decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Ok, ok, I confess | 297 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why the Moon Landings Weren’t Faked - Yeah how to annoy my lunatic friends ;-)
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 | # ]

That was really good! - n/t
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 03:47 PM EST

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why the Moon Landings Weren’t Faked - Yeah how to annoy my lunatic friends ;-)
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 | # ]

    Why the Moon Landings Weren’t Faked - Yeah how to annoy my lunatic friends ;-)
    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 | # ]

    van allen radiation belts and space and cancer
    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 | # ]

    Ok, ok, I confess
    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 | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )