Can someone explain this EPA graph to me?
I'm not sure that this is in the appropriate forum, but here goes....
Here is the graph: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sacramento-bg.html
When the EPA first published this data, they started at the point of the earthquake, which made the spikes in Sac look larger than what are currently there. I understand taking a wider view to get a better perspective.
However, I don't understand why the spikes were so large before, and suddenly, after the earthquake, they are so much smaller.
If I look across the country: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-data-map.html
I see that this occurs in many different places.
Any comments or insights?
How cool is this...
this blog programed all the EPA graphs to show on one page:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/12/realtime-epa-radnet-japan-nu...
original graph
Here is the original graph that I posted, in contrast to the updated EPA graph shown above:
The updated graph shown in the original post, shows many data points missing. From looking at the downloaded data from the EPA site, it appears that these data points are the ones that have cpm's over 200. But when this started, I was first concerned about the above discrepancy from before and after the earthquake.
Environmental Dimensions
Hello Webworker,
I have looked at your sites, after reading your postings here. I looked up Patricia S. Bradshaw and see that a Patricia Bradshaw IS president of Environmental Dimensions, Inc which, it sure does appear, was awarded a contract without any competitive bidding. The link looks obvious, BUT I need to absolutely be able to conclude without any doubt that the president of Environmental Dimensions and the former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense are one and the same (not just a coincidental same name). So far, I cannot find this absolute proof, but my guess is that you can provide it. Please provide that important proof. Thank you so much for all your research.
Webworker, thanks for the blog posts
Webworker, thanks for the blog posts. I meant to post the other day, but got pulled away from the computer. Thanks, appreciated it!
EPA's RadNet or SadNet
After reading this post the other day and responding above I decided to do a little more investigation.
I then wrote two articles on the subject and even reference this thread to point out how the EPA's (and vendor's) incompetence is causing alarm amongst Americans.
One is RadNet or SadNet? The EPA’s Failed Radiation Detection System
http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/radnet-or-sadnet-the-epas-failed-...
and the other is EPA’s RadNet Troubles
http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/epas-radnet-troubles/
Thanks For Information
Webworker I saw your site and it is great. Please keep it up we need it
Do you mean to tell me...
...That the U.S. GOVERNMENT'S PUBLIC-ACCESS RADIOLOGICAL DETECTION NETWORK is in the SOLE hands of a well-connected political appointee who was, despite her high rank in the former Administration, awarded this contract on the basis of being "DISADVANTAGED"?
...That we are ALL relying on someone who may be doing little less than looking busy while raking in the cash? OUR cash?
...That this is a COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OPERATION with NO ACTIVE U.S. GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT... Where the EPA basically just "takes what it's given"?
...THIS? Our nation's NUCLEAR MONITORING ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION SYSTEM?
God help us all. This NEEDS to be on Drudge, CNN, the New York Times... Right now.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
Lack Of Routine Maintenance and Calibration of Monitors
It is evident from reports of widespread issues with the monitors at the start of the emergency that the EPA failed to perform basic maintenance and calibration of the units.
A high percentage of the units were reported to be not working early on. The units that were working were putting out spurious data.
I have also seen many anomalies like the one in the graph above. That one looks like it was re-calibrated right after the quake.
I have an account on the EPA CDX RADNET site and I have personally seen data figures in tables and in charts change.
Every time I access the site at least half of the monitor locations state that the data is "under review".
I think, more than a conspiracy to cover up high readings, the EPA is attempting to cover-up the fact that the RadNet was not prepared...and that is inexcusable and shameful.
Here is a site that has a lot of useful info and links covering the current emergency.
http://pstuph.wordpress.com/
Thank you Webworker. I'm a
Thank you Webworker.
I'm a bit conflicted about whether this is a conspiracy or incompetence then.
If there were units that were not reading and hence not online, that wouldn't explain this type of discrepancy it seems? Which means that they must have recalibrated?
If the machines have been recalibrated, there is no way that the old and new data can be compared on such a graph. So when they changed all the graphs to include data before the quake, when the machines were calibrated differently, they must have known the problems that would create with consistent presentation of data. Being a mathematician, this certainly is not lost on me!
There's a basic question at issue here...
There's a basic question at issue here: Did the so-called "recalibration" of the RADNET detectors, retroactive to the date of the Japan earthquake, render the PRIOR data suspect... or the CURRENT data suspect?
There are some stations on the RADNET system that do NOT appear to have been "recalibrated": For example, Fort Worth, Texas (http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-ftworth-bg.html); Eureka, California (http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-eureka-bg.html); and Idaho Falls, Idaho -- ironically, perhaps the MOST contaminated area in the continental U.S., at present (http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-idahofalls-bg.html).
You're right, though. For those cities / stations that have been "recalibrated", there's just NO telling what readings MEAN, anymore. And who knows if the "recalibrations" are complete? Dallas, Texas's Gamma Energy Ranges 9 and 10 took one heckuva jump on March 24 -- was this a reflection of actual SURGES in those energies, or are we only NOW seeing anything approaching "reality" in these graphs? ...For that matter, who can say when they might be "recalibrated" AGAIN, for what purpose, or whether THAT information will then be "good"?
...And, if they ARE "recalibrated", ever -- will we even KNOW it's happened?
Way to go, EPA and Obama Administration. This "transparency" thing is really something. No wonder you got an award -- in secret.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
Radnet is missing with the data--- we will never know the truth!
we will never know the truth of just HOW MUCH RADIATIOn WE HAVE BEEN BOMBARDED WITH!!!!
Is it possible that there
Is it possible that there was an error and the timelines were posted backwards?
It seems like it should be
It seems like it should be backwards, doesn't it? I guess it's just a calibration problem?
Maybe its sideways?
Maybe its sideways?
who knows whether these graphs are real
Hello:
I understand your concern. I mistrust the EPA. I really wonder whether any of these graphs are real.
Can you post pic further
Can you post pic further back in time like 12 months.
There isnt any of the past
There isnt any of the past graphs online that I could find either. And yes and conspiracy and incompetence both.
The best method I have come up with for the graphs is to find a few that have obviously not been reset or calibrated. The Alaska ones I have found are ok. I think a cple WA and OR and San Francisco off hand. And you have to remember that every area has different background radiation so what may be "normal" for one isnt for another. I have been saving screen shots of the monitors I check. And have requested the last 6mo of graphs via FOIA.
spike at 100 cpm
I heard normal background in California is not greater thn 50 cpm. Looking at the EPA graph, there was a spike to 100 4/2 exactly when I saw that cloud in SF.
To me this is not a coincidence. Something is being fallen out over us, I can feel it, because the cloud was so dense, never have I seen something like that in SF and part of the cloud was black, but they was no factory close by, explaining black particles. That is my take on it, I hope I am wrong.
In addition, and I told my roomate this, I felt my lungs were kind of sore after walking outside for a while. My roommate thinks I am imagening things.
I really hope I do, but I did feel more sore in my lungs. I am fine now though.
I felt a metallic taste in
I felt a metallic taste in my mouth after I rode my bike in the rain on March 24 in SF for about 2 hours, perhaps similar to this....
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-61806.html
("You can taste fission"
"I thought this was interesting. On The History Channel there was a show about the crew of the Enola Gay - dropped first atomic bomb on Japan. In the diary of one crewman he comments that as they were hit by the blast wave, another crewman commented that "you can taste fission". "It tastes like lead". )
Many people apparently
Many people apparently reported a metallic taste after TMI
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO12.html
Not that I could find.
Not that I could find.
EPA
Regarding the EPA and not trusting another government agency. I can only state from personal experience that the EPA was scheduled to do an investigation in Kalama, WA regarding an extremely serious water contamination. The EPA canceled on the day the investigation was scheduled. later, a FEMA employee informed my group that government workers well know of the corruption in the city government where the investigation was to take place. The FEMA employee informed me the investigation would never take place. He was right. There is a federally mandated program on-going regarding the salmon and steehead trout. The EPA does not want to have any bad reports - thus they simply canceled the matter. Their water reports are absolutely not truthful.
it's terribly scary
it's terribly scary
The other thing is are these
The other thing is are these people qualified to do these readings? I think we need some experts, not EPA paper pushers
Sure u all have read this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/some-radiation-tracking-air-mon....
Monitors are listed as undergoing review if they report an abnormal reading, Fraass said. Scientists then evaluate the reason, Fraass said
Better
Monitors are listed as undergoing review if they report an abnormal reading, Fraass said. Scientists then evaluate the reason, Fraass said.
An abnormality might mean that the monitor isn’t working correctly, or the device measured a spike in radiation levels attributable to an environmental change, Fraass said. For example, higher temperatures can cause higher levels of naturally occurring radon gas, he said.