This blog post builds upon the past several dozen blog posts [=archive], especially the previous one, “Did Germany just get a Massive Amount of Fukushima Fallout and “No One Noticed”? (A Eurdep-Nullschool investigation of the Nov. 16, 2014 radiation Upticks…)” (they are good combined), again sharing over a hundred images of graphed radiation data from several monitoring networks in the US, Europe and Japan; and Nullschool wind maps.
My (amateur) research traces most radiation upticks measured in the past several months (end of 2014, beginning of 2015) to atmospheric releases from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Site. I have also found further evidence that official monitoring networks in the US and Europe redact the data shared with the public, raising great doubts about the integrity of the nuclear oversight and warning systems in place.
Showing what is believed to be at least one chunk of Fukushima’s Unit 2’s reactor core, the video below, showing ultra-hot lava-like molten nuclear fuel, further suggests that it is practically certain that at least some amount melted all the way down through the concrete basement. TEPCO has admitted they still don’t know where exactly the Coriums are. That could mean they sank down quite a ways.
“The seriousness of the current situation cannot be understated.“
“[…] Chronic and long-lasting radioactive releases are [ongoing]… Fukushima continues to bleed into the ocean, because those nuclear cores have melted down and are in direct contact with the groundwater. It will bleed for centuries perhaps, and certainly decades to come. […]”
“[@3:15 in, re. a meltdown experiment recently conducted:] […] This means radioactive materials will be released for a longer time. The experiment shows that the water that was meant to prevent the meltdowns may have actually sustained them. The expert says the results show that radioactive substances kept leaking out and spreading into the atmosphere. […] Radiation Levels around the Fukushima-Daiichi reactors remain extremely high; and no one has been able to get close enough to determine what’s happening inside. […]”
Flashback: “[…] Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said […] “The situation has been under control as a whole,” […] Abe’s repeated no-cause-for-alarm assessments of the situation at the Fukushima plant, which suffered three reactor-core meltdowns shortly after it was hit by the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and monster tsunami, are raising the eyebrows of critics who regard the condition as worrying and warn of possible negative fallout on the environment and industries. […]“
“[Akira Ono, the] manager of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant has admitted to embarrassment that repeated efforts have failed to bring under control the problem of radioactive water, eight months after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told the world the matter had been resolved. […]”
Evidence is mounting that the situation may have spiraled further out of control since last summer…
Apparent ‘Fallout Signatures’ on radiation monitors across the Northern Hemisphere suggest, unfortunately, that Fukushima is still suffering Nuclear Criticality Events, and is not only leaking into the groundwater, but has been releasing large amounts into the atmosphere again as well.
Although my Disclaimer trumps everything, always, I have written this exposé of sorts *NOT for entertainment purposes*, but rather to give fellow citizen- or embedded researchers a head start, and to make a researched case for my allegations / suspicions, which hopefully jump-starts better-connected and equipped scientists, activists, journalists and politicians into looking more seriously into this. In the best case scenario they will proof me totally wrong.
This blog post is extremely long because, although far from everything, I’m sharing much of what I looked at, including dozens of radiation monitors’ data graphed and screenshots of wind maps. This is just “the final ONE MORE!“, as I intent to make this blog post my last of its kind for awhile. (My Nuclear Blog Post Archive shows more of my collected data, discoveries, reflections, and analysis of the last two months in its Dec. 2014 – Jan 2015 section.)
We, the lay public, don’t have access to all the data, and no access at all to the most precise data. Our best guess for a radiation spike is in most cases, ironically, an absence of data (a data gap in public monitor data). That’s how dismal the transparency and integrity of the governments’ radiation monitoring actually is these days: When it matters most, they simply turn the monitor off. This is as true for the US and Canada, as for Europe, Russia and Japan. Some of the emerging nuclear powers, like India and China, do not even have a public-access radiation monitoring network. It does not need to stay this way, but as it is, we are essentially ‘on our own‘.
Regardless of shortcomings, as far as equipment goes, I think the two best official networks are the US’s RADNET (https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/query.do) and Europe’s EURDEP (http://eurdep.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Basic/Pages/Public/Home/Default.aspx –> Public Map); and perhaps Japan’s ma-04x.net, but I have yet to learn Japanese. [INSERT: Japan’s http://new.atmc.jp/ is now very good too. I’ve updated my Japan Radiation Monitors page.] Radnet’s basic data tends to be more detailed, and Eurdep’s has way more monitors and a more user-friendly interface, imo. For additional options see my page, Online radiation Monitors, and ‘Radiation Units & Conversions‘ for help making sense of the measured. I will also sample data from some independent networks, like Uradmon, Radmon and NETC.
