Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
114
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


dood you're telling me! Vegas was actually where i bugged out to! I left the Bay Area(sf) thursday night to get on the other side of the mountian when i heard about the cloud and saw a huge storm would swamp sacremento and LA causing havoc if a panic exodus were to occur. So i made a tactical retreat right into the damn thing....now i just don't know what to do....but im pretty worried.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BecauseiSaidso
 


Sorry that happened!

EPA site still blocking all images, maps, graphs from the main link pages- at least for users like me.

I have never experienced this with any other website- my system is up-to-date.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


So are you able click on the ballons and see there screen per the screen shots? If not and your curious about a city ill pull it for you....



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Maybe this will help figure out what's going on: go to this site and click the "Get my browser details" or whatever the button says and paste the results---MINUS THE IP AND HOST DATA----here so we can see what your browser and OS configuration is (none of this info will help anyone identify you or attack your system so long as you don't post the IP and Host data)

For instance, here's mine:


Browser/Computer Properties
Browser (User-Agent): Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)
Time and Date: 2:57:05 PM - Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Javascript: Enabled
Cookies Enabled: Enabled
Java Enabled: Enabled
CPU class/type: OS/CPU Windows NT 6.0
Screen Width x Height: 1920 x 1080
Screen Color Depth: 24
Window Width: 571 (29.7% of 1920)
Window Height: 353 (32.7% of 1080)

Browser Headers
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
Language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Connection: keep-alive



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BecauseiSaidso
reply to post by Chakotay
 


So are you able click on the ballons and see there screen per the screen shots? If not and your curious about a city ill pull it for you....


Thanks, BiSs... I've got alternative data sources, so I don't need access. The thread is about EPA making their web site inaccessible for a huge number of people apparently due to browsers settings or who knows what.

By stupidity, or by design? It is one or the other...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Right on, sorry if i sidetracked it....My gut thinks its a result of whatever 'changes' they made as per the update statement at the CDX. They can and do release the data, but hardly anyone can interpret it. Gross CPM is NOT a measure of exposure. A larger detector will get more counts. We need the interpreted data,or at least conversion factors, and to me THATS the conspiracy. Why isn't there readily available DIGESTED data to the public? This right here is some ass-covering crap.


edit on 22-3-2011 by BecauseiSaidso because: spelling



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


I tried to u2u but i dont have permission. Can you drop some links on me for the alt sources you use? im always trying to expand my view! thanks Chakotay!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
nevermind. not worth repeating myself...
edit on 2011.3.22 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


please don't. Beta meters are also subject to interference from electronics and em fields so freak spikes happen ALL THE TIME. sustained values over 3 deviations in magnitude are NOT the same thing.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
You need to account for solar flares and space-based radiation fluctuations to prove it's Earth-based radiation. Otherwise, it's just you saying "trust me" and isn't that exactly what everyone's criticizing the EPA for saying?


Space based radiation should be fairly easy to spot. Why?

Because Earth is small, and therefore any space based radiation fluctuations should be consistent world-wide in general, although there may be very minor differences.

If the sun caused a spike, than it should spike worldwide for the most part. One major difference would be the side of the world Facing the sun, and a little less (maybe?) for the side facing away from the sun.

"Natural radiation" generally should remain consistent and causation originating from space should be consistent and easily noticed across wide amount of locations.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Launched IE to give it a show though I'm loathe to use IE. No problems at all did have to click the top to allow scripts on the page for the map to display though.

As to the reliabillity of the data, I can't comment on that but there is no conspiracy at all in the availability.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Dr Sanjay Gupta on CNN just said that it has been pointed out that "statistically, you would have to eat the contaminated spinach every day to reach the levels of radiation for a CAT scan".

I shall debunk this.

CAT scans do not deposit highly energetic decaying particles such as Iodine131 or Cesium137 into your body. This contaminated food does though.

See the difference?

CAT scans just hit you with radiation, but the actual radioactive materials are contained within the machine safely.

Breach of containment at a nuclear plant allows this material to go all over the place and create long lasting damaging effects.

Massive huge differences. You cannot compare contamination like this with X-rays, CAT scans, or counter tops. It's absurd.
edit on 22-3-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


So, then, explain why the levels of background radiation are constantly in flux, with different readings for every single place on that map? Are you suggesting that everywhere in the US there are unnatural sources of radiation that are constantly released into the atmosphere in what seems to be a semi-pattern of ups and downs, and that if we took these sources away, the radiation levels would be flat-lined across the board and would rise and fall identically when hit with space-based radiation?

ETA: admittedly, I am no expert at anything to do with radiation, I've just learned a lot from some very smart people here in the last week about it. This was not how I understood the background radiation to work.
edit on 22-3-2011 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Everything is radioactive.

I wouldn't know if background would be flat lined if we took out things like space based radiation, we never took measurements and formed a large database on this information until after we started polluting the environment.

I seriously doubt it would be flat lined because there are always exceptions, but at the same time, it would rarely spike to exorbitant levels (although this is expected because there are quadrillions of particles of thousands of flavors swimming around all of us).

But you gotta be out of your mind if you think the last several decades of just polluting the earth en mass has't affected our readings in any way. Remember how they keep saying in the science book many of these pollutants last for decades to 100years ++? It hasn't been that long yet since we polluted, so obviously common sense indicates that they would still be detectable.

However determining the source of that contamination is just about impossible. We have to actually apply common sense to these things sometimes.

Look I am not right about everything, I am just trying to promote thinking and questioning of the lines of BS we keep being fed.

And they keep trying to downplay this and say it's safe, don't be concerned, go back to your tv and pretend nothings wrong. That's ludicrous. Cancer isn't fun, let me tell you. And in 10-20years it's gonna affect people, theres no telling how many or in what intensity, but you can bet your bottom dollar it's gonna happen in some respect.

My main goal here is to show people that this technology (nuclear) is far too dangerous and it's accidental pollution affects are far too damaging and this is a long-term issue rather than short-term.
Yes I do not like coal or oil either, but cmon. The BP oil spill is nothing compared to this nuclear pollution.

I am just really upset and disturbed by the stupidity of us the human race. And I want to see alternative energies that are actually mostly safe on the long-term such as wind/solar/geothermal/natural gas instituted on a vast scale worldwide.

I think it's time people woke up to smell the radioactive roses and realize we need to change. Sooner rather than later.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, totally, we've polluted the Earth with fallout for a long time to come----not in debate. Doing things like digging in/around the areas in NV where they did nuclear tests will definitely spike those levels. But that's what I'm saying----when we bring in the fact that there are varying levels of all kinds, from solar flares (which will affect different places depending on how the geomagnetic field is reacting to it), to digging in radioactive areas, it becomes clear that it's going to take a lot of comparison to be able to say "Japan is significantly adding to these levels"; you have to be able to account for the already-present varying levels of radioactivity. And that takes a lot of past data to determine.

That's my only point.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Personally, I think the EPA's actions are deliberate, and reprehensible.

Thoughts?

I think you would correct
in that assumption.

They lied after 9/11
why wouldn't they lie now?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, totally, we've polluted the Earth with fallout for a long time to come----not in debate. Doing things like digging in/around the areas in NV where they did nuclear tests will definitely spike those levels. But that's what I'm saying----when we bring in the fact that there are varying levels of all kinds, from solar flares (which will affect different places depending on how the geomagnetic field is reacting to it), to digging in radioactive areas, it becomes clear that it's going to take a lot of comparison to be able to say "Japan is significantly adding to these levels"; you have to be able to account for the already-present varying levels of radioactivity. And that takes a lot of past data to determine.

That's my only point.


We don't have barely any past data because we have only been technologically sufficient to collect it in the recent era.

It's impossible to determine exactly how much, absolutely impossible. We cannot account for everything it's a sad fact of reality we are far too primitive to even attempt to make that accounting.

My point is very simple and basic: That the Japan disaster is "adding to" already current levels by "some extent" which we will probably never determine with any accuracy at all no matter how much science tries to determine those figures.

We have to apply basic thinking here. "Adding to" something makes more of it. That's my point.

Would you prefer to live in a world with "more" or "less" pollution? I am aiming for "less" and my goal is to show people this basic reality.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Chakotay
Personally, I think the EPA's actions are deliberate, and reprehensible.

Thoughts?

I think you would correct
in that assumption.

They lied after 9/11
why wouldn't they lie now?


I asked cleverbot (the silly pathetic AI program) earlier today that exact thing.

"Why is the media and government lying to us about Fukushima?"
Cleverbot answered 100% on the mark.
"Money".

I was like "WOW, It's right!!!"



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Chakotay
Personally, I think the EPA's actions are deliberate, and reprehensible.

Thoughts?

I think you would correct
in that assumption.

They lied after 9/11
why wouldn't they lie now?
The Environmental Protection Agency lied about 9/11? You learn something new every day on ATS...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Here is more info about it, since it really backs up the OP's intuition.

NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

article from 2003

Google's second result on search terms "EPA lied about WTC".
CBS 2006 article
edit on 22-3-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)









 
114
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join