"Dial "M" for Meltdown" - video by Brian Rich. August 12, 2011.
"Dial "M" for Meltdown"- video by Brian Rich
August 12, 2011
Presented via Fairewinds.com.
Search
"Dial "M" for Meltdown"- video by Brian Rich
August 12, 2011
Presented via Fairewinds.com.
More SHODDY MISINFORMATION from Fairewinds
In the video linked above, the text overlaying the Chernobyl debacle states that the containment was breached. ( After showing the containment buildings of US plants. )
Chernobyl had no containment building
In fact you can see that for yourself in the following picture of one of Chernobyl's sister RBMK reactors in Ignalina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBMK_reactor_from_Ignalina.gif
Look to right in the picture to the right side wall. It has WINDOWS
There's nothing but glass between the reactor top and the outside world.
More two-bit shoddy propaganda from the experts in the field; Fairewinds.
Correlation of LA hepa filters to claimed LA hot air particles?
Los Angeles Rad Weather Report:
EnviroReporter Radiation Monitoring Station
(West Los Angeles/Santa Monica area)
Normal air radiation background levels: 42 CPM – 46 CPM.
Thursday:
"8/11/11
10:15 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average: 36.5 CPM
9:55 pm 10-minute EXTERIOR average: 45.9 CPM
6:45 pm 10-minute EXTERIOR average: 46.1 CPM
6:30 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average: 39.8 CPM
3:50 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average of KENMORE PLASMAWAVE AIR CLEANER/HEPA FILTER AGGREGATE FROM 7/19/11 = 23 DAYS OF USE IN RADIATION STATION: 68.1 CPM which is 190% of PREVIOUS INTERIOR BACKGROUND OF 35.8 CPM – (See Video of testing with commentary)
3:00 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average of HONEYWELL HEPA FILTER AGGREGATE FROM 7/19/11 = 23 DAYS OF USE IN RADIATION STATION: 80.0 CPM which is 229% of PREVIOUS INTERIOR BACKGROUND OF 35.8 CPM – (See Video of testing with commentary)
2:15 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average of HONEYWELL HEPA FILTER HOT SPOT FROM 7/19/11 = 23 DAYS OF USE IN RADIATION STATION: 85 CPM which is 237% of PREVIOUS INTERIOR BACKGROUND OF 35.8 CPM – (See Video of testing with commentary)
12:55 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average: 45.9 CPM
12:40 pm 10-minute INTERIOR average: 35.8 CPM
8:40 am 10-minute INTERIOR average: 39.2 CPM
8:20 am 10-minute EXTERIOR average: 42.6 CPM”
http://www.enviroreporter.com/radiation-station-stats/
***
Wonder if there is any correlation of the EnviroReporter Radiation Station's findings of significantly large increases of CPMs detected in its Hepa air filters-- to the said presence of hot air particles in Los Angeles, as claimed in the above 8/12/2011 Brian Rich video (Presented via Fairewinds.com)?
http://fairewinds.com/content/dial-m-meltdown-brian-rich
I fear that Marco Kaltofen's comment to Seattle Mom re the problem with radioactive residual dust may perchance be coming into play here in Los Angeles as well, at least at some level. (See Seattle Mom's post of 8/8/2011 quoting engineer, Marco Kaltofen: "I would be less concerned with continuing radiation levels in ambient air, and more concerned with resuspending settled contaminated dusts. Our current research is focusing on this issue in Japan, where settled dust levels are much higher." http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4503#comment-16331
[Background of Marco Kaltofen: February 1993 – Present (18 years 7 months)
Consulting professional engineer specializing in environmental fate and transport of radioactive and hazardous materials.]
Very disturbing! These tiny, dinky, miniscule little hot air particles are so hard to detect... one way or the other. Everything feels like a Catch 22. You can't prove it. You also can't disprove it. Catch 22. Yet, there have been reported 'sittings' by scientists.
Think I'll have another glass of wine. Then I won't care one way or the other, or at least until I wake up in the middle with an upset stomach! Then I'll be wide awake with an upset stomach thinking about hot air particles in Los Angeles. Oh well, no more wine, me thinks.
***
BRAWM Team/Bloggers? Thoughts, ideas...
LA air filter readings are due to radon decay products
1. The amount of radiation from Japan has been so small
The amounts of radioactive material from Japan have simply been too low to cause count rates that high in a Geiger counter. We have also been testing HEPA filters but never saw rates that high from the Fukushima isotopes. Also, the claimed levels of hot particles are too small to cause those readings.2. The radiation should decay away in a few hours
Testing the same filter over the course of a few hours should reveal a decay in the radiation back to background. This is something you have discussed before, but in the context of the "rain swipe" measurements. It also should work for air filters, like the data that James took that we analyzed: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4109#comment-81463. The radiation will come back in a few hours if the filter is placed in airflow again
There's another interesting test that can be done here. After waiting for the air filter radiation to decay to background, place the air filter back in its original airflow. After only a few hours, it can be taken out and it will be radioactive again! This happens because the radon decay products have short half lives (<1 hour) and quickly reach equilibrium in the filter — i.e., after a couple hours, running the filter for longer won't actually add to the radioactivity on it, since what is already on the filter will decay at the same rate as what is added. We have done this last test with our air filters and it works — there is just so much natural radioactivity in the air. In our case, we used our germanium detectors and actually measured the gamma-ray lines of the radon decay products Lead-214 and Bismuth-214 and watched them decay away. Indeed, in the first hour of testing, these isotopes have activities that are several times background levels. Mark [BRAWM Team Member]From the video it stated in
From the video it stated in Los Angelos we're breathing in 5 hot particles a day. Is this still true and will it continue to be true for our lifetime because of the particles long decay time???? It's rather shocking and numbing to consider.
Checking for radon progeny both with air filters and rain water
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your quick response, especially thanks considering that its your weekend.
OK, yes, it makes sense that the air filter radiation testing would be similar to rain water sample testing in terms of the importance of ruling out radon progeny. I agree that the 40 minute and 4 hour re-test of the 'original' radiation sample would provide an easy, useful tool to do so, when sudden large increases in radiation are detected-- whether the sample is rain water, or an air filter. Unfortunately, radiation monitoring stations/investigators up and all about rarely seem to screen to rule out radon progeny. EPA RadNet monitor stations apparently included. Especially, when uncharacteristic sudden, persistent high radiation spikes occur over a period of days/weeks, radon progeny testing would provide immensely valuable, critical information about the nature of the radiation being detected: radon, or other radiation. It would be wise for all monitoring stations and investigators (including the EPA RadNet stations) to automatically test for radon, when unusually high radiation levels are encountered-- above normal background levels.
Your fellow BRAWM Team member, Tim Aucott (Fri, 2011-08-12, http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5191#comment-16710 ), cautions that following hourly gross beta EPA RadNet postings over the course of 4 hours will not screen for radon and its decay, since each hour measured represents a separate and, therefore, new radiation sample. That, as time passes, newly arriving radon is possibly being added to the original sample; thus, the radon level might not go to background levels after 4 hours, because each EPA RadNet sample hour possibly might be collecting more radon from the air. Bottom line, radon decay cannot with any assurance be checked for, based on the EPA RadNet Query gross beta hourly postings. According to Tim, one single original sample needs to be followed over the course of the 40 minute and the 4 hour radon decay test period in order to accurately test for radon decay.
This is immensely unfortunate for those of us, who are trying to determine if sudden uncharacteristic and persistent large increases in radiation in our home cities is due to radon progeny, or to longer lasting radiation fallout. Not that any of this radiation is great. If EPA RadNet Monitoring Stations automatically tested for radon in the presence of uncharacteristic sudden, persistent high radiation spikes occurring over a period of days/weeks, we all would know more about what we were dealing with: quickly decaying radon, or longer lasting radiation fallout. If needed, preventative measures could then be taken.
Mark, is there any way for the public to tease out of the EPA RadNet Query gross beta information, radon decay rates?
Lastly, the manuals provided with geiger monitors also should recommend to users the importance of screening for radon in the presence of sudden, high persistent increases in radiation findings.
RadNet has gamma spectroscopy
Hi Angusmerlin,
I think we should move this conversation back to that other thread, where I have just made a comment. Basically, EPA can distinguish between radon and other things using gamma-ray spectroscopy.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]