Total Members Voted: 178
Also calculating with sieverts is not really valid IMO.
The RAD instrument on MSL measured cosmic ray doses of 1.84 +/- 0.33 mSv/day behind moderate (~8 g/cm2) shielding. So for a 200 day transit that's 368 mS, for a 400 day round trip (no landing) 736 mS.
Quote from: guckyfan on 11/14/2015 08:11 amAlso calculating with sieverts is not really valid IMO.You have any evidence to support this opinion?
Quote from: Dalhousie on 11/16/2015 10:21 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 11/14/2015 08:11 amAlso calculating with sieverts is not really valid IMO.You have any evidence to support this opinion?Sievert is a value given as a biologic equivalent radiation effect. It is invented to make the effects of different types of radiation comparable. So the response of the biologic system, in this case called a human, is in the mix. Presently we don't even know how exactly the human body responses to GCR, so any Sievert value is based on assumptions. Actually the response of the body for any kind of long term low level radiation is not well understood. What we have is the effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation. This is what our assumptions are based on, and that is not a long term low level environment. Everything is based on the linear no threshold assumption which is itself very much in doubt given new research in Chernobyl.
We do have cosmic ray data on Earth and it is been the subject of many studies.
Low level radiation studies are not just based on atomic bomb survivors, we have more than a century of radiation worker data medical and industrial X-rays to call on.
You are right about the non-linearity of low doses, but they do provide a conservative margin.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 11/17/2015 04:03 amWe do have cosmic ray data on Earth and it is been the subject of many studies.How would that be done with constant background radiation? Have they done studies with flight crews and inhabitants of the High Andes?Quote from: Dalhousie on 11/17/2015 04:03 amLow level radiation studies are not just based on atomic bomb survivors, we have more than a century of radiation worker data medical and industrial X-rays to call on. Which are all data on short time overdoses. Radiation doses in normal operations would always be very low. Have relatively high doses in a few areas in the world shown increased radiation risk, like in the uranium mining area in Germany or that Town in Iran?