Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

Being contaminated does make you a radiological threat to others. That's why the caregivers at Chernobyl required radiation protection and decontamination protocols. Their patients were not only badly irradiated but also contaminated by reactor ejecta.

When your misconception was first being discussed, you pointed out that people who had undergone radiation treatments for cancer were told to stay away from others. Your betters pointed out that this was true only for people who had ingested radioactive substances (i.e., had become contaminated), not people who had merely undergone therapeutic irradiation. So yes, you did claim at the time that people who had been irradiated became a danger to others. You were wrong about it, but that was your claim.

You're allowed to change your mind when corrected. You are not allowed to pretend you never made the incorrect statements in the first place. Quite a number of people in this thread have expressed gratitude at being educated by knowledgeable contributors. You, on the other hand, arrogantly persist in claiming you've been right all along—even when it's painfully obvious you weren't—and in complaining about how badly others are treating you. Given your especially unpleasant attitude today, perhaps you need to take a break and return to the thread only when you can focus on something besides yourself.

As I said, it's a preventative procedure not a diagnosis. Of course those students on exchange at Grenoble Uni Chemistry/Physics departments aren't literally contaminated by being int he presence of, say, uranium. But they de-scrub coming out anyway.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said...

This has nothing to do with my post. Are you ill?

 

[Vixen]

Being contaminated does make you a radiological threat to others. That's why the caregivers at Chernobyl required radiation protection and decontamination protocols. Their patients were not only badly irradiated but also contaminated by reactor ejecta.

When your misconception was first being discussed, you pointed out that people who had undergone radiation treatments for cancer were told to stay away from others. Your betters pointed out that this was true only for people who had ingested radioactive substances (i.e., had become contaminated), not people who had merely undergone therapeutic irradiation. So yes, you did claim at the time that people who had been irradiated became a danger to others. You were wrong about it, but that was your claim.

You're allowed to change your mind when corrected. You are not allowed to pretend you never made the incorrect statements in the first place. Quite a number of people in this thread have expressed gratitude at being educated by knowledgeable contributors. You, on the other hand, arrogantly persist in claiming you've been right all along—even when it's painfully obvious you weren't—and in complaining about how badly others are treating you. Given your especially unpleasant attitude today, perhaps you need to take a break and return to the thread only when you can focus on something besides yourself.

Yes, as an aside I mentioned that some doctors will advice people who have undergone radiotherapy to avoid being near pregnant women. That is a precaution. Kimo sabe?

 

[zooterkin]

Although I am extremely well versed in digital imaging (in particular for astronomy) and know in excruciating detail how CCDs work, I know next to nothing about film photography, and even less about which companies produced what and what wold have been available to NASA or the general public in the late 1960s.

And yet, JayUtah's statement still holds true.

ETA: Beaten by the page break, and triple-ninjaed at this point.

 

[JayUtah]

If you use the search function you can see what I already said about the issue.

Yes, we can search for what you said previously. But we cannot search for what you haven't yet said. When people ask you to rephrase or explain your previous statements, that's a request for you to generate new content. Your stubborn reluctance to explain further suggests you can't.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, as an aside I mentioned that some doctors will advice people who have undergone radiotherapy to avoid being near pregnant women. That is a precaution.

So yes, you did say that being exposed to radiation makes you a radiological threat to others.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Here's a clue to why Adam's used those films.

View attachment 74553

He liked to play the accordion on his lunch breaks?

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, as an aside I mentioned that some doctors will advice people who have undergone radiotherapy to avoid being near pregnant women. That is a precaution. Kimo sabe?

Because, for at least some forms of radiotherapy, the patient actually has radioactive isotopes in their body, and they are therefore actually radioactive themselves. I would be surprised if patients who are simply exposed to radiation are restricted in the same way.

Mange tout?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Are you ill?

Being ill is no clue as to quality.

 

[JayUtah]

Because, for at least some forms of radiotherapy, the patient actually has radioactive isotopes in their body, and they are therefore actually radioactive themselves.

Of course others explained that distinction to her, but only after she insisted that exposure to the space radiation environment would require precautions akin to those for radiopharmaceuticals. In her haste to claim, "I never said that!" she is disavowing things she provably did say and which are ironically at least partially correct.

Page after page of discussion, almost none of it having to do with Apollo or even Apollo conspiracy theorists. Just @Vixen aggressively rage-baiting and trying to keep attention focused on her instead of the topic.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Being popular is no clue as to quality.

Being wrong about almost everything almost all the time does not mean you have been right about everything all along.

 

[catsmate]

I have never thought Ektachrome was 'a separate company'. I have always known it is a Kodak brand name.

Again you're lying in a pathetic attempt to save face.

 

[catsmate]

It seemed that way when you [needlessly] gushed it was 'iconic'. But good you realise popular does not necessarily equate to 'best'.

Semi-literate nonsense.

 

[threadworm]

I've had radiotherapy. Lots of it. It did not make me radioactive.

The various PET-CT scans did though. No-one else got contaminated.

 

[catsmate]

If you use the search function you can see what I already said about the issue.

Yes we can. We can easily see your lies and evasions.

 

[catsmate]

As I said, it's a preventative procedure not a diagnosis. Of course those students on exchange at Grenoble Uni Chemistry/Physics departments aren't literally contaminated by being int he presence of, say, uranium. But they de-scrub coming out anyway.

This is irrelevant, incompetent nonsense .

 

[sackett]

Threads of this type

Let me start again. Threads displaying this pathology

Aw hell, Vixen threads, like others only moreso, are fun and diverting. You can post anything, silly or OT or
even educational, and it fits.

Don't know about those puns, but maybe that's because I can never come up with one until days later.

Onward! To page 500 and beyond!

 

[JayUtah]

That's all well and good, but I'm still laughing at the idea that Vixen believes there's a 66,000km hill on the Moon.

To reiterate, @Vixen doesn't believe that. She has never said she did. I have never said she did. In her desperation to paint her critics as mean-spirited, she tried to accuse me of putting that irrational argument in her mouth.

When she made the infamous "achieve the 'hill'" statement, she put the word in cautionary quotes. We all use that convention. It's a signal not to interpret the word in its literal meaning. It doesn't matter what she might have meant, because the only correct meaning in context is that Hill is just the name of the person who formulated the principle.

Vixen insists that whatever she meant was reasonable—a "colloquailism." But she refuses to explain what exactly she means by "achieve the 'hill,'" so we're left with no better idea of her intent than before. But unless she means George Hill, she's still wrong. Until she consents to explain herself instead of telling her critics to go look at some wiki, we are probably still justified in holding her feet to the fire.

When I discuss the statement, I retain her cautionary quotes. I'm taking great pains to remain faithful to her likely desire not to interpret "hill" as a literal rise in terrain. From context I gather she refers to some phenomenon or property perhaps related to gravity or orbits. I gather that she interpreted the Hill in Hill Sphere not as the proper name of its discoverer but as a reference to some physical phenomenon that she could then reuse in an attempt to look smart. Colloquially we all talk about a "gravity well" and going up or down such a "well." Of course we don't mean a literal well, but merely the need to content with gravity in a certain way. It's possible Vixen means something like that. If so, she has been invited to clarify as much. It would still be wrong, as it would not likely refer to George Hill. But it might make her less of a laughingstock if she could explain her unconventional usage.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It seemed that way when you [needlessly] gushed it was 'iconic'. But good you realise popular does not necessarily equate to 'best'.

But you don't tell us what other film would have been more suitable and why.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Being popular is no clue as to quality.

We can see it's quality by the results.
Being popular with professional photographers is an indicator of quality.