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=McEPM0SccxkHe 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.