Crestone, Colorado (USA) – January 18, 2015 – DISCLAIMER & SHARE POLICY
Part 1 in this short series was the previous blogpost, Four years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ ‘Vlissingen Haven’, The Netherlands – (Long Term Pattern Spotting – Part 1 of 4 ). This one, part 2, will look at Gävle, Sweden, and look just slightly further in the past (starting in January 2008), also add some annotations, but leave my commentary for the end.
Research context (includes repetition/recap from previous blogposts): As far as I can assess the situation from afar, the likelihood that there was a major radiological release coming from the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) in the Eastern Ukraine has only increased the more I’ve researched it.
In regards to that ZNPP Nuclear mystery, I’ve been a bit on a roll:
I reported on disturbing hacked/leaked internal ZNPP communications before most had heard of these. I discovered a very important translation error in a widely-shared RT article. Using Nullschool meteo data and EURDEP radiation monitor observations, I effectively showed that some of the most extreme recent radiation spikes were precisely downwind from the Zaporizhia Nuclear Accident. I’ve pointed out that the magnitudes of those ground-level spikes were surprisingly véry significant by scrutinizing post-Chernobyl data, suggesting something much worse than just a mere refueling off-gassing took place at ZNPP’s Unit 3 on November 27, 2014, and possible again at the end of December 2014, at ZNPP’s Unit 5.
In this blogpost: Like the other blog posts in this short January 2015 series, I’m looking at long term trends, just checking to see if similar patterns can be observed on EURDEP monitors before and after Fukushima.
Because each location has a unique background radiation level, due to elevation, soil type, weather patterns, and nearby geology & industry, I’m going to do this for one monitor at a time. I picked one monitor in Sweden, Gävle (or Gaevle, EURDEP monitor SE0008) for this second data-crunching marathon. Most of the data shared will be for Gaevle, Sweden EURDEP monitor SE0048, however. That location seemed what I would call “well situated” to pick up radiation increases from Eastern Europe and Western Russia. It was near here that the Chernobyl accident in April 1986 was detected during a spring rain-out of the radioactive plume that was moving over then. (See my blog post about gaging [or gauging if you prefer that alternate spelling] the ground level upticks in April 1986, for clues about the significance of more recent upticks and spikes.) After the Zaporizhia radiological release(s) in late 2014, this monitor showed ‘data gaps’ that are known to hide unusually large spikes.
The intention of this short series is to make it easier to spot multi-year patterns in different monitor-circumstances.
To verify my findings:
EURDEP’s Disclaimer must be read so that you are warned twice not to run with my opinions as if it were scientific fact. As per MY DISCLAIMER, I insist you think for yourself.
I think when I’m done with these longer-term investigations, you might agree that the key message in EURDEP’s disclaimer, namely that apparent upticks in gamma radiation should not be interpreted as apparent upticks in gamma radiation, because those are, in their word, “most likely caused by calibration tests”, that this turns out to simply not be true, for most cases. My impression is that those maroon or violet dots, and even far more benign upticks, DO actually often suggest radiological releases, which most of the time ARE due to industrial fission activities (for medical isotopes, research or electric power generation, or blowing around since Chernobyl and Fukushima, and who knows what else).
A closer look at the geographical location of Gävle, Sweden in Northern Europe:
Data search setting: EURDEP Public map (unvalidated), Gamma-T, for ‘1 month prior to the 28th of the month @ 23:55 UTC’. So the graphs, except for Februaries, will start at the end of the previous month. I paste 3 screenshots together per line.
- Starting at the every beginning of 2008 for SE0008:
Now, this is the downside of making a blog post ‘as-I-go’: In in some cases, like in this one, I find out part-way in that that wasn’t the best monitor choice. In spring 2009, this particular monitor was turned off for several years, making it rather dismal for long term comparisons. ;-/ But this what I had already done, so here is Jan. 2008 through April 2009:
–> Besides huge data gaps, another interesting thing about seeing the long-term pattern here, is how this monitor seems to shift baselines, such as from 120 nSv/hr to 160 nSv/hr, and back.
[Added: Feb 2, 2015: I was emailed by someone in Sweden who said that the swings are mainly due to snow. When there’s snow on the ground, it shields the deposited Chernobyl fallout, showing on the monitor as a lower baseline.]
After April 2009, Gaevle ‘s SE0008 goes off-line for several years, including through 2011. I didn’t realize that when I started. ;-/ For what it’s worth, there actually are 3 Gaevle monitors.
One of the other Gaevle monitors, SE0048, comes back online within six months! SO I switched here. Although it was most likely serviced, cleaned and calibrated after such a long outage, it too continues to “behave” rather similar, with these smooth curved shifts, again shifting from 0.160 µSv/hr as its apparent baseline to 0.120 µSv/hr, and even 0.080 µSv/hr, only to smoothly shift back to 0.160 µSv/hr. It does this a few times (see graphs, below), sometimes faster than other. I have no idea if these fluctuations are due to a significant amount of decaying Cesium-137 still being present in the local soils (from back in Chernobyl’s 1986 deposits), or due to Cosmic Ray fluctuations, or what. Or if perhaps some kind of data manipulation is applied (?). I left these composite screenshots without annotations: You can see the gaps yourself. Just look closely. I’ll comment after this massive amount of data.
- ! NOTICE: Switching from monitors: from SE0008 to SE0048 ! So, the following, below, is not per se comparable to the above (different nearby monitor, different period). I’ll now continue, since there’s no data at this location for May-April-June 2009 either, I’ll pick the line back up with starting with July-August- September 2009, but now at the very nearby Swedish monitor Gaevle SE0048:
This includes the above last 3 month period of 2014 again, but with the data till today (January 18, 2015) included. The suspected little ZNPP-fallout-spike would have been around the Nov. 30 small data gap:
Data gaps and swings seem rather common here. Keep in mind that this region received over 85,000 Bq of Cs-137 per square meter in 1986. I really don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this played at least a role in the mysteriously ever-shifting ‘natural background’ (“baseline”), though.
There’s no gap within 2 weeks right after Fukushima, though there is one in April as well as July 2011, but we can’t tell how unusual the spikes are these probably hide, as EURDEP does what it does best: hides much of the probably most telling data. Data gaps are nothing uncommon on this monitor, though, which makes comparing extra difficult.
The major shift seen on the Vlissingen Haven monitor right as September 2014 begins, hints of appearing here as well, albeit starting some 3 weeks earlier with a long gaping data gap, followed by widespread ‘disturbances’, which last into November 2014.
The effect of ZNPP’s fallout would be that tiny gap (Err, ungodly spike – ;-) Thanks, Eurdep, you saved us all the little freak-out that could have triggered , huh?) at about Nov. 30, 2014, and possibly the disturbances in the week before and after New Year’s. Impossible to tell. But given spikes of well over 0.200 µSv/hr are not redacted, it seems logical it must be significantly higher, possibly one of those super-high data dots, which I used to think of as “glitch dots”. That’s speculation, of course, albeit based on what is commonly seen here.
That’s it for this monitor.
— — — — — — — — —
If you are viewing this page on any website other than allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/ it may be plagiarized. Please let me know. All content is copyright © Michaël Van Broekhoven, administrator of and sole writer for the Allegedly Apparent Blog. Content cited, quoted etc. from other sources is under the respective rights of that content owner. For more details, see my Disclaimer, Share Policy and Fair Use Notice. If you wish to reproduce any of our content in full or in more than a paragraph or quote, please contact me first to obtain permission.
[Except for removing some typos, Last Updated/Edited (‘final’): January 18, 2015, except for the clearly marked inserted addition from Feb 2, 2015;]