Phoenix, Tucson, Seattle (Radnet, 7 months)

Might revisit these when I have time.  Thought I’d just throw ’em up here for others to continue the sleuthing with.

Here’ the past 7 months @ Phoenix, AZ, showing a graph of the equivalent dose rate (red) and a gamma energy range (blue) [color legends in graphs further down all differ!]…

“See something?  Say something.”

We need to figure out WHERE this major nuclear accident took place “somewhere in the past half year”.  Anything those nuclear mouthpieces are saying just can’t be trusted.  When they’re talking about the “Ruthenium-106 cloud”, they don’t even mention all the other isotopes that were in there.  [If they did, the “mere pharmaceutical leak” story line would fall apart; ánd “suddenly” they’ld need to look at more than mere surface winds, as hot volatile fallout goes stratosphere-high… and then the whole “somewhere in Russia for sure” story wouldn’t hold up either… “Oops – Guess we’ll just stick to lying and ignore everything that exposes our lies…” [?] ]

Anyhow.  Via my page Online Radiation Monitors, I use these two for US EPA Radnet data.  Note their disclaimer: just like EURDEP, whatever the public gets to see cannot be relied upon.

I used the second one in this case and ran a couple queries:

The “equivalent dose rate” (in nanoSievert per hour – see Radiation Units & Conversions for assistance if needed) @ Phoenix Arizona [mentioned also in previous posts, such as (Dec. 3, 2017) Odd Correlation] shows a couple interesting details, including a few brief down-dips and upticks, and then what I associate with “a fallout pattern”, which can show as strangely lower than normal values due to ionizing particles effect on electronic circuitry of the measuring equipment itself (or so I fathom…).  Interesting is that the time of the onset of this pattern is the end of September, when a “radioactive cloud with merely harmless Ruthenium-106 from Russia or Kazakhstan” was reportedly detected across Europe.   (Maybe so, but you’ll have a hard time explaining some things if you stick to that French nuclear watchdog’s bs press release…)

Now when you look at individual gamma ranges, we’re mainly seeing a giant DATA GAP, with a huge difference before and after the data gap for most gamma ranges:

G6 & dose:

Mostly upwind from Phoenix, @ Tucson, Arizona, in the same general area of South-Central Arizona, yet an entirely different picture:  No dose rate data here, just gamma ranges.

G2 + G3 + G4:

G4 +G8 + G9:

Now a look at Saint George in Southern Utah, downwind from Phoenix for some of the periods in questions… (And just as with Seattle’s data, trying to explain it with forest fire smoke alone just doesn’t hold up for very long, though it could have been a factor a week here and there).  Again, HUGE difference after data gaps:

G8 & G9:

And here’s 7 months at Seattle, WA:

The chance is REAL that ‘somewhere in the US’, and ‘somewhere in the past half year’, a major nuclear accident occurred, which has,  so far, been successfully covered-up, possibly in part because the significance of radiation upticks has been obscured in key areas by widespread forest fires (in Arizona, California and most of the Pacific Northwest).

Besides the tragedies and destruction, did those fires also provide “a nice cover” for a very different kind of fire…?  From August (2017):

[crickets…]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Phoenix, Tucson, Seattle (Radnet, 7 months)

  1. Pingback: Arizona Flu up 800% [“Hm… Wonder why?”] | Allegedly Apparent Blog

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