Question about the EPA Radnet data
I've been trying to get data from the EPA site and it's been very frustrating. I have a couple of questions and I'm wondering if anyone can help me (since no one at EPA returns emails)
1) is there a place where you can pull ALL the data points (not just the current). So if I want to see all the data points over the last week or two, or the last month - or year, for a particular location, can it be done?
2) They have a graph for gross beta with a demarcation for the Japanese earthquake, but there is very limited prior data shown for comparison. How can we find out, for example, what the highest spikes or levels have been over the last several years.
I'm in Los Angeles and that's the location i've been looking at, but this goes for pretty much any location.
Also, with the upward trends and spikes we've been having in L.A., I cannot believe that no one in our government is testing anythign in the food chain in southern california. Even water hasn't been tested in weeks. I'm disgusted.
LA data, week of 3/11/2010, last year
Here is the data for LA from last year - without formatting, the spacing is crunched, sorry. I selected all the data when I downloaded the spreadsheet, don't know why it didn't work for whomever before:
Measurement End Date/Time Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM)
3/11/2010 0:17 29
3/11/2010 1:17 27
3/11/2010 2:17 24
3/11/2010 3:18 23
3/11/2010 4:18 24
3/11/2010 5:18 23
3/11/2010 6:18 23
3/11/2010 7:19 24
3/11/2010 8:19 24
3/11/2010 9:19 26
3/11/2010 10:19 28
3/11/2010 11:19 29
3/11/2010 12:20 29
3/11/2010 13:20 31
3/11/2010 14:20 33
3/11/2010 15:20 33
3/11/2010 15:56 34
3/11/2010 17:11 16
3/12/2010 17:16 56
3/12/2010 18:16 64
3/12/2010 19:16 51
3/12/2010 20:16 47
3/12/2010 21:17 45
3/12/2010 22:17 42
3/12/2010 23:17 40
3/13/2010 0:17 37
3/13/2010 1:18 34
3/13/2010 2:18 33
3/13/2010 3:18 33
3/13/2010 4:18 41
3/13/2010 5:18 45
3/13/2010 6:19 48
3/13/2010 7:19 47
3/13/2010 8:19 45
3/13/2010 9:19 48
3/13/2010 10:19 50
3/13/2010 11:20 52
3/13/2010 12:20 50
3/13/2010 13:20 50
3/13/2010 14:20 53
3/13/2010 15:20 57
3/13/2010 16:21 60
3/13/2010 17:21 54
3/13/2010 18:21 50
3/13/2010 19:21 47
3/13/2010 20:22 45
3/13/2010 21:22 41
3/13/2010 22:22 36
3/13/2010 23:22 33
3/14/2010 0:22 33
3/14/2010 1:23 35
3/14/2010 3:23 35
3/14/2010 3:23 35
3/14/2010 4:23 32
3/14/2010 5:24 34
3/14/2010 6:24 36
3/14/2010 7:24 35
3/14/2010 8:24 30
3/14/2010 9:24 31
3/14/2010 10:25 35
3/14/2010 11:25 39
3/14/2010 12:25 45
3/14/2010 13:25 48
3/14/2010 14:25 52
3/14/2010 15:26 52
3/14/2010 16:26 53
3/14/2010 17:26 46
3/14/2010 18:26 37
3/14/2010 19:27 34
3/14/2010 20:27 31
3/14/2010 21:27 32
3/14/2010 22:27 30
3/14/2010 23:27 30
3/15/2010 0:28 29
3/15/2010 1:28 32
3/15/2010 2:28 33
3/15/2010 3:28 32
3/15/2010 4:28 32
3/15/2010 5:29 36
3/15/2010 6:29 39
3/15/2010 7:29 43
3/15/2010 8:29 44
3/15/2010 9:30 44
3/15/2010 10:30 46
3/15/2010 11:30 47
3/15/2010 12:30 48
3/15/2010 13:30 50
3/15/2010 14:31 47
3/15/2010 14:54 47
3/15/2010 16:08 18
3/15/2010 17:09 26
3/15/2010 18:09 29
3/15/2010 19:09 25
3/15/2010 20:09 25
3/15/2010 21:09 23
3/15/2010 22:10 21
3/15/2010 23:10 22
3/16/2010 0:10 23
3/16/2010 1:10 24
3/16/2010 2:11 24
3/16/2010 3:11 27
3/16/2010 4:11 27
3/16/2010 5:11 29
3/16/2010 6:11 30
3/16/2010 7:12 33
3/16/2010 8:12 37
3/16/2010 9:12 39
3/16/2010 10:12 43
3/16/2010 11:12 46
3/16/2010 12:13 47
3/16/2010 13:13 52
3/16/2010 14:13 52
3/16/2010 15:13 54
3/16/2010 16:13 55
3/16/2010 17:14 56
3/16/2010 18:14 54
3/16/2010 19:14 53
3/16/2010 20:14 48
3/16/2010 21:15 45
3/16/2010 22:15 43
3/16/2010 23:15 41
3/17/2010 0:15 40
3/17/2010 1:15 41
3/17/2010 2:16 41
3/17/2010 3:16 41
3/17/2010 4:16 41
3/17/2010 5:16 45
3/17/2010 6:16 45
3/17/2010 7:17 47
3/17/2010 8:17 49
3/17/2010 9:17 51
3/17/2010 10:17 53
3/17/2010 11:18 62
3/17/2010 12:18 70
3/17/2010 13:18 71
3/17/2010 14:18 72
3/17/2010 15:18 65
3/17/2010 16:19 59
3/17/2010 17:19 59
3/17/2010 18:19 57
3/17/2010 19:19 51
3/17/2010 20:19 47
3/17/2010 21:20 42
3/17/2010 22:20 42
3/17/2010 23:20 43
Yes,I know they have March
Yes,I know they have March (that's about the only month last year where any data is posted). I am looking for THIS time last year end of April and May. They don't have May or June or July or August or anytime in the fall. Makes no sense
I'm sorry, you said they
I'm sorry, you said they didn't have any dates....
I found data for the first week in April 2010 without problem for LA:
Here's an excerpt:
4/1/2010 0:20 18
4/1/2010 1:20 19
4/1/2010 2:20 18
4/1/2010 3:20 18
4/1/2010 4:21 17
4/1/2010 5:21 17
4/1/2010 6:21 16
4/1/2010 7:21 17
4/1/2010 8:21 17
4/1/2010 9:22 20
4/1/2010 11:22 24
oops, sorry...
read to quickly, you are looking for end of April, beginning May...
and yep, it's NOT there. I looked earlier, they have all data except beta cpm, which tells me that those values probably went high, they pulled that data, calling it questionable, and then ultimately pulled the entire monitor offline.
RadNet Times Do Not Make Sense
I should have posted my query as a new comment. Anyway, can someone please explain the time problem with the RADNET data? My question is posted as a "reply" below--look for the heading about RadNet data not making sense.
I just must be misinterpreting something. So, can someone please clarify this time issue?
I believe I determined that
I believe I determined that the time displayed is Greenwich Mean Time.
Here's the link where you
Here's the link where you can specify the data that you want, and the date ranges.
https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/radnet-public/showMap.do
Click on Query View on the left.
Sometimes it takes awhile, I expect that it might have a heavy load nowadays. Sometimes the server appears to be down or overloaded, but eventually it comes back up, so don't panic if the link suddenly doesn't work for a bit.
If the monitor you are interested in has not been taken offline, it seems that you can only bring up a week's worth of data at a time. I don't know how far back you can go to bring up old data. I went back to 3/2010 without problems.
At that page I linked above, if you click on the link that takes you to the "text version", you actually get a listing of the all the monitors that are "under review". I am of the opinion that those review states are prompted by high levels. Those monitors may or may not be put back online. In California, right now, 7 of the 11 monitors are "under review". I just don't understand why that is not raising anyone's eyebrows.....
RADNET TEST TIMES-doesn't make sense
Hi,
Can someone explain this to me.
If you go to the RadNet map and click on a "balloon," designating a geographic spot that has an EPA monitor, the results appear on the right (unless if's "offline...") Anyway, the date and times given for the start and end of the supposed monitoring period are always times that have not yet occurred. For example, it may be the morning of May 3rd at 7:00 AM, but they claim that the results are from a test period that is May 3rd at 10:00 PM to May 3rd at 11:59PM. Clearly, this is impossible....unless the EPA is clairvoyant. Am I reading this correctly???????
I think, based on the west
I think, based on the west coast graphs, that maybe their time base is all eastern time.
Can someone explain the times given on RadNet ?????
Well, that's a good answer, however, it still does not explain the time shown. For example, it is currently about 8:30 PM May 4th here on the Pacific Coast. So, that makes it 11:30 PM on the East Coast. Yet, the latest readings indicate that they are from the monitoring period of basically 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM TOMORROW, May 5th!
Anyone understand this???
agree, GMT
agree, GMT for most of the stations that I have looked at too.
I also agree. Take a look
I also agree. Take a look at the time of your post on this forum; it is also in GMT.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Thanks - I just tried to
Thanks - I just tried to pull up the L.A. monitor for gross beta for a year ago (one week period last year) and there were no values in any of the dates. What does that mean?
last year
Maybe the monitor wasn't working?
Be sure that you select the dat by clicking on the calendar and going to the appropriate month. When I put the date in by highlighting and typing, at least one time I did it, it didn't work. But selecting using their calndar worked.
Yes, i was very careful
Yes, i was very careful about selecting from the calendar. I tried a whole bunch of dates in late spring/summer last year (trying to compare current results with those of last year at the same time). It seems that there are no records from May onwards last year. Unless they were pulled....
clarification
The stations offline - I think the ones that were removed for being too high were the ones that have worked at some point since this whole thing started. There are some stations that never have seemed to give any readings - I haven't a clue why those are STILL under review and haven't been put into lineup - seems like they should have had enough time by now.