Measure P

Measure P
GMO Contamination Protection Ordinance

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Spike In Background Radiation In Eureka Not Caused By Fukushima?

According to an article in today's Times-Standard Newspaper written by Will Houston, we have nothing to worry about. Houston says that according to emeritus physical science professor Richard Stepp at Humboldt State, calculations he did show that by the time airborne radiation makes it's 5,500 mile, (two day) journey to California, the radiation would only be about 1/200 of the normal background level of radiation that is usually found here on the North Coast.

This is good news. That means that the higher than normal levels of background radiation measured by EPA are not from Fukushiima and therefore, are caused by something else. This might mean  that one could move to another part of the state and have nothing to worry about as far as airborne Fukushima radiation is concerned. We must be dealing with an isolated event here in Eureka that rises and drops randomly. I have read that radiation is like that. It tends to hit areas like a laser beam with super high levels in one place and normal levels just a few feet away.

So, if as the EPA chart I shared the other day which showed a background levels of 7CPM beta count radiation levels in 2012 as normal are correct, where did all the other beta radiation come from? We have been measuring 80CPM to 190 CPM on that same EPA meter and chart this year when last year it was 7CPM. That is not a 1/200th, increase, it is more like a 1,000 percent increase. The question I have is where is this increase of background beta radiation coming from?

Perhaps I didn't understand what I was reading in the article. Another thought is that in the article, Professor Stepp never said what the numbers should be. There were no numbers mentioned at all as to what normal Eureka background levels were, are now and or why they might be different than his calculations.

On the positive side, the article did say that a biology professor from Cal State Long Beach is teaming up with the head of the Applied Nuclear Physics Lab at the University of California Berkeley to study coastal kelp in what's being called "Kelp Watch 2014".

So in conclusion, no one seems to want to explain to us why the background beta radiation that was 7 counts per minute according to the EPA in June of 2012, shot up to 190 counts per minute on January 3rd. 2014 and is hovering around 80 counts per minute these days.

The California Department of Public Health did say last week that "There is no public health risk at California beaches due to radioactivity related to Fukushima". Based on that information, the next time airborne beta counts go 1,000 times over normal in Eureka, I would suggest going to the beach where things are safe.


  1. Maybe the spike had something to do with the steaming on the 19th to the 24th and 2 explosions on the 31th. This was reported by Japan. The timing fits the model of about 2-days.

  2. "no one seems to want to explain to us why the [RadNet] background beta radiation [seems to fluctuate wildly]"
    "Why are there fluctuations in the data?
    Spikes in data can occur in a variety of situations, including fluctuations in naturally occurring radiation levels. These include release of radon from soil or water, concentration of natural radiation by rain, and changes in atmospheric (barometric) pressure.


  3. While PG&E may try and hide the fact that Humboldt Bay plant was one of the dirtiest nuclear power plants in the USA, the remains are still there! They have been trying to clean in up but where are the rods that hold that radiation that lives for 250,000 years? There is an elementary school right across the highway from the plant. When the nuclear plant was in full swing, young children were outside playing in the school yard. I feel there should be a study of those children who are now adults and find how many have had canver or died from it?

  4. "They have been trying to clean in up but where are the rods that hold that radiation that lives for 250,000 years?"

    Have a gander at this:

    1. plutonium has a half life of 250,000 years!

  5. That "Radioactive Fallout Map" is completely irrelevant, besides being FAKE This whole blog post is a trainreck, but jusding by the rest of the junk on here I guess it is at least not out of place. The tin foil is tick on Tom's head.

  6. Humboldt Hill had the third highest thyroid cancer rate we read back a year or so ago...

    1. Oh really? I think that would be news to

      Care to share the source you read this little "fact" in?

  7. Tom,

    Curious, I went to the EPA's RadNet site and ran the gross beta detected at their Eureka station for 2010 through 2014.

    Here are the results from the Eureka station's air filters; MDC means minimum detectable concentration. There are a few things that look interesting. First, look at 2010 to see how the numbers are all over the map. Basically, they start with triple-zeros at the beginning of 2010 (.0001, say) but occasionally jump to double-zeros (.001) for August through October. The EPA explicitly warns that this data is sensitive to RF interference, and note that the minimum detectable concentration is in the triple-zero range.

    It's also interesting to notice that after Fukushima, in March of 2011, you can see a clear jump to single-zero's.

    But then things go right back down to the double and triple zero range.

    I'm not happy that trace amounts of radionuclides from Fukushima have landed here, but neither am I particularly worried about them. Unless someone who actually knows something about radiation physics and or radiation medicine tells me to worry, I'd be more worried about radon exposure if my house had an unventilated basement.

    Sample Date Result Combined Standard Uncertainty MDC Unit
    08-JAN-10 0.000478 0.000088 0.00021 pCi/m3
    15-JAN-10 0.000286 0.000086 0.00025 pCi/m3
    22-JAN-10 0.0001 0.000077 0.00026 pCi/m3
    28-JAN-10 0.00031 0.0001 0.0003 pCi/m3
    09-FEB-10 0.00077 0.00016 0.00043 pCi/m3
    24-FEB-10 0.00071 0.00011 0.00024 pCi/m3
    04-MAR-10 0.000364 0.000085 0.00023 pCi/m3
    10-MAR-10 0.000237 0.000099 0.00031 pCi/m3
    17-MAR-10 0.000299 0.000086 0.00025 pCi/m3
    25-MAR-10 0.000504 0.000082 0.00018 pCi/m3
    01-APR-10 0.000288 0.000075 0.00021 pCi/m3
    07-APR-10 0.0001 0.000091 0.00031 pCi/m3
    16-APR-10 0.00047 0.000077 0.00017 pCi/m3
    28-APR-10 0.000337 0.000091 0.00025 pCi/m3
    05-MAY-10 0.000328 0.000086 0.00024 pCi/m3
    12-MAY-10 0.000322 0.000078 0.00021 pCi/m3
    19-MAY-10 0.000273 0.000075 0.00021 pCi/m3
    27-MAY-10 0.000223 0.000073 0.00022 pCi/m3
    02-JUN-10 0.000058 0.000088 0.00031 pCi/m3
    09-JUN-10 0.000242 0.000081 0.00024 pCi/m3
    15-JUN-10 0.00298 0.00031 0.00045 pCi/m3
    23-JUN-10 0.0017 0.00018 0.00028 pCi/m3
    30-JUN-10 0.00142 0.0002 0.00042 pCi/m3
    08-JUL-10 0.00126 0.00016 0.0003 pCi/m3
    14-JUL-10 0.00133 0.00018 0.00037 pCi/m3
    21-JUL-10 0.00218 0.00021 0.00026 pCi/m3
    28-JUL-10 0.00145 0.00016 0.00026 pCi/m3
    04-AUG-10 0.00095 0.00014 0.00031 pCi/m3
    11-AUG-10 0.00102 0.00015 0.00032 pCi/m3
    19-AUG-10 0.00114 0.00014 0.00028 pCi/m3
    27-AUG-10 0.00314 0.00026 0.00028 pCi/m3
    05-SEP-10 0.00186 0.00019 0.00028 pCi/m3
    15-SEP-10 0.0026 0.00023 0.00027 pCi/m3
    22-SEP-10 0.00467 0.00036 0.00032 pCi/m3
    01-OCT-10 0.00355 0.00029 0.00033 pCi/m3
    07-OCT-10 0.00382 0.00033 0.00044 pCi/m3
    16-OCT-10 0.00589 0.00042 0.00031 pCi/m3
    22-OCT-10 0.00804 0.00058 0.00047 pCi/m3
    28-OCT-10 0.00243 0.00026 0.00046 pCi/m3
    05-NOV-10 0.00266 0.00024 0.00034 pCi/m3
    12-NOV-10 0.00141 0.00018 0.00038 pCi/m3
    21-NOV-10 0.00186 0.00018 0.00023 pCi/m3
    26-NOV-10 0.00391 0.00037 0.00054 pCi/m3
    03-DEC-10 0.00186 0.00017 0.00029 pCi/m3
    08-DEC-10 0.00162 0.00019 0.00044 pCi/m3
    17-DEC-10 0.00185 0.00016 0.00025 pCi/m3
    26-DEC-10 0.00134 0.00012 0.00017 pCi/m3

  8. 01-JAN-11 0.00155 0.00019 0.00042 pCi/m3
    07-JAN-11 0.00372 0.00028 0.00034 pCi/m3
    14-JAN-11 0.002 0.00018 0.0003 pCi/m3
    20-JAN-11 0.00163 0.00017 0.00035 pCi/m3
    28-JAN-11 0.00445 0.00031 0.00027 pCi/m3
    03-FEB-11 0.00375 0.00029 0.00035 pCi/m3
    12-FEB-11 0.0026 0.0002 0.00025 pCi/m3
    18-FEB-11 0.0013 0.00015 0.0003 pCi/m3
    25-FEB-11 0.00168 0.00015 0.00021 pCi/m3
    06-MAR-11 0.00188 0.00016 0.00026 pCi/m3
    11-MAR-11 0.00284 0.00025 0.00041 pCi/m3
    18-MAR-11 0.01129 0.0007 0.00022 pCi/m3
    21-MAR-11 0.017 0.0011 0.00048 pCi/m3
    23-MAR-11 0.0394 0.0025 0.001 pCi/m3
    27-MAR-11 0.0175 0.0011 0.00038 pCi/m3
    01-APR-11 0.00881 0.00059 0.00043 pCi/m3
    05-APR-11 0.01204 0.0008 0.00056 pCi/m3
    11-APR-11 0.00675 0.00045 0.00036 pCi/m3
    13-APR-11 0.00709 0.00086 0.002 pCi/m3
    19-APR-11 0.000452 0.000073 0.00018 pCi/m3
    28-APR-11 0.000379 0.000072 0.0002 pCi/m3
    06-MAY-11 0.00194 0.00016 0.00019 pCi/m3
    11-MAY-11 0.00168 0.0002 0.00044 pCi/m3
    16-MAY-11 0.00234 0.00023 0.00043 pCi/m3
    23-MAY-11 0.00317 0.00023 0.0002 pCi/m3
    31-MAY-11 0.00138 0.00014 0.00026 pCi/m3
    07-JUN-11 0.00233 0.00018 0.0002 pCi/m3
    15-JUN-11 0.00245 0.00018 0.00018 pCi/m3
    22-JUN-11 0.00073 0.00012 0.00031 pCi/m3
    29-JUN-11 0.00101 0.00013 0.00029 pCi/m3
    07-JUL-11 0.00126 0.00013 0.00026 pCi/m3
    16-JUL-11 0.00124 0.00013 0.00025 pCi/m3
    28-JUL-11 0.00101 0.00012 0.00025 pCi/m3
    05-AUG-11 0.00115 0.00013 0.00029 pCi/m3
    11-AUG-11 0.00267 0.00023 0.00035 pCi/m3
    17-AUG-11 0.00283 0.00024 0.00036 pCi/m3
    24-AUG-11 0.00152 0.00014 0.0002 pCi/m3
    01-SEP-11 0.00211 0.00016 0.00018 pCi/m3
    08-SEP-11 0.00147 0.00013 0.0002 pCi/m3
    14-SEP-11 0.00429 0.0003 0.00024 pCi/m3
    21-SEP-11 0.00277 0.00021 0.00021 pCi/m3
    29-SEP-11 0.00212 0.00016 0.00018 pCi/m3
    07-OCT-11 0.002 0.00016 0.00019 pCi/m3
    14-OCT-11 0.00239 0.00019 0.00022 pCi/m3
    20-OCT-11 0.00586 0.00039 0.00024 pCi/m3
    28-OCT-11 0.00441 0.0003 0.00017 pCi/m3
    22-NOV-11 0.00097 0.00015 0.00038 pCi/m3
    30-NOV-11 0.00281 0.0002 0.00017 pCi/m3
    06-DEC-11 0.00336 0.00025 0.00025 pCi/m3
    15-DEC-11 0.00958 0.0006 0.00017 pCi/m3
    22-DEC-11 0.00362 0.00026 0.00024 pCi/m3
    28-DEC-11 0.0054 0.00037 0.00027 pCi/m3
    06-JAN-12 0.00199 0.00016 0.00023 pCi/m3
    13-JAN-12 0.00429 0.00031 0.00026 pCi/m3
    12-MAR-12 0.00312 0.00024 0.0003 pCi/m3
    21-MAR-12 0.0019 0.00015 0.00017 pCi/m3
    23-APR-12 0.00123 0.00012 0.00021 pCi/m3
    02-MAY-12 0.00145 0.00012 0.00017 pCi/m3
    11-MAY-12 0.00287 0.00021 0.00017 pCi/m3
    18-MAY-12 0.00376 0.00026 0.0002 pCi/m3
    24-MAY-12 0.00235 0.00019 0.00024 pCi/m3
    31-MAY-12 0.00155 0.00014 0.00021 pCi/m3
    06-JUN-12 0.00145 0.00014 0.00022 pCi/m3
    15-JUN-12 0.00107 0.0001 0.00018 pCi/m3
    20-JUN-12 0.00107 0.00013 0.00028 pCi/m3
    28-JUN-12 0.00114 0.00011 0.00018 pCi/m3
    05-JUL-12 0.00112 0.00011 0.00021 pCi/m3
    12-JUL-12 0.00333 0.00024 0.00021 pCi/m3
    19-JUL-12 0.000808 0.000097 0.0002 pCi/m3
    27-JUL-12 0.00124 0.00012 0.00019 pCi/m3
    03-AUG-12 0.00127 0.00012 0.00019 pCi/m3
    09-AUG-12 0.0014 0.00014 0.00025 pCi/m3
    17-AUG-12 0.00176 0.00014 0.00018 pCi/m3
    24-AUG-12 0.00231 0.00018 0.00021 pCi/m3
    31-AUG-12 0.00224 0.00018 0.00021 pCi/m3
    07-SEP-12 0.00218 0.00018 0.00022 pCi/m3
    15-SEP-12 0.00198 0.00015 0.00017 pCi/m3
    25-SEP-12 0.00619 0.0004 0.00019 pCi/m3
    04-OCT-12 0.00288 0.00021 0.00017 pCi/m3
    09-OCT-12 0.00588 0.00042 0.00033 pCi/m3
    19-OCT-12 0.00399 0.00027 0.00017 pCi/m3
    19-DEC-12 0.00144 0.00013 0.00021 pCi/m3
    28-DEC-12 0.0093 0.00058 0.00017 pCi/m3

