EPA RadNet Monitoring for Aurora, IL
I was hoping someone could find some time to explain the gamma readings for Aurora, IL, specifically the significance of the last few days. I wish beta readings were up as well but they have been non-existent since the start of this whole thing. I'm just trying to educate myself a bit on gamma/beta and thought this would be a good place to ask around. This is all a bit worrisome, so I'm trying to inform myself without jumping the craziest of conclusions. Thanks for your time.
El
Shelly Rosenblum, welcome! and a question (or two)....
So glad to see you here :-)
I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind....
Question 1:
You'll note that in the Sacramento map, there was quite a bit of spiking and there are the subsequent gaps in the graph (4/26-5/14):
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sacramento-bg.html
Is there an explanation for what was going on in the atmosphere at this time?
Question 2:
When I was following the actual beta data points from Sac, and also other areas (if I recall, San Diego and other cities), it seemed like all the points were pulled when they hit about 200 or higher. I remember reading an article that said that the EPA was pulling data that was not consistent with what they expected to see (I can't remember the exact wording).
So, exactly how do they determine what isn't consistent or correct? It appears, over several cities, like someone is just pulling beta counts once they get high.
Thanks in advance!
bump, was hoping to get a
bump, was hoping to get a reply.....
Aurora readings
The flat ramping appearance of the gamma graphs are due to the software which connects points whether the monitor has been operating during that period or not. So if the monitor is not operating for a few days or if the lab technicians decided that the readings were not correct for some reason and had not allowed them to go to the website, the software will connect the points when the monitor is restarted. I've looked at the Chicago readings and they're perfectly normal. Given the distance, there would be little difference between Aurora and Chicago or any of the other monitors in states nearby.
Regarding beta: The beta monitors are very suseptible to daughter products of radon which can produce sharp spikes, or radiofrequency interference which can produce HUGE spikes which show no "ramping-up" shape. If the location is very suseptible to either of these, then the lab folks may have decided that the monitor is just not demonstrating sufficient stability to be representative of normal background or the Japanese incident and turned it off.
Given the many radionuclides which come from a reactor incident, we would see a sufficient number of gamma emitters to tell us we were detecting an increase of material from the reactor even without the beta monitors. Filters from the monitors are also sent twice a week to the lab for very sensitive analyses.
To date, while we have detected very small amounts of isotopes from the incident, any dose we would receive from them pales in comparison to our background exposure and even the normal variation in background.
Shelly Rosenblum
U.S. EPA / Region 9
San Francisco
rosenblum.shelly@epa.gov
Very tough to rationalize
Very tough to rationalize how 1400+ tons can explode in a giant mushroom cloud, fully lost containment, blowing in the wind straight to the USA and not even find a trace? You should be a time share saleswoman!
HA Lol!
HA Lol!
So, are you here in an
So, are you here in an official capacity representing the EPA or is this posting a personal thing for you?
I have questions already :-)
Given that filters are being sent twice a week to the lab, are there any plans to post the results of those filters to the Japanese Nuclear Emergency web site?
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#air
I believe the last results posted to that site were from filters collected on 4/5/2011.
Or make the info available via any of the EPA query pages so the data is accessible?
I'm also curious why there have been no air results posted from San Francisco or Northern Calif. since March 30th.
THANKS!!!!!
I have questions already
I understand your confusion. We've been working to make the website more user friendly and it seems that we've done so so frequently that I tell someone something one day and the next day it's different. If necessary I can walk you through the site. And with my eyesight these days I wish everything was in a larger font.
Under the map is a line in light blue that says: "For the latest interactive RadNet sampling results." Click on that link. It brings up a page on which you'll find in the last line under Radnet Laboratory Data: "Historical data from EPA's RadNet system can be found on our EnviroFacts website." We're now moving data directly to Envirofacts. Click on that. Envirofacts lets you search on a specific location and for specific media and radionuclides. We have a process for determining which nuclides to look for based on gamma and beta scans and additional analyses. Finding some implies others might be present. Consequently if scans and analyses don't show positive at certain points we know we don't need to proceed further in that direction. Therefore you may not find data for certain nuclides in various media. You may see a result from years ago and nothing more recent. That's because this analytical process showed that we didn't have to go to the next step. This does not indicate a lack of knowledge.
There is so much data that we can't put it all in one large table but the Envirofacts database contains all of our data - but may take some practice to get comfortable with it.
Thanks for the information
Hi Shelly,
Thanks for the information. I've used this query page before. But, I wasn't aware EPA uses gamma and beta scans and additional analyses to determine what nuclides to look for *before* actually starting to look for those specific nuclides.
I used the Envirofacts "Customized Search" page, which allows me to search for all the nuclides in one query (vs one at a time in the other query page). For San Francisco, it shows results reported on 3/18 for the following nuclides:
Barium-140
Beryllium-7
Bismuth-212
Cesium-137
Iodine-131
Iodine-132
Iodine-133
Lead-212
Plutonium-238
Plutonium-239
Radium-228
Tellurium-132
Thallium-208
Uranium-234
Uranium-235
Uranium-238
But, there are no other nuclide results for San Francisco since then. So, you are saying that filters from the San Francisco monitor have been sent twice a week to the lab for analyses since 3/18/2011? And nothing was detected in the gamma and beta scans (I see lots of "Gross beta in air" and "Field Radiation Screening" results through 5/19), so nothing was posted to Envirofacts?
It's interesting that nothing was detected in San Francisco (or by any of the Northern Calif. monitors) since the 3/18 sample, but the Calif. Dept. of Public Health continued reporting detections through their 4/12 report (4/5 filter sample from Eureka as well as other dates in Southern Calif.).
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/RHB-RadReport.aspx
Any idea why that was the case?
Thanks!!!
Gamma Scans etc
Just like other analytical procedures, there is a branching tree-like approach. Results of certain tests indicate the presence of or absence of the substances you're looking for and these indicate whether the analysis should go down the next branch. I can't explain why one lab finds something on their samples and another doesn't except that all of these radionuclides are at such low levels that we're all working near limits of detection. The amount of radioactive material on the filters and the milk, drinking water and precipitation is so low that samples have to be counted for about 17 hours to be able to see anything and the detectors have to be shielded from normal background radiation which would swamp anything on the sample. We are analyzing filters from 124 fixed monitors and several deployable monitors around the country so we do have a little backlog even though our technicians are working 24/7 and we're using contract labs as well.
As you know, the monitors are also transmitting data in near-real time. Had there been ANY radionuclide in an amount which would cause concern, we'd see accompanying gamma-emitting radionuclides immediately. Filters are analyzed to see the extremely small amounts of radioactive material, for scientific information, not to warn us of danger.
You may want to check with the state to ask more about there procedures.
Shelly- Thank you much for
Shelly-
Thank you much for posting here.
I was finally able to use the EnviroFacts part of the website after your quick walk-through on this thread. And that brings me to my question - does the EPA list non-detects? For example, if I pick location, radionuclide, and year for almost all of the locations and nuclides and use 2011 I seem to get no info on most.
Is this because there has been non detected?
Also, I have not seen any air filter data for a long, long time. Is this not being posted because there have been no detections to speak of (ie, testing and analysis are complete but it is policy not to post any info unless their is a detection?)
Again, thanks for your time and help.
BC
Bump
Bump
I think all the new results
I think all the new results are only posted on the map? I can't find a table of the new results maybe there is and I missed it but I think the only way to see the new data is to click on the dots on the map. I liked the old format much better.
I found this too - the data
I found this too - the data stops, even something as simple as gross beta count isn't there for my city for over the last month.
Wow. Thanks for the input
It's very nice to actually hear from the EPA!!! There have been many questions like this, and the inabilty to get answers directly from the EPA leads to all kinds of conspiracy theories :-) I hope you can monitor this forum from time to time and provide additional input on significant questions about EPA operations. I do fear that the question flood gates will open up now though :-)
Thanks again for responding to this forum. It's good to feel connected to an agency we all are depending on.
Am I the only one who kinda
Am I the only one who kinda doubts this is the real Shelly Rosenblum ?Just like the multiple people on the other thread claiming to "run" enenews.com? All of this info (Shelly Rosenblum U.S. EPA / Region 9 San Francisco rosenblum.shelly@epa.gov) is readily available on the EPA site and google.Anyone could use it.
I guess it is suspicious to me that the EPA would wait until now to weigh in on this here.
If this is the real Shelly Rosenblum, thanks for coming by and participating in the debate.
Maybe you could give your opinion on this
http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/radnet-or-sadnet-the-epas-failed-...
questions-identity-questions-repeat -as in ground hog day
Take a deep breath. Again.
That's better.
Questions:
Am I Mr Roesenblum? - no
Are you the only one who thinks...? - don't know
Am I of multiple personalities...? - oh yes
Run enenews? no, but....we all do in quantum sort of way
Your self observation:
suspicious.....? I have an idea, why not direct the question of why here why now directly and pleasantly to Mr Rosenblum?
Your gentle challenge / request for opinion:
Ok, I gotta ask you Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-06-17 09:34; Are you serious? Are you or have you been an employee of the fed or a very large firm or multinational ? I would think, from reading Mr Rosenblum's posts that he is sincere and aware. An aware employee does not tread into the political realm or exceed the mandate. So on questions of politics remember to breathe (don't hold your breath). Hey but I'll throw in my 2 shillings on that 'epas-failed-radiation-detection-system' blog entry; anything from the bush era is suspect. Everything that was touched by that criminal cabal will need time and encouragement to recover. While I do not know Rumsfeld personally I know those that do and he did not make a favorable impression with them. To paraphrase I recall the response to being around him was 'ick' as in not genuine - dishonest.
Yes lets welcome someone who seems very capable, caring and genuine in our community.
Welcome Shelly Rosenblum
What are you on about now?
What are you on about now?
Seriously, it's hard to respond to this gibberish, you seem to be jumping all over the place.
Thanks for the giggles!
You are really full of it.
You are really full of it. I have figured out most of your "personalities"...you have quite a presence on the board. I'll bet you like to think of yourself as quite the puppeteer. So you don't know Rumsfield but you know people that do...Very interesting.
Next thing you know, this
Next thing you know, this dude is going to invite you on a hunting trip with Cheney.
Welcome to the hornets nest
Welcome to the hornets nest Shelly. According to the majority you and EVERYONE else that work for the EPA are lying to us. That is quite a cover up you have all perpetrated! Shame on you. (Not that anyone has presented substantial evidence of such claims)
EPA's RadNet System
I knew this would be the case but I do feel the obligation to provide the best information we can. We have great people operating great equipment and we're providing accurate information. I'm privileged to know them and to work for EPA. To my knowledge, no other country is attempting to provide near-real time data like this. It comes with risks and allows people to criticize it but it's our duty to get the information out.
I take comfort in this passage from Rudyard Kipling's poem. And despite my name, I'm a guy.
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools...
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!"
Rudyard Kipling
Time frame General average
Of filters sent to labs and posting of analysis of data on EPA site?there are no test results for air filters for my city will I see them or are they an anomaly being studied?
How...unbelievably...relevant
How...unbelievably...relevant. I have to say...that passage DOES bring me great comfort.
Anyone willing to help, or
Anyone willing to help, or know a little bit about how to read these EPA charts? Thank you again.
El
Could it be
Could it be this?
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4618
EPA Gamma Readings in Aurora, Illinois
I have the same question and have noted that Gamma readings are up in Denver, Wichita, St. Paul. Maybe its really the Midwest that is getting the brunt of the radiation. The study " Arrival time and magnitude of airborn fission products...." completed by the University of Washington and linked on this site indicated in red in the Hypersplit diagram that the Midwest would receive a large dose (as indicated in red.