Beautiful sunny day, the calm before the storm… Jan 30, 2016
I’ll start with the part I deleted, yet had received a comment on (for that comment, see previous post):
- RadioIsotope-specific data from Kotka, Finland:
I looked at some EURDEP stuff (see Online Radiation Monitors), and harvested this one interesting correlation of an uptick in Cs-137, with an uptick in Be-7 and a (relatively rare) detection of Th-232, @ Kotka, just east of Helsinki, in Southern Finland:
It had been lightly snowing there that week, and the the time of the peak of the uptick coincides with the snowiest day, as seen in this Helsinki [1 past year precipitation, pre Jan. 30, 2016 – via my METEO page -> Historical Weather Data]:
So the idea that this is “just some surface dust” seems unlikely to me. Allow me to elaborate:
Surface dust can indeed include traces of Cesium-137 (in Finland that would be mainly from the 1986 Chernobyl accident On the Chernobyl radioCesium fallout maps for Europe, you can see that Finland received a relatively high amount (due to precipitation at the time the radioactive cloud was moving that way)). Beryllium-7, which is released from nuclear sites as well (during refueling, maintenance, leaks or an accident), but is more associated with the upper atmosphere, where it is created naturally through cosmogenesis. Thorium-232 could be in dust as well, although it is rarely detected. In the past few years curious detections of Iodine-131, Cobalt-60, etc. have coincided with detections of Th-232 during the same week. Th-232 occurs naturally, yet, like Be-7 can also be “enhanced natural” in the sense that it can be added to the environmental mix through artificial means as well (such as a leaking reactor, mining activities, etc.). One of those ways for it to be added is as a decay product of various artificial radioisotopes. Some examples from http://periodictable.com/Isotopes/090.232/index2.full.prod.html (excerpt):
Since it has been snowing and “resuspencion of local dust” can thus practically be ruled out, I had a look at the wind patterns to see if there were a chance it could have come from that place that I suspect is still leaking like a sieve…
(Short answer: It’s not impossible.)
At that peak of the uptick, Jan. 24, 2015, the jet stream had a nice narrow slow-down zone that passed over that area…
Following the wind lines upwind, without making wind-speed time-adjustments (to cover the couple days it would have taken for the fastest air to make the journey; so very roughly:) the higher-up wind came from…
Nah… coincidence. From somewhere else probably. It can’t just always be Fukushima… Like the Swiss data from a few posts ago, it surely has to be Chernobyl-polluted fire wood here too. Burn enough of it and the Thorium-232 will start to ooze out as well. :-) Beryllium-7-enriched fire wood – lol- sure, why not. ;-) [sarc. Sorry…]
‘Cause… See… if it really came from “thát far”, then… just following the windlines upwind to get a rough idea…
Then after its fast Pacific Ocean crossing, it would have made landfall in that slightly less pronounced slow-down zone off the North-American coast… as “the cloud that perhaps only exists in my mind” passed between the US EPA Radnet monitor @ the Juneau, Southern Alaska and those in Washington state, like Richland, Washington, in the Cascades. Wouldn’t those at least show a little spike in gamma and/or beta in the Jan 20-22 period?
Let’s see … Juneau, AK… data for Jan. 1 through Jan. 30, 2016… (waiting…)
Hm… did it cut off the last week? Zoom in… Jan 18 through Jan 30… (waiting):
- Juneau, AK, Jan 18-30, 2016: See, nothing to see (sarc. Yeah… “haha”: LITERALLY): just some data gaps in that Jan. 20-22 window…:
- Richland, WA, Jan 18-30, 2016, to the south and a bit higher elevation, same 12-day period… (…waiting…) Ah, there it is: Oh good [sarc.], REALLY “nothing to see here”:
Another place I could look at is downwind in the 250 hPa’s slow-down zone much further to the south of Kotka on the above-shown Nullschool map, including places in Eastern Europe, or perhaps also at higher elevations in central and even Western Europe… A sampling:
At Botev Peak in Bulgaria, where I expected to see something, there’s no evidence of a higher elevation fallout cloud moving over:
Yet in the mountains of Macedonia, @ Negotino, just a bit more to the west, however, there is a very significant uptick right at the same time:
Not a fluke, as you can see from the (not as pronounced but still strikingly around the same time) data from Kicevo, Macedonia to the west:
On a side-note, and “also probably completely unrelated”, that same week also saw the second-highest Bismuth-214 levels on record at this Magdeburg monitor in central Germany (the record was broken in early Nov. 2015, part of a series of widespread upticks and data gaps (mainly in Oct-Nov-Dec. 2015), of which documentation can be found in my Nuclear Blog Post Archive.):
@ Zwerndorf, Austria, I found this massive (+1.2 µSv/hr) uptick within the same 24-hour period, albeit with its peak at the beginning of Jan. 25, 2016. As seen in some other locations, it shows what I call, ‘a typical fallout pattern‘:
!-> EDUCATE YOURSELF: If you think that a 1.2 µSv/hr uptick is somehow insignificant, I suggest you look at the post-Chernobyl data that show that planes that flew directly through the thick of the radioactive cloud measured just 0.8 µ Sv/hr over Finland in that disastrous spring 1986.
The monitor at Bischofeshofen, on the other hand, “got creative with that spike” (courtesy data processing software the IAEA was involved in writing…? Hm…) and -wooptidoo- forced the values of the beginning and end of it to zero, and left a gaping data hole for all of us to think happy thoughts of:
That that coincided with a significant spike in ground-snow-sealed Temelin, Czech Republic does underscore that whatever caused these upticks came down from higher up with the precipitation:
On the vast majority of monitors there is nothing peculiar to be seen, though. And even if there could be, there isn’t. It get’s old. Same old, same old. It;s see-through by now: the radiation monitoring networks are rigged to hide the most significant data when it matters. If there’s a major accident, you’re unlikely to be able to figure it out from the data that’s shared with the public.
And for closing, here’s my country of origin’s “watchdog”, FANC,’s version of giving Belgians the middle finger, with “greetings from Mont-Rigi, Belgium” (near Spa):
I’m wasting my time. They got it covered…
My point remains the same: If it were “all-natural”, it would be in the nuclear industry’s interest to show how high natural spikes go. Of that little we’re allowed to see, I conclude (and have documented like no one else, as far as I know) that upticks 1) are becoming more frequent when viewed over multiple years since 2011, even in winter, and 2) they continue to go higher and higher, with records set all over the place in 2015. That makes no sense for “natural”.
I welcome alternative explanations, but until I come across something convincing, my impression remains that a massive cover-up is taking place in plain sight. I suspect it is related to the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear complex in Japan, but I cannot prove that. It could be one cover-up compounding another cover-up (a la what has become apparent in the California Thyroid Cancer surge). But you have to be semi-obsessed with getting to the bottom of this nuclear mess, almost like a worshipper of truth “going to church” religiously, to even ‘get it’ that the monitoring and oversight systems are rigged. The fox is guarding the hen house. There is no nuclear safety oversight. It’s a giant IAEA-orchestrated scam.
Just kidding. [sarc.]
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —