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

Ok, I'm reading about browsers and such not working. Let me ask anyone out there what the SAFE LEVEL of radiation exposure is. I've been asking around and no one knows, or I'm given a stuttering response. Shouldn't the EPA have said what that is on their site? You guys are following GCPM, and I thought 130 was the threshold, but what about milli-sieverts? Is that per second? Wtf, why can't anyone get the information straight, informative, and THEN we can watch the EPA's non-functioning overloaded servers. Sure the EPA contracted their network out, saying, oh we get 150 hits per day, lalala, then when an actual catastrophe hits, server overload occurs. You people might as well run a full fledged ddos attack. You post links, and everyone links on them, definitely increasing the server issues. They never thought they'd ever have to withstand the onslaught of requests from an actual nuclear emergency, and due to budget restrictions they probably opted for mediocre power.

Tell me what the SAFE LEVEL is, PLEASE!!!!!! Give whatever units/per time measure, but make it a solid reference. THAT is the incompetence of the EPA as well. Right now I am going by 130 CPM per day. Is that right or wrong? ANYONE?????

Originally posted by Druid42
Ok, I'm reading about browsers and such not working. Let me ask anyone out there what the SAFE LEVEL of radiation exposure is. I've been asking around and no one knows, or I'm given a stuttering response. Shouldn't the EPA have said what that is on their site? You guys are following GCPM, and I thought 130 was the threshold, but what about milli-sieverts? Is that per second? Wtf, why can't anyone get the information straight, informative, and THEN we can watch the EPA's non-functioning overloaded servers. Sure the EPA contracted their network out, saying, oh we get 150 hits per day, lalala, then when an actual catastrophe hits, server overload occurs. You people might as well run a full fledged ddos attack. You post links, and everyone links on them, definitely increasing the server issues. They never thought they'd ever have to withstand the onslaught of requests from an actual nuclear emergency, and due to budget restrictions they probably opted for mediocre power.

Tell me what the SAFE LEVEL is, PLEASE!!!!!! Give whatever units/per time measure, but make it a solid reference. THAT is the incompetence of the EPA as well. Right now I am going by 130 CPM per day. Is that right or wrong? ANYONE?????

When you find out let me know too please, I for the life of me can't seem to find a straight answer either.

I think.....and I mean think and not knowing for sure that this Mox fuel or whatever it is may be the problem.
Don't quote me on that please.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
I do not see a single reason why the OP assumes a cover-up of any sort.

See it here:

This webpage is not available The webpage at cdxnode64.epa.gov... might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. Error 113 (net::ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH): Unknown error.

Links all over the EPA website are inaccessible. I will take a few hours to see if it possible to tweak my operating system, browser, security etc. FOR THE EPA WEBSITE ONLY, right after I finish work, make dinner, wash clothes, take a bath, check the news, communicate with family in harm's way in Japan-- yeah, I'll do that (even though I and the others with no access can surf tens of thousands of other sites with absolutely no problems like EPA has...

If EPA was an ecommerce site, it would go bankrupt.

reply to post by Druid42

CPM stands for Counts Per Minute. It is the number of times the detector is "triggered" each minute. You know the famous clicking of a Geiger counter? That's what it's talking about. So a CPM of 60 would mean 1 click per second.

What's a "safe" level? It depends on the instrument being used. For a given level of radioactivity, instruments of different sensitivities will give different counts. The more sensitive, the more counts. I know, still doesn't help you does it? We don't know the sensitivity of the EPA instruments but its a pretty reasonable bet that they are more sensitive than the "civilian" units being used. That is why we see higher counts from them.

If the sensitivity of the instrument is known, CPM can be converted to Seiverts. It's too bad the EPA doesn't provide that information (or do the conversion for us) but try this. We can assume that prior to the tsunami and earthquake radiation levels were safe. That being the case, we still