Since the responses are almost impossible to understand without context, I added the questions below. I think I got things mostly right.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Sorry about that. Yes they were Nasa.gov articles. But I assume you already new that. So is Nasa.gov not a reputable site to obtain information from.

Can you provide actual links to the data you used to make your assertion? The NASA site has a lot of information.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm

The video link from post #40 Destination Tomorrow is very educational on the radioactivity of the moon and the ionizing radiation that they cannot shield against.

Not from Nasa - Taking A Radioactive Bath On The Moon
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zx.html

The information you found on that was refuted in post #27, post #29 , and post #30. Do you have a response to their refutations?

The information in that video was refuted in post #41, and post #42. Do you have a response to their refutations?

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

So is Nasa.gov not a reputable site to obtain information from.

It depends what information you need and how you intend to use it. As a federal agency, NASA is given many roles to play, from research to operations to education. NASA publicists offer a wide array of packaging. On NASA TV, for example, you can see extremely sappy programs meant for basic education of school-aged children and also raw downlinks from ISS and shuttle missions meant for the geeky.

The print and web content runs a similar gamut. Some information is summarized for laymen. Other information is fully detailed. You can't nit-pick the summaries and expect people to take you seriously. I can go to nih.gov or hud.gov and download basic information about health and homebuying, or I can visit those same sites and get detailed findings and recommendations that go into full detail and are expected to be read by professionals. If something in the detailed explanations isn't covered in or appears to contradict a summary, that's simply the nature of summarization.

Blindly referring to the domain name isn't a justification for your misuse of information you found there.

Now on to your other answers.

Dangerously radioactive

You have presented no basis for that judgment. You have the burden to define what "dangerous" means in this context and show what hard data about the lunar surface meets that definition.

More dangerouse environment as a whole on the moon

How much more? "More than here" does not count as "dangerous" in the sense of healt hazards. The point in bringing up radiation levels on Earth was to show that different amounts of radiation exist everywhere, and not all detectable levels are thereby necessarily dangerous. That is, you can't just say "There's radiation" and assume that any amount above zero is dangerous to the point of illness.

So you owe us first a quotation for how much radiation is dangerous and then a measurement of how much there is on the lunar surface.

Yes, oversimplified but accurate

No; that's a contradiction. A simplification may be accurate, but an oversimplification by definition is not; it's a simplification that omits important detail.

Greater risk on the moon.

How much greater? You don't get to say it's more and therefore too dangerous.

[I know the extent] in relative terms

Relative terms are still quantitative. Give us a relative estimate. You're simply begging the question that "more than Earth" is necessarily "dangerous."

If it takes 100 units of radiation to cause sickness, and you get 1 unit of radiation on Earth just by living on it, and you know that some other environment is qualitatively more of a radiation hazard, you know it must give you at least 2 units, but that's not an adequate argument for saying it "must" give you the 100 that would harm you.

You cannot wave your hands and speak in generalities. You must provide a number. And unfortunately you admit you cannot, so you have no argument.

More shielding considering the unkowns that are coming to light since the Apollo missions...

No. You're trying to impose the constraints of one kind of mission upon another, and argue that since the mismatched constraints weren't met, there's something fishy. You can't restrict yourself to such generalities and presume your criticism still has merit.

Neutron scattering on the lunar surface adds negligible exposure for astronauts performing three 6-hour EVAs. The risk of serious damage from cosmic rays was also insignificant for those short missions. It is not irresponsible to ignore negligible risks when you keep the missions short.

For longer missions those considerations become important. 18 hours of exposure to neutron scattering has no biological risk. But if you're on the Moon for six months, it does. We have to be more careful if we're going to undertake missions orders of magnitude longer. Similarly the risk of solar activity was extremely small for Apollo astronauts, but quite high for Mars astronauts and long-term lunar explorers.

If the risk is small, you ignore it. If it's large, you figure out how to mitigate it or neutralize the effect. Those are qualitatively different approaches to a solution. So you can't look at plans being made now and wonder why similar plans weren't made in 1969. You can't say that the Apollo missions were fishy because they weren't planned exactly like different missions we contemplate for the future.

What actual evidence do you have that the known radiation environment was an insurmountable hazard to the Apollo astronauts, keeping in mind that exposure duration dictates the risk?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sorry about that. Yes they were Nasa.gov articles. But I assume you already new that. So is Nasa.gov not a reputable site to obtain information from.

No. In your previous post you said you were looking at nasa.org:
Nasa.org was my primary source. This is where the claim originated.
Nasa.org is not a NASA site; people were simply responding to your incorrect reference.

science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08sep_radioactivemoon.htm

The video link from post #40 Destination Tomorrow is very educational on the radioactivity of the moon and the ionizing radiation that they cannot shield against.

It's not educational unless you understand the context. The article is discussing long-duration missions, not the brief stays of the Apollo crews.

You are claiming, or at least insinuating, that radiation would have prevented humans from successfully exploring the Moon during the Apollo program. OK, then tell us: what types of radiation did they encounter, for how long? What were the fluxes and energies?

Handwaving is not acceptable. We have a great deal of data from literally dozens of probes prior to Apollo in cislunar space and on the Moon. We have direct radiation dosimetry data gathered by the astronauts themselves. And we have additional direct and indirect data gathered by literally hundreds of other missions since then.

If you wish to dispute this data, kindly describe quantitatively the environment that you think existed and would have proved an insurmountable obstacle to Apollo. References to articles for a popular reading audience do not impress me.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

I think it's worth emphasizing that the additional steps being taken for longer-duration missions are due mostly to the duration of the missions and not to discoveries of new radiation sources. NASA is not saying, "Look at all the things we didn't know about in 1969; we had better beef up our spacecraft." The 1969 picture of radiation exposure would still have necessitated more rigorous protection for long-duration missions.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The second paragraph reads:

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

Emphasis added.

I'll repeat my question: Do you now understand that the Apollo astronauts did not receive large doses of radiation? And by "large" that would be in comparison to safety standards for workers in the nuclear industry.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

For longer missions those considerations become important. 18 hours of exposure to neutron scattering has no biological risk. But if you're on the Moon for six months, it does. We have to be more careful if we're going to undertake missions orders of magnitude longer. Similarly the risk of solar activity was extremely small for Apollo astronauts, but quite high for Mars astronauts and long-term lunar explorers.

At the risk of oversimplifying, let me put this in a much more familiar context... ultraviolet radiation and a trip to the beach.

If I take my family to the beach and we stay out in the sun with no protection for, say, 20 minutes, then head home, odds are we could get nothing more then slight tans.

However, if we stayed in the sun with no protection all day, we'd probably get very burned.

That doesn't mean we can't go to the beach and stay all day. It simply means we need to determine the right amount and type of protection for the length of time we want to stay.

It also doesn't say we could never have gone to the beach because the UV exposure is "too dangerous."

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Indeed. When I lived in Tucson, we didn't have tide tables, but we did have sun-intensity tables, calibrated for "minutes in sun to redden [average] skin". Clearly, there was an ultraviolet radiation hazard. In fact, one woman who feel asleep while sunbathing quite literally died of radiation burns and hyperthermia from hours of exposure.

Does that mean that Tucson was uninhabitable? If so, that's news to me and hundreds of thousands of other people who have live or have lived there.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

It also proves that "surfing" and similar "beach" activities are a hoax, since no one would ever expose themselves to such dangerous levels of UV radiation and the government would have outlawed such dangerous things.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Nasa says the moon is radioactive. How much more conclusive can that be? The astronauts are classified as radiation workers. It's also amazing that they state that they do not have a way to shield against this inoizing radiation. These heavy ions and charged particles traveling at the speed of light. The surface of the moon is abundant in neutron radiation. Apollo could not have the shielding for this radiation if they don't have it today.

Handwaving...are you reading any of the posts on this thread??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

SLF, please answer my question:

Do you now understand that the Apollo astronauts did not receive large doses of radiation?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I have read that yes but, Is it true or just regurgetated nonsense?

As we've already covered, so are you. So, no, that statement alone is not enough to draw any conclusions.

More accurately, the dose they received was well under safety standards for workers in the nuclear industry. They did not have a large radiation dose.

Who said that? What is the exact statement? There are methods for shielding, but as we've covered repeatedly, there are tradeoffs depending on requirements, especially with the length of the mission.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm not asking if you read it, I'm asking if you understand it. Apparently you don't.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Post #40 Destination Tomorrow video by Nasa.

That's not an answer. I repeat: Who said it? What is the exact statement?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

And I'm looking forward to learning more about these charged particles that travel at the speed of light!

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

For the Nth time, and please note these are direct questions and must be answered per board rules:

1. How much radiation in what amount of exposure time does it take to cause illness for a human?

2. How much radiation is there on the moon?

You have made a quantitative assertion, you need to answer these questions with actual numbers.

Just for edification:
quan·ti·ta·tive –adjective
1.that is or may be estimated by quantity.
2.of or pertaining to the describing or measuring of quantity.

__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"

The luminous strips on the hands of my alarm clock are radioactive. The smoke detector on my ceiling has a radioactive source in it. The rock under aberdeen is radioactive. Once and for all will you please grasp the concept that this is meaningless without NUMBERS attached to it.

What they state is that they have no way to effectively shield against that radiation for long duration exposure such as any future lunar astronauts will be exposed to.

But the key issue we've been trying to get you to grasp is whether or not they needed it for the short Apollo missions. Radiaition exposure has different effects depending on intensity and length of exposure. In many ways it is far more dangerous to spend months in a low level radiation environment than it is to receive a short burst of high intensity radiation. A chest x-ray will not harm you. Sit in lower intensity x-rays for months at a time and you will very likely get sick. Do you understand this?

Apollo was a short flight with the astronauts spending a few days out in space. Future missions are planned to last months or even years. What was fine for Apollo in terms of radiation shielding will be hopelessly inadequate for the planned missions because of their duration.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Nasa says the moon is radioactive. How much more conclusive can that be?

Summaries are not conclusive just because they are phrased simply. You insist on remaining at the summary level of understanding, when there have been many attempts made to explain in detail what is meant by that statement.

But the bottom line is that you are not able to say how radioactive the Moon is, or substantiate numerically whether that level of radiation poses a health hazard. You are simply begging the question.

The astronauts are classified as radiation workers.

Meaningless. That simply means they are allowed more occupational exposure per year than the general public, for administrative and regulatory purposes.

It's also amazing that they state that they do not have a way to shield against this inoizing radiation.

...for long-term missions. Apollo was not a series of long-term missions.

These heavy ions and charged particles traveling at the speed of light.

That is physically impossible.

The surface of the moon is abundant in neutron radiation.

Exactly how much? I want a number. This is a formal request for you to supply the number or withdraw the claim.

Apollo could not have the shielding for this radiation if they don't have it today.

Apollo didn't need the shielding, for reasons already explained at length. You seem to believe radiation effects can be mitigated only by shielding. That is not true. Radiation effects can be mitigated also by limiting the duration of the exposure. Apollo mitigated radiation effects by limiting exposure. What actual data do you have that this would not have been effective?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

There was too much neutron radiation at the surface of the moon especially being on the sunlit side there was even more ionizing radiation. Check out the hotspots for neutron radiation on the moon. There was no way they could have come back with no DNA damage or any adverse affects surfacing throughout their lives from this exposure. The shielding necessary has not been developed yet to protect against these heavy ions, atoms, etc, in space and at the surface of the moon. During Apollo the weight of the materials available to achieve this for a craft back then negates the plausibliity of actual moon walking in suits.

Ok, to some measurable quantity the moon is radioactive and the Apollo astronauts went there and were exposed. SO WHAT? It does not disprove Apollo (if that is what you are trying to do).

As we all keep pointing out, a poison is determined by how much you are exposed to and for how long. For the couple of days the Apollo astronauts spent there, it wasn't a problem. But if future missions are going to last weeks, it is a problem.

Think of it this way.... if I get one chest x-ray a year, it is not a problem for x-ray exposure. If I get 20 a year, it might start to be a problem. If I get 20 a day, everyday for a year (over 7000 chest x-rays), I'm probably going to have health problems. (I am only using that as an example, I'm not comparing to being on the moon to a chest x-ray).

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Wrong thread. Please put it in the correct thread. When you do, please add the numbers for "too much" and how this applies to the Apollo astronauts.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Nasa says the moon is radioactive. How much more conclusive can that be?

Handwaving. How radioactive?

The astronauts are classified as radiation workers.

Handwaving. What specifically do you think this means?

It's also amazing that they state that they do not have a way to shield against this inoizing radiation.

Why? How much radiation was expected for a short Apollo mission? What types? fluxes? energies? Total exposure? Time to stop handwaving and provide numbers to back up your claim.

These heavy ions and charged particles traveling at the speed of light.

No, they do not. You would fail high-school physics with such a claim.

The surface of the moon is abundant in neutron radiation.

No, it is not "abundant" in any sense meaningful for a short surface stay. You are completely failing to grasp the context. But you could try to back this claim up by providing a quantitative estimate for the neutron fluxes and energies and a total expected dosage for an Apollo mission.

Apollo could not have the shielding for this radiation if they don't have it today.

Handwaving. You have not established what types, fluxes, and energies of radiation were encountered, what the expected dosage would have been, what types of shielding would have been necessary and why, and you have no answer for why the actual measured dosages for the crews were well within acceptable bounds.

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

SLF:JAQ SFDJS, let's try a different approach.

Let's say you were stopped by a traffic policeman and given a ticket for speeding. But let's say the policeman was unable to tell you or the judge how fast you were going. Let's say all he can tell is that you were going faster than some other car, but he can't say how much faster, or how fast that other car was going. The only thing he can say is that you were going faster than it.

Naturally you don't want to pay the fine. It would be appropriate to point out that the crime of speeding doesn't mean going faster than some other car; it means going faster than the posted speed limit. The speed limit allows for speeds greater than zero, and there are many speeds greater than zero, but less than the posted limit. You only have to pay the fine if it can be proven you were going faster than the posted limit, not just faster than some arbitrary car.

This is why we require you to give actual numerical measurements for the radiation effects you cite.

You can't say that they are dangerous simply because they exist any more than your policeman can say you were speeding simply because you were not standing still. There are speeds that are legal and safe just the same as there are levels of radiation exposure that are inconsequential.

You are using loaded language such as "abundant" and "dangerous" that implies you know the amounts in question. But you do not, so your claims are as inappropriate as those of the policeman who says you were speeding but doesn't actually know whether you were or not.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Actually your link has at least one mistake. 5 rem per year is one of the limits for ionizing radiation exposure to the whole body. The average for nuclear workers is lower. For instance, Sailors and Naval shipyard workers rarely exceed 0.5 rem per year. After 23 years of receiving occupational exposure, I was extended to 0.75 rem per year allowed.

I agree the astronauts received less than 5 rem on their missions though.

Ranb