Geiger Counter readings - Updated: Radioactive fallout wave travelling across U.S?

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok but I still disagree Phage.

I am successfully predicting specific meters to increase here.

And then they increase.

Give or take a few anomalies this is like a 90% success rate so far.
I cannot make heads or tails of the Colorado, Nevada, NM readings today.

But I am actually successfully predicting which meters will go off next.

How is this possible? Am I magic? Or am I actually onto something?

And yes everyone has preconceived notions which cause them to misinterpret data especially when the data clusters are so small and limited.

So please explain how I am predicting rises and falls on these meters. lol.
My only explanation is a fallout incident. Which matches up with the nuclear incidents from last week perfectly when considering wind patterns globally.

Have I gone insane ? Is that the explanation here?

I guess I need to call the local EPA office and find someone to discuss this information with....




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Preconceived ideas do not affect data. Did you look at the graphs? The levels rise and fall. Some on a very regular basis (that's interesting). Saying you predicted it is like saying you predicted the tide will rise.

edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Preconceived ideas do not affect data. Did you look at the graphs? The levels rise and fall. Some on a very regular basis (that's interesting). Saying you predicted it is like saying you predicted the tide will rise.

edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


We already know when the tide will rise. We have the moon to gauge that with.

What am I gauging a raise in radmeter with? Right, a theoretical model based on general wind patterns.

Why hasn't Cleveland had any spikes during the last 2days worth mentioning? Maybe it has but I have not seen anything out of the ordinary there. It's been under 30cpm the whole time...

But I predict it will spike in 30-50hours to at least 150...but not before that.

What are you suggesting that there is another regular source of radiation such as "other" fallout cloud structures or that the sun is creating the spikes or something?

You are confusing me here big time.

Don't worry I'll call the EPA and let them straighten me out after I finish lunch (which Im having currently).

I just hope I am not going insane or something, and in a public forum for that matter...kind of embarrassing.

Can't you at least understand how I am making this "mistake"? And how I am continually misled here?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Yes, I suspect a few have malfuncitons. But then I don't know the geography of the US except for general areas and landmarks.

Where is 3 Mile? Any other plants? So there may be unusual areas too.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Colorado is at a higher altitude, and I've read there is reasons for higher background readings. The other areas have a lot of dust and fallout from their testing. New Mexico and Arizona, Utah would be close. The four corner area is not safe in my opinion, though often said to be. I wonder about the other ARKs, Arkansas and and their shared Ozark mountains?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

If you lived in the middle of the country and didn't know about tides they would still rise.

If you're being misled it's by those who claim that the beta counts are high. I don't know what's confusing about what I'm saying, it's been consistent.

1) Natural background radiation varies from location to location
2) Natural background radiation fluctuates
3) The levels of radiation being recorded fall both within natural background levels and natural fluctuation levels.

Cleveland:



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
if fall out is deposited world wide
and cancer rates rise world wide
and no one connects the two
then you could say there is no danger
the govenment says aspetamaine is safe at any levels
the govenment says sodium flouride is safe in water
IS the govenment saying cezium in the water is safe?
what about in the food supply
is that safe?
and if you get cancer in 3-10 years
is it really just bad luck?
rates of cancer were highest around cernobal
but how many others that would not have got sick did?
how many will now get sick and never know the cause?
to say 1 small radioactive particle is SAFE
because its within limits of "safe" levels
is incorect
THE TRUTH IS BEING HIDDEN
and people WILL get sick in the future and not know why
we are talking about direct emitions from fuel rods
some of them MOX fuel
there is 10 times the spent fuel at japan than cernobal
and the dust has majically disapaired ?
this defys science and logic
how can a radioactive dust cloud become safe in less than 8 days?

xploder



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I keep looking at all those maps posted here and I keep wondering how on earth can so many readings at one time be "Under Review?" Is it possible all those reading stations are Mal-functioning or delivering false data?
I don't know for sure it is just odd to me that is is occurring on a regular basis.
regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Note that all of the out of service RadNet terminals are on the SW boarder.... don't the pacific currents go south which would push the radiation more toward Mexico than say Washington?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry Phage. I should have said another site. www.radiationnetwork.com says alert level is 126 in US. Japan is set at 99. I have no clue what it really should be. This is what they said about EPA levels compared to there levels. All CPM levels are not created equal? Trying to figure that out.




Update: 3/19/11, 2:30 P.M. bullet Many emails this morning have pointed out that the Radiation readings reported by the EPA from many of their stations in the West are much higher than those on the Radiation Network, and asked that we square the EPA readings with those from the Radiation Network. I will study the EPA data in more detail, but at first glance, the explanation for the difference goes back to a couple of points I made in my earlier update below: bullet When reporting radiation readings, units of measurement matter. The EPA readings are apparently in CPM (Counts per Minute), but CPM levels are not standardized, and instead depend upon the design of each model of detection instrument. So readings in CPM are not comparable except to historical readings made by the same instrument. I am hoping that the EPA detectors are something much more specialized and sensitive than the models typically used by our Monitoring Stations. For example, if a "counting tube" has a larger physical size and greater surface area, then it follows that the count rate, measured by the number of radiation particles that it "captures", will thus be higher. bullet In contrast, the type of Geiger counters typically in use by Monitoring Stations in the Radiation Network are best described as personal radiation detectors or of the type commonly used by first responders, and in many cases, the exact same model in use by the NYC Fire Department. These counters are built around a fairly standard sized "counting tube", and in many cases better, but having said that, are obviously sensitive enough to detect background radiation, and them some. bullet So bottom line, the question for the EPA is can their CPM measurments be converted to a standardized unit of measurement, such as uR/hr, in the same way that the CPM levels on our Radiation Map are roughly equivalent to uR/hr as well, subject to the qualifications I cited below. bullet As a double check on my reasoning here, I stepped out of my Prescott, Arizona office this morning with two different models of Geiger counters, to sample environmental radiation levels, and found the total level quite normal for our mile high altitude, in the 15 to 20 uR/hr range. Interestingly, this mimicked the readings I was getting from a similar detector indoors in my office. bullet In summary, this is not to say that the environment outside my office here lacked any radioactive contaminants at all, but their presence was not detectable by just a general sampling of the environment. We will, and we should leave it to the EPA to break a total radiation level down to its constituent parts.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by favouriteslave
 

All CPM levels are not created equal.

The levels that people are arm waving about on the EPA monitoring system are Beta levels. The "civilian" sites do not differentiate between different types of radiation and most probably show gamma predominantly. Add differing sensitivities of the instruments involved and there is no way to make direct comparisons of counts.

Throw in the fact that background levels vary quite a lot from location to location and the arm waving makes even less sense.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Yes thank you. I see a wide gap between 3 monitoring stations. Radiation Network, Black Cat and EPA.

WHo knows what or who is closest to correct.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by favouriteslave
 

They are probably all "correct". They are just showing different things.

But by looking at historical data it can be seen that the fluctuations and levels are well within normal background levels.
edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

You know I posted several questions at you regardind these readings as I am highly concerned there is too many opinions and as of yet never got any responses are you not wanting to answer or am I on the list or what??f you prefer tell me I won't post another question at you I have not understood phage has answered me 2-3 times!!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by favouriteslave
 

They are probably all "correct". They are just showing different things.

But by looking at historical data it can be seen that the fluctuations and levels are well within normal background levels.
edit on 3/21/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Now that is a logical statement if i were able to recognize one if I saw it.
Thanks Phage, now is there any way to combine all these to get a better idea?
Probably not I figure but no harm in asking.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I would like for some up to date info regarding readings and what is going on !!?? I cannot understandf these 20 -24 type readings on radnet then people saying they are over 100 and over 200??? Muzzleflash, phage and I have questioned unity 4-5 times he has never responded?? can one of you folks give me some news and we have some strong winds here today!!!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Phage again thanks for your response I am not feeling good about these readings though; Muzzleflash has indicated some disturbing things which I believe are very likely also!! Is there any way we can get a true connection here as to what me and others are to expect I am at a loss today trying to understand first how to read these dam radnet readings and why there is no truth to these particles, the plume factor, the fallout, the unusual back and forth regarding what really is happenin????



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Again thanks for a few of you trying but, this is serious concerns and cannot seem to get the actual readings or??



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by condition9
 

The most important thing, despite all the talk about "waves of fallout", is that the radiation levels being seen are no different than they were before the earthquake and tsunami.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by condition9
 


Allow me to try. If you are looking at a particular network, EPA or Radnet do not compare the numbers and assume they are way off from one another. look for trends within the set of information that would seem vastly different than the usual. Does that help at all? I could go far deeper if you like?

Try to remember this as I was taught long long ago, Blame the dead guys, everytime one of those guys died they named a unit of measurement after them and made our life that much harder. And not "every" country holds each others scientists in such high regard, lol.

edit on 21-3-2011 by soundguy because: spelling
edit on 21-3-2011 by soundguy because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join