Have you heard the bitchin' news?! I reject your god because I don't need some elitist hipster cloud club. I've had my fill of standing in lines and getting judged at the door in this life, screw doing it again in the next. So, I bought my front-row ticket to the hottest show in Earth because all the good bands and fun people will be there.
You may be interested in my pamphlet, "So, you've decided to go to Hell."
This made me so very happy! Well done!
However, there is a tool being developed by NASA which does a real-time calculation of your radiation dose along an airline trajectory. Check out NAIRAS
Cosmic Radiation @ skybrary
NAIRAS aircraft radiation model development, dose climatology, and initial validation
1. How much money they have brought in through grants.
2. How many papers they have published.
3. The prestige of the journals they have published in.
4. How many times their papers have been cited by other researchers.
So, if you keeping your job depends on those 4 things, where is the incentive to check the work of someone else? Especially large, difficult, and expensive experiments. At best, you get a quick "Comment on XYZ" paper that questions some findings and the authors reply with a "Reply to Comment on XYZ" telling you why your comment is rubbish and you didn't understand what they were saying.
In addition, you make what I believe to be two assumptions by implication about Universities:
1. That professors are hired to teach.
2. That TAs will do a worse job teaching than professors.
Professors are NOT hired to teach - the exception is small private colleges without graduate programs. Professors are hired to bring research money into the University. The University takes in the region of 40-60% off the top of grants "for institutional research support." While this is not always the case (for some grants, the granting institution require the university to commit matching funds) it is more than the norm. Secondly, while professors are typically more knowledgeable in the subject and typically have more experience teaching (by virtue of spending the time as a TA during graduate school), that does not mean they are the better teachers. The best teachers I ever had were evenly split between professors and TAs. While not scientific, my colleagues experiences were similar.
So, you are correct, stopping low energy particles, especially light low energy particles doesn't take a lot of material. But when the particles are protons and at much higher energies, then it is no longer that case that thin layers of material will stop them.
For high energy alphas, for instance, you also have to account for the nuclear interactions with the shielding material. The cosmic ray nuclei will collide with target nuclei in the shield and create giant sprays of secondaries that are more penetrating than the original particle, increasing the radiation dose received behind shielding.
RAL says, "Yes, here are the results."
NASA says, "Yes, but this is for 10 MeV electrons. Which are not really part of the space radiation problem. Where are the higher energy proton and heavy ion results?"
RAL says, "..."
Space radiation protection is fundamentally different from terrestrial radiation protection. Space radiation is much higher energy and consists mainly of protons (but also heavy ions are important due to the Z^2 effect of radiation dose). And it is omnipresent - you cannot get away from space radiation - it is everywhere.
See, the problem with the unconfined magnetic field work is that the size and mass of the equipment to make a magnetic dipole against cosmic rays is prohibitive. The most recent analysis that I know of is by Paluzek  and needs a million kg in equipment with a diameter of 100 meters...
A nice review of the science and engineering aspects of active shielding can be found in Townsend (2005) .
 Townsend, L.W., "Critical analysis of active shielding methods for space radiation protection," Aerospace Conference, 2005 IEEE , vol., no., pp.724,730, 5-12 March 2005, doi: 10.1109/AERO.2005.1559364
 M. A. Paluszek, “Magnetic Radiation Shielding forPermanent Space Habitats,” in The Industrialization of Space: Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting, American Astronautical Society,36 Part 1, 545-574, 1978.
There's no reason in the world, you should go through school, never having looked through a telescope.
Every time I ask people about how much astronomy they covered during their schooling, they tell it was either: not covered at all, covered for a few days, or maybe for a single quarter. This includes people of ALL ages, but most disturbingly, people in their teens and twenties.
If students are fortunate enough to have a teacher like my wife, who actually knows (and likes) astronomy, they'll get a LOT of good information crammed into whatever brief time she's allotted to cover astronomy. But even as amazing a teacher as my wife is, that time is simply not sufficient anymore Within the subject of astronomy, there's too much that should be taught.
It has been my experience that ignorance of astronomy is at near epidemic proportions. It is my very firm conviction that EVERY student in this country (and planet, really) should be taught and experience astronomy during their school years. It needs to start earlier, around the 3rd or 4th grade, and be taught not just for one single quarter — but over the course of several years, integrated with Physics, Chemistry, Math, and History.
Carl Sagan once said that learning about astronomy is a humbling and character building experience; I can attest to that fact. Astronomy is a subject that inspires you to branch out to other scientific disciplines: geology, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, math, etc. Neil deGrasse Tyson frequently talks about how NASAs Moon missions inspired a generation to dream about tomorrow — it certainly did for me. We need a return to this type of thinking, to inspire students and young adults to become engineers and scientists.
Link to Original Source