A Lot More than Ruthenium-106 in that Radioactive Cloud (DATA)

So the “French Nuclear Watchdog” IRSN has been busy pitching that “Ru-106 radioactive cloud from Russia” story.  Why?  There’s NO WAY they’re completely unaware of many other measurements, which anyone with internet can check out for themselves via EURDEP.    The data speak for themselves (see below and previous posts):  There were/are a lot of other artificial radioisotopes in there besides Ruthenium-106!

Within a week after the Ru-106 story broke, I touched on it in (Oct. 9, 2017) Couple EURDEPs (Ru-106 – Oct.9, 2017), followed up by my discovery that  Ruthenium-103 had ALSO been detected, in Czech Republic, and that there were upticks of Iodine-131 and both Cesium-134 & Cesium-137, among others, in (Oct. 11, 2017) RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT Clouds Touch down in Europe: Ru-103, I-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, Pb-210, Na-22, Be-7 Radioisotopes SPIKE in Czech Republic, Hemisphere-wide Data Gaps & Disturbances!

So, like anyone else, I wondered, (Oct. 12, 2017) Where did the radioactive wind come from?, but I couldn’t figure it out.  Shifting winds, too many data gaps and general data ‘noise’.  But the upticks and data gaps were clearly véry widespread, I’d say hemisphere-wide even.  A month went by and I documented radiation data from Europe (European Commission’s EURDEP)  and the USA (US EPA Radnet).  The other day I added quite the amount of 3-month gamma graphs in (Nov. 11, 2017) The Guardian on that Ru-106 cloud in early October 2017: “Nuclear accident sends ‘harmless’ radioactive cloud over Europe” (+ EURDEPs, Nov. 10-11, 2017), which adds to all of these data blogposts of the past month:

Besides making such data much easier to see, if I have anything to contribute to this story, it is that the French “watchdog” IRSN’s claim that the radioactive cloud only contained a trace of the Beta-emitter Ruthenium-106 is simply false. (See radioisotope-specific data below, again.) They’re lying by omission.  Thus everything else they claim, including their “probable location map” cannot be trusted.

Here’s the gist of my debunking their press release:

1) Czech Republic, which does some of the most regular testing for specific radioisotopes, detected (the same week Ru-106 was detected across Europe) spikes of Ru-103, I-131, Cs-134,  and upticks of Cs-137, Pb-210, Na-22, Be-7, (see also repeated graphs below) a tell-tale mixture of definitely a major radioactive cloud released from an active fission nuclear reactor, NOT just some “likely just a pharmaceutical leak”, “from Russia”…;

2) I-131, Na-22 and Cs-137 upticks preceded and/or followed the Ru-106 detection at several monitors in Switzerland and Norway;

3) Finland, which like Czech Republic posts regular radioisotope-specific monitoring data on EURDEP, interrupted its regular sampling at some locations, with a data gap, including the very period Ru-106 was detected elsewhere, as a result;

4) Unusual spikes are seen on many GAMMA monitors during that first week of October all across Europe, Japan and the United States, with additional waves of spikes, data gaps and unusual values following in its wake this November 2017, further indicating that gamma-emitters were also in the radioactive cloud.

5) Longer-term fallout patterns (3 to 6 months) show upticks of Iodine-131 & Cecium-137 & ‘T-BETA-ART’ (artificial beta-radiation emitters) in July 2017, which wasn’t reported in any mainstream media either.  Because it takes time (months and even years) for the bulk of hot fresh-from-a-reactor volatile radioactive fallout to reach ground-level monitors, there’s a serious possibility that we’re looking at the tail end of a far worse nuclear disaster, likely in June or mid-July, rather than in September.


To illustrate the documented points just one more time, here’s a few monitors re-graphed:

  • Iodine-131 & Cesium-137 upticks in the past month @ Switzerland:

Cadenazzo_CH_I131_Cs137_3mo_Nov13_2017 copy

–> an example of “nothing else detected during the time Ru-106 was measured“, but… (!->) -and I suppose this could be point # 6)  thát may have had more to do with strikingly higher ‘Minimum Detectable Concentrations’ (MDC), which on EURDEP is called LLD, ‘Lowest Level Detectable’.  In some cases the concentration of a specific radioisotope would need to be more than an entire magnitude more than normal to be detectable right then.   Showing I-131 & Cs-137:

Cadenazzo_I131_Cs137_1mo_Oct13_2017_details copy

But my main point is this:  There was a lot more than just Ru-106 in that radioactive cloud, and it’s still coming down… (which is also obvious on many gamma monitors – see previous blogpost(s)):

CERN_CH_I131_Cs137_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy

  • Czech Republic:

UstiNadLabem_Habrovice_CzechRepublic_Ru103_I131_3mo_Nov12_2017 copyEeskeBudijovice_U_Nemocnice_CzechRepublic_I131_Cs137_3mo_Nov12_2017 copyOstrava_Syllabova_CzechRepublic_I131_Cs134_3mo_Nov12_2017 copyHradec_Kralove_Piletice_CzechRepublic_Ru103_I131_3mo_Nov12_2017 copyPraha_Bartoskova_CzechRepublic_Cs134_Na22_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy.jpg

  • Norway:

Sola_Norway_Na22_Cs137_3mo_Nov12_2017 copySpitzbergen_Norway_Pb210_Cs137_3mo_Nov12_2017 copyArland_NorwaY_Cs137_Be7_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy


  • Finland:

Kotka_Finland_Be7_Cs137_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy

  • 6 months of just Cs-137 data from far-Northern Finland (compare to UK and Cyprus data r. mid-July in the previous blogpost):

Ivalo_Finland_Cs137_3mo_Aug12_2017 copyIvalo_Finland_Cs137_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy

  • Note the time of the data gaps on the T-BETA-ART & other monitors in The Netherlands:

Vlaardingen_Nederland_T_Beta_Art_GammaT_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy

  • 9 months of T-BETA-ART in Northern Italy:

JRCstation7_Italy_T_BETA_ART_2scales_3mo_May12_2017 copy

JRCstation7_Italy_T_BETA_ART_2scales_3mo_Aug12_2017 copy

JRCstation7_Italy_T_BETA_ART_2scales_3mo_Nov12_2017 copy

Hope that suffices to debunk that official “only Ru-106” nonsense.

Now the question is WHY are they so keen on pushing a false narrative?    What actually happened, or is happening?  WHERE and WHEN  did it begin (or majorly escalate/deteriorate…)?


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A Lot More than Ruthenium-106 in that Radioactive Cloud (DATA)

  1. Paveway IV says:

    Don’t have anything to add but still watching your solid doc , Micheael. Thanks for your work. Are you archiving this anywhere?

  2. MVB says:

    Akashic records. Lol

    Feel free to make a back-up of the data i pulled from EURDEP & RADNET, put it on a USB stick, or so, put that in an EMP-shielding Faraday bag. Put it in a barrel, fill it with concrete and drop it to the bottom of some lake. Make sure it’s well marked. “Back-ups of EURDEP & Radnet radiation data 2011-2017”, for instance. Maybe someday someone will find it as entertaining as I do.


  3. p'teal says:

    MVB, wish there were words to express how very much I appreciate this website. Sprechen Sie ‘exponential notation’? [Thank you]E-9999999999999…. ;)

  4. Pingback: Couple EURDEPs & Radnets, Nov. 13, 2017 | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  5. Arctur Dent says:

    Some guys went flying through that cloud!! Check what they found on https://youtu.be/nV7uNMQ9AgI

  6. MVB says:

    @ Arctur, yeah, saw that, left comment there yesterday. It’s a waste of video time.

    WORTHLESS. They added nothing that furthers our unerstanding of what exactly was in there or where it came from. Without data from before the cloud (a baseline to compare to for the exact altitudes and route taken prior to contamination), and without air filter results that could have confirmed whether or not they were actually flying through the rported radiation cloud, their “findings” are close to worthless. They took some GAMMA readings, while Ru-106, like most nuclear fallout, predominantly emits by BETA decay. (and ALPHA too) They didn’t specify the exact day and time, nor route taken. Were they even in the radioactive cloud during their gamma survey?

    I want solid data, not just a couple guys going for a joy flight, acting as if their little test confirmed the nonsense from the nuclear “watchdogs”.

  7. Hello Michaël,

    Could this be the dregs of the NK bomb test on September 3rd? (… but then “they” would be screaming it from the rooftops, no?) Would appreciate your thoughts :)

    Thanks for all your hard work.


  8. MVB says:

    @ Paul, Highly unlikely, as underground nuclear bonb tests leak little more than Xenon and Argon isotopes to the surface and beyond. The magnitudes of the early October 2017 Cesium-134 and Iodine-131 detections in Czech republic were similar (traces around E-05) to those detected in Europe in spring 2011 (after TEPCO launched “Operation Merge with Biosphere” for Fukushima-Daiichi’s coriums). That was 3 full meltdowns and several spent fuel pools boiling off in Japan. SO either it IN EUROPE, or it’s on par with Fukushima, INES-7.

    Just like in 2016, whatever happened, was ENORMOUS, perhaps still is, and I suspect that is why the nuclear cartel is in total freak-out cover-up mode, sticking to data-gapping all over the place and launching diversion stories to give the impression that they give a damn about the public. THEY DON’T.

    Since the most nuclear-powered country in the world is pointing at Russia… it’s probably not coming from Russia.

  9. Pingback: Oct. 2017 Ru-103 Detections Highest since 2011 + Record High MDCs @ Switzerland Radiation Monitoring stations; + Czech Republic I-131 & Cs-134 Measurements During “Ru-106 Cloud” compared to 2011. | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  10. @Michaël
    Thanks for the reply and thanks for keeping track of this, seems no one else is :/


  11. Pingback: We Are in the Midst of a NUCLEAR WAR… (w/ Lots of 6 month EURDEPs; mid-Nov. 2017) | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  12. Pingback: “And Thus Earth Was Lost…” | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  13. Pingback: “Fears of a major nuclear accident” — Reuters: Radioactivity levels surged to 1,000 times normal in Russia — AP: “Extremely high contamination” — Concerns over gov’t cover-up | Global Geopolitics

  14. Pingback: “Fears of a major nuclear accident” — Reuters: Radioactivity levels surged to 1,000 times normal in Russia — AP: “Extremely high contamination” — Concerns over gov’t cover-up | Mountain Republic

  15. AT3022 says:

    Sorry to post in the wrong place at first.
    My question is: if an RTG containing 40 or 100 kilograms of RU-106 Burned up in the atmosphere, could that account for estimates of the total amount of RU-106 detected in the atmosphere?
    (I know that would be a big RTG, but we can suppose it might have been, say, a skunkworks satellite designed to have no solar panels for stealth reasons, etc.)

  16. MVB says:

    With the amounts measured all over Europe, and now also “extremely high” measurements confirmed by Russia in the Ural Mountains, I doubt a burned-up satellite is even remotely a possibility. A medical nuclear waste reprocessing facility if it were just R-106 (or Just Ru-103 + Ru-106, as the EPA mentioned – screenshot included in “And Thus Earth Was Lost…” ? [A MIX w/ Photos, Added EURDEPs, Videos & Rant] @ https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/and-thus-earth-was-lost/ ] is already far-fetched given the widespread detections, not to mention the very widespread data gaps and spikes on gamma detectors (Ru-106 decas by beta decay). As illustrated in this post, there were radioisotopes present in the air, at some places in quite significant concentrations even, that suggest the source was an active fissioning reactor. See also “Oct. 2017 Ru-103 Detections Highest since 2011 + Record High MDCs @ Switzerland Radiation Monitoring stations; + Czech Republic I-131 & Cs-134 Measurements During “Ru-106 Cloud” compared to 2011.” @ https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/oct-2017-ru-103-detections-highest-since-2011-record-high-mdcs-switzerland-radiation-monitoring-stations-czech-republic-i-131-cs-134-measurements-during-ru-106-cloud-compared-to-2011/

  17. Pingback: Fresh Black Bear Tracks | Allegedly Apparent Blog

  18. Pingback: “Fears of a major nuclear accident” — Reuters: Radioactivity levels surged to 1,000 times normal in Russia — AP: “Extremely high contamination” — Concerns over gov’t cover-up |

  19. AT3022 says:

    Right but if 40 kg would have burned up at altitude and come down rather than spread from ground level, might that be a relevant difference in the detection and the methodology for conclusions about the amount and source?

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