  9. 03-JAN-13 0.00295 0.00023 0.00024 pCi/m3
    09-JAN-13 0.00359 0.00026 0.00025 pCi/m3
    18-JAN-13 0.00334 0.00023 0.00017 pCi/m3
    24-JAN-13 0.00567 0.00038 0.00025 pCi/m3
    01-FEB-13 0.00175 0.00014 0.00019 pCi/m3
    08-FEB-13 0.00368 0.00026 0.0002 pCi/m3
    14-FEB-13 0.00176 0.00016 0.00024 pCi/m3
    23-FEB-13 0.00165 0.00014 0.00017 pCi/m3
    04-MAR-13 0.00167 0.00015 0.00021 pCi/m3
    21-MAR-13 0.00314 0.00022 0.00017 pCi/m3
    28-MAR-13 0.00233 0.00019 0.00024 pCi/m3
    05-APR-13 0.000829 0.000094 0.00019 pCi/m3
    04-MAY-13 0.00344 0.00024 0.00017 pCi/m3
    15-MAY-13 0.0044 0.00029 0.00017 pCi/m3
    23-MAY-13 0.00171 0.00014 0.00019 pCi/m3
    30-MAY-13 0.00187 0.00016 0.0002 pCi/m3
    05-JUN-13 0.00123 0.00013 0.00024 pCi/m3
    12-JUN-13 0.00133 0.00013 0.0002 pCi/m3
    20-JUN-13 0.00129 0.00012 0.00018 pCi/m3
    28-JUN-13 0.00104 0.0001 0.00018 pCi/m3
    05-JUL-13 0.001 0.00011 0.00021 pCi/m3
    12-JUL-13 0.00122 0.00012 0.00021 pCi/m3
    18-JUL-13 0.00139 0.00014 0.00024 pCi/m3
    24-JUL-13 0.00157 0.00015 0.00026 pCi/m3
    31-JUL-13 0.00189 0.00016 0.00021 pCi/m3
    07-AUG-13 0.00191 0.00016 0.0002 pCi/m3
    16-AUG-13 0.00137 0.00012 0.00017 pCi/m3
    23-AUG-13 0.00121 0.00012 0.00021 pCi/m3
    29-AUG-13 0.00128 0.00013 0.00024 pCi/m3
    05-SEP-13 0.00162 0.00014 0.00021 pCi/m3
    12-SEP-13 0.0018 0.00015 0.0002 pCi/m3
    03-OCT-13 0.00181 0.00016 0.00023 pCi/m3
    11-OCT-13 0.00296 0.00021 0.00018 pCi/m3
    18-OCT-13 0.00622 0.00041 0.00021 pCi/m3
    24-OCT-13 0.00474 0.00033 0.00024 pCi/m3

  10. Bottom line, we are currently running 10 to 20 times higher gross beta particle detections than had been our pre Fukushima baseline, or even our baseline last summer. Our local EPA radnet page began reporting a noteworthy upward trend starting around October 2013 . These are not isolated spikes or random fluctuations. Our reading rise to over 100 cpm about 4 days after Fukushima webcam observers report increased smoke from something burning, and/or increased steam from unit 3, weird lights, etc. Eureka used to run around 12 cpm on average. The EPA passes air through filters and provides hourly readings on whatever hot particles are captured. Our location is not vulnerable to radon skewing the data, we are not at high elevation, and the highest readings have occurred when there was no rain. So those are not plausible explanations. The truth points to Fukushima, and its curious that all our attention is being directed to the barely-measurable ocean radioactive contamination. Are they trying to distract us from this documented 1000-2000% increase in airborne contamination?
    HEY MITCH>>>
    This EPA link is much more useful.

    1. I went to your EPA link and checked numbers from 2013 and numbers from 2010 (it only returns 400 records, so I couldn't do all at once). The average for 2010 was 8, the average for 2013 was 48. That's a factor of 6, not "10 or 20." Still, a factor of six seems real enough.

      The question becomes how significant is a factor of six increase in a very low number. If my average annual risk from lightning is one in a billion and it has gone up to six in a billion, I'm curious but not particularly alarmed. If my average annual risk from mugging goes up from one in a thousand to six in a thousand, I'm alarmed.

      So the question is, what do 8 and 48 mean. I don't know. Perhaps you do, but I'm still going to rely on opinions from people who have degrees in physics and/or medicine. Maybe that's foolish, but it's what I do.



    3. While the average for all of 2013 was 48cpm, the incoming hot particles have really increased over the last several months. Conditions at Fuku have changed, even TEPCO has announced new skyrocketing levels of radioactivity at their site.
      So its more relevant to look at our current readings which as Thomas points out have been running 80-190 cpm in recent weeks. Compare that to 8 cpm.
      BTW , if you do your research, 100cpm environment X 100 days = 1 in 1000 get a new cancer started. So these are not trivial levels we are currently exposed to.

    4. mitch, not a very good comparison between increased radiation exposure risk with odds of a lightning strike or odds of getting mugged, which are all-or-nothing one-shots. More comparable to ingesting that much more arsenic or fluoride in your food every day, which compounds definite damage.

    5. NOPE Low dose radiation exposure increases the RISK of cancer. It's a stochastic, event like being hit by lightning where your risk of being hit might increase as you walk up the side of a mountain to higher elevation where the risk is greater. The dose rate increases we are discussing here would be like walking ten feet up the mountain. There would be very little increase in risk.

    6. You're equating a single event with constant exposure to an increase in radiation, doofus. How would you, personally, know that you are dying five? ten? fifteen? years sooner than otherwise, from whatever "natural" it is that eventually will kill you. What will you blame birth defects on? Nobody is running around in circles screaming that the sky is falling, or telling everybody to behave as such, but to be willfully ignorant of what is obviously a large increase in radioactive exposure is dumber than dumb. Do what you will with the info, as it is you're basically saying to completely ignore it. That gets everybody nowhere fast, as you cannot predict the future any more or less than anybody else. It's exactly the kind of thing people should be made aware of. "Very little increase in risk", when it comes to radiation, is an increase I'd like to be made fully aware of, and kept up to date regarding. You're wearing a tinfoil hat to protect you from all the tinfoil hats you think you see, but most of us are just wearing sunscreen.

    7. My 11:20 responds to 3:36 above it, if it wasn't obvious. Such vitriol toward simple and relevant information.

    8. Either way, 11:24, I'm not sure your distinction between "single event" and "constant exposure" is correct. Isn't the mechanism of action of beta particles via, roughly, crashing into a DNA molecule and causing a change, which then leads to a cancer under certain circumstances? Don't the published risks (whether you choose to believe them or not) about the risk of inhaling a beta-emitter basically include the lifetime risk of increased cancers, and aren't those the values that fail to rise to statistical significance for the numbers seen in Eureka?

      Honestly, I don't know. I just have a belief system that tells me some doctors or physicists are going to scream bloody murder if the government tries to push numbers that are completely wrong, and I hear them instead speaking with near-unanimity to say that this particular problem is not a major risk. I believe them, in *exactly* the same way that I believe the 99% of climate scientists who are warning of calamity, rather than the industry-paid 1% that others choose to believe.

    9. I'm not buying iodine tablets or gasmasks or lining my house with lead either, 8:13. "Cancer" is a very broad term. What do you call Chernobyl children? The parents were exposed and by all accounts continued to live normal lives. They didn't contract "cancer". What do you call it when a major organ ceases to function? What about if you start to lose your eyesight because the capillaries in your eyeball swell...ten years after exposure to radiation? The effects of exposure, from what I gather, are almost impossible to pin, suffice it to say more exposure to more radiation is not a good thing. The numbers regarding certain types of radiation have more than quadrupled in this area, at times achieving an official level of "concern". That's something I'd like to be kept aware of while I go about my business as usual regardless.

  11. "The question I have is where is this increase of background beta radiation coming from?"

    The proverbial elephant in the room. Beta particles are used to cool the atmosphere and condense moisture. Plenty of info online about it. Seen all those non-existent airplanes creating all those non-existent artificial clouds all over California recently?

  12. Thanks for your interest in this subject Mitch. The link you posted at 9:21 is information that should be of concern to people. It admits that some of the iodine radiation from Fukushima has short half life's of about 8 days which would be long enough for it to not only get to us here in California but would take it all the way to the Atlantic. This means that the entire North American continent is at some risk of that alone.

    There are sites that are saying that the reactors were shut down in what was called a cold shut down but conflicting stories say they are melting down. A shut down reactor should not simultaneously be melting down. If things are fine now, that is no indication of what the future holds. From all indications, things will be getting worse. For how long things will be getting worse is debatable depending on what gets done to remedy the problem. Most guesses are 30 to 40 years before we start going in the direction of things actually getting better. I'm just glad to be having this conversation because levels are clearly rising and up until the beginning of this year, this was treated by the main stream press as something that has come and gone. The facts seem to show that for the most part, this has only just begun.

    Here are a couple of more links to stories on this subject.

    1. *facepalm* Dude your understanding of the situation is pitifully out of date. Years out of date. We know what happened. It's history now. Go read about it on wikipedia.

    2. Tom,

      For starters, it's the long half-lived materials you need to worry about, because those are the ones that, if inhaled, might continue to emit radiation into your internal organs for the rest of your life. A half-life of 8 days means that 99% of the danger is gone after two months.

      We think differently about the ability of governments to hide news like radiation dangers. In my opinion, North Korea might have been able to pull off a denial of a real radiation risk, at least until a decade ago but the US, sorry, I just don't see it.

      From the (very) little I know about radiation, I don't think there's a threshold amount beneath which it doesn't have *some* potential impact. For some chemicals, the body simply remains unaffected until a threshold amount is reached, because the body can "manage" a certain dosage by metabolizing it or excreting it. For radioactive emitters that lodge in the lungs, they're just going to keep shooting microscopic bullets at your internal organs until you die. So I don't just shrug at radiation risks. But, perhaps unlike you, I *do* believe it when people throughout the international health physics community tell me not to worry about a particular dosage, or a particular CPM. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

    3. How many people do you know that take their personal Geiger counter to the beach, shopping, or work every day?

      Until an (unknown) number of (credible) individuals do that, it is very easy for governments to discredit reports of high background readings and to deny any danger to the public.

      For example, deadly levels of radiation have been leaching into the Congo River for 60 years and the only report I've ever seen was by Amnesty International. Governments of beneficiary nations like ours remain completely silent.

    4. S.,

      I thought the readings causing concern were coming from stations operated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Are you suggesting that they are lowballing their readings?

    5. Tom, for what it's worth, this is one paper that's been recommended to me by someone knowledgeable:

      One excerpt is as follows: "In the dose range 0 – 150 mSv, the
      excess risk of solid cancer seems to be linear; however, there
      is no statistically significant elevation in risk at doses below
      100 mSv."

      My understanding is that US background levels (radon, etc...) are about 4 mSV, so an increase by a factor of 20 is still below any statistically significant increased risk, if you choose to believe the authors of the paper above.

