EPA Censorship of data- three great videos on You Tube- scientists please comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eIsf2hR1rA&feature=related
This is the three videos.
Search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eIsf2hR1rA&feature=related
This is the three videos.
Short half-life isotopes
I think the behavior of the EPA looks like routine, raw data collection. To an outsider, data collection can look messy and might not make complete sense, even with the best of protocols.
The allegations of conspiracy seem to stem from his belief that the EPA is hiding "short half-life" radiation (half-life less than about 1 hour). As pointed out in an Anonymous comment below, short half-life radioactive isotopes would never be able to make it to the U.S. in any appreciable amounts — especially now that we are 4 months after the reactors shut off!
However, the short half-life isotopes do exist, and they are shown in the EPA graphs. Most of the spikes, especially the diurnal spikes, can easily be understood as the natural, daily variations in the concentration of radon gas and its decay products. I have commented on this topic before, such as these threads:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4898#comment-14014
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4087#comment-9870
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4087#comment-9916
The other videos from that same person show measurements of the radiation from paper towels used to wipe down his car after it rains. I have commented on this before. The decay products of radon gas can be carried down and concentrated in rain and can collect on a metal surface. The decay chain of Pb-214 to Bi-214 will have a half-life of about 30–40 minutes, depending on their exact ratios in the air. They both emit lots of betas and gammas. A couple weeks ago when we had a brief rainfall, I measured the radiation of a swipe of rain from a metal surface. It indeed was radioactive (triple the background), and it decayed away with a half-life of about 30 minutes.
Radon decay daughters are also in air filters, such as the measurements that James made some weeks back and we analyzed:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4109#comment-8146
These radioactive elements are completely natural, ubiquitous, and certainly not from Japan. There is no conspiracy to hide them.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Short half-life isotopes
Mark, I greatly appreciate not only your expertise, but this forum to discuss these matters. What I find alarming, is that the frequency of sampling (milk, water, field Beta)is grealy reduced with Fukushima compared to Chernobyl. Given the fact we are closer to the Fukushima accident than Chernobyl, I would have thought sampling would have been more frequent, not less. In fact, EPA monitoring that was weekly prior to Fukushima has been reduced to quarterly?
Short half-life isotopes
Correction- what I mean to say was how much I appreciate your expertise and this forum. Next time I will check my post with glasses on, prior to posting.
No problem! Thanks for your
No problem! Thanks for your appreciation.
I do not know enough about the EPA's sampling efforts to comment on their choices of how frequently to test.
Based on our frequent milk tests here in Berkeley, my perspective is that milk levels peaked and have never been anywhere near dangerous levels. I think that levels in other areas of the country would be similar or even lower.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Please don't forget to mention that you can't detect everything
"I do not know enough about the EPA's sampling efforts to comment on their choices of how frequently to test.
Based on our frequent milk tests here in Berkeley, my perspective is that milk levels peaked and have never been anywhere near dangerous levels. I think that levels in other areas of the country would be similar or even lower.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]"
_______________________________
BRAWM (per their own admission) is unable to detect all forms of potential radioactive isotopes which may very well have been travelling across the Pacific Sea from Fukushima since mid March.
Therefore it seems very safe to interpret such 'False Assurances' regarding levels of detection as 'having been and continuing to be', based upon 'sparse and inadequate' testing upon which to base such statements.
Such compelling information comes directly from BRAWM's own FAQ:
_______________________________
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/FAQ#plutonium
5. Can your methods detect Uranium and Plutonium?
The short answer: Technically yes, but in reality no.
Our detectors cannot see alpha particles.
_______________________________
Here is a link to one of several autodidacts/hobbyists who appear to be much more capable than the BRAWM Team in terms of innovation, when it comes to detecting Alpha Particles. (Even without Government Grant money, interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8GlzUjYazs&feature=player_embedded
(No offense to you Mark- at this point I understand very well that you are just a cog in the wheel. Grind away. It's just important to point out certain realities, even when they are so obvious.)
Think one important consideration is...
... that when BRAWM does something that might be interpreted as anomalous, they explain their reasoning clearly. You can either disagree with that reasoning and conclude that wool is being pulled over our eyes, or you see their point and think the data is likely reliable.
Similarly, CRIIRAD in France explains things like a potentially problematic high minimum level of detection, etc. that may affect the validity of their data.
The EPA offers no such explanations for the anomalies. Let's put it this way--if they were submitting their data to a peer reviewed publication as part of a study, it would not be published and there would be a lot of questions from the peer reviewers.
They explain all the
They explain all the anomalies at the bottom of the page. They say mechanical failure, electrical surge, and equipment failure.
oh dear
Oh dear, then it def wouldn't pass peer review!!! they'd have to take all the measurements again and hope everything worked right this time.
Peer review is a term
Peer review is a term applied to papers, which include analysis and conclusions based on the data. You don't use it in relations to data alone, and EPA data can be used as a base for peer reviewed articles as far as I know.
As I said...
as I said, "if they were submitting their data to a peer reviewed publication as part of a study..." I didn't say peer review applies to data alone. I think that aspect of my post was clear? But data is analysed as part of the peer review process and the EPA data as it exists would not pass, IMHO.
Good comment. And to add
Good comment.
And to add insult to injury, they are funded by you and me bro, but seem to have no accountability, so no explanations for anomalies can be compelled.
Have you tried to contact
Have you tried to contact them? There must be a mail address or a telephone No. somewhere
His analysis doesn't make
His analysis doesn't make sense. First, he assumes that all events that are unusual is evidence of censorship. Which he has no evidence for at all. A lot of the events he mentioned as censorship could easily be system malfunction. He also mentions short half life radiation burning off. If the half life of the materiel is short enough to make it disappear in under an hour, that suggests its half life is at most 6 minutes. Where does this short half life isotopes come from? It takes time to travel so it would have disappeared long ago. He also claims that since they pull the filters early they are doing something odd. Maybe they wanted to get more accurate measurements by having fresh filters. That means that they get better results by running the filters for shorter time. Everything he says is speculation, with absolutely no proof. Plus, everything he points out has a simpler and more likely explanation that is not a censorship conspiracy.
And we're supposed to trust
And we're supposed to trust the "proof" of the "experts" to date? the "proof" which changes with each Tepco revision of "facts"? Or missing EPA data?
C'mon, we don't really have all the facts and perhaps never will. Many are left to use their instincts and speculate. It's a good place to start exploring a hypothesis and flesh it out.
I'm not defending the videos - I picked up on the same issues - but once again the ole conspiracy label is thrown out there. It's getting old, especially since it's apparent that conspiracies abound with all things Fukushima; thus, all the distrust.
Yeah, his definition of
Yeah, his definition of censorship seems to be "things I don't understand".
Thanks for the link, these
Thanks for the link, these videos answered a lot of questions.
http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2011/06/radnet-data-censorship-sain...
wow
I am not a scientist but these videos seemed pretty damning to me. I asked a friend, who is a scientist and works in risk assessment, to watch the videos. His response:
"Watched all three parts--such in-your-face-dare-you-to-challenge-me USEPA data diddling!"
"I am not a scientist but
"I am not a scientist but these videos seemed pretty damning to me. I asked a friend, who is a scientist"
Sure
Unfortunately folks, the EPA
Unfortunately folks, the EPA can not be trusted to do its job because of one simple fact: it is part of the system that is killing us.
tsk tsk... why YOU, sir or
tsk tsk... why YOU, sir or madam, sound like one of them thar conspiracy nuts. Better watch out. Unknowing useful idiots of the same system will mock your statement.
but wait a minute! There
but wait a minute! There are very smart people on this forum (they will tell you how smart they are, too, so that's how I know they are) who will say that we are conspiracy theorists for watching these videos and questioning why data is missing once again.
So I think we should ignore these videos and trust government and other sources who are lying to us, or hiding information, because very smart people tell us we are crazy.
There are many different
There are many different kinds of scientists.
I'm one kind of scientist, one whose funding is in no way influenced by my stance on nuclear power or the EPA. Since there is no official definition of scientist and I don't care to identify myself too specifically at this point, I say I'm a scientist because my post-secondary degrees are in science, and because I get paid to do science as a career. I do not work with anything related to nuclear power or the environment. I do spend a large amount of my work time analyzing spreadsheets full of detailed, nuanced numerical data.
There is very little doubt in my mind that there is censorship going on.
What you need is a reporter (or better, several,) not a scientist. HTH.
Conflicts of interest declared: None.