Thursday, October 27, 2011

US Government: Fukushima Radioactive Fallout TEN THOUSAND Percent Greater in IRAQ than In the USA

The POTRBLOG team decided to investigate the differences between the Department of Energy's recent release of Fukushima Radioactive Fallout data and the Enviornmental Protection Agency's RADNET Radioactive Fallout data; what we discovered was startling.

The DOE data lists a fallout monitoring location in Western Iraq which had taken fallout readings on March 30th 2011; an "apple to apple" analyis was performed comparing the EPA' Radnet data from March 11 2011 through March 30th. To make the "apple to apple" comparison the HIGHEST air filter fallout readings from each individual radionuclide in the USA (over the entire time period) was compared to each radionuclide measured in western Iraq on March 30 2011.

The only calculation/conversion the POTRBLOG team made was to convert the IRAQ measurements from micro-Curies per milli-Liter to pico-Curies per cubic-Meter; those calculations are marked in the charts below.

The result was that the IRAQ fallout measured by the DOE was as high as TEN THOUSAND Percent GREATER than the highest identical radionuclide measured in the USA by the EPA.

Obviously there has to be an error somewhere given that Iraq is a few days down wind from the USA. For all of our sakes lets pray that it is the POTRBLOG team that has made an error and not the US Government.

More updates/details and a video are to follow.

Updated with links to the source data:
US DOE/NNSA Response to 2011 Fukushima Incident: Radiological Air Samples

EPA RadNet Database Query


  1. the Iraq reading could be from all that DU used over there...

  2. The detections are fission products, not possible from DU.
    Given that Iraq pattern in the bottom chart tends to match the USA pattern, it is very difficult to argue that it is from anywhere but Fukushima. The real question is why are the US readings so much lower when they should be higher.

  3. Perhaps the NNSA data is actually nano-Curies/ml? This is a conceivable error.

    I was not aware of the release of this DOE data. I look forward to hearing more about it.

  4. I have updated the post with links to the source data:
    I certainly hope it is a simple error; I would hate to think that the EPA underreported the fallout by over 100 times actual.

  5. 1 µ = 1 000 000 p = 10 E6
    1 ml = 0.000001 M3 = 10 E-6

    6 - 6 = 0

    9.76 E-12 µCi/ml = 9.76 E-12 pCi/M3

    Ah... Units conversion is a mess LOL

  6. Trifouillax, your high-school science and math teachers called. They're revoking your diploma. 6-(-6) = +12. The conversion is correct.

    Thanks for the DOE source, Ms. X.

  7. OK, wait - I'm confused. Why do you believe the NNSA data is from Iraq? The measurements in the database (the top half that I looked at, anyway) seem to come from latitude 37, longitude 140. That's Japan.

    If so, this just says that the contamination is much worse in Japan than in Hawaii and Alaska. I don't trust DOE, NNSA, or EPA, but I believe that.

  8. Keep looking, you'll see it.
    Analysis Id Sample Id Sample# Type Latitude Longitude
    213981 8661 SCF-08646 Air Filter 32.2934 39.672

  9. OK, thanks! Wow, that's really odd. Why would DOE be monitoring Fukushima fallout in Iraq? That's got to be an error inputting the latitude and longitude coordinates - maybe 40 degrees E longitude for Iraq and 140 degrees E for Japan?

  10. Its possible it is an error, on the other hand. It is a good spot on the other side of the planet to which we have unfettered access to, and its right about in a spot where one might expect to find that kind of equipment. More over it is pretty much on the same latitude as Fukushima,

    Heck, its almost a straight Latitude line from Fukushima to Saint Louis to Western Iraq. It certainly is a spot I would want that kind of data from if I could get it.

  11. Got it, thanks Aaron

    from µCi * ml E-1
    to pCi * m3 E-1

    Note 1 : 9.76 pCi/m3 = 0.36 Bq/m3

    Note 2 : Cs-134 > Cs-137 now that's odd, Cs-137 / Cs-134 Fuku ratio is generally >1.0 and < 1.5 and should be, due to the respective half-life, 7 months after the main Fuku release, around 1.5 - 2.5.

    Looks like there is something wrong in the data?