Another Round of Looking into Recent Radiological Disturbaces.

DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong about anything or everything.


This blog post is an incomplete mixture of random possibly related observations…   (+ my unanswered letter to Ken Buesseler from back in July!)

The more I’ve looked at the last month’s radiation data from all over the place, the less confident I feel about declaring, “It’s from Fukushima again!“.  It could be.  But is it really?  Could I get a bit less uncertainty about where the most significant upticks might have come from?  

To do so, I’m going to have to delve into it a bit deeper, with more radiation graphs, and with perhaps also adjusting Nullschool wind maps over many days for several areas, also looking at independent networks, and spend many hours pondering over it all to come closer to an idea of where the air, assumed to have been delivering radioactive particles that most likely caused these very significant recent radiation upticks, could be coming from.

For context of what I’m wondering about, see these previous several blog posts (and at this time of posting this privately, I’m really just giving myself notes in an attempt to get a grasp of the broad data picture myself.):

There’s my page from where Nullschool for wind and other meteorological data as well as various worldwide Online Radiation Monitors are easily checked.  And then these recent posts about the upticks at the end of September, and at several spike times in October, running into the very beginning of November now too:

Hm… Quite the blogging spree for having “quit blogging”… ;-/ 

All these posts above were written between Oct 19 and Nov 7 (2015) and contain snapshots of sometimes peculiar (albeit not always ‘validated’) graphed radiation data from the official monitoring networks of the United States (US EPA Radnet), the data exchange platform of the European Commission (EURDEP) and Japan.

Now, part of my curiosity also stems from the appearance that whatever was spewing radioactive particles in September-October (2015) is not done yet.  (This is part of the reason I suspect Fukushima-Daiichi, ’cause if it doing what I think it is doing, then intermittent releases could go on for centuries to come…  But that aside.)

Problem is: I don’t really know where to start.  There are too many upticks to pick a distinct ‘one main uptick’…  For instance, would I use the Data Gap of Luxemburg as a reference?

Junglinster_Lux_the Oct2015DataGapOr does the earlier-starting data gap off the northcoast of Northern Germany, which also lasted longer, suggest that fallout was more pronounced there?

NorthernGermany_offCoast_nearDenmark_and_Sweden_UnvalidatedNov7_2015GammaSpikeOr should I work from “a glitch dot”, like the one that struck a monitor in Hungary on Oct. 25:HungarianSpike_Oct25_2015 Or shall I run with the earlier glitch dot from south-central Germany, Oct. 15, which even preceded the Luxembourg data gap…?Muehlheim.Kaerlich_Germany_weekPreOct2015_spikeWithinDisturbance_ValidatedThe “glitch dot” uptick from Halsteren, The Netherlands, occured on the 24th?  Part of he same cloud that affected many monitors the 25 through the 27th?

Halstern_NL_Spike_EndOct2015_EURDEPSome of those really could be brief instrument errors, though…  Weird flukes do happen with sensitive elctronics sometimes.

Shall I ignore the smaller earlier ones and just focus on the most significant uptick?  And what if the latest upticks just keeps getting bigger?

On the American side of the Atlantic, for instance, many monitors are showing much greater upticks this past first week of November, rather than in the last two weeks of October.  In Juneau, South-Eastern Alaska, the uptick was most pronounced on Nov. 2:

Juneau_3weekspriorToNovember8.2015_G3onlyAt the southern end of the Great Lakes in Illinois, in Chicago, the most pronoucd upticks happened on October 28 and at the end of Haloween:Chicago_Oct16_24_2015_G3I seriously wonder:  What the hell is going on?  SOMETHING UNUSUAL is setting of monitors all over the world.

I could even go all the way south, across the equator, to Australia and check‘s October and latest November data, where peculiarities have been observed as well:

Cairns-Caloundra-comparison-for-October-2015Like elsewhere, it looks like the next wave is bigger, with many days in a row of “Alert Levels” being reached, for that location the first time since last spring… Look how it begins to show signs of rising in mid-October, with the first (daily average) peaks just after Oct. 25 again, and then múch more in this past week (first week of November):

Caloundra-local-average-background-radiation-levels-October-2015_annot So – bad habits die hard – I swung by ENEnews, where I read some comments on the Post Your Radiation Data Forum, like this is one, mentioning the above data too:

How Northern Hemispheric air could get so fast to the Southern Hemisphere leaves me puzzled, though…

Next, I went to to see if the data there could provide any more clues about Vital1‘s alleged uptick period 10/20-25…

(Very cool how good this independent network has become, definitely improved since last time I visited.  Check out their blog, where they also write about their recent server update in September.)   

Turkey may be showing the highest spikes at the end of October (true for the batch I checked), but will that help me figure out WHERE EXACTLY this is coming from?  But I spoted something unusual…

Istabul_Oct8_Nov8_2015_uRadmonitor.comThere’s this very distinct period (I’ve put ’em in pink dotted-line boxes)… EastWenatchee_WA_Oct8_Nov8_2015_uRadmon Brasil_Oct8_Nov8_2015_uRadmonitorThis ‘event’, with massive swings that show up as the denser green patch, wih higher highs and lower lows,  lasted roughly from October 20th, 11am till October 23, 4pm.  Obviously, with this being observed globally, there’s no way that this particular aspect of the radiation graphs is fallout-related.

I find the EXACT same timing worldwide: between 11:11 and 11:15 am on Oct. 22, 2015, ALL urad monitors worldwide appear to somehow get ‘aggitated’, with wide swings and here and there significant upticks.  The timing is the same in Norway as in California and elsewhere:

Oct20NorwayCoast PasadenaCAYou can look around, it’s always within that ballpark, roughly right around 11:12 am.  Strange…

  • Clearly, thát Oct 22-24 global simultaneous disturbance is NOT “something in the Middle East or Black Sea”.
  • And wouldn’t a highly unusual Solar Event show up on some of the data sets, such as found on SolarHam or even be mentioned on Spaceweather or by NASA/SDO?  I found nothing.
  • So… Is it uRadMonitor itself?   I zoomed in on the data and found that during his period, there’s not the usual 12 data points per hour (showing 5 minute averages), but perhaps 120 or so data points per hour:  30-second averages.  That’s all there is too that one.  And when you get that, you see more of the variation, including lulls and very brief spikes.  If you’re looking for fallout patterns, higher resolution can be better, but not necessarily.  I didn’t find anything on their blog, but, as they stated in mid-September, “…With the network spreading at a fast pace, periodic upgrades on the server side…” might have included processing the data differently in an experimental mode.  It did not affect the averages.  It just looks like “an event, with spikes”, but as far as uradmonitor goes, it may just have been a software setting kind of thing:

Hungary_3hours_numberOfDataPointsSo, that takes that off the investigation map.  Unfortunately that means that as far as that distinct period goes, uradmonitor’s data actually doesn’t come in handy this time, as it has 2 types of data sets during the same period (5-minute averages and what looks like 30-second averages), making it hard to figure out what was truly unusual.

Nice distraction, though.  I’m impressed with their work.  Maybe someday I’ll have a monitor that’s part of a network like that as well. 

Back to wondering…

I’m going to look at Alpha & Beta data from  Poland, and Radon (220 + 222) & Beta from the JRC monitor 7 in Northern Italy.  No, actually… I’m not.  I’m going to use my time differently tonite.   I’m okay not knowing.


Another time, another inspiration…

IF… just running a scenario… IF Spent Fuel Pool #4 truly went up in smoke, and much of Reactor 3’s inventory airosolized in the complete meltdown and explosion, then the decay daughters of Plutonium-238, etc. would need to become detectable over the years these particles slowly find their way back from the upper atmosphere to which they rose, hot and volitile as they were.   And in the not impossibe case that Fukushima is still having fission-flare-ups, some of its melted-down fuel will also be released in gaseous form off and on, I would think. : “[…] Most of the fuel mass in a reactor is uranium-238By neutron capture and two successive beta decays, U-238 becomes plutonium-239 (Pu-239), which, by successive neutron capture, becomes plutonium-240, plutonium-241, plutonium-242 and (after further beta decays) other transuranic or actinide nuclides. Pu-239 and Pu-241 are fissile, like U-235. Small quantities of U-236, Np-237 and Pu-238 are formed similarly from U-235. […]”

Decay chain of Plutonium-238, with along its decay chain some of the isotopes EURDEP tests for, including: Uranium-234 (which is also naturally ocurring), Thorium-230, Radium-226, Radon-222, Polonium-218, Lead-214, Bismuth-214, Polonium-214, Lead-210, Bismuth-210, Polonium-210 and ending with stable Lead-206:


The “all natural Polonium-210” is one of the lies (or at least a half-lie) propagated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  It’s unfortunate that an institution of that projected calliber doesn’t have the balls to investigate more deeply, instead they apparently seem to cover for the nuclear industry. ;-(


On that first underlining, how do the Po-210 data compare to pre-Fukushima normal concentrations?  (Data is nowhere to be found on the WHOI’s site that I can tell)   And is it really too much to ask that they would add the nuance, clarifying that various decay chains of uranium, neptunium and plutonium isotopes result in additional amounts of all these “naturally occuring” isotopes?  On the Sr-90 issue. Who cares that the levels of Sr-90 are much lower than the levels of Cs-137, when much lower levels of Sr-90 can actually still be more harmful over time?  This is nuclear propaganda-style wording at its most scientific sounding, but, sadly, it’s still basically deceptive propaganda.

!-> For some additional background / insights, see also my blog posts,

This reminds me of my last email to Ken Buesseler of WHOI on July 11, 2015, after which I have yet to hear from him again.  I guess after 4 months of silence, I might as well share the email he’s left unanswered:

  • From: Michael Van Broekhoven
  • To: Ken Buesseler
  • July 11, 2015 @ 11:46 AM Mountain Time
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Another Round of Looking into Recent Radiological Disturbaces.

  1. Pingback: Recap of Oct.-Nov. 2015 Major Radiation Event. Ongoing? | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

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

  3. Pingback: Was Helsinki’s Cs-137 “Localized Garage Waste Leak” A Decoy For Hemisphere-Wide Fallout Upticks? Fukushima? EURDEP/Nullschool DATA + (Some Nuclear Occult Links) | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  4. Pingback: Fukshima Full-On China Syndrome, Still Fissioning! Just Another Opinion-Ramble, Sprinkled with Data (+ Possible Correction on Recent German Spikes; & Obama in Hiroshima – 2) | 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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.