Alamosa, Colorado (USA) — Sept 29, 2015
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:
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.
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?
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:
- !-> The Dose Deception – Why 0.20 µSv/hr (from fallout) can be far more dangerous than 2.00 µSv/hr (from cosmic rays). The inverse square law for ionizing radiation illustrated.
- !-> Gaging Recent Radiation Spikes: How do the Recent Gamma Upticks Compare to those Observed after Chernobyl?
Sampling some EURDEP DATA graphs:
NOTICE: 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):
-> 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…
Late 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:
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:
I 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:
- Jan. 21, 2015: Years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ “Schauinsland / Freiburg, Germany ” — (Part 4 of 4)
- Jan. 19, 2015: Four years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ ‘Raufalhöfn, Iceland’ – Long Term Pattern Spotting – (Part 3 of 4)
- Jan. 18, 2015: Four years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ ‘Gaevle (Gävle), Sweden’ – Long Term Pattern Spotting – (Part 2 of 4)
- Jan. 17, 2015: Four years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ ‘Vlissingen Haven’, The Netherlands – Long Term Pattern Spotting – (Part 1 of 4 )
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:
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:
(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:
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:
Some minor unsetlledness following the end of January 2013, and then again very frequent data gaps in spring 2013:
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:
The 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:
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:
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —