Latest EPA RadNet Air Filter and Air Cartridge Results - Plutonium, Uranium, and Strontium
I do not believe I have seen this posted on the forum yet, and since I have seen a couple of posts regarding testing for plutonium, uranium, and strontium, I thought I would provide a link to the latest EPA RadNet air filter and air cartridge results which now show data from certain test stations for the following: Pu-238, Pu-239, U-234, U-235, U-238, Sr-89, and Sr-90. Here is the link to the data: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/docs/rert/radnet-cart-filter-final.pdf. I would appreciate any comments from the UC Berkeley team regarding these results. Thank you for all of the work you are doing to provide timely and meaningful information to the public.
Erroneous dose concept from Low Level Radiation Campaign
From www.llrc.org a European group:
.... 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.
The nonsense of Absorbed Dose
Absorbed doses of ionising radiation are defined as an average of the energy that is transferred into large volumes of body tissue. This approach is valid for considering external exposures, like X-rays or natural gamma (cosmic rays) but not for situations where radioactive substances inside the body irradiate microscopic volume of tissue selectively. Particles of Uranium and Plutonium are examples; the range of their alpha emissions is so tiny that all the energy is concentrated into a few hundred cells. Some call this kind of situation "pinpoint radiation". Using absorbed dose to assess the potential health damage is like a doctor ignoring small circular burn-marks on the skin of a child he is examining.
Go to their website www.llrc.org for extensive research and info.
Have they commented on these
Have they commented on these results at all? I looked around on the EPA website but couldn't find any link to the data. If this is based on gamma ray testing then its pretty much worthless. As discussed here in other threads it would take a large amount of plutonium or strontium to be detected by gamma spectroscopy.
EPA RADNET RESULTS BOGUS
There is an interesting slide show and a few articles also on this site that show what a sham RadNet is. That it is badly kept-up etc.
It took me about five minutes all told to look at the slide show and read the two articles and now I am really mad. Everyone should look at this.
ALL EPA DATA IS SUSPECT.
The slide show is here:
21 Examples Of Government Waste - EPA's RadNet
While I agree that there is
While I agree that there is no excuse for not maintaining the equipment as should have been, the canister and filter monitoring are passive. As long as the filters were changed and sent out for analysis as scheduled it's pretty hard to screw-up the collection. Unfortunately we can't see the calibration logs for the lab equipment.
They are probably also cherrypicking the data to some degree and only reporting stations that meet criteria. That's an old EPA trick.
I guess when the government shuts down so does EPA
so maybe no new results for weeks or longer.
Perfect timing! Libya knocks Fukushima out of the headlines and republican budget axers cut money used by the EPA to protect our citizens.
Glad BRAWN is not a federal project!
Have they confirmed they are
Have they confirmed they are doing alpha and beta tests? Or are they just doing gamma testing still and throwing "Not Detected" up there?
That wouldn't surprise me at
That wouldn't surprise me at all at this point.
Thanks for the link. Is F ->
Thanks for the link.
Is F -> F+ too generous at this point? They say encouragement helps.
This makes me want to vomit
This makes me want to vomit that they waited so long.
The collection and detection
The collection and detection can not be done in real time.
It takes time for the filter to collect the particles, and time to analyze them. There is overhead that is specifically EPA, but it would take at least 10 days to perform the test thoroughly.
Probably not from the reactor
Great, thanks for finding that link. We are working to set up a detector to test for those same isotopes.
A couple points on this:
(1) EPA is not finding Pu-238, Pu-239, or U-235. These are isotopes basically only found in nuclear fuel. That is a good sign.
(2) EPA is sometimes measuring U-234 and U-238. These are naturally-occurring isotopes.
By the way, the unit conversion from pCi/m^3 to Bq/L is 1 pCi/m^3 = 3.7E-5 Bq/L.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
U-235 is also naturally occurring
I wanted to add to my earlier comment here:
See this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_uranium
No isotopes of plutonium are naturally occurring, so finding plutonium would be a sign of either nuclear weapons or a release of nuclear fuel into the environment.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Not to second guess a NUK
Not to second guess a NUK fellow, but isn't PU-244 found naturally in trace amounts and it was determined that PU is the heaviest natural element?
If we're delving into trace
If we're delving into trace amounts territory, we better remember Pu-239 too ;)
What troubles me is that this data is almost two weeks old
The SR is only reported for two samples and is theree weeks ago,
.
Cold comfort.
WHY, although they say it is the most recent data, are they withholding data after 3/35 and especially for uranium, plutnium and strontium.
We KNOW cesium 137 and radioiodine is here but still why no real updates and new data?
Troubles me and underscores why I appreciate the BRAWN efforts to get us data as quickly as possible.
But why is the EPA not doing this?
It is a bit puzzling that
It is a bit puzzling that the EPA data shows no detectable Cesium contamintaion. Didn't Berkeley measure Cesium
in the air sampling, previously done? Would that mean that the EPA is doing the testing incorrectly or there is some limitation to their method? Or are they not releasing all of the data?
I guess it's possible the test run was before UCB detected CS in the air samples.
Troubling.
Miswrote 3-35 when I meant 3-25
"WHY, although they say it is the most recent data, are they withholding data after 3/35 (should read 3/25) and especially for uranium, plutnium and strontium"
I am not too happy with the EPA's lag time and its lack of solid up to date info. It worries me more that they are not providing more sooner.
it is their strategy- to give info after the fact
Just like the japanese waited more than 10 days to inform that there was a neutron beams x 12 on site, which indicates the reaction of uranium and plutonium. Why did the Japanese wait that long instead of telling the international community immediately or did they tell the community and the US withheld the info? It must be nice to get soaked in uranium eain, and who knows what else.
Thanks for the link! It
Thanks for the link!
It pretty much confirms what the UCB team has speculated. It would be great if they could confirm what the EPA has said, but this is reasonably good news.
I really have to commend the
I really have to commend the people at Berkley. They are the only source I have found that are releasing REAL numbers for different mediums (rain water, milk, etc.)
EVERY state should be releasing this information so that it's citizens can make informed decisions.
Thank You to everyone at Berkley and keep up the good work. It is very much appreciated by many around the country and the world! Your work is the model that other government and private testing agencies should be following!
Hear, hear. Well said, seconded, I approve, etc., etc. [nt]
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com