Fingerprints of an ongoing Cover-Up? EPA data makes Fukushima look over 1000% less serious than Chernobyl…

April8_9_10__2015_CrestoneCOWhen I started writing this, it was rather sand-stormy outside…  I didn’t even want to be inside my camping tent.  So, I sat there in my car… using MiFi for internet, waiting for the winds to lay down.   Not sure what had gotten to me (the taste of sand? Radioactive winds?), but I ended up looking at US EPA radiation data, 1985, 1986, 2010, 2011,…  Been awhile.  Usually I just look at their Gamma/Beta graphs (US EPA Central Data Exchange, more options and details below), not the air sample data.

There’s always the weather… ;-) I have yet to capture a flying tumbleweed while driving, but Flickr-user ‘Old Wrangler’ shared some fantastic photos from a Four Corners Road Trip.  It’s just like thát:

SOURCE: FLICKR @  233Hopi Mesa Dust 20110321_2703 (Click image for original 7 more: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31726639@N04/sets/72157626497564140/ )  --- NOT MINE. ---

Part of T Road between Moffat and Crestone briefly resembled the above view the other day.  Can’t help but smile at flying tumbleweeds… / All that aside:

  • What do the US EPA’s latest air and precipitation samples reveal about Fukushima’s ongoing leaking of radioisotopes into the groundwater & ocean and into the air?   Just curious.  (Short answer: that the EPA is not telling the whole story…)

A while ago, I went through the trouble of “mapping the EPA labyrinth”.  The gist of that journey was shared in a blog posts (Nov. 29, 2012), “Has the EPA’s RadNet been Designed as an Obstacle Course? (w/ Post-Fukushima Radiation Data for Eureka, CA)“, and summarized on my Global Online Radiation Monitors page, in the US EPA section of the United States Radiation Monitors page, with these 5 separate websites for where which EPA data can (sometimes) be found (with lots of patience):

  • A.   http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/index.html (historical 2011 data, collected in response to the Fukushima meltdowns), which nowadays comes with this orientation notice (screenshot April 8. 2015):

@ June 30, 2011…   They “returned to routine RadNet operations” before July 2011 even…   “EPA’s air monitoring data have not shown any radioactive elements associated with the damaged Japanese reactors since late 2011.”   Interesting.  Really?  Nothing detectable from January 1, 2012 till now (April 2015)?

ChildhoodCancer

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. http://www.kidsvcancer.org/facts/

Please excuse me for being skeptical, but we all know now that the situation is anything but under control.  Even the most mainstream of mainstream outlets has recently admitted that Fukushima is leaking like a sieve, even hinting that the molten nuclear cores may be beyond the concrete foundations.  I think the situation is even more serious than they’ve let out.

Anyways.., not that anyone in media or politics gives a hoot what people may think if they were actually well-informed…  (Besides, I have an all-mighty DISCLAIMER.)  Not sure if anyone will read this blog post.  Guess I’m just “entertaining myself” at this point…

So,  continuing looking at EPA data:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) then provides 3 links:  Radnet (http://www2.epa.gov/radnet, which combines what was D. & E. in my US radiation monitors list), Central Data Exchange (https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/query.do, which is B. in my list), and their Envirofacts Database (http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query, which is C. in my list).

The last one now comes with this notice:   On Nov. 3, 2014 the EPA quit sampling milk, passing that torch to the US FDA (Food & Drug Administration), another seemingly corporate mentality corrupted federal agency, all the way to being headed by (Obama-appointed) Michael Taylor, Monsanto Inc.’s former Vice President for Public Policy… (Source: FDA).   That’s unlikely to improve the dismal radiological monitoring situation…

Anyhow, so, from these 3 EPA websites, you can allegedly surf your way to those comforting (“below levels of concern“) measurement results of the EPA’s rigorous [sarc.] radioisotope testing since 2011…:

Radnet

At the good ol’ Radnet, you get 3 new options:

Note:  NAREL, where air filter samples are supposedly sent to ‘on a continuous basis‘ for Beta testing, and additional testing if any sample ever reaches over 1 pCi/m^3 Beta, is the US EPA’s  National Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory, located somewhere on the Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama.  Nicely neutral [sarc.], surrounded by the military, and its Air University, where proponents of warring can learn all about the merits of using nuclear weapons, and such…

Note:  1 pCi/m^3 is 1 picoCurie per cubic meter, or in SI units, 0.037 Bq/ m^3 (becquerel per cubic meter).  See Radiation Units and Conversions for more.

As you can see, the EPA online remains a spaghetti of links going in circles and making it rather time consuming to find what you’re looking for, especially given the time it can take to load one simple query result.  With the situation not having improved in the four years since Fukushima began, it gives the impression to be deliberate.  (= Just a personal “imo” [in my opinion]…);  Anyhow…

Before exploring the 2 main EPA radiation data sources, Central Data Exchange and Envirofacts Database, I’ll check out the ERD Quarterly Journal Reports for the past few years:

The first thing that stands out, of course, is that they (ERD) lag an entire year in publishing their data.  Plenty of time to make the data match the “all is well” pro-nuclear propaganda storyline that nuclear-pushing Obama’s EPA has become notorious for.

(If you think I’m a bit harsh towards Obama, knock yourself out reading through the Post-Fukushima Freedom of Information Act-released documents, also dubbed ‘Plume Gate’, and -really sorry to say, but…- there is little room for doubt left that all agencies under the federal and state umbrellas make sure they “speak with one voice” when it comes to lying to the public about radioactive fallout levels and long-term dangers.   The documentary from a couple blog posts back goes into that as well.

I read through a few of these ERD reports.  I looked at pre-Fukushima (The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan occurred on March 11, 2011), and Post-Fukushima data.  After I read through the reports for 1985 (pre-Chernobyl), 1986 (the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine, then part of the USSR, occurred on April 26, 1986), a suspicion arose, however, that the EPA’s post-Fukushima data may have been manipulated (through omitting the more severe data) to downplay the fallout from that accident.   Yeah, I know… “here I go again” suspecting these oh-so-upstanding agencies of de facto corruption.  I honestly do not wish to do so, BUT… Given what we’ve learned since Fukushima, some of these data (post-Chernobyl versus post-Fukushima), make little sense.  They make no sense at all, actually.  (see at end).

!-> DATA SOURCES combined in:  http://www2.epa.gov/radnet/narel-environmental-radiation-data-erd-journal-reports

You can go read through all these docs yourself, I’ll just highlight a few:

Report # 42 (April-June 1985), from which these GROSS BETA data (field & lab), with the highest ones highlighted by me, to get an idea of pre-accident baselines:

So that gives an idea of a baseline in spring pre-Chernobyl…

Report # 46 (April-June 1986), which includes the time of the Chernobyl accident, as included in this report’s FOREWORD:

Here’s GROSS BETA data (field & lab), this time for the month of May 1986 to include the highest Post-Chernobyl findings for the United States, with the highest ones highlighted by me:

EPA_ERD_MAY_1986_GrossBeta_cAs you can see in these May 1986 Post-Chernobyl Gross Beta lab measurements (right column), the maximum values included these toppers over 1.5 pCi/m^3:

  • 2.51 pCi/m^3 Gross beta (lab data) in Montgomery, AL
    • (-> That’s 0.093 Bq/m^3 Gross Beta)
  • 2.12 pCi/m^3 Gross beta (lab data) in Boise, ID
  • 1.84 pCi/m^3 Gross beta (lab data) in Phoenix, AZ
  • 1.51 pCi/m^3 Gross beta (lab data) in Salt Lake City, UT

A selected look at the above 4 examples gives an idea of what was in the air, which blew in all the way from the Ukraine, an additional 5000 miles / 8000 kilometers further than Fukushima.

Here’s a small selection of EPA ERD Report #46‘s air filter results for gammaspectroscopies, showing examples of identified radioisotopes for those sites (much more in the report):

[Note:  Ru-103 (half-life 39.26 days) and Ru-106 (half-life 373.59 days) are radioisotopes of Ruthenium; I-131 (half-life: 8 days) and I-132 (half-life: less than 2.5 hours) are radioisotopes of Iodine; Cs-134 (half-life: 2 years), Cs-136 (half-life: 13.16 days) and Cs-137 (half-life: 30.17 years) are all radioisotopes of Cesium (also spelled Caesium); Ba-140 (half-life: 12.75 days) is a radioisotope of Barium, and La-140 (half-life:  1.678 days) of Lanthanum.]

 Montgomery, Alabama – May 1986 (excerpt):

Boise, Idaho – May 1986 (excerpt)

Phoenix, Arizona – May 1986 (excerpt)

Salt Lake City, Utah – May 1986 (excerpt)

  • Also:  In its Gamma results for PRECIPITATION, measurements reached over 1,000 pCi/liter of I-131 for locations Fairbank, AK; Boise, ID; Idaho Falls, ID; Portland, OR; Salt Lake CIty, UT; Montpellier, VT; Olympia, WA; Spokane, WA; and Cheyenne, WY.

I’ll compare these post-Chernobyl data with post-Fukushima data in a moment.

First let’s have a look at April 2010, just one year before Fukushima fallout reached peak levels (at the end of March and into April 2011); to get an idea of the new (also post nuclear bombing (“testing”) era baselines.

SOURCE:  http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100H7LC.PDF?Dockey=P100H7LC.PDF

Some data on mostly naturally-occurring radioisotopes (spring 2010):

[Note:  The main gamma-emitting radioisotopes that spring 2010, were the naturally ocurring ones: Be-7 (half-life: 52 days; a radioisotope of Beryllium); Tl-208 (short-lived isotope of Thalium, in the Thorium decay chain; half-life only 3 minutes), Pb-212 (short-lived isotope of Lead (Latin: Plumbum), in the Thorium decay chain; half-life only some 10 hours) , and good ol’ Potassium’s K-40 (half-life: 1.25 billion years).  Also found in rain sometimes is Bi-212, a short-lived isotope of Bismuth in the Thorium decay chain as well (half-life: only about an hour).]

Just for the record: Tritium levels in precipitation, spring 2010:

By the way… not only did the EPA quit revealing the field data since Fukushima, they also quit testing for Tritium in precipitation.   Why?  ‘Cause rain is increasingly loaded with Fukushima Tritium and there’s no way to hide that if you actually test for it?   Just wondering…    Here’s a quote from Report #157 (first quarter 2014):

MILK:    Unless there’s a nuclear accident or bombing, radiation in milk tends to come from its healthy Potassium content.  Why that is harmless and not really comparable to man-made radioisotopes like Cesium-137, even at same activity concentrations, see the blog post about Cs-137 versus K-40.

Meanwhile milk testing has been past on to the FDA.  (Good luck finding honesty there…)

(Sand storm has passed… I guess I’ll wrap this up asap…)

So… Before I look at post-Fukushima and then see what can be found in a comparison between post-Chernobyl versus post-Fukushima, here’s a quick look the “baselines” BEFORE both nuclear accidents:

In the lab data, Gross Beta in 1985’s spring is generally in the 0.01 – 0.04 pCi/m^3 range for its maximum, with a single exception of 0.12 pCi/m^3 Gross Beta max. (in Temple, Arizona that April 1985).    For the same (Gross Beta maximum measured, lab data) in April 2010, you can see that the precision has improved, and that when rounding off to the previous lower precision, you get about the same results.  More precisely, Gross Beta max. (lab) is often under 0.01, depending on location, with nationwide Gross Beta (lab) measurements in the 0.000 – 0.030 pCi/m^3 range for its maximum.

-> These 2010 baselines are clearly véry similar to 1985, albeit slightly lower, which I think might be because of the time passed since publicly-funded psychopaths detonated some 2,000 nuclear bombs on this planet.

SO… Enter Fukushima.  For the US West Coast:  5000 miles closer than Chernobyl…  Estimates of Fukushima’s severity have been rising since it began, with now a wide academic consensus that Fukushima released far more radioactivity into the atmosphere and ocean than Chernobyl did.

Also, according to USGS data, the Fukushima accident deposited more radioactive fallout-laden precipitation over the US in 2011 than Chernobyl did in 1986.

So, first oddity: in Report # 145 (January-March 2011), Fukushima is not even mentioned.

In Report 146 (April-June 2011), the euphemistically named ‘Fukushima Nuclear Incident’ (FNI) is only mentioned in this note:

Unlike with Chernobyl, in this case the much worse disaster is not even explained as a significant event.  Odd, not?  (Perhaps because US interests build that dirty bomb?  Or because the US population was exposed to very unusually high fallout levels, which these corporate puppets prefer to hide? Anyhow…)

You can see that in March 2011 (Report 145) (only an excerpt of the data shown, below), that a few lab measurements go outside their normal range, such in San Francisco, with a Gross Beta max. of 0.048 pCi/m^3, and in Anaheim with a Gross Beta max. of 0.054 pCi/m^3:

As well as, also for Gross Beta max. (lab):  0.047 pCi/m^3  in Corvalis, OR; and 0.067 pCi/m^3 in Olympia, WA:

The Precipitation specific-isotopes Gamma data, however, show just common natural radioisotopes, indicating they didn’t even start taking publishing additional samples’ data until áfter March 2011, clearly omitting whatever they found in the second half of March 2011:

In April 2011 (Report 146), the Gross Beta max. (lab) data shows more pronounced upticks, such as:  0.047 pCi/m^3 in Birmingham, AL; 0.111 pCi/m^3 in Phoenix, AZ; 0.071 pCi/m^3 in Tucson, AZ; 0.085 pCi/m^3 in Bakersfield, CA; 0.092 pCi/m^3 in San Bernardino Cty., CA; 0.074 pCi/m^3 in Idaho Falls, ID; 0.081 pCi/m^3 in Aurora, IL;

 Precipitation Gamma analysis now turned up Tl-208, Cs-134, Cs-137, Pb-212, Ra-224, Rn-220.

–> So then, when you keep that in mind and consider the EPA data…  you see they are obviously simply pretending that, unlike after Chernobyl, after Fukushima I-131 wasn’t even detected in any of these EPA air filters at all.  Obviously, that’s basically impossible, leaving one with little other option that to conclude:  the more troubling data is being omitted for the public.  Given what else we know, these official EPA findings, very low Cesium levels and no I-131 at all, can simply not give an accurate picture:

No I-131 in the EPA’s Post-Fukushima air filter data… 

And then, to top, as by magic, by May 2011, no Gross Beta lab data reach over 0.024 pCi/m^3, with overall measurements dropping below pre-Fukushima levels.   After June, the EPA returns to routine testing, as if the accident is over.  Hokus spokus, over with.

I just wanted to see how 1986 data compared to 2011 data… Well… Very strange for a more severe accident that occurred closer to the US…, which – to add – múst have carried a higher percentage of less-dispersed fallout directly with the jet stream across the Pacific… (unlike Chernobyl-1986, where much of the fallout deposited over Europe in very erratic patterns, rather than being blown due east…).    Curiouser and curiouser…

After Chernobyl, we saw many Gross Beta max. (lab) levels over 1.0 pCi/m^3, with peak values of 2.51 pCi/m^3 Gross beta in Montgomery, AL, and 2.12 pCi/m^3 Gross beta in Boise, ID.

After Fukushima, Gross Beta max. (lab) levels do not even reach over 0.1 pCi/m^3, with a sole exception of a sample measuring 0.111 pCi/m^3 in Phoenix, AZ.

Gross Beta maximum measured levels (from particulate in air filters) was, if you believe these published EPA data to sketch an accurate picture, TEN TIMES worse after Chernobyl, compared to Fukushima, with peak levels as much as 25 times (2500 %) higher.  

While there is room for debate over Fukushima’s Iodine-131 releases; and much of the Fukushima radioactive cloud came in gaseous form (particularly extreme levels of radio-Xenon), so not in a particulate form that would get stuck in an air filter; the field data do not indicate higher levels either:  In the stadard  5-hour field tests, where post-Chernobyl levels as high as 14 pCi/m^3 Gross Beta were measured (in Lincoln, NE); yet after Fukushima, the highest seen in such a 5-hr field test was just 1 pCi/m^3 (in Bakersfield, CA).

For a worse accident, closer by, less dispersion and with more direct winds blowing the radioactive cloud towards the US,  I find that so bizarre… só implausible in fact that, to put it diplomatically, that I’m inclined to not rule out foul play on part of the US government. 

On European monitors you can find the obvious data omissions sometimes by researching regional uptick patterns, such as this example:  In the center 2 graphs (Braakman and Vlissingen, both in The Netherlands), you see how a period with upticks in one area is omitted elsewhere and vise versa.

NederlandBelgie_AugSept2014_shift

-> There are tons of such examples to be found if you take the time to comb through monitor after monitor.   I’ve pointed this out many times over the past winter (see my Nuclear Blog Posts Archive), such as in (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…), and related blog posts in the same period.

CTBTO data released to the public was full of data gaps/holes as well, as seen in the Freiburg data sets @  Years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ “Schauinsland / Freiburg, Germany ” (Part 4 of 4).

Nothing I haven’t noticed before, just more confirmation:  It seems like the US government, just like the (IAEA-influenced) European Commission’s EURDEP for that matter, is engaged in

widespread data manipulation through systematic omissions

that hide the true extent, duration and severity of the ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe.

I was going to explore the EPA’s Central Data Exchange, and their Envirofacts Database too. Oh well.  Maybe more some other time.   I’ll look at the CDX whenever I graph specific monitor locations, like HERE, (-> spot the omissions, which all too often correspond with being downwind from Fukushima…);

The Envirofacts Database appears it is not being updated, and is designed to be time-consuming.  (For example, according to the data in this “database”, after April 6, 2011, no I-131 is ever detected again in Alaska air, nor precipitation; obviously total whitewash.)

Weather’s lovely again…

Peace Out. –

PS:  At time of posting, international access to news aggregator, ENENEWS.COM, is currently worse than access to my own blog, according to the proxy tools I used to check (listed in my blog post, “Access Denied“)…

— — — — — — — — —

!-> DISCLAIMER <-!

FlagMVB
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 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 my content in full or in more than a paragraph or quote, please contact me first to (maybe not) obtain permission.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Fingerprints of an ongoing Cover-Up? EPA data makes Fukushima look over 1000% less serious than Chernobyl…

  1. pavewayiv@gmail.com says:

    Report 146 was missing for at least two years after it was due, Michael. Subsequent ones were published on the usual schedule, but 146 was just missing from the EPA site for no reason. I didn’t think they would ever publish it, so I was surprised to see you mention it here. Considering the obvious measurement fakery, it’s no wonder they waited a couple of years to hide the bad numbers.

    I wasn’t aware of the previous tritium measurements in rainwater. Now that would have been interesting to compare before and after. Nuke plants measure groundwater tritium, but I’m sure the data has been scrubbed to hide anything that changed right after Fukushima.

    I see that Ukraine’s SUNPP claimed to have another transformer problem the other day and some site in Slovakia was showing elevated radiation. Haven’t had time to check EURDEP yet. They just brought Unit 3 back on line after repairs to the steam generators and some fresh Westinghouse fuel:
    http://www.sunpp.mk.ua/ru/news/news_sunpp/2779
    Two days later, Apr. 11th at 14:37, they had the mysterious ‘transformer’ problems once again:
    http://www.sunpp.mk.ua/ru/news/news_sunpp/2784

    • Hi Pavewayiv,

      Yeah, I had long stopped looking at the ERD Reports as well, was really a random visit …turned blog post.
      Pretty amazing they can be thát blatant in their omissions…

      Haven’t been following the nuclear situation in Europe much lately, at least not in-depth. At a quick glance this Sunday afternoon, looks like there’s some unusually long and unreported data delays (for Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey), visible on the graphs of individual monitors ( http://eurdepweb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EurdepMap/Default.aspx ), while officially those are fine ( http://eurdepweb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EurdepMap/Availability.aspx ). Could mean there’s something being hidden, but I won’t put in the necessary time in to see if I can find something. Not today.

      I appreciate your comments!

      • pavewayiv@gmail.com says:

        The wind maps at all levels show that anything coming out of SUNPP and the 11th went almost directly south. The EURDEP reporting stations along the path show almost nothing, so no probably no sizeable release – at least that we’ll ever have evidence of.

        They slammed it down to 10% output rather than a full SCRAM to 0%, so I’m inclined to actually believe it may have been a transformer this time like they claimed.

        As usual Michael, you’ve done a great job documenting all of the information in your current article here. Thanks for the hours and hours of free work you put into this stuff and post for the world to see.

      • pavewayiv@gmail.com says:

        I see how Turkey just stopped reporting completely since 20:40 on the 10th. Hence, the ‘no evidence’. Same goes for Nicosa’s gap.

        SUNPP Unit 3 might be in meltdown right now for all we know. The good folks at EURDEP have already made a very conscious decision to hide radiation monitoring data from the public whenever it’s high, so I wouldn’t necessarily trust them if they reported timely low readings. Just like the EPA, it’s job seems to be spewing ‘nothing to worry about’ data or nothing at all. As such, every gap is a reason to worry.

        The Eliat (Dolphin) Radmon shows an increase right around the time we would expect it from a SUNPP release, but it’s relatively small. With nothing else to go on for now, it looks like the kind of release you would get from shutting down a reactor to 10% and venting some (supposedly non-radioactive) steam.

        If the SUNPP site is accurate, they’re up to about 20%-25% power right now, which makes no sense in the context of a transformer problem on the 11th. Unit 3 is their newest reactor and the only one that has not hit it’s design lifetime yet. It’s also the one with Westinghouse fuel bundles.

        • I’m looking into it a little bit. Next blog post will have some screenshots of wind and radiation data. Drop me a line if you know of anything worthy of inclusion. Tx! – mvb

  2. Pingback: IF Yuzhnoukrainsk’s SUNPP released radioactivity April 11(ish), 2015, then it blew South into Turkey… where EURDEP’s monitors are all turned off… (“Hmm…”) | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  3. Pingback: Wow, That is some Damn Radioactive Rain… (A Geiger Counter Measurement from Southern Colorado, May 3, 2015) | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  4. Pingback: HALSTERN, The Netherlands (Gamma Radiation Graphed: EURDEP Public Data, 2006-2016) | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  5. Pingback: UCLA: “California Thyroid Cancer Incidence Well Above National Average”. Fukushima Fallout, the Near-Certain Cause, Being Ignored… | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  6. Pingback: Any Significance to Cobalt-60 in Fukushima Fallout? | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  7. Pingback: Hillary Clinton’s Email (March 12, 2011) Re. Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe: “STAY INDOORS, WEAR MASK, SHOWER IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMING HOME,…” | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  8. Pingback: European Ozone Hole & Iridescent Clouds Coincide with Radiation Data Gaps and Ongoing Disturbances? | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  9. Pingback: US Radiation Monitoring Network Becoming “FALLOUT BLIND”” | Allegedly Apparent Blog

Thank you for commenting. Your comment won't show until approved. Sometimes that can take awhile. - mvb

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s