It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

That's a lot of Radiation Monitors...Offline?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
At such a crucial time for the stations to be up and running, is there any satisfactory explanation for so many being down?

Without actually counting all the little dots, I'm estimating about half (or slightly more) by looking at the map below...

cdxnode64.epa.gov...




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Agreed. We may all have to rely on independent people who are monitoring with their own equipment. Here is a link to one that is located in Driggs Idaho at 6200'. It is a live streaming monitor that is located outside in exposed winds. This AM it was showing reading from 80 to 140 CPM.

www.ustream.tv...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This one has been working fine...
Link



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


EDIT to delete - My response was based on a bad query and not realizing the site was using (UDT) for their readings . . . nevermind.
edit on 3/19/11 by solomons path because: being an idiot . . .



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Good thread, S&F for you.Thanks for the EPA link as well.

HAs anyone noticed the CPM are up to as much as 250 in several locations?

Does anyone happen to know what the OHSHA exposure limits for employees are? This might be a good baseline to figure out exposure limits-if you can't work in it, you shouldn't be living in it.

I've heard anything over 100-130 CPM is no good...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Front page:

March 18, 2011: As of 12:00 pm (EDT) EPA's RadNet radiation air monitors across the US showed typical fluctuations in background radiation levels. The levels detected are far below levels of concern.

And the text version of the map WITH time/date/status here:

cdxnode64.epa.gov...

IMO



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sentinel007
 


That's completely normal for that area and elevation.

I guess I can add my editorial from the post above, which I deleted.

It seems we have a lot of "layman" looking at technical data that they don't fully understand or have all the info needed to make "sense" of the various read outs. While admirable that more people are being vigilant about this issue, there is a fine line between being vigilant and fear mongering. Don't let fear and panic drive you into the arms of TPTB . . .



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by solomons path
 


Front page:

March 18, 2011: As of 12:00 pm (EDT) EPA's RadNet radiation air monitors across the US showed typical fluctuations in background radiation levels. The levels detected are far below levels of concern.

And the text version of the map WITH time/date/status here:

cdxnode64.epa.gov...

IMO





I saw that . . . Not sure how that would have added to the post I deleted. My skepticism was coming for timestamps that didn't match EDT . . . as below.

Fixed Monitor Location: AZ: TUCSON
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/19/2011 02:03:03 PM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/19/2011 03:03:11 PM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 150


This was before I found that their readings are in UDT.

I agree with your post and the EPA site . . . no readings that appear abnormal.
edit on 3/19/11 by solomons path because: grammar



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Thank you for your input but I believe you may have missed the point of the post. Maybe?

My thoughts (as a layman) is that at a time of concern for many, there should be more energy to having these monitors up and running. Not sitting idle. This only ADDS to the fear and the EPA should be doing everything possible to quell rising concerns at this time especially.

Not addressing levels whatsoever.

Maybe I misread YOUR point?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 

Forgot to mention...TPTB will be the last arms I run into...
(joking)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Please post back up that would indicate that levels of that magnitude are considered normal for those elevations. The counts per minute are excessively high given that anything above 100 CPM can be above the safety level. What I really sense here is that you are asking us to move long.... nothing of import to see here. You are entitled to your own opinions as are we all. I for one shall keep a keen eye out as I don't feel putting my head in the sand is of any value.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I think we both missed each other's point


I agree with your post completely . . . The post I deleted was adding to that by pointing out, what I thought, was unreliable data on the site and, therefore, unreliable to begin with regardless of downed stations. I made a mistake in a query, so . . . the bad data and delete.

However, you are right. You would think the EPA should be running all monitoring resources, due to the potential for crisis.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


You sir...Are a scholar and a gentleman.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sentinel007
 


Over 100 cpm on what scale of measurement? With what type of counter? Monitoring what type of radiation? At what altitude? Near what natural or unatural sources? For what period of time . . . spike? sustained and growing?

That's the problem I'm talking about. Just throwing numbers out with out qualifying all of the other variables is ignorant and borders on fear mongering.

Yes . . . anything, on a counter that measures in Rads, above 100 is not safe for prolonged exposure. However, this does not mean that anything above 100, on a counter that measures in Rads, is unnatural or not normal for a particular area and elevation. As elevation goes up, so does natural background radiation. The Idaho reading is at over 6500ft! Also . . . can you confirm that the counter is calibrated right? Can you confirm a constant (12hr plus) reading at this high level . . . or was this just a natural (or unnatural) spike? Is this counter measuring in Rads, rems, roentgen, grays, sieverts? What type of radiation was the reading for? (The EPA seems to be measuring beta and gamma, btw.)
Radiation Basics

Obligitory . . . Move along, nothing to see here . . .
edit on 3/19/11 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by solomons path
 


You sir...Are a scholar and a gentleman.

Thank you.



Sorry, after the last post of yours, gotta take it back. People are asking questions and searching for answers out of general concern and a lack of knowledge.

Your entire agenda seems to be nothing but trying to make people seem stupid and cowardly.

If you took the time to actually read between the lines before bringing out your technical jargon in order to impress, you might bring yourself down to a more compassionate level of humanity instead of placing way up above all others.

Suggestion...if you don't agree with a post, move along...there will be nothing for you to see.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Under Water
This one has been working fine...
Link

sorry bro, but IMO
black cat (the link u provided) seems to be
faking readings for an agenda. that was pointed
out already in multiple threads. their readings
do not match private citizens readings in the
same areas. black cat seems to be just a
means to keeping people calm.
I'd take it with a grain of salt.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
and if you think I'm gonna believe what the
EPA tells me after what they told us on 9/11.
Go back to work folks, the air is great.
years later, thousands have lung diseases.
I am NOT that stupid.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Oh I think it's very apparent that something is not right here. We keep digging and connecting the dots tho. Sooner or later we will know the truth but I only hope it's not the later.




top topics



 
6

log in

join