      That's not to say things won't get worse -- it just means that if I'm going to worry about radiation, I'm going to be more inclined to worry about the PG&E plant, the local hospitals and dentists, and anyone whose got glowing paint on their rifle sights.

    6. according to government sources, exposure which had historically maintained levels below 100 mSv jumped to constant levels between 100-150 mSv, and at times above that. Given this county's population of 130,000, how many people have been "fatally exposed"? Statistically speaking, at least a few, right? Statistically speaking, unless the "elevation in risk" the Oxford study refers to is below 1/130,000. Oxford is among the leading edge geoengineering think tanks in the world. "Geoengineering" is a very serious reality that has only begun to leak into greater social conscience. Out of sight, out of mind...except for the obvious "chemtrails" which some people can't see right in front of their face altogether.

    7. Go look at the local EPA airborne radiation monitor site. According to the EPA, on Jan 21 we hit yet another new high for detected beta-emitting particles in Eureka.
      The new record of 228 cpm is 20% higher than the previous high, just a few weeks ago. And we are running around 130 pretty steadily now. There have been reports that the Fukushima site has been mostly deserted since the end of December apparently due to skyrocketing radiation at the disaster site.

      For those who are waiting for the authorities to cue you when to worry, consider this. The FDA threshold for radioactive contamination in milk is not determined by whether its safe to consume. The (high) threshold at which milk can't be sold is based on whether it is dangerous for workers to handle the stuff without special protections.

      There are some informative comments following this article too.
      Note that this is from 2011.

    8. When @ elevation, look west far offshore during late afternoon/early evening and tell me you don't see airplanes leaving enormous plumes in their wake that collectively form a front, at least once a week. Very low to horizon when closer to sea level, need to have an unobstructed view. Look east just about every morning before 8am, tell me you don't see at least a few airplanes leaving contrails that dissipate into a translucent haze by noon (lighter blue than clear sky). Please pay attention and tell us what you see.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Anonymous wrote:
    AnonymousJanuary 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM

    The debunked fallout map you refer to that snopes also refers to is not the map I posted. The debunked map bears the logo from Australian Radiation Services and contained actual rad data. Also the time frame of the one I posted was hours and the debunked one is in days. The map I posted was purported to be from the US. NRC.

    I can see how you could be confused by this since otherwise they both look similar. Fact is, they are not at all the same map. Perhaps you could do a little more reading and a little less conspiracy theorizing? It might keep you from looking dumb when a tin foil hat guy points out the fallacy of your posts and arguments.

    1. While it's possible that both maps are incorrect, the Snopes article is not about the one I posted.

    2. IT'S THE SAME FAKE MAP. Look at it. Show me one thing that is different. Yea, that's right, they are IDENTICAL. Some troll photoshopped different government agencies' logos on it. I could photoshop fucking "SANTA CLAUS" on it and that wouldn't mean it actually came from some magical dude on the north pole. Jesus H Christ you're dense.

  15. And then there is the new gamma ray haze over the plant.

  16. About the strange map that shows fallout over the Pacific that Snope's debunked. As I said before the map I posted and the one you linked to at Snope's are not the same. I just did a search of news releases at US NRC for the month of March 2011 from the 11th. through the end of the month and all of the news releases have been removed. Here is the page error message.

    Perhaps we will never know where these maps really came from. I was only using it to show that the wind can get here in 2 to 3 days from Japan. I think anyone at the National Weather Service could back me up on that.

    1. Obviously whoever photoshopped up that "USNRC RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT MAP" decided to up the ante after his 48 hour 75 Rems doomsday prediction didn't come true by changing it to 750 RADS after 10 days. Neither one has any basis in reality. Is this really that hard to figure out for you?

  17. Anonymous, if I can take advice from someone without a name, I can live with the fact that that that map might be a fake. As I said, the info from the NRC has been pulled from the website. That to me speaks volumes more than me possibly posting a forged map. And to think that the so called fake map and a guy without a name led me to that information.

    1. "possibly posting a forged map" HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HEH HE HE oh my that's classic. Make that definitely posting and obviously forged map. Here's a little trick for your obviosuly lacking bullshit detecting skills:

  18. Uh, as I pointed out the NRC purged all information from their web site in the month of March 2011. So, I still say possibly and you cannot prove it anymore than I can. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HEH HE HE.

    1. Holy fuck you are dumb:


US Senator Joe Liberman, WTC 7 Did Not Occur