PLUTONIUM 239 IN OUR SKIES
Compared with the average density of the past 20 years from 1991 to February 2011, Plutonium 239 in California 18 times, Uranium 238 in Alaska 17 times, Uranium 234 in Hawaii 30 times, and Uranium 238 in also Hawaii 50 times were detected all after March 11, 2011.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/19/nuclear-physicist-plutonium-...
nothing to see here, that
nothing to see here, that graph is statistically negative when compared to the probability of the impossible graph. thank you.
Yeah right, just a random
Yeah right, just a random statistical anomaly, that happened to occur just as the Fukushima fallout was at its worst...Sure.
Data mean nothing without uncertainties
Without error bars reported along with the results, the data are meaningless.
As we have explained over and over on this forum, the EPA plutonium tests came back negative for plutonium. The tests gave results that were well within statistical uncertainties, which is why they were listed as non-detections (ND) in the EPA report.
When these kinds of measurements are made (including the measurements we are doing in BRAWM) sometimes the answer comes out like "2±3." The uncertainty in the result is derived from the statistical uncertainty of how the measurement is done. If the result were reported as just "2", that would be misleading. The result is "2±3," which is not significantly different from zero, and so it is a non-detection. If a measurement is 7±3, then that is a detection since the result is more than twice the uncertainty.
I should also point out that some of the measurements are negative. This is also explained by statistical variation. A result sometimes comes out as "-1±3" where the result is -1. But given the uncertainty, one can see again that the result is only a statistical variation around zero.
See also these comments:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3439#comment-4463
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4382#comment-9339
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Plot with uncertainties and MDC
I have tried to duplicate the original plot above, but with error bars added in. I queried the EPA database to get the data, and I found that the EPA also calculates a Minimum Detectable Concentration, which is analogous to our MDA. The rule of thumb for detectability is that the result must be at least twice the uncertainty, but when an MDC (or MDA) is calculated, it is a more precise statistical limit. The EPA's MDC is calculated so that there is a 5% false positive rate, which is the same standard used for BRAWM's MDA.
The last three measurements shown are from tests after Fukushima. Now that the error bars are included, I hope that it is clear that even though the results might look larger than other results, they are still statistical fluctuations around zero.
There is a single detection that is above the MDC. On the graph it can be seen around #52, which is a sample measured on 9 Sept 2010. This is of course before Fukushima.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
I CALL THIS BS! "they are
I CALL THIS BS! "they are still statistical fluctuations around zero"
UCB invented plutonium production FFS.
"Plutonium (specifically, plutonium-238) was first produced and isolated on December 14, 1940, and chemically identified on February 23, 1941, by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Edwin M. McMillan, J. W. Kennedy, and A. C. Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch (150 cm) cyclotron at the University of California, Berkeley".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
Plutonium 239 in our skies
For me, the data aberration is more real than Mark argues. The reason is that there is cause to believe there will be a blip in the plutonium 239 levels. With this prior probability in the consideration, the blip is more likely a fit with the anticipated rise. The maginitude of change is dramatic, and hypothesis-generating. It is not proof, but it must not be discounted on the basis of a purely statistical argument that does not take into account the circumstances, i.e. Fukushima. In medicine, when lab data returns, doctors always must evaluate it in the clinical setting under which the data is obtained, unless the diagnostic approach is pure shotgun. This is not shotgun to me.
I would like to know, however, if other testing of atmospheric radioisotopes took place pre-nd post- Fukushima, and how many negative tests were unreported.
Not an aberration; results are below detectable limits
The EPA tests are non-detections, and I have been attempting to explain what that means.
When making these sorts of measurements, one cannot assume any prior knowledge about what you think should be there. The whole point is to find evidence for whether or not something is there; and if it is, to calculate how much. The EPA tests do not give any evidence for activities above their MDC level, which is their limit of detectability based on the details of how the test was performed.
Also, one of those 3 post-Fukushima tests in CA was a negative number (i.e., less than zero). Statistics aside, this does not suggest a "dramatic" rise.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thanks, Mark
Why is the MDC so high for this sample compared to all the others? It's at least 5x the others.
From a layman's perspective, it seems like if you had an MDC of 1 on some samples, that a measurement of 6.5 in a later sample would have a high degree of confidence. What factors would create such a high MDC to exceed?
It probably has to do with
It probably has to do with how much air was sampled and how long the samples were counted for. These are the same factors that go into how we calculate our MDA. The MDA/MDC generally scales like the inverse of the volume and the inverse square root of the counting time, so sampling twice as much air brings it down by 50%, or counting for four times as long brings it down by 50%. Doubling the volume and quadrupling the counting time together would bring the MDC down to 25% of what it would otherwise be. And so on. There are tradeoffs that have to be considered to attain a given MDA/MDC.
Speculating a little bit here, I would guess that those post-Fukushima tests were done more quickly than usual in order to get a general reading on how much radioactivity was in the air.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thanks, Mark
Makes sense. As usual, thanks for the education.
Thank you for your response
Thank you for your response Mark. It is very much appreciated and I sure do hope BRAWM and the EPA are accurate in this.
1/16th of 1 micro-gram of
1/16th of 1 micro-gram of plutonium if inhaled will cause cancer.
So says a nuclear scientist back in the 50's.
This is something someone
This is something someone said 60 years ago, it became an urban legend that people repeat without further proof, but it doesn't seem to be corroborated by empirical evidence.
"The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average.[94]"
"Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed. These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results.[91] "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during the 1940's; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[96][97]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Precautions
Of course, this is just a tertiary source, but we have the sources of the article.
Hi Mark, appreciate the
Hi Mark, appreciate the response.
Would you disagree with this statement and why?
"Let me emphasize this again: detected values of Plutonium and Uranium have abnormally increased after March 11, 2011 compared to the past 20 years of data and these increases happened in the regions closer to Japan"
http://onioni2.blogspot.com/2011/04/plutonium-and-uranium-detected-in-us...
Or this one (it's from the same place)
For instance, the PDF document contains two detection values of Uranium 238 in California (0.000014pCi/m3 and 0.000019pCi/m3), and these numbers are also found from the EPA database. The EPA database, however, has one more detection value of 0.0000186pCi/m3 from March 25, 2011 (MDC is consistent), and this is not included in the PDF document.
Or this
According to the EPA site, MDC means the minimum value below which error could occur more than 5%. Error could occur in any detected values so it is not a big deal to focus on whether it has a chance of over 5% error or less. The factor of MDC should be kept in mind, but this definitely does not mean we can ignore the RA values that is less than MDC. Why? Because RA that is less than MDC does not signify they detect zero value of material or this does not mean they cannot technically detect materials. In addition, I noticed since starting to sort my graphs in chronological analysis, the MDC values were added in the EPA database only since 1992.
Mark, your response is
Mark, your response is appreciated by all, but the problem seems to be that plutonium is highly significant in quantities within standard error thresholds. The testing merited further and more sensitive testing, not as the EPA chose the misleading ND conclusion.
(No subject)
Region 9 plutonium 238 in air filter Data post fuku
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
Plutonium 239 filter data
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
Not a single one of these
Not a single one of these qualifies as a detection. They are not greater than MDC AND 2x CSU.
Most are negative results which is impossible anyway. BRAWM has discussed this frequently, and through statistics you can't say the you found anything with this data.
Plutonium detection.
BRAWM can you comment on this? Alone the numbers may not look significant or teeter on non-detection, but when it is graphed like this it is obvious that plutonium came over from Fukushima. If you have any other explanation for what this looks like please elaborate!!! This is completely negligent IMHO. No precautions at all recommended for us here in North America. Our children just kept playing outside during the worst of it. Unbelievable.
Aren't these the false
Aren't these the false positives of Plutonium already discussed a while back?
And the Uranium results that not include Uranium-235, apparently the isotope
that would appear after a nuclear accident?
Uranium 235 is present region 9
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
Let's include the data from
Let's include the data from previous decades to compare.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=Stat...
Strontium 90 present region 9
Brawm said radio strontium 90 not from Fukushima I recall .but I question that when I search data base in region 9 for strontium 90 in air filters from 1978 to 2011 it appears to be only post Fukushima can brawm please clarify I don't understand nothing for 33 years then positive results?
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
Two negatives and one with
Two negatives and one with 0.00011±0.00019 pCi/m3 of Strontium-90.
Sorry, is that a real
Sorry, is that a real 0.00011±0.00019 pCi/m3 of Strontium-90 , above the margin of error?
Nope. 0.00019 (Margin of
Nope. 0.00019 (Margin of error) > 0.00011 (result)
It has been pointed out that
It has been pointed out that the EPA has provided summaries of measured detected findings by a PDF document since March 11, 2011. And I found a gap between the PDF document and data we can obtain from their database. In more accurate words, some data is missing in the PDF document.
For instance, the PDF document contains two detection values of Uranium 238 in California (0.000014pCi/m3 and 0.000019pCi/m3), and these numbers are also found from the EPA database. The EPA database, however, has one more detection value of 0.0000186pCi/m3 from March 25, 2011 (MDC is consistent), and this is not included in the PDF document. Likewise I found many data missing in the PDF document. It is obvious that the PDF document was created for the public by excluding a part of data that can be obtained in the database. The same thing can be said about Plutonium as well. In the PDF document, detection values are ALL described as "ND" somehow, but if you look at the EPA’s Radnet database, you can find detection values of Plutonium. Please do not get tricked by this "ND," which does not mean zero detection, but it means their definition of "undetected" based upon uncertain criteria. It may be interesting to know what kind of political interest is working behind the use of "ND" in terms of Plutonium detection, but here I am just showing you raw data from EPA’s database. Needless to say. raw data is much more trustable than any summarized documents filtered by bureaucrats.
The points I focused when examining the database is when and where the detected values increased. It is irrelevant and missing the mark here if you want to say, "hey, the detected absolute values in the U.S. are so tiny so don't worry" or "hey, it's better now compared to the time that nuclear weapons testing has been done in Nevada and other States so don't worry" (according to Wikipedia, the U.S. nuclear weapons testings were conducted from 1945 to 1992). Let me emphasize this again: detected values of Plutonium and Uranium have abnormally increased after March 11, 2011 compared to the past 20 years of data and these increases happened in the regions closer to Japan. Therefore, these materials are considerably coming from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant, and this indicates a really serious matter for Japanese people.
http://onioni2.blogspot.com/2011/04/plutonium-and-uranium-detected-in-us...
Also, look at the unit they
Also, look at the unit they are using to make the graphs look scary, lol: atto-curie
"Atto- (symbol a) is a prefix in the metric system denoting a factor of 10?18 or 0.000000000000000001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atto-
Did the EPA list it on their
Did the EPA list it on their site in these units to make it look scary? Why is the EPA trying to scare us?
That might make a difference
That might make a difference to me if they didn't have all the other years data posted side by side in those same small units.
The small units don't make the graph look any different.Changing the units would not change the graph it would still be almost 20 years of little bars and then , this spring one bigger bar. Who would have thunk it? Where could that Pu be coming from????????
You must really believe there are some dummies on this board to try and pull this.
EPA reports using pCi/m3. I
EPA reports using pCi/m3. I repeat, check the units:
Your friend Pico:
0.000000000001
Your friend Atto:
0.000000000000000001
Are you getting worked up because of 6.5 quintillionths of a curie per m3?
Anyway, someone posted the link with BRAWM's analysis. You may want to read it instead of spamming the board with bulls--- from two months ago so we can go back to discuss these topics with people that has the expertise to provide informed opinions. In case I wanted conspiranoia I know where to find it. I don't come here to see how teenagers repost the same retarded articles that have been bouncing around the net since March.
You seem to have much
You seem to have much disdain for "teenagers", yet you put all your faith in these college students. What if teenagers were doing this testing? Obviously it invalidates it, no?
There really is no need for these ad homonym attacks here.
I just checked them and
I just checked them and guess what you're wrong 100%. ACI/M3 I copy pasted that from Radnet.
Go here the EPA site, then search plutonium-239, and a time frame of 03/11/11 to 06/20/11.Then come on back and let us all know that you were wrong
You are free to skip any thread you like.No one is forcing you to read them.
You may have missed them,
You may have missed them, but there are two links at the top of the thread for Plutonium 238 & 239, both using pCi/m3 and both including the Combined Standard Uncertainty missing from those charts:
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_output?Llocation=EPA+...
Not seeing Alaska on either
Not seeing Alaska on either of those links. Go to my link, the vast majority are aCi/m3.
Which one is your link, the
Which one is your link, the one from Alexander Higners?
Nope, I am not the OP. The
Nope, I am not the OP. The link you were responding to, Radnet envirofacts.
State : HI
Radionuclide Equal to Plutonium-239
Collection From Date: 03/11/2000
Collection To Date: 6/20/2011
10 of the 11 results are ACI/M3. Why is the EPA trying to scare us?
"Please do not get tricked
"Please do not get tricked by this "ND," which does not mean zero detection, but it means their definition of "undetected" based upon uncertain criteria. It may be interesting to know what kind of political interest is working behind the use of "ND" in terms of Plutonium detection, but here I am just showing you raw data from EPA’s database."
This information was analyzed by some of the BRAWM members around two months ago, you may find the thread if you dig a bit in the forum. They are quite familiar with the methodology.
Here's the link to that
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3439#comment-4463
Well that attempted
Well that attempted debunking didn't really do it for me.
http://onioni2.blogspot.com/2
http://onioni2.blogspot.com/2011/04/plutonium-and-uranium-detected-in-us.html
"It has been pointed out
"It has been pointed out that the EPA has provided summaries of measured detected findings by a PDF document since March 11, 2011. And I found a gap between the PDF document and data we can obtain from their database. In more accurate words, some data is missing in the PDF document.
For instance, the PDF document contains two detection values of Uranium 238 in California (0.000014pCi/m3 and 0.000019pCi/m3), and these numbers are also found from the EPA database. The EPA database, however, has one more detection value of 0.0000186pCi/m3 from March 25, 2011 (MDC is consistent), and this is not included in the PDF document. Likewise I found many data missing in the PDF document. It is obvious that the PDF document was created for the public by excluding a part of data that can be obtained in the database. The same thing can be said about Plutonium as well. In the PDF document, detection values are ALL described as "ND" somehow, but if you look at the EPA’s Radnet database, you can find detection values of Plutonium. Please do not get tricked by this "ND," which does not mean zero detection, but it means their definition of "undetected" based upon uncertain criteria. It may be interesting to know what kind of political interest is working behind the use of "ND" in terms of Plutonium detection, but here I am just showing you raw data from EPA’s database. Needless to say. raw data is much more trustable than any summarized documents filtered by bureaucrats."
But, our government wouldn't
But, our government wouldn't lie to us, they love us. [/sarcasm]
Thank you for digging this
Thank you for digging this up and sharing it. Confirms what many have suspected--presence of Pu (hot particles) in the air we are breathing--worse for the Japanese, but still bad enough in North America, especially given the extremely low doses (less than a speck of dust) needed to cause lung cancer. It seems ridiculous to associate these values with "non-detect" labels. Who is stupid enough to buy THAT when seeing the diagrams?
Just the fact that data is
Just the fact that data is missing is very concerning. At the least, an asterisk / footnote on the document explaining the rationale for exclusion. Otherwise, many will deduce that it was deliberate manipulation of data, and that the EPA thought no one would notice the disparity.
I am open to persuasion that this is not nefarious.
Good information
Thank you for the post. I suppose this is our "quality time" and we should be feeling good now, before the illness sets in. These figures are telling us that we are breathing in hot particles.
Yep this is the proof of
Yep this is the proof of Arnie Gundersen's hot particles that everybody keeps asking for.
Sump
Sump
a
a