May 16-20, 2016
For this blogpost, I graphed 2 weeks of selected data (Beta + Gamma ranges 2, 3, 4 & 5; where available) for each of the 140 monitors accessible through https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/query.do for the period May 1 through May 17, 2016.
Note: always check the x- and y-axis. When a data period starts with a data gap, Radnet will not graph that part. Look closely, it’s not always obvious.
The US Government has this disclaimer for the below-shown data:
“OFFICIAL NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: The data contained on these pages does not constitute an official position, review, statement or confirmation of integrity by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is not for use in any official manner unless reviewed and approved by an authorized agent of the Environmental Protection Agency.“
In short: The data the US government supplies to the public does not necessarily have integrity. (Yeah, I figured, given the track record of some other things coming from this government… )
But anyhow… for what it’s worth… The theme of the current ongoing “Data thriller series” hasn’t changed yet:
Which nuclear disaster site(s) is/are spewing massive amounts of various fission products into the air lately? IS IT coming from the Fukushima-Daiichi catastrophe site? If not, then WHERE is it coming from?
(!-> See also European measurements in 2016 of Te132, Ru103, & Cs137, and various documentations of the recent upticks, such as 10 years of data from Lamia, Greece, and various other related posts.)
!-> Via my page Online Radiation monitors.
!-> For some pointers to do this yourself, see my (July 4, 2015) post, How to scatter plot the EPA’s Radnet data (still mostly correct. They’ve fixed some problems since then, left most as-was…):
In the alphabetical order (by state, then by monitor location), as found on that first-mentioned US EPA Radnet query scroll-down option. No annotations added. I didn’t graph the other gamma ranges as I haven’t found that to add much extra detail. Note the absence of Beta monitoring at most locations (most of it dropped after Fukushima began spewing i spring 2011, some dropped more recently, like in Alaska, as well as Texas and Arizona, as well as the data gaps in ranges 2 and 3, which may be hiding highly unusual detections.
May 18, 2016
Alright, they made this surreal time-consuming… It’s só bad, it seems done on purpose. But, anyhow, all that means that it will take me longer. So, to continue…
May 18, 2016 (I can only do a bit of this every day, as the system seems designed to encourage ‘giving up’. Soooo slooow…)
Anyhow, continued (same May 1-17, 2016 period):
Pfff… Not to mention the crashes “due to internal errors” (which apparently take years to fix…). I’ll finish this another day, I suppose…
May 19, 2016 A few more: same period. (The second half of May will need to be done seperately. One of the issues with Radnet is that they don’t allow for graphing more than 400 data points…)
But carrying on…
— That’s ALL of ’em! —
Now IF I (or you?) had the patience to do this … for every monitor (as shown above), for every 2-week period… since, let’s say, since January 1, 2011, maybe then something significant could be figured out about the recent detections of highly unusual radioisotopes in Europe, as well as the origins of what makes monitors go silent (data gaps)…
SUGGESTION: If one were to create enough long term graphed data records… and then scrutinize how spikes and data gaps move through space, while watching wind and weather maps correspondingly, then it may be possible to narrow down the hunt for one or more spewing nuclear disaster site(s).
At least to general regions like: “Northern China/Japan/Russia/Ukraine”, or “Southern China/India/MiddleEast”, ” Europe/Turkey”, “North America”, or “elsewhere,” (or so – the classifications would emerge from the research), and with decent probability. Now I think, “Fukushima-Daiichi”, but I can’t call that much more than a guess. As people have commented elsewhere: could be a nuclear military vessel somewhere in the Pacific too. Lots of possibilities indeed…
So: I don’t know. But we all know, however, that the CTBTO could figure it out very easily and quickly. They could be sipping their coffee in the morning while watching the latest maps of radioactive clouds swirling around the world on their screens as their super-sensitive sensors and super-computers process the latest information. My interpretation of the complete media silence means that at the very top of the nuclear cartel (IAEA & Co) know exactly what happened when and where. (Otherwise there would be vocalized concerns for “What’s going on?!, Where is this coming from?!” There isn’t a peep to be found anywhere.) And the tiny bit of data allowed to shine through their smokescreens is perhaps just part of an experiment to see if we’re truly the complete idiots they hold as for. (I think we may be “complete idiots” indeed, unless we prove them wrong…)
Many institutions could figure it out too. The Austrians and Swiss ran some great models the first month of the disaster . The Norwegians did a great job and were the last to quit, yet also véry early on, just 2 months in, on May 13, 2011, as reported in my blogpost the day after, “NILU abandons Fukushima forecasting: reliable data blackout cited. (The return of Zardoz…)“
If a significant detection of Ru-103 in Norway, a relatively massive spike in Te-132 in Germany, or a spike in artificial alpha radiation in The Netherlands, and records being set amidst data gaps all over the place (all in 2016), all apparently fail to get any politician concerned, nor get any journalist off his/her ass, nor even rouse academia’s curiosity… then -when it comes to nuclear matters – probably nothing ever will again…
In my little mind, I’m beginning to see a world in which “the future has arrived.” It is dystopian. It’s as if the West, once a bastion of free press and investigative journalism, and by current-day extention most of the world, has become a high-tech version of the Soviet Union of the 20th century. Like the Pravda then, most media outlets will just censor themselves to avoid the to-be-expected heat.
I’ve come to believe that only *a cancellation of the likely stand down order, directly from the nuclear industry top*, could change the complete media blackout. And thus it doesn’t matter what I write here. I think this blog is mainly just entertainment to them, on the one hand, and a dissident voice to fine-tune their censoring algorithms with, on the other. They got it covered.
I’ve seen it before, like at the end of 2014, when the Zaporizhia NPP suffered a major incident and either had a partial meltdown or had to vent masisve amounts of radioactivity into the atmopshere… Like recently, I documented evidence of the radioactive cloud like no other source… but in the annals of official history, there never was a release of radioactivity into the environment… “It never happened”.
It’s so unbelievably sad to witness. No backbone to be found anywhere…? Does that mean that, essentially, all governments, universities and media outlets can be blackmailed somehow? And in the worst case scenario, a country’s non-compliance may result in what? A “nuclear accident”, “nuclear bombing”, “terrorist attack”, all of the above???
When you dig deeper and deeper, and tumble down this molten-corium-dug rabbit hole,… very few possibilities remain “impossible”… ;-/
Anyhow… So… My impression is that this radioactive cloud of late had its origin all the way from across the Pacific, and that it shows up on monitors at ground level only there where 1) the jet stream slows down enough 2) air layers below it slow down too 3) air layers are mixing (more so inland than on the coast, it seems. -> Example from Alaska.), and of course, 4) there has to be a functioning monitor right then and there. Even monitors a mile or less from each other can have véry different detections due to how chaotic dispersion patterns are. (fluid dynamics, weather & microclimates, geographical differences,…), then add slightly differently calibrated monitors, possible differences in data processing,… etc., and it becomes véry difficult for the lay person to figure out what might be happening…
The main problem (or at least that’s my impression) is that the official radiation monitoring systems, which clearly have superb equipment, appear to be operated with the objective of covering up abnormalities, rather than exposing them.
… Giving thanks for cute kittens, rainbows, and apple pie.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —