Remain prepared to evacuate within 200 miles of WIPP within a moments notice.
It is no coincidence that WIPP is furiously working to add a real time Continuous Air Monitor to the mine shaft Exhaust Vent at WIPP.
We have warned of the increased probability of an additional explosion at WIPP resultant from their now massively out of spec ventilation system. Based on data from CEMRC, it appears there was a follow on radioactive spike at WIPP as measured by filters recovered February 23rd 2014.
While the 2/23/14 Plutonium spike appears much less than the Valentine's day spike, the important factor of note is that the process which caused the Valentine's day explosion is still ongoing. It should also be noted the CEMRC suspiciously changed their sampling reporting style concurrent with this new event in such a manner that the change served to obfuscate the obviousness of the spike.
CEMRC switched their reporting to a daily aggregate of filter samples with data starting 2/22/14. Aggregate reporting serves to peanut butter out large radioactive volumetric spike rates which occurred during a short time period into a greatly reduced spike smoothed out over a larger time period. Even with that distortion, the 2/23 spike was at least 400% greater than the previous days.
Had CEMRC maintained an Engineering Consistency in how they reported their measurements, it is likely the true amount of Plutonium measured per cubic meter would have shown 10 to 100 times greater than reported.
Data as reported by CEMRC:
Thanks for your post... just curious how you would respond to Joffan, who calls the WIPP release barely detectable and trivial in his dual comments responding to the following blog post: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/whats-really-going-nuclear-storage-site-new-mexico.html
ReplyDeleteWouldn't respond unless he posted on our site, but its clear to us that he doesn't understand WIPP's air sampling, how it works, and obviously he trusts people of his own bias without actually verifying their data. Nor does he seem to even understanding the ground rules and assumptions those people used to make the claims which he seemingly has embellished to the extreme. In short, its dangerous to hyper parrot things one doesn't understand well, especially when the influence one tries to wield places others at significant risk of danger if the information proves to be wrong.
DeleteJoffy is a joke
DeleteOk, thanks for your response but I was hoping for something more specific... if you think the release was non-trivial, then why? And he claims the actual detection results from the filters was 0.092 Bq of plutonium so I'm trying to understand better why you think that value and other reported values do not properly account for the actual release of radioactive particles from the WIPP. I watched several of the video's on the blog and read many of the articles tonight but I'm still having trouble putting my thoughts into words.
ReplyDeleteOur primary concern is that the conditions that caused the initial explosion and release are apt to happen again, and potentially at much greater levels.
DeleteBut to answer your question about the 1st release; there is no such thing as a "trivial" Plutonium release. The authorities 'acceptable' risk levels are such that its plausibly deniable that any individual's cancer can be legally proven to come from the release, but statistically at the population level the affect is noticeable.
That said, our risk mitigation position is to take DOE WIPP CEMRC at their word, but we do try an verify that the math of the data they release matches what their words say. And, that is where the problem arises, their data and their stories don't mesh well (if at all). Moreover when a potentially key bit of data surfaces, they take steps which serve to obfuscate the ability to glean actual insight from that data.
So what it comes down to is that they can't really substantiate their narrative; that being the case, you can choose to believe their story and accept the personal consequences of being wrong. Or, you can chose to cost effectively risk mitigate and let natural selection decide the winner.
This link should help you understand why they can't actually quantify how much was released.
http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/03/wipps-radiation-detection-equipment-was.html
Thanks for your response and yes, I agree that there is no such thing as a trivial plutonium release and I also understand how easy it is for authorities to hide the truth about nuclear accidents.
DeleteI'm curious to know how your radiation release estimates in your http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/03/wipp-math-alert-33-minute-delay-in-hepa.html post compare to the Alpha and Beta dpm information provided by the DOE Station A in your http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/03/alert-new-mexcio-emergency-officials.html post. I'm just not sure how to make an apples to apples comparison and is it somewhat sensible to make that comparison given that most of the radiation release occurred in the initial stages of the accident? thanks.
There is not enough information to make a comparison between the two; they always find a way to make their reports incomplete, and they don't release all their raw data.
DeleteOk, I just noticed that Joffan wrote the following on the same Washington's Blog post I mentioned above:
Delete"A milligram of plutonium-239 would have an activity of 2,300,000 Bq. The actual detection results from the sampling station, which concentrated traces of radioactivity from vast volumes of air, was 0.046 Bq of plutonium. That equates to an almost unimaginably small amount - 20 picograms. That's 50 million times smaller than a milligram.
http://www.cemrc.org/2014/02/19/cemrc-detects-trace-amounts-radioactive-particles-air-sampling-station-near-wipp-facility/
There is no danger to the public. This is indeed a trivial event as far as health impact is concerned. The reason it is being taken seriously at the site is to find the root causes and improve safety by avoiding this type of initiating event altogether, not because there is a huge risk."
Just curious how would you counter this argument?
If you account for the sampling error introduced by the difference in sampling velocity between the CEMRC test station and the WIPP exhaust and you add in the radioactivity from americium that Joffan conveniently "forgot" to mention, do you still think there is a significant risk to the community?
I read somewhere that a few millionths of a gram (or a few micro-grams) distributed through the lungs, liver, or bones may increase the risk for developing cancer in those organs and that airborne, soluble chemical compounds of plutonium are considered so dangerous by the Department of Energy (DOE) that the maximum permissible occupational concentration in air is an infinitesimal 32 trillionths of a gram per cubic meter (source: https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818013.pdf).
On a radioactivity basis, would the sampling station results that Joffan quoted reach the DOE's threshold at all after making the adjustment for the sampling rate differences and summing the radiation from both plutonium and americium sources?
Read our blog from the start of the WIPP event and you'll start to understand the deceptions. While there are numerous errors in what he says, the most glaring is that the filter ran 5 days, 3 of which were prior to the release, the reported value assumes the release happened over all 5 days at a steady state, yet at that point CEMRC was claiming the release only happened in 'the brief moments' before the HEPA filters were turned on. So if you believe their claims, it means those values were under reported by about 14400 TIMES.
DeleteOur post here will give you a start in understanding those issues:
http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2014/02/deadly-warning-nearly-eleven-thousand.html
Sources tell us Fed officials state "less than a chest x-ray" which is two days worth of normal background level radiation. But what the Feds aren't saying is what the half life of plutonium is and how many x-rays we receive over a duration of time being exposed to "less than a chest x-ray."
ReplyDeletevideo of so called truck fire pictures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNEUhPlrSwM
ReplyDeleteDid you see this article? (it was linked to Drudge's page today):
ReplyDelete"2nd radiation release indicated at New Mexico site"
http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/2nd-radiation-release-indicated-at-New-Mexico-site-5329256.php
"... Department of Energy officials say a monitoring station picked up elevated radiation readings around the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad on March 11. ... Engineers say they believe the contamination is from previous deposits on the inner surface of exhaust ductwork. Officials say occasional low-level releases are anticipated ..."
Saw that, of course no information released to back up what they said. Dangerous place to live or be downwind of, the big concern is the next spike might be the spike to end all previous spikes.
ReplyDelete