Does anyone else find levels in Richland WA alarming?

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-richland-bg.html
I'm not sure, but aren't the spikes in the radnet graph for Richland a little alarming? 800 CPM seems a little high...can anyone else give me a clue here?

Radiation Netowrk

I think this is showing a little higher for Richland. It was "44" today.

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

There are a number of erratic monitors

I wouldn't worry about the Richland monitor. As mentioned
in the response from James DeMeo, if other monitors in the
area are working and showing normal levels, things are fine.

A couple of other monitors that are swinging wildly are
Fresno & Bakersfield, Calif and Amarillo, Texas. They show
swings between 25-850, 25-425 and 150-550 respectively.

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-fresno-bg.html

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-bakersfield-bg.html

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-amarillo-bg.html

The EPA page does say:
"Electrical interference can cause spikes, shown on graphs as one point significantly higher than the rest of the data."

I don't know if it's electical interference or defective
monitors.

I think....

it also had some other high readings...air, water, rainwater, something, I'm not sure though - it showed up in the other EPA readings, not the ones through RAdNet. Anyone remember?

Speaking of Richland... I

Speaking of Richland...

I didn't know there was a uranium fuel plant in Richland.

That's news to me:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=20500

So...can anyone tell me more

So...can anyone tell me more about CPM? Three days at 500 CPM seems incredibly high.

So should the folks in

So should the folks in Richland be worried considering they spiked at 500 cpm for three days in the beginning of April and have not had ANY reading since????
I've included this link to a blog run by James Demeo, a Biophysicist doing independant readings in Oregon...
"So long as these citizen-run networks show low levels across all those stations, one should not get panicked, in spite of some of the rather wild claims which are circulating on the conspiracy websites (ie, the chameleon Alex Jones and crew). If a significant number of them begin showing regional readings at or above ~100 cpm even over one single day, even for just a few stations in the same region, then you can worry plenty. However, throughout this entire critical situation, so far the only places on the planet which have shown such a situation are in Japan or within a short distance surrounding it. People are rationally expressing concerns about radiation accumulation in the water, soils or food chain in North America, and that might eventually turn out to be of long-term consideration. But right now that is not the case, and there also is a considerable irresponsible alarmism at work, often created by some of the same conspiracy websites which claim the earthquakes were "caused by HAARP" and the "Evil USA" (and which before the earthquake-disaster were preoccupied with "911 trutherism", "chemtrails", "international cabals", "illuminati", etc.). A bit of skepticism towards both government and anti-government, and a lot of self-education on the issues surrounding low- and high-level radiation exposure, would appear to be the most healthy and productive path. The only conspiracy at work in this entire matter has been the irresponsibility of the nuclear power plant vendors and operators, who have a long history of documented deceit, accidents, disasters, and cover-ups. And as we see in Japan itself, these same people are going be put under the spotlight for what happened. It appears very unlikely any new nuclear power plants will be constructed on planet Earth for the next 50 years."
-James DeMeo

http://obrl.blogspot.com/

"If a significant number of

"If a significant number of them begin showing regional readings at or above ~100 cpm even over one single day, even for just a few stations in the same region, then you can worry plenty. "

I think there are some of the monitors that have done this. Problem with comparing with other "local monitoring stations" is that often they are not working, or have been taken offline.

that Richmond graph has not

that Richmond graph has not worked since 3/30. The EPA is going a great job in fixing/maintaining their devices. Wonder what is so difficult to replace non functioning devices with functioning ones.

Notice it stops working

Notice it stops working right after several spikes into the 500 CPM range...I truly believe the radnet issues are intentional. Transparency is rare.

I agree

"The EPA is going a great job in fixing/maintaining their devices. Wonder what is so difficult to replace non functioning devices with functioning ones."

I guess I'm not seeing this ^^ LOTS of stations have gone down, or seem to be idle throughout this mess.

I don't know if 800 CPM is

I don't know if 800 CPM is high, seems higher than the graphs for my part of the country, but could be because you are only a few miles from Hanford?
One of the hotest spots for nuclear waste in the country! Your spike of 800 occured before Fukushima, so I suppose it is from Hanford.

Yes I am aware that Hanford

Yes I am aware that Hanford is nearby. I'm curious though it spikes to 500 and continues to spike from the 28th of March to the 1st of April. Then we jump to Seattle and there are NO spikes. PERIOD. Interesting how these hot spots exist "just down the road". Also, no I131 in seattle precipitation tests. Strange that we should be so lucky.

yes, I just emailed them and

yes, I just emailed them and asked them how long it takes to fix a monitor and mentioned that it going offline after it hits 277 tends to look suspicious.

Yes!

Do report back!

The response from Washington

The response from Washington State DOH (the guy was pretty nice):

"Yes, it does look suspicious, doesn’t it? In the absence of any other information, I definitely can see how it looks.

First though, the equipment does not belong to us. It belongs to EPA, although we rely on the data from it. According to them, this monitor still collects the data but they consider it unreliable, so they don’t include it on the graph. They do still collect it and you can find it if you look hard enough. I’ll save you that effort. If you click on the following website, the biweekly data is listed there.

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_output?Llocation=City&su....

By the length of the web address, you can see how buried it is.

So there’s the data, but let me explain a few other details. If you look at the historical data on the gross beta graph itself for this location, you can see that it fluctuated wildly long before the Fukushima accident, indicating some problems, probably due to electrical interference of some kind. Many of those numbers were much higher than the day the equipment last went down, so if they were going to hide something, I think they would have been smarter. Plus, the more important data is the gross gamma counts on the other graph. The isotopes were are most concerned with are gamma emitters.

Anyway, I hope that answered your questions, and I welcome your suspicions. Health skepticism is a good thing.

Let me know if you need anything else."

...and I hope I don't get

...and I hope I don't get this guy in any trouble for posting his email to me--I'd delete some of it if I could.