Denver SPIKE, Colorado Springs DATA GAP.

Another example of data rigging through systematic omissions… 
  • Denver, Colorado:


  • The very same time period, including the Nov. 11 spike measured in Denver, here (shown below) as seen on the Colorado Springs, Colorado Radnet monitor:


Any questions?

  • Grand Junction, Colorado:  NO DATA  (monitor turned off)

Good they have a good disclaimer, eh?!  Otherwise, I suppose, they could be taken to court on serious corruption charges.  Or what else would you call it when an agency in charge of environmental protection works so closely in cahoots with the nuclear industry that the data processing software is apparently programmed to hide anything that could hint of there being something seriously wrong?


PS:    I am not able to confirm a sign of integrity in these EPA data either.

Reason for my checking was a jet-stream-altitude wind slow zone, which I’m under the impression to often correspond with radiation upticks (or data gaps for that matter).  If the suspected mega-spikes were natural, there would be no reason to hide them, right?  The fact alone that data is hidden from public view exactly at such times that I would expect Fukushima-related spikes is telling, isn’t it?   My suspicion remains, as it has been for years now, that this is due to the ongoing Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear catastrophy, which isn’t just leaking into the Pacific Ocean, but continues to spew untold amounts into the atmosphere as well.


Now go ahead and deny this.  And make sure to be ‘baffled’ and ‘puzzled’, and ‘at a loss’ for the ‘mysterious’ consequences to fauna and flora in various hotspot fallout zones across the Northern Hemisphere… which, sadly, are simply ‘to be expected‘ when tons and tons of nuclear waste is dumped into the environment on a daily basis for what is now over 4 years.

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

Disclaimer:  Information and beliefs, are no substitute for knowledge.  And the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that I am bat-shit-crazy, lost in nonsensical attempts to ‘interpret silence’…


If you are viewing this page on any website other than 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.]

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Denver SPIKE, Colorado Springs DATA GAP.

  1. Andy says:

    At least Bob Nichols reported this, even if EPA didn’t, which is rather curious, considering that EPA Radnet is the principal data source for his weekly updates. Denver pegs in at top notch of his Top 5 American cities for past week of 11/7-11/14, at over 500 times what he designates as “normal”, followed closely enough by Colorado Springs in 3rd place.

    If I might hazard a question, what in all Hell IS goin’ down out there, Mike? Isn’t that your main hang? What, no chartreuse lightning of late?

    • MVB says:

      Veterans Today just reported the EPA data (which, like much censored government data, is all available via various sites – see my list @ ), but VT threw the data into a sensationalizing “times normal”-format, and claims 5 to 20 CPM is ‘normal’. I find that silly, and actually not helpful or educative. CPMs are complex and differ from monitor to monitor, and what constitues “normal” (or ‘average’, or ‘range of natural variability’) as far as a dose goes, can include minor upticks from fallout events too, not differentiable from normal or average.

      (PS: I wouldn’t vouch for VT.)

      • Andy says:

        So working from one and the same data source, but both no doubt employing different methodologies of analysis and arriving at divergent interpretations of whatever data set is or isn’t readily available, nonetheless you both miraculously arrive at the same general and obvious conclusion that something is “seriously wrong” in Colorado. “Any questions?”, you ask. Well, I do seem to recall having already inquired specifically “what” that “seriously wrong” might indeed be, and not getting much by way of a detailed answer, other than yet another lecture on the unassailable sanctity of the scientific method, and what real good does that do you in the end, Michael, if you don’t even trust your very OWN conclusions to begin with? How could anyone else? Are you just too afraid you might be wrong….or even worse, that you might actually be right? I’m not a scientist, I’m a gardener. I’m 64 years old. I don’t really need you or Bob Nichols to tell me that well, it just may or may not have something to do with a little something called “Fukushima”, all depending on what your so-called “data” says or doesn’t say. All I have to do for total confirmation of my worst suspicions is to look at a pitiful photograph collection of all my mutated vegetables for the last four years. I’ve known ALL ABOUT IT, that I ever needed or never wanted to know, ever since day one, and that includes straining my failing eyes and brain trying to read and halfway comprehend most all of your blasted graphs and charts.
        (P.S. I wouldn’t vouch for VT either, but thanks for the heads-up anyway, and putting your blog back up)

        • MVB says:

          This post is in the context of the previous month of posts. My conclusion is not that somehing is “seriously wrong in Colorado”. Places further north and over the Pacific and Atlantic, central Asia, etc. get jet these stream slow-downs far more often and for longer periods, and often with more precipitation during those periods. So I’m certainly not singling out Colorado. It’s a high state (no pun intended), and like monitors in the Swiss/French/Italian Alps, the spikes are often more pronounced because fallout clouds, so is my impression, tend to float higher up, only to touch ground monitors in regionswhere vertical turbulence mixes air layers.

          My conclusion is that the EPA’s radiation monitoring network is rigged to hide anything that would indicate that we’re essentially in a long-term radiological emergency. Throughout my blog posts, there’s lots of similar examples. For example, I saw a monitor in Germany spike, yet everything around seemed unaffected. Until I zoomed in on that part of the data period. Almost all nearby monitors had data gaps right at the time of the spiking:

          And yes, I don’t need ‘data’ either. And yes, I leave room for doubt regarding my own conclusions, 1) because there are factors I haven’t explored much (such as the possibility of a fresh nuclear accident in Russia or China roughly along the same jet stream path), 2) yes, somewhere I do actually hope I’m wrong (particularly about still-ongoing recriticalities / fission flare-ups at Fukushima-Daiichi) because of what that might imply for the Pacific Ocean in the coming decades and beyond… Science has its place in figuring out causal patterns (a spike being caused by a fallout cloud that started somewhere, for instance), but fails miserably at shifting the situation we’re in.

          See also “four levels of perception” @ to expand the view a bit.

          Thanks for commenting.

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

  3. Andy says:

    Not knowing whether or not you may have yet caught a certain current post at the progressively degenerating but still perennially popular go-to (Hell?) nuke site, and seeing as how you seem to be attacking this whole new thriving business of “data-scrubbing” in such a proactive and provocative way, a perishing thought occurred to me that perhaps I ought to just run it by you real quick, as it looks to be more or less right up your alley. So disclaiming any or all pertinent or impertinent allusions to Dana Durnford’s current predicament at the outset, and looking strictly at certain arcane machinations which at first glance appear to be occurring at the website of WHOI, it may or may not behoove you to take a gander at, and perhaps, upon further scrutiny, weigh in on it, or simply add to your lengthening laundry list of ongoing improprieties, (not to mention criticalities), real or imagined. So here you have it, for better or worse-

  4. Pingback: Spate of Mysterious Radiation Upticks (and Data Gaps) Continues. 3 months of data from Steinfort, Luxembourg | 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.