COVERUP AT EPA: Live Public DATA- Negligence or Incompetence?

Kind of redundant at this point, but just for the cool comparison of the difference between PCs and Macs (I love how the font and scroll bars are different!)



And the neat graph it spits out if you ask it to:

reply to post by 00nunya00


Now- unregistered citizens or non-firemen or non-police tell us:

Can you get on the pages our two disinfo agents are viewing?

reply to post by Chakotay


LOL, yes, a married housewife, mom-of-one with another on the way: she is Agent Uberscully, Federal Disinfo Agent Extraordinaire. She misinforms the masses about the EPA while daily following and contributing to a 250-page thread monitoring the nuke situation, always on the worried side because nuclear radiation freaks her out.

You should write up a screenplay!

Seriously, dude, I just want GOOD info on the nukes. I have a family to protect, and when someone raises the alarm, I want to know it's correct before I go overhauling my life----which, make no mistake, I'm willing to do. I have decontamination supplies, dried food for weeks, I even bought a rototiller so I can garden all our produce this year and the years to come because I won't trust west coast produce for a long time, regardless of what the EPA says. I live right smack on the east coast, so I figure we'll have the least fallout of anyone.

I'm worried, man, but I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole until I see a real conspiracy. I'm not saying there isn't one here-----I'm just saying the fact some people can't get on a webpage probably designed for a tenth of the server capacity it needs right now, does not spell conspiracy. It spells crappy budgeting for web needs.

Originally posted by Chakotay
reply to post by 00nunya00

 

Now- unregistered citizens or non-firemen or non-police tell us:

Can you get on the pages our two disinfo agents are viewing?

In the intrest of full disclosure, I AM a 32° Freemason. But that only gets me access to the FEMA servers, not the EPA. (kidding.)

reply to post by Chakotay


I also find it intersting that there is links everywhere to towns in different states but most of them, if not all, give you a red X where the data should be.

a couple days after the disaster I was told by someone in chat to check out radiation levels in Alaska because the word was that we were getting "hit pretty hard" up here. However, even for Alaska there is absolutely zero data on the EPA's site even though another weather front just came through from the specific direction of Japan in the last couple of days.

One must think that the EPA doesn't consider the levels high enough to be of any danger because as they say on their site....

These levels are thousands of times below any conservative level of concern.

But you know what they say about assuming.

Also, this is coming from the EPA... The immediate thought you have is "Oh well, it must not be an issue". That's not the point though!

The point is that the radiation is higher than normal even if it is only miniscule. Are they afraid of what the data would show if they posted it? Are they afraid of inducing some kind of mass hysteria over radiation fears? Perhaps.. But it stands to reason that if there is higher than normal radiation levels in your town you have the right to know exactly what the data shows. Especially with this specific EPA site being designed FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE.

If the EPA is, for whatever reason, covering up what the real data then they are implicit in a conspiracy. Perhaps it is "going a little far" to posit such an idea but it is clear that at this point there is something going on.

It is possible that the EPA has hired "experts" as consultants on the matter and the EPA simply decided to post this all-in-one response for the public to see instead of measuring for radiation in the first place because they "believe" that "These levels are thousands of times below any conservative level of concern".

That would be one heck of a cop-out on public safety though, even for the EPA. The public wants to know what they're being exposed to, even if it is "thousands of times below any conservative level of concern". At this point, even if the EPA does post the data for my home town I'm not sure what to trust. Alot of other people feel the same way and that's the real issue here.

-ChriS

I was having the same problems accessing the data in Chrome, then switched to Firefox 4 and got right on. In trying to think of a reason, I remembered I have lowered the security level in Firefox for another site. The error I was receiving had to do with ssl problems, so I am thinking that anyone who is having problems getting to the Radnet should try lowering ssl or security levels.

Additionally, the Radnet map site contains the following note:

MAP not showing? If your browser displays: Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely? arrowClick "No." If your browser displays: A yellow bar at the top which says To help protect your security, Internet Explorer has blocked this website from displaying content with security certificate errors. Click here for options..., arrowClick the yellow bar and select "Display blocked content."

I understand this is not the same thing, but it does imply page display security problems.

Good luck to all.

reply to post by BlasteR


Huh?

Fixed Monitor Location: AK: FAIRBANKS
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/21/2011 10:24:23 PM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/21/2011 11:24:31 PM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 46

Fixed Monitor Location: AK: ANCHORAGE
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/21/2011 07:27:53 PM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/21/2011 07:37:59 PM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 4

Deployable Monitor ID: RN21
Measurement Date/Time: 03/21/2011 09:03:47 PM
Average Gamma Exposure Rate(mR/hr): 0.008375

Fixed Monitor Location: AK: JUNEAU
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/21/2011 06:01:15 PM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/21/2011 07:01:23 PM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 0 (Notice this is just a bug, you can do the calcs yourself with the numbers)
Gamma Energy Range 2 Gross(CPM): 1028
Gamma Energy Range 3 Gross(CPM): 516
Gamma Energy Range 4 Gross(CPM): 159
Gamma Energy Range 5 Gross(CPM): 81
Gamma Energy Range 6 Gross(CPM): 48
Gamma Energy Range 7 Gross(CPM): 67
Gamma Energy Range 8 Gross(CPM): 41
Gamma Energy Range 9 Gross(CPM): 24
Gamma Energy Range 10 Gross(CPM): 36

EPA's RadNet

In other words: data fooked- purposely or by negligence-

for almost every non-savvy user with standard settings (FAIL EPA).

(lower your security levels SO WE CAN FOOK YOU KIRK)

I'll lend a personal perspective, as I am located in Oregon-next to the water.

I don't have a Geiger-counter. I have a bird feeder. It's still in service...

So it's been cloudy and rainy for who knows how long now?

The weird thing though is during dusk, if the sun pierces the clouds (and not 'just right')- the only way to describe it is; You know when a cloud passes over-head and the shadow passes too, the shadow seems to bring with it a weird, a subtle glow. Like I'm looking at a thicker atmosphere, somehow. The hue seems off.

I'll be reporting from the trenches-

reply to post by loveguy


Probably because of fires and whatnot. Remember the sunsets in the months after the Gulf War when the oil wells were on fire? Beautiful part of a tragic disaster there. Radiation, however, would not affect your viewing of sunsets and atmosphere until it was so high all life on Earth would be dead before they ever saw sunset.

I've had no trouble (other than traffic being a little heavy at times).

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by loveguy

 

Probably because of fires and whatnot. Remember the sunsets in the months after the Gulf War when the oil wells were on fire? Beautiful part of a tragic disaster there. Radiation, however, would not affect your viewing of sunsets and atmosphere until it was so high all life on Earth would be dead before they ever saw sunset.

Yeah, that is a hue I can recall. I may have forgotten to mention that it's been raining here for days on end.

I have a story for a somber mood. It's a true story that occurred today shortly after I had filled my bird-feeder.
The bird-feeder is outside my window in arms reach. It's fastened like a hang-mans-noose apparatus fastened at the top of a fence-post.

I saw out my window a little bird on the fence to the right of the feeder, he was all fat and chunky! A cute little thing. Then also on the fence, to the left of the feeder was the same breed of bird, but much skinnier.

I figured the fat one was guarding the feeder all for himself and wouldn't share. He actually sat there guarding the feeder while this littler one was eating.

I watch birds alot and things that occur, they happen really fast. They have to contend with guys like this 'Chip' fellow here too. But none of them are going hungry. Plus, like a month of peanuts!

I don't know how I feel about blue jays.
Sorry to go off topic like that OP, and others subjected to these ramblings...

Yep, same thing happened to me, it opened up all my freinds eyes, it was Saturday morning and sure s**t page was under construction, or could not be displayed, and I too can not see the maps still with that blank picture and the little red X in the top corner "these levels are million times too low for any concern" the media quickly turned to the Libya conflict and every three days or so we will get, "jet stream most likely wont carry radiation to US (2 days later)-, some miniscule amounts have been seen in california THURSDAY (this news casting was already saturday, so 2 days we werent even told that , "no levels of concern", (3 days later, today)- "Small amounts of radiation are reported in washington" so the levels on the media have been from none, to maybe, to miniscule, to small...... and info from the nuclear plant seems to be about 2-3 days behind. EPA etc are definantly covering stuff up. I know, they think we are so stupid. So all in all, I totally agree. Oh I was able to find one map one time that had west coast in the 900's then rockies in the 8-700's and all the way down to the 200's on the east coast but there was NO LEGEND, no way to know what these numbers even meant, that was sunday, and now I cant find the map anywhere

reply to post by thePharaoh


Yes and ive actually heard some of these particles are actually not considered just radiation, but radioactive, meaning continuously active, like for a loooooooong time.

reply to post by Phage


Phage do yuou recall I could not get on this page I posted that way earlier today??

I can't get on either. I've tried over the course of the last few days, and no matter what link I click on, it doesn't work. Even when I click on links that other members swear work. I see no security settings that account for this. I don't know why this would be or what it means...It seems like if they were trying to block the data, they'd block everyone.

Can you tel me how to understand this data?
Link to Rad map!

the number seem very high?
Gamma Energy Range 2 Gross(CPM): 4447

Fixed Monitor Location: NM: NAVAJO LAKE
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/22/2011 07:05:10 AM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/22/2011 08:05:19 AM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 34
Gamma Energy Range 2 Gross(CPM): 4447
Gamma Energy Range 3 Gross(CPM): 2474
Gamma Energy Range 4 Gross(CPM): 672
Gamma Energy Range 5 Gross(CPM): 334
Gamma Energy Range 6 Gross(CPM): 201
Gamma Energy Range 7 Gross(CPM): 257
Gamma Energy Range 8 Gross(CPM): 106
Gamma Energy Range 9 Gross(CPM): 60
Gamma Energy Range 10 Gross(CPM): 74

Fixed Monitor Location: CO: COLORADO SPRINGS
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/22/2011 06:20:02 AM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/22/2011 07:20:09 AM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 86
Gamma Energy Range 2 Gross(CPM): 4241
Gamma Energy Range 3 Gross(CPM): 2415
Gamma Energy Range 4 Gross(CPM): 719
Gamma Energy Range 5 Gross(CPM): 347
Gamma Energy Range 6 Gross(CPM): 239
Gamma Energy Range 7 Gross(CPM): 340
Gamma Energy Range 8 Gross(CPM): 99
Gamma Energy Range 9 Gross(CPM): 88
Gamma Energy Range 10 Gross(CPM): 132

WA: SPOKANE
Monitor Information:
Fixed Monitor Location: WA: SPOKANE
Measurement Start Date/Time: 03/22/2011 07:53:01 AM
Measurement End Date/Time: 03/22/2011 08:53:09 AM
Beta Gross Count Rate (CPM): 62
Gamma Energy Range 2 Gross(CPM): 4012
Gamma Energy Range 3 Gross(CPM): 2430
Gamma Energy Range 4 Gross(CPM): 723
Gamma Energy Range 5 Gross(CPM): 368
Gamma Energy Range 6 Gross(CPM): 218
Gamma Energy Range 7 Gross(CPM): 240
Gamma Energy Range 8 Gross(CPM): 144
Gamma Energy Range 9 Gross(CPM): 47
Gamma Energy Range 10 Gross(CPM): 55

i apologise for this not exactly bieng in keep with the original post, but being long time reader and only signing up today, i believe i can't post new topics. anyway, i just noticed on the 3d quake map that japans just had 4 big after shocks, one of them a 6.6 at only 15kn deep. i just hope dutchsinse on youtube is wrong in his hypothesis that japan may be sinking!

reply to post by woodnut86

You need to go to this post
Link Japan quackes
and to see the up to date quake map go to
world Quake map

oh! and it is FOUR big quakes over 6.4

reply to post by buddha


thanks FOR that buddha. it's a bad habbit writing numbers for words, bloody texting... death of grammer or what?!!