• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

threadworm said:
The lunar surface is not radioactive. There was no need for any radiation decontamination.
Click to expand...
To be specific, the lunar surface radiates x-rays, gamma rays, and energetic neutrons. This is not because the lunar surface is radioactive, but because it is responding to being irradiated by emitting secondary radiation. Secondary radiation is an effect of being irradiated by primary radiation—in this case cosmic rays and solar particles.

Fluorescence is the classic example of secondary radiation. When bombarded with photons in the ultraviolet band (i.e., a "black light"), some materials emit new photons in the visible band, chiefly bluish violet. When you turn off the black light, the secondary emission stops. The objects stop glowing bluish purple. This is not mere reflection or emission. The atoms of the material absorb a high-energy photon. This causes an electron to jump momentarily to a higher-energy orbit. But because this is unstable, the electron immediately drops back to a lower orbit and this causes the emission of an entirely new photon. The material itself is not spontaneously emitting these photons. It does so only as a response to being itself irradiated.

Similarly when lunar surface material absorbs incoming cosmic rays and protons, this causes a secondary emission. It's more proper to say that the lunar surface fluoresces in the gamma and x-ray bands as the effect of being irradiated by solar particles.
 
Vixen said:
Citation, please. Bearing in mind, Knox remains permanently convicted of falsely blaming the African guy of rape and murder. Perverting the Course of Justice is classed as a serious crime in the UK, USA (Obstruction of Justice) and Italy (criminal calumny). This is factual and proven, and nothing whatever to do with this thread.
Click to expand...
Still repeating the same pathetic lie.
 
bknight said:
Did you read what nJay posted?
"No, it doesn’t take a Hasselbald 500/EL 50 seconds to reset the shutter and advance the film to the next frame. 1.5 seconds is more accurate."
Addressing both shutter speed and film roll. He has had it in his hand taking images have you?
Click to expand...
Shutter speed is different.

If I set my "shutter speed" to 1/250 second, then it operates in 1/250 second. If I set my shutter speed to 30 seconds (which I can do, but not on the Hasselblad), from the time you press the shutter release to the time you're ready to take another picture, about 31.5 seconds will have elapsed—30 seconds for the exposure to happen (the "shutter speed") and 1.5 seconds for the camera to reset. You don't add the exposure shutter speed to the advance cycle time rating.

What you want to consider is the shutter reset time. This is the time it takes the camera to reset the shutter mechanism from its "I just took a picture" state to its "I'm ready to take another picture" state. This is only a fraction of a second and is the same no matter what your exposure shutter speed is set to. That's combined with the motor drive that moves the film through the magazine. On my old manual cameras, both actions are accomplished by a cocking lever you operate with your right thumb. It advances the film and re-arms the shutter to fire again.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Can I suggest that if you get the chance to go to the Moon you demand a radiation health check on your return? Why skip it?
Click to expand...
One should indeed check for and mitigate the consequences of having been irradiated while on the lunar surface. That has absolutely nothing to do with radiological decontamination.
 
Vixen said:
The same reason you might undergo screening for all kinds of medical issues: prevention and catching symptoms early and even nipping potential threats to health in the bud.
Click to expand...
No, the medical reasons why I would see my doctor if I had been irradiated have nothing to do with whether I might also have been contaminated. Nor would any decontamination procedure mitigate the effects of irradiation.
 
Vixen said:
There isn't a high risk of radiation contact if they stayed within Lower Earth Orbit (LEO) because they would have been largely protected by being within the Earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...
This is utter rubbish.
Vixen said:
Once you go outside of that the hazards are immense.
Click to expand...
Untrue.
Vixen said:
You don't need to actually be irradiated to qualify for decontamination or cancer screening. The idea is prevention, not diagnosis.
Click to expand...
More nonsense.
Vixen said:
If you still do not understand why this is an issue, this article by NASA might help.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant.
 
Vixen said:
Grenoble University has a Department of Nuclear Engineering. Clearly some students will be doing lab work in this environment otherwise they wouldn't need to decontaminate afterwards.
Click to expand...
They require decontamination because they are working with materials that are inherently radioactive and would be considered contaminants if they get on your skin, clothing, etc.

This is not the same as merely being irradiated. That too is a risk when working in a nuclear engineering setting, but it is mitigated by such things as shielding, not post hoc processes. Once you have been seriously irradiated, nothing you do externally will reduce that already-happened effect. You can only attempt to heal from it.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Citation, please. Bearing in mind, Knox remains permanently convicted of falsely blaming the African guy of rape and murder. Perverting the Course of Justice is classed as a serious crime in the UK, USA (Obstruction of Justice) and Italy (criminal calumny). This is factual and proven, and nothing whatever to do with this thread.
Click to expand...
And now you all can begin to understand what THAT thread went on for so long.
 
Vixen said:
Once you go outside of that the hazards are immense.
Click to expand...
No, they are simply greater. We know how much greater and we know how to mitigate those effects if not eliminate them outright.

Vixen said:
You don't need to actually be irradiated to qualify for decontamination or cancer screening.
Click to expand...
Being contaminated means you will be irradiated on an ongoing basis, which is the actual threat. Screening for cancer does not involve decontamination.

Vixen said:
The idea is prevention, not diagnosis.
Click to expand...
Appropriate steps were taken to prevent the astronauts from being injured by exposure to ionizing radiation. Those steps did not involve—nor did they need to involve—undergoing a radiological decontamination procedure. The astronauts were not exposed to any significant radiological contaminants.

Your view of radiation is too simplistic for you to contribute meaningfully to this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Exposure to large doses (or even long-term lower doses) of radiation causes a high risk of developing cancer or even radiation sickness. Simply spraying an astronaut who has been in a known high-radiation environment with antiseptic tells you NASA obviously didn't think it relevant here. Buzz Aldrin at 95 is still going strong so it's good he never needed any screening. That's luck not prudence.
Click to expand...
What would the screening be?
They were wearing dosimeters, what else should be done?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom