[1] https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/99...
* 13. Mai 1888 in Kopenhagen
† 21. Februar 1993 in Kopenhagen
That's 104 years, 9 months, and 8 days!
> This article is part of Overlooked, a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in The Times.
Our protection from cosmic radiation is mostly due to Earth's thick atmosphere, not its magnetic field.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14915/does-...
Primary defense against cosmic radiation: magnetic field
Secondary defense: atmosphere
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/eart...
Radiation at ISS: 144 mSv per year
Radiation on a trip to Mars: ~340 mSv per year
Cosmic radiation at sea level: about 0.4 mSv per year
The atmosphere is doing the heavy lifting in shielding us from cosmic radiation, not the magnetosphere.
> Radiation on a trip to Mars: ~340 mSv per year
This seems to track with research that during a geomagnetic excursion[1], where the field strength dropped to about 10%, the cosmic radiation seems to have roughly doubled[2].
Assuming you're right, why do you suppose so many publications get it wrong?
Not only the NASA one I linked to but also Wikipedia for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
Or the European Space Agency: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cluste...
You will forgive me if I take their assessment more seriously than yours, but I'm open to correcting my understanding.
I don’t know that that is a good reason to cause you to you think they’re lying.
NASA also extensively investigates Earth's atmosphere.
They use missions like Aura, CALIPSO, and upcoming ones like AOS and INCUS to monitor ozone, clouds, aerosols, and storms, providing crucial data for forecasts and climate science.
I don't know why you'd expect a self-interested organization to do anything else.
wasting_time•1mo ago