WTF - why is no one giving us results for strontium 90, plutonium, uranium, cobalt 60 and barium?
Why are they only releasing cesium and iodine result? LET US KNOW THE TRUTH!
EVERY GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD CAN TEST FOR STRONTIUM AND OTHERS, why is the EPA not giving us the results? I can tell you, BECAUSE THE RESULTS ARE TROUBLING! WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Good Place To Look
The EPA system for collecting the data is screwed up. Those RadNet monitors, well a lot of them were broken. There is a site I went to that has a lot of info on how screwed up that system is.
I think I found it originally here last week but I can't find that post anymore.
Here is the Site with Radnet info
We're still calculating the
We're still calculating the banana equivalent doses and cross country flight equivalents for plutonium in the lung, lol.
My suggestion would be to
My suggestion would be to test for strontium, plutonium and uranium. Apparently no one else is doing this testing.
Read the FAQ
As Mark told you - READ the FAQ:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044#plutonium
Can your methods detect Uranium and Plutonium?
The short answer: Technically yes, but in reality no.
The long answer: The isotopes in nuclear fuel (U-235, U-238, Pu-239) undergo alpha decay, in which they emit a helium nucleus during their decay. Our detectors cannot see alpha particles. These isotopes also emit small numbers of gamma-rays, which our detectors are sensitive to, but it would take large amounts of U or Pu for us to detect their gamma-rays at the same levels at which we are detecting isotopes like I-131 and Cs-137.
Another issue is that the chemical properties of U and Pu constrain how they would be transported across the ocean. These elements tend to form oxides and are not easily transported in water or air. On the other hand, elements like iodine, tellurium, and cesium are more reactive and volatile, and thus they are more readily transported through air, which is why we are able to detect them.
:(
:(
ha
ha
info from www.llrc.org European scientist comments:
from llrc.org:"The www.llrc.org...It is very hard to know what is travelling to where, and harder still to trust the authorities. One thing that might help is for a sufficient number of people to threaten the EPA with a law suit for reckless endangerment if they do not start monitoring for the full range of radionuclides including Uranium and if they do not immediately publish the results as hard data (e.g. ## Becquerels of Uranium 238 per cubic metre air, plus data is the same form for plutonium, strontium 90 Iodine 131 at minimum) They must NOT convert to dose estimates in sieverts or grays or rads or rems unless they also publish the raw data in Becquerels. The logic is that the risk model they are using depends on dose which is a largely invalid quantity for intenal radioactivity. People need the raw data and an alternative risk model - we advise the European Committee on Radiation Risk (www.euradcom.org) Circulate this advice to as many people as possible especially lawyers."
Dose comparisons are meaningless
From http://www.llrc.org/ click on Dose Concept
CERRIE Majority Report says
Dose is meaningless
..... There are important concerns with respect to the heterogeneity of dose delivery within tissues and cells from short-range charged particle emissions, the extent to which current models adequately represent such interactions with biological targets, and the specification of target cells at risk. Indeed, the actual concepts of absorbed dose become questionable, and sometimes meaningless, when considering interactions at the cellular and molecular levels.
(CERRIE Majority Report Chapter 2.1 paragraph 11).
In other words, where hot or warm particles or Plutonium or Uranium are located in body tissue
or where sequentially decaying radionuclides like Strontium 90 are organically bound (e.g. to DNA) “dose” means nothing.
This is massively significant. Official radiation risk agencies universally quantify risk in terms of dose. If it means nothing the agencies know nothing and can give no valid advice.
Their public reassurances fall to the ground. They can no longer compare nuclear industry discharges with the 2 millisieverts we get every year from natural radiation, or the cosmic rays you’d receive flying to Tenerife for a holiday.