Long Time…

Was listening to music on YouTube when some Deep Tunes for Deep Playa popped up…

57c2ff93c361881f778b46d8.jpgBurning Man (festival of sorts…) in the Nevada Black Rock Desert.  Not my photo, wasn’t there, again.

Was there in 1994, just about 5,000 people of us then (…was part of the latern lighters in the evening… ;-) ); and in 1995, huge difference with 8,000 people already.  Still good times, but haven’t been back since.  Over 50,000 nowadays, gone mainstream (sorta) since National Geopgraphic covered “the phenomenon” many years ago.  Always peeks my interest a little, though…. but it just hasn’t happened since those early days…

—- —- —-

Oh yeah… something else… a comment on ENEnews, by ‘freebywill’, @ http://enenews.com/forum-post-radiation-monitoring-data-april-30-2012-present/comment-page-87#comment-789240, about the EPA energy ranges had me wonder…


… if perhaps the Cobalt-60 detected in Norway in early May would have left a suggestive fingerprint on decay energy “Range 7” right there at the end of April, when the Beta monitors were turned off…  and soon after all of western North-America went “fallout blind”

The answer is: looks like a clear possibility:


That must have some freak’n meltdown-blow-up, hydrovolcanic explosions meets fissioning core in iron-rich ground layer,… or WHO KNOWS (!?) what hellish nuclear disaster event that was, or was part of…

One thing’s sure though, for being as enormous as it obviously was, leaving +5 µSv/hr spikes on some European monitors, and the largest Tellurium-132 spike since Chernobyl, while showing up on monitors as far as Northern South America…  , and if that was part of it, god-help-us, prompting France to shut off monitoring in the Southern Hemisphere in February…   … then this must be the first such monumental nuclear disaster that has been very well documented by independent observers like myself, yet which no media outlet has apparently dared to touch upon…

Crazy times we live in.  Kinda hard to shake the sadness of whats being done…

Makes me me kinda want to go zone out on to a soothing groove in the middle of a dessert myself too, actually…  With lots of fire.  I love fire.  And good friends.  That could be good…

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Long Time…

  1. The EPA energy ranges were designed mostly to hide man-made radiation inside bands where natural radiation would show up, Michael. If they see a statistical elevation in a band, then they will do further testing (without telling us peons what they found).

    If you plotted all the peaks for radon, uranium and thorium and progeny you end up with the EPA being able to claim ANY elevated band was due to mining dust or radon whether it was or not. There were some of us looking at this right after Fukushima and found zero documentation on it, and nothing directly from the EPA when asked besides, “The bands are for our internal use as sentinel indicators. If – in our estimation – they’re elevated, then we will determine if further testing is warranted.” By using the ‘sentinel band’ scheme, they are able to hide evidence of any short-lived radioactivity – it takes them weeks to get around to a full gamma spectroscopic analysis of the daily filters, and by then they find nothing.

    The particular range bands didn’t make sense to anyone familiar with gamma spectroscopy. People smarter than I determined back then that they were either arbitrarily chosen and useless, or (most likely) intentionally chosen to obscure identification of the responsible radionuclides. The latter influenced by pressure from nuclear power plants so people wouldn’t blame them for any elevated readings. This was all speculation and inconclusive aside from the obvious one: the ranges are relatively useless for specific radioisotope identification. The average away any useful information and the EPA always has plausible deniability.

    If anyone has ever found any other information on the EPA bands, I would love to hear about it.

  2. I should have added that the EPA monitors were NOT designed to detect atmospheric releases from nuclear power plant accidents. When they upgraded the network over a decade ago, it was specifically to detect instances of nuclear terrorism, like ‘dirty bombs’ and such. It was a Defense Department initiative, not an EPA one. The fact that range bands or general detector sensitivity is useless for other long-lived environmental radiation is inconsequential to the EPA.

  3. mariaurizar says:

    Thank you for your blog. Very valuable for me.
    Y used to watch and follow https://www.naz.ch/en/aktuell/zeitverlaeufe.html
    On 4th-5th August, i could check that in ALL and each of the stations appeared peaks of radiation; this is strange, it´s have been the first time that ALL the stations shows peaks.
    I copy same of then:
    Measured values of the NADAM station in Plaffeien FR
    Average value per hour from 04.08.2016 – 06.08.2016

    The natural range of values from the station in Plaffeien FR is 75 nSv/h and 200 nSv/h.
    04.08.2016 100 191 9 –
    04.08.2016 19:00 221 12 –
    04.08.2016 20:00 211 2 –
    04.08.2016 21:00 176 2 –

    ———- Post added 06-ago-2016 at 100 ———-

    Measured values of the NADAM station in Stabio TI
    Average value per hour from 04.08.2016 – 06.08.2016

    The natural range of values from the station in Stabio TI is 105 nSv/h and 230 nSv/h.

    04.08.2016 20:00 214 20 –
    04.08.2016 21:00 265 11 –
    04.08.2016 22:00 189 0 –

    ———- Post added 06-ago-2016 at 101 ———-

    Measured values of the NADAM station in Güttingen TG
    Average value per hour from 04.08.2016 – 06.08.2016

    The natural range of values from the station in Güttingen TG is 85 nSv/h and 195 nSv/h.
    04.08.2016 19:00 179 5 –
    04.08.2016 20:00 202 6 –
    04.08.2016 21:00 202 5 –
    04.08.2016 22:00 190 2 –

    ———- Post added 06-ago-2016 at 103 ———-

    Measured values of the NADAM station in Payerne VD
    Average value per hour from 04.08.2016 – 06.08.2016

    The natural range of values from the station in Payerne VD is 80 nSv/h and 185 nSv/h.
    04.08.2016 17:00 148 11 –
    04.08.2016 100 195 7 –
    04.08.2016 19:00 186 4 –

  4. MVB says:

    Thanks for the input.

    I get that you can’t use the bands to identify a specific radioisotope, but when you suspect a specific one, you should still see something in the corresponding range. Seeing it, as is the case in the shown graph, doesn’t proof Co-60 presence per se, but it adds to the likelihood that the fallout cloud that passed over Europe, which contained Co-60, as measured in Norway, also passed over the US. Where it originated is harder to pinpoint, still. ;-/

    I focus on the Co-60 link with Fukushima, as it is obviously an aspect that “they” would rather see no attention on. (For other readers: Good chunk of my research re. Co60 is in https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/any-significance-to-cobalt-60-in-fukushima-fallout/ )

    But if that Te-132 measured in Germany truly came all the way from Fukushima… …they’re pulling one hell of a PR machine to cover-up what’s really going on…

  5. Agree. The bands – useless in isolation – still mean something in context exactly like you have used them. The EPA never figured their readings would be considered side-by-side with other far more informative and accurate measures. Interesting that as much as the EPA and NRC seem to want to dumb down any publicly-available data, they still find it necessary at times to turn them off and/or leave data gaps. Actually, the way we think they’re binning the counts for the bands, ANY bump should mean a serious spike within that band. IIRC, there was a professor from somewhere on the West Coast that wrote a little program to combine the bands, filter out statistical noise and show which bands were elevated when they all seemed to be jumping around. I can reproduce something like it, but I don’t recall the specifics of his math which made it much more credible.

    If they happen to be reading your blog, I would love a link to those discussions or the logic you used. I can compare the deviations to detect single or double-band elevations, but that’s about the extent of the statistical techniques in my few remaining brain cells.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s