This is bizarre--VERY, VERY high RadNet readings for LA last December, etc!

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2011-05-07 19:54

I wanted to track the impact Fukushima has had on various RadNet readings. So, one of the cities I looked at was LA. (Accessible) RadNet data for LA only starts in the fall of 2010. So, I started there and looked at all the data, day by day.

What I saw was very disconcerting, and I am looking for answers.

Many of the Beta Gross Count Rates (CPM) pre-Fukushima readings for LA were alarmingly high. For example, Dec 18, 2010 showed readings of 657, 795. After being pulled off line and being put back online on Dec 19, 2010, we see some readings hitting 518, 227, 468. Readings that week continue showing many highs.

On Dec 22nd, there are readings that include highs of 538, 666, 607, 928 (!!). Again, pulled offline, put back online on December 23rd, where some of the more notable readings log in at 845, 946 (!!), 770, 634, 876, 607, 505...and so on.

What could be the reason for these extremely high readings?

Is there something that we most definitely need to be looking at?

BRAWN team--are you aware of these readings? Any opinion about them?

‹ food chain sampling pregnant women - hazard to a fetus? ›

it is my understanding that

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 01:42.

it is my understanding that the monitors were not calibrated prefukushima?

Hmm

Submitted by JMS (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 12:55.

I am curious where you got that information from? My understanding is that many of the CA monitors have been up for quite some time and there are places where can get levels for previous (at least) months.

Past high RadNet readings for LA

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 13:14.

As noted in original post:

This info is from RadNet.

Go to "Query View"

Look at gross beta for Los Angeles last fall-when data begins. You will see the high readings that I am referring to-pay special attention to the dates/readings I mentioned above.

Historically, RadNet shows many readings for LA in the 20's to 60's (CPM, gross beta), which is expected.

EnviroReporter established the baseline in west LA area (Santa Monica) using his geiger counter to be in the 40-46 CPM range (approx). So these numbers certainly seem extraordinarily high, not only compared to the usual mentions that background in the US usually falls within 40 CPM to 60 CPM, and EnviroReporter's established background using his own geiger counter (see www.EnviroReporter.com), but even with respect to RadNet's own reporting for LA and other cities across the USA.

Why do you consider these

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-07 20:20.

Why do you consider these numbers "alarmingly high"?

What would you consider

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-07 23:11.

What would you consider appropriate back ground beta gross CPM?

I don't know, but you seem

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-05-07 23:28.

I don't know, but you seem to know enough to classify them as "alarmingly high". And since you use a lot of exclamation marks I assumed you were an expert.

Why they are assumed to be high readings

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-08 19:56.

If you look at the graphs provided and charted by RadNet for gross beta, 1,000 CPM gross beta is at the top of the graph, that is, the highest CPM normally plotted.

This leads to the conclusion that CPM's of gross beta in the 800's and 900's are, indeed, high.

Hence, this seems like a valid concern and the questions that naturally occur, also seem valid.

If you have concluded that these spikes are of no concern whatsoever, then please explain.

Meanwhile, if there is anyone on here (such as members of the BRAWN team) who can offer an opinion or explanation for these readings, please provide some insight.