The Apollo astronots would have fried! 375 rem/day

In message , Nathan Jones
writes
The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
| The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
| period.

No. The peak occurred before 1969. The bulk of the translunar moon
missions took place as the solar max was subsiding.

| It was known at the time that on any particular day there
| were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
| 15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth

You're citing David Wozney's unnamed source, and citing it wrong.

| and if we take them all to be low energy flares of about
| 25 rem each...

No. The original source discusses *detectable* events, not low level
events, and does not give a dosage estimation.

| then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
| exposed to 375 rem each day.

Okay, so there's a whole lot of prediction and guesswork here. Did you
actually go check to see if the actual data matches your guesses? What the
conspiracy theorists don't tell you is that the *actual* solar activity
averaged about one significant (not necessarily fatal) flare per two
missions during the operational Apollo phase.

| The maximum permissible dose for Joe public is 0.5 rem per year.

Do you understand the difference between legal limits and biologically
significant limits?

| Go figure!

I have. Have you?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Nathan Jones wrote:

The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!
Hmmmmm so you don't believe in communication satellites either then. Because
they are right out beyond Earth's protection, and electronics care a lot
more about radiation than human tissue.

Steve Campbell wrote on Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:40:37 +0000:
:SC Nathan Jones wrote:

The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!
:SC Hmmmmm so you don't believe in communication satellites either then. Because
:SC they are right out beyond Earth's protection, and electronics care a lot
:SC more about radiation than human tissue.

Not to mention that they are also built to the same exact radiation
references and standards that guided Apollo.... If everyone was off
by a factor of 100 or more (as Mr. Jones is), then all our satellites
would be failing with rates that would put our satellite insurance
companies out of business.

Jim.

Jim Scotti
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/

wrote in message
...
| then all our satellites would be failing with rates that would
| put our satellite insurance companies out of business.

Let's put this in real terms. Last I checked a year or so ago, Boeing alone
had built and delivered 70+ of just one model of their communication
satellites. At a conservative estimate of $300 million each to orbit,
that's more than $21 billion invested with just one aerospace company alone.
The life span of this spacecraft is expected to be 15 years or so according
to the AP8 and AE8 radiation models, derived in large part from Apollo data.
If Mr. Jones' estimates were true, none of these spacecraft would have
lasted more than a couple of months. Now if you were insuring a product
line with a revenue stream greater than NASA's entire yearly budget,
wouldn't you make sure that the data according to which they were engineered
was absolutely correct?

This isn't a matter of national pride or the politics of deception. This is
about obscene amounts of money. That transcends a lot of abstract loyalty.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

In article ,
wrote:

Steve Campbell wrote on Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:40:37
+0000:
:SC Nathan Jones wrote:

The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!
:SC Hmmmmm so you don't believe in communication satellites either then.
:Because
:SC they are right out beyond Earth's protection, and electronics care a lot
:SC more about radiation than human tissue.

Not to mention that they are also built to the same exact radiation
references and standards that guided Apollo.... If everyone was off
by a factor of 100 or more (as Mr. Jones is), then all our satellites
would be failing with rates that would put our satellite insurance
companies out of business.

All the moon hoaxers have demonstrated is that they are 100% clue- and
fact-proof.


-=-=-=-=-

"Steve Campbell" wrote in message
...
Nathan Jones wrote:

The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!
Hmmmmm so you don't believe in communication satellites either then.
Because
they are right out beyond Earth's protection, and electronics care a lot
more about radiation than human tissue.

In all fairness, the satellites are inside earth's magnetic field, and that
yields very considerable protection (unless they are directly over the
magnetic poles).
Now, I don't believe that the apollo program was just a big elaborate hoax,
but I would still like to have cleared up how the missions could be carried
out in safety from the radiation.

Dear Laura:

"Laura" wrote in message
...

"Steve Campbell" wrote in message
...
Nathan Jones wrote:

The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!
Hmmmmm so you don't believe in communication satellites either then.
Because
they are right out beyond Earth's protection, and electronics care a
lot
more about radiation than human tissue.

In all fairness, the satellites are inside earth's magnetic field, and
that
yields very considerable protection (unless they are directly over the
magnetic poles).
Now, I don't believe that the apollo program was just a big elaborate
hoax,
but I would still like to have cleared up how the missions could be
carried
out in safety from the radiation.

The radiation doses accumulated by the Apollo astronauts are public record.
As well as the doses received by various astronauts, from many countries
over time.

There are places on the planet Earth (river deltas, marble buildings) that
exceed the "permissible" limit for exposure to radiation. Check out
"hormesis" while you are investigating... "What does not kill us, makes us
stronger."

The survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that had no notable ill effects had
estimated doses of 50 rem. So a conservative value of 5 rem per year was
established from this. (Mr. Jones bad math should have achieved 37.5 rem.)

We all have potassium in our bodies, as a necessary ingredient for life.
Some of this potassium is radioactive, and the general health of a person
(aka background level of potassium) can be established by use of a (very
accurate) geiger counter.

We grew up with radiation, just as we grew up with pneumonia and influenza.
Don't let the word "radiation" scare you. It is ignorance that will rob
you of freedom, and Mr. Jones is doing his share to feed on this ignorance.

David A. Smith

"Laura" wrote in message
...
|
| In all fairness, the satellites are inside earth's magnetic field

Not the geostationary ones, nor the GPS ones.

| Now, I don't believe that the apollo program was just a big
| elaborate hoax, but I would still like to have cleared up how
| the missions could be carried out in safety from the radiation.

Easy. The conspiracy theories are very, very wrong about the nature,
frequency, and general effects of space radiation. They hype up the
supposed danger and play off the public's natural (but frequently
irrational) fear of radiation. Nathan Jones just copies his material from a
guy named David Wozney, who isn't any kind of an expert at all in radiation.
So what you need to get cleared up is why people who have studied radiation
professionally for their entire careers are being ignored, while some guy
that no one's ever heard of is considered some sort of oracle on the
subject. And for that you'll have to ask Mr. Jones.

You have two basic sources of radiation: the Van Allen belts, and solar
events. Now notwithstanding what has happened in the past two weeks, solar
particle events are comparatively rare. The "solar maximum" (the 11-year
cycle of increased solar activity) peaked around Apollo 7. Between Apollo
11 and Apollo 17 there were only three -- count 'em -- three solar events
that produced skin dosages of 10 rem or more. Only one of 100 rem or more.
(The fatal dose hovers around 350-400 rem.)

The main defense against solar particle events was statistical probability.
Mr. Jones likes to make a big deal about how these events are
"unpredictable". In one sense they are, because we can't predict the day
when the next one will occur. But in another sense they aren't
unpredictable, because it's quite possible to compute the probability that a
dangerous event will occur within some given two-week period.

Apollo 16 is noted for having been caught out in the rain, so to speak. A
solar event happened during their mission, but the skin dosage was only 2-3
rem. You can't fake the data on these. It's not like one of these can
happen without the world's scientists taking notice of it. These are events
that are observed by scientists all over the world. NASA cannot just
pretend they didn't happen, or that they were less severe than they really
were.

This is where the conspiracy theorists get you. They dazzle you with
irrelevant numbers and scare you with dire worst-case scenarios. But they
never show you the ACTUAL RECORDED DATA. That's because the actual recorded
data shows just how far off-based their simplistic estimates really are.

Now if, hypothetically, an Apollo mission had been out there during the last
week of October of this year, when the sun cut loose with an X17
(translation: mighty wallop) event, they'd have been in very real danger.
This was part of the risk they took, just like the risk that the booster
could have exploded, that the ascent engine may not have ignited, or that
the heat shield could have cracked. We make no bones about it having been
dangerous. But it's not suicidal as the conspiracy theorists have argued.

So that takes care of solar particle events. What about the Van Allen
belts? The guy for whom they are named said it best. He has heard of these
conspiracy theories and he calls them "nonsense". He fully repudiates the
notion that passage through the Van Allen belts would have been invariably
fatal to the astronauts.

The way this was done is the same trick by which people wriggle their finger
through a candle flame. The key is the length of exposure. The passage
through the Van Allen belts happened at the early part of the outbound trip,
when the ship was traveling its fastest. Dr. Van Allen himself helped
design the trajectory.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:eWEpb.4255$PD2.1665@fed1read05...
Dear Laura:

"Laura" wrote in message
...

"Steve Campbell" wrote in message
...
Nathan Jones wrote:

The 1969 - 1972 Apollo missions occured during a sunspot maxima
period. It was known at the time that on any particular day there
were on average to be expected (during the maxima years) about
15 detectable solar flares that would be headed for Earth and if
we take them all to be low energy flares of about 25 rem each
then that would mean that the Apollo astronauts would have been
exposed to 375 rem each day. The maximum permissible dose for Joe
public is 0.5 rem per year.
Go figure!
Hmmmmm so you don't believe in communication satellites either then.
Because
they are right out beyond Earth's protection, and electronics care a
lot
more about radiation than human tissue.

In all fairness, the satellites are inside earth's magnetic field, and
that
yields very considerable protection (unless they are directly over the
magnetic poles).
Now, I don't believe that the apollo program was just a big elaborate
hoax,
but I would still like to have cleared up how the missions could be
carried
out in safety from the radiation.

The radiation doses accumulated by the Apollo astronauts are public
record.
As well as the doses received by various astronauts, from many countries
over time.

There are places on the planet Earth (river deltas, marble buildings) that
exceed the "permissible" limit for exposure to radiation. Check out
"hormesis" while you are investigating... "What does not kill us, makes us
stronger."

The survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that had no notable ill effects
had
estimated doses of 50 rem. So a conservative value of 5 rem per year was
established from this. (Mr. Jones bad math should have achieved 37.5
rem.)

We all have potassium in our bodies, as a necessary ingredient for life.
Some of this potassium is radioactive, and the general health of a person
(aka background level of potassium) can be established by use of a (very
accurate) geiger counter.

We grew up with radiation, just as we grew up with pneumonia and
influenza.
Don't let the word "radiation" scare you. It is ignorance that will rob
you of freedom, and Mr. Jones is doing his share to feed on this
ignorance.

Thanks for answering my question.

I'm not particularly intimidated by the word "radiation" :-) There's plenty
of it in everyday life, as you say. Besides cosmic rays (that also makes
small amounts of carbon, chlorine, and beryllium isotopes) and potassium
isotopes, there's also radon in homes and there's tv/monitors, to name a few
more. I just didn't know the type and level of radiation that apollo
astronauts would receive, and I figured someone here would know the correct
answer.
Is the reason that the astronauts weren't exposed to anything like the full
force of space radiation that it is made up mostly of alpha and beta
particles (which would make a relatively thin hull sufficient shielding)?

It would also seem logical that a certain low level of natural radiation
would be useful for the process of evolution, by causing some random
mutations once in a while. Is that considered true?