"Hot Particles"

Can anyone on the BRAWM team educate me a little on the hot particles issue? No doubt, many (if not all)of us have inhaled lead, thorium, uranium, cesium even pre-FK. Gunderson makes the point in a recent interview that during the worst of the FK meltdown, an adult in Seattle probably inhaled 10 "hot particles" per day.

To me, the inhalation issue sounds scarier than ingestion, probably because you can pick and choose what you eat and drink, but you can't buy bottled air.

How well studied is the inhalation of this stuff? Is it at all?

BTW, new Gunderson at www.chrismartenson.com. Worthwhile summation of current joy at FukuShima.

-Constantin-Papastefano has researched this and he's published

Many peer reviewed papers google his name and see he's the real deal.

"Whenever radioactivity is released to the atmosphere, for example by the detonation of nuclear weapons or the testing of nuclear weapons or from nuclear reactor accidents that fraction of it which remains airborne for more than a few hours is liable to be attached to aerosol particles. The resulting radioactive aerosols are carried by atmospheric mixing processes until they settle out or are scavenged by precipitation. The radiation exposure pathway of maximum concern to humans is by inhalation of aerosols and their deposition in the respiratory tract. In this context, it is important to note that radioactive aerosols are commonly of natural origin alos. In particular, the associated radionuclides can be of natural terrestrial origin, such as the decay products of radon gas, or they can e cosmogenic, such as beryllium-7. The exposure of miners of uranium and other ores and minerals to radon and its aerosol-borne decay products is of major significance. The book describes the formation of aerosols, their aerodynamic size distribution, their atmospheric residence time, their sampling and measurement, the range of radioactive aerosols found and studied thus far, including man-made nuclides and radon decay products and their interaction with man, including deposition in the lung and subsequent health effects. "

Ty Papastefano

This man has been in a multitude of study's to do with radiation this is a treasure trove of data !


Hot particles - all around us naturally? or only from fission?

Are we always surrounded by hot particles from various sources, or, are they only produced by nuclear fission?

That is, are hot particles only man-made?

(e.g. do they form part of the oft-quoted 'background radiation').

The term "hot particles" has

The term "hot particles" has been thrown around like a damned frisbee.

I would say that a naturally occuring uranium molecule blowing in the wind is a hot particle. I would say that radon in your lung is a hot particle. I would say that an inhaled Cs-137 molecule is a hot particle. How about a microscopic spec of americium? Yep.

They are by no means equal, but they are all "hot".

This is a semantics issue, and I wish that Gunderson and co would step up be very clear about what they mean when they use the term.

Hot particles

Arnie Gunderson is very highly trained and respected. When the crisis started with the meltdowns, Arnie was giving out solid information and was being called a fear-mongerer.
Guess what? He was right!

So, while the whole of mainstream media was silent on the issue and Tepco lying through its teeth, Arnie Gunderson kept the truth out there for all of us..

The whole subject of hot particles is clearly discribed by Gunderson. I suggest you either go over the data again or contact Arnie and pose your question to him...

Here Here! This son of a

Here Here! This son of a gunderson is starting to bug the hell out of me. What is his game??? Why not just provide some clear solid facts rather than the vague mini-series.

What is his game?

It is only a game to you with your banal attempt at trying to discredit honest people like Arnie Gunderson and others.

You do no good with remarks such as you have posted.

If you have a decent intelligent question or comment to make, which is healthy and will help the community, please give it, otherwise go eat a peanut butter and jam sandwich...

Turmel: Big Lie of Low Level Radiation

Jct: I think the most important point never mentioned Jay Gould's finding in Deadly Deceit that damage is the square of the reduced distance between you and the particle. One meter away does some damage, 1 cm away is not 100 but 100*2, 10,000 times more damaging. Inside you, a micron away, its not 1,000,000 times more damaging, it's a million squared. So it may not trigger the geiger counter but it does great damage.

Why does Mr Gould assume

Why does Mr Gould assume that the radiation of the particle in question is measured at 1 meter?

Hot Particles in Chernobyl

Hi, this document from 1988 contains info about Chernobyl hot particles. See in particular p45 (pdf page, p46 in the document) for what they found by countries. It also contains a lot of references to scientific publications in the topic. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/027/42...

Good info. Thank you.

Good info. Thank you.

'alan' I just got your

'alan' I just got your message from the other day. I lost your number hit me up! - D

Canadian Monitoring Comprehensive Test Ban Air Monitors


Check out this link:


Unless the Canadians are purposefully withholding data, It looks like their detection rates (for example Sidney BC which is not that far from Seattle) for April are quite low, and have gotten even lower. I cannot reconcile this data with what Arnie Gundersen is say about hot particulates. Any ideas?


hot particle detection

Hot particles cannot be detected with a geiger counter, for instance.

Some other method is used. I believe this is covered by one of Arnie Gunderson's videos on Fairewinds.com.

Should the Pacific NW evacuate? [real question]

Forgive the bluntness of the question, which may sound puerile.

Criterion for relocation after Chernobyl disaster was 5000 µSv per year.
Also 5000 µSv/yr (Chernobyl evac limit)
= 13.7 µSv/day
= 0.57 µSv/hour


We’re getting more than that in parts of British Columbia as of July 21, 2011.

[connectingdots2 takes 0.22 µSv/hour as normal background]

All readings are immediately after rainfall – but not necessarily when the Jet Stream was overhead, so the figures could be higher.

Victoria: 0.60 µSv/hour
Llloydminster: 0.97 µSv/hour
Red Deer: 1.02 µSv/hour
Lake Louise: 1.66 µSv/hour
Chilliwack: 1.12 µSv/hour
Edmonton: 1.14 µSv/hour

[Average individual background radiation dose: 0.23 Sv/h (0.00023mSv/h); 0.17 Sv/h for Australians, 0.34 Sv/h for Americans].

According to the B.C. (Pacific NW) figures and Chernobyl criteria, should we be evacuating right now?. Or, is there a difference between Chernobyl's 0.57 and B.C.'s 0.57? E.g. was Chernobyl's 0.57 a measure of, say, ambient (all-around) radiation which remained reasonably constant over vast areas, whereas B.C.'s recent readings are spot measurements that only occur in certain areas from rain?

You can email me directly on this if you prefer since I've been stuggling to get a proper answer and not sure if this forum will email me automatically with recent replies.

Also, many thanks for the informative and interesting posts.


Bruce- Please see collective


Please see collective sampling effort thread. $250 bucks and a little patience gets you a sample tested. I would go for soil, with the top 2" or so being where the crud would be.

Also, do read Mark's rainwater write up, very enlightening. I am very cautious about believing much of what I see on the internet and think that some well intentioned people may be putting out some information that is not accurate or not taken in context and think that if someone like this connectingdots guy wants to prove there's contamination , he needs to take a sample and test it the next day, or better yet - pay to have it done by someone with pro gear.

Again, I don't doubt the intentions of these people, I just doubt the accuracy of their statements.

No evacuation needed

The difference is that those readings from Canada are taken of a swipe from a car after rainfall. This measurement concentrates the natural radiation found in rain due to the decay products of radon gas.

I've done exactly the same thing and made a detailed measurement and explanation, and I've opened up a thread for discussion:

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Radon responsible for all high Canadian Monitoring Tour posts?

Further thoughts on the Canadian Monitoring Tour:

1. Connectingdots on his Canadian Monitoring Tour reported that background radiation for almost all BC areas tested ranged between .05 to .22 mcSv/h.

2. Could the consistently high radiation readings found across the Canadian areas visited all be attributed to naturally occurring Radon washout?

Victoria: 0.60 mcSv/hour (background: 0.18 mcSv/h)
Chilliwack: 1.12 mcSv/hour (background: not stated)
Kelowna: 0.58 mcSv/h (background: 0.14 mcSv/h)
Hope: 0.78 mcSv/h (background: not stated)
Llloydminster: 0.97 mcSv/hour (background: 0.19 mcSv/h)
Red Deer: 1.02 mcSv/hour (background: not stated)
Edmonton: 1.14 mcSv/hour (background: ?)
Lake Louise: 1.66 mcSv/hour (background: 0.21 mcSv/h)

3. Another blogger referred to "previous studies done by Klemic in 1996 [that] show max peaks from Radon washout at 0.012 mR/hr." http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax-day-radioactive-rain-9x...
If Klemic's findings are valid, how might interpretation of Connectingdots' Canadian Monitoring Tour radiation findings be effected?

4. In your opinion, BRAWM, do you think the above factors taken all together might in some manner add weight to Connectingdots' bottom line that the Fukushima jet streams are bringing in dangerously high radiation levels via rain fall to British Columbia Canada?

Thanks so much in advance for your thoughts.

Radon easily explains the measurements

(1,2) The amount of radiation detected depends directly on how much area was wiped down. If you wipe down twice as much area, you should see roughly twice as much signal. The amount of radon in the air would also be a factor, and that depends on the soil and rock content of the area, and the local weather conditions (temperature, pressure, rain). So large variations can occur depending on how the wipe is done and what the exact local conditions are.

(3) There is no "highest" level one would expect from the radon progeny; the signal can be as high as you wish to make it by, e.g., wiping down a larger surface or a dirtier surface. That number from Klemic (1996) is the maximum peak during a typical data set using a specific detector system. It is by no means an absolute limit, nor is it presented that way by the author.

(4) There is no way those elevated activities are from Fukushima. Our air data, when combined with data from the CTBTO and others, show that radiation levels in the air are very low or undetectable worldwide. In fact, levels in North America were never anywhere near the typical outdoor activities of the radon decay products (≈5–15 Bq/m^3 = 0.5–1.5E-2 Bq/L). Compare this to our air data, where the peak one day total activity was still less than 1E-5 Bq/L.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Possible field screen for better Fukushima rain rad monitoring?

Very, very interesting, Mark.
Has me thinking.

In view of the pitfalls that you have reported re trying to collect rain samples-- If one still wanted to do a crude screening measurement of rain for Fukushima jet stream radiation fallout, while on a rain tour, guess you would have to try to equalize the input for the various samples to be measured at the various locations visited. Maybe the following would help to at least roughly, though crudely equalize the starting point measurements:

1. Determine background radiation.
2. Using a clean rain gauge (or, even a measured beaker), collect a sample of the rain.
3. Then pour out all the rain water, except for a pre-determined amount of the rain collected.
4. Using your geiger counter (of course, which was calibrated just prior to the beginning of the radiation measuring odyssey, and which has fresh batteries), measure the given sample amount for radiation levels present.
5. Re-test the same sample an hour later to help determine for the presence of radon, and to help factor out any radon progeny contamination, which may be present.

*Seems like these screening rain measurements perhaps might be more indicative of radiation due to Fukushima jet stream fallout?


I know you indicate that there are many variables that need to be taken into consideration re measuring rain for radiation. But, do you think perhaps something like the above might help those guys/gals out in the field, who are traveling around to different locations, obtain admittedly rough, though more accurate and reliable screening measurements of Fukushima jet stream radiation contamination?


Perhaps some of the graduate nuclear engineering students at Berkeley might be interested in pursuing such an experiment, and ultimately better standardizing the methods to be used for screening for radiation in rain water. Then the makers of the geiger monitors could list possible screening methods for radiation detection in rain samples. Just a thought.

What do you think?
Again, thank you for your time and feedback, Mark!

Mark, I started a new thread

Mark, I started a new thread on this rain screening topic. Felt it more appropriate to discuss under a new thread. Hope this is OK.


Yes, that is a great

Yes, that is a great idea.

Here is the new thread angusmerlin started: Possible field screen for better Fukushima rain rad monitoring?

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Thank you for the

Thank you for the clarification Mark. Some of these posters are becoming really adept at rebranding these resolved claims. Guys, I thought the radioactive rain issue was settled...?

This is highly relevant to

This is highly relevant to my concerns. Brawm could you please address this question?

Reposting this here from an

Reposting this here from an earlier thread as discussion and search for information on hot particles continues:

Here are some relevant excerpts from the above quoted report (dated from the 1970s but still seems relevant) http://www.hss.doe.gov/healthsafety/ihs/marshall/collection/data/ihp2/29...
Seems to indicate that inhaling 5 or more "hot particles" (as defined below, and including Plutonium, for example) is a huge amount compared to the maximum recommended dose based on research at the time. Cancer risk is extremely hig.

"a hot particle is defined as a [n alpha-emitting] particle that contains sufficient activity to deliver at least 1000 rem/yr to the surrounding lung tissue. For isotopes having half-lives greater than one year, this would correspond to particles containing at least 0.07 pCi of alpha activity." (p.51)

"we recommend that the MPLPB for members of the public be 0.2 hot particles, and the average lung burden for members of the public be 0.07 hot particles, a factor of 3 less than the maximum." (p. 45)

[it is recommended that...] For accidental releases exposure (10 CFR 100.ll(a) (l)) MPLI’B (2 hours exposure) = 10 hot particles" (p. 52)

"[...]the existinq biological evidence strongly sugqests
that an insoluble particle of respiratory tissue represents a risk of cancer induction of between 1/1000 and l/10,000." (p.41)

[regarding experiments with Beagles exposed to Pu 239]:
"All of these experiments involved intense exposures
and a significant level of carcinogenesis. Severe damage
and disruption of tissue were associated with the exposures.
The most relevant lung experiment is Bair’s Pu
23902 inhalation study with beagles. Exposure was to
particulate of 0.25 u or 0.5 u median diameter; burdens were
in the uCi range. Twenty of the 21 dogs that survived more
than 1600 days post exposure had lung cancer. Many of these
cancers were multicentric in origin. The cancers again
appeared in conjunction with severe lung injury. Since the
natural- incidence of the disease is small, it appears that
at this level of exposure the induction of lung cancer is a
certainty durinq the normal beagle life span. At the same time,
time, since the pathological response is saturated in this
experiment, it is inappropriate to draw any inference about
the magnitude of the response at smaller burdens. The smallest
burden (at death) in a dog showing lung cancer was 0.2 uCi.
Presumably this would correspond to a particle burden of
about 10^7 particles. Burdens which are smaller by orders of
magnitude may still induce a substantial incidence of cancer.
Indeed, the cancer risk may, as for skin and soft tissues,
correspond to a risk per particle in the neighborhood of
1/1000 to 1/10,000."

Mortality re Radiation: Resurrected, but worth consideration

The whole issue of mortality re radiation exposure at Chernobyl-
Submitted by angusmerlin (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-07 05:54.

The whole issue of mortality caused by nuclear fallout appears extremely controversial. Other viewpoints/studies suggest a much higher mortality rate of Chernobyl, compared to that found by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) Reports on Chernobyl (1988–2008). The U.N. study reported 56 deaths.
Other studies absolutely found a much, much higher fatality rate at Chernobyl:

--Greenpeace International:
Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated
(April 18, 2006)
"A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers."

--Only 50 deaths caused by Chernobyl?
Press Release by IPPNW Germany on its new study
A. Claussen (Berlin, April 6 2006):
"A report published today by the physician's organisation IPPNW in Germany and the German Society for Radiation Protection contradicts the claim by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that less than 50 people died as a result of the accident at Chernobyl (see IAEA press release of September 5th 2005)."

--Interesting discussion as to why actual mortality difficult to determine.
"Chernobyl nuclear accident: figures for deaths and cancers still in dispute
• Suspected infant mortality rise difficult to prove
• Predicted deaths range from 4,000 to half a million
(John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010 18.15 GMT
Article history)"

--ISIS Report 06/17/2010
The Institute of Science in Society:
'The Truth about Chernobyl'
Senior Russian scientists document deaths and illnesses from Chernobyl 100 times those reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
(Prof. Peter Saunders)

--Re the United States, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, "Epidemiologist Steve Wing discusses increases in cancer rates after the Three Mile Island Accident."
(Video, 03/26/2009)

--"Radiation Experts Determine 200,000 Cancers Likely from Fukushima"
Submitted by Angusmerlin (not verified) on Fri, 2011-06-10 02:43.

And, in closing this comment, radiation expert Chris Busby estimates that over 200,000 will die from cancers due to exposures to Fukushima emitted radiation. Source:

"The Health Outcome of the Fukushima Catastrophe Initial Analysis from Risk Model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR By: Chris Busby"



Submitted by Anthony B. (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 14:00.

Shortly after Chernobyl Lagarsav (Gorbachev's appointed physicist) presented an impact study at the IAEA conference showing 40,000 new cancers would result. The IAEA reduced this number to 4,000 and released it in the official findings.

Lagarsav committed suicide a few years later on the anniversary of the Chernobyl. The meetings were closed door with no press so we have no idea what went on... It is probable he agreed in some way to reduced estimates allowing a more acceptable number to be published.

In reality the "official figures" are frequently biased to support the nuclear power industry as the corporate leaders have determined an isolated Chernobyl or Fukushima is not significant enough to stop investing in nuclear power.

And I would agree with them, If I hadn't live in Japan.

The 8 assumptions of Nuclear Power:

- Materials will not run out or become prohibitively expensive to mine (Peak uranium, Peak thorium, Etc.)
- Waste Disposal problems will be solved (40+ years on and no country has adequate disposal methods)
- Wars will never occur in the future (Targeting nuclear power is a given tactic of modern warfare)
- Economies will always be strong enough to decommission plants (Ukraine is now stuck with aging nuclear plants it cannot afford to retire)
- Low level radiation is not harmful (Ignores Bioaccumulation and Petkau's findings).
- Natural Disasters won't exceed power plant specifications (Fukushima).
- Industry Risk Assessments account for every possibility (Really?, Computer Viruses, Solar Flares, Bankrupted states, Changing weather systems, Wars, Solid Body Ocean Impacts, ???)
- Nuclear Power is efficient (Japan has 54 plants and only generates ~30% of total power needs from these plants.)

For a more complete understanding of Chernobyl's impact I can suggest Yablakov and Nesterenko's book "Chernobyl", Published in 2009 by NYAS (with an index) it brings roughly 8,000 independent studies from Belorussia and surrounding territories into one english work.

Humans need to expand their consciousness to recognize the plight of others and to realize it is their own plight, perhaps not this week or this year or even this life, but what we see around us are 'possible experiences' and any one of these can be ours and many have likely been or will be. To not work towards the improvement of all possible experiences is to forfeit goodness.

- anthony bisset


For those asking about fuel

For those asking about fuel fleas, I've seen many hobbiest sites talk about Nuclear fleas or Radon fleas as radioactive dust. Fuel fleas are the same but from nuclear fuel.

As for Mr. Gundersen's assertion that they are not detectable with Geiger counters is not accurate. Several manufacturers sell fan-filter packs that attach to counters for this purpose. The packs use stacks of HEPA filters, think a Brita filter but for air, and a fan to draw large amounts of air through the pack.

Radon fleas are similar in size to fuel fleas, and a good filter pack can increase sensitivity by factors of more than 100,000.

It is then extremely trivial to capture Beta/Gamma signatures from the micro-particles.

I imagine that the WPI research was using a resin filter as the comments suggested the airflow through the filter was miniscule by comparison.

Thanks for the

Thanks for the clarification, Anonymous.

Boy, Gundersen's "They [fuel fleas-- hot particles] are way too small to be picked up on a large radiation detector" is really getting flea bitten all over. Now, I am starting to itch, too. Maybe it's just the fuel fleas. Does anyone have any baking soda?

So, you could say that geiger counters do come with filters... that is if you decide to add the fan-filter pack option.

Re- branding

This thread reminds me of what companies do when their brand name gets old. They re-brand it so it catches attention again.

In the beginning, Gunderson, Caldicott and others were using "internal exposure" to get folks stirred up. It provided a very vivid image of radioactive ummm, errr, well let's just call it "stuff" zapping away at your internal tissues. Which we were told should not be compared to any "external" exposure because it was transient. Regardless of how massive that transient exposure is relative to what could be inhaled/ingested from Japan.

Now, the "internal exposure" talk seems to have lost its power. So, what is a person to do to keep interest up? Well, you re-brand it. So now we have "hot particles". I'm not sure what the stuff was that we could have been inhaling/ingesting before. I guess not "particles" (hence my avoiding that term above). But, if they were not "particles" and they were not "hot", I'm not sure what the concern was. And when all else fails, add a new twist. They are too small to be captured with the filters that all agencies use. So, they are not being detected. But, they ARE there...trust me.

It would be nice if Gunderson just layed it all out in one big "Part 1" and stop dragging out the information and coming up with new stuff. I don't need to be told to wash my veggies or take my shoes off in the house. Or to wet dust. I do that anyway. Or to avoid house demolition. I think mowing the lawn, using leaf blowers, driving down dirt roads or kids playing in sand boxes are a much more common activities then demolishing a house. Does he cover those activities? And for all the talk about the west coast, the east coast was not immune from the fallout:

Precipitation numbers for I-131 on the US east coast:

Jacksonville pCi/l 150
Boston pCi/l 92
Concord pCi/l 47
Charlotte pCi/l 45
Albany pCi/l 30
Hartford pCi/l 26
Concord pCi/l 24
Jacksonville pCi/l 22
Albany pCi/l 22
Boston pCi/l 20
Hartford pCi/l 19
Wilmington pCi/l 19
Atlanta pCi/l 17
Boston pCi/l 15
Charlotte pCi/l 15
Yaphank pCi/l 15
Hartford pCi/l 12

And cesium mananged to find its way into the air, drinking water and milk in Florida, Deleware and Vermont respectively. It's hard to believe it didn't get onto the grass and veggies. And subsequently in the milk. So, why not use just as much caution on the east coast? Afte all, it only takes the inhalation/ingestion of *one* particle or piece of dust (or whatever entity they come up with next) to cause cancer. Isn't that what they are telling us?

So, come out with the whole story, Gunderson. I'm not interested in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, etc. This is not a mini series I care to keep tuning in for.

Nowhere to Run: Hot

Nowhere to Run: Hot radioactive particles in Seattle at 50 percent of levels seen in Tokyo — Latches onto lung tissue (VIDEO)


Anecdotally, by Lunger ----------

I was diagnosed with COPD in 2009. On or about March 17 here in Seattle I noticed a dramatic increase in my symptoms for COPD !

As of today I can hardly breath anymore and sleep is impossible ! I’m TOAST !

I’ve had a good life and no regrets but I never thought I would go down in a situation like this ! its like being in a movie … the future looks like a real Mofo ! bye bye

Sorry to hear about your COPD

I have to assume you suffer from allergies that make it even worse. I suggest you read this article before cashing in your chips.


article on KIROTV

I tried the link to read your article, but it was removed.

I wanted to comment on the previous post about the COPD symptoms. In mid April, I had unexplained vomiting episodes, accompanied by loss of consciousness. The doctors didn't detect any bacterial or viral infection. Since then, I have had many ultrasounds and even an MRI to see why the loss of consciousness. Nothing turned up. Now I have chest pains that go away for a few days and then return for a few days. They occur in different areas of my chest, but it is hard to pin point the exact location.

I am convinced that by mowing my lawn and inhaling heavy amounts of grass clippings (right after the heavy rain fall on March 25) that I may have exposed myself to extremely dangerous amounts of particles. The study on Beagles who survived 1600 days beyond their exposure gives me an idea of how long it will be before I am hospitalized with a lung disease.

Could these chest pains indicate lung or other tissue damage? How about the heart? How can one detect "fuel flees"? How are we supposed to know how much damage we sustained from this nuclear accident? Any insight would be much appreciated.

Health tests for radiation exposure

I am so sorry to hear about your health issues. I hope they are not due to radiation exposure.

Perhaps we have some medical professionals (i.e. radiation health physicists?) reading this who can comment on where one can go to get tested for radiation exposure?

In the meantime, I would visit the Low Level Radiation campaign website (Chris Busby's organization he is affiliated with). Interestingly, they have a posting on suggestions for how to start an epidemiological study for possible exposure to fallout from Fukushima:


Perhaps someone from his organization can suggest where you can get lab tests to determine exposure to radiation?

You might want to check with your local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Are you in the Seattle area? Their Seattle chapter held a public forum at a local Seattle hospital during the Spring about the fallout issue from Fukushima. Perhaps they would be of help?

As a Seattle resident, it is highly concerning to me that (as reported on the llrg.org website's homepage), EPA data showed that Uranium 234 was detected in Seattle on March 18 which measured 740 (though Non-Detected for U-238.) Unfortunately, Guam, Saipan and Hawaii had even higher levels of both U-234 and U-238. See data listed below.

The LLRC says the EPA did not, however, provide baseline data, so they instead used background baseline figures established by the UK Atomics Weapons Establishment) of less than 200.

Here's the data (but not in easy-to-ready chart form found on llrc.org...the first number listed under each location would be levels for U-238, and the second for U-234):





Anaheim CA

15 March



Anaheim CA

20 March



Riverside CA

15 March



San Francisco CA

18 March



Saipan, Mariana Is.

21 March



Saipan, Mariana Is.

24 March



Guam (Mariana Is.)

19 March



Guam (Mariana Is.)

23 March



Oahu, Hawaii

23 March



Kauai, Hawaii

21 March



Seattle WA

18 March



Mean levels AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment, UK)




-----End of Chart Data-----------

If you do get the testing done, please keep us posted!

Good luck and I hope your health improves!

Gunderson, Busby, et al.

Please excuse me. All this discussion makes this UCB alum's head hurt. Bottom line: The situation is not A-Okay!

About the idea of "hot

About the idea of "hot particles", I was reading OECD's report on Chernobyl from 2003 (one of the sources for the wikipedia article on the Chernobyl Disaster), and the definition they give of hot particle is this:

"Typical activities per hot-particles are 0.1-1 kBq for fuel fragments and 0.5-10 kBq for ruthenium particles, the diameters being about 10 ?m to be compared with sizes of 0.4-0.7 ?m for the particles associated with activities of 131-I and 137-Cs (De88, De91)."

I may be reading this wrong, but, according to BRAWM's numbers not a single "hot particle" with this kind of activity was detected in any of the air samples, right?

According to Arnie Gundersen

According to Arnie Gundersen (interviewed by CNN USA's John King tonight, 6/7/11), filters on geiger counters are too large to capture the miniscule sized "hot particles", or "fuel fleas", as Arnie says the nuclear industry calls them. According to Gundersen, his calculations find that the average person in Japan in April was breathing in 10 "hot particles" per day, while in Seattle they were breathing in 5 hot particles per day. Gundersen says to make sure you wash any produce that you eat; that you can no longer get away from the Fukushima fallout. And, yes I know that we are now in June, and that radiation levels appear to have tapered off. Mr. Gundersen's comments, however, were strong re his take on the news that radiation levels early on were twice as bad as what the Japanese, or Tepco, originally postulated. So far most of what Arnie Gundersen has held to, ultimately has been validated by the recent, updated Japanese government and Tepco 'corrections'. I, personally, am very carefully listening to and thinking about what Mr. Gundersen has to say.


gieger filters

Just because filters are available for geiger counters does not mean any one uses them.
I have seen several uses of counters on the news and havent seen one with a filter.
I have never seen that option available when shopping for geiger counters either.

"Arnie Gundersen: Well, I am

"Arnie Gundersen: Well, I am in touch with some scientists now who have been monitoring the air on the West Coast and in Seattle for instance, in April, the average person in Seattle breathed in 10 hot particles a day."

"According to Gundersen, his calculations find that the average person in Japan in April was breathing in 10 "hot particles" per day, while in Seattle they were breathing in 5 hot particles per day."

Spot the difference.

You know, I am in Emergency

You know, I am in Emergency Management in the Seattle Area, and I've been keeping close contact with all of the scientists in this area that have been monitoring and filtering, and not one of them then or now has mentioned detecting hot particles, the opposite in fact, quite the opposite, at the time that everyone was discussing a potential fuel rod fire, they were able to confirm that they weren't receiving the particles they'd expect from it: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71900/title/Japan_nuke_accide...

I wrote one of the key 'scientists monitoring the air on the West Coast' about this and he literally laughed. If Gunderson has data about 5 particles a day he should share where he got it from so others can verify the data.

This new "hot particle" news

This new "hot particle" news is getting a lot of press and even from Dr. Helen Caldicott. How do we find out the validity of such information?

Maybe it was a Japanese, or

Maybe it was a Japanese, or Tepco measurement correction.
Well, I for one do not want to be the average person to breathe in either 5 or 10 hot radiation particles per day. Either way, I am in trouble.

Well, if he doesn't give a

Well, if he doesn't give a more precise definition of "particles" what he is saying is not meaningful. The "average person in Japan" he is talking about would have to be defined also, that individual can be in Kyushu or Okinawa as opposed to the hot zones 20 miles away from the plant.

Arnie Gundersen is doing a great job, but he also talked about an ongoing criticality in pool number 4 for a while, until they showed the videos proving that the fuel racks were intact.

And I really doubt he said that "filters on geiger counters are too large to capture the miniscule sized "hot particles"". If the "fuel flea" is there it would be emitting gamma and or beta radiation, which are the particles geiger counters detect.

'Live Feed'


Some 'Live Feeds' are genuine

Some are NOT

Last year, at least some of the purported BP Macondo 'Live-Feeds', 'from the seabed', were as bogus as a 3 Dollar Bill.

Such assertions are "best taken taken with a grain of salt".


CNN, the John King, USA

CNN, the John King, USA interview with Annie Gundersen 6/7/2011, 4:40PM PT:

Gundersen: "They ["hot particles"] are way too small to be picked up on a large radiation detector."

I know he knows that is

I know he knows that is misleading.

At least he didn't say anything about "filters on geiger counters" like you quoted, that would have been outrageous.

Well, according to the other

Well, according to the other Anonymous above, actually some manufacturers of geiger counters do offer a filter option via fan-filter packs. So, yes, one could actually argue that some geiger counters can come with filters...

Well, I am now wondering if

Well, I am now wondering if I should buy a geiger counter.

Tepco/Japanese government correction: It won't have a filter on it.

Then again, maybe it will

Then again, maybe it will have a filter on it!

Inhalation exposure

Where is the estimate of inhaling 10 particles per day? I didn't hear it in part 1... And I'm also not sure why it matters how many particles are inhaled versus the radioactivity of those particles (i.e., decays per second). I should point out that we have a long, consistent set of measurements of radioactive fission products in our air filter measurements. And even on our single highest spike in air concentration (I-131, 4.3E-6 Bq/L, on 3/23-24), I estimate that one would only breathe in about 0.03 radioactive decays per day, or one every 35 days [see correction in comment]. Also, it turns out that about 50% of our exposure from natural radioactive sources is from the inhalation of radioactive particles. This is primarily due to the decay daughters of Radon-222, which create "hot particles" of radioactive Lead, Bismuth, and Polonium in the air. I posted this table earlier in the week on another thread, but it's worth repeating here. Here's a summary of the total breakdown of background exposure from UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. I, Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources, primarily Table 31: Average worldwide exposure to natural radiation sources:
Source Average annual effective dose (microSieverts) Percent
Total cosmic and cosmogenic 390 16.3%
External terrestrial radiation Outdoors 70 2.9%
Indoors 410 17.1%
Inhalation exposure Uranium and thorium series 6 0.3%
Radon-222 1,150 47.9%
Radon-220 100 4.2%
Total inhalation exposure 1,260 52.5%
Ingestion exposure Potassium-40 170 7.1%
Uranium and thorium series 120 5.0%
Total ingestion exposure 290 12.1%
Total 2,400 100.0%
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

radon is a gas

As radon is a gas all its atoms are very independent and spaced out.
Thus the isotopes it becomes are too.
So it would make Hot atoms not Hot Particles.
There is a huge difference between atoms and particals.
If you were shot once with a bb gun you would likely live.
If you were shot with 10,000 bb guns in the same place maybe not.
Or a better example would be the difference between getting hit with a pillow or a razor sharp sword.