Some day in 3535 CE, “on which I forgot to take my meds…”
“…In the year 3535
Ain’t gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do, and say
Is in the pill you took today…”
— ——— —
Very Windy in the San Luis Valley (SLV), Southern Colorado, Feb. 23, 2017
DISCLAIMER & DO NOT re-post in full. If inclined to share, just quote an excerpt and link. Thanks.
I guess I could put my blog back to sleep and pretend the mainstream journalists did all the digging they could and that’s the end of the story. All is well.
After all, French radiation experts claim “it” can only have been a pharmaceutical leak.
In the original IRSN press release about the Iodine-131 detection over Europe in January 2017 ( @ http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20170213_Detection-of-radioactive-iodine-at-trace-levels-in-Europe-in-January-2017.aspx ), they pointed out that “only particulate iodine was reported. When detectable, gaseous iodine is usually dominant and can be estimated to be 3 to 5 times higher than the fraction of particulate iodine.” Even then the highest concentration was still at least 20 times smaller than those of spring 2011, so I can understand the trace amounts didn’t alarm government experts. But it should alarm anyone that an entire month later they supposedly still don’t know the source. (I’m not buying that, though.) In France the trace amounts were about 1000 times lower than after Fukushima, as relayed by Zero Hedge’s update @ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/french-nuclear-watchdog-gives-update-mysterious-radioactive-iodine-blanketing-europe
The IRSN also tweeted (Feb. 20):”No trace of the other #radioactive products (e.g. #caesium) found in the event of a #nuclear accident” and: “Most likely source of detected #Iodine a plant for the production of #radioactive elements for medical use.“
Alright. That’s odd, ’cause “background” nowadays often contains a bit of Cesium. No upticks of any kind anywhere? Alright then… Wish I could believe them at their word…
And all that “nuclear sniffer plane” news was declared mere hype. Coolio…
As the UK’s Independent reported: A US air force spokesperson said the aircraft is in Europe “on a preplanned rotational deployment scheduled far in advance,” adding: “anything contrary is completely baseless.”
Popular Mechanics asks, “Has there been a significant release of man-made nuclear radiation?” And answers, “An authoritative source, the CTBTO, says no. / […] The CTBTO has laid the zany rumors to rest. In a statement issued this week, it stated, “no detections (of Iodine-131) have been observed in the past several months.” Furthermore, “No other nuclear fission isotopes have been measured at elevated levels in conjunction with I-131 in Europe so far.“
The CTBTO COULD be an authoritative source were not not bound to secrecy. In the rare case they release their secret data, it’s still redacted.
Does a doubling of Cesium constitute an “elevated level”? Might all depend on their definition of ‘elevated’… ;-/
And what was up with that little Iodine-131 blip, followed by a Cesium-137 uptick @ Kotka in Southern Finland? That’s not about January, that’s just the other week this February 2017 (repeating graph from previous blogpost):
Further North in Finland @ Kuopio, a minor uptick of Cs-137 right before Christmas, and a more than doubling of Cs-137 this past week:
All the way north, Cs-137 detection have been more frequent since a sampling gap over the Christmas-New Year’s period. The quick sampling on Jan. 2, 2017 showed nothing unusual, albeit a trace of Th-232 (which is in the snow-covered soil there. Also visible is an uptick of Cs-137 in the third week of January here (no Iodine-131 detected at this location for used query settings):
In December, right before I put my blog in the deep-freezer (temporarily invisible to the public), I speculated that the spike values of pretty every radioisotope must have been a calibration thing. What is striking, though, is that in February both I-131 and Cs-137 have risen slightly:
When glancing T-Beta-At data from Italy, there was as spike in mid-December:
…data-gapped away in typical official monitoring fashion on other nearby monitors:This one in Estonia, below, (just south of Finland), showing Cs-137 and Be-7. When ignoring November, Cs-137 peaked in mid-January, and both Be-7 and Cs-137 are clearly showing a most recent uptick here as well… (No I-131 detections, though):
The T-ALFA-ART and T-BETA-ART monitors of The Netherlands showed several blips above their LLD threshold…
@ De Zilk, Nederland: both artificial beta and artificial alpha emitters showed an uptick on Jan. 8, 2017, followed shortly after by… … … I mean, come on, like doing this omission thing on such a regular basis is not bound to lead to the public growing suspicious at some point… The entire period in which I-131 was detected elsewhere is omitted:
See, I do understand that it “is IMPOSSIBLE to have been from an accident, because there ARE NO CS-137 DETECTIONS”. But, as I hope to have illustrated with the above data, this is almost funny, as obviously there have been Cs-137 upticks, and upticks indicative of more than just I-131. I-131 decays by beta minus and gamma decay. It does not emit alpha radiation in its decaying process. Obviously SOMETHING else, also artificial, and an alpha-emitter, was airborne in January too.
One more that stood out as highly unusual from The Netherlands, and again showing the pre-Christmas weirdness:
SO, please excuse me for being such a stubborn skeptic when it comes to assurances from the nuclear establishment, but… My impression is that there’s more going on than a little whiff of isolated I-131 in January.
If I recall this correctly from several amateur investigations of mine over the past few years, nuclear disasters unfold on vastly larger time scales than how the mainstream media has been portraying them. You don’t even have to go back to 2011 for that. Less than a year ago, during what I dubbed “the April event”, whatever it was affected monitors much more in May and into June. The stuff that was detected in various locations surely correlated interestingly with the data gap times found elsewhere… It looks like something similar may have happened recently, albeit so far without the other usual suspects being reported or detected together.
Fallout goes high up into the upper troposphere, and depending on the temperature and size of the particle at time of release it can take hours, days, weeks, months, and even multiple years before it reaches a ground monitor. Some of the fallout from 2011 took until after 2013 to reach the ground. So, if the 3rd week of December saw ‘an incident’, and sampling was interrupted, and data omitted in many places (particularly between Dec. 16 and Jan. 3) to keep it from becoming obvious that something had happened, then even the traces of I-131 in week 3 and 4 of January could be related.
For the hell of it, I will look at it some more. The past two blogposts have much data that I won’t repeat. Have a look at it, it’s part of the picture. I did manage to graph a bunch more from EURDEP after days of getting mainly their typical error message (shown left).
Some music to stay cheerful while tumbling down the corium-dug rabbit hole… ;-)
Further down will be lots more Radnet data. Here’s some more EURDEP first:
Be-7, Pb-210, then Cs-137 & I-131 data for Årland, Norway:
The sampling period with the Cs-137 & Be-7 uptick is Dec. 13 through Dec. 19, 2016, as can be found in the data tables:
When we look back further, here’s another I-131 detection in late October 2016, attributed to the “iodine leak” from the Norwegian research reactor (which released Cs-137 and Na-22 as well, not mentioned in any news outlet)
Now… How weird is it to find data gaps and upticks all the way in the US right there in that 3rd week of December too?
Given San Diego didn’t just get covered in snow, that looks like a possible calibration adjustment following the spike of Dec. 15, 2016. (The 15th… That is SO much earlier than in Europe, unless the incident goes back to the Dec. 11 data gaps… (???) Round and round this can go, to confuse most who give it a shot…)
Just noticed that on the Russian monitors I showed in the previous post, the drop-to-zero [possibly indicative of a Beta spike affecting a gamma monitor] occurs a day earlier in Siberia than way further west. (Dec. 24 vs. Dec 25)…
I’m sorry this blogpost is jumping all over the place, but that’s just how I find patterns sometimes. This approach is already “too linear” to navigate what takes place in an extremely chaotic atmosphere…
Alright… bunch more radnet data first…
–> the downward trend is from accumulating snow, making the Dec. 15-16 peak all the more striking. Data gap by the 17th, all the way east in Maine:
What got me started looking into Radnet data for this mystery cloud was the normally event-less record from Puerto Rico in the Caribbean… (note: x- & y-axis vary within the composites), with two data gaps: One a strikingly long one that covers the entire second half of December and first week of January, that peculiar period again…:
And a short data gap in the third week of January:
When you browse through the wind patterns day by day, you see the big high pressure system bringing air clockwise in to arrive in Puerto Rico from the east, wind that past over the Southern United States before. This one starts on the 20th with the island marked (you can change wind altitude and dates by clicking ‘Earth’ and navigating from there):
So, to get a quick look, I’ll just get the basic quarterly records. You don’t see the details per gamma range then, but it is fast (!-> quick 4-month Radnet graphs by clicking through the US map @ https://www.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-data-state … I had forgotten about that fast way for basic info…): So here’s the above in a nice quarterly graph:
Now compare with the below:
There’s a spike at the onset of the 18th of December, and an up and down swing before a long data gap right before New Year’s.
Another such below-average drop can been seen on the Baton Rouge, Louisiana monitor just a few days earlier. (The disturbances and data gaps of November and early December I will be ignoring for this inquiry, as you can almost always find “peculiar patterns” earlier…)
The Fairbanks spike at the onset of the 18th is also right after which the San Juan data gaps starts. IF they’re related, and IF they’re due to a man-made source, THEN my guess would be that the spike is the fast-moving Xenon gas (Xe-133 or so) and the reason Puerto Rico goes into immediate data gap mode is because it is so quiet there, the sudden disturbances might make someone ask questions. (I know… “How conspiratorial of me…” We’re practically “forced” to become that way after all the lies they’ve told…)
At Fairbanks, the bulk of the cloud would arrive some 10 days later, a typical pattern if it came from Europe, and perhaps a bit on the slow side, but still possible, if it came from Asia somewhere. A look at the wind arriving in Alaska…
Dec. 18, 2016 jet stream with Fairbanks marked: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/12/18/0900Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-224.28,59.20,546/loc=-147.300,64.500, at which time the monitor is in a slow zone on the northern end of a jet stream fan-out.
On the 30th, a precipitation system hit the monitoring location with jet stream air supplied as follows: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/12/30/0300Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=precip_3hr/orthographic=-224.28,59.20,546/loc=-147.300,64.500
By January 2nd, the S-shaped jet stream (with the bottom end of the ‘S’ over Northern Japan) has its “top end of the ‘S'” ending in a High pressure vortex, bringing higher-up air down, for a couple days, after which a more normal S returns, and it keeps moving around like that. Etc.
I marked Fukushima-Daiichi disaster site and North Korea on the map, though *the source* of whatever it was that triggered an official monitor to spike or go into “data gap mode” may be much further upwind, or have nothing to do with fallout whatsoever. It’s just a possibility. I’m just wondering. If enough of such tracing wind patterns is done, sometimes you get “a crossroads” where a culprit is more likely to be found. Or sometimes it makes ruling out some NPPs possible, and by process of elimination maybe it can be narrowed down to a few in a certain area. You get the idea. Also: For longer distances, time-adjustments need to be made for it to get closer to reality (as the wind pattern changes over the time it takes to travel the distance, making these tracings without time adjustments very rough estimations with large margins of error. Just stating the obvious.)
Plenty of accident-ready NPPs in the US, too…:
“Ripe for the pop’n…”
Anyhow… lots of Radnet data follows:
Jet stream on Jan. 19, 2017: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/01/19/0900Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-261.73,69.30,546/loc=-150.433,61.209 perspective to show all the way to Europe (no time adjustments, so take with grain of salt:)
Jet-stream delivered to Europe, then fanned-out…
more West Coast monitors:
The orange (something, like an uptick or spike) and red (data gap) were just notes I put on there in hopes of seeing a pattern visually (for instance a data gap moving through time and space). Not sure if they’re helpful…
This one pretty much sums up what I’m getting at, IF the shown is connected:
“something” in the second half of December…? Possibly as early as the second week? and then effects showing up as time goes by and fallout makes its way down?
Coastal California monitors don’t correspond to the patterns…
But going just a bit more inland, and the pattern, roughly or some aspect of it at least, shows up more often:
The rest just alphabetical (not every monitor, but most):
-> I’ll do another Nullschool… As winter sets in in December and snow covers the Dakotas, not only is there “the Christmas Spike” (which happens in the week before in many places), but the Jan 14 – Jan. 21, 2017 period (the very period of I-131 detections in Europe) shows a fallout-like uptick: an entire week of elevated values, with peaks on the 16th and 20th…
Jet stream on Jan. 16, 2017 @ https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/01/16/2100Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-171.46,53.48,495/loc=-100.500,46.500
It’s that often-observed phenomenon of radiation upticks (or data gaps most likely hiding uncomfortably high spikes) at the times of a jet-stream slow-zone passing over a monitor, here even more apparent:
Doesn’t tell me anything about its origin, but it does add a little weight to the hypothesis that much of what’s causing upticks and data gaps is jet-stream-delivered.
[inserted] Check out also that corresponding uptick @ Albuquerque, New Mexico and Amarillo, Texas, in the southern end of the slow zone, as well:
Anyway… more data… (Some I haven’t looked at much, just including it):
These next two are striking for their spike followed by data gaps. So early, though… ;-/
SO… December 2016 is the period I want to have a fresh look at. I was getting pretty much burnt out on doing this that month, compounded by watching that little of what’s left of democracy being overrun by GroupThink herd mentalities being pitched against each other, while oligarchs laugh their way to their bank.
I’ll start by smelling the roses in Spain…
Let’s see… What was the jet stream pattern in the evening of Dec. 5, 2016?
Okay, clearly another case of jet stream delivery in slow zones… What’s upwind. There’s a slow zone in the SouthWest of the US. If “the source” isn’t on the East coast or southern US, but further west, then that should show on Dec 2-3 in that area. Turn the globe:
At that time, the slow zone is right over Northern Texas… And to repeat the two monitors from that area…
Nothing right then. As you can see in the graph further above, SOME do show data gaps or upticks round around that time, though…
Did the bulk flow further north, or did something happen in the US in early December that was big enough to be picked up on monitors in Europe? (Or, of course, another scenario…)
Play around with Nullschool and check the Radnet monitors yourself, and see if you can pinpoint a possible location and start date with which to explain some of the observed. Have fun. I concede: I can’t figure this one out just yet.
More questions than answers, but perhaps it can get someone else started (?)…
For whatever this effort was worth, if anything…