|
Authored by: whoever57 on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 02:18 PM EST |
I urge anyone who watches this video to watch it all the way to the end! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 03:47 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 11:39 AM EST |
I never believed the Moon Landing Hoaxers. I find it WAAAY
harder to believe that thousands of people kept mum about
a faked moon landing for over 40 years, than that men flew
to the moon and returned.
---------------------
Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 11:53 AM EST |
How can anybody be so uneducated to believe the Moon Landings were a hoax?
What is so special about flying to the Moon?
Flying to the Moon was easy. Faking it were impossible.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 22 2013 @ 03:04 PM EST |
you know if your intelligent that those belts are extreme
areas where our earths magnetic field and the suns rays
really clash they then form a sphere around us and are very
very deadly
my main issue is this....with effectively a tin can these
guys not ony went through that BUT they came back through it
and all of them had no signs a radiation sickness?
NO what they did was sneaky and you can tell by the guy he
never mentions this and its why we aint doing a trip to mars
it would kill you back then and with all the tech today its
a one way trip cause the dose a radiation you get on said
trip with all the shielding we can give means ONE WAY....
what they did was get into low earth orbit.
then automated the lem to the moon and land....
prove me wrong turn the hubble telescpoe to the moon and
take pics ....notice no photo of the moon could or has been
able to gain resolution to do that....
and i wont trust the chinese going to the moon to tell me
any differant either....they are too vested in the lie of
america financially to cause them too much grief.
Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the
geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus
they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic
rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region
between two to four earth radii lies between the two
radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe
zone"
A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic
orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,000 km)) passing the
radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per
year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing
the inner belt
about 2.28 rem per trip through given the 3 day trip to the
moon and the max distance
which means two trips is just below the max allowed by the
atomic energy commission in the usa to work with atomics
of 5 rem
and again NOT one of these guys ever had any issues...for
cancer or any sickness....
-----
quote from a doctor
-----
The value of 5 rem (5,000 mrem or 50 mSv) in a year that you
quote is a number recommended by the Health Physics Society
(HPS) in a position paper in 2010. It was stipulated as a
value below which the HPS recommended that we should not
attempt to quantify health risks. A similar recommendation
applied to the dose of 10 rem (10,000 mrem or 100 mSv)
accumulated over a lifetime. Both of these doses were
intended to represent doses in excess of natural background
radiation doses. There is considerable uncertainty
associated with the estimation of risk from relatively low
doses, and this accounts for this caution by the HPS and
other groups (this is discussed a bit more later in this
discussion). This does not mean, however, that there is no
risk, but rather that there may not be any risk and, if
there is, we are not certain about how to quantify it.
Regarding the 5,000 mrem (50 mSv) per year value that
represents the occupational annual effective dose limit for
most radiation workers in the United States, this was
established in consideration of the belief that it
represented a sufficiently safe level such that workers so
exposed would not be experiencing appreciable risk of
serious health consequences beyond what accrues to most
other workers employed in other safe work environments.
It is important to recognize, however, that all facilities
licensed to conduct activities involving radioactive
materials and radiation sources, in addition to having to
abide by dose limits, are required to institute a program
for maintaining workers' doses at levels as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA). This philosophy results in
occupational doses among typical radiation workers that are
considerably below the allowed annual limits. The average
annual effective dose for all occupational workers in this
country is less than 10 percent of the 50 mSv limit, and
most radiation workers receive less than 10 mSv per year.
Many other countries have adopted the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations
of a 2 rem (20 mSv) per year occupational effective dose
limit with allowances to go as high as 5 rem per year so
long as the average annual dose over five years does not
exceed 2 rem.
While the annual dose limits represent the maximum allowed
annual doses for routine operations within a licensed
facility, most workers, as we noted, actually receive much
less. The National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP) has recommended in its Report 116,
Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, that an
individual's cumulative occupational effective dose not
exceed the worker's age multiplied by 10 mSv. Thus, for a
65-year-old worker, the NCRP would recommend a cumulative
occupational effective dose of no more than 650 mSv (65
rem). This recommendation has not yet become a legal
requirement for facilities licensed by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and Agreement States, which represent
the major licensing and enforcement groups in the United
States. Similarly, the ICRP has stated that a worker’s
lifetime cumulative dose should not exceed about 1 Sv (100
rem).
If we consider your hypothetical worker who receives 3 rem
per year and assume he/she receives this same annual dose
throughout his/her career, from perhaps age 18 through age
65, his/her cumulative dose would be 1.41 Sv (141 rem). This
would be more than twice the NCRP recommended value and
about 40 percent more than the ICRP recommendation, but
still within legal limits, although possibly not within
ALARA limits, depending on the exposure conditions. Using
ICRP risk estimates, such an occupational dose would result
in about a 5 percent probability that the radiation received
would cause the worker's death and would be associated with
a reduction in life span of about six months. Other
professional and recommending organizations, such as the
ICRP, have concluded that doses as high as 100 mSv (10 rem)
delivered over any time interval up to a year would produce
no significant measurable effect.
You are correct in saying that the radiation itself is not
stored up by the body, but the rationale used in radiation
protection for restricting cumulative doses has been that
the probability of inducing certain serious effects, such as
cancer, is proportional to the dose. This leads to a
conclusion that, although the radiation does not accumulate
in the body, the risk is cumulative, and provides grounds
for limiting lifetime doses as well as annual doses. Most of
the actual risk data that we have are based on high doses
(greater than 100 mSv or 10 rem) received over a very short
time. We project risk from these data to lower dose levels
of the magnitude that might be expected, for instance, for
occupational workers whose doses are generally low and
received at low dose rates. The fact that we have assumed
this extrapolation (usually referred to as the linear no-
threshold [LNT] extrapolation) to be valid has been the
cause of much controversy in the field of radiation
protection. There is considerable laboratory evidence that
low doses of radiation, even levels similar to and exceeding
the annual dose limits that now prevail, have a
radioprotective effect, and many health physicists and
radiobiologists do not feel that we should be applying the
LNT approach to estimate risk at occupational dose levels or
at even lower levels encountered by members of the general
public.
In your question you also raise the possible concern about
someone undergoing routine medical procedures who might be
accruing several rem per year. It is true that such an
individual would be assumed to experience the same or
possibly greater health risks from the radiation exposure as
would an occupational worker who was receiving the same
doses. The major difference between the two is that the
individual who might be receiving relatively significant
doses from medical procedures is suffering from a possible
medical malady for which the risks from the radiation
exposure may be small compared to the risks from the
undiagnosed or untreated physical condition. It is
important, however, if we believe that all radiation
exposure is potentially harmful, that the medical community
evaluate the appropriateness of procedures that are ordered
for the treatment or diagnosis of patients to ensure that
the benefit of the procedures exceeds potential risk from
the procedures.
I realize that this topic of dose limits and dose effects
still engenders considerable uncertainty, and I regret that
I cannot provide unassailable answers to your questions, but
I hope the discussion provides some clarification for you.
George Chabot, PhD
----------
note a lot of people want 2 rems per year avg and some of
these astronauts went back to the moon again
Jim Lovell Apollo 8 and Apollo 13
John Young also went twice--as CM pilot on Apollo 10 and as
commander of Apollo 16
in affect these two guys would have garnered 6-8 rems which
is only 2 less then usa govt says you should have in a life
time
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 22 2013 @ 05:06 PM EST |
We didn't go to the moon. It was boring, and there were no 5 star hotels. So
we went to Mars instead, shot a bunch of video, put up a sign that said
"Moon", and fooled everyone.
Sorry.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|