Sky high radiation readings across the U.S.
Sky high radiation readings across the U.S.
Government and private radiation stations pick up coast to coast climb surpassing summer surge

News and Analysis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RadNet radiation monitors have detected renewed surges in atmospheric readings of dangerous beta radiation across the country. Over a dozen metropolitan test sites have registered four-month highs in EnviroReporter.com’s most recent comprehensive assessment.

These figures, compiled from government graphs and organized at RadNet Air Monitoring, show even greater radiation levels than the already high detection exposed in the August 7 article U.S. air radiation surges higher.

Beta radiation-impacted cities in this fall included San Diego, Bakersfield, Phoenix, Amarillo, Montgomery and Madison. Some of these RadNet sites recorded beta readings literally going off the chart at 1,000 total beta counts per minute (CPM).

Though Los Angeles’ beta station hasn’t worked in over a year, EnviroReporter.com tracks beta emissions through dust analysis from HEPA filter machines located in its Santa Monica offices. The latest period’s beta radiation detections were over eight times the same sources readings in late summer.

Some of the highest registering cities also were markedly higher than the same site readings shown on RadNet in 2013. Compared to its November 27, 2013 reading, Tuscon’s 460 CPM reading on the same date a year later was over 10 times more elevated. Phoenix’s November 28 reading of 735 CPM was over 21 times higher than exactly a year ago.

San Diego, which has inexplicably seen its airborne beta analyses skyrocket over the last year, hit 650 CPM October 1. That huge measurement, in a town with normal background around 20 CPM, was 60 times higher on the same date in 2014 than in 2013.

These alarming levels come as the heaviest travel days of the year have millions of Americans flying through air that they have no idea may be impacted by dangerous levels of radiation. No information exists in any airport in the United States that alerts travelers to the danger.

Often the readings can be staggering as first reported in 2012 and 2013. A vast majority of the five million people who flew over the Thanksgiving holiday did not have breathing masks as simple as common N-95 air filter model to protect themselves.

“These readings seem astronomically high,” said one EnviroReporter.com commenter in response to our November 23 Nationwide Radiation Report. “What could be the cause of such a surge in radioactivity? I find it hard to believe that it is all from Fukushima unless something there has changed dramatically, such as a collapse of one of the pools used to store and cool spent fuel rods. Any ideas? This could have a very severe impact on our health and the health of our environment. I’m very concerned.”

The latest figures are certainly fuel for concern. But getting a good idea of how severe the problem is has been hampered by RadNet’s spotty performance record. Just 39 out of 124 beta monitors were functioning as of November 23. That number has plunged to 31 as of December 2. That means just 25 percent of America’s front line detection defense against man-made radiation actually functions. Taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a system that defies other government contracted networks for most bungled results.

While the EPA has repeatedly shown that it has discounted the effects of airborne radiation, such as EnviroReporter.com reported in EPA Nukes Radiation Rules in  July 2013, it does not diminish the toxicity of the radiation involved.

Increasing airborne beta radiation can potentially include the man-made radionuclides cesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium 239/240. Astronomical amounts of these isotopes have escaped the crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan since March 11, 2011 when an earthquake and resultant tsunami destroyed the plant. This precipitated triple nuclear reactor meltdowns which remain out of control as the plant owners admitted in late November.

These isotopes, in very small amounts, can cause blood and bone diseases including leukemia. One millionth of an ounce of plutonium 239/240 will cause fatal lung cancer in humans.

Knowing how much radiation is in the air compared to normal background numbers is key to protecting the public from these tasteless and invisible poisons. EnviroReporter.com and others, including experts and manufacturers, consider 100 CPM to be an alarm trigger. Many American cities surpassed this threshold with measurements many multiples of anything that could be regarded as negligible.

Radiation levels that exceed three times background concentrations are considered a tripwire for concern as well, with 100 CPM approximately equating this level. The California Highway Patrol deems anything above this threshold as a potential hazardous material situation necessitating appropriate HazMat protocols.

In addition, a private citizen-sourced radiation network has identified at least one hot spot in St. Charles, Illinois. Information supplied EnviroReporter.com from Australian environmental activist Alan Manson shows extremely elevated readings in St. Charles, Illinois.

NETC graph courtesy of Alan Manson showing huge St. Charles, Illinois radiation spikes in November 2014.
NETC graph courtesy of Alan Manson showing huge St. Charles, Illinois radiation spikes in November 2014.
“I have been accessing certain radiation monitoring sites across the USA through the http://netc.com website for a while now, and have noted that one site west of Chicago IL (St. Charles) is regularly producing extreme readings every 24 hours as shown in the chart below,” Manson said in an email to EnviroReporter.com November 28. “Below is the latest chart from St. Charles that should be of extreme concern to anyone living in the Chicago area. It concerns me that the authorities and the media are silent regarding this dangerous situation.”

“At St. Charles IL, a peak reading of 7,298 was recorded during November,” Manson wrote subsequently. “Of greater concern at this site, regular emissions have been detected over the past 5 days, which commence around 1 am and last for approximately 6 hours.”

Breaking down the latest EPA Radnet numbers may also be a cause for extreme concern because they show just how hot the nation’s air is. Yet the very existence of this information, with fully 75 percent of it missing, may be in jeopardy soon enough with a Republican-controlled Congress likely eager to cut any program that might put the powerful nuclear industrial complex in the hot seat.

Hot Zones for the Holidays

Since EnviroReporter.com’s last major accounting of radiation readings across the United States, October 1, 2014, new beta radiation extremes in the air were reached around the United States.

Montgomery, Alabama hit a four-month high reaching 400 counts per minute October 17 while Anchorage, Alaska also pegged a four month high reaching 100 CPM November 1. That is the first time the port city on the Pacific has reached that dubious milestone since EnviroReporter.com began tracking its beta radiation totals in 2013. Over 350 miles away, Fairbanks hit its own new highpoint smashing through the previous one of 190 CPM September 28, topping 245 CPM October 31.

Phoenix, Arizona blew through its previous 210 CPM four-month high radiating over 735 CPM November 28. Tuscon, Arizona nearly topped 450 CPM October 31 which was over 25% higher than its last period high. Then on November 27, the beta blasted over the 700 CPM mark in a city that just ranks 55 out 100 in air quality nationwide yet is a magnet for seniors and snowbirds looking for clean and dry desert air. What they getting is hot air, even in the autumn.

Little Rock, Arkansas rocketed to 450 CPM October 27, exceeding past records, before its graph gave out November 26. Fort Smith, Arkansas calmed down a bit to ‘just’ 300 CPM October 27 and hit 250 CPM December 1.

California’s once robust beta monitoring stations are increasingly failing. Anaheim‘s beta graph started working August 7 then went dead completely August 15. It sputtered to life again November 27 topping out at 160 CPM before dying November 29.

Fresno smashed through previous highs hitting 970 CPM November 11 making it one of the hottest places in the Glowdon State. Not to be outdone, Bakersfield to the south has gone off the charts – in excess of 1,000 CPM – half a dozen times in early to mid-November. The home of Buck Owens hit a high, but sour, note December 1 with a whopping 950 counts per minute.

Riverside, California‘s graph gave out September 15 after repeatedly slamming through the ‘Oh NO!’ threshold of 250 CPM and has stayed out. Adjacent San Bernardino County hit a four month high October 18 notching about 335 CPM. San Diego remains extremely active hitting 580 CPM September 20 and then 650 CPM October 1. Its graph died November 26.

Not all of California’s radiation news was bad. An October to November EnviroReporter.com radiation testing foray to Death Valley National Park found rain November 1 that was merely 50 percent above background. That is in stark contrast to rains in late 2013 in Stovepipe Wells, Badwater and Furnace Creek which came in up to 31 times background as reported in Boreas Storm Packs Radioactive Punch.

Albuquerque, New Mexico also hit a four-month high October 19 with a sizzling 590 CPM and topped 550 CPM November 22. Southwestern air from Arizona to the Texas Panhandle has been exceedingly high in comparison to the rest of the country.

Raleigh, North Carolina hit 170 CPM July 24 and cut out and still hasn’t come back on, a real loss in the South. We do have Radiation Station Harrisburg North Carolina for occasional rain radiation tests including one November 17 which showed hot rain radiating at 9.9 times background.

Amarillo, Texas blew through 1,000 CPM October 21 then died November 1 which is truly a shame since it has been the most inexplicably active beta graph in the nation, certainly a dubious honor. Meanwhile, Dallas topped 400 CPM October 15, a four-month high with nearby Ft. Worth almost reaching 250 CPM November 20.

Madison, Wisconsin hit a four-month high September 30 charting an astounding 555 CPM. The Midwest metropolitan went over 450 CPM November 26.

No matter the source, or sources, of these monumental radiation readings across the U.S., they are levels that could pose a danger to the nation, especially if ignored. Concerned citizens must know by now that the only source for radiation protection they can find now – that they can count on – is their own.

68 Comments

  1. Any idea what or where this elevated radiation in st Charles is even coming from? Having just moved here it’s of great concern to me. Thank you.

  2. “I will find out who you are…” – Chris Nuclear Physicist

    Did anybody else find it almost funny, sort of sad too, that ‘Chris’ doesn’t have the common sense to know who Michael Collins is?
    (proves my point)

    I somewhat disagree with Another Simi Mom regarding Chris spending time behind bars. I don’t care why these arrogant nut-jobs get locked up. I also don’t care why OJ Simpson is behind bars, I’m just glad he is.

    IMO – When Nuclear Proponent ‘experts’ spew their intentionally inaccurate harmful rhetoric which will lead to the suffering of untold numbers it is no longer free speech, it is worse than liable, it’s a crime against humanity, against all living things. They should all be exposed for who and what they really are and what they’ve done to our one and ONLY planet.
    😐 😥

  3. Chris, you wrote a long essay which you willingly posted to this discussion. It’s not my place to say whether you are right or wrong in what you say. However, the owner of the website where you are a guest says your comments are, in effect, false and misleading.

    If the owner has allowed your comment to post online in the spirit of open discussion, the owner and host of the website does have the right to impeach your credibility on the owner’s public forum, in the way the owner chooses. Publication of vague information going to the credibility of a relatively anonymous post by “Chris” about arrest information, obtained from a publicly open source, is not libel, (let alone slander which is only ORAL defamation,) especially when your full name or city of residence/work is not mentioned.

    Truth is an absolute defense to a libel claim. As I am sure you have noticed as you’ve read paper and online newspapers around the country, the press report the names, ages, home towns, employers, and alleged crimes all the time, because they are free to do so because the details about the person who has been arrested are public records, and are factually true. Pre-trial, publishers of media write editorials about the conduct of arrestees, and those editorials also do not subject the opinion writers to libel claims. Reports and editorial commentary of this sort occur every day and few if any lawyers are stupid enough to file libel lawsuits because of them. That sort of libel suit is unwinnable, because truth is an absolute defense for the publisher of the arrest information, or the opinion expressed on the arrestee’s alleged conduct as described in the public records.

    As I am sure you know this website is published in California. What you probably do not know is that publishers and commenters are protected by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, enacted by the Legislature to protect those who exercise their “free speech” and First Amendment rights in connection with public issues from being maliciously sued. The Federal courts honor that law, when suits designed to punish or SLAPP Califoria media are filed. The radiation coming from the Fukushima nuclear plants, the types and quantities thereof, are clearly a public issue, within the context of Section 425.16. Thus, publication of truthful facts “to impeach the credibility of the speaker/writer” are part of that public issue.

    Section 425.16 allows anyone sued for exercising their free speech/First Amendment rights on a public issue to have the lawsuit dismissed on a highly expedited basis, generally about 90 days after the filing of the case.

    Under Section 425.16, the “free speaker” who is successful in getting the case against him dismissed also has the right to recover his/her attorneys fees (usually at a rate of a few hundred dollars per hour) and court costs (which can be a few thousand dollars) in a judgment against the party filing the lawsuit.

    Generally the “man on the street” cannot afford to hire a lawyer to pursue a libel case which is within the ambit of Section 425.16, and given the existence of Section 425.16 few contingency fee attorneys are willing to devote the time to such a case, because an essential element of a libel claim is the plaintiff incurring actual monetary damages as a consequence of what is untruthfully said or written about him.

    The bottom line is that nothing untruthful has been written about you by the owner of this website. You have no claim for libel, let alone slander.

    I am sorry for you and for anyone who is arrested and who faces trial for a crime. The legal system is particularly cruel to smart people who anger the powerful, like casino owner/operators. I hope the court proceedings turn out well for you. My sincerely felt best advice to you is to stay focused on that court date, and focus on helping your attorney put on a good defense.

  4. @Chris: Sue me for “slender”? Should I take that as a complement on my physique? Do these radionuclides make me look skinny?

    Seriously, Chris, get over yourself. There are at least 353,460 people in the U.S. with the first name Chris, hundreds of casinos in the Midwest and millions of lummoxes from coast to coast, so it’s highly unlikely that anyone will figure who you are or who you are accussed of being. It just isn’t in the cards.

  5. New rain measurements for the Los Angeles area:

    I measured moderate activity in today’s briefly heavy rain storm that passed through Glendale, CA. I say moderate because I consider anything at 3X background or higher to be high activity. But this sample came it at slightly more the 2X (115%) background. Both the sample reading and the background reading are taken as 10 minute averages.

    Sample: 97.3 CPM
    Background: 45.2 CPM

    Today’s storm (and it was accompanied by lightning) dumped a quarter of an inch of rain in about an hour. The rain rate was pretty impressive, and any rain for California is a good thing (moderately hot or not).

  6. Hey you shouldn’t post any of my personal information. I want all my info removed. I left a comment here in good faith and gave you a reply in my email under the assumption that you wouldn’t share any information, let alone slander me while I have on going legal trouble which hasn’t been proved (I have been an alleged of cheating, not convicted. That means something entirely different in the real world, or do you not understand LAW) which are completely unrelated to this board. You are jerk and if you don’t remove this I will find out who you are and sue you for slender.

    YOU WILL REMOVE ALL MY POSTS AND ANY POSTS THAT MENTION MY NAME OR ANY ACTIVITIES THAT ARE RELATED TO ME FROM THIS SITE IMMEDIATELY. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN POTENTIAL LEGAL SUITES

  7. @Chase et al: Now don’t think this is an April Fools joke but our “nuclear physicist” here, Chris, actually included his email address so I could ask him for his identification confirmation after I found out his full identity. Yes, he is actually associated somehow with CERN which is incredible considering the erring blather he wrote here with a poker face.

    It is even more astonishing since Chris was arrested with a pal at a Midwest gambling casino in late 2013 for conspiring to beat the dealer while playing Mississippi Stud! Seems Chris took that crackerjack brain and applied it to trying to rob the house but, alas, it didn’t apparently work out too well.

    Chris is facing some serious prison time for one count of burglary, two counts of unlawful placing of bets and one count of cheating at gambling. Perhaps he is trying to think of anything else other than the penitentiary door slamming shut by cranking out this nattering malarkey that is unintentionally comical, especially the nonsense about CME’s.

    What will happen to card-playing Chris? We’ll find out when the decision in his case is announced. That will be March 11, 2015, the fourth anniversary of the ongoing triple meltdowns at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

    That has a certain poetic poker justice to it, doesn’t it? Talk about hot water!

  8. Re: Chris Nuclear Physicist

    I’ll do my best to speak in physicist terms so the ‘experts’ may better understand what I’m saying.

    Topic: MATTER

    Whether it’s dark matter, anti-matter or matter splatter from Fukushima. The question is… Does it MATTER?

    Simply stated, there are many ways to measure radiation.

    Gray, rem, roentgen, becquerel, rad, sievert, curie and even CPM.
    http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html
    (note: clearly explained)

    😐 The way in which the RADIATION CONTAMINATION is measured really doesn’t MATTER.

    However…

    What MATTERS is the fact we have ongoing (4 years) TRIPLE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS with no end in sight.

    What MATTERS is that any prior RISK calculations are no longer relevant. It’s just a number crunching game to fool people into accepting something that they should never have had forced upon them in the first place.

    What MATTERS is not just the cancers or death caused , but the known weakening of the immune system and the sociological psychological affects on a global scale.

    What MATTERS is how this IS affecting other lifeforms and ecosystems which will in turn affect us.
    (happening before our very eyes)

    What MATTERS is that nobody I know falls for the lame comparison of cosmic rays to continuous out of control FALLOUT primarily from Fukushima at this time.

    What MATTERS is that the EPA’s monitoring system is irreprehensibly maintained and out of date. Not to mention that its nowhere near the comprehensive level of monitoring needed in the era of fallout and terrorist threats.

    What MATTERS is that the unbelievable lack of testing and accurate information combined with the overwhelming disinformation about bananas and the constant slinging of ‘fear monger’ slurs point to an industry that’s desperately grasping for straws.

    What really MATTERS is COMMON SENSE, which for some reason, seems to be lacking in those supposedly trained in the Nuclear Industry. 😉

    IMO – Everyone’s CONCERN for the ongoing nightmare of Fukushima and the scam of Nuclear Power should be HIGH.

  9. I read through this article and I noticed many things. Most striking is nowhere is it mentioned how dangerous these radiation levels supposedly are. For example, everything is in CPM (counts per minute), but what are the energies of the particles (all presumed to be electrons, but is this true?!).

    I do not believe such radiation levels you are reporting are a cause for alarm. Before I explain why, let me just say that I am a nuclear physicist employed at a major research university in the US who is also affiliated with CERN (the Large Hadron collider) and that I have also had training in radiation physics. I also know a great deal about radiation detectors and calorimeters in general which are devises used to detector particles.

    Harmful radiation to biological matter is usually given in units called Sieverts (Sv) which has units of J/Kg. It captures the physical quantity of decay rate (which is what CPM is) along with the energy of the particles being emitted and the cumulative effect of what type of particles are being emitted. The higher the rate of decay or energy of the decay particles, the higher the dose rate. To properly account for the type of particles being radiated, a weight factor is assigned to each type of particle. For electrons and photons (x-rays and gamma ray as UV rays tend to not have enough energy to ionize nuclei of DNA strands of living cells which are deeper than the skin) the weight factor is 1; for protons its roughly 2; for fission nuclei (e.g. the radioactive fallout you speak of: Cs-137, Sr-90, ect.) its about 20; and for neutrons it quite complicated but we can neglect this for now.

    Because radiation is a stochastic process, it is impossible to determine on an atom-by-atom level if an ionization will occur. Furthermore, because the gross anatomical features vary from person to person, it is impossible to know with certainty what dose would be required to kill somebody. All that can be discussed are probabilities of an event (e.g death, or a certain increase of cancer) occurring. A general convention is that a full body dose of about 4 Sv will result in a 50% probability of somebody dying from a complication to the radiation exposure (it doesn’t have to be cancer, could be CNS failure, gastrointestinal complications, blood disorders, ect.). Doses of about 1 Sv will tend to cause vomiting and diarrhea. Doses of 250 mSv or higher will begin to cause vomiting or at the very least a lose of appetite. Doses of 100 mSv or less generally show no symptoms. Note these are all for acute exposures. If a person were to be subjected to a radiation field of 100 mSv per day for 10 days, they will most likely show the signs of an acute exposure to 1 Sv as 10 days isn’t sufficient time for the body to repair DNA damage to cells.

    So, what is the background radiation level in the US from all natural sources: Solar activity, cosmic rays, radioactive decay of primordial elements present in the Earth, and radioactivity from food ingested on a daily basis (mostly from potassium). It’s roughly 4 mSv per year. But is this level of radiation dangerous? From first principals we would have to say no, otherwise how are we all still alive and well! Then the logical question becomes, “what level of chronic radiation exposure warrants a cause for concern”? This is a difficult question to address, as not too much research has been done in this area. In fact such research is of major interest to NASA because astronauts are subject to radiation fields 100X higher then people on Earth experience. However, we do have a basis of comparison for at least a lower bound estimate of what isn’t vary harmful. In Ramsar, Iran, background radiation levels coming from radioactive decay of thorium and uranium found in soil (most activity comes from radon, which is a decay product of uranium and thorium) are about 10 mSv/a with some areas receiving up to 100 mSv/a. There is no evidence for an increase in cancer rates from this area, but more studies are needed.

    So what are the supposed spikes being observed in this article due to, and more importantly are they harmful? Well as one writer pointed out, they are most likely due to solar activity. I agree with this in that increased solar activity would cause a spikes in radiation levels where as nuclear fallout would cause a general raise in levels that would then decrease in an exponential fashion (not like a spike!) over a period of time related to the half life of the nuclear fallout. Since the radio-nuclides mention have half-lives of 30 years to 20K year (for Pu-239), and their dispersion occurred long ago and have thus been diffused to equilibrium in the atmosphere, they cannot cause these spikes to occur. Furthermore, cosmic rays are generated at a roughly a constant rate and their interactions in the atmosphere would produce secondary’s that would not be dominated by electrons, but rather neutrons and heavy nuclei. This leaves solar activity as the remaining source. The solar activity that produces this radiation is coronal mass ejections (CME) and is produced in unpredictable fashion without warning. These CMEs are pulsating in nature (flares) and thus would produce a “spike” if measured by radiation equipment. The particles being emitted are usually protons and electrons (well that’s what the sun is mostly made of!) and they would travel towards the earth at high speeds, of up to 1 million kph. They would initially interact with the magnetosphere that would deflect a considerable amount of them, but some would be ejected at nearly parallel trajectories to the Earth and would interact with the atmosphere and then hit the surface (or your detector). Now, protons have a much higher energy loss rate per unit distance in the atmosphere then electrons so most of their energy would be lost before reaching your detector. The electrons on the other hand will be able to reach the surface and that’s what your measuring.

    About 10-20% of background radiation dose comes from electrons. Assuming the detection equipment is functioning properly, an increase in the rate of electrons by a factor of 20 should roughly correspond to an increase of dose by 6 (5X from electron on top of 1X from normal background) relative to background levels. Furthermore, this dose is only delivered over a time of about 2 hours (the time scale of a solar flare, which is also reflected in your graphs!! See your spikes and compare there width to the x-axis and you will find that the spike lasts roughly an hour providing even more proof that this these spikes are from solar activity), so we can calculate the additional dose of this radiation to be roughly 5 μSv per event (spike). Even 10 spikes is only 50 μSv which is about 1% of the yearly dose a person receives. To put this in perspective, an airplane flight from New York to LA would expose a passenger to 40 μSv and a head CT-scan is about 2 mSv (2000 μSv). So these increased radiation levels are completely safe. Please stop scaring people!!

  10. @Chase: Thank you so much for your continued vigilance and awareness of the awesome challenges we all face trying to illuminate the huge radiation readings we gleam from thousands of rad tests. Fred Astaire’s chilling line (about ‘hot air’) is so prescient. Who knew then that millions of people would face the actual reality of such high numbers since 3/11/11 and react like nothing is happening at all. This worldwide reaction of malaise is arguably great news for the nuclear power industry: a triple meltdown destroying the Pacific is met with derision and downright stupidity as we showed in Fukushima – The Perfect Crime?

    As always, Denise Anne and I are grateful that you, Peter, George and a handful of other faithful raddies who actually ‘get it.’

  11. 10X background on the HEPA Filter should raise ALARMS and concern.

    Here’s a clip from the original ‘On The Beach’ movie where they seem to be extremely ‘concerned’ that the BACKGROUND RADIATION is at 9X.

    1959 – On the Beach movie:
    (classic scene 60 seconds)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc7y8xs6QXw

    “The air in this room is 9 times what it was a year ago, Don’t ya know that! NINE TIMES! We’re all doomed, ya know… Doomed by the air we’re about to breathe…” – Fred Astaire

    IMO – The status of the USA’s EPA monitoring system is an outdated piece of crap and not maintained with any sense of urgency or reliability. I wonder WHY that is? 😉

    I also wonder about patients who use oxygen concentrators. (?)

    🙂 Thanks EnviroReporter(s), without your data we would literally have nothing.

  12. This is a HUGE increase in beta radiation in Los Angeles:

    January 10, 2015
    1:25 pm INT HEPA DUST from two HEPA filters, one Ionizer/HEPA filter from November 18, 2014 minus 10 days on rad investigation across country and in Southwest Michigan, or 42 days total: 399.9 CPM which is 10.1 TIMES BACKGROUND HIGHER than background. The EPA’s Los Angeles beta station has been down though other California stations show high beta radiation, especially Bakersfield and Fresno (whose RadNet monitor is now not functioning).
    1:00 pm INT WEST LOS ANGELES BASIN RAIN SAMPLE: 45.8 CPM^^ or 15.4% above background which is negligible.
    12:45 pm INT BG: 39.7 CPM^^

  13. @Andrew D.

    It’s almost funny when someone slings a word like ‘idiot’ at a person who has over 30 years of award winning environmental reporting experience.

    It’s even funnier when the commenter is making uneducated FALSE statements.

    1. FALLOUT from Nuclear Weapons Testing IS detectable.

    2. FALLOUT from NPPs IS detectable.
    (Like the ongoing TRIPLE MELTDOWNS at Fukushima.)

    CTBTO detection map
    http://www.ctbto.org/map/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty_Organization#Status

    Apparently Andrew also missed the discussion on solar flares in the “Lights Out” article by Michael Collins. (Oct 2014)
    😉 http://www.enviroreporter.com/2014/10/lights-out/

  14. @Andrew Dodson: Thank you for this and identifying yourself. It facilitates better communication when the subject is somewhat technical.

    You don’t explain how solar flares are related to beta radiation spikes but if you had, I hope you would have included an explanation of why some places spike and others don’t over the same time period. For example, Amarillo, Texas and Orono, Maine have wildly differently beta readings yet are on the same, well, planet. Your astute observation that “nuclear weapons testing and nuclear power do not appear as spikes” is a bit of head-scratcher though since we never suggested they did.

    Speaking of sounding like an idiot, you appear to be the same Andrew Dodson pontificating on YouTube who, on his Linked in page wrote: “My experience in this life has been digging. I sift through the dirt of society until I find the true root of its problems. I have seen the deep roots and now by the Grace of God and my own hand, I WILL cut off these problems. War, Famine, Disease, and Death are all counted my enemies.” Your fine oratory skills demonstrated in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h15LjCr5kvs make us think of the old adage “consider the source.”

    So, considering both the content of your comment and its source, we won’t be deleting this article.

  15. Hi I am andrew dodson, a graduate student at the university of arkansas in electrical engineering.

    The radiation spikes you are concerned about are related to solar flares. Fallout from sources such as nuclear weapons testing and nuclear power do not appear as spikes. You might want to just go ahead and delete this article. It makes you sound like an idiot.

    Have a nice day!

  16. @Spike: We are even more concerned about the state of our national labs now knowing that the Spikes working there aren’t brave enough to go by real names.

    The real point is this: who you are and where you work is germane to anything you attempt to foist upon our audience. The real reason you won’t identify yourself is because you know that valid criticisms of radiation safety procedures at your lab would be damning, and certainly not defamation.

  17. That is false. I’ve never made any claim that my expertise proves anything. I claim to be a health physicist. I could just as easily claim to be a postman. All I have done is to offer explanations for measurements that you find alarming. These suggestions are fact-based and scientifically defensible. But you don’t have to agree with me. You could offer some other explanation, and we could conceivably have an adult-like debate about the merits of the arguments. But you won’t even publish my arguments, as you seem more interested in wanting to personally and professionally defame me.

  18. @Spike: Yes, because you claim expertise and use it as proof that your assertions are correct.

  19. So, someone who disagrees with your assertions has their comments held hostage; ransomed by divulging their full identity and that of their employer, but everyone else gets to be as anonymous as they want to be. That’s your idea of free speech? In comments you refuse to post, I already stated that I’m a health physicist and that I work at a research lab. That’s more information than I’ve read about anyone else posting on this site. This is ridiculous. Have a nice day, Mr. Collins.

  20. @Spike: Your apology is accepted. We will not engage in any discussion about the topic of our original article unless you identify yourself, just as we are identified clearly throughout EnviroReporter.com, and the lab you work at (which we already know but have not yet named). Otherwise you can keep your notions to yourself as we do not waste the time debating anyone hiding behind the moniker “Spike.”

  21. Mr. Collins. In my naivete’ I identified myself when I first posted (commented, whatever) on your site. Or, more correctly, I used a valid email address when I signed up. I found out that apparently, this is an unusual thing, and later found out why. In reading comments on this and other sites, I learned that most people who share their thoughts in these venues don’t use their true identity. So I later created an identity just like many other of your readers, in hopes of engaging this and possibly other venues in a dialogue that hopefully wouldn’t devolve into attacks on my profession or my employer. I also want to discuss this as a private citizen, just as most people do. And the first thing you did with the identifying information I provided when I signed up was to attempt to goad me into defending my employer by making baseless accusations of wrongdoing on their part. I am not here to represent or defend anyone else. I just want to share in the conversation, because it so desperately needs to be discussed by people on all sides with all opinions, and it needs to be done in a sensible way; based on facts and proper scientific treatment of data, without shrill attacks and defamation. Honestly, many of the conversations I come across on the topic sound like they are between a bunch of children. The subject of nuclear technology is a serious one and needs to be treated as such.
    In any event, several of my comments have yet to be posted. If you in fact really “want to”, as you say, then I don’t understand why you don’t. Given what comes across as a continuous sneering toward anyone who disagrees with you in your opinion about things nuclear, at this point, it doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of everyone’s time if all that’s going to happen is name-calling and slander, and I don’t have time for such foolishness.
    If you really do want to have a meaningful exchange about facts and real science, I’m happy to engage in that. I’ll even apologize here for the record, if some of my earlier comments were inappropriate or unprofessional, and I’ll pledge to keep my comments civil. If you want to discuss the topic of environmental airborne radioactivity measurements (or other specific topics about radiation), I will be glad to talk about it. I’ll be respectful and honest. I’ll tell you what I know about it, and I’ll tell you when some details are beyond my personal expertise. But if you’re just going to label and dismiss me as a “pro-nuke shill”, then we are probably already done. I’m simply not going to waste my time with defending against such puerile accusations (would you?) or similar ones about how my employer “does business”, period.
    Would you be willing to agree to a fact-based, science-based discussion about the topic of your original article, or some other radiological concerns you have? If so, then let’s do it.
    Best regards.

  22. @Spike/et al: None of your comments (not “posts” as you write here) have been deleted. We are still waiting to publish them and, believe you me, we want to. But there’s a catch: “Spike” and “Keith” are the same person, a person whose identity he is afraid to reveal on EnviroReporter.com. We’ve already made clear that anonymity is no refuge for pro-nuke shills.

    I wrote: Pro-nuke power people like “venom” are loathe to identify themselves. It not only speaks to their lack of credibility, it allows them to take pot shots when, in a couple of cases, these folks work at nuclear industry concerns that have serious safety problems. Don’t expect full identification from “venom” or “Keith” or any of the other de facto nuker trolls, just hogwash. We on the other hand, are fully identified.

    So, “Spike” and Keith, identify yourself so you can stand behind your convictions and the ID the national lab you work for and we’ll publish your “sound technical” responses, which include ad hominem attacks on yours truly. You already know full well that I’ll address these comments of yours in detail highlighting the way you folks do business at the lab where you are employed.

    Remember, free speech isn’t free. Our nation’s men and women in uniform, and the people in the press who repeatedly expose threats to our country whether from adversaries or ourselves gutting the environment, don’t do their duty to ensure that some taxpayer-paid nuclear industry troll can harass us and our commenters anonymously. You have to be brave to belittle us with your hooey, Spike/Keith. Are you ready to man up?

  23. Why do you keep deleting my posts? I offered a sound technical response, which many have asked for.

  24. Instead, try reviewing real data from ocean water testing off Hawaii…..good stuff here, real data. No opinions are needed. 472% over prior background

    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/12/radiation-in-pacific-ocean-real-data.html

  25. The Japan Times reports, four more children are suspected of suffering from thyroid cancer in the latest survey bringing the total to 107 out of 385,000 now surveyed. This is dramatically higher than the normal “between 5 to 11 cases per million people,” that Okayama University professor Toshihide Tsuda cites for national statistics between 1975 and 2008.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-24/fukushima-children-thyroid-cancer-rate-continues-rise

  26. I have been writing and publishing about Fukushima since it happened and have written in response to what has been reported here on enviroreporter. It astounds me the lack of reaction to the information and insults my soul to read people like Vernon saying there is nothing to worry about and that Michael is fearmongering. I think quite the contrary, that Collins puts out the alarming information in a fair and balanced way. The only thing that has led me to doubt his information is not the information or the reporting is the lack of reaction. Even when I republish it in more alarming fashion there is a lack of reaction. The only reason I sleep at night is because I live in the Southern Hemisphere in Brazil.

  27. @FukishimalsHere: you won’t be allowed to hear the facts about why the spikes are not a concern, because the people who run this blog won’t post replies containing that information. I’ve tried. It would destroy the ridiculous conspiracy theory they’re proposing.

  28. @Jeff Wright

    I have watched Pandora’s Promise and in my opinion it’s a Nuclear Proponent infomercial, not a movie. It is the single biggest piece of propaganda I have witnessed in recent times. The attempt to associate Nuclear Power with solving climate change is ludicrous.

    ☢ Pandora’s Promise Was A Lie – Fukushima Documentary 2014 Trailer 3 minutes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NE0kkzNKFs

    >>> “So how does such a massive scientific discrepancy occur?”

    “Nuclear Exodus explores the ties that inexorably bind the nuclear power industry to the military industrial complex, and how the lust for nuclear weapons causes governments to push nuclear power on their citizens, while covering up the true health effects of radiation exposure. It delves deep into the legacy & lessons of Chernobyl, nuclear waste management, nuclear terrorism, & solar flares which could potentially trigger hundreds of nuclear meltdowns across the world – threatening life on Earth as we know it.”
    – by Nuclear Exodus
    (2 hours, it covers a lot of ground.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOelqGl2Ux0

    I have also read up on what you call 4G Nuclear Plants.

    Let me ask you this Jeff, if 1G, 2G and 3G were failures why should anybody believe 4G is any kind of an answer?

    😉 Talk to me once the TRIPLE MELTDOWNS at Fukushima have been fixed and the long range problems of Nuclear Waste are fully resolved.

    Nuclear Power is a scam that literally STEALS from THE FUTURE with unthinkable risks to everything, in order to boil water and make profit for a few today. 😐

    Elon Musk CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Motors says that all the electricity that the country needs could be run on a 100 mile square grid of solar power.

    “You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.”
    – Nikola Tesla

  29. i wouldn’t be surprised if a mini-Nuke has been used in the Ukraine, or as part of the fighting in the on-going ISIS psych-op, but imagine more likely things are just getting worse in Japan…i would also venture to speculate that the odd periodicity of high readings out of St. Charles may be due to the presence of Fermi Laboratory (technically in Batavia, IL but basically in same locale); although the particle accelerator has moved to CERN, there are several new buildings there.
    I wasn’t able to afford the radiation monitor i had hoped to purchase in 2014; maybe i need to save harder given these data! thank you for the report!

  30. Has anybody on this site actually read up on 4th Generation nuclear or the benefits shown in the movie release of “Pandora’s Promise?”

    The faster all the coal, NG, 2nd and 3rd generation nuclear plants can be closed and replaced with 4G nuclear plants, the better for us all.

  31. 100 CPM is an indication that something is slightly above background – when measured with a geiger counter in the general area or on a surface, it simply means that you should investigate the source. it is about 3X average background in most areas

    When applied to air samples, all bets are off. You are concentrating very small amounts of radioactivity from very large amounts of air. Alarm levels have to be based on the flow rate and/or total volume collected. 100cpm is well withing the normal variance – some places even average that (that’s what background is – an average of the levels over time).

    Why doesn’t venom think that these variations are a cause for concern?

  32. Yes – I’d like to hear what venom has to say too!

    Why aren’t these variations cause for concern?

  33. Michael – I really appreciate this website, but I addressed my question to Venom because I want to hear his side of the issue without all the distracting arguing. I don’t care what his identity is – I simply want to understand his perspective and evaluate it for myself.

    Venom, if you do respond, I hope you’ll just address my question and put aside the rest.

    Thank you both.

  34. @veronica: Pro-nuke power people like “venom” are loathe to identify themselves. It not only speaks to their lack of credibility, it allows them to take pot shots when, in a couple of cases, these folks work at nuclear industry concerns that have serious safety problems. Don’t expect full identification from “venom” or “Keith” or any of the other de facto nuker trolls, just hogwash. We on the other hand, are fully identified. But let’s look at the graphs EPA RadNet to see if not only sound science but common sense can address your question: IF all these sky high readings, like in Amarillo, Texas and Bakersfield, California, are normal, why do they blow through the charts? Why then are places like Orono, Maine (which is much farther away from Fukushima) so low then? Are the low readings not accurate? Of course not. These readings are all accurate and beta radiation blowing through the roof is not normal or easily fobbed off as radon progeny. So, in short veronica, the numbers don’t like but anonymous armchair nuclear “experts” do.

    @john: Thanks to Potrblog in St. Louis, we obtained a Nevada Radiation Control Program report about a December 11, 2011 incident called “AGREEMENT STATE REPORT – LINEN TRANSPORT TRUCK DETAINED AFTER SETTING OFF RADIATION ALARM” which said as part of the report “The CHP said that their protocols dictate that anything above three times background is treated as a hazmat incident and must have proper packaging and manifest.” [Our emphasis]

  35. I have seen now several times the statement that anything above 100 CPM causes California Highway Patrol to respond with hazmat. What is your source for this?

  36. The type of arguing going on in this comment section is really dismaying for anyone trying to actually understand what is going on.

    Venom – can you please explain (without the distracting personal argument between you and ER) why you consider these readings to be meaningless? You’ve said they are normal fluctuations. If they are normal, one would expect to see high readings like this with some regularity, correct? Enviroreporter claims they have looked at the records and this is not the case. Are you saying this claim is incorrect?

  37. Good news: As of today, 37 U.S. EPA RadNet beta monitors are working versus 31 a week ago. Just 87 to go to reach 100% and actually protect the country from coast to coast with real accurate information. Don’t hold your breath, though you may want to.

    Bad news: Some of our most strident critics won’t identify themselves for you or where they work when submitting voluminous comments full of falsehoods and personal attacks. That’s their right but when a government lab official pens an opus taking my head off, he has to identify himself entirely otherwise there’s no way to point out the deficiencies in his arguments and at his facility. Anonymous pot shots from self-described experts who supposedly know so much more than you or I, like the guy who says we should all be more concerned about being fat than Fukushima radionuclides fracking up our air, know who I am when they throw punches. You, faithful reader, need to know who these armchair anonymous pro-nukers are otherwise I can’t counter their off the mark shots. Don’t expect anything to result from this – these folks aren’t about to shed their pseudo-outraged veneers hidden behind first names and nicknames.

  38. What could possibly cause a spike to over 7000 CPM in St. Charles, Il. (my family lives there). There are no nuke power plants in the local area. I think Zion is the closest which is 50 miles north and east.

  39. “We the people” deserve to be properly informed!

    Fukushima AWARENESS is not fear mongering!

    It’s our air, water and soil that the Nuclear Industry has tainted and continues to do so with an ongoing accumulating insidious force that’s never been seen before.

    One would assume that…

    The onslaught of FALLOUT from the ongoing TRIPLE MELTDOWNS with no end in sight at Fukushima should be reason enough to get this system operational, standardized and 100% reliable. If we can afford to launch space shuttles and fund particle accelerators for billions it seems like having an accurate real-time warning system for radiation detection should be a priority. Cheap in comparison.

    One might also think that proponents of the Nuclear Industry would approach this ONGOING global catastrophic event with a sense of seriousness. But, what we usually get is an air of arrogance that’s an attempt to ‘put down’ anybody who raises a possible flag that the fallout age is upon us and that we all really need to understand why and how we got here and why and how mitigation has become and important component in our everyday lives for a chance at better health and well being.

    Here’s some GREAT advise from a former WHO Radiation EXPERT.

    😐 “The future relies on the citizen scientist… instead of relying on the national establishment to protect public health. The citizens have got to get involved.”
    – Keith Baverstock, Phd [paraphrased]
    http://www.kbaverstock.org/page3.html

    It’s the politics of science that are killing us.

    I’m not going to put down or name call anyone here, but what I will say is there is 1 group of rad detectors that I know I can rely on and that’s at >>> EnviroReporter.com. 🙂

  40. Michael, please go back to Jeff Rense radio program with your reports. I miss you and your important information.

  41. @Collins –
    I simply tried to ask the questions you were not; however, since you seem to have no issue throwing out slanderous, belittling comments to anyone who disagrees with you, I will respond from most current comments.

    I never stated whether the email address was correct or not, I simply offered a suggestion. It is apparent I can use any email address and you will not know, based on your automatic response to call someone a troll. Yet you cited, this allows you to see who we really are, when that could not be further from the truth. You also consider your source based on this information, proving once again, you have no issue reporting inaccurate information and slandering people based on this inaccurate information. I also noticed, you did not put out any personal or industry related information about any of those who agree with you. Why is that? Something to hide?

    So to answer, the email is correct. Additionally, you are correct, I am a VP. This is the only information you got correct. Yet, I can do a simple Google search on the internet and uncover the correct information in about 5 seconds. Where you are wrong, I am not in the Radioactive/Hazardous Waste Disposal Industry; although. the company does have a business unit (cost center) which is in this sector. I am in the environmental and radiological remediation (clean up), decommissioning, radiation protection and radiation safety sector. Meaning it is my job to protect the public, and I am very good at my job. I assumed with your investigative resource talents you would have known this. You did not. Once again, you looked at a very small portion of the evidence, the evidence that fit your argument and ran with it. Very unprofessional, lacking the true investigative spirit of a full understanding of what you are investigating. But this seems to be a common theme with all the investigative data you present.

    You also indicated my reaction, that I do not know heads from tails. The issue with that response is, I do know why the readings are elevated. I also know they are well within the bounds of normal background fluctuations. What was apparent to me is, you do not. If you want to write an article about the system, and its waste of tax payer money, do so. Problem is, it would be a pretty bland and boring article, not as spicy as the sky is falling. Knowing that, I am way past your petty name calling.

    From your first response, I will answer in order, as you did.

    First, to answer your question , no the RadNet data is not always accurate. This has been an issue for some time, but I thought you would have already known that with your plethora of experience with the system. You did not. Which was expected based on your article.

    Second, knowing the location does not provide you the true geographical terrain or placement. Since you were the know all, be all of the RadNet system, I assumed you could enlighten me. What is needed is to know if they were mounted on the top of a hill, at the bottom of a valley, upwind, downwind, in direct sunlight, and the specific weather the day of the readings, etc…Yes, I could do the research, but since there is not an issue with the readings, and I can interpret quite a bit from the data, I do not feel the need.

    Third, it does take quite a bit of intelligence, and fairly sophisticated instrumentation (of which are not currently part of the system you hold in such high regard) to accurately access isotopic analysis (radioisotope identification).

    Fourth, you cite the National Academy of Science. In that case, cite all of the evidence, and why they will NOT say whether ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be HARMLESS or BENEFICIAL. The only evidence exists for high levels of exposure (magnitudes greater than the data you provided), of which this is not. One challenge to understanding the health effects of radiation is that there is no general property that makes the effects of man-made radiation different from those of naturally occurring radiation. Still another difficulty is that of distinguishing cancers that occur because of radiation exposure from cancers that occur due to other causes. These facts are just some of the many that make it difficult to characterize the effects of ionizing radiation at low levels. Contributing to the difficulty are the stochastic nature of cancer occurrence, both background and exposure related, and the fact that radiogenic cancers are indistinguishable from nonradiogenic cancers. The long and the short of this is, there is no evidence either way, which is why, the experts in the field assume that any exposure has risk. Additionally, in order to understand biological effects, you would have to understand on a molecular level how ions interact with various portions of DNA and the biology of DNA. This is far above your pay grade, so I do not expect you to understand – keep reading and re-posting propaganda MR FEAR MONGER! I am sure it pays the bills. Yet, since a portion of my career is radiation protection, the only thing I agree with from you is a better, more accurate, operational system is needed.

    Fifth, I am in the business of radiation protection, radiation safety and decommissioning nuclear facilities. It behooves me to say shut down all nuclear power plants and nuclear facilities, so I can decommission them. This is where I make my money. I have no other stake in the Nuclear POWER Industry. Therefore, I pose to you again, why when you are asked to substantiate your claims warning people of flying through plumes of sky high radiation, do you automatically get defensive because we are in the industry and tend to disagree with you? If you could substantiate or validate your data, you would. You reaction is to bash those who disagree with you, and act as if we have little to no intelligence, when that is far from the truth.Then you change the subject, stating the article is all about the monitors and wasting tax payer money. If so, why is it called SKY HIGH RADIATION (when that is not remotely close to being accurate)…

    If you do your investigative research, you will find this conversation occurring on many reputable sites. Of course, these sites contain industry experts (Most Certified Health Physicists and PhDs), who tend to disagree with you. So you will likely not include their comments or input, as it would not give you fodder for fire against “THE MAN”! Based on you current gallery of articles, this is only one of many that are far from accurate, but that will be another day.

    Next, from the readings, it is very evident, they have differing instruments, with different efficiency, at differing sites, and very few seem to read accurately consistently. However, contrary to your belief, this is known by station operators. They, as do I, also agree they need to invest some capital into the system.

    For those of you who inquired, the following is from a RadNet station operator…
    (As a Radnet station operator, I’ll say that the vast majority of the beta radiation we see is from radon decay products, but I don’t see the word “radon” anywhere in that report.

    Propaganda? You bet!)

    Although, he likely has no idea what he is talking about either, or has a separate agenda to report false information, right?

    As Keith stated, we are in the profession of protecting people. And like Keith, when and if you can have an intelligent, technically correct debate about the topic, look me up, you have my information.

  42. I’d like to know how to find the persons responsible for these monitoring stations, as the entire Central Texas region (including the state’s capitol) is not checked, at all. The Texas coast (Gulf), where we have a nuclear reprocessing plant (evil stuff down there..), is also not reporting and we haven’t seen reports since Spring! Now, it wouldn’t be so worrisome except that as soon as the levels went over 500 in these areas, the monitors were shut down (or the reporting stopped for some other reason.)
    If the government has monitors, they are surely running them, at least for their own benefit. And, I suppose it is for their benefit that we’re simply not being told. “The Government” (cap for emphasis) seems to have forgotten they are us and we are them, so they really shouldn’t be hiding this sort of information from us.

    Then again, if they didn’t hide it, the nuke-cartel would melt-down.

  43. You can expect “spikes” in airborne radioactive particulate levels every time the clouds from Fukushima make a pass around the earth (at least for a while). However, it is not necessary(or even truthful) to label such increases as “dangerous” as the risk from the small amount of residual radioactive material is quite low. Any increase in risk does not equate to being “dangerous” and “safe” does not necessarily equate to zero risk.

    The monitoring stations in EPA’s RadNet system are mostly run by State personnel. Many of the stations are only operated when there has been a radiological event. It would be ideal if there were a more complete full-time system and more than gross beta and gross alpha analyses but, obviously, there is a budgetary aspect to this. Write your Congressman.

    Hal Peterson, CHP
    (Formerly Chief (1973-1975) of the Surveillance Branch in EPA’s Office of Radiation Programs (now ORIA) and program manager for the ERAMS system which was predecessor of RadNet).

  44. @Not-Keith,
    My agenda IS to protect people. That is the field I’m in. Don’t you think I want a safe, clean environment? Don’t you think I want my kids to grow up in a safe world? It’s absurd to discount expert information from professionals and rely on hacks to tell you what’s going on. If you needed surgery, would you go to an automotive technician? I’m happy to engage this discussion with real data and technically accurate assessments, but it’s hardly worth it if everyone assumes that I’m some sort of industry drone with an agenda and no common sense.
    So, I’m one of the few who actually submit a real email address? Why doesn’t that surprise me.

  45. There is plenty of clear evidence present in this article that proves significant radioactive air borne contamination has been detected at a number of locations, in the USA.

    This evidence is not just restricted to the EPA charts. It is also evident in the private station charts of netc.com a privately run USA nation wide radiation monitoring network.

    In my opinion, some of these detections have been so large that they are most likely releases from local nuclear facilities in the USA.

    If the US government and nuclear industry were truly interested in the health and well being of the citizens, they would be investigating, and providing public information on the results.

    Criticizing and vilifying concern citizens who provide clear evidence that justifies their concerns, only reinforces the belief the nuclear industry and government have something to hide.

    Note: I am not an American citizen

  46. Collins, that is hilarious. Defending your Radnet data then condemning the system gathering it. Make up your mind. The data isn’t alarming if you know what you are talking about, which you obviously don’t. Go back to your high school year book and actually take a science class.

  47. One word-Fukushima.

  48. Keith, you’re in the “field” so you have an agenda that doesn’t mesh with protecting people.

  49. @venom: We have to assume the EPA RadNet data is accurate. We validate it by looking at the graphs updated daily. We don’t want to verify email addresses so, yes, one could put another’s email address in the commenting form in true troll style.

    @All: Look at what isn’t being said by the pro-nuke power commenters because they want to waste my/our time and to change the subject to anything other than the facts. Not one of these ‘experts’ says anything about RadNet’s 70% failure rate which, in my opinion, speaks volumes. Instead of demanding a system fully operational and online easy to access for all, these pro-nukers would rather make it about us, not the failures.

  50. Like a said, a simple verification, validation of the data is all that is needed. Apparently you reading skills are as lax as you investigative skills. Otherwise it is called speculation. Second, I have nothing to with disposal, but great investigative research. You may want to verify email addresses, instead of merely asking for an email address!

  51. @Don: Your comment is typical of trolling – anonymously attack the reporter by calling him names saying that the reporter is calling anonymous commenters names. Yes, we call trolls trolls. And yes, we answer any and all ridiculous assertions like the ones you just referred to. True that the information we present is alarming but it isn’t “alarmist.” Nor is this article “lacking in perspective” as our extensive reporting and thousands of tests (many of which are negative for man-made beta radiation) show. Name calling us a “tabloid” while decrying name calling means one thing: troll. In this case, a retired Boeing employee. Boeing is behind the mess at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory as our latest Rocketdyne series, China Syndrome Town again shows.

  52. @Venom & Keith: We appreciate you two apparently using real email addresses because it allows us to see who you really are (we are investigative journalists, after all) because one should consider the source on anything, much like you can with EnviroReporter.com since we are clearly identified). We also note that instead of reacting like most people who know heads from tails, like wondering why the readings are so high and why only 30% of the taxpayer-funded beta monitors work, you choose to accuse me of what you are doing.

    @Venom: As a vice president of one of the largest radioactive waste disposal companies in the country, you should:

    First – have noted from the first sentence that the monitors are EPA beta monitors which look pretty accurate to us.

    Second – our RadNet Air Monitoring page tells you where they’re at. This does not inspire confidence in your reading comprehension. Have you heard of the EPA?

    Third – We didn’t claim the sky was falling, we simply, and comprehensively, showed again the sky high beta levels in the air based on government monitors. Regarding which isotopes, it doesn’t take much intelligence to commiserate on which beta emitters they are since we have thousands of radiation measurements on this site, many of which ascertain which isotopes are responsible. And, yes, the fingers point at Fukushima because it is an ongoing and worsening triple meltdown upwind and up-current of the United States.

    Fourth – ‘Have any of you done any research on the biological effects of beta radiation?’ Have you read anything on EnviroReporter.com? You miss everything we’ve written on this since 1998?

    Fifth – This is the absolute kicker: This VP of a radiation disposal company asks us “what good would it do for anyone in either the government sector, and/or the personnel in the industry (nuclear energy proponents) to discount and/or withhold information?” Are you KIDDING ME? Perhaps it’s to continue the decades-long charade that the nuclear industrial complex has foisted on the world that nuclear power is clean and safe. You could be a stand up comic because that is a real laugher.

    @Keith: Your job as a radiation control executive at one of our national labs that uses radioisotopes for experimentation had us look up the actual control levels for worker exposure at your lab. Turns out they are 5 (FIVE) times more lax than your European counterparts’ rules for nuclear worker exposure. We’ve also recovered a document with your name on it (no, we won’t reveal your identity) that shows that when outside workers come to experiment with radiation, the rules become even more lax as you folks have decided that it isn’t important to ask these humans whether they had been exposed to any other sources of radiation other than the hot zone they could be stepping in to. That is not only indefensible and morally wrong, it contradicts the ALARA principle of “as low as reasonably achievable” when it comes to American nuclear workers’ exposure.

    But to your point on so-called “fluctuations” of these sky high beta readings supposedly caused by weather and the “variability in the data reflecting these patterns.” Nonsense. We have the charts going back beyond what is on EnviroReporter.com (or the EPA for that matter) and know when up up up is not normal. Readings dozens to hundreds of times background are not “beta count rates in the reports are normal fluctuations in background.”

  53. Interesting that Michael Collins continues to the enviro’s tactic of attacking the sender instead of answering Bob Smith’s questions using all sorts of innuendos and name calling (nuclear industry troll, anonymous troll etc.) His article is just as stated here many times; full of alarmism and totally lacking in perspective. His article clearly puts enviroreporter in the same category as most tabloids. A shame, but now their true stripes are obvious.

  54. Looking further into the high level radiation readings in Chicago, a woman by the name of Sue Ortiz is located in Aurora (near Chicago) and posting regularly about her experiences (sickness) and the dark vapor emissions she has observed coming from the Byron NPP together with her observations from the NETC.com website.

    To get an idea about her experiences, watch this recent 14 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jNbcV-7BJI together with this 3 minute video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ1NOmuXBoE.

    Back in April 2103, the LaSalle NPP south of Chicago almost became another Fukushima if you have a look at this 10 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFmSsJyjJcc.

    Bearing the above reports in mind, the current readings could be indicating that one or more of these NPP’s are emitting reactor steam into the environment.

  55. Venom,
    I’m a technically competent professional in this field. I’d be more than happy to provide input for Mr. Collins but I doubt that he’d be interested. What is being reported here is just hyped up fearmongering. Mr. Collins apparently does not understand much about the data he is reporting. The beta count rates in the reports are normal fluctuations in background. These occur with daily, seasonal and long-term periodicity, and are significantly affected by extreme weather patterns (such as the recent severe winter storms). Download the data yourself from the radnet site (you can get it as an Excel spreadsheet). Graph at least a year’s worth from any of the monitors and you’ll see the variability in the data reflecting these patterns.
    There is essentially nothing in Mr. Collins’ report of any technical value, other than advertising the existence of the radnet system.

  56. First, what is the calibration and efficiency of the instrument. This will help you determine what gross and net numbers are high and whether or not you have the ability to detect the radionuclide you are trying to identify.
    Second, what is the sample location, distribution, and method?
    Third, has anyone done any radionuclide identification, or are you just presenting numbers that have no foundation or technical basis to say the sky is falling? In other words, you point out the most dangerous beta emitters in your article as if the readings are specific to them. What is the basis for this, or is it per speculation?
    Fourth, have any of you done any research on the biological effects of beta radiation?
    Fifth, what good would it do for anyone in either the government sector, and/or the personnel in the industry (nuclear energy proponents) to discount and/or withhold information? Or is it that they simply ask for you to validate your allegations and justify why you would attempt to halt personal travel to certain cities based on sketchy at best information. Throwing numbers out without being able to correlate them to any validated hazard is not only irresponsible, but unprofessional and makes you no better at reporting then those you constantly bash in your passive aggressive tactics.
    How about citing some real technically competent professional in your next article?

  57. @Chase:

    1. Yes, I *believe* we can rely on the approximately 30% of the EPA RadNet beta monitors that actually function.

    2. EPA has never responded to queries from EnviroReporter.com about its RadNet system but it’s not too hard to believe that they will scuttle ALL the monitors now that they are organized in a usable fashion on our RadNet Air Monitoring and being analyzed.

    3. Monty Torres of Fox News in Fresno tried repeatedly to get me on camera for the third anniversary of the meltdowns earlier this year, ever since the astronomically high radiation readings we picked up in Death Valley (See: Boreas Storm Packs Radioactive Punch). Problem was that Torres wasn’t interested in anything I had to say in emails responding to his queries leading us to believe that whatever he was producing for the station was going to be some kind of isotope-wash which we wanted nothing to do with. Trapdoor “journalism” from Fox is one of their specialties which, in this case, isn’t going to make the beta radiation in Fresno’s air go away no matter how much they might wish it would.

    3. (again) You might ask yourself, Chase, why online outlets that do cover Fukushima don’t cover these exclusives on EnviroReporter.com. That is the more interesting question though the answer is pretty clear: like Fox, their agenda is not straight-forward fact finding just titillation which further alienates MSM.

  58. 😯

    1. Can we rely on the EPA readings or not?

    2. What is the EPA’s response… do they have one?
    Has anybody asked or inquired lately?

    3. What is your opinion as to why TV news agencies/stations in Bakersfield and Fresno areas are not reporting on this?
    (or wherever)
    _________________

    😐

    Seriously, either we are really getting zapped by rads AND/OR the inaccurate unreliable radiation monitors of the EPA need fixing and pronto. Either way it seems like a newsworthy issue to me.

    The onslaught of FALLOUT from the ongoing TRIPLE MELTDOWNS with no end in sight at Fukushima should be reason enough to get this system operational, standardized and reliable.

    However, if it hasn’t happened in over 3 1/2 years I don’t think it’s going to anytime soon. 😉

    IMO – Here’s some good advise from a former WHO Radiation Expert.

    >> “The future relies on the citizen scientist… instead of relying on the national establishment to protect public health. The citizens have got to get involved.”
    – Keith Baverstock, Phd [paraphrased]
    http://www.kbaverstock.org/page3.html

  59. @”Bob Smith” et al: Nuclear industry proponents use any seemingly reasonable tact to discredit even the most obvious evidence of a radiation catastrophe in the making. Usually it starts like it does here with the ‘but you didn’t tell us what it can do to you’ nonsense with Smith’s “this article fails to address how dangerous these higher levels actually are to the public” hooey. Actually, the piece says exactly what beta emitters can do including cause fatal blood and bone cancers including leukemia.

    Strike One

    “Smith” (which I put in quotes because this screed sounds like pure nuclear industry troll since the commenter’s email was fake) also shovels up the idea that “some data show less cancer among those receiving very low-dose radiation, which many believe is due to an induced immunological response to the DNA damage that actually protects against cancer” which is patently untrue. The National Academy of Sciences put that falsehood to rest in 1995. “The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial,” said Richard R. Monson, the NAS panel chairman and a professor of epidemiology at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

    Strike Two

    Note that EnviroReporter.com does not rehash every fact about radiation risk in every article because this isn’t remedial science class – this is an online news organization. That said, when the California Highway Patrol is noted in this article as considering that any radioactivity three times background (and above) as a hazardous material requiring HazMat protocols, it seems quite adequate to us regarding the evidence of potential risk.

    Strike Three

    Anonymous trolls can attempt to swing at our facts but they usually end up swatting at the beta radiation-impacted air with no effect other than confirming to our readers the depths pro-nukers will sink to discredit government-sourced data. We stand by our article.

  60. @Dale Ramicone: You are right on every count. Imagine if just 25 percent of fire alarms worked in the United States – the outcry would be deafening. Yet beta radiation can kill even more effectively than fire since it is silent, unseen and tasteless. Thank you, Dale, for being one Radiation Station volunteer that manages to be on time, all the time.

  61. Interesting to see the jumps in airborne radioactivity. I’m concerned, though, that this article fails to address how dangerous these higher levels actually are to the public (though there are a lot of insinuations that it is very dangerous). How do these airborne beta count levels correspond to actual effective dose?

    The average person receives around 3mSv EFFECTIVE DOSE every year from background radiation (cosmic rays, Radon, Radium in the soil, eating bananas, etc.). Is there any reason to believe these “sky high” radiation levels are resulting in significantly more dose than that? If not, I think it’s out of line to scare people unnecessarily. I sure hope, for example (unless you can show that the EFFECTIVE DOSE to the public from this elevation in airborne beta counts is “astronomically” high) that people don’t avoid travel to the cities you mentioned due to fear of radiation. That conclusion would be completely unsupported by reason and science. I COULD FORESEE, however, the scary rhetoric of this article convincing those unfamiliar with radiation safety and true radiation risk to do just that (unnecessarily disrupting their lives). I hope the author of this article understands that.

    It is indisputable that the detrimental effects of radiation below 100mSv per year are NOT scientifically proven. Excess cancer risk in that range is questionable to say the least, and the assumption that “any amount of radiation increases your risk of cancer” is far from definitively proven (indeed, ironically some data show less cancer among those receiving very low-dose radiation, which many believe is due to an induced immunological response to the DNA damage that actually protects against cancer). The “any radiation is bad” assumption is fine for regulatory purposes to establish appropriate radiation dose limits (e.g. for people who work with radiation in the medical field like I do or for nuclear power plants who are responsible for preventing public exposure), but it is not based on a proven scientific link–policy and science do not always agree. And most importantly, I hope people don’t spend much time being afraid of very low-dose radiation.

    Aside from the question of actual risk to the public from this excess airborne radioactivity (which is not addressed in the article), I think the more important question is “what is the source of this new airborne radioactivity?” That question may point to a place where unacceptably high dose radiation DO exists (where people should be warned) and if the airborne radioactivity levels continue to rise due to this source, then perhaps some sort of mitigation can be arranged. I do hope that this rise in radioactivity continues to be monitored. All of this should be done, however, in the context of TRUE risk to the public, which requires more analysis than just airborne beta counts.

  62. I find it interesting that there seems to be no performance requirement for the EPA’s RadNet. A monitoring system that only works part of the time at some of the locations isn’t really a serious effort to monitor radiological releases. I imagine that this is probably due to insufficient funding by Congress. I’ve seen comments on this site, that at least part of RadNet is run by volunteers. This would not be necessary if staffing were properly funded for a national radiation sentinel system. There are plenty of people on the Federal government’s payroll, you would think they could adequately staff 100 or so sites and repair the equipment when it breaks.

  63. @Downwinder: We’re keeping a close eye on the Zaporizhia NPP and have not seen any reports of excess radiation leaking (yet). It is doubtful that the high readings we’re reporting are connected to this “incident” as many of the peak detections occurred before the apparent beginning of this event.

  64. Yes Michael, thanks for putting so much effort into this website. Could the incident at Zaporizhia NPP in the Ukraine have something to do with this?

  65. These very high detections in the USA on multiple radiation monitoring networks, are not a good sign for the future health and well being, of the local populations.

  66. @bf9: EXCELLENT suggestion, so much so that we’ve included a link to the 3M P100 Particulate Respirator Mask #8293 so people can take a look at it. Denise Anne and I are sold. BTW, as our videos have shown, N-95 masks we’ve worn have shown radioactivity after airline use making them somewhat effective. Thank you, bf9.

  67. One correction, P-100 is what you’re looking for when getting a disposable respirator. N-95 will do virtually nothing about radioactive particulates.

  68. It is incredible and horrendous that we are not being informed about these high radiation rates in the USA because so few of the EPA’s monitors are functioning. Why are they not being repaired and able to function? Could it possibly be that the EPA, with the blessings of our Government, does NOT want us to know the radiation danger that we are facing? Could it possibly be because our profit making nuclear Corporations and their shareholders might be questioned or effectively condemned? Could it possibly be that the predicted increase in Cancer cases can untimately be traced back to this purposeful ignorance and neglect of public safety? SHAMEFUL!

    Meanwhile, we can only be completely grateful that we have a Michael Collins, who is able to determine these radiation figures, and keep us informed, all at his own expense of time,money and energy. This is all about all of us, our health and welfare, and potentially about our very lives. Thank you Michael for all that you relentlessly continue to do, without any help from our Government. You are doing the testing which is supposed to protect us, and making it be all about the health and welfare of human beings, and NOT about MONEY!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *