Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-17 01:26.
I am not the OP but seems to me there is nothing natural about these background levels of plutonium etc. ie They were put there by some previous filthy nuke activity--bomb testing or similar. But let's hope BRAWM is right that there are no further recent emissions.
Just to clear this up — there were NO detections of these isotopes, and that goes for background levels, too. If something had been detected, even if it were "background," it would not be listed as "NDA."
What the MDA means is "We found nothing above this level. If there were something above this level, this test would have seen it."
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-17 20:25.
Paranoid as it no doubt sounds, I am mystified as to why the column heading "NDA" is used. Why not "Amount Detected", beneath which "NDA" could be entered for each location, just as it stands in the present table?
I dunno--using NDA ("no detected activity") for the column HEADER seems to suggest that the spreadsheet architect presupposed that no activity would be detected.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-17 10:32.
What they said is the levels found were not above this level, so what does that mean? And what is this level? I am not sure you can say that they found nothing.
The test results listed on that website are all non-detections. The columns labeled "1-MDA" give the Minimum Detectable Activities for each measurement, much in the way that we in BRAWM report our detection limits. The results in columns labeled "2-NDA" are all listed as "NDA," which means No Detectable Activity.
There were no detections of any of those isotopes in those tests. The numbers given are only the detection limits (MDAs).
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-17 10:48.
"The air monitoring results for 137-Cesium, 239-Plutonium, and 241-Americium are below air effluent Concentrations as specified in Table II of 20.3.4.461 NMAC, and are in compliance with “Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public” 20.3.4.413 and “Compliance with Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public” as specified under 20.3.4.414 NMAC."
1-MDA, Minimum Detectable Activity, is based on natural background, the time period of the measurement and the volume and was provided by DOE Radiological Assistance Program.
Mark, It says here that 1-MDA is based on natural background and if you look at the chart it shows a detection of these isotopes in the background. They chart does not say that nothing was detected, if nothing was detected why would they have these background numbers?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-17 10:49.
The first deception in this is from enenews that implies that this table shows results above the MDA.
The second deception is that the MDAs were tweaked to show NDAs in the first place.
Overall, the anti-nukers and the pro-nukers make sure we little people have no real data to work with. My best guess is that the amount detected can be calculated by attempting to figure out what their assumed "background" was that the subtracted from their findings (that may be very difficult, it may depend on what they found), and then adding the MDA amount.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-17 20:06.
Well, I personally have never radioassayed air samples but have performed radioanalyses on other matrices. We typically analyzed one or more control extracts in addition to our hot extracts so we could correct for any extraneous "noise" in the control.
So I'm curious as to the procedure used in the case of air samples. Were they somehow processed for analysis via scintillation counter, or was a geiger counter used, or perhaps some other instrument? And how is background determined in the event that a clean control air sample is not available due to ambient contamination?
Maybe somebody can point me to an analytical method if explaining it all is too cumbersome. Thanks in advance!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-07-16 21:51.
Mark, really we don't know the levels detected, only that they are below what is considered natural background, i.e. is there an increase from before the fire?
It'd be nice if they would have given the levels reported by the instrument too. It probably would have been less open to misinterpretation, if the actual data was presented.
Nothing natural about background levels
I am not the OP but seems to me there is nothing natural about these background levels of plutonium etc. ie They were put there by some previous filthy nuke activity--bomb testing or similar. But let's hope BRAWM is right that there are no further recent emissions.
MDA levels are not background levels
Just to clear this up — there were NO detections of these isotopes, and that goes for background levels, too. If something had been detected, even if it were "background," it would not be listed as "NDA."
What the MDA means is "We found nothing above this level. If there were something above this level, this test would have seen it."
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Seems strange
Paranoid as it no doubt sounds, I am mystified as to why the column heading "NDA" is used. Why not "Amount Detected", beneath which "NDA" could be entered for each location, just as it stands in the present table?
I dunno--using NDA ("no detected activity") for the column HEADER seems to suggest that the spreadsheet architect presupposed that no activity would be detected.
Mark, release the tests for
Mark, release the tests for plutonium and we can compare the background plutonium to los alamos.
What they said is the levels
What they said is the levels found were not above this level, so what does that mean? And what is this level? I am not sure you can say that they found nothing.
natural background levels of
natural background levels of plutonium-239?
No detections of Pu-239, Am-241, or Cs-137
The test results listed on that website are all non-detections. The columns labeled "1-MDA" give the Minimum Detectable Activities for each measurement, much in the way that we in BRAWM report our detection limits. The results in columns labeled "2-NDA" are all listed as "NDA," which means No Detectable Activity.
There were no detections of any of those isotopes in those tests. The numbers given are only the detection limits (MDAs).
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
"The air monitoring results
"The air monitoring results for 137-Cesium, 239-Plutonium, and 241-Americium are below air effluent Concentrations as specified in Table II of 20.3.4.461 NMAC, and are in compliance with “Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public” 20.3.4.413 and “Compliance with Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public” as specified under 20.3.4.414 NMAC."
1-MDA, Minimum Detectable Activity, is based on natural background, the time period of the measurement and the volume and was provided by DOE Radiological Assistance Program.
Mark, It says here that 1-MDA is based on natural background and if you look at the chart it shows a detection of these isotopes in the background. They chart does not say that nothing was detected, if nothing was detected why would they have these background numbers?
misleading headline
It's literally true that the levels are reported. What the headline fails to communicate is that those levels are all below the limit of detection.
It's a pity that good news has been repackaged to generate alarm among people unwilling or unable to read and interpret the data table.
The first deception in this
The first deception in this is from enenews that implies that this table shows results above the MDA.
The second deception is that the MDAs were tweaked to show NDAs in the first place.
Overall, the anti-nukers and the pro-nukers make sure we little people have no real data to work with. My best guess is that the amount detected can be calculated by attempting to figure out what their assumed "background" was that the subtracted from their findings (that may be very difficult, it may depend on what they found), and then adding the MDA amount.
Background
Well, I personally have never radioassayed air samples but have performed radioanalyses on other matrices. We typically analyzed one or more control extracts in addition to our hot extracts so we could correct for any extraneous "noise" in the control.
So I'm curious as to the procedure used in the case of air samples. Were they somehow processed for analysis via scintillation counter, or was a geiger counter used, or perhaps some other instrument? And how is background determined in the event that a clean control air sample is not available due to ambient contamination?
Maybe somebody can point me to an analytical method if explaining it all is too cumbersome. Thanks in advance!
MDA
Mark, really we don't know the levels detected, only that they are below what is considered natural background, i.e. is there an increase from before the fire?
It'd be nice if they would have given the levels reported by the instrument too. It probably would have been less open to misinterpretation, if the actual data was presented.
This needs to somehow be
This needs to somehow be publicly addressed if so, otherwise it's going to cause a lot of unnecessary panic.
Amazing data. Absolutely
Amazing data. Absolutely stunning to say the very least.
some more plutonium
some more plutonium particulates with your jog? just a little can't hurt, can it?