!–> This blog post builds upon the previous blog post (Jan 24, 2015), “Did Germany just get a Massive Amount of Fukushima Fallout and “No One Noticed”? (A Eurdep-Nullschool investigation of the Nov. 16, 2014 radiation Upticks…)“, which grew out of the 4-part series (long-term data for The Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland and Germany) that preceded it, which grew out of my investigations into the officially-denied radioactive cloud that moved from Zaporizhia, Ukraine (ZNPP) into Latvia and other parts of Europe at the end of Nov. and Dec. 2014. (See my 2011-2015 Nuclear Blog Post Archive and look in the period Dec. 2014 – Jan. 2015 for much more on all that).
Like many before, this blog post was written WHILE I was doing research, off and on when I found time, in this case spread out over five days.
January 27, 2015, when I take my headphones off, ♫ listening to Bhot Radio, Belgium… ♫, I hear coyotes howling in the distance and a Geiger Counter clicking away in the background…
Examples of Recent Radiation Upticks
Bulgaria, Cyprus, USA, Japan,…:
!-> IODINE-131 DETECTED AGAIN?! I’ll start with the very striking I-131 data from Cyprus, then I’ll check on a ground-level gamma radiation uptick in Bulgaria the other day, the highest in the past half year; I’ll look at Radmon.net’s recent highest spike in Georgia (USA), to continue looking deeper into the shifting NETC.com alerts from Japan, and much more. This is a smorgasbord of radiation uptick reports, which I will investigate, one by one, using Nullschool super-computer-powered meteorological data to search for clues on these radiation upticks’ more likely origins.
- Cyprus’ I-131 & Cs-137 (unvalidated) Eurdep data:
Showing a half year’s worth of data from one of the only monitors in the world that provides daily measurements for the presence of I-131 and Cs-137: EURDEP monitor CY0037 – in NICOSIA, Cyprus. The monitor came back online after years of silence, in March 2014. All seemed “back to normal” at first…
This may be the most striking data of all (shown further below), and part of why I suspect ongoing ‘nuclear criticality’ events.. Part of what is striking about it, is that I already pointed out that apparently a radioactive cloud caused bumps and spikes on Eurdep monitors around the very same time, including in Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium (example shown above), and especially in Germany. The highest impact of this particular radioactive cloud appears to have been on Nov. 16, 2014, which I wrote about and traced back to most likely have come all the way from Fukushima. That this cloud almost certainly contained unusually high concentrations of I-131 is disturbing to say the least.
To get an idea of “the normal background baseline”, here’s the first 3 months (March – April – May, 2014) with the location and the settings for this location:
-> As you can see, at this location Iodine-131 measurements do normally not rise above 1 Bq/m^3 (1 becquerel per cubic meter), and Cesium-137 stays below 3 Bq/m^3 (except for 1 data dot, Cs-137 stays below 2 Bq/m^3) for this period as well. This are the so-called “acceptable background levels” the nuclear industry has created through its hundreds of reactors. I-131 is not per se evidence for an accident: A bit of I-131 is released each time a fission reactor vessel is opened for refueling and/or inspection (!-> See Dec. 25, 2014, Radiation Spikes and Nuclear Reactor Refueling Operations…); And Cs-137, with its 30 year half-life, is still around from Chernobyl’s 1986 release, 20th century nuclear bomb tests, as well as Fukushima’s 2011 releases, among other spills. It will be around for the next half millennium, at least. What you see above is now basically “the baseline”: below 3 Bq/m^3.
Important note re. Iodine-131: I-131 is created through nuclear fission only, and decays quickly through both Beta and Gamma radiation . Its half-life is only 8.0197 days, so within three months max. its radioactivity is gone or at least below detectable levels. This means that when I-131 is detected, it’s ALWAYS from a RECENT fission event, either in a nuclear reactor or from a nuclear bomb detonation. (In August 2013, there were signs that Fukushima was still fissioning as well, which I wrote about in Radioactive Iodine in Seaweed and Sludge, Summer 2013? (Hints of Recent Criticality Events…).)
