DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong about anything or everything.
Read my FULL DISCLAIMER .
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:
- Nov 7 2015 – 24- and 48-Hour-Data Delay / Gaps Being Imposed in many EURDEP Countries. Cs-137 upticks in Finland
- ALERT – Major Radiological Disturbances in Northern Hemisphere. (October 2015)
- EURDEP: Of Data Gaps the Sound of One Maroon Dot… (Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Latvia, Sweden, Finland DATA)
- EURDEP: 48 hrs versus 1 month data: Finding the Data Outages
- Some more EURDEP observations (March + Oct 2015) from Finland, Norway, Iceland, Germany and Croatia
- Detected in Helsinki Finland late October 2015: Cesium-134 & 137, Actinium-225 & 227, Cobalt-60. + Detected in Hamburg, Germany: Zirconium-97.
- EURDEP data suggests something serious happened. Aside from data gaps and data delays, highest radiation levels in at least one year observed in many parts of Europe…
- Some Recent Peculiarities at EURDEP’s ‘STATION 9’ in Northern Italy
- EURDEP – a snapshot of ongoing disturbances…
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?
Or should I work from “a glitch dot”, like the one that struck a monitor in Hungary on Oct. 25: Or shall I run with the earlier glitch dot from south-central Germany, Oct. 15, which even preceded the Luxembourg data gap…?The “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?
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:
At 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:I 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 http://sccc.org.au/archives/2630‘s October and latest November data, where peculiarities have been observed as well:
Like 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):
How Northern Hemispheric air could get so fast to the Southern Hemisphere leaves me puzzled, though…
Next, I went to uradmonitor.com 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…
This ‘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:
- 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:
So, 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel : “[…] Most of the fuel mass in a reactor is uranium-238. By 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,
- “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.” and “K-40 versus Cs-137 in
- Why 150 Bq Cs-137 is health-hazardous, while 150 Bq* K-40 is RECOMMENDED for health“
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:
In response to,
“>I have replied to you before, and I’ve seen Georg Steinhauser’s detailed response last time to your concerns. I have not seen that you have considered his comments.“
Re. the Co-60 in one of my kelp samples, George believes that’s most likely from a medical dump. It’s assumed that due to the lack of Cs-134/137 in that kelp sample, that it’s not from Fukushima. I understand that train of thought, but I’m not so sure. I do not know how these isotopes maybe behave differently in air and water, or how they move through the ecosystem. I don’t exclude the possibility that the assumption that there must be Cesium in it for it to be from Fukushima is per se correct. I think this is perhaps one of those arena were lots of discoveries can still be made. Certainly not ignoring his input. It IS a possibility, and one perhaps even worth exploring. If you ever explore the area around Kubui, Hokkaido, perhaps you you find the barrels leaking with Co60? I described everything I could find about my samples in https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/radioisotope-analysis-hokkaido-japan-kelp-safe-radioactive-food-pacific-ocean/
But what I find odd is that TEPCO never even mentioned Co60 until August 2013, with 1,200,000 Bq/m^3 Co-60 measured in water that had leaked from a “tank, which contains processed, concentrated water from which Cesium has been removed“. See, if one of those Cesium-devoid highly polluted tanks had a huge leak, you absolutely could end up with upticks of isotopes without an uptick in Cesium. That’s one of several possibilities to end up with Co60 without Cs134, I think. I’m just sharing my thoughts. I hope you’ll consider them as well.
Now, the question I asked you, which you left unanswered, was:
“Have you assumed Po-210 and stable lead levels/ratios would remain the same and not tested for it? Have you been testing for Po-210 and Pb-206 levels?”
That was the question you seemingly ignored. Po210 is all over decay chains of what we know leaked. It’s logical that you’d detect upticks and unusual ratios. Yet you’ve made statements to the media about “naturally occurring Po210” without, as far as I’ve seen, pointing out that Po210 may be artificially added as well, creating “enhanced natural” levels. See, I’m hesitant to get involved with your otherwise really good sounding research due to statements like,
“the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays.” (on http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=127297 ).
That last part doesn’t sit right with me either. What doses are you comparing? When you ingest the emitting source, there’s additional effects, some that may not show up until decades later. It just can’t be compared to an X-ray dose like that. Those are the kinds of sound bites I’d expect from someone who’s part on the cover-up and as such diverts attention away from some rather damning aspects. Not accusing you of that, just letting you know that those are statements that have major holes in them and give the impression you’re not bloody damn serious about exposing the cover-up in all its aspects. I’m sure I can learn a lot from you, but maybe you guys have some blind spots too.
Probably long enough of an email. Thanks for your consideration.
Michaël Van Broekhoven” [end quoted email]
I guess that ended thát conversation… :-/
Po-210 data is not available, but other ones are. Take the network for Bismuth-214 monitoring in Europe, for example. Well, it’s Germany and every now and then a monitor in Lithuania will flicker on and off with some data. (See also my post after the spring 2015 Chernobyl Wildfires, May 2’s “(More ADDITIONS) Bismuth-214 as a Fallout Indicator? Systematic Omissions: More Evidence of EURDEP Hiding Data when it Matters Most…“. That (see insert image) is “the network” for that radioisotope… Better than nothing, or “just Gamma”, that’s for sure.
So, this past week there were upticks on more monitors in Germany than is common. I will graph the last 3 months of data for the circled monitor, Arkona, Germany:
3 months of Bi-214 and Pb-214 side by side, moving in unison (as part of the same decay chain), and mysteriously spiking at the end of the first week of November 2015 (right side of graph):What’s up with that? In the entire year before, values for Bi-214 remain under 6 Bq/m^3. The last time they went over was during the mid-November 2014 upticks that swept much of Europe:
(See: (Jan 2015, re. Nov 2014), “Did Germany just get a Massive Amount of Fukushima Fallout and “No One Noticed”? (A Eurdep-Nullschool investigation of the Nov. 16, 2014 radiation Upticks…)” and the more popular Jan 31, 2015, “DATA of ‘Fallout Signatures’ on Radiation Monitors Suggest Fukushima Still Going Re-Critical Underground At Times. Airborne Fallout Continues To Come Down Across the Northern Hemisphere.” Yeah… these upticks are not new, but they do keep moving into territory that’s unlikely part of natural variability”…
The spike this week, however, reaching over 12 Bq/m^3 Bi-214 is record-breaking for that monitor. The steps in this decay chain are almost all in Alpha and Beta decay modes, so Gamma monitors (which are the most common type of monitor, probably because it gives the least amount of pertinent information…) don’t even pick this up.
This spike in Bi-214/Pb-214 happened not so far from where that FINO 2 monitor is, which also spiked on Nov. 8 (albeit declared ‘not validated’), after a long data gap (second graph at top of this blog post). Perhaps that gives a good location to look at wind maps for… Even if it’s just to switch it up a little…
So… on the Nullschool 1,000 hPa (just above the surface) wind map with precipitable water we see that it’s likey raining or snowing and there isn’t much wind. Wind blows in from the South-West, from over France: A little higher, just wind: 700 hPa shows that the incoming wind is actually pretty much the southern core of the jet stream, which makes an abrupt slow-down right after that monitor location:At jet-stream height, you see the minor slowdown in the bend of the jet stream, you can see the more pronounced slowdown over the Balkans (and perhaps why the Serbia monitoring network is imposing a 48+ hour data delay…?):
And yeah… not saying that’s the origin of the upticks, but isn’t it striking that following that wind-line, it pretty much exactly crosses over Fukushima again? It would take a few days to cover that distance, and the wind line would wiggle a bit, but from browsing through the 24-hour intervals, it looks quite plausible again. Could, of course, also be something in China or Russia even further upwind. Even in Europe. We know (well, I fathom to have a clue…) that when it comes to nuclear matters, even Russia won’t call out the US-installed junta in Ukraine, as was evidenced by their silence when the Zaporizhia nuclear disaster occured and sent out large amounts of radioactivity that left uptick on monitors as far as Iceland and Japan.
If it’s from Fukushima, though, then that does suggest it’s more likely recent releases, possibly véry recent releases, and not stuff from 2011 that’s making it’s way down. And that would make upticks during the same period in Australia rather odd. Unless there’s a a few weeks delay in this, and the upticks in November in Northern Australia correlate with the upticks from a few weeks before in the US, Europe and Japan? For that possibility to gain plausibility, we would need to see even greater uptick in Australia (given wind patterns remain similar to accomodate this North-South air transfer) in the second half of November. (So, we’ll see on that one…)
November 10, 2015, 10am – A quick look at EURDEP (48 hour data) shows only Iceland (I guess the air’s to clean their normally to show how messed up this situation really is… See also the long-term record @ Four years of Radiation Data: EURDEP @ ‘Raufalhöfn, Iceland’ – (Long Term Pattern Spotting) and, somewhat mysteriously, Czech Republic (home of the notoriously leaking PAKS nuclear reactor) still imposing a 48-hour data delay / data gap:
Now that several countries are back online, here are more clues that this is part of a system-built-in deception. In some cases the data is not extreme enough and we get to see it. In other cases, it remains off the record.
Spikes and falout-pattern-like disturbances in Ireland:
Here’s that same data gap in a month of data for some context:Vienna, Austria got a whiff:How high it spiked in much of Turkey is probably “of concern” and thus not visible, so the politicians can keep claiming that no “levels of concern” were ever reached…The data gap in Sweden starts just before Turkey, and you can see the bit of disturbances right after still. With the jet stream in place, making its turn south over Northern Germany and the Baltic states, and then a bend east over Greece… it would need more time to analyze, but it adds to the idea of jet stream delivery:I suppose Lithuania may have gotten a good dosing, going by the data gap record:
I’m on break… Tuesday afternoon 12:44pm… Beautiful sunny weather outside…
I’m might not find out what happened, I think… simply cause I’ve already spent so much time on it and I’m only getting a vague idea about the upticks where and when situation in Europe, not even getting too much of US and Japanese data, let alone running various Nullschool inqueries… Anyways…
Some more data from Europe this past month. (I have this vague sense that if I just keep looking at data from various places some more complete puicture will emerge. Part of the difficulty is that there were 3 or 4 “events’ in the past month, and they occur in varying degrees, sometimes possibly overlapping, for different locations, dependent on geography, weather, and position in relation to the source path.)
How considerate of their government (or the IAEA programmers that set up the data processing software…), but the fine folks of Vilnius, Lithunania were spared the bad data:
Not so sure if they were spared the radioactive pollution in that air, though… Need a hint from their neighbour to the south? Here’ Warsaw, Poland:
Little further north, one of the Latvian monitors that tipped me off about the Zaporizhia NPP accident almost a year ago:
Notice how the two minor “glitch dots” that follow the Oct 26 data gap in Baldone (graph above) correspond with two relatively short data gaps in Jelvaga (next graph). ANd I suppose that last spike after Nov. 8 went a bit “too high for comfort” in nearby Jelvaga, Latvia too:
Further North in Parnu, Estonia, the Oct 23-25, as well as the early November 2015 spikes were relatively brief but very pronounced (double from background):Russia plays nicely along with the IAEA and shows just an uptick after the 25th and a data gap on Nov. 18, and a longer one in the first week of November:
Did Amsterdam in The Netherland apply some kind of “squeeze the data closer together” algorithme on October 22? The later disturbances are clearly showing their mark here too:Belgium’s network, as usual, shows almost nothing. Although the upticks and disturbances are there, they are so minor, no one “in their right mind” will ever be concerned… Same with the UK. Rarely ever is there anything to see. I mean, you can see that after Oct. 25, there’s more higher averages, but it doesn’t look all that unusual:
Knock-Knock! Anybody home in Ireland? A spike Oct 26-27, and a slight but apparent fallout-like disturbance pattern in the past week:
Interesting how a small island like Malta, just south of Italy, can show such variation between two monitors. This one in the north of the island:And this one in southern Malta, (with slightly more wind higher up):I suppose the only difference is that in the north of Malta a little more had to be omitted to keep everyone from paying any attention.
In the Capital of Catalonia, you can choose a FRENCH monitor (huh?)
Or: one from Spain, the latter which blocked out the data for November 8:Turkey got that earlier. So is how is this air really flowing around the Mediterranean these past few days?Nullschool… Nov 8, 00:00 UTC, let’s see…
See, the air that hit Spain might actually have come from Turkey, hence the day-difference. Turkey’s air, in turn… may have come from anywhere between Czech Republic and Latvia, which blew in from over the Atlantic.
To be continued…
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Disclaimer: I do not drink fluoridated water.
If you are viewing this page on any website other than allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/ it IS 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 probably obtain no such permission…
[This blog post was originally posted “privately”, during a period after Oct 5, 2015 when this blog was not visible to the public.]