check out all radnet monitors are down in california!!! what is going on! the air is very hazy and bright!!!!
Radnet monitor has been down since April 11 for Eureka California. It is the only monitor between San Francisco and Corvallis Oregon , which is a HUGE area, almost half of the entire West Coast coastline! The EPA Graph page for Eureka went from rising levels to almost flat-line as soon as the monitor on Radnet went down... I asked a local cheese company about Rad testing locally and was told by the owner that the Dept of Ag had tested the milk, grass, rain, no rads, Bull S!!t Was told Dept of Ag sends samples to Berkeley for testing! but I see no where any results other than for Bay Area..? Any idea as to where the test results from the Dept of Ag are?
Try USDA but honestly no one cares this has been labeled a non event .so if u care about cesium in your food or in the grass u mow or in the air u breath u are fear mongering or just let's say uninformed .it's funny to say that but it's the truth.good job nuclear industry has done to make people feel this is a nonevent when are testing monitoring of situation is so poor it's strikes me as odd because it is a known fact hotspots do occur as it did after china nuke test .
"As Japan struggles with a radiation emergency, the network of laboratories in charge of keeping nuclear contamination out of American food is coming under fire for being unprepared and understaffed."
The IG’s report comes as Congress and President Obama struck a deal on a proposed budget that would cut $11 million from the FDA’s budget request. At an appropriations hearing in March, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg expressed concern about the FDA’s current ability to handle a nuclear emergency. “We are lacking some critical elements of preparedness” she told Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
Additional cuts include $10 million from USDA’s meat and poultry inspection budget.
Last month, another IG audit warned that methods employed by FSIS to inspect meat for E. coli were flawed.
If you want to freak out over spikes shown by the EPA, you would
really be freaking out over the levels in Amarillo, Texas. They
have a current beta gross measurement of 362 CPM!!! Their range
swings wildly from 150-550. And that range is easily 8 to 29 times
the normal background level in San Francisco (using the current
measurement of 19 CPM as of 05/02/2011 03:23:39 PM UTC).
You can see the EPA graph for Amarillo here:
And find your favorite monitoring location in either
of these EPA maps:
High micro-Sieverts per hour in Texas probably due to Pantex nuclear processing facility.
I wonder what the cause of the Amarillo spikes are. There was one site, where the evening release of radon from the granite made it spike each night, they say. That's where it would be nice to have the historical data to compare those spikes to. It looks like Amarillo doesn't have that.
But for monitors that were low, then had a very slight increase, and now are having sustained elevations, it sure makes a person wonder if this is from Japan or some other local environmental issue.
I also wonder why they are pulling the numbers here offline when they are much lower than, say, Amarillo. Or maybe they aren't, I guess we just don't know.
If the LA spikes are only occurring during daylight hours, you are probably seeing the monitor's detection of solar activity. This has been a really strong year for solar wind and flares.
L.A.'s upward trending EPA radnet CPM postings seem to be coming during day and night hours. Good thought to check that, though. And, the same thought about the solar flairs occurred to me, also.
In Sac, the spikes started in the evening, then ultimately they pulled the data during the day too.
Last night, for the first time, I saw them remove data that was put up, and then it was gone. It was only one data point, gross count of 144 if I recall.
So, if anyone related is watching this, please stop pulling data points offline, particularly those that aren't even close to 200 :(
I've emailed the EPA and asked if there is someone there that I can direct my questions to - no sense speculating if I can get the actual facts.
Agreed that we have to compare a given brand of radnet monitor readings to that particular radnet monitor's typical range of readings; and, that perhaps the elevated readings should occur over a per of time. But what about upward peak readings (not spike readings considered as anomalies by the EPA monitoring network; note, there are voices of dissension here, too regarding continuing trends showing spiked readings...) occurring over a fairly large area. How do we interpret a more or less one time reading, when other areas over a wide geographical area also experience elevated upward peaks re their normal range readings? Now, it may be a trend. Let's take just reported EPA radnet's posted postings, for instance:
Anaheim hit 100 CPMs yesterday, 4/30/2011; today is at the 50 CPM range.
Los Angeles hit 150 CPMs on 4/29/2011; currently its EPA monitor is down.
Riverside is approaching 100 CPMs today, 5/1/2011; on the 29th was also at 100 CPMs.
San Diego EPA radnet currently is down.
San Francisco EPA radnet readings are reporting within the normal range.
It get more difficult to interpret. Consider, too, that a given plume is cruising through. So, yes, the next day, the readings may well be back to normal. Until the next Fukushima plume comes dancing by.
it is kind of unsettling that not every city in California has a radnet station. For example, I am in Oakley, halfway between SF and Sacramento. There is no saying what the actual radiation is, it could be higher or lower. Therefore, the radnet system does not really protect every city nor alert every city.
Why don't you purchase a counter for yourself then? Why depend on the faulty government systems?
that is a good idea, I am not sure i am probably slow with this, anyone has any recommendation for a good geiger counter and where to find it?Thanks.
Geiger counters are expensive and hard to come by these days.
I am in Central CA and have been monitoring with a Geiger counter since 4/28. The values fluctuate a lot. I live about thirty miles from a Nuc P P and the "normal" counts seem to be between 30 and 65, usually dropping at night. When they jump over 70 I worry a bit. I am no expert on this and am just sharing my observations. Right now the readings are looking within my normal range, however this a.m. there was a slight spike for a half an hour or so. ?
I am trying to correlate my readings to the plume forecasts and jet stream. So far I see a correlation, however it is far from stellar scientific data...mostly my interpretation since I have limited resources and time.
I agree, or at least if the Fresno, San jose, Bakersfield, etc monitors were fully functional and available to the public, it would give a better reading.
Having some near the foothills , where "stuff" collects might not be a bad idea either.
does anybody know why the particles would collect near the foothills?
Is it because they cannot overcome hills/mountains?
I kind of find it interesting that Sacramento is much higher than SF, it the Delta, if so, what is the cause?
I am speculating......about stuff collecting.....but.....
I remember a piece in the Sacramento Bee I think, studying the pollution in the Sierras, much of that pollution coming up from the Valley. I know here we have the Delta breezes, the wind brings in stuff from the Bay area, and it sits in here like a bowl, yes, often because it can't make it over the mountains.
It's possible, that I'm thinking of the pollution piece in the series Sierra in Peril, the 5 part series linked here: http://www.sacbee.com/sierrawarming/ I haven't looked for the piece though,and could be wrong.
I know that follow up reports, here and there, mention that Sac gets a lot of the pollution from the Bay area.
I also live in a foothill area (mountains start in my backyard) just above the Burbank airport, which is located in the San Fernando Valley. Indians nicknamed the San Fernando Valley, the 'valley of the smoke'. Smoke congestion (cooking fires) even in the Indian's day. Pollution historically evidently has been a problem for the San Fernando Valley. So, I wonder how the San Fernando Valley's topography, geography, heat, and summer weather patterns will impact CPM radiation accumulation. As it has been getting hotter, CPMs appear to be on the rise (maybe coincidence, maybe not). I also wonder how far away the Los Angeles EPA radnet monitor is from the Burbank airport, as I hear that distance from a given monitoring site makes a huge difference in CPM concentrations levels? Los Angeles continues to trend up re EPA radnet findings.
Any thoughts out there?
P.S.: Los Angeles CPMs currently about 110-140 CPMs; still trending upwards.
And, as I am re-checking these numbers, it appears that once again the EPA Radnet system is down for L.A.
My geiger counter is jumping around between 40 - 70 this am. Just FYI. This is slightly higher than I have noticed in the a.m. for the past few days.
just my observation, what I do observe here in Oakley, is that the sky is kind of "miilky" and brighter where the sun is. I am wondering whether that is because the particles reflect the sun, therefore, the sun appears much much more brighter. I do not think that I am imagining this.
Also, when I look in the distance, the distant hills have a "silvery very mild powdery air" to it. That must be the plume. It is almost like smog, except where I live there is no real reason for smog.
what I did also notice that the xenon forecast according to the NILU was very very high for California starting 4/23, so my guess is the elevated RAdnet readings are from xenon primarily.
We can't interpret it when they keep taking the monitors offline.
I agree with you, there's something cruising through, it should go down, until the next wave.
So......I guess the question, is how many months will this go on, will the increases keep bouncing around like they are, or will they continue to increase. Will they ever release the data? Guess it's just a waiting game.
Sacramento EPA readings @ 180 CPMs for today.
Sacramento's EPA radnet findings are currently reported to show about 180 CPMs. Of course the Los Angeles EPA radnet system is down--- again. The person reporting the Sacramento CPM 180 finding, also said that both the Blackcat system and the Radiation Network system are reporting much, much lower numbers. Similar to what happened in Los Angeles on April 29th. Hum-m-m.
BlackCat is always the lowest. They use slightly different units, but even if you convert, they are still the lowest counts (somewhere on the site, they say that you have to convert to cpm units by dividing by .93, roughly). Radiation Network often goes offline in key stations when those numbers are high, but again, I don't believe that you can compare the values because they are different monitors and different locations with different wind patterns. I do believe that you should be able to compare, to some extent, relative increase and decrease. But again, that depends on where the monitors are located, perhaps, and the sensitivity of the monitors. Mind you, I know nothing of this equipment, so this is all speculation...shoulda taken more lab classes in college.
What the West LA station does say in the writing portion, is that if you see increased values, that stay increased, not just a momentary spike, then those values need to be taken more seriously. They also consider twice the background elevation (for them locally it's roughly 43 cpm) to be serious. This is different than what we see on the EPA monitors, for reasons I only can speculate about above. I do know that when the EPA spikes in Sac, I see the BlackCat monitor here locally have higher readings intermittently. Different numbers, but it does elevate, but not to the same degree. I gotta believe that's the equipment. So, I'm not worried about getting the same numbers, I am more interested in the relative changes in each monitor.
The EPA did say in a press release at some point, that the monitors are taken offline when they read levels that are considered more than background radiation. I don't get LA though - they've been down and the numbers were low. I also don't get why they haven't bothered to fix the Fresno and Bakersfield and San Jose beta counts, or maybe, since those are places where smog tends to accumulate more than, say, San Francisco, they would rather not have those values online. Again, just speculating in the dark....the other alternative is just gross incompetence, which, of course, is possible!
BRAWM team, do you know anything about the reliability of the 'enviroreporter' monitoring radnet station in Santa Monica as compared to the EPA's Los Angeles radnet monitoring station?
@angusmerlin You might be interested in this live CPM monitor in the S. Ca area (Santa Monica I think):
There is also a page that shows the stats, over 10 minute intervals, and compares their normal to normal background radiation.
Thanks so so much, LT, for the link to this independent, 'live' CPM enviroreporter radnet monitor in Santa Monica. I checked the Santa Monica live monitor against the EPA radnet findings for April 29th. And, what a huge discrepancy between the two! Santa Monica is reporting the 40-50 CPM range for the 29th of April. While, as you know, the EPA reported +150 CPMs for that same date. So, LT, either we were beginning to cook, or we were cool! I really, really hope the Santa Monica monitor/readings are calibrated, and represent the correct numbers.
BRAWM, do you know anything about the reliability of the 'enviroreporter' monitoring radnet station in Santa Monica as compared to the EPA's Los Angeles radnet monitoring station?
Hi! Could someone please provide me with the link for the Santa Monica monitor? I'm in Santa Monica and I have 2 little babies and am particularly concerned! Thank you in advance =)
Perhaps the readings depend on where the monitor is located? I wonder if the EPA monitors are more elevated than some of these other monitors that are in houses? Or maybe the equipment is more sensitive?
I found an independent station not far from me that isn't getting the same EPA data either. I am watching for what seems to be normal for that monitor, so I can tell what isn't normal for that monitor.
I too am interested on the BRAWM team's opinion on this!
"Larger gaps (>1 day) occasionally appear when RadNet monitors are taken offline for servicing."
since that one station was off for a day, maybe it's fixed and we won't see it offline anymore?
Offline for another 21-ish hours.
Los Angeles peaks at over 150 CPM late yesterday and last night, according to EPA radnet charts. Interesting!
P.S., Still many radnet monitors are down in Los Angeles area, and other parts of California, along with other states.
More data points have been pulled, missing about 23 more data points in Sac. I don't know if they'll be put back after some sort of review, or if you'd have to file some sort of FOI act to get them ;-)
It's so shady when they get an enomilly they pull that radnet location down to "study"the reading.so like in Hawaii there is no beta count readings odd...
Really we are all looking at a flawed system .
Notes on the Data
Brief gaps in RadNet data represent instrument error.
Larger gaps (>1 day) occasionally appear when RadNet monitors are taken offline for servicing.
A notice is posted when monitors are off-line for servicing. A blank graph indicates that one part of a meter on the monitor is not working.
Electrical interference can cause spikes, shown on graphs as one point significantly higher than the rest of the data.
As you view data, be aware that there are often large differences in normal background radiation among the monitoring locations because background radiation levels depend on altitude and the amount of naturally occurring radioactive elements in the local soil. What is natural in one location is different from what is natural in another.
Remember height of crisis so far and.
There are clear patterns when data is being pulled. Interesting also, that data in some of these monitors hasn't been pulled for the last year, and suddenly get pulled when the values are high. If you look at the trend of the graphs, you can get a pretty good idea of what is happening - these aren't solitary high spikes, these are trends...certainly there could be environmental interference, such as those radon spikes from, where was it, Arizona somewhere? But if other CA cities are also spiking, makes me think it might be something less local. Sure would be helpful if all the monitors were left up and running, and they could get the other monitors online throughout the state for comparison. You'd think since this started, they might have done this, but perhaps I expect too much....
For Sac, some of the previously pulled data has been put back in the database, but they have left the total beta count out, for significant gaps of time. I know how to read a graph......I've been watching the plume forecasts and the graphs/data...always a bit odd when something somewhat consistent suddenly is inconsistent, in a very inconsistent way...
Still hoping there is a logical explanation that has something to do with the science part that I don't understand, but until there is one that makes sense, I'll just keep watching the numbers and see what they do.
Yes @LT, I have also noticed that radnet stations (not just EPA stations, but other monitoring networks, as well) appear to go down just as high levels of gross beta concentrations seem to occur, values which are later reported by the radnet networks for that given area. Hmm-m-m.
And, of importance and as a point of clarification, the Los Angeles EPA radnet post of +150 CPMs (for date 04/20/2011) was not a spike anomaly, but rather a gradual peaked finding. Even more troublesome to me.
P.S. All of you: Here is the link to EPA radnet results for Los Angeles, CA:
I too have been watching the spikes versus the trends.
During the last spike on the 26th, about 9 hours of Data is not posted on Radnet. Now, they have stopped posting data again since about 7 o'clock last night. It's now noon on Thursday.
how high was the spike?
they take the monitor's offline when the spike gets too high, and we never get the actual data. The highest value since it's peaked was at 198 cpm's.
why is Sacramento much higher than SF? This is the highest Sacramento has been and I saw this cobalt clouds 2 days ago, just when it spiked like that. That is not a coinicidence. I live in Oakley, that is the Delta.
The monitors appear to be up to date now.
They're still pulling numbers offline when they get too high though....
UC Berkeley • College of Engineering • Contact
Campanile photo courtesy of Andrew P. Keating