US EPA Radnet Gamma data (various monitors, past 4 months)

A selection of 4-month total gamma radiation graphs (on logarithmic y-axis to make spikes look less severe, courtesy of the US government), as pulled off the US EPA RADNET monitor map, late July 1, 2017, some with annotations added (but not all, as it turned out to be too time-consuming), alphabetical. (Look for data gaps and lower-than-usual as well as higher-than-usual and baseline shifts since around mid-May (2017):


Compare to data from Europe (in past 3+ posts)…

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to US EPA Radnet Gamma data (various monitors, past 4 months)

  1. Pingback: 3x Germany, EURDEP, 3 months (and then some…) | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  2. Horse says:

    MVB, lots of data; have you thought of arranging the charts by longitude, or better yet by how far downwind of the Jet Stream from Fukushima? If a plume is coming from Dai-ichi then see if the charts show peaks, lows, and gaps progressing down the Jet Stream from that source.

  3. MVB says:

    Hi Horse,

    Go for it! ;-)

    Of course I have. It’s just already too time-consuming as it is. Could you provide me with such a list of EPA monitors in the order you would like ’em see arranged?

    See, you’d pretty much need to watch surface and higher-up winds and the monitors and then you’ll see the order in which I would put them shift around with the shifting winds in relation to which ever point source origin you’d pick (Like F1). The CTBTO has super-computer-run dispersion models for this. To get THAT good, where the findings have acceptable margins of errors, would require massive amounts of time (mostly labor / or tons of money & expertise to have it done by computer). At this point I feel like that whatever efforts I put into it is just about as far as I could take without actually shooting for becoming an expert and spending ALL my time on this. I’m not feeling called to this. Got bigger fish to fry: trying to understand the cult mindset that keeps this insanity marching onward.

    You know… “I got it” : The fantasy bubble I grew up with, of living in a free society where the search for truth and exposing of deceptions is sacrosanct, has popped. There’s a well-oiled machinery that will suppress the truth regarding the dark side(s) of nuclear fission power/waste production, and whole bunch of other things.

    So as far as the efforts to trace fallout to Fukushima is concerned, the issue (imo) is lack of monitors at higher altitudes, where most of this stuff flies for awhile… You’d practically need to have thousands of drones/weather balloons with a/b/g + radioisotopespecific sensors, at different altitudes, to really map the actual dispersion. Fun fantasy, but… all I could afford were a couple lab tests. And the main result of all that was that I learned a couple things. Such as that they’re omitting Cobalt-60 from scientific literature re. Fukushima, ad that this is actually extremely significant, because any serious analysis and calculations on cross sections, neutron flux, etc will eventually lead to a conclusion… which must by all means be kept silenced.

    And the beat goes on.

    Anyhow, if you have a list of monitors in an order you consider a good one for general use, independent of the wind patterns of the moment, let me know. I can put ’em in that order next time I throw some EPA Radnet data on here.

    Keep up your good work at Cafe Radlab, etc.

    – mvb

  4. MVB says:

    Horse – Another thing that makes “finding a better order to put ‘m in” so hard is something that I pointed out awhile back (don’t know in which post, though), that you can get the APPEARANCE of fallout moving from point A to point B on the surface, while at a higher altitude it’s moving from B to A… because a slowdown zone (in the higher-up wind, or air layer below it) is moving A to B, while the wind itself is moving B to A, and it’s in the slowdown zone that stuff comes down (or in jet-stream fan-outs, which is basically a huge diluting slow-down). My conclusion is that, unless a release was enormous and occurred in an area with lots of monitors nearby and downwind, it is practically impossible to pin-point a source point. I mean, even when you KNOW the source point, it’s difficult. There’s over 400 reactors active now, all of ’em with refueling releases and minor accidents, or even quite significant accidents, that get covered up. Too much noise for a clear signal now. Part of the problem is “signal suppression”, of course: the monitoring records have data gaps all over the place. They’re the “known unknowns”. We can assume and guess at what is omitted, but we don’t know, and without all those missing data… I don’t know if our effort amount to much more than entertainment to the insiders who do know.

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 )

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