Thursday, August 22, 2013

Max Alert Down Graded To Alert: Columbia Nuclear Offers Partial Explanation As To Unusual Readings

We are down grading our Maximum Alert from yesterday to Alert, based on Columbia Nuclear's update to today's NRC Event Report #49290. In that report, Columbia Nuclear states: "There has been no change in the radiation levels at the plant.".

They blame the usual radiations readings from ONE of the monitors on failed cooling equipment, however they offer no explanation on why the second monitor also indicated usual readings.

There still are key things to be concerned about in this situation even if their partial explanation, in its limited scope, is 100% full and accurate; however, NRC event reports are known for their "Clinton Speak" where one never knows what the definition of "is" is.  For these reasons, we still remain "Alert" to this situation.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Actually, reading over your shoulder on the NRC update, it states that the same system affected the intermediate range monitor. Seems you are doing the parsing.

    1. Trust but verify, always a good motto. Read the NRC report again.

      The original report indicates the both the High and Midrange reactor stack radiation monitors were affected by the same SYMPTOM, namely high background; albeit it took them at least 6 HOURS to figure out that both systems were being affected.

      However, today's NRC report names the suspected CAUSE of the High Range monitor's problem as a cooling issue. But, it mentions nothing about the CAUSE of the Intermediate range monitor's readings. It also stated that "There has been no change in the radiation levels at the plant.", BUT there is a 6 hour blind period when they thought the Intermediate monitor was working properly.

      So the concerns with this report are plentiful.
      1. If both systems failed under the same cause (as you assume), then they have a single point failure affecting two systems; the second of which they were unaware for 6 hours. Who knows what could have been released or detected during those 6 hours? I doubt they know what was released or detectable during this period as the report indicates that they "prestaged" humans during this period.

      2. Both monitors could have failed from heat coming from the reactor stack, which means it might not have been a single point hardware failure. But then, you have to wonder why a REACTOR VENTING CHIMNEY is getting that hot. And you also have to wonder why there was a 6 hour blind period where they were relying on the affected midrange monitor.

      3. They NEVER release enough technical detail to verify their root cause analysis; which means the best one can do is risk mitigate with a bias towards protecting human health.

      4. They are only likely to fess-up to something if people are going to die within 2 weeks of the exposure; the NRC for the most part could care less if you future children are deformed or if you come down with plausibly deniable cancer 20 years down the road.

      To sum it up, anyway you look at it, something not good happened.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. To sum it up, there were instruments that failed due to a cooling failure (just like what would happen to your computer if the fan quit) and you pretty much blew something WAY out of proportion to what actually happened. By the way, Columbia Generating Station is located in a desert area of Washington State in which day time temperature exceed 90 degrees.

    1. In your universe, a nuclear facility losing an emergency assessment capability because daytime temperatures "exceed 90 degrees" is something NOT to be concerned about? I won't hazard a guess what's going with you on that, but I'll wish you well.

    2. Then why don't you tell us why there is heat in the stack? Also, when you analyze the jet streams, you apparently don't pay attention to the arrows on the map as if you had you would have noticed that on August 10th, when you claim the recriticality happened you would have noticed that any plume released then would have made a turn to the south and been caught up in the low pressure system to the south of Japan. Those gray blobs that you point out indicate wind speeds above 60 knots, not the movement of columns of air. You're analysis leaves a lot to be desired.

    3. The only thing that can be said for sure is that something unusual happened, and that we thought it merited maximum attention from those who might be affected. Certainly our analysis could be greatly improved, especially if we had improved raw data directly from the source. If you could convince your friends in the nuclear industry to release uncensored raw data it would be most helpful, please feel free to keep us up-to-date with your efforts in that regard.

      With respect to the Jet Stream Charts, they do NOT show the movements of "columns of air". The Jet Stream charts show the 2D air movement vectors at a prescribed altitude, with locations highlighted when a certain speed is reached. If you are interested in the movement of "columns of air" you should look for what are known as "Omega" charts.

    4. You didn't read what I said. Your comments on the analysis implied that the dark splotches were the movement of air and that is why you had the alert over the Pacific Northwest, Canada and Alaska. As I pointed out, the jet stream on August 10th over that part of Japan would have gone to the south where there was a low pressure system. You didn't look at the arrows on the map (btw, I look at those maps daily).

      On the nuclear side, I have some doubts that you'd understand the raw data if you saw it. The verbiage used in the nuclear industry tends to be a mixture of military and technical jargon. No cover up being done, it's how engineers talk.

    5. I guess I'll have to fess-up; I did imply that the Jet Stream WINDS were, as you say, "movement of air".

    6. Ok, I get the "yuk yuk, he doesn't know wind is movement of air". So let's go over what you ACTUALLY said in the video at the 3:30 mark. After you had earlier in the video explained that the darker color was the higher wind speeds, you then referred to the splotch moving towards Washington as "the cloud". The inference is that that was the column of air moving from Fukushima west to Washington State. That is not CORRECT. It traces the increasing wind speeds as pressure gradients change across the Pacific, not a discrete column of air as you imply. You didn't pay any attention the wind direction. Also, the "cloud" (you did correct yourself later in the video) was over 300 miles north of Pasco and jetstream winds were blowing slightly to the north and east, so chances are there wouldn't be any fallout in Pasco. BTW, 1800 Zulu is 1100 PDT.

    7. Its sad and funny; before you, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone trying to lead people to believe that the Jet Stream cannot transport fallout.

    8. What is sad and funny is your comeback. Again, you twisted my words to make yourself look good. I NEVER said that the Jetstream COULDN'T transport fallout (please show me the quote where I did). What I said is that your analysis was flawed in several ways: 1) You implied that the dark splotches on the jetstream map were discrete columns of air; 2) you didn't pay attention to the arrows on the map which showed the direction the wind was blowing. If you had, you'd have noticed that the Jetstream on 10 August turned south from Japan and fallout would have been caught in the low pressure area located south of Japan. 3) you some how had the "fallout" traveling south from the "cloud" when the Jetstream over Washington was blowing from the WSW, so you were trying to say that the fallout somehow traveled over 300 miles against the wind (btw, there is a really large mountain range between the Canadian border and the Columbia basin).

      Now, rather than engage in a fact based debate, you've decided it's much easier to be derogatory. I must assume that you do this in order to keep your readers from looking at my points too closely.

    9. Read more carefully, your words were not twisted; but a motive was suggested for your straw man. Your complaint is that the description was not technical enough; it makes me wonder if you call the weather bureau to make unfounded technical complaints about tornado watches/warning.

      The primary issue with your logic is that you are assuming that any instance of the Jet Stream winds map is discreet and Markov in nature. In application, the 2nd fault with your logic is that your a looking for a finer degree of granularity in the analysis than the raw data will allow. The 3rd issue, and maybe the most important, is whether or not your first two issues are based on a honest misunderstanding or moral turpitude.

      Assuming the former, a good check for you to understand the error of your argument is compare velocity of "the cloud" against the velocity of the winds which it represents.

    10. My complaint was not that it wasn't technical enough, it's that it was wrong all the way around. I was the one that pointed out to you that the map did NOT show discrete columns of air, as you implied. I also pointed out that there are wind direction arrows on the map which, because it didn't fit your model, chose to ignore. So that rules out the first two issues. You chose to ignore that the jet stream moved air south in several instances during the period of time you did your analysis. Instead, you assumed that the Jetstream moved basically in a straight line as described by the "clouds" as you described the wind speed colored areas in the video. I know what "the cloud" represents, you did not seem to.

      I also challenged you several times to show me quotes where I said things such as "the Jet stream cannot transport fallout", something that you have failed to do. So find that quote and also any quote where I said the analysis was not technical enough. Seems to me that was your complaint about the NRC. Interesting that you bend every issue I've raised back as something I said. Seems to me you denial are chalk full of Clinton speak.

    11. So when you complain about the use of the term "cloud", its about something other than technical correctness? Your complaint seems the functional equivalent of a person with Asperger's not fully comprehending the value of colloquial speech in mass communication.

      Maybe it would help if you made a video explaining yourself in regards to what you see wrong. But to avoid further embarrassment, I would again suggest that you examine dS/dt of the "Cloud" versus the wind it contains.
      If thats too difficult, consider how a similar map of the Gulf Stream would look over time and then think about a boat adrift in that stream.

    12. I find it interesting the gyrations you've gone through to validate yourself. All I've said was that you didn't pay attention to wind vector arrows on the maps and implied the isotachs were discrete columns of air. You have not, at any time, addressed anything that I've said, preferring instead to redirect and obfuscate. As a reminder, here is what the "cloud" and arrows are:

      In particular, the CRWS jet stream analysis maps show the following information:

      1. Contours of wind speed (that is, isotachs). For the North American overviews, the jet stream analysis comes from the initialization of either the North American Model (NAM) or the Global Forecast System (GFS) model. For the Eastern Pacific, North Atlantic, and Northern and Southern Hemisphere overviews, the jet stream analyses comes only from the initialization of the GFS model. The GFS computer forecast model is run four times daily by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), while the NAM is run twice daily. The NAM results typically come several hours earlier than the corresponding GFS results do.

      Isotachs are color-filled in shades of gray, at intervals of 5 knots (or 10 knots on smaller-sized maps), starting at 60 knots. Superimposed on these color-filled contours are black, labeled, dashed-line contours at intervals of 20 knots, starting at 70 knots. Local maximum wind speeds ("jet streaks") are marked with "H" and labeled with the wind speed there.

      2.Wind vectors (blue arrows), representing the direction and speed of the wind. These also come from NCEP's computer model initializations. Longer arrows represent faster winds.

    13. The main issue you seem to have is that you don't want people to believe that the Jet Stream is "movement of air". You have made a logical disconnect between how that map is derived and actual weather conditions driving it. Again, the way to resolve that disconnect is to examine the speed of the "Cloud" vs the speed of the Jet Stream winds that "Cloud" signifies.

      Now rather than just replying with further moot points, please address the dS/dT of the "Cloud" vs the wind speed and explain what issue you have with that.

    14. Again, never said that. As I said before, find the quote where I said or inferred that. But you made one more error in your "analysis". Lets talk about the speed of the "cloud" shall we? If, as you say in your video, the isotach that forms on top of Fukushima at 0600Z on 10 August is the same column of air containing fallout that you trace in the animation across the map to impact the northwest coast of North America at 1800Z on 19 August and affect the instruments at CGS, then the "Jetstream" was moving at the stately speed of 18.46 knots (Pasco is 4840 miles from Fukushima and it took 9.5 days to get there). I derived that by: 4840 miles divided by 9.5 days to get 509.73 miles per day. Divide that by 24 to get 21.22 miles per hour and convert that to knots by dividing by 1.15. According to the map, the edges of the "cloud" are going 60 knots. At 60 knots, in 9.5 days, the fallout would have traveled 15,732 miles, over 3 times the distance. So somehow, you have to explain how a column of air, containing winds blowing at 134 kts in the center when it came over North America at 1800Z on 19 August managed to move at 18.46 knots. BTW, since you didn't disprove any of my points but just used derogatory remarks, none of my points were moot.

    15. So lets assume your numbers are correct, and set aside that you calculated speeds out to 1/100th miles per hour, the real matter of importance is that the "Cloud" is moving slower than the winds which it represents. That fact basically disproves your conjecture, although you apparently don't realize it.

      Extremely simplified, the dynamic of the situation is that the winds push the fallout to the leading edge of the "cloud" where wind speed then drops off. Akin to the development of a shock wave, this can allow fallout to build in concentration along that leading edge and thusly move at the speed of the "cloud".

      To simplify it even further for you. picture using a leaf blower to move a pile of leaves from one side your yard to the other. In this case, the leaves are the fallout, you are the "cloud", and the leaf blower is the Jet Stream wind.

      The map of that situation would be similar to the jet stream map in the video. The "Cloud" would move from one end of the yard to the other at your walking speed. The map would show the high wind speed gradients coming from the leaf blower and dropping off to a very low speed approximately 10ft in front of you. At the leading edge of that speed drop zone is where the leaves "radiation" build up. So even though the leaves are being blown at 200 miles per hour, they actually move across the yard at your walking speed.

      Now for extra realism, have your neighbor, who just happens to be a member of the local civil service leaf raking union, heckle you while trying to convince your other neighbors that leaf blowers don't work and that seeing is NOT believing.

    16. keep in mind, the previously distributed fallout and deposition...these particlues continue to degrade and release radiation, some can REMAIN SUSPENded or be re-suspended.

      I don't recall there being any deserts in washington state. way too far north. next to an ocean, and usually recieves lots of rain and moisture.

      i'm not even sure how it would get anywere near 90*f in this state.

      temputures also do not manifest themselves as radiation. nutrinos or other forms of radioactive materials. that would create a response from these monitors.

      A high concentration does certainly heat the local area though.

      while these models are good indications...our radiation monitoring will be more accurate to what is felt by people on the ground. Getting readings at higher altitudes could provide even more accuracy and forewarning.

      This stuff doesn't just strictly follow the winds. there is particulate, gases and rays of "light" that travel in a straight line, and in waves. some even through solid objects.

      making a 100% accurate model or truly difficult. i'm happy that anyone has attempted to do so. I would appreciate it if you actually contributed something we could all use. and not nit pick over irrelivent things that help no one. not even make yourself look good or bad. it's just nothing. a bunch of nothing is what mr mc donald has said.

      it doesn't make any clearer your misunderstandings, or help clarify anything so that possibly anyone else could learn more about what is going on, and how it will effect them.

    17. Since you are on a computer, why don't you Google Pasco, Washington weather. You'd see that it (and BTW, I live in the area) gets less than 8 inches of rain a year. You'd also see that the highest temperature recorded for Pasco is 113 degrees and the highest temperature in the state ever recorded was near Pasco at 118 degrees. There is a mountain range called the Cascades between the ocean and the Columbia basin and they form what is called a rain shadow. You might want to check your maps and notice that the driest desert on Earth, Atacama, starts 52 miles away from the Pacific Coast in Peru. That pretty much invalidates most of the rest of your post 0b68odd2-673b-11e0-9409-000bedcb2996.

  5. FYI

    According to the EPA's Radnet, there was a massive spike in beta cpm in Ft. Wayne, IN, in the days immediately following August 18th (it goes all the way up to 550 cpm). It looks like there were also smaller spikes around the same time in Toledo, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.

    Ft. Wayne, IN

    Toledo and Cleveland, OH

    Pittsburgh, PA

    1. The EPA's Radnet query page is finally working again after being in accessible for at least two days. It shows a spike on 8/20 that reached 542 cpm. Then, the following day, there was another smaller spike to 418 cpm.

      2013-08-20 08:45:10 345.0000
      2013-08-20 09:45:23 432.0000
      2013-08-20 10:45:36 498.0000
      2013-08-20 11:45:50 542.0000
      2013-08-20 12:46:04 511.0000
      2013-08-20 13:46:17 398.0000


      2013-08-21 07:50:16 304.0000
      2013-08-21 08:50:30 340.0000
      2013-08-21 09:50:43 373.0000
      2013-08-21 10:50:56 392.0000
      2013-08-21 11:51:10 407.0000
      2013-08-21 12:51:23 418.0000
      2013-08-21 13:51:36 386.0000
      2013-08-21 14:51:49 344.0000
      2013-08-21 15:52:03 317.0000

    2. Sorry, I should have made clear that this spike shown in the Radnet query results was for Ft. Wayne, IN.

    3. One thing to wary of with RADNET data is that the EPA "Reviews and Approves" the data. The EPA does NOT publicly release their RAW data; and what they do release often has significant data censoring. For a lot more detail info see the video we made on the subject.

  6. thx nemo regardless it still shows correlation as it's down wind.

    We really need the independant person monitoring rads to come forward and verify these events. So they can not be covered up, and we can have multiple references to compare with.

    unfortunately these people are hard to find, and some may not want to give anyone their documentation or honest observations.