| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492482
8/28/2008 8:02 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
New findings suggest that astronauts may be at increased risk of colon cancer due to exposure to the high linear energy transfer radiation found in space. (Credit: NASA)
[link to www.sciencedaily.com]
That is far below the VA Belts at space lab range. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 469439
8/28/2008 8:03 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
i think they did a great job with the lighting experiments... makes sense. The moon gravity experiments seemed right. Then the other team that did the footprint experiments... not so much. the moon dust would be much deeper, and the action of the boot was all wrong. when you walk, it's not like a rubber stamp, straight up and down, it's a rocking motion from heel to toe and a kick off. i think they should have been more thorough in that segment, might've helped.
next segment coming on now. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 490063
They should have also given the boot print a little shake to see if it held together. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 8:05 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
No. That is wrong, as I've explained. There is a world of difference between something being radioactive, and emitting secondary radiation. They fact you are continuing to refuse to address this point (which I've made now three times, rather than 'run away', as you lied) is your problem.
the writer for that NASA peice was unforgivably sloppy when they wrote that, it simply isn't true. Whether you want to believe it or not (and you obviously won't because where would you get your trolling fun that way?), NASA is made up of individuals who are capable of making mistakes. the probably wrote that thinking that they were making it sound more interesting, but neglecting the fact that it was not accurate. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921 |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 8:05 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
The soviets have never been to the moon and were not the first in space as the have no ICBM/space capability, proven page 3 this thread #055.
[ link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
Oh man, that's funny.
"They would die on the way through the radiation belts if they were unshielded," says Anders Jorgensen, author of a new study on the subject and a technical staff member at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, US.
[ link to space.newscientist.com]
The problem with proving the link along with your cherry-picked quotation taken out of context is that we can check the source and correct your mistaken impression:
The region did not hurt the Apollo astronauts in the 1960s and 1970s because their rockets delivered them swiftly through it.
For a space elevator travelling at the current proposed speed of 200 kilometres per hour, however, passengers might spend half a week in the belts. That would hit them with 200 times the radiation experienced by the Apollo astronauts. Quoting: New Scientist article about space elevators
Did you not read it properly, or did you think nobody would check? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 8:09 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
New findings suggest that astronauts may be at increased risk of colon cancer due to exposure to the high linear energy transfer radiation found in space. (Credit: NASA)
[ link to www.sciencedaily.com]
That is far below the VA Belts at space lab range.
Not true. The ISS astronauts pass through a low-hanging part of the belts called the South Atlantic Anomaly several times each day. Radiation damage is cumulative, so over the course of a six month stay they are exposed to several times the radiation encountered during an Apollo mission. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 8:11 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
No. That is wrong, as I've explained. There is a world of difference between something being radioactive, and emitting secondary radiation. They fact you are continuing to refuse to address this point (which I've made now three times, rather than 'run away', as you lied) is your problem.
the writer for that NASA peice was unforgivably sloppy when they wrote that, it simply isn't true. Whether you want to believe it or not (and you obviously won't because where would you get your trolling fun that way?), NASA is made up of individuals who are capable of making mistakes. the probably wrote that thinking that they were making it sound more interesting, but neglecting the fact that it was not accurate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Yeah right, that's why Nasa is spending a few billion on a mission developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) To check for radiation.
Some one should tell them that they are wasting the money & all they have to do is Ask Knarles the ass clown instead!
At least you are admitting that Nasa does lie to the public. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 8:19 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Yeah right, that's why Nasa is spending a few billion on a mission developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) To check for radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Who says they know everything there is to know about the radiation environment? They're going back for much longer this time, so they want to do long-term studies of the radiation environment to see how it changes - all previous measurements were fairly short in duration.
Ask Knarles the ass clown instead! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Troll. The pointless abuse is the whole point of posting, isn't it?
At least you are admitting that Nasa does lie to the public. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Where did I say that? I said sloppy, not wilfully misleading. There you go deliberately misinterpreting what I write again. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
8/28/2008 8:21 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
No. That is wrong, as I've explained. There is a world of difference between something being radioactive, and emitting secondary radiation. They fact you are continuing to refuse to address this point (which I've made now three times, rather than 'run away', as you lied) is your problem.
the writer for that NASA peice was unforgivably sloppy when they wrote that, it simply isn't true. Whether you want to believe it or not (and you obviously won't because where would you get your trolling fun that way?), NASA is made up of individuals who are capable of making mistakes. the probably wrote that thinking that they were making it sound more interesting, but neglecting the fact that it was not accurate.
Yeah right, that's why Nasa is spending a few billion on a mission developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) To check for radiation.
Some one should tell them that they are wasting the money & all they have to do is Ask Knarles the ass clown instead!
At least you are admitting that Nasa does lie to the public. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
You REALLY need to get a little eduication on the subject before exposing your ignorance. They are studying the radiation environment in more detail now since the plans are for stays on the moon lasting WEEKS, not just a day or two as in Apollo. A permanent moon presence will obviously require that much more attention be given to long term radiation exposure than just the little that the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. You can take a short chest X-ray with no harm, but you cannot leave the X-Ray machine on for a long period of time without injury.
Do you hoax believers think at all? |
| Truth !
User ID: 491319
8/28/2008 8:25 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
ANAL sex in space gives you cancer !
Thats the real reason .....
New findings suggest that astronauts may be at increased risk of colon cancer due to exposure to the high linear energy transfer radiation found in space. (Credit: NASA)
[ link to www.sciencedaily.com]
That is far below the VA Belts at space lab range. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 8:26 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Yeah right, that's why Nasa is spending a few billion on a mission developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) To check for radiation.
Who says they know everything there is to know about the radiation environment? They're going back for much longer this time, so they want to do long-term studies of the radiation environment to see how it changes - all previous measurements were fairly short in duration.
Ask Knarles the ass clown instead!
Troll. The pointless abuse is the whole point of posting, isn't it?
At least you are admitting that Nasa does lie to the public.
Where did I say that? I said sloppy, not wilfully misleading. There you go deliberately misinterpreting what I write again. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Yeah whatever, it still doesn't change the fact that the Apollo mission exposed the astro's to dangerous levels of radiation that they had to have breathed in.
...alegedly.
Nasa doesn't know everything, but you do? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 8:30 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
They are studying the radiation environment in more detail now since the plans are for stays on the moon lasting WEEKS, not just a day or two as in Apollo. A permanent moon presence will obviously require that much more attention be given to long term radiation exposure than just the little that the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
True that.
Take, for example, the fact only announced earlier this year that the magnetosphere has some odd effects on the Moon when it passes through it every month, including large static buildup, plasma sheets, and all sorts of weird stuff. The understanding of how this affects the solar wind, and particularly flares, is yet to be seen. Lots of work to do yet. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 8:31 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
No. That is wrong, as I've explained. There is a world of difference between something being radioactive, and emitting secondary radiation. They fact you are continuing to refuse to address this point (which I've made now three times, rather than 'run away', as you lied) is your problem.
the writer for that NASA peice was unforgivably sloppy when they wrote that, it simply isn't true. Whether you want to believe it or not (and you obviously won't because where would you get your trolling fun that way?), NASA is made up of individuals who are capable of making mistakes. the probably wrote that thinking that they were making it sound more interesting, but neglecting the fact that it was not accurate.
Yeah right, that's why Nasa is spending a few billion on a mission developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) To check for radiation.
Some one should tell them that they are wasting the money & all they have to do is Ask Knarles the ass clown instead!
At least you are admitting that Nasa does lie to the public.
You REALLY need to get a little eduication on the subject before exposing your ignorance. They are studying the radiation environment in more detail now since the plans are for stays on the moon lasting WEEKS, not just a day or two as in Apollo. A permanent moon presence will obviously require that much more attention be given to long term radiation exposure than just the little that the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. You can take a short chest X-ray with no harm, but you cannot leave the X-Ray machine on for a long period of time without injury.
Do you hoax believers think at all? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
Maybe if they never went outside & got all the dust on their suits which they had to have brought back inside the LM & then breathed into their lungs.Or are you saying that ingesting radioactive particals is the same as an x-ray?
Exposing ignorance & thinking?
Considering that the moon is probably much older than the earth itself & doesn't have the earth's defences against radiation, they it must be very radioactive, enough that an ingested partical would kill in just a few days. Butthats just me... & Nasa too apparently who are sending a probe no less to see for themsleves ... again. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 8:33 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Yeah whatever, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Oh wow, what stunning rebuttal. Nobody could ever come back from that stunning display of logic.
it still doesn't change the fact that the Apollo mission exposed the astro's to dangerous levels of radiation that they had to have breathed in. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
No, what it doesn't change is that you are still repeating the same nonsense without even trying to address the rebuttal.
Because that's not what you're here for, is it?
The dust was not radioactive. No more than the dirt in your back yard.
Nasa doesn't know everything, but you do? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
No, of course not. Way more that you, though. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 8:42 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Yeah whatever,
Oh wow, what stunning rebuttal. Nobody could ever come back from that stunning display of logic.
it still doesn't change the fact that the Apollo mission exposed the astro's to dangerous levels of radiation that they had to have breathed in.
No, what it doesn't change is that you are still repeating the same nonsense without even trying to address the rebuttal.
Because that's not what you're here for, is it?
The dust was not radioactive. No more than the dirt in your back yard.
Nasa doesn't know everything, but you do?
No, of course not. Way more that you, though. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.
Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive! |
| Veritas
User ID: 492366
8/28/2008 8:44 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
The so called myth busters are just a pair of overage kids who like blowing up things. Fuck em, I say. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 8:48 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Yes, you keep quoting that. And again, I've rebutted it, specifically addressing what was written, and shown it was sloppy writing. You've refused to more by way of reply that call me names and say "yeah, right". I've also invited you to show me up by contacting any physicist, anywhere in the world, and asking them to contradict that.
But you're not interested in that. You're just here to wind people up.
Troll.
Bored now. I've answered the question multiple times, so you can claim I 'ran away' all you like, the evidence is tight here in this thread to show otherwise. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 9:06 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!
Yes, you keep quoting that. And again, I've rebutted it, specifically addressing what was written, and shown it was sloppy writing. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
No you didnt show anything.you didn't provide an explanation as to why it is wrong, you just said it was wrong.(Then blabbered on about how Nasa sometimes get things wrong)
You've refused to more by way of reply that call me names and say "yeah, right". I've also invited you to show me up by contacting any physicist, anywhere in the world, and asking them to contradict that. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Why would I do that? Nasa said so, on their website for me to see!?
[link to www.firstscience.com]
These guys didn't think it was incorrect either considering they ran the story too. Or are firstscience.com wrong too? Surely with a name like that they must have a few "physicist's" working for them!
But you're not interested in that. You're just here to wind people up.
Troll.
Bored now. I've answered the question multiple times, so you can claim I 'ran away' all you like, the evidence is tight here in this thread to show otherwise. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
If you say so, but your running away because you cant explain why after ingesting materials such as uranium, thorium, and potassium the asto's live a long & happy life
.
The Puzzle of the Moon's High Radioactivity: Apparently, the upper 8 miles of the moon's crust are surprisingly radioactive. When Apollo 15 astronauts used thermal equipment, they got unusually high readings, which indicated that the heat flow near the Apennine Mountains was rather hot. In fact, one lunar expert confessed: "When we saw that we said, 'My God, this place is about to melt! The core must be very hot.' " But that is the puzzle. The core is not hot at all, but cold (in fact, as was assumed, it is a hollow sphere). The amount of radioactive materials on the surface is not only "embarrassingly high" but, difficult to account for. Where did all this hot radioactive material (uranium, thorium, and potassium) come from? And if it came from the interior of the moon (unlikely), how did it get to the moon's surface? |
| G. House
User ID: 492570
8/28/2008 9:10 AM
 | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
do you really think you're making a valid point here, or are you just saying stuff to be contrary?
Says the Nimrod, who earlier claimed that the Apollo astro's, would rather lift the front of the rovers to turn them, than using the steering, hence the photo of rover without any tire tracks around it. Or how about the claim that the moon is radioactive but with alpha particles, which are slow & heavy, and have a hard time penetrating a sheet of paper! Which is why they were not affected on the moon, but when I point out that the astro's were covered in this same radioactive dust, when they came back inside the LM from a mission & then must have breathed it in to their bodies!WHich would kill them pretty quickly. Knarles the fucking fraud Barkley ran for cover.
You are a wanker knarles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492498
Alpha particles, once their energy is spent are not radioactive.
You certainly don't have a clue about nuclear physics do you? |
| fanatsy
User ID: 492571
8/28/2008 9:16 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
So.. did the show go ahead?
Result?
I know it was faked myself. The footage that is, the mission to the moon im not quite sure about. Theres more to the moon then they are telling us and im pretty damn sure they didnt spend billions just to stick a flag on it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492528
8/28/2008 9:18 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
The amount of radioactive materials on the surface is not only "embarrassingly high" but, difficult to account for. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Embarrassing why?
uranium, thorium, and potassium in "talcum powder" form is impossible to not ingest once you return inside the LM & help your co-astro to take off his suit.If the sample contained these materials, then whilst collecting them they had to have been walking around in the same dust. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492574
8/28/2008 9:21 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
do you really think you're making a valid point here, or are you just saying stuff to be contrary?
Says the Nimrod, who earlier claimed that the Apollo astro's, would rather lift the front of the rovers to turn them, than using the steering, hence the photo of rover without any tire tracks around it. Or how about the claim that the moon is radioactive but with alpha particles, which are slow & heavy, and have a hard time penetrating a sheet of paper! Which is why they were not affected on the moon, but when I point out that the astro's were covered in this same radioactive dust, when they came back inside the LM from a mission & then must have breathed it in to their bodies!WHich would kill them pretty quickly. Knarles the fucking fraud Barkley ran for cover.
You are a wanker knarles.
Alpha particles, once their energy is spent are not radioactive.
You certainly don't have a clue about nuclear physics do you? Quoting: G. House
That makes 2 of us.
all three kinds of radiations produce the same effects on the body. If the dose from ingested material is sufficiently large, indeed very large, observable effects such as reduced blood counts, diarrhea, various cytogenetic effects (for example, chromosome breaks), or interference with function may occur. [In fact, extremely large doses of radiation are medically used to treat a number of diseases including malignancies and certain forms of thyroid disease to destroy or ablate malfunctioning tissue.]
[link to www.hps.org] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 9:36 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Okay, I'll respond because you've offered something new you've never mentioned before.
No you didnt show anything.you didn't provide an explanation as to why it is wrong, you just said it was wrong.(Then blabbered on about how Nasa sometimes get things wrong) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
No, I did explain. I even gave the analogy of fluorescence/phosphorescence. The article you have been repeatedly mentioning up until now talks about the sprays of secondary radiation that arise when cosmic rays and solar protons slam into the lunar surface, creating secondary radiation. Secondary. You have continued to fail to address that. The 'radioactive' comment in that case comes immediately after the discussion of that fact, and is obviously what they were referring to. But you're not interested in addressing that. I'm not going to keep going around in circles unless you do.
These guys didn't think it was incorrect either considering they ran the story too. Or are firstscience.com wrong too? Surely with a name like that they must have a few "physicist's" working for them! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Oh, please. They ran the article because to all intents and purposes it doesn't matter. Science journalists sex up stories all the time.
Go on. Go and ask a real physicist about the difference between secondary radiation and radioactive decay. What are you afraid of?
If you say so, but your running away because you cant explain why after ingesting materials such as uranium, thorium, and potassium the asto's live a long & happy life Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Liar. This is the first time you've ever mentioned that article, so how could I be running away from it if you've never raised it before?
Troll.
Where did all this hot radioactive material (uranium, thorium, and potassium) come from? And if it came from the interior of the moon (unlikely), how did it get to the moon's surface? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492528
Yes, those elements are indeed radioactive. And you know what? There is some in your back yard dirt, too. How come it doesn't kill you? Because it's only there in trace quantities.
It's not sufficient to merely point out that there are radioisotopes present in the regolith - if you want to claim it would be harmful, you need to either show that they are at dangerous concentrations, or explain why being near granite rock here on Earth isn't fatal.
Let's say that the radioactivity levels in the regolith are one hundred times greater than here on Earth. Fatal, surely? Well, no. There are areas on Earth that have comparable background counts. Surely they must be blasted, lifeless deserts, then? No again, the place on Earth with the highest radiation count, due to increased levels of radioisotopes in thermal springs, is Ramsur, in Iran. It's a holiday resort, hundreds of thousands of people live there. International conferences have been held there. There is a higher incidence of cancer, but obviously not high enough for people to flee the area in a panic.
So no, that doesn't prove anything in and of itself. I mean, really, think about it - if the findings were that clear cut, that the radioactivity risk on the Moon was really that bad, don't you think someone a bit, well, less trollish than you might have spotted it and made a fuss about it? Also, given where the figures came from (ie NASA, supposedly interested in covering up their 'hoax'), why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that? Surely it would just be swept under the rug along with all the other 'evidence' of the hoax?
Get back to me with actual levels of the isotopes present in the regolith and we can compare them to Ramsur together. Otherwise there's nothing here. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 9:41 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Additionally, you've provided links to all the other articles you've quoted, but not the one you've drawn that excerpt about radioisotope levels from. Would you care to correct that so I can look at the whole article to see if there's anything relevant there? I'd hate to think you were attempting to hide bits that didn't support your premise. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 484507
8/28/2008 9:41 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
MB is a great show, nice thread OP |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492585
8/28/2008 9:43 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Okay, I'll respond because you've offered something new you've never mentioned before.
No you didnt show anything.you didn't provide an explanation as to why it is wrong, you just said it was wrong.(Then blabbered on about how Nasa sometimes get things wrong)
No, I did explain. I even gave the analogy of fluorescence/phosphorescence. The article you have been repeatedly mentioning up until now talks about the sprays of secondary radiation that arise when cosmic rays and solar protons slam into the lunar surface, creating secondary radiation. Secondary. You have continued to fail to address that. The 'radioactive' comment in that case comes immediately after the discussion of that fact, and is obviously what they were referring to. But you're not interested in addressing that. I'm not going to keep going around in circles unless you do.
These guys didn't think it was incorrect either considering they ran the story too. Or are firstscience.com wrong too? Surely with a name like that they must have a few "physicist's" working for them!
Oh, please. They ran the article because to all intents and purposes it doesn't matter. Science journalists sex up stories all the time.
Go on. Go and ask a real physicist about the difference between secondary radiation and radioactive decay. What are you afraid of?
If you say so, but your running away because you cant explain why after ingesting materials such as uranium, thorium, and potassium the asto's live a long & happy life
Liar. This is the first time you've ever mentioned that article, so how could I be running away from it if you've never raised it before?
Troll.
Where did all this hot radioactive material (uranium, thorium, and potassium) come from? And if it came from the interior of the moon (unlikely), how did it get to the moon's surface?
Yes, those elements are indeed radioactive. And you know what? There is some in your back yard dirt, too. How come it doesn't kill you? Because it's only there in trace quantities.
It's not sufficient to merely point out that there are radioisotopes present in the regolith - if you want to claim it would be harmful, you need to either show that they are at dangerous concentrations, or explain why being near granite rock here on Earth isn't fatal.
Let's say that the radioactivity levels in the regolith are one hundred times greater than here on Earth. Fatal, surely? Well, no. There are areas on Earth that have comparable background counts. Surely they must be blasted, lifeless deserts, then? No again, the place on Earth with the highest radiation count, due to increased levels of radioisotopes in thermal springs, is Ramsur, in Iran. It's a holiday resort, hundreds of thousands of people live there. International conferences have been held there. There is a higher incidence of cancer, but obviously not high enough for people to flee the area in a panic.
So no, that doesn't prove anything in and of itself. I mean, really, think about it - if the findings were that clear cut, that the radioactivity risk on the Moon was really that bad, don't you think someone a bit, well, less trollish than you might have spotted it and made a fuss about it? Also, given where the figures came from (ie NASA, supposedly interested in covering up their 'hoax'), why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that? Surely it would just be swept under the rug along with all the other 'evidence' of the hoax?
Get back to me with actual levels of the isotopes present in the regolith and we can compare them to Ramsur together. Otherwise there's nothing here. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Always a pleasure to read your input Barls. Excellent. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 9:44 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Oh look, it was from a woo site:
[link to home1.gte.net]
And it is woo. It misstates several points, and claims that NASA has "no explanation" of several points that they do indeed have hypotheses for. Quelle surprise.
Do you not get any form of cognitive dissonance from quoting radioisotope measurements taken during an Apollo mission and using that as an argument against Apollo?
Troll. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492590
8/28/2008 9:51 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Otherwise there's nothing here. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Astro's steering the rover by lifting the front, instead of the multi million dollar four wheel (no less) steering, because it was easier?
Nasa wrong about lunar radioactivity to such an embarrassing degree that they are wasting billions of tax payers $ on a mission to find out hun all because you say so! & whateverscience.com printing the story verbatim, because ITS SEXY!
Your right, there's fuck all there, all right. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/28/2008 9:53 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Always a pleasure to read your input Barls. Excellent. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492585
Thanks. It's the rare expressions of appreciation like yours that make doing this sort of thing worthwhile and humouring the adolescent trolls easier.
Bedtime for Barls, though. More tomorrow. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492590
8/28/2008 9:57 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Hang on I thought for you a Woohoo site was NASA.
How fucking embarrassing is that. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 492585
8/28/2008 9:57 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Otherwise there's nothing here.
Astro's steering the rover by lifting the front, instead of the multi million dollar four wheel (no less) steering, because it was easier?
Nasa wrong about lunar radioactivity to such an embarrassing degree that they are wasting billions of tax payers $ on a mission to find out hun all because you say so! & whateverscience.com printing the story verbatim, because ITS SEXY!
Your right, there's fuck all there, all right. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 492590
Barls has whipped you, with facts, but do carry on. For sheer amusement value at least. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | |
|