Keep that in mind when you look at what happens next at the Cyprus monitor:
First all stays normal through the summer of 2014 all the way into the first week of November 2014. Although there’s already a slight increase in October…, then… in the second week of Nov. 2014, both I-131 and Cs-137 go off-scale, beyond 3 Bq/m^3 (scale adjustment follows further below to look at how high):
Clearly, between Nov. 10 and Nov. 14, a radioactive cloud is entering the European scene, causing many monitors to show spikes on Nov. 16, including here on Cyprus for I-131 and Cs-137. The y-axis maximums have been adjusted to 63 Bq/m^3 I-131 and 23 Bq/m^3 Cs-137 to show the peak measurements:
For more detail on the lower measurements, I put the range limits at 10 Bq/m^3 for each, which only leaves the peak dot off, for Nov. 1 – Dec. (2014) – Jan. 26, 2015, shown below; that way you can see that there are 2 periods visible here: one from Nov. 12 through Dec. 8, 2014 (with its highest impact on Nov. 16, see the Eurdep-Nullschool investigation looking at Nov. 16, 2014 data for Germany, which, as already said before, I traced back to Fukushima), within which lies a period which could also include some Zaporizhia-related upticks, between Nov. 27 and Dec. 5); and a (véry recent) second event, showing a Cs-137 uptick Jan. 23-26, 2015, which corresponds with the Jan 23, 2015 uptick seen over parts of Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia and Croatia, shown next, further below. The red horizontal lines are added, @ 3 Bq/m^3, which are normally not surpassed):
Clearly some major fission-product spill has happened. Since the winds trace the origin of that European mid-November radioactive cloud to Japan (see previous blog post), — UNLESS something has gone terribly wrong somewhere along the very same wind pattern (unlikely) or that data is totally junk (unlikely)—, this implies, with basically no room for being wrong unfortunately, thís:
FUKUSHIMA-DAIICHI HAS GONE RE-CRITICAL AS RECENT AS NOVEMBER 2014 !
FISSION CHAIN REACTIONS CONTINUE !
Some people have been pointing at evidence for this for awhile, particularly the I-131 detections in Japanese sewage sludge long after it should have been undetectable. Very few people are actually ‘on it’, so I’d like to credit those few individuals I’ve come across who have covered parts of the nuclear puzzle that has seen almost no media coverage. Among those, I’d like to credit the few who have documented aspects of this issue before:
- Dr. Goodheart of http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/:
- Sept 6, 2013: Japan Radioactive Iodine 131 In Sewage Sludge Levels Are RISING Since March 2011 To 2014 – Why? from which this to-the-point excerpt,
“[…] Every week or so, the levels of Iodine 131 should have been going down by 50% since 3/11. If that were true, the radioactive Iodine levels would be going down to zero after about 80 days since 4/2011, when TEPCO claimed that everything was in ‘cold shutdown’. […]”
!–> Any major uptick of I-131 in the air is a give-away clue that fission chain reactions are still not under control.
Dr. Goodheart often contributes in ENENews’ Forums and comment threads with information backed up by the extensive documentation stored within his website’s online library. He also quoted from Bobby1 of Optimal Prediction, from whose blog the above-shown Iodine-131 measurements in 2013-2014 were taken. So, credit where credit is due:
- Bobby1 of Optimal Prediction @ http://optimalprediction.com/wp/ has probably documented the ongoing nuclear fissioning better than anyone that I know of. A few blog posts of interest, the top one less than a year old:
–> Regarding the Strontium-90 situation, which has only gotten worse since, I wrote this blog post: (Sept. 25, 2014) Strontium-90 skyrocketing in Fukushima’s On-Site Groundwater. German meltdown model that predicted this suggests worst is yet to come.
- Sources that, like this blog, provide additional information and perspectives at times (very incomplete list) include:
More Key Background:
To better understand the not-to-be-underestimated significance from seemingly benign dose rate upticks, not to be missed is my (Jan. 15, 2015) blog post,
- !–> “Gaging Recent Radiation Spikes: How do the Recent Gamma Upticks Compare to those Observed after Chernobyl?“, as well as the posts linked from
- (Jan. 2014) Some Pointers to See Through Nuclear Deceptions in Media Reporting, especially:
- For some clues of how far government cover-ups can go, check out (Dec. 2, 2014) “PLUME GATE – Internal NRC Communications Released under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proof deliberate Cover-Up of Severity of global Fukushima Fallout in 2011“. [** Note re. Arnie Gunderson: Some of Mr. Gunderson’s understanding of what happened with Spent Fuel Pool 4, as well as other aspects of what he has said publicly re. Fukushima, are NOT reflected in the ‘Plume Gate’ FOIA-released documents, thus raising doubts about his overall analysis.]
