage at that time.

I hope he comes back to the film issue, because he seems to have just left it hanging.

He moves on to looking at how long the Apollos spent in the belt. He cites William Wheaton, who - much to my dismay - was an MIT trained astronomy working at the the Spitzer Space Telescope Science Centre and did not play Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: the Next Generation.

He quotes Wheaton as follows:

The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.

This is the straightforward, scientific answer. It is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.


White then sites Van Allen who reasonably said the following:

somehow the human body will have to be shielded from this radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region.


White's conclusion:

Therefore, by Dr. Van Allen's admission, even Apollo's rapid transit through the radiation belt would not have been enough to protect it's astronauts. This statement directly condemns, the propagandist's prime argument that the Apollo's brief one hour exposure was not enough to cause tissue damage.
[/quote]

Wait, what? Honestly, it's getting hard to stay polite here. What about the shielding provided by the spacecraft and their suits? It would be one thing if White looked at that issue and declared it insufficient, but White doesn't mention shielding at all! He makes it seem as if the astronauts were spacewalking through the belt!

I don't know what to make of White here. His argument is simply untenable. The conclusion does not flow from the premises. The only question is whether White honestly believed his argument or not. If he did, then honestly I have to question his ability to put forward even the most basic syllogistic argument.

His argument breaks down as follows:

P1: the Van Allen Belt contains radiation harmful to humans who pass through it even for brief periods
P2: humans passing through the Van Allen Belt will require shielding in order to avoid harm
P3: humans passed through the Van Allen Belt for a brief period
C: The humans would have been harmed by the radiation

Do we see the logical gap here?

And then the part ends with White preparing to move onto a new topic. He dropped the film issue entirely! He didn't bring it home! His strongest issue: that the astronauts being out on the moon for 7 hours might have damaged the film is completely uninvestigated. Other than noting that they didn't return the camera to the LEM, he doesn't say whether they took any other precautions - or whether they needed to. He states that space particles could vary in intensity but didn't state if he had any idea what the actual readings were on the moon at the time of the landing!

Now, it is possible that he will come back to it in the next Part, so I'll hold off doing my own investigation into this issue until after Part 10.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Jan 2013, 20:46

There appears to be a lot NASA didn't know in the 60s:

Houston, we have another problem: Study shows space travel is harmful to the brain
December 31, 2012

As if space travel was not already filled with enough dangers, a new study out today in the journal PLOS ONE shows that cosmic radiation – which would bombard astronauts on deep space missions to places like Mars – could accelerate the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

For over 25 years, NASA has been funding research to determine the potential health risks of space travel in an effort to both develop countermeasures and determine whether or not the risks warranted sending men and women on extended missions in deep space

Since that time, several studies have demonstrated the potential cancer, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal impact of galactic cosmic radiation. The study out today for the first time examines the potential impact of space radiation on neurodegeneration, in particular, the biological processes in the brain that contribute to the development of Alzheimer's disease. O'Banion – whose research focuses on how radiation affects the central nervous system – and his team have been working with NASA for over eight years.

The researchers studied the impact of a particular form of radiation called high-mass, high-charged (HZE) particles. These particles – which are propelled through space at very high speeds by the force of exploding stars – come in many different forms. For this study the researcher chose iron particles. Unlikely hydrogen protons, which are produced by solar flares, the mass of HZE particles like iron, combined with their speed, enable them to penetrate solid objects such as the wall and protective shielding of a spacecraft.

"Because iron particles pack a bigger wallop it is extremely difficult from an engineering perspective to effectively shield against them," said O'Banion. "One would have to essentially wrap a spacecraft in a six-foot block of lead or concrete."

A portion of the research was conducted at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. NASA located its research operation at Brookhaven to take advantage of the Lab's particle accelerators which – by colliding matter together at very high speeds – can reproduce the radioactive particles found in space.

The researchers specifically wanted to examine whether or not radiation exposure had the potential to accelerate the biological and cognitive indicators of Alzheimer's disease, particularly in individuals who may be predisposed to developing the disease. To accomplish this they chose study the impact on animal models of Alzheimer's disease. These particular models have been extensively studied and scientists understand the precise timeframe in which the disease progresses over time.

At Brookhaven, the animals were exposed to various doses of radiation, including levels comparable to what astronauts would be experience during a mission to Mars. Back in Rochester, a team of researchers – including URMC graduate student Jonathan Cherry, who was first author on the paper – evaluated the cognitive and biological impact of the exposure. The mice underwent a series of experiments during which they had to recall objects or specific locations. The researchers observed that mice exposed to radiation were far more likely to fail these tasks – suggesting neurological impairment – earlier than these symptoms would typically appear.

The brains of the mice also showed signs of vascular alterations and a greater than normal accumulation of beta amyloid, the protein "plaque" that accumulates in the brain and is one of the hallmarks of the disease. "These findings clearly suggest that exposure to radiation in space has the potential to accelerate the development of Alzheimer's disease," said O'Banion. "This is yet another factor that NASA, which is clearly concerned about the health risks to its astronauts, will need to take into account as it plans future missions."


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-houston-pr ... n.html#jCp

Funny how well the Apollo astronauts seemed to survive with no such health problems! It's fortunate they haven't put anyone in harm's way yet!
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 02 Jan 2013, 22:44

SydneyPSIder wrote:There appears to be a lot NASA didn't know in the 60s:

Houston, we have another problem: Study shows space travel is harmful to the brain
December 31, 2012

You are being obtuse. What does this have to do with men setting foot on the Moon ?
Last edited by really? on 03 Jan 2013, 05:57, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 02 Jan 2013, 22:54

SydneyPSIder wrote:Funny how well the Apollo astronauts seemed to survive with no such health problems! It's fortunate they haven't put anyone in harm's way yet!


Sydney, you seem to be suggesting that the implications of this study are that if the astronauts from Apollo didn't get Alzheimer's that this should be considered evidence they didn't go to the moon. Am I reading you right? Unless you were just joking.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 03 Jan 2013, 06:22

Arouet you've done fair analysis. Perhaps the reason there's not been rebuttal is because the discrepancy's you raise of White's analysis are not easily addressed.

Looking at his site's FAQ I find this incredible piece of journalistic slop. To ignore the fact that the Soviets had radar tracking ability like we did makes what's written below down right dubious in the least. And the Soviets had the ability to triangulate US communications. This makes it doubly dubious. To assume the Soviets would have sat on their collective haunches and said nothing about us not going strains credulity beyond the pale.
In the former case, the Apollo 10 astronauts were launched with the Saturn V and simply orbited the earth for the duration of their mission. In the event that any independent party made an attempt to listen in, Apollo telecommunications were relayed to an unmanned cislunar craft, which then repeated or reflected the signals towards the earth. To account for the time that the CSM went behind the earth, three geostationary relay satellites would be required to maintain a continuous connection with the unmanned moon craft. http://www.moonfaker.com/home.html
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby SydneyPSIder » 03 Jan 2013, 06:44

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Funny how well the Apollo astronauts seemed to survive with no such health problems! It's fortunate they haven't put anyone in harm's way yet!


Sydney, you seem to be suggesting that the implications of this study are that if the astronauts from Apollo didn't get Alzheimer's that this should be considered evidence they didn't go to the moon. Am I reading you right? Unless you were just joking.

The point is that NASA knew that they didn't know what might happen to anyone who went through the belts and left the magnetosphere to be exposed to the full strength of solar radiation. For that reason, and for the sheer impossibility of pulling off up to 10 announced missions successfully or without the death of some astronauts, they elected not to go ahead. They had probably already concluded it was a technical impossibility to achieve missions successfully regardless of radiation risks to health of the astronauts.

What medical studies were conducted on the supposed Apollo astronauts on their return? The joke was that people met them wearing face masks in case they came back with 'strange bacteria' from the moon that would kill you dead on inhalation, or some such nonsense -- total 1950s B-grade Hollywood sci-fi schlock. As one commentator points out, once NASA and the govt had confirmed that enough people had bought the story while the astronauts remained on ice, they dropped the pretence of intensive 'medical' treatment after return after the first mission.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 03 Jan 2013, 07:15, edited 1 time in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 03 Jan 2013, 07:06

Guys,

I see you folks have seen the Alzheimer's radiation article. A lot of lead or two meters of water surrounding the craft to protect from radiation. Galactic Cosmic radiation that is. If we want to go to Mars I would think we would have spent the years in between knowing definitively the effects of long term exposure of radiation by putting a base on the moon. Project Horizon was such a proposed endeavor but was cancelled.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/astronauts ... OS7aLYQLUS
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 03 Jan 2013, 07:15

"SydneyPSIder"]
Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Funny how well the Apollo astronauts seemed to survive with no such health problems! It's fortunate they haven't put anyone in harm's way yet!

Sydney, you seem to be suggesting that the implications of this study are that if the astronauts from Apollo didn't get Alzheimer's that this should be considered evidence they didn't go to the moon. Am I reading you right? Unless you were just joking.

The point is that NASA knew that they didn't know what might happen to anyone who went through the belts and left the magnetosphere to be exposed to the full strength of solar radiation. For that reason, and for the sheer impossibility of pulling off up to 10 announced missions successfully or without the death of some astronauts, they elected not to go ahead. They had probably already concluded it was a technical impossibility to achieve missions successfully regardless of radiation risks to health of the astronauts.

What medical studies were conducted on the supposed Apollo astronauts on their return? The joke was that people met them wearing face masks in case they came back with 'strange bacteria' from the moon that would kill you dead on inhalation, or some such nonsense -- total 1950s B-grade Hollywood sci-fi schlock. As one commentator points out, once NASA and the govt had confirmed that enough people had bought the story while the astronauts remained on ice, they dropped the pretence of intensive 'medical' treatment after return after the first mission.


As a kid I remember the astronauts getting off the helicopter and put into one of those trailer containment pods. I distinctly remembering that they did not look to happy too. I found that puzzling at my age. I thought there would be a big whoopie look on their faces. Yes, purely subjective but it has stuck with me all these years. Boy, I would love to have been a fly on the wall for their debriefing.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron