no rain water test results for 2 weeks = coverup of massive contamination?

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/

Some things to consider:

[1] Although "the bay area" (a pretty sizable piece of real estate, mind you) may well have experienced "at least 5 days with rain..in the last 2 weeks alone", the BRAWM team are clearly drawing samples from a SINGLE location, that I believe is on the UCB campus. This is entirely appropriate to maintain sample consistency and establish some sort of baseline. That single location may not have received significant rainfall all five times during that period... Showers are fickle.

[2] I would be willing to bet that, in order to achieve detectable, reliable results, a certain minimum of precipitation must be received and considered useful for testing. Even if BRAWM's rainwater receptacle did experience rain on all five of those occasions, it's possible that not every rainfall resulted in amounts large enough for useful / reliable measuring to occur.

[3] Even I, a Texan a thousand miles away from Berkeley, know that their seasonal precipitation generally undergoes drastic changes between mid-March and late April. As has been remarked by non-UBC folks on this board who live in that area, the "rainy season" either has recently ended, or is nearing its conclusion. Hence, there may well be fewer and fewer opportunities over the coming weeks and months for the BRAWM team to collect adequate precipitation for useful testing to occur.

[4] As to your assertion that "only...2 days [of rainwater testing] out of this entire month is simply not credible"... I would really, really, really like to know what the BRAWM team has ever done to make ANYONE familiar with their consistent and diligent efforts, question their credibility / honesty.

[5] This comment -- "if they do not want to show us the results then it is up to us to guess why that might be" -- is just about the most insipid thing I have read online since the ongoing Japan nuclear emergency began, and that's really, REALLY saying something, partner. Now, I'm as much a consumer of conspiracy theories as anyone in these ridiculous days, but this is really pushing it. BRAWM has NEVER shied away from communicating news, even (especially!) unwelcome news. They've pointed out, repeatedly, that although atmospheric and rainfall concentrations continue to decline to near-undetectability, and iodine isotopes are clearly on the wane, cesium continues to build in milk and several food chain products. If there's any "gatekeeping" of data going on, here, I certainly can't detect it, and I'm pretty on-guard for it, having seen it pretty much CONSTANTLY out of TEPCO, JAIF, NISA, the IAEA, and the government of Japan (and, I would argue, the U.S. Government also).

So -- go ahead and interpret BRAWM's strict fidelity to exacting scientific standards, procedural discipline and rigorous double- and triple- (and more) checking as evidence of conspiracy, if you like -- it's a free, lightly irradiated country, after all. But be aware: BRAWM / UCBNE has been, without EXCEPTION, THE most forthcoming, reliable, and discerning source of ANY information regarding Fukushima since the crisis began, and you might want to learn something that every farm animal knows instinctively: Best not to crap where you eat.

If you're looking for bad guys in all this, you can do a heckuva lot better than BRAWM, is all I'm sayin'. They are, MANIFESTLY, wearing white hats, and it frustrates me that you can't or won't see that, yourself.

Say howdy to Oliver Stone, Art Bell and Charlie Frost for me.

Rick.