Now… Onward to a series of investigations into recent radiation upticks in the US and Europe.
EU’s EURDEP – US EPA’s RADNET – Radmon.net – NETC.org , etc. + Nullschool wind data Investigations.
- Roswell, Georgia spike on Jan. 26, 2015 —
It doesn’t all have to be from those two main networks (Radnet/Eurdep). For instance, the Radmon.org network showed one monitor just north of Atlanta, GA (in the United States) spiking really extremely, in a place called ‘Roswell, Georgia’. When I started looking into this one Radmon monitor, I didn’t realize yet that that monitor was ‘in experimental mode’. It looked like it had been on and was working fine, just spiked really extremely. Some aliens from a very radioactive planet may indeed have landed there: At my time of checking: “Last reading: 23441 CPM on 2015-01-26 13:21:48UTC at Roswell, GA, USA”, which on the map looked like this:
I looked at this spike as if it was for real. (Just curious) Since all my recent research has taught me that IF a spike is due to radioactive fallout from afar, directly hitting that ground monitor, that I need to look at the wind at an elevation of at least 500 hPa on Nullschool, and it does at least need to show a slow-down of that higher wind in the vicinity of the spiking monitor. Also, the wind below that air layer, at 750 hPa, and at 850 hPa need to go roughly in the same direction. Not much else matters. Otherwise the source is more likely something else, including perhaps an equipment malfunction.
So, off to Nullschool I went. I found the coordinates by checking that town out on Wikipedia and put the green marker very close to that very monitor. Since the spike occurred at 13:21 UTC, I chose the closest moment I can pick on Jan. 26, 2015: @ 12:00 UTC. I immediately see the slow-down is there at 500 hPa, so that’s a first clue that perhaps it’s coming in from a long distance. Where might that wind have come from?
In this case, it looks again like you actually can’t have a better correlation: The air that blew over that spiking monitor had most likely passed straight over the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Site in Japan, had moved in the mostly not-dispersing fast-moving jet stream, and this was only its second slow-down area, the other one being out over the Pacific Ocean off Canada’s West Coast:
–> What’s that shift in the middle? That’s one trick to reduce errors: Because wind patterns are always in motion, when you’re following a 500 hPa wind line for a long distance, the very least you need to do to keep some resemblance to reality, is splitting the path up in trajectory time frames. A bit on the rough side, but done for simplicity, I did just 2 time frames this time, 12 hours apart. On the right is the time frame 80 minutes before that Roswell, GA monitor spiked; the left of this composite shows the other side of the view, 12 hours earlier. To know where the wind path lines might meet, I look at a nearby reference point, in this case, the eye of the dark blue almost-no-wind zone. On it I marked how much it moved with the blue arrow (red lines were to help me figure that out). I then duplicated the same shift (direction and length of the blue arrow; or ‘vector’ if into math you are) and applied it to the wind path line I was following upwind, so I could continue to follow it to its more likely origin. Well: It lead to Fukushima. Spot on. Maybe it just past over it and actually originated elsewhere. That remains a possibility. For this query I didn’t trace it back further.
The nearest US EPA Radnet monitor in Georgia is quite close, just to the south of Roswell, GA in Atlanta, GA. Further east in Georgia is also an EPA Radnet monitor in Augusta. No Beta’s shared here (All @ 0.000)… here’s Gamma 3 & 5, for the past 10 days with Jan. 26 1300 UTC marked by the red vertical line:
-> Slightly uncanny, not? The nearby EPA Radnet monitor is turned off right at the very same time as a nearby monitor on the completely EPA-unaffiliated independent Radmon network spiked. That leaves me with the impression that the “experimental mode” may actually have picked up something real and significant. Further west no data gap nor spike is seen. At the end of the 23rd, early 24th, both also show some ‘disturbances’ that resemble the signature of fallout (at least in the years since Fukushima-2011, that kind of disturbances are quite common on the Eurdep monitors- See the 4-part series mentioned at the beginning of this blog post.)
Since that 500 hPa wind-slow down was brief and the spike extreme, it’s not a bad idea to see where that wind line would end up, perhaps places in Europe and beyond in the Jan 26-28 time frame. The next query had me check dozens more of Radnet monitors first:
- Bulgaria Jan. 23, 2015 spike (+0.12 µSv/hr):
A significant uptick in Bulgaria on January 23, 2015 (less than a week ago, at time of investigating) was brought to my attention [h/t Vital1] on the ENEnews Forum “Post Your Radiation Monitoring Data Here“, which -and you can check this on Eurdep yourself- was accompanied by some monitors being turned off in Greece and the Balkan Region, Bulgaria and Hungary.
The below composite of 6 months of EUDEP graphs for Moussala1, Bulgaria, shows an unusual uptick on January 23, 2015. Further scrutiny of other data has shown me that this is NOT an isolated incident, and certainly not “likely a monitor calibration” , which the folks who run Eurdep would like us to believe (see their disclaimer):
A sampling of 9 monitors in the general wind path, to show you precisely what I’m talking about (Gamma T, Outdoor Air, 1 month prior to Jan 30, 2015): upticks and/or data gaps are obvious in many parts of Greece and Bulgaria:
Early the 23rd in Bulgaria… I’ll run the Nullschool query with that area in Bulgaria @ Jan 23, 2015 @ 3:00 UTC, and the North-American side of the Atlantic @ Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:00 UTC. (In hindsight I can say that I had no idea how time-consuming investigating this specific uptick would become, but it will provide tons of data on which many other things can be observed as well.)
First the European views at near-surface (1000 hPa), with the Bulgaria region in focus in that green circle. At the surface, it’s hard to tell whether the wind is coming from a big bend over Turkey, or more likely from over Greece. As soon as you go just a tiny bit higher, though, it’s clearly coming in from over Greece, and blowing onward to the north, towards Hungary. The dispersion in various directions makes it nearly impossible to figure out what happens next to the assumed nuclear fallout that makes it to the near-surface air layer.
1000 hPa (above the surface):
The area in the southward bend over the North Sea would be a good candidate to look for related upticks. I looked around there on Eurdep to see if there were any abnormalities that week. I marked Petten (in The Netherlands) which had a data gap, Lillo2 (near Antwerp, Belgium, across the river from the nuclear plant site of Doel, which had “a glitch dot”), and a monitor in the Loire region in France that had a glitch dot as well.
To see how the timing of these events line up, I turned ’em all sideways. In blue is the period the Greece-Bulgarian uptick:
Interestingly, that French monitor was turned off too, same timing. As far as the glitch dots, mini-bumps and preceding data gaps are concerned, they just don’t correlate enough to link ’em to the wind path that lead to the Bulgaria event, not per se. But there are some things that COULD be related. “Glitch dots” sometimes precede bumps, suggesting that hot particles may be gravitating downward before a denser radioactive cloud reaches ground level, for instance.
Wind patterns swing around, so it’s really difficult to pin-point a source, unless it’s not too far and not long after the release, or it took a mostly uninterrupted path. (Its much easier to pick a point as a source and see where it went, but I’m trying to play detective, rather than just assuming that I know where it came from.);
The above graphs are of 1 month, these below are for 1 week, looking more closely at that specific uptick period across Europe (Eurdep: Gamma-T, 1 week, ending January 25, 2015 @ 12:00 UTC):
Spain shows the uptick a bit earlier again (just like around Nov. 16, 2014), but the wind is coming mainly from the north over France. Interesting: the monitor @ Aiguille Du Midi in the French Alps (@ 12,000 ft) shows [tiny insert top left] the entire period as a disturbance, including the time of the Spanish uptick in the afternoon on Jan. 21 up until just before the uptick happens in Bulgaria and Turkey. So if you look back at the 500 hPa map above, of Europe, and assume that perhaps the fallout cloud in this case is much wider, not confined to just a thin wind line path, then you can imagine that these upticks are all connected and had their cause carried in by the higher-up air from across the Atlantic. When and where disturbances and spikes occur, and what magnitude they may reach, depends on many factors, including the trajectory taken, the wind layers underneath, precipitation or not, elevation of the monitor, and so forth.)
[Side rant. You know that what I’m doing is actually pretty silly, right? There’s actually sophisticated software for this. Many agencies that have it could just type in the source terms (location, estimates of release) and show an animation of where the fallout cloud would be moving with amazing accuracy. NOAA could do it. CTBTO could do it. ZAMG, the Austrian national weather service, did a few nice animated maps shortly after Fukushima. The French did a really nice animation after Fukushima (included in my (obviously outdated, ’cause fallout appears to be semi-non-stop…) blog post, (May 1, 2012) Fallout Maps For the United States). The Norwegion NILU (Norsk institutt for luftforskning) was really good at it; they were the last to throw in the towel. Remember them? See my May 2011 blog post, “NILU abandons Fukushima forecasting: reliable data blackout cited. (The return of Zardoz…)“. Barely two months after the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster started, as if by black magic, THEY ALL QUIT… So, excuse me for feeling silly. It’s like I’m trying to play super-computer by myself, figuring this out. Back to my silly insanely time-consuming investigation…]
Tracing the origins of this January 21-23, 2015 European uptick turns out to be a tricky one. For one, the cloud could be quite wide and perhaps non-homogenous, so it’s not an easy-to-follow wind path, as is often the case.
Now: Following the likely path the wind took, upwind, across the Atlantic into US airspace, shown below. Circles in red are areas in the US (roughly) where I would expect upticks… for those marked areas between Jan. 22 00:00 and 18:00 UTC. For other areas more Nullschool queries for other times would have to be entertained. So, here’s tracing “the Greece-Bulgaria uptick” back across the Atlantic and over North America:
When I started out, I thought, “If there are no upticks in any of these 4 spots for the Jan. 21-22 period in the areas where the 500 hPa wind slows down, I shouldn’t even bother to continue further upwind.” But finding where upticks did occur, regardless of where I thought they would be, could also give clues. So, in any case, to be thorough, I can’t really skip this step. US EPA Radnet monitor checking it is.
Where are these areas exactly? Nullschool shows rivers, but not cities or administrative boundaries, so finding a location on a wind map, especially higher up (where the wind lines hide the rivers) can be difficult. Finding out which monitor spiked the most at the predicted time can give additional clues to give preference over one wind-line over another, and as such thus (hopefully) arriving at the likely culprit with more precision. At least that’s the idea.
[Note: I’m well aware of the vast margin of error due to multiple parameters and uncertainties, as well as the danger of “confirmation bias” (Researchers are eager to find what they are looking for, which affects interpretations), but I’m trying to stay objective. With such complexity, though, getting spot-on results, which anyone can duplicate by following lines and checking monitors, has given me the impression I’m onto something. [-> That was just pep talk to keep going. ;-)]
Here’s the Nullschool 500 hPa map with the approximate locations of some possible monitors I’d like to check on (which circled in blue on the EPA Radnet map):
Now, here (next image) shows the wind at elevation 500 hPa the day (1/21) before and after (1.23). When you look closely, you’ll see how most monitor locations see at least some shifts in which wind line hits it.
[Side-rant: So, clearly, this is very much a hit-or-miss: erratic, barely predictable. (Figuring this out with more precision COULD be done (even without additional special software), I think, but it would require breaking it up in shorter time frames, check all wind layers, etc.) It would require a team of investigators delegating aspects of this undertaking, coordinated through regular meetings and people with graphic design and animation expertise to make the findings presentable, I think. It could be done, just not quickly on one laptop by myself in a remote mountain town… It’s A JOB that can be done. Volunteering onward…]
I picked the US EPA Radnet monitors listed below, showing data for the period is Jan. 18 till Jan. 29, 2015, Gamma 3, 5 and Beta @ https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/query.do ). (It is possible that monitors I did not check would have been better. I selected these on the map, not based on data.)
Here’s the data (1/18/2015 – 1/29/2015); I’ll pick up the commentary after all these (scroll down); Note: the period of my focus for this specific fallout stream was “Jan 21-22”:
- Albequerque, NM:
- Bakersfield, CA:
- Baton Rouge, LA:
- Billings, MT:
- Bismarck, ND:
- Boise, ID:
- Carlsbad, NM:
- Casper, WY:
- Chicago, IL:
- Cleveland, OH:
- Colorado Springs, CO:
- Corvalis, OR:
- Denver, CO:
- Duluth, MN:
- Eureka, CA:
- Grand Junction, CO:
- Harrisonburg, VA:
- Jackson, MS:
- Jacksonville, FL:
- Las Vegas, NV:
- Los Angeles, CA:
- Olympia WA:
- Paducah, KY:
- Phoenix, AZ:
- Pierre, SD:
- Pittsburg, PA:
- Portland, ME:
- Rapid City, SD:
- Reno, NV:
- Richmond, VA:
- Salt Lake City, UT:
- San Diego, CA:
- San Francisco, CA:
- Shawano, WI:
- Spokane, WA: NO DATA for most of January 2015. The monitor was turned off on Jan. 3, 2015. This shows the preceding month, Dec. 2014:
- St. Louis, MO:
- Virginia Beach, VA:
So… If I look at ONLY Jan 21-22 and mark on the map which ones had a major spike, a minor spike, a short data gap or a big data gap, could I see any patterns? Here’s my ‘electronic scribbles’ map, which lead me to arrive at the best wind path line to pick is simply the center of the jet stream right before it makes landfall over the Pacific Northwest. After that the dispersion huge. The marks next to a monitor was a note to myself that the uptick or gap there was more leaning towards early 21st/early on, or more after/towards the end of the 22nd:
In the image below, the big black arrow on the right is where I arrived at as a choice after checking all those Radnet monitors: in the middle of the (horizontal dispersion) fan-out before the coast. The shift in the mid-Pacific is an attempt again to correct for the changing jet stream’s path during the time it would take that air to travel. Since the distance to the west coast is a bit less than to Georgia, I chose 9 hours between the time frames rather than 12. [I since figured that these times are likely too short; I think the reason why the result might still be accurate is because the wind path pattern might more-the-less apply to the much faster moving air well above 500 hPa.]
The northern part of the jet stream clearly moved south, and the whole things seems to have shifted eastward quite a bit. The blue and red arrows show my notes to estimate the distance I needed to shift the path, and then I continued upwind with the black arrows along the wind path line that I considered the more likely origin of what may have caused the Greece-Bulgaria upticks, and all those various upticks and data gaps along its path in the United States. The jet stream movement and broad horizontal dispersion in the fanning out of the wind-lines before the coast might explain the erratic effects on US monitors. The red circle on the left marks the location of the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Site:
-> It’s only a rough approximation, but… If these estimates are correct, then, or perhaps I should say, “apparently”, that air moved right over the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Site again as well! I’m beginning to think this mess is pretty much leaking into the air rather often…
- What about the upticks seen over parts of Japan recently?
Independently of some of my findings shared above, a few ENEnews’ers brought my attention to upticks in Japan, particularly on the non-governmental NETC network. The wind was blowing in from… the mainland (China), or as some suggested, “not from Fukushima”. They didn’t actually run an analysis, so… Let’s see.
The link shared in the first comment looks at surface air:
A swing by my Radiation Monitors page for Japan showed the uptick indeed in many areas. More on that below.
The higher winds…
The red arrow in the below wind path is by the Zaporizhia Nuclear Plant in Eastern Ukraine (the one that leaked in late November and December 2014); Given the upticks further upwind as well, I think ZNPP is not the main source in this case. It can certainly have contributed to upticks in Japan after the ZNPP leaks, though. (for more on those leaks, see my Nuclear Blog Posts Archive);The higher winds essentially meet up with the same wind pattern that brought the upticks to Greece-Bulgaria on the 26th… and that were clearly connected to the upticks in the US… which seem to have come from Fukushima… And you can go look at the US EPA Radnet data, or that Jan 26 spike in Georgia I started off with: upticks and data gaps happened in the US again, just in different places, spread out differently.
See where this is going? Just like in 2011, the radiation releases from Fukushima move around the planet with the jet stream.
Nuance: :-/ Wish I had looked at this sooner… In many areas the jet stream goes faster than 150 km/hr at that altitude. But at that speed, it would still take at least 2 days for it to cross the Pacific. The reason I think the correlation is still very striking is that the wind pattern right above it, at 250 hPa tends to be very alike that at 500 hPa. At 250 hPa the wind speeds can go over 300 km/hr. So perhaps by tracing at 500 hPa I got the path right, but not the speed for that altitude. To really get this right, not only would one have to look at the wind patterns at different heights along the likely wind path, but also at the wind speeds every part of the way. I’m sure you can imagine, I’m not up for going to do this manually. [No, REALLY, I’m not! ;-) ]
I think I’ve make a clear enough case already: The correlation is so striking in so many cases that it can be safely assumed that Fukushima is leaking into the atmosphere and this is why monitors all over the US, Europe and Japan are showing upticks and more frequent fallout-typical “glitch dots” in their data.
The day after, Jan 27, the upticks in Japan had briefly mostly moved north. Later on they moved again. Then they were all the way south in Okinawa… Always shifting wind patterns… yet moving in a band that corresponds with the main 250 – 500 hPa fast wind band, it seems.
Another snapshot in time: A bit later, after the initial spikes had already moved out of sight on these always-being-updated graphs. I took a couple screenshots. Here showing the Tokyo Metropolitan Area ( 東京都), which showed a spike that took it to almost 3x normal background level in the hours before sunrise on Jan. 28, 2015. The day after, levels returned to normal, as well, for a little bit of time:
Other areas suggest something is blowing in “from somewhere” as well. Here’s Kanagawa, just a bit more west of Tokyo shows very similar patterns:
It may be counter-intuitive to think of Fukushima being the cause, until you see how the jet stream is moving the air that moved over the Fukushima-Daiichi NPP, and how well that correlates with observed radiation upticks all along its path in the United States and Europe as well.
- For closing, how about now?
We’re several days later since I began this data crunching journey. I just checked NETC, Radmon, and EURDEP for “right now”, Jan 31, 2015 @ 2:41am Mountain Time, and it looks like “the situation”, for the time being at least, has apparently more-the-less returned to normal:
- NETC JAPAN @ Jan 31, 2015, 2:45am Mountain Time (Colorado)
- NETC North America: @ Jan 31, 2015, 2:45am Mountain Time (Colorado)
- EURDEP Gamma-T, outdoor Air, maximum measurements, 2 days prior to @ Jan 31, 2015, 2:45am Mountain Time (Colorado):
- Radmon World @ Jan 31, 2015, 2:45am Mountain Time (Colorado): (The Georgia monitor that spiked in experimental mode is now in ‘dormant’ status):
- The uptick in Cs-137 on Jan. 25, 2015 in Cyprus did not evolve into evidence of a bigger fallout event. In the past two days, Cs-137 and I-131 have dropped back below 1 Bq/m^3:
In the past two months there have been many releases of radioactive substances from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Site, including smoking gun evidence of ongoing nuclear criticalities.
The releases must be very hot to rise quickly to the higher troposphere. In the days following big releases, the jet stream carries these clouds of radioactive gasses and particles very fast around the globe at altitudes likely above 20,000 ft., from where some of it gravitates or moves downward to cause “glitch dots”, bumps and obvious upticks on surface monitors.
Unless you study the long-term patterns of Fukushima fallout on graphed radiation data of the past 4 years, most of these radiation upticks appear insignificant. It is by looking at the bigger picture that you can see that they are part of significant disconcerting fallout dispersion patterns, spread out over time and space.
The amounts released to the atmosphere in recent months are unknown, but they must be enormous to cause significant measurable gamma radiation upticks many thousands of miles away, repeatedly in many places, during at least the past several months.
Official networks turn off their data flow to the public at times that correspond with upticks along the same wind patterns, and as evidenced by spikes on nearby independent networks. This further documents what independent researchers have been claiming for years: The public monitoring and warning systems in place have been co-opted by nuclear industry interests to serve as a means for covering-up nuclear accidents, large and small, rather than expose them.
— — — — — — — — —
ADDED AFTER POSTING:
April 27, 2015: After several emails back and forth this past winter (2014-2015) with people at the CTBTO (who have the most sensitive radioisotope detection and measuring network. / See some of the CTBTO redacted post-Fukushima data in the Freiburg data set), it became clear “they simply can’t” release the data that would solve this, as they are “bound to secrecy by contract” with their members, most of whom are governments involved in nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, or both. So, by early February 2015, I wrote both TEPCO and the IAEA. The gist of my (Feb. 7, 2015) emails was this:
“[…] All questions are in regards to Fukushima-Daiichi’s troubled Reactor Units 1, 2 and 3, to the best of your knowledge:
1) When did fission reactions (criticality) last occur in any of the melted cores or core fragments?
2) When was Iodine-131 last detected, on-site, downwind, or in tested samples?
3) TEPCO has been working hard to contain the groundwater contamination from leaking into the Pacific Ocean. Have radioisotope releases to the atmosphere been stopped?
– If so, when did aerial releases stop?
– If not, what are the estimated daily / monthly / annual aerial release estimates (in Bq for various isotopes, or whatever is known about this)?
Any assistance having these questions answered will be greatly appreciated. […]”
As of sharing this on April 27, 2015 (so over 11 weeks later), both TEPCO & the IAEA have remained completely unresponsive to my inquiries.
— — — — — — — — —
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 this content in full or in more than a paragraph or quote (linking here), please contact me first to (maybe not) obtain permission.
[Except for minor edits or dated “Added Later” additions, Last Updated: Jan. 31, 2015; Link to updated Japan Radiation Monitors added on Feb 14, 2015;]
May 1, 2015 – stumbled upon this: Iodine-131 was detected in both Sweden and Finland in March 2015. That the levels “posed no threat” is irrelevant as far as its significance: I-131 is a short-lived radioisotope that originates in nuclear fission reactions. Where is this coming from? Fukushima? Fact that they do not even speculate about it’s origin in the news article is also curious: