The fallout sample from the April 14th radioactive fallout rain event remains radioactive 5 days after the initial collection. The sample was still radioactive at approximately 1.3 counts per minute over background, (Beta + Gamma). Data analysis is on going, and more information should be available in a few days.
The continued presence of persistent long life radioactive fallout in these storms does not bode well for long term radioactive environmental build up and migration into food products.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi appreciate and enjoy your work. But I keep seeing some pushback on this theory of radiological deposition. A number of people keep arguing that higher than normal radon progeny is historically to be expected in rain samples. But your evidence of such high cpm counts above normal seems to constantly say otherwise. Is there any pre Fukushima baseline to go by in this regard?
ReplyDelete@unknown, the one thing we can state with a strong amount of certainty is that deposition rates are directly tied to the presence of the jet-stream and the ability of the storms to access the jet stream. Our theory has been has been that radioactive corium has hit Fukushima's Radon laden ground water and is steaming Radon into the atmosphere along with the other corium fallout products.
DeleteWe spent the first 7+ months of the disaster going through every research paper we could find looking for data on pre-Fukushima rain fallout, we found nothing comparable to the levels we have detected. We did find one online reference, back in early 2000, were someone was using our exact same procedure and using the exact same type of Geiger counter, that individual found an alarming level of only 4x background radiation.
Prior to Fukushima, we did occasionally test the rainfall on our vehicles for radioactivity. Pre-Fukushima those tests never indicated any noticeable levels of radioactivity. Post-Fukushima we ran the Geiger counter over the rain on our vehicles and detected elevated levels of radioactivity. Those elevated levels lead us to the next step, namely sampling the truck with a paper towel wipe. So far our highest detection has been 276x greater than background level; if anybody has detected something similar using a Geiger counter (pre Fukushima), we would like to see it.
Uh, huh. That's why they told us long ago with the poisoning started not to eat the first snow as judged to be cleaning our air. But beware, our enemies want us to trust them and go back to sleep.....
ReplyDeleteThanks greatly appreciated! That helps a lot to clear things up! I posted a reference to look at your response to my question to the Youtube channel Antiprotons. He seems to have a disagreement with some of the ideas expressed on this forum! But we are all trying to learn something new here, so that’s to be expected I would think!
ReplyDelete@unknown, we appreciate input and critique; in fact it is a primary reason why we share our information. We don't have a lot of time to check other sites for commentary; if the commentary has value someone will bring it up.
DeleteOne thing we have noticed is that some people self identify as scientists and make statements that affect public safety without performing analytical due diligence. A prime example would be claims that Plutonium was too heavy to fly far from Fukushima; I believe "Anti-protons" was one of those people.
But based on your input, I did look at "Antiprotons" most recent video; there is a lot that can be said, but it would be better just to ask a question that he should be able to answer with scientific prowess-
"if the POTRBLOG team is finding persistent radioactive material (gamma+beta) in a rain sample 6 days after its collection and that sample is releasing gamma + beta at 1.3 counts per minute, how many days would "Antiprotons" have to run the sample in his gamma scintillator before he PERSONALLY could identify the source at the 95% confidence level"?
Hello,
ReplyDeleteLove the back and forth, although at this point I am over my head. The short answer that he gave is below. Well time to hit the textbooks for me.
Thanks,
Steven L. Keys
________________________
From Antiprotons:
Please note that I answered your comments about corium in a video reply to this video. The topic was complex and too much for the text box.
In short, corium cannot be the cause of increased radon washout due to it's lack of Ra222 isotopic equilibrium, a property lost during enrichment. Also, if the Ra222 made it in such quantity, why not the Cs137 and Cs134?
@unknown, actually explanation is very simple and should not be "above anyone's head" ; I won't judge as to why he is obtuse. But since he claims scientific credentials, I believe he has an absolute duty to perform due diligence before incorrectly reassuring people things are safe when they may not be. In that regard, I believe he is FOA at best.
DeleteSo here is the very simple explanation: the ground water in Japan is naturally heavily Radon laden. That naturally occurring Radon in the Japanese ground water can become even more heavily Radon laden via earthquake action. When the corium hit the groundwater (or vis versa) it heated the Radon laden ground water up enough so that Radon escaped into the atmosphere. Of course, that same ground water steam also carries fallout products created by the corium.
In short, our working theory is that if you find high levels of short half life radiation in your rainfall, odds are that there is harder to detect longer half life stuff in there too.
And that leads us back to the original question: "if the POTRBLOG team is finding persistent radioactive material (gamma+beta) in a rain sample 6 days after its collection and that sample is releasing gamma + beta at 1.3 counts per minute, how many days would "Antiprotons" have to run the sample in his gamma scintillator before he PERSONALLY could identify the source at the 95% confidence level"?
Hopefully that helps clear things up,
STAY OUT OF THE RAIN.
Oh it was me that was over my head. Tom at Antiprotons is fairly knowledgeable on physics. So its fair to say the issue of Ra222 isotopic equilibrium is a non-issue then? In laymans terms, if all the ingredients are lined up in the kitchen, then its easy to bake a cake -I suppose.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Steven L. Keys
@unknown, Yeah it is a non-issue from the perspective of his 'argument'. But it is an issue of lack of due diligence in a matter of public safety.
DeleteHe is not the first "learned" person to mis-state the theory; The UCB "BRAWM" team has done the same thing. When some one with "credentials" tries to refute a theory in order to convince people that things are safe, and then refutes the wrong theory it says something.
But there is an extra ding in there too, a study of CANDU fuel rods has shown the presence of Radon + daughters in them; so it is a double lack of due diligence to make the argument and conclusion he did.
Some people who claim the science moniker just don't understand that there is more to science than knowing how to use a calculator, fundamentally to be a good scientist you have to know how to draw system boundaries around a problem, solve it, and understand when the choice of system boundaries may improperly influence an analysis. And if there is anybody out there who thinks they can do that with the witches brew coming out of Fukushima and declare it safe, they are just full of it.
@unknown,
DeleteAs an addendum, notice that "antiprotons" has not corrected his misrepresentation; people who watch his video will continue to be misled. Nor has he answered how long he would have to run his test to identify the 1.3 cpm long half life radiation we have found. Based on those things, I'll make the supposition that he is not out to discover information but rather to INFLUENCE others and build reputation.
If he would have corrected his mis-categorization of our theory on the presence of Radon in the fallout, it would be a lot easier to give him the benefit of the doubt on his "tests". As it stands now he could "non-detect" his way into long term contamination.
For what he claims he is trying to do with his tests, he should determine the minimum level of fallout he needs to be able to detect in order to verify that reoccurring radioactive buildup from each rainstorm is not a safety issue. That is why we posed the question if he could specify how long he would have to run his scintillator to identify what we have detected.
It is a question he hasn't answered, either because he doesn't know how to answer it or answering it would serve to discredit the influence he appears to be trying to peddle. In the best case, it means he knows how to turn his equipment on but he does not know how to apply it properly; in the worst case,
it is deliberately deceptive. Given that he has not corrected his previous mis-representation, it is easy to see in which direction he is leaning.
There is a LOT more that could be said about his methods, but frankly he is small fry compared to those who obviously deliberately peddle credibility at the risk of public safety. Hopefully, he will step up his due diligence and turn things around.