EPA Trickling In Reports
Just FYI. The EPA is trickling in reports. The latest being
posted yesterday (6/1) for precipitation. They are all from
samples collected in April.
Search
Just FYI. The EPA is trickling in reports. The latest being
posted yesterday (6/1) for precipitation. They are all from
samples collected in April.
EPA, isn't that like the
EPA, isn't that like the IAEA?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has, from the outset, been the instrument of governments to verify that the "peaceful use" commitments made under the NPT or similar agreements are kept - performing what is known as its "safeguards" role. The Agency, established in 1957 as an autonomous intergovernmental organization in the UN family, was mandated to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world" and to ensure "that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose."
From
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Safeguards2/intro.html
Also see
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/n...
Not really, EPA stands for
Not really, EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency.
. The designs, equipment and
.
The designs, equipment and disaster plans for the Fukushima nuclear complex were grossly inadequate.
The post earthquake/tsunami measures taken at the Fukushima nuclear complex by TEPCO, Japan, USA, GE, Hitachi and Areva were late, inadequate and generally counterproductive.
The public disaster response, by governments and the press, in Japan and the USA was in the main counterproductive. The evacuations and 'take cover' public service announcements did not receive passing marks in either nation. Every braying fool in the public spotlight, contributed to an impending cancer epidemic in the USA and an accelerating mass die off in Japan. Ann Coulter, Barack Obama and General Electric are the most visible of these merchants of death; but there are no exceptions in either political party or any news organization from PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS to Fox.
Cancer epidemic and mass die off?
From the data I've seen, the fallout from Fukushima is on par with Chernobyl for some isotopes and lower for others. And well below the fallout experienced during nuclear weapons testing. If we have not seen an epidemic or mass die off in the past, what data supports the that now?
The Japanese government certainly deserves low grades in it's handling of this accident. The US government took it more seriously than Japan. This was evident in the NRC's comments suggestions early on. As for what else folks think the US government should have or could have done, I don't know. Rather than complaining about what the US government didn't do, I'd like to see someone articulate exactly what their plan would be to deal with this mess. A nice well thought out, step by step approach to 1. monitoring the situation in Japan, 2. monitoring the fallout 3. advising the public on appropriate actions to take 4. engineering a plan to resolve the issue in Japan. It can't be a shoot from the hip plan. It has to be a plan that takes all factors into consideration. Which includes being careful to not make inaccurate statements that cause more harm than the situation itself. Can someone provide that plan?
Actual disaster planning and response
.
Recognizing that we do not wish to live in a command-&-control economy and that the best laid battle plan never survives the 1st volley fired…
Here are a few preliminary suggestions:
1 Public service announcements on Radio, TV and print media
-------- Topic Radiation Safety (rather like safe sex and just say no)
2 Cease destruction of federal radiation health research
3 Declassify and publish all the existing federal health related radiation documentation
4 Pubish all the radiation tests conducted by DOE, DOD, EPA, USDA and other federal agencies
5 Require nuclear reactor operators to provide KI to residences and local governments within 50 mile radius
6 Remove the MOX fuel from GE Mark-1 & GE Mark-2 Reactor systems
7 Derate Nuclear Reactors by 20% of original power rating with each (5 year maximum) renewal
8 Require standpipes and portable pumping equipment added to every reactor in USA
9 Require boron and zeolite supplies at every nuclear power plant
A Increase plant battery & charger requirements to 300% redundancy, each with 8 hour backup
B Increase plant cooling water storage and waste water emergency storage capacity
C Require a separate spent fuel pond, on each nuclear facility
D Require a 2 cent per kilowatt hour nuclear plant decommission/safety/emergency ‘sinking fund’
E Test Pacific seafood
F Require school nuclear ‘lockdowns’ and routine student decontamination procedures
G Publish food source radiation protection procedures for farms, processors and retailers
H Restore the federal radiation medication storage program
I Require power line right-of-way maintenance programs for regional nuclear evacuation purposes
J Require plant disaster scenarios to include 03/10-20/2011 Fukushima conditions
That's more of a list for *before* something happens
What I was looking for was a plan of action to deal with the current situation. There's been a lot of complaints about the poor response of the US government. A lot of what you've listed is preventative. How would you react to the current situation to address at least 1-4 that I mentioned above?
Follow the advice
Per the earlier comment below. In my humble opinion, Japan would be well advised to follow the recommendations of the:
Russian Academy of Science
&
Arny Gunderson
-------------------
Perhaps late is better than never
Can you provide some links to their plans?
I'd like to read up on how they would handle this situation
Better late than never?
OPINION: How to minimize consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe
Kyodo News, By Alexey V. Yablokov councilor for the Russian Academy of Science, MOSCOW, April 15,
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85736.html
http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/how-to-minimize-conse...
http://www.jtmp.org/green/index.php?q=node/105
The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant. Underestimation is more dangerous for the people and for the country than overestimation.
The main directions of actions that should be taken:
1. Enlarge the exclusion zone to at least about a 50-km radius of the plant;
2. Distribute detailed instructions on effective ways to protect the health of individuals while avoiding the additional contamination of food. Organize regular measurements of all people by individual dose counters (for overall radionuclides) at least once a week. Distribute the radioprotectors and decontaminants (substances which provide the body protection against harmful effects of radiation) of radionuclides. There are many of such food additives;
3. Develop recommendations for safe agriculture on the contaminated territories: reprocessing of milk, decontamination of meat, turning agriculture into production of technical cultures (e.g. biofuels etc.). Such ''radionuclide-resistant'' agriculture will be costly (it may be up to 30-40 percent compared with conventional agriculture) and needs to be subsidized;
Failure to act has multiplied the casualties and fatalities
. Continued .
4. It is necessary to urgently improve existing medical centers -- and possibly create new ones -- to deal with the immediate and long-term consequences of the irradiated peoples (including medical-genetic consultations on the basis of chromosome analysis etc.);
5. The most effective way to help organize post-Fukushima life in the contaminated territories (from Chernobyl lessons) is to create a special powerful interagency state body (ministry or committee) to handle the problems of contaminated territories during the first most complicated years.
I am sure that Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian radiation medicine and agriculture specialists, radiobiologists and radioecologists who have enormous experience in fighting radiation consequences will be ready to cooperate with Japan.
(Alexey V. Yablokov is a councilor for the Russian Academy of Science and a principal author of ''Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,'' published in 2009).
If memory serves ...
.
One suggestion of Arnold Gunderson was ...
In an interview with Chris Martinson,
Arnie Gunderson said that a moat should be dug around the reactors. He felt it needed to be 60 feet deep, 4.5 feet wide, and lined with zeolite to stop the radiation from seeping down further.”
This is great Bill....I
This is great Bill....I should send this list to my Senator.
Excellent list
Well, Bill, you certainly have your "thinking cap" on! Great ideas!
Give me a few days...
...To think seriously about this. I think this is one of those "put your money where your mouth is" moments, and I'm not one to duck or ignore such challenges... So, if you haven't seen a response in this thread, or a totally new one, addressing this important question by, say, Tuesday, please "bump" this thread up-front and bring it to my attention.
You're right -- time for those of us who claim to have "better ideas", to prove it, or stop whining.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Quit SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
.
In my humble opinion, GITMO water-boarding would be appropriate for THESE international terrorists.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/nyregion/paying-the-price-for-blowing-...
Paying The Price For Blowing The Whistle
By JULIE MILLER
Published: February 12, 1995
FOR three years, Arnold Gundersen was awakened by harassing phone calls in the middle of the night. He became so concerned about his family's safety that he bought a large dog for protection. The problem? He was a whistle-blower, one of those who take on the dismally unpopular role of exposing what they find to be unsafe or unlawful practices in the workplace, especially the nuclear workplace.
"It feels like you're in a fort surrounded by Indians, and you send for help," Mr. Gundersen said. "You hear the hoofbeats of the cavalry in the distance as it finally comes toward you. But they start shooting at you."
Rejected Plans
.
The sovereign nation of Japan has already rejected:
The detailed suggestions of the Russian Academy of Science
The expert engineering recommendations of Arnie Gunderson
---------------------
One might recall that the USA rejected Dutch expertise and oil collection ships during the recent, massive BP Macondo oil spill into the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7043272.html
By LOREN STEFFY - Houston Chronicle June 8, 2010, 10:13PM
Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help. It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. “What's wrong with accepting outside help?” Visser asked. “If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands.” “If there's a spill in the Netherlands, we give the oil companies 12 hours to react,” he said. If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the government takes over and sends the companies the bill.
The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.
Probably a specious analogy...
...However:
If nuclear power were a car, and humaniy its driver, this would be the point at which an observant, engaged, responsible, discerning, and caring parent would take the keys away... "Before you end up killing, yourself, or someone else, or, God forbid, both."
Sadly, there's no training wheels, learners' permit, or test of minimum competency for this -- because if there ever were, we just flunked.
Rick CROMACK.
Allen, Texas
children
When thinking of humans and fission I see a three year old with a push button cigar lighter enthralled with the pretty blue flame sitting next to the drapes. Only stupid greedy children would combine the simplistic pursuit of profits with the use of fission for civilian electrical power or medicine.
Roger That!
.
The USA has received 'failing marks' in crisis management.
By my lights, the Nippon government grade is a low single digit integer between zero (0) and perhaps charitably a three (3).
TEPCO, Hitachi & Areva score a 'big-fat-goose-egg' (0)
Ann Coulter, General Electric and the global press, receive negative numbers.
RADNET
The international monitoring by IAEA, CTBT, CRIIRAD, Greenpeace...
USA monitoring by EPA, USDA, UC Berkeley, states, cities ...
Government responses and media coverage are important indicators.
These are the tools at hand, and we can evaluate their effectiveness, reliability and integrity. Their work forms the data base which can be spot checked for accuracy and plausibility.
Their work can be easily checked. A water sample from your kitchen sink or nearby reservoir can be collected in a mason jar and lab tested 2 years from now. The rapid half-life radionuclides will be gone, but the longer duration isotopes will be little changed. So if they lie, we will catch them. Science is reproducable and negatable.
Well put, Mr. Duff
I'm not sure how much testing is "enough". But, this is what we have. And I'm sure the tests run since the beginning of this mess number well into the thousands and growing. One can easily take the results and compare them to past data to determine the relative seriousness of the current event. Of course, the data is of little use or comfort to those who believe the results are lies.
Correction
Not precipitation. The latest is for drinking water.
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#all
looks like a lot of cesium
looks like a lot of cesium in the drinking water in dover deleware.
Yes, here are some details
Cesium 137 at 4.1 piC/L in Dover, Delaware's drinking water, per EPA testing (sample collected on 4/13/11, posted on 6/1/11). The sample for Dover before that (sample collected 3/28/11) showed non-detectable levels of Cesium. So, it looks like it's from Fukushima, to me.
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html
The MCL for Iodine 131 is 3 piC/L:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/japan-faqs.html
But that's iodine. In drinking water, Cesium 137 is considered in the overall exposure to radiation, as described here.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/cesium.pdf
I wonder if EPA never had the need to separate out cesium. Maybe someone from BRAWM can indicate the difference in health effects for an MCL of 3 on iodine, versus the levels of cesium found in the Delaware water.
Here's what makes me angry...
...EPA takes SEVEN WEEKS to make public its assessment of Dover, Delaware's cesium-fortified public drinking water.
Some bright, dedicated and articulate EPA apologist needs to chime in here and try and convince me of the following:
1. THIS is THE BEST our nation's multi-trillion-dollar Governmental infrastructure, tasked with investigating and ensuring public safety, can do.
2. THIS is an APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY action under the circumstances.
3. THIS is a level of responsiveness and urgency WORTHY of the world's wealthiest, most scientifically advanced, and most powerful nation.
4. THIS reflects adequate CONCERN AND DISCERNMENT by our nation's leading oversight, regulatory, and political authorities.
And finally:
5. THIS serves the good people of Dover WELL AND COMPETENTLY.
A large stuffed animal goes to anyone who can guess my weight, shoot the star out of the center of the target, toss a ring onto the neck of JUST ONE glass Coke bottle in front of me, or convince me or anyone else here of THAT bulls---, right there, y'all.
An aside: Gee, I wonder what multi-term Delaware Senator, big-government advocate and, oh yeah, CURREMT VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, JOE BIDEN, thinks of this...? The delay in reporting might ALMOST be understandable when you consider the obvious pucker factor here... I mean, if anyone actually believed in that sort of cynical, manipulative, irresponsible -- dare I say, conspiratorial? -- nonsense...
What say you, Mr. Vice President? How's that whole governmental-accountability thing workin' out for ya, partner?
Rick CROMACK.
Allen, Texas
Rick, I am beginning to get
Rick, I am beginning to get the impression that fora like this one serve to distract and dissipate the righteous energies of well-informed citizens like you and the rest of the gang around here. Your words need a much bigger audience to really start to make a difference.
And it's the only detection of Cesium 137 in drinking water
Other than the one result for Cs-134 found in Alabama, all the other
detections were I-131. The last of which was for a sample collected
on 4/14.
There are many blank results for istotopes other than I-131, however.
Don't know if those results are pending or they aren't going to post
those results at all.
cesium in drinking water
Looking at the EPA analysis, Richmond CA has consistently shown to have cesium in the drinking water
*percipitation
*percipitation
I guess it's diluted
It hasn't seemed to reach detectable levels in drinking water.
Perhaps something will be detected after the considerable amount
of snow deposited since Fukushima thaws. I hope not.
Not to be TOO much of a tool...
...But this is exactly what BRAWM said probably wouldn't happen. And given EPA's chronic penchant for understatement, underestimation, undersampling and under-reporting, I'd wager that this is the tip of the iceberg. An iceberg mildly laced with cesium, iodine and God knows what else.
If it's in the public-water supply, it's in EVERYTHING, from bananas to beetles and everything in-between, to some (possibly very very minor) extent. At this point wholesale AVOIDANCE is, in my opinion, a fool's errand. ( (Odds are, it always was.) Might as well try to sidestep gravity. Now we move on to a different challenge: MINIMALIZATION and MITIGATION of exposure / dosage. But there's no avoiding the uncomfortable truth, now: We are ALL "damaged goods"... and so is EVERYTHING in our world.
Don't despair; it's just reality. Welcome to wherever we are.
Rick CROMACK.
Allen, Texas
Perhaps ...
.
Perhaps ...
The Japanese people should consider evacuation of Hokkaido and Honshu Islands. It may be a good idea to ‘cull’ all the doomed conifers (pine trees) in favor of deciduous plants that are more radiation hardy. Oh, and that seafood diet thing may not be a good survival plan, unless imported from far-far away. Pen fed chicken, fed grain from the Southern Hemisphere and RO water, may reduce the inevitable Japanese mass die off.
US military personnel stationed at Adak Island, Dutch John and the Marshall Islands should be issued radiation suits and receive hazard pay. USA consumers should probably snub seafood from the Aleutian Island, Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay fisheries between 2012 AD and 2300 AD. It may also be prudent to restrict seafood from off the coasts of Southern California, Baja and Hawai’i between 2013 AD and 2301 AD. That end date might need to be extended to 3999 AD, 9999 AD or perhaps 9999999 AD, but that will be someone elses call. Mariners in the North Pacific might be advised to cease washing the ships with unfiltered sea water and strolling the deck.
The detected results are far outweighed by the non-detect ones
I don't think detections in two different results from two
different states justifies an "it's everywhere" conclusion.
At least as far as drinking water is concerned at this point.
Out of 153 drinking water results, 2 have dected Cs. 113
of that 153 were actually tested for Cs. The remaining 40
are blank (pending).
The two results for Texas (collected in Austin 3/28 and 4/12)
were both "non-detect" :-)
Texas is not likely to see much
The Gulf Vapor Canopy feeds Texas from the East- the
Pacific Vapor Canopy is pushed Northward as a result.
Draw a line from Los Angeles to Richmond, Va.
It won't be entirely perfect and nature always
surprises, but that's about it. Everything
North of that line is pretty much in the path.
It will follow the weather distribution pattern
It will follow the weather distribution pattern
(Northward to the pole) and the Hydrologic Cycle as
we've seen it do thus far. That is why the detections
spike in places like Boise, which is perfectly positioned
at the base of the Rocky Mountains to receive everything
through the capillary action.
That will be compounded by the additional radiation
which Fukushima injected directly into the Pacific
Sea. You know , the Pacific Sea which provides our
'vapor canopy'. Please tell me BRAWM has not been
downplaying that injection into the sea...
We could end up seeing enough to give us our own
'Hormetic Effects'.
I'd encourage researching Zeolite and other remediation
methods used in Chernobyl. That and changing the name to
'The Department Of Nuclear Remediation'.
People seem to have complete
People seem to have complete faith in the integrity of laboratory results from questionable agencies (like the EPA). Is this warranted?
Agenda based ‘science’
.
We have a great deal of confidence in ‘the scientific method’ as a tool for understanding the physical world. We have amassed an extensive data base on ‘how things work’. This accumulated information has long been used to ‘better the human condition’. Science has greatly improved the fields of healthcare, communication and computation.
Notwithstanding these benefits, there is a ‘dark side’ of science. Scientific advances have vastly increased the efficiency of instruments of death, such as weapons of war. There are a number of pseudo-scientific abuses and deliberate frauds committed in the name of science. ‘Agenda based science’ has in many fields eclipsed the legitimate pursuit of knowledge. No one is guiltier of this practice than the General Electric Corporation, though there is a growing list of determined contenders.
Public policy, in the USA, Europe and Japan is remarkably influenced; or perhaps entirely dominated by pseudo-scientific fraud.
As warranted as anything else reported
I don't know about complete faith. The EPA data is what it is. I've asked
this before, but why was there such an outcry about the EPA stopping their
testing when so many people claimed they don't trust them in the first
place? We can either take them into considerationor we can throw up our
hands, disbelieve everything they report and resign ourselves to the worst
case scenario. I prefer to at least have some data from them. From what
I've seen, they haven't collected samples since 5/3 when they said they
were going back to normal testing schedules. So, this may be the last
batch of Fukushima specific testing.
Hmmm.
It's a VERY fair point, Anonymous.
Speaking only for myself, it's JUST possible that there is, at this point, a "that ship has sailed" taint to EPA or other Governmental data. The disappointment, consternation, and even betrayal experienced by concerned citizens at the (apparent) lack of interest, engagement, investigation, communication, and transparency exhibited by all manner of authorities from this crisis's beginning until now was so complete as to seriously degrade -- even wipe out entirely -- ALL faith, trust and positive assumptions in ALL manner of institutions. This event has been a unique opportunity for some of the greatest and most powerful institutions our collective continued peace of mind depends on -- government, industry, scientific exploration, academia, public-health authorities, commercial advocacy groups, independent "watchdog" organizations -- to VALIDATE and FULFILL the general public's implicit faith in them. To many here -- myself absolutely included -- they failed utterly. Such tacit acceptance of them, their integrity, their positions, data, and conclusions may not be easily regained, if ever.
People's trust in police officers is often shaken when the cops fail to live up to our expectations of them. I know quite a few people who live, or lived, in New Orleans and can testify to how "Louisiana's Finest" abandoned their posts in droves as Hurricane Katrina and the deluges that followed the breaking of the levees overran that city. Not all, certainly, but enough; and who in good, AOL's NOLA trusts the police for ANYTHING, nowadays? It may not be fair -- as BRAWM has more than fulfilled our faith in them, so, certainly, did many members of the NOPD -- but it's certainly understandable.
If EPA wants me to trust them, ever again, they'll need to EARN it. Something given freely that is discarded by its recipient is seldom offered again. And, for damn sure, it will take more than offering up a handful of incomplete reports whenever THEY bloody well feel like it, for me to have confidence in them EVER again. They want me to take EPA seriously? Then EPA had better start taking me, the ongoing Japan nuclear event, and my concerns about same, seriously. This old dog doesn't get smacked on the nose and then come running up to Master when he calls my name. I'm more likely to bite him in the ass, dig up his garden and shit in his slippers.
Rick CROMACK.
Allen, Texas
Thank you. I think that
Thank you. I think that about says how most of us feel.
Has the government every delivered to expectations?
You gave a good example with Katrina. The government response to Katrina
was a classic example of how well the government DOESN'T work. We saw it
again with the gulf oil spill. And we've seen it time after time with
other natural and made disasters. But yet we still keep running to the
government expecting it to save our sorry butts. And it NEVER does.
I say the above with the hope that I'm not called a delirious EPA or
government agency supporter. I can assure you, I'm not.
As for the EPA performance during this fiasco, well.....they did what
they said they would. They said that they "expected no radiation at harmful
levels to reach the US". They did testing (for about as long as they did
after Chernobyl). They informed the public as soon as anything was detected
in the US. They posted the reports online for the world to see. They said
that the levels detected were not harmful. They posted the output of their
air monitoring real time (both graphs and text). They already had posted
historical data so we at least had something to compare to. They kept
testing and reporting their results up until they apparently considered
that levels had decreased to the point that there was no need to continue
testing. This was after a number of state agencies had declared the same
thing. And they put a bow on it on 5/3 by saying:
"After a thorough data review showing declining radiation levels related
to the Japanese nuclear incident, EPA has returned to the routine RadNet
sampling and analysis process for precipitation, drinking water and milk"
and
"It is important to note that all of the radiation levels detected by
RadNet monitors and sampling have been very low, are well below any level
of public health concern, and continue to decrease over time"
Translated, "We told you it wasn't a threat. We performed hundreds of tests
(606 as of today) on various sample types from all over the country. We
showed you that the levels were below what we consider harmful to public
health. We've showed you that the levels have peaked and are steadily
declining. And we don't see a need to continue testing unless there is
a significant event that dictates it. Thank you. It's been fun. And now
back to our normal bureaucratic schedule"
Now, we can complain that they were slow. And I'm sure there at least one
or two valid reasons for that slowness. Like at least 606 samples being
crammed through the same facility that normally handles nowhere near that
test load. And we can complain about the lack of food products tested
(with the exception of milk), and that the they didn't hand out Geiger
counters to every citizen, and that they didn't replace every bank
temperature sign with a beta gross count display, and that they didn't
test the yellow dust found EVERYWHERE in the US a this time of year.
And, by god, we can complain about why they didn't commission a government
blimp to fly through that scary "cobalt blue cloud" that's terrorizing
California!!! Well, they were slow and they didn't do all those things.
But, in the end, they did test the primary routes of contamination. And,
right or wrong, they declared the levels detected as insignificant. Just
as the BRAWM team has been saying all along.
So, you didnt get what you wanted/expected from the government? And you
are surprised?
Whew!!! I think I ALMOST gave you a run for your money on the length
of this post, Rick :-)
Would expect a 5% false positive rate
I agree that we cannot say cesium is everywhere.
These EPA data seem consistent with using a 95% confidence limit for reporting detections versus non-detections. We use it here in BRAWM, as does the EPA.
The MDA is the maximum activity that the isotope could have had in order for it not to be detected 95% of the time. It is the statistical limit of the testing. Another way of saying this is that the MDA is the level that sets the false positive rate to 5%.
Say we have a sample with zero activity in it. Just based on statistics, if the same exact test is done 100 times, an average of 5 tests would register false positives under this criterion. This will also happen for activities up to the MDA. Once the sample has an activity above the MDA, it will become more and more likely to be detected.
So taking all 110 EPA cesium tests as a whole, it is likely that approximately 5 or 6 false positives would occur based on statistics. There is only 1 detection each of Cs-134 and Cs-137 out of a total of 110 tests for each, so it's actually low.
On the other hand, the many detections of I-131 (34 out of 153 is what I see) is far above the expected false positive rate.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Interesting point, Mark
Thanks for providing that additional perspective.