EURDEP Radiation Monitor Rigging through Systematic Omissions Continues… / + With 6 Years of Radiation Data graphed for Ritsem, Sweden / (NEW (Public) Record High reached in Sept 2015)

Alamosa, Colorado (USA) — Sept 29, 2015

genetically deformed daisies in the Fukushima region

The happy face of nuclear fission power generation’s “peaceful use'” consequences includes genetic mutations, such as this genetically deformed daisy in the Fukushima region.

Every now and then I still glance various online radiation monitors.

The European Commission’s system, EURDEP, with its IAEA-written data processing software continues to fascinate…

How is it possible that in a cluster of nations that pride themselves on relatively well-functioning democracies, with a fairly well-educated middle class, and various independent oversight bodies, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an organization that’s actively involved in promoting “the peaceful use” of nuclear energy, is somehow allowed to be involved in the monitoring system?  The fox guarding the hen house?  (Obviously because pro-nuclear interests have infiltrated and subverted the very fabric of these societies… imo.)

The EURDEP monitoring system is voluntary, and strikingly: it does not include an alarm function.  It just sits there.  Besides me every now and then, who’s actually ‘monitoring the monitors’?   On their website, it states clearly that EURDEP is joined with “a gentlemen’s agreement” (meaning not binding legally, zero consequences for ignoring the agreement) of continuing to provide data in case of an emergency:

What is the use of such an agreement when the data processing software itself is configured to hide emergencies in the first place?

What is the use of such an agreement when the data processing software itself is configured to hide emergencies in the first place?

As I’ve said on this blog before, I’m under the impression that EURDEP is programmed, however, to turn its public data stream OFF when anything may be hinting of an emergency!   (I think the people who set it up that way ought to be arrested.  But that’s just me.  I can think whatever I want.  Obviously if some illustrious ‘they’ doesn’t like what I have to say, they’ can make my blog pretty much invisible to the world anyhow…)

Once you know that data gaps might hide something significant, you don’t just check on the monitor dots that are colored for a higher value, but also check monitors that show minimum-level colors.  Those often show the data gaps!   And the data gaps may be more of a hint of fallout than anything else.

To illustrate what I’m talking about, here’s two composite screenshots that show data gaps in one place corresponding with spikes elsewhere, which suggests the data gap hides what would otherwise have been a spike as well, perhaps a very unusually high one.

An example of gamma ray upticks at ground level in one area in the Netherlands corresponding with data gaps elsewhere, in Sept. 2013.

An example of gamma ray upticks at ground level in one area in the Netherlands corresponding with data gaps elsewhere, in Sept. 2013.

Example from The Netherlands shown, left: a weeklong data gap in Braakman corresponds with significant upticks during roughly the same period in Vlissingen Haven, while one spike in Braakman corresponds with a data gap at Vlissingen Haven.  Seemingly random “glitch dots” at Braakman in the preceding weeks, as well as seemingly insignificant upticks at Vlissingen were likely early signs of radioactive clouds blowing over higher up (with only heavier particles reaching ground level), only affecting ground monitors when radioactive particles come in direct contact with a monitor.

These brief and often relatively benign-looking gamma dose increases suggest a practically irrelevant risk increase, yet frequent and cumulative exposure to such radioactively contaminated air and precipitation is certain to negatively affect ever more people over the following decades, particularly since most fallout emits beta and alpha radiation (which is actually more harmful when ingested/inhaled), rather than the much-further-traveling gamma radiation which is being monitored for most widely by governments.  Why would the more relevant beta and alpha radiation monitoring be kept to an absolute minimum, unless the whole point of the monitoring network is ultimately to make it easier to deceive the public in times of emergency?    You know what I mean?   That the IAEA was involved in writing the data processing software can hardly be a coincidence, or would it?

Slow downs in downwind-Fukushima jet stream wind patterns often correspond with radiation upticks and, strikingly, data gaps. Above: an example from Alaska in June 2015.

Slow downs in downwind-Fukushima jet stream wind patterns often correspond with radiation upticks and, strikingly, data gaps. Above: an example from Alaska in June 2015.

It’s the same in the United States:   US EPA monitors are systematically turned off (showing data gaps on the public interface online) during times that significant upticks could be expected.

On the right is an example from Alaska that shows that right during upticks on the Alaska coast (@ Anchorage), there’s data gaps inland (@ Fairbanks), where – due to more turbulance – higher upticks would be most likely right then.

Next, I’ll pick some EURDEP monitors and see if anything can be found.  First some more repetition (from my Nuclear Blog Post Archive):

!–> To better gauge the significance of such tiny gamma upticks, however, check these two blog posts:

Sampling some EURDEP DATA graphs:

RITSEM, SWEDEN

EURDEP_map_NorthernAtlantic_monitorsCHecked_Sept29_2015GammaNOTICE: Most of the data is ‘not validated’ and the folks at the European Commission who apparently think it is just dandy to censor radiation information when it matters most would like us to accept their word for it that no matter what is shown, it would not indicate an accident (See their disclaimer @ http://eurdepweb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EurdepMap/Disclaimer.aspx.)

Here’s my DISCLAIMER…

  • I’ll start with creating a long-term graphed record for Ritsem, Northern Sweden (picked for being both far north in relatively pristine air far away from big industry and higher up in the mountains), marked on the map above), which has been streaming data for the public, albeit sprinkled with data gaps, since July 9, 2009.  So, below, we can now look at just over 6 years of data.  I plotted the graphs with the settings for Gamma External Radiation,  ‘1 month prior to’ the 28th of a month @ 23:59 UTC’ (one minute before midnight on the 28th, so it doesn’t give me error messages for Februaries), digitally/manually pasted together to show 3 months per line, with my annotations added (large red arrow-triangles indicate the beginning of a data gap):

Ritsem_20 Ritsem_19-> As you can see above, already two weeks right after data streaming began, there was a data gap, then a significant uptick on August 10, 2009, which reached mid-way between the orange line of 210 nSv/hr and the 240 nSv/hr line (225 nSv/h-ish) and two very brief data gaps in the following two months.    (I added the blue and orange lines for summertime reference.)

After those brief data gaps, a period of 7 months followed with no spikes nor data gaps whatsoever.   Except for early February, there are practically no disturbances during the snow-covered winter months…

Ritsem_18Late winter into spring 2010, below.  Look at thát:  I pressume that “normal clean winter air in a snowy landscape” would look like this: practically no disturbances whatsoever, followed by a quick melt in mid-May:

Ritsem_17

In summer 2010, there are a series of disturbances from mid-June to early August, with two data gaps within the same period.  Some, or perhaps most, of the disturbances may be natural radon-progeny rainouts:

Ritsem_16I am convinced, however, that a very significant release of radioactive particles & gasses occured in 2010.  Given the “fallout signatures”, I suspect it happened in May or June 2010, with the consequences of that reaching ground level the following half year.

I’m not sure which accident this would have been, but I did find this possibility, mentioned in, Jan 27, 2012, The Telegraph (UK), “China denies nuclear accident”, from which I quote (my empasis added):

“[…] China has never experienced a major nuclear accident, although there have been small leaks of radiation from some of its nuclear power stations. The last occurred in May 2010 in Shenzhen in southern China‘s Guangdong Province at the Daya Bay plant, the oldest of China’s 13 operational nuclear reactors. Managers at the plant failed to inform the public of the leak until three weeks later. Subsequently, Beijing denied that radiation had escaped but it was confirmed by a Hong Kong power company with a share in Daya Bay.[…]”

If that’s the culprit, then I suspect that May 2010 Chinese nuclear accident might have been quite significant, perhaps even a partial or full meltdown.

In the long-term record of my 4-part series, suggestive evidence points to far-more-frequent-than-publicly-admitted significant radioactive releases have obviously been happening well before March 2011.   See these blog posts for more:

This unsettled 2010 summer was followed by a couple more days with disturbances here and there, including a significant uptick in mid-September 2010 (which reached also mid-way between 210 and 240 nSv/h), and then a series of many long data gaps, starting mid-October 2010:

Ritsem_15That situation (of an unsettled baseline mixed with data gaps continues until early February 2011:

Ritsem_14

All appears, albeit very briefly, back to quiet in snow-covered Ritsem…

Then on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear catastrophe begins in Japan.  It is very obvious from scrutinizing the long-term patterns, that it takes awhile, months and even many years,  for the magnitude of a release to become apparent on a ground monitor that measures merely for gamma radiation…

After 3 days there is a small drop, possible a calibration adjustment in preparation of expected fallout clouds.  A blip of an uptick is seen on March 21.  And then a larger whiff probably hit ground level in mid-April 2011, as evidenced by the 4-day data gap:

Ritsem_13(On the other side of the Atlantic, in May 2011, the US EPA declares the disaster is over, no “levels of concern” have been reached and they return to ‘routine’ sampling, abandoning the extra monitoring of precipitation…)

Disturbances here and there, including a few upticks (again up to mid-way between 210 and 240 nanoSievert per hour) and a significant two-week data gap in July 2011:

Ritsem_12Upticks reach the 225 nSv/h midpoint region at least three times during autumn 2011, amidst choppiness:

Ritsem_11Snow begins to shield the ground, yet a continued choppiness is apparent:

Ritsem_10

Spring’s snow melt is not visible in 2012, as a massive 9 MONTH DATA GAP obscures what was taking place from mid-March 2012 all the way into December 2012, hiding the entire summer of 2012:

Ritsem_9_LittleData

Some minor unsetlledness following the end of January 2013, and then again very frequent data gaps in spring 2013:

Ritsem_8 Ritsem_7

How high the summer 2013 spikes would have gone remains a mystery, just like during summer 2012, as an even longer data gap ensued, this one OVER A YEAR, from June 9, 2013 all the way into mid-July 2014, the following year:

Ritsem_6_noDataBack online, data gaps continue, with a few upticks, one reaching just above that mid-way point, showing a value ABOVE 225 nSv/hr for the first time in early September 2014:

Ritsem_5The major uptick observed over the Mediterranean and especially in Germany in mid-November 2014 (which I traced back to ongoing releases from Fukushima) is not visible this far north, at least not on this monitor, but the (covered-up, officially denied) major radiation release from the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP) in Ukraine surely shut down the data stream for this monitor for part of November 29-30, 2014:

Ritsem_4Most of the winter remains a mix of somewhat choppy/unsettled, and quiet weeks as well:

Ritsem_3 Ritsem_2-> A mostly quiet spring 2015…  After the snow melted at the end of May 2015, first all remains very quiet, as if the worst is behind us.

At the end of July one significant uptick almost reached that mid-way point.  In summer 2015, the first full summer that most data is shared with the public again since 2011, there’s just 3 very short data gaps.

Then, a new record spike on Sept 18-19, 2015: touching the 240 nSv/h line for the first time, followed a week later by another uptick:

Ritsem_1

That public-allowed-to-see new record high took place less than two weeks ago.

It’s Sept 29, 2015…

And the beat goes on…

My conclusion remains the same as it has been for awhile:  EURDEP is rigged to hide data that would indicate the seriousness of a radiological emergency.  This has been going on for many years prior to Fukushima, likely since the Chernobyl nuclear accident of spring 1986, when the IAEA shifted into public relations overdrive to hide the awful truth of the misguided technology it has been pushing since its inception in the 1950s…

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.”
– Albert Einstein

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

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.

5 Responses to EURDEP Radiation Monitor Rigging through Systematic Omissions Continues… / + With 6 Years of Radiation Data graphed for Ritsem, Sweden / (NEW (Public) Record High reached in Sept 2015)

  1. MVB says:

    PS: (Because this was rather time-consuming (took an entire evening), I didn’t graph for other locations.

  2. diemos says:

    Fascinating post.

    That snow cover would provide shielding from ground shine is one of those things that’s obvious in retrospect but had never occurred to me.

    It’s a pity that they haven’t had this running for 50 years. You could use the date of the spring melt over time to track climate change.

    It’s also interesting to note that the radon washout blips disappear during the snow covered period. The cold and the snow cover should retard that flow of radon from the ground into the atmosphere and stop those from happening as often.

    So it’s likely that your little blip 11 days after fukushima is actual fallout passing by since it has the right timing and the snow cover should make radon washouts unlikely.

    Also interesting is the actual level of external gamma at that location. 210 nSv/hr is on the high end of normal. I typically get 55 nSv/hr at sea level on the US west coast where I live. Those levels are Denver-ish.

    That sensor is in a Chernobyl fallout region and it would be interesting to see what fraction of that is coming from Cs-137 ground contamination.

    • MVB says:

      Thanks for you comment.

      Ritsem is at 543 metres (1781 feet). So, due to the elevation, you’re naturally already going to see higher levels than at sea level. Add to that that the monitors internationally, just like between differing Geiger Counters, are not calibrated the same, so some data variation is there for same radiation levels, I think.

      Chernobyl’s fallout deposition occured further south n central Sweden, not in Ritsem at all, see the maps of my fallout deposition comparisson of Fukushima 2011 versus Chernobyl 1986 @ http://wp.me/puwO9-SB (Fukushima hasn’t stopped leakin, so those maps are no longer accurate, though.)

  3. Pingback: The Chinese Meltdown at Daya Bay NPP in May 2010 | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

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