Gamma-Spectroscopy Results of Colorado Radioactive Freak Rain: Fukushima’s Fissioning Mini-Sun on the Edge of the Pacific Ocean COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL ?


July 10 & 27, 2015 – Added Nuance and word of caution:  Upon further scrutiny of the raw data, some of the radioisotopes listed as “de facto detected” need to be scrapped.   I’m not sure if the final conclusion (re. ongoing fission) is incorrect, but the below contains errors: misinterpretations due to my amateur level of understanding, and continuing to learn as I go. 

!!!–> See the Aug 1, 2015 blog post for the improved and summarized reassessment @ Synopsis / Improved Version: ‘Mainland USA June 14 2015 Radioactive Rain & Lichen Data Revisited’.  <– !!!

  Please go to the comment sections to contribute to increasing my ability to better interpret the raw data.  Thanks.

I have made all raw data publicly available and invite experts to scrutinize it for signs of anything unusual:

Blog post otherwise left (full of errors!) as-was. 

[with some notes added to reduce spreading misinformation]:

Go HERE for the corrected version.

— — — — — — —   — — — — — — —   — — — — — — —


There was an atmospheric jet stream pattern on June 14, 2015, with a local slow-down condition, which I suspected would make it possible to test my hypothesis right here where I am in Southern Colorado:  that the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe Site on the edge of the Pacific Ocean is still having actual nuclear fission reactions.  If that were the case, then that jet stream would likely deliver at least a few fission-tell-tale traces of radioisotopes, I reasoned.  So I had rainwater, sampled at that specific moment, analyzed in a professional lab.  The detected amounts are what’s technically called “non-detect” (below the Minimum Detectable Amount), but the mixture of isotopes identified to be present in that sample is beyond disturbing:

The raw data of gamma spectroscopy of this June 14, 2015 Colorado rainwater sample show clearly that specific radioactive decay energies were detected, indicating [suggesting] the presence of Americium-241, Cerium-144, Cesium-134/137, Cobalt-60, Europium-152/154/155, Iodine-131, Manganese-54, Niobium-94/95, Ruthenium-106, Zink-65 and various other troubling synthetic radionuclides.   [While the energy detections are above background in several cases, 1) this is not the case for all of them, and 2) even the positive ones are all <MDC, meaning they are statistically not relevant.]

I’m sharing in this blog post what I discovered and learned from this, with all sources linked.

Read my Disclaimer & Limited Sharing Request.   Please don’t copy-paste the content.  If you feel inspired to share, please instead quote a small excerpt, and link here @   Thanks.

DISCLAIMER: “For Entertainment Purposes Only”  (Sorry, we live in a slightly crazy world…)   NOTICE:  As always, there’s a lot of room for other possibilities.  I’m a self-thought amateur, not an expert.   My interpretations are not underwritten by any institution, government agency or credentialed expert at the time of posting.  As long as you’re interested in getting to the truth of the matter, please DO be critical and skeptical of my allegations and ponderings, and point out parts you suspect to be wrong and why.  I’ve never claimed this blog to be anything more than the sharing of my own journey to understand what’s really happening.   And, though what I suspect is the case is unbelievably troubling (one might say, “gloomy and dire”), I only bring this up because I have faith in humanity’s potential to overcome even the greatest of challenges, when the truth is known.  

That being said…   Rolling:

  • Wind pattern at jet stream height at time of sampling:

Over the past months and years, I’ve documented that jet-stream slow downs (@ 250 hPa) rather often corresponds with data gaps in the American and European radiation monitoring networks, curiously so when that northern jet stream had recently passed over the Fukushima region in Japan.  The perfect condition appeared to find out more:

Nullschool_250hPa_June14_2015AfternoonInColoradoYou can watch the animated version of this above screenshot @ Nullschool, with TCW (Total Precipitation Water) included and zoomed in to North America:,32.32,1024

As you may be able to imagine… with as fascinated and passionate I am about getting to the truth about what’s really going in the Fukushima-Dai-ichi rubble, I simply couldn’t resist to test out my hypothesis:

  • 1) Fukushima-Daiichi (F1) is still fissioning, or at least having fission flare-ups, down in the rubble underground.
  • 2) Those fission and neutron activation products are very hot and thus, if they escape the site, probably quickly rise to the upper troposphere (to “jet stream height”); and
  • 3) In those areas where the jet stream slows down further downwind, some of those synthetic radioisotopes descend and can be detected at ground level, many thousands of miles away.

If I were “delusional” (a far more comforting possibility), then, apart from natural Be-7, K-40, some Thorium-232 and Uranium-235/238 (common in the Rockies), and their decay products (Bi-212/214, Pb-212/214, etc.), and apart from perhaps a little bit Cesium-137, there really shouldn’t be anything synthetic radioactive in this rain…

Last month, May 2015, I shared my conviction that what was detected in Finland (Cs-134, Cs-137, I-131, Nb-95, Ru-106) originated somewhere deep underground Fukushima-Daiichi NPP.  If that were truly the case, and actual fission is on-going, then I should be able to detect at least some of these “fingerprint radioisotopes” too, right at a time when such a jet stream patterns were in place ánd there’s precipitation at my location.  Right?   (Amazingly, every single one of those Finnish curious radioisotope detections was apparently present here in the rain in the USA too!)

The  rain arrived to my location (Crestone (roughly between Alamosa and Salida), Colorado, USA – see it on the Nullschool map at the top) in the afternoon around 3pm Mountain Time.  At the time it started, I was at the Tibetan “Stupa of Enlightenment” and retreated to my car when the downpour began.

DSCN4309It turned into quite the impressive thunderstorm that June 14 Sunday afternoon, with lots of lightning inside the clouds (not so many air-to-ground strikes), and a torrential downpour, which went on for a few hours.  Ionizing radiation is known to increase the conductivity of air.  (See also concerns over the effect of Krypton-85 on climate, a major nuclear industry pollutant.)

In addition, I’ve heard (conversationally) about radioactively contaminated clouds showing slightly different colors, and wondered if what I was witnessing would be a case of that.  It was definitely slightly odd, I must admit.   I’ve heightened the colors (without changing them otherwise) a bit in this photo to better show some of the observed:

DSCN4367I sat in my car watching it. I looked online at the few ground strike locations at and began to wonder some more if ionizing radiation (natural or combination natural-synthetic) was somehow contributing to the impressive lightning higher up, as it wasn’t even particularly warm that day.


(Later on that evening.)  The ominous scene for my sadly-not-so-futuristic radiation sci-fi scene came with gloomy pink-purple clouds with rich yellow accent and lots of thunder…

So… I went outside and took a rain swipe with a paper towel on my windshield, and I put my Medcom Inspector Alert Geiger Counter on it:

I do these every now and then and they rarely ever go over 1 µSv/hr.  The previous such rain test record, May 3, 2015 @ 6.1 µSv/hr almost pales in comparison:

!-> A new record for my rain measurements: June 14, 2015 @ 10.2 µSv/hr upon contact!!!


Crackling with radioactivity…  Dang…

Rather impressed with that measurement, I had a look (via Online Radiation Monitors –> at USA EPA Radnet @ at the US governments’s official online radiation monitor in Albequerque, NM, just to the south of here:  Turned off.  Bummer.  Then I looked at the two nearest ones in Colorado: Colorado Springs and Denver.

The large distances (between here and an official monitor) makes looking at this almost absurd, as even just places a few miles from here in the same valley were not affected by that specific thunderstorm, just as other storm cells that week hit other areas.  Nevertheless, looking at data from the same week can give clues of whether or not something was unusual, or not, I reckon:

  • The nearest monitor to the North is Colorado Springs, which had just had two data gaps in the preceding 48 hours  You can still see them in the secrecy surrounding the Beta radiation measurements, but the gamma has since been filled in:

The grey line indicates the approximate time of my rainwater collection.

The grey line marks the approximate time I sampled the rain a hundred miles to the south-west, during a rain-out event that would undoubtedly have left a major spike on such a monitor (or, more likely, a gaping Beta hole…)

  • On the Denver monitor (a little further north), the gamma data wasn’t all filled in later:

Radnet_Denver_June10_17_2015_Those two monitors are much closer to each other than I am to either of them, and you already see clearly how there’s some significant differences.

Now, I’m very curious about what specifically makes these monitors go silent…  I suspect it may be very specific energy bands of synthetic isotopes that primarily decay by Beta or Alpha decay.

To collect a sample,  I cut the top of a 3 liter (10 oz.) spring water bottle and collected the rain that was falling on my car:

DSCN4312Then I poured that water into an empty ‘Arrowhead’ spring water bottle of the same size.

After the storm had passed, I also collected a zip-lock bag full of various types of mostly lichens.  (It takes so much time to research that I don’t know when I’ll get to the second sample.)  I labeled them so the lab wouldn’t get confused which samples this were and drove to town with them the next day:

DSCN432114 hours after sampling, and right before the samples were packed for shipping, I re-tested the zip-locked wet paper towels: the radioactivity had already decreased by 97%, indicating its radioactivity was due to almost all very short-lived (likely primarily all-natural, I believed) decay products, such as typical mountain radioisotopes like those of Thorium, Lead, Bismuth and Radon.

There’s lots of natural Uranium and Thorium in the ground in this region and the recent flooding brings out the decay products from the ground, which then are brought back down with the rain. So the seemingly unusually radioactive rain is not per se an indication of anything being abnormal.   So please don’t freak out over the “OMG! radioactive rain”.  Rain being radioactive in areas with such minerals in the region is a natural phenomenon that’s been going on for eons. 

The jet stream pattern with wind “from Japan”, the official data gaps, the unusual amount of inner-cloud lightning, the cloud colors, and the extremely high radioactivity of the rain itself all together convinced me that if there was ever a moment to test the rain for Fukushima-fingerprint radioisotopes, this was it.

Nevertheless, it were “nonlinear impressions”, from consulting oracles on the matter that inspired me to push forward.  Among the tools for divination, I used  the ‘Medicine Cards™: The Discovery of Power Through the Ways of Animals’  authored by Jamie Sams and David Carson, illustrated by Angela C. Werneke, as described in the non-linear time section of my blog post, Linear, Cyclical & Non-Linear Dream Time on the ‘i3T (Interactive Three Times) Watch’: Providing Diversified ‘Timely Signs’.

AntelopeSo, engaging the situation non-scientifically with my shamanic know-how for a moment, I tracked along time lines to explore different outcomes for different choices.  And I ended up with a strong feeling that if I didn’t send this to a lab, I would continue to feel that I really ought to do this.  One of the cards drawn was ‘Antelope’.  Aside from reminding me of the tragic and “mysterious” (May 2015) mass die-off of over 135,000 endangered Saiga Antelope in Kazakhstan, it also came with the message:

“Say what should be said.  […]  “Do it now.  Do not wait any longer.” Antelope knows the way, and so do you.  Take courage and leap; your sense of timing is perfect. […]”

I sat with that, and decided, back in the pragmatic physical realm, to spend the hundreds of dollars it would take to get some scientific data about his rain.

And thus I had my samples packed for shipping:


Due to what would have been astronomical shipping costs, I didn’t find a suitable lab until the next day.   So I FedEx’ed my two samples to a lab here in Colorado on the 16th, to get there the 17th:

Mainly because of the distance (in-state) and the speed of replying to emails, I picked ALS Global this time.  Last time (mainly Japanese kelp samples) I went with EMSL on the east coast.  Click ALS’ Radiochemistry section to learn more about their capacities:


I really wish the gamma-energy releases from the sample could have been counted for much longer than that lab’s 1000 minutes (about 16 hours) to get much lower MDAs (minimum detectable amounts).   But, luckily, I also requested ‘the raw data’, which includes a list of what was detected*.

*: NOTE regarding the below listed radioisotopes:  This will possibly lead to having ‘expert scientists’ discount the point I’m making, but it must be understood:  The radioisotope “detections” (listed below) were not strong enough to be called “true detections” by certain definitions, as the margin of error is larger than the detected amount.  A count needs to be about 5 times above the critical level for it to become quantifiable.  If it can’t be quantified  (“below Minimum Detectable Amount or Concentration”, abbreviated as <MDA or <MDC), it’s considered “non-detect” (ND).

However…, the fact that specific gamma rays’ kilo-electron-Volt (keV) energy releases were identified and counted above background at all does suggest without any doubt actually that the only reason they are being discounted is because the lab test only runs the standard length of such a test, 1000 minutes (about 16 hours).  If the sample’s radioactive decay energies had been measured for many days or even weeks, perhaps the data could have been as robust as the Finnish data.   (On a paranoid day, I wouldn’t even be surprised if those typical lab standards were set by the industry to make independent ‘true detections’ of trace amounts of highly suspicious radioisotopes unlikely, so that the CTBTO can maintain a monopoly on such data and keep that a secret at the request of all its members.)   (–> That’s my lab results positive confirmation bias, compounded by a very negative impression of the nuclear industry’s integrity, showing through right there...)

I told myself that “If I detect absolutely nothing in this rain, maybe I’m simply wrong about this Fukushima-still-fissioning hunch.”   Sadly… The tiniest of traces of  [some of] these below listed radioisotopes were all coming down with the rain in that Colorado thunderstorm.  The “amazing” thing about these rainwater lab results is thus not the amounts (near-zero), but the fact that this long list of ‘de facto detected’ radioisotopes includes a surprising large number of synthetic radioisotopes, some of ’em ‘darn strange’…

The lab protocols may call all this “nothing detected”, but the raw data clearly show that the sensors did pick up little blips of keV levels corresponding with very specific radioisotopes, which suggest tiny traces of these radioisotopes were in fact present could have been present in that rain, which arrived to this beautiful pristine North-American region by the fast-moving jet-stream, which in the preceding week had moved right over the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe site…

Here’s what I initially believed to have been de facto detected: [This is really just the list of what was tested for, not actually the list of what was found!  I didn’t realize that when I first posted about this… ;-/]

Natural, but could also be “enhanced natural” (as some naturally occurring isotopes are also supplied by nuclear accidents):

  • Actinium-228
  • Beryllium-7
  • Bismuth-212
  • Bismuth-214
  • Lead-212
  • Lead-214
  • Potassium-40
  • Thorium-227
  • Thorium-234
  • Uranium-235

For sure SYTHETIC (fission event, or activation product formed in the neutron-bombardment of a fission event):

  • Aluminum-26
  • Americium-241
  • Antimony-125
  • Cerium-139
  • Cerium-144
  • Cesium-134
  • Cesium-137
  • Chromium-51
  • Cobalt-56
  • Cobalt-57
  • Cobalt-58
  • Cobalt-60
  • Europium-152
  • Europium-154
  • Europium-155
  • Iodine-131
  • Iron-59
  • Manganese-54
  • Niobium-94
  • Niobium-95
  • Protactinium-234m
  • Ruthenium-106
  • Scandium-46
  • Silver-108m
  • Silver-110M
  • Zink-65

keV energy levels flagged by the lab as ‘UNKNOWN’, identified by myself by researching the specific keV detections.  (Details on my identifications further below.)    ALL SYNTHETIC as well:   [This attempt at identifying unknown energy levels has major flaws to it and should not be taken seriously!]

  • Astatine-206
  • Mercury-189
  • Neptunium-239
  • Palladium-100
  • Platinum-196 (stable, but excited by neutron-activation…?)
  • Potassium-40 (excited due to neutron activation…?)
  • Polonium-203
  • Radon-207
  • Samarium-153

+ 5 more yet-to-be-identified ‘unknowns…  

  •   98.49 keV
  •  252.97 keV   [Holmium-153 ? (synthetic) – See comments]
  • 408.59 keV
  • 416.98 keV
  • 962.84 keV  [Americium-238, a decay product of synthetic Californicum-256 ? – See comments]

All relevant raw data is shared further below.

– — —- ——- ———– ——— —— —- –

This wind pattern where there’s the jet stream passing over Fukushima on the one hand, and without much of a diffusion, there’s also a significant slow-down right where I am doesn’t happen very often.  From observing this quite a bit in the past year, my impression is that such slow-downs are more common over the ocean, especially over the Northern Pacific;  (Hence my suspicion that radioactive fallout needs to be investigated as a possible factor in recent spate of Fin Whale and other sea life die-offs).   Over land, however, that pattern tends to occur more often further north (Alaska, Canada,…), and often not even until that jet stream reaches Eurasia.   That’s why I jumped on “the opportunity” to collect a rain sample for radioisotope analysis:


(repeat of shown above)

Save for perhaps a few small university research reactors, there aren’t even active nuclear power plants in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Northern California or Oregon!   And, upon zoom-in scrutiny, the wind was clearly not blowing in directly from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (part of the Manhattan Project that set this nuclear mess in motion…) in Washington state, either.

The fact that the wind pattern was in place that I suspected might bring down some fingerprint radioisotopes from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear catastrophe…  makes me consider the most plausible source for these radionuclides is indeed Fukushima [If, of course… they were present in the first place, which turns out not to be the case for many…]

  • Observations, Data & Notes:

Only a few natural radioisotopes were present enough to show (visually) on the scintillator graph:   Beryllium-7, Bismuth-214, Lead-212 & Lead-214 and Potassium-40 (circled in green squares, below).   All the other peaks were background peaks:

peaksIdentified_1annot_1NATURAL or “Enhanced Natural”: Potassium-40 is part of naturally occurring Potassium.  Beryllium-7 is made in primarily created in the upper atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays and oxygen or nitrogen.  Bismuth-212, Lead-212Actinium-228 and Thorium-227 are all intermediate decay product of naturally occurring (or unnaturally added) Thorium-232. In turn, Bismuth-214, Lead-214 and Thorium-234 are intermediate decay product of naturally occurring (or unnaturally added) Uranium-238.  Naturally occurring (or unnaturally added) Uranium-235, as well as Thorium-232 and Uranium-238 are commonly found in the rocks and soils of this part of the American Southwest & Rocky Mountains.

!-> “Technically”, however, if going by the lab definition of what constitutes a true detection, these weren’t detected either:   All “< MDA“, hence the rainwater sample is technically called “non-detect” AS IF there was nothing detectable in it.  Obviously that’s not the quite case.  All kinds of things were DETECTED (by the sensors), they just can’t be quantified.  By the lab definition, even the Beryllium-7, Bismuth-214, Lead-212 & Lead-214 and Potassium-40 were “non-detect”.   To me this only illustrates how silly the industry’s definition of a “true detection” is.

  • Raw Data

First a look at background radiation, which includes the decay energies present due to cosmic rays, as well as various trace amounts of radioactive elements.  The two main peaks visible on the below background radiation scintillator graph are 511 keV and Potassium-40’s decay energy.  511 keV is typical ‘annihilation radiation’.  Read more about that at

backgroundgraphWithout knowing your background levels, you can’t find out what stands out above background.  The raw data from one of several background scans (= no sample):


Next:  Then 1 liter of the rainwater sample was placed in the gamma-spectrometer and whatever blips of certain keV levels were detected were counted:


Then the background-detections were subtracted from the sampled-detections for the energy levels that overlap:


And finally what’s left gets identified by the computer’s data base that links the specific energy levels to specific radioisotopes:

FinalActivityReport_40isotopesIdentified_16unknown_WaterSo, as you can see, they are ALL below the MDA (minimum Detectable Amount), with the uncertainty often also being greater that the measured.  In other words:  Nothing can be said about the amounts, except that they are simply so tiny that they are unquantifiable.

But what cán be said is that at least a tiny bit of some of all these identified radioisotopes were PRESENT in thát specific rainwater.  

The Known Unknowns…

Next I will share my sources for why I think the energy detections flagged as ‘UNKNOWN’ correspond with the magenta-pink isotopes listed at the beginning, or here listed in my summary of the unknowns:   These might all be incorrect.  As an added note I encourage the reader the take this with a grain of salt.


  • 66.21 keV … ?    The only place where I found this odd energy level mentioned was in a document,, or here, “DORNL-5114  3  4456  04qbb25  4  Nuclear  Decay  Data  for  Selected  Radionuclides” by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (another corner stone of the Manhattan Project):

OakRidge_Np239 In which I found the energy level mentioned: Np239_66.32keV_page50As you can see, that specific 66.32 keV decay energy is extremely unlikely to be detected, as usually Neptunium-239 decays differently.   No wonder it was flagged “unknown”:   Most of NP-239’s decay is by Beta radiation, but apparently some odd decay modes include X-rays and Gamma rays too.   Neptunium’s-239’s half-life is only 2.36 days.

There’s several decay paths to end up with Np-239, including from enriched Uranium and isotopes of Plutonium.  And there’s a couple different decay routes after that, which by way of intermediate decay products like Polonium-210, Bismuth-210, Lead-210, etc., ending in stable lead.

An excerpt of illustrates the concept of “enhanced natural”, showing isotopes that occur naturally are also part of the decay chains of highly unusual synthetic radioisotopes created in fission reactions:

CLICK IMAGE to see complete decay chains

CLICK IMAGE to see complete decay chains

Interestingly, both Plutonium-239 and Neptunium-239 were detected together in 2011 in “the first 100 hours” of the Fukushima nuclear disaster too… (Source: via Paul Langley’s blog):,  which links to these two sources:  and

Also, from Wikipedia – Isotopes of Uranium:  “Uranium-239 is an isotope of uranium.  It is usually produced by exposing U-238 to neutron radiation in a nuclear reactor.  U-239 has a half-life of about 23.45 minutes and decays into neptunium-239 through beta decay…”

palladium100In the summary at the beginning, it states Pd-100’s Production Mode: charged particle reaction.

At Theodore Grey’s you can see it in the decay chains it can be part of, originating with either Iodine-108, Tin-100 or Tellurium-105, all very super-short-lived fission products:

Pd100DecayChainAs you can see, these isotopes almost all decay in Alpha and Beta modes, so a gammaspectroscopy tends to not even detect these, save for the few freak gamma decay energies picked up here and there…

Po203It’s half-life is only 36.7 minutes, so this detection is only possible because one or more of its possible parent radioisotopes was present.  To see its place in several possible decay chains, see Po203DecayCHains

  • 416.98 keV … still flagged as unknown also in my table above, is another truly weird one, which I’ve found in reference to neutron-activated Potasium-40.  You read that right.   Referenced in this University of Ottawa document, keV  of  40K, from neutron- activated source,“  which leaves me wondering if it were created like Beryllium, or artificially.    Given it was flagged ‘unknown’, chances are high it originated in the same neutron bombardment environment of Fukushima’s fissioning molten cores underground…  Normally Potassium-40 has a véry long half-life, but in this case it seems it would decay quickly?  If it decayed with a speed of “half-life 54 minutes”), how could it still be detected several days after leaving the neutron bombardment environment it likely originated in?    Mystery…

neutronActivatedK40K-40 decays to Argon-40:

If synthetic K-40 and strangely altered synthetic neutron-activated K-40 is added to the atmosphere, it will change regular Potassium’s intrinsic K-40 content, raising it above its normal 0.012 %.   K-40 by itself is comparable to Cesium-137, but mere doses can’t be compared as such when part of regular Potassium, due to Potassium’s metabolism role, including its cancer-fighting qualities.  For more on that see my blog post Cesium-137 versus Potassium-40.

With a half-life of only 7.6 minutes, it was just a short-lived intermediate decay product in the decay chains of Francium-201, Radon-197, Astanine-197 or Polonium-189, all unusual fission products.

Mercury189The decay chain possibilities: Mercury189_DecayChainExcerpt

511.01Astatine At-206’s place in decay chains is shown @  Screenshot:

At206DecayChain The “parent isotopes” Protactinium-218, Uranium-218, Protactinium-214 and Thorium-210 all decay super-fast and no matter which route one takes to end up with Astatine-206, it would only take a few minutes at the most.  Unless it came from a fission reaction much closer by, to detect the tiniest hint of a trace of At-206, with a half life of just over half an hour… indicates that fissioning must have been happening right at the time the jet stream blew over, leaving almost nothing of these radioisotopes after a few days traveling across the Pacific at high speed.

The Decay Calculator can help estimate what’s left if you enter a source term and time period for a specific isotope: @

Perhaps it would be interesting to research the rain content of non-radioactive (stable) decay end products, such as isotopes of mercury and lead, both heavy metals and not a good idea to add to the environment either…

  • 558.42 keV …   I think it may have come from the decay of Platinum-196 (Pt-196), even though Pt-196 is “observationally stable” (Wikipedia – Isotopes of Platinum), because that specific energy level is emitted when Pt-196 returns to stability after being activated with thermal neutrons.    558.42 keV is references in “Thermal Neutron Capture Gammas – Target 196Pt” @     Screenshot:

NeutronActivatedPlatinumStable Platinum-196 is at the end of these decay chains:  To end up with a blip of 558.42 keV decay energy, it would have to have been subjected to heavy neutron bombardment, though.

Samarium153Samarium-153 is another tell-tale sign of very recent fissioning.  Here’s the decay chain, with the half-life times of the parent isotopes written next to them: Samarium-153_with DecayChain_halfLifeTimesIf you need a clue as to where the original parent radioisotope, Barium-153 (half-life: 80 milliseconds) might have come from, see it listed under “Intensities from n-induced fission” @

Rn207See its place in the possible decay chains @  Screenshot: Rn207InDecayChains So it originated with U-219, Th-211 or Pa-215.   Uranium-219 is a type of depleted uranium, and like Thorium-211 and Protactinium-215, is synthetic as well.

  • Conclusion

Unfortunately my research leaves little room for doubt:  I jumped the gun.  One or more molten reactor cores underneath the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear catastrophe site is still fissioning, June 2015.   [July 26, 2015 —  Note:  Actually, there’s plenty of room for doubt about my initial conclusions, as well as about many of the isotopes I at first thought were de facto detected, but that might not have been present at all.  Read all comments, scrutinize the raw data yourself; please leave comments with things you find in the data and why, with extra information links if possible.  In the future, hopefully this summer (2015), I will write a new blog post with details on what I’ve learned.]

This means [If my initial conclusion were still correct, then this would mean:] that besides decay heat, fission heat is also created, and the rubble is subjected to heavy neutron bombardment.  There is no containment.  An artificial mini-sun of possibly many thousands of degrees hot is creating new untold amounts of radiotoxins into the groundwater and the Pacific.  Most of these fission and activation product radiosiotopes are extremely health-hazardous and aren’t even being tested for.  [While it was well worth the try, I was unable to proof this beyond the shadow of a doubt, though.]

The unbelievably misguided secrecy that the Japanese government, as well as its IAEA-aligned cohorts in the US, Russia and Europe, have wrapped this troubling reality in hinders the emergency mobilization of creativity needed to address the situation at hand.   This situation, physically on-site and socio-politically internationally, has the potential to absolutely ruin the ecological balance and long-term health of the Pacific Ocean, and by extension of this entire planet.  The seriousness of this situation cannot be underestimated.

Read Comments for viewpoints that could help interpret the raw data.

— — — — — — —   — — — — — — —   — — — — — — —

!-> Additions / changes after posting:

See Aug 1, 2015,  Synopsis / Improved Version: ‘Mainland USA June 14 2015 Radioactive Rain & Lichen Data Revisited’.

— — — — — — —   — — — — — — —   — — — — — — —

  • Nuances / additional disclaimer added at the beginning.
  • July 8, 2015:  My estimated travel time for the (suspected Fukushima-) radioisotopes to have reached the sampling location is 2.5 days.   If it went just a tiny bit higher and faster, 48 hours is not impossible.  Most conservatively, it is between 3 and 4 days max, as suggested by my wind speed scribbles of the jet stream path from F1 to the June 14, 2015 sampling location.  Adjustments for the days traveled were not done for this, so this is just a rough estimation:

Jetstream_speeds on June 14 2015 250 hPa

  • July 21, 2015:  I changed part of the headline from Fukushima’s Fissioning Mini-Sun on the Edge of the Pacific Ocean is COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL to Fukushima’s Fissioning Mini-Sun on the Edge of the Pacific Ocean COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL ?  due to the uncertainties.
  • July 26 & , 2015:  Several edits in the main article.   + See comments !

— — — — — — —   — — — — — — —   — — — — — — —


Fair Use Statement


If you are viewing this page on any website other than 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.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Gamma-Spectroscopy Results of Colorado Radioactive Freak Rain: Fukushima’s Fissioning Mini-Sun on the Edge of the Pacific Ocean COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL ?

  1. dennis says:

    thanks, I have been taking measurements in the pacific NW for a couple of years and have seen peaks that coincided with rainfall and snowfall here, granted we don’t get much of that as of late.

    my colleagues and contemporaries are shell shocked and have no idea what this ongoing fissioning means, other than that for the foreseeable future, we are going to see Iodine 131 and other radionuclides which are daughter products of nuclear fission coming to the U.S. in the form of not just weather but also probably in the coastal waters.

    one very very sad point to make is that the normal amount of sea birds for this area is absolutely fractional compared to what it used to be, on occasion I’ll see a hobbled or injured bird and wonder if it was caused by impact or by illness or mutation.

    the four leaf clovers are pretty standard gigs around here now. and huge mushrooms.

    dead birds littered my property six days after Unit 3 blew, and a dog of mine died a horrible death from tumors on his belly (he was an outdoors dog)

    it will only be a matter of time before this truth leaks out and the government loses control of the coverup.

    that day is rapidly coming. makes me wonder if the water crisis in California is part of the ruse to cover up the real reason they want people out of the west coast. you cannot cover up mortality too very long once it begins to bite hard.

    I have done radio shows about this problem and people call me a fear peddler, but I am not.

    • MVB says:

      Thanks for sharing that, Dennis. I’ve been called a fear monger too. Pretty hard to argue with solid data, though… The pro-nuclear denial-pushers have no leg left to stand on. It’s game over. I hope they quit their pr bullshit soon so we can all focus on how to respond appropriately…

  2. Pingback: How to scatter plot the EPA’s Radnet data | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  3. I reviewed this analyiss and it is very basic and does not prove a harmful effect, ity doesnt mean anything because the amount of radionuclides are very trace if that.

    • MVB says:

      To serious readers, this turd is a nuclear industry shill, operating out of /near Oak Ridge, TN.

      See also

      Bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of trace amounts of radioactive isotopes, as well as their non-radioactive stable decay products (most of which are toxic heavy metals like lead and mercury) is bound to affect biological life. To claim it doesn’t and won’t is psychopathic denial-pushing.

      Besides, the point I’m making is that fissioning is ongoing. There’s no way around that, or the decay energies of the very short-lived fission products would simply not get picked up. They’ve been lying all along.

      I poked a paper fork into the world’s mightiest PR machine. And the trolls don’t really know what to say, so they just add some more standard bs.

      Unless you actually contribute something of substance, Mr. Turd, your comments won’t show up anymore.

      Take good care of yourself. Peace –

      • stock says:

        Yeah, that Turd shows up at Nukepro and just spews low level insults without adding value, so it is on the short list of the “ban” category. Sheesh.

  4. Pingback: Gamma-Spectroscopy Results of Colorado Radioactive Freak Rain: Fukushima’s Fissioning Mini-Sun on the Edge of the Pacific Ocean is COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL | flying cuttlefish picayune

  5. flyingcuttlefish says:

    I’m putting a link to this on my blog. Many photos there of the new, glowing Fukushima.

    Nice troll stomp too!

  6. diemos says:


    You’ve made the standard beginner / amateur mistake of misinterpreting statistical background fluctuations as signal.

    You’re sample is perfectly consistent with there being nothing but normal natural background isotopes.

    • MVB says:

      Hey diemos, I’ve deleted my previous comment.

      I doubt what you say is true for all the data, but for some it might. I will need to come through the data line by line and some of the ones I’ve listed may need to be removed. Will add the nuances here or later in a future post. – mvb

      • diemos says:

        Data analysis and interpretation is full of pitfalls that can catch the unwary but I’m fully supportive of your efforts as a citizen scientist and expect that you will eventually correctly understand what your data can and cannot say.

        • MVB says:

          Hi diemos,

          I guess my main problem is that the MDAs were simply too high. I had actually misread the details and though the Bq/g was Bq/kg and thus the sensitivity I thought I was going to get, I obviously didn’t, by a factor 1000. ;-( Anyways, I guess one of the lessons is to make sure the MDA is super low.

          Take the I-131 in lichen, @ gamma decay: 364.48 keV

          2.20E-02 pCi/g +- 5.03E-02
          MDA: 8.36E-02
          Critical Level: 4.09E-02
          half-life 193 hours

          Translated to SI units which I prefer
          8.14 Bq/kg +- 18.611 Bq/kg
          MDA: 30.932 Bq/Kg
          Critical Level: 15.133 Bq/Kg

          I thought that means “Yes detected, but” the amount is meaningless because of the uncertainty. Yet I don’t find the 364.48 keV listed in the counts.

          Why is there a positive value if nothing was counted? Why isn’t is 0.00 +- 0.00 ? Got some insights to share on that?

          Once I better understand the data, I’ll probably need to write a new blog post and point out all the ways I was wrong and perhaps the list of what was most likely present in the rain and lichen will be a lot shorter…

          Now, the unknowns I find fascinating. Why are they listed if they weren’t really detected? I mean, come on, obviously something was detected in the samples that was not detected in just the background and that is why it is listed. It’s flagged unknown ’cause the libraries to identify isotopes only include the more probable ones.

          Take the first one on the lichen’s unknown-flagged list:
          46.40 keV 4450 net counts on top of a background noise of 1140 counts, way over C.L and with an uncertainty of only 220. That decay energy is listed for Califonium-253 @

          And its possible parents and decay products are listed @

          Or just to pick another unknown, 74.78 keV 1589 counts +- 200 above a background noise of 1262, with C.L @ 152. I found that gamma ray level linked to Rhodium-100m2 @ and given the short half-life of its parents and its own Half-life of some 20 hours, that looks like evidence of recent fission to me.

          Why would you claim that absolutely nothing suggests that there was Cf-253 and Rh-100 in that bag of lichens?

          I’m open to being wrong about everything. But I’d to learn exactly why my interpretations were wrong if they were. Obviously I got a little carried away, but it still looks like this data and combination of de facto detections points at something…

          Other folks who know more about this, please chip in too.

  7. MVB says:

    Interesting observations by Stock

    – Re. commenting on

    About which I commented on ENEnews ( ):

    You can’t really work with the amount data, as it is all <MDA and the margin of error is greater than the "measured", all you really can say is that the detections of specific decay energies indicates that 'SOME' of the corresponding radioisotopes were in that rainwater. The amount data can't be used for anything statistical; it's just not solid enough. Nevertheless, an interesting attempt to figure out if more can be derived from the data. Tx.

    If there's anything I learned from this is that Beta Spectroscopy (with low MDAs) is really what's called for.

    • stock says:

      MVB I disagree.

      We need to be able to come to decision making capabilities with having far less than a 95% certainty on each of 40 items.

      They are using a 2 sigma filter to say “are we really 95% sure that any individual result is for sure”. When we have 40 of those filters and almost all point in the direction of yes, we really detected these other things that are only from fission, and some of them, only from recent fission, then it would be silly to think that we need a higher level of proof.

      I have a masters level background in probability and statistics, and I can tell you that when enough things quack like a duck and look like duck, you don’t need to listen to a lab that needs more money for a longer test….you can already determine that it’s duck.

      I come to conclusion of 35,000 Bq/M3 of detected radiation, could that be 20,000 or 50,000, sure. But regardless, its large and important.

      • MVB says:

        Hi Stock, Agreed on the fission. It’s still happening; the deniers don’t really have a leg to stand on. I wish I had tons more more money for rigorous and widespread testing, but alas… We do what we can.

        If you do something with the amount data, I think that, to keep it scientific, you have to run the uncertainties with it too. I haven’t done that. You may end up with a negative value on the low end and much larger positive on the upper end, and the amount you came up with may actually be close to reality. Hard to say. But yes, it’s significant, that’s for sure, the mostly-beta 10.2µSv/hr was a clue, so “something” is releasing large amounts of fission radioisotopes, and given the timing and wind, I think it’s Fukushima-Daiichi.

        It’s only a matter of time before the folks in charge of the cover-up lose face.

  8. [SNIP]

    Admin: You’re banned, mofo.

    • stock says:

      LOL, the Turd does sometimes provide useful information, like a DOE handbook that let me prove that WIPP was running their filters 50% past the legal limit of 10 years…..

      oh well, no loss, its your house so ban at will. I will tolerate the troll for a short time as long as he is civil (sociopaths rarely can maintain civility)

  9. Toodles says:

    I just wanted to confirm some of your suspicions & thank you for looking into your observations…
    I was able to get testing of my drinking water & local veggies in 2011 at a govt. mobile radiology lab with full spectrometer equipment by the state radiologist–right before Hurricane Irene hit us. I’ll never forget the radiologist’s genuine surprise when he saw the test results. He said the Cesium he detected (I believe it was shorter-lived Cs-134) could only be the signature of the Fukushima nuclear accident!! He said the amounts were trace, but they were there–straight out of my tap water that came from an open local river source!! This occurred in central Virginia, USA, (East Coast ) about 6 months after the Fukushima reactors blew. He saw a number of radioisotopes..some may have been natural, but fortunately no radioactive Iodine in the sample. He could not test for Strontium due to the time required (and then we were hit by the hurricane)–it may have registered as well. Typically, radioactive Cesiums & Strontium travel the fastest and farthest as they are lightweight and common after a reactor explosion… I remember the radiologist saying “this is not natural. This is the signature of Fukushima.” It was a big deal to him, but he assured me that it was safe, very trace amounts. I mentioned “bioaccumalation” over time? Pregnant women or children drinking the water??…He did not satisfy my questions!..
    The science is so interesting, but scary!!~

    • Toodles says:

      I wanted to add that the worst readings for radioactivity that he picked up were the organic carrots that I brought in (8/2011) –harvested from California & purchased at the local Whole Foods. They were totally washed & processed in a bag, as sold, but that did not eliminate radioactivity. It actually set off a detector alarm when I walked into the mobile lab! The CA veggies were about 6 times more radioactive than the local farm veggies tested that day. That was a shocker. I have not had many carrots since! :(
      However, the radiologist assured me that the carrots were very safe to eat and said he would eat them in a heartbeat–? He said we’ve been eating radionuclides from Chernobyl & bomb testing for years…but, he did admit the test results were disturbing!!~

      • Toodles says:

        (I’m including his verbatim opinions–not to approve of them–but just to provide an accurate account. Please draw your OWN conclusions, if you are reading this!!!~ And remember, everyone has different levels of resistance to toxins and/or radioactive exposure!!~) Thanks again!!~~

  10. Pingback: 07/09/2015 False Flag Weekly News with Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer | NO LIES RADIO

  11. J. Manley says:

    I am a GIS Master’s student trying to build a Research Thesis Proposal. I want to sample areas in North California that received high precipitation from Atmospheric River events in nov-2012, Feb 2015 etc to determine if Cs137 has been accumulating there. The initial idea was to recommend placement for fixed detection sensors in watersheds to alert us of future upticks in deposition. Of course the window (or loading zone) for maximum atmospheric deposition of Cesium 137 by AR event may have passed, but a future emission, (or continual one) may justify making the Sonoma Wine Grape, the Charasmatic Mega-Flora needed to put this radiation on the map, pardon the pun. Any ideas or comments?

  12. Pingback: So… Really: What happened? | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  13. Pingback: Gamma Spectroscopy Raw Data Rainwater Sample | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  14. Pingback: Gamma Spectroscopy Raw Data Lichen Sample | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  15. Pingback: An Attempt to Identify the ‘Unknown’-Flagged keV Decay Energies in the Lichen Sample Gammaspectroscopy | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  16. MVB says:

    I’ve added, “An Attempt to Identify the ‘Unknown’-Flagged keV Decay Energies in the Lichen Sample Gammaspectroscopy”


    One reason I’ve become more skeptical of my initial “whoa, look, this is ALL in there!” is that the isotope lists for the lichen and the rainwater are the same, meaning that’s the list of isotopes they look for. Some of the values are too low, lower than the uncertainty and below the critical level, so probably some of those need to be scrapped. Nevertheless, not all.

    Not impossible that there’s some gems in the raw data, but I don’t know enough yet to figure it out yet. All raw data is now on my blog, so scrutinize at will.

    For instance, one of the flagged-UNKOWN energies in the rainwater I linked to Np-239. One of those in the lichen I linked to Pu-239. Np-239 decays into Pu-239…

    Please drop me a comment if you spot something interesting, damning or unusual.

    —- —- —– —–

    In reply to some things stated on Stock’s post, :

    – Not sure what constitutes “paid a large amount of money”, but truth be told, I haven’t even paid yet. Ha! (The leaked me the raw data pre-data release.) The pricing is $200/gamma spec, so $400 total.

    – Not important, but I wasn’t watching the cam watchers, by the way.
    I mentioned all the factors that made me decide to have the tests done in my post here (above).

    —- —- —– —–

    Note: Cam watchers are folks who watch the webcams pointed at Fukushima-Daiichi at ENEnews @

  17. Pingback: Some Nature Photos (SLV – First half July 2015) + Couple nuclear ponderings) | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  18. diemos says:

    Let’s look at your lichen measurement.

    You understand the basics just fine. We expect I-131 to produce gammas at 364.489 so we measure a spectrum once with the sample and once without to get a background and then subtract one from the other to look for an excess of counts at 364.489 to measure I-131.

    The fly in the ointment is that radioactive decay has a random component so you won’t get exactly the same amount of counts each time you measure the spectrum.

    So pure randomness will sometimes make the sample spectrum larger than the background spectrum and give you excess counts that are from randomness rather than the presence of I-131.

    Sometimes the sample spectrum will be smaller than the background spectrum and will give you a deficit of counts just from randomness that will cause you to undercount the presence of I-131.

    So if you do the measurements over and over and over again the amount of I-131 reported will be different each time. Those measurements will cluster around the true value with a width given by the statistics of how many counts you’re measuring in each bin.

    The results of your measurement is reported as:

    8.14 Bq/kg +- 18.611 Bq/kg
    MDA: 30.932 Bq/Kg
    Critical Level: 15.133 Bq/Kg

    The first number reported is the central value and the second is the sigma of the normal distribution.
    What that number tells you is that there is a;
    68.3% chance that the real I-131 concentration is between -10.47 to 26.75 Bq/kg (1 sigma)
    95.4% chance that the real I-131 concentration is between -29.08 to 45.46 Bq/kg (2 sigma)
    99.7% chance that the real I-131 concentration is between -47.69 to 63.97 Bq/kg (3 sigma)

    So with 99.9% confidence you can state that the real amount of I-131 in the sample is 0.0 Bq/kg) then there is about a 55% chance that that statement is true and a 45% chance that it is false and there is no I-131 in the sample.

    Professionals don’t usually like to make conclusions that have only a coin flip’s chance of being right, so professionals generally won’t claim detection until the central value is at least 2 sigma above zero.

    Now for something that we expect to see, like Cs-137, your measurement reports 1.15 +/- 0.0548 pCi/g which is a measurement that is 21 sigma away from zero. There is only a one in a gazillion chance that randomness could have faked that signal and there is no doubt that your sample contains CS-137.

  19. diemos says:

    Merde. My post contained brackets and thus screwed up the html. The paragraph should look like this:

    So with 99.9% confidence you can state that the real amount of I-131 in the sample is ^lt; 63.97 Bq/kg. If you want to claim detection (i.e. that the I-131 concentration is > 0.0 Bq/kg) then there is about a 55% chance that that statement is true and a 45% chance that it is false and there is no I-131 in the sample.

  20. diemos says:

    I don’t know why you call the K-40 measurement a non-detect, it doesn’t say that anywhere and the measurement is 209 +/- 33 pCi/L, that’s a 6.3 sigma measurement which is your most clearly observed isotope.

    • MVB says:

      I don’t. The lab did, in correspondence. They said to quantify the “amount” or “concentration” needs to be about 5x the Critical Level (“C.L.”). They literally told me the rain was “non-detect”, for everything. It’s a definitions kind of thing, I think. Of course it’s detect, you can even see the spike on the graph.

      • diemos says:

        Hurm … I’d love to see the complete report along with the definitions of all their quantities.

  21. diemos says:

    If you’re going to assume that there’s Pd-100 in your sample then it’s going to produce all of the lines in the TORI list with the given relative amounts.

    So if your peak at 139.8 is coming from Pd-100 then there will be:
    a 285 times larger peak at 84.0
    a 263 times larger peak at 74.7
    a 42 times larger peak at 126.0
    a 38 times larger peak at 42.1
    a 14 times larger peak at 32.7

    Since none of those other peaks are observed. There is no reason to believe that there is any Pd-100 in your sample.

    You can follow the same logic for your other candidate elements.

    • MVB says:

      @ diemos – re Pd-100 decay (
      Interesting… That’s the kind of feedback I can learn from. Thank you.

      So now I wonder… See, I’m not sure what the numbers next to the keV’s and next to the incidence %s are. You know? Do the various decay energies occur in some kind of known time sequence? Is the way they’re listed the sequence? Are there more of some and less of others? For instance, do the strong ones, like 84 and 74 keV occur 3 times each per half life, and 138.9 keV some 21 times? I’m just wondering if in a 16 hour test, with an isotope with a half life of just over 87 hours, some decay energies may get picked up, while others are missed entirely. Was the assumed Pd100 towards the end of the sequence and hence the strong peaks were not detected? If there’s very little in the sample to begin with, would it be possible to detect some decay energies that may not be the strongest, perhaps not even the most prevalent, but just some that just happened to be emitted during that specific test period? You know what I mean?

      • diemos says:

        First, the numbers in the table are written in a short hand notation of a number, a space and a number in italics.

        So for instance:
        32.70 2 should be read as 32.70 +/- 0.02
        2.55 16 should be read as 2.55 +/- 0.16
        42.10 2 should be read as 42.10 +/- 0.02
        7.0 4 should be read as 7.0 +/- 0.4

        Eg is the gamma energy in keV
        Ig is the percentage of gammas per decay at that energy that will be produced on average.

        The Pd-100 beta decays which changes the Pd-100 into an excited state of Au-100. The excited state of Au-100 sheds its excess energy by emitting gamma rays until it reaches the ground state of Au-100. It can do that with a single gamma or it can emit multiple lower energy gammas to reach the ground state, so the sum of intensities can add up to more than 100%. Which path it takes to get to the ground state is random with the probabilities given in the table. All the lines should be populated according to their probabilities with some fluctuations due to statistics.

  22. diemos says:

    Merde. Misread the Pd as Pt and then mistook the e to mean beta instead of electron capture. You’re right, it should be Rhodium-100.

  23. diemos says:

    So for your 416.98 keV line from “neutron-activated Potasium-40”.

    Neutron activated K-40 would be K-41 which is stable and non-radioactive.

    The paper you list actually implies that the line is from the first isomeric state of Indium-116. That’s what the 116mIn means which is produced by neutron activation of stable Indium-115 and has a half-life of 54.29 minutes. The decay of the isomer produces all of these lines and the subsequent decay of the Indium-116 ground state produces all of these lines

    Again, if this line was from Indium-116 isomer decay there would be bigger lines that you would see.

  24. diemos says:

    So for your 558.42 keV line from “thermal neutron capture on Platinum-196”.

    Capture gammas are emitted at the same time that a nucleus captures an additional neutron.

    So for you to be seeing capture gammas your sample would need to be exposed to a thermal neutron flux while it was in the germanium detector being counted. You would see all of the lines listed with their respective intensities. You don’t, so you are probably not seeing thermal neutron capture on Pt-196.

    Additionally, your sample is mostly water which is H-1 and O-16. So if your sample was being exposed to a thermal neutron field you would see capture gammas from the H-1 and O-16 that would be a million or so times larger than the Pt-196 capture gammas. You don’t, so you can safely conclude that your sample is not being exposed to a thermal neutron field while it is being counted.

    Also each thermal neutron capture would create an atom of Pt-197 which would build up over time and produce all of the gamma rays associated with the decay of Pt-197.

    • MVB says:

      Thanks. Any idea what the 558.42 keV (and other unknown-flagged ones) could be from?

      • diemos says:

        If we were in the lab I would have you do an exercise where you would measure the background once, and then measure it again, subtract one from the other and then run your peak finding and isotope finding code on it.

        This would be illuminating because you would know a priori that there should be no lines from anything in your spectrum.

        You would learn from that just how often you should expect to see 1, 2 or 3 sigma “peaks” that aren’t associated with anything real and are just randomness and statistics.

        The unknown peaks are all around 1 sigma:
        195 +/- 198
        42 +/- 52
        368 +/- 190
        185 +/- 165
        67 +/- 68
        50 +/- 43

        They are almost certainly meaningless.

        Those “peaks” are printed out for the benefit of experts who know better than to take them seriously as detections and would only consider them as a hint that it might be worth the time and effort to try to do a better measurement if one of the “peaks” matched something that they were expecting to find.

        • MVB says:

          Very helpful input, diemos.

          When I get to it I will surely humbly admit having jumped the gun on quite a number of unknowns. Would it be helpful if I also published the couple records of the background tests the lab performed and shared with me as well?

          Now, do you see ANYTHING unusual in this rain at all?

  25. Pingback: Sometimes All Seems Normal… (Today’s 1.5 µSv/hr rain event seems “within normal variability range”: No EPA data gaps) + some links (Nuclear Cultists, Sr-90 at new record high, etc.) | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  26. diemos says:

    Your measurement just doesn’t have the sensitivity to clearly see minute levels of contamination. To improve your sensitivity you would have to either increase your signal, decrease your background or count longer.

    People have put a lot of effort into coming up with ways to lower backgrounds as much as possible.

    People will build lead shields around their detectors.

    Run nitrogen gas through them to purge the radon and its decay products.

    Locate them at the bottom of mine shafts to shield them from cosmic rays.

    Build detectors over them to tell when a cosmic ray has hit their setup so they can mask those hits out.

    The low background facility at the Berkeley lab is a state of the art facility for detecting minute traces of isotopes. For example they quote an MDA for Co-60 of 0.04 pCi/kg where your lichen measurement quotes an MDA for Co-60 of 49 pCi/kg. That’s a factor of 1000 better.

    MDA scales as the inverse square root of count time. So to reduce your MDA by a factor of 1000 just by the brute force means of counting longer you would have to count your sample and your background for a million times longer. So the current 2000 minutes would go to 3800 years.

    I suspect that’s a little longer than you would like to wait. And you can see why the professionals are so keen to build these low background facilities.

    From the background plot that you show it doesn’t look as if your company has any shielding to reduce background. It looks like normal room background. K-40 with radon decay products. If you want to keep going with this you should probably try to find a company with a shielded germanium well detector.

    That allows you to put your sample inside the detector so you maximize the chance of capturing each photon that’s emitted and allows shielding to be placed around it to reduce the environmental background.
    You won’t get LBF MDAs but you should be able to do better than you currently are.

    Whether that will be enough to see anything, I have no idea.

  27. MVB says:

    Vital1 at ENENews provided the following analysis @

    July 21, 2015 at 1:08 am

    MVB, here is my analysis of your Colorado Lichen test conducted in June 2015.

    I used the Lichen test data rather than the rain water test data you provided, because the Lichen test clearly shows detected isotopes. I used only the minus background test data report minus the statistical non detects. I converted the pCi per gram to Bq per Kilogram, as I felt most people would prefer that.

    I felt a chat format would make it much easier for people to quickly and clearly get their head around the test significance. Attached is the extract of the data I used to create the chart, plus the coloured bar chart.

    If you think I should add any other info into the chart, please let me know. If there are no errors, and you find the chart and information I provided useful, you are very welcome to make use of it in your blog. If you see any errors in the conversion from pCi per gram to Bq per kilogram, let me know, and I will adjust the chart.

    The professional Lab Colorado Lichen test results show the Cesium-137 and Cesium-134 finger print of Fukushima fallout. Also detected were Eu-155, Ce-139, Sb-125, and Co-56. This confirms that a significant mixture of toxic Fukushima isotopes are in USA fallout.

    I am a bit uncertain about what is meant by r.d for the Uranium-235 detection. If you know, let me know. A significant amount of Thorium-234 was also detected, so I would have expected there to be lot more Uranium-238 to be present.

    Disclaimer: This is an amateur volunteer run service. Human error can provide incorrect information, and equipment malfunction can produce false readings. Do not rely on, or take action upon information presented here, without further research.

    Here is more details on the Colorado Lichen test isotope detections that point to Fukushima as the source.

    Europium-155 (Eu-155), is a fission product with a half-life of 4.76 years.
    it has a low fission product yield, about half of one percent as much as the most abundant fission products.

    Cerium-139 (ce-139), with a half-life of 137.640 days

    Antimony-125 (Sb-125),has a half-life of 2.75856 years,

    Cesium-137(Cs-137),has a half-life of about 30.17 years, is a radioactive
    isotope of caesium which is formed as one of the more common fission
    products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235

    Cesium-134 (Cs-134) has a half-life of 2.0652 years.

    Cobalt-56 (Co-56), has a half-life of 77.27 days

    Decay chain

    —- end quoting from Vital1’s input @

    • diemos says:

      “A significant amount of Thorium-234 was also detected, so I would have expected there to be lot more Uranium-238 to be present.”

      Some isotopes are easier to see than others because they are “brighter”. Where “brighter” means that they put out more gammas per decay than others.
      U-238 only emits a gamma during 0.074% of decays.
      0.064% of the time at 49.55 keV
      0.01% of the time at 113 keV
      Th-234 emits a gamma during 10.6% of decays
      4.8% of the time at 63.29 keV
      2.8 % of the time at 92.38 keV
      2.77 % of the time at 92.8 keV
      0.277 % of the time at 112.8 keV
      0.079 % of the time at 83.3 keV

      So even though we should expect there to be equal Becquerels of U-238 and Th-234 in the sample the Th-234 is 143 times “brighter” than U-238 and thus easier to see above the background fluctuations.

  28. MVB says:

    July 21, 2015 – Left comment at ENEnews Re. Vital1’s input. Here’s a copy of the exchange:


    MVB: @ Vital1 – Thank you !!! Awesome you put the time into making that data more digestible.

    I copy-pasted your comment and added it to my orignal post, under

    What I was mostly looking for is tell-tale signs of ongoing fission. Is Co56, with a half-life of about 2 months and 2 weeks, the closest to proof of that in the lichen data?

    And is the reason you don’t list the other ones, like I131, because the uncertainty is larger than the ‘measured value’?

    I-131 @ 2.20E-02 +- 5.03E-02 pCi/g
    translated to SI units:
    I-131 @ 8.14 Bq/Kg +- 18.61 Bq/Kg
    meaning somewhere in the range from -10.47 Bq/kg (below zero: uncertainty includes possibility it wasn’t in the sample) to + 26.75 Bq/Kg, which would be a spectacular high reading.

    I interpreted that as ‘detected’, but unquantifiable. Or at the very least, “more likely that it was in there than that it wasn’t”.

    Would be interesting and helpful to present the isotope data like you did, but for all of the listed isotopes and with the uncertainty bars included, and MDA and CL levels indicated too.

    MVB: As far as the unknowns goes, the 77.06 keV is a strong signal (2390 counts +- 194 over background of 1262 counts. I amateur-style “linked” that to Antimony-122. What do you think? There’s nothing at 121.9 keV, though. ;-/ Does that mean Sb-122 can be ruled out?

    More even so for the strong signal of 46.40 keV @ 4450 counts +- 220, over a BKD of 1140 counts. Californium-253 ? No other gammas listed for Cf-253… That one’s a precursor to Plutonium-241…

    Anyone chip in?

    (The samples will be forwarded to a university for further testing. The short-lived isotopes will be gone already, but perhaps others can be confirmed with better sensitivity. If anything is discovered, I’ll post about it.)

    MVB: On the lichen unknowns:

    (Repeat from above:)

    Gamma Spectroscopy Raw Data Lichen Sample
    !-> @

    Gamma Spectroscopy Raw Data Rainwater Sample

    Original post (with disclaimer-nuance added):


    Vital1: July 22, 2015 at 12:21 am Log in to Reply

    @ MVB, “What I was mostly looking for is tell-tale signs of ongoing fission. Is Co56, with a half-life of about 2 months and 2 weeks, the closest to proof of that in the lichen data?”

    Europium-155 (Eu-155), is a fission product with a half-life of 4.76 years.
    It has a low fission product yield, about half of one percent as much as the most abundant fission products.

    It is the mostly isotope candidate to indicate ongoing fission.

    Why? Because it is produced in such small amounts compared to Cesium, and it was detected.


    “Is the reason you don’t list the other ones, like I131, because the uncertainty is larger than the ‘measured value’?”

    Yes, I focused on the positively statistical detected isotopes in the Lichen test.


    “As far as the unknowns goes, the 77.06 keV is a strong signal”

    More likely to be from Lead Pb-212 X-ray, Lead Pb-212 was detected in the Lichen test. Look at the Lead Pb-212 X-ray data here.


    Vital1: “More even so for the strong signal of 46.40 keV”

    Lead Pb-210 (Half Life 22 yrs, 46.5 keV) is the decay daughter of Radon-222. Your Colorado radioactive rain detection decayed quickly, in hours. This it suggest that what produced the high uSv/hr levels was a large radon washout event.

    Pb-210 would be left behind.

    December Rain Swab Test Chart:

    Here is a 8th December 2014 rain swab off the bonnet of a car. The activity was ~ 1,600 CPM using the Theremino SBT-10 Pancake Geiger counter kit. The rain swab was immediately placed it in the scintillator test chamber. Lots of Radon-222 decay daughter activity Pb-210, Pb-214 and Bi-214 were detected. Look to the top of the chart to see the isotope peak, identification markers.

    The grey line at the bottom of the page is test chamber background.

    Vital 1 (July 22, 2015): December 2014 Rain Water Test Report, ( Location Australia)

    Here is a rain water filter test after the short lived Radon-222 decay daughters have been given time to decay away. If present, if you don’t let the short lived Radon-222 decay daughters decay away, they can swamp the test results. Once they have, you can then test the sample to see what else may have been washed out in the rain.


    Lead Pb-210 and Beryllium Be-7, plus significant amounts of of Radon-222 and Radon-220 decay daughters were detected in the rain water and Rain swab tests.

    Rain Filter Test Chart (The chart is minus background.)

    In this chart I have CPS on the Y axis to show activity, and have turned off Y log to show linear scaling. It is on a scale at less than one decay detection every 1000+ seconds, near the bottom of the chart. This is only a test chart of the polyester part of the rain water filter system design.

    The large spike in the rain swab test chart is an X-ray from Radon-222 decay daughter, Lead Pb-214.


  29. vital1 says:

    @ MVB, here is an alternative analysis using the view that you need three sigma of the normal distribution, to classify it as an isotope detection.

    Isotopes classified as being detected,

    Data used to create the 3 x sigma version of the chart

    I would suggest asking the lab that tested these samples for you, to provide detailed information on the test equipment used, plus details on the shielding they had in place during testing.

    The screen shot of the lichen test chart you have on the lichen test has a lots of peaks markers in it, but they don’t seem to match up with the data provided, no matter how I process it.

    If they could provide a minus background test chart screen shot with isotope peak markers on the X axis, and total counts or cps on the Y axis, it would help clarify the test results.

    The finer points of lichen testing.

    • diemos says:

      We know that soil contains naturally occurring U-238 and Th-232 so we should not be surprised to see the decay products of those parents.

      Of the isotopes that are observed;
      Ac-228, Pb-212, Bi-212 and Tl-208 are all part of the Th-232 decay chain.
      Th-234, Pb-214 and Bi-214 are all part of the U-238 decay chain.

      K-40 is a naturally occurring isotope.

      Be-7 is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere and falling to earth.

      Only the Cs-137 is a product of the atomic age.

      There were three main events that released Cs-137 to the environment:
      above ground atomic testing of the 50’s and 60’s
      plus a number of other smaller releases.

      The ratio of Cs-134 to Cs-137 can give you information about how long ago the release took place since Cs-134 decays away faster than Cs-137.
      A fresh release should have a ratio of about 1.0
      The initial Fukushima release should have a ratio of about 0.25 by now
      The Chernobyl release should have a ratio of about 0.00006 by now
      The atmospheric testing release should have a ratio of about 0.000000004 by now

      The ratio from your test is 0.022+/-0.0189 / 1.15+/-0.0548 = 0.019 +/- 0.016
      So that ratio is inconsistent with all your Cs-137 being from Fukushima by 14 sigma (0.25-0.019) / 0.016 and perfectly consistent with it coming from an older release.

      Most likely, given your location, is that the majority of the Cs-137 you are detecting is courtesy of your own US federal government and their above ground testing of the 50’s and 60’s.

      The recent measurements of pacific seawater off the west coast have the correct ratio to be from the fukushima release, as we would expect.

  30. Pingback: Mainland USA June 14 2015 Radioactive Rain & Lichen Data Revisited – A More Balanced Analysis. + Strontium Data! | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  31. MVB says:

    !!!–> See the July 30, 2015 blog post for the reassessment @ Mainland USA June 14 2015 Radioactive Rain & Lichen Data Revisited – A More Balanced Analysis. + Strontium Data!


  32. Pingback: Synopsis / Improved Version: ‘Mainland USA June 14 2015 Radioactive Rain & Lichen Data Revisited’. | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  33. Pingback: Iridescent Clouds (Southern Colorado, Sept 28, 2015) | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  34. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  35. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  36. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  37. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  38. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  39. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  40. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  41. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  42. Pingback: A – WOWZA MIX: Why does Cesium-137 increase in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer, CONFIRMED / Some Finnish DATA / & !!!-> Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly Apparent Blo

  43. Pingback: A Mix: Music Videos, Radiation Data, Ponderings: Cs-137 increases in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer: CONFIRMED , Some Finnish DATA / + (!!!) Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly App

  44. Pingback: A Mix: Music Videos, Radiation Data, Ponderings: Cs-137 increases in Winter? / Cobalt-60 as a Fukushima Tracer: CONFIRMED , Some Finnish DATA / + (!!!) Complete Cs137/Cs134/I131/Co60/K40/Be7 Record for Radiation Monitor @ CERN, Switzerland | Allegedly App

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

  46. Pingback: Any Thorium-231 in Fukushima Fallout ? | Allegedly Apparent Blog

Comments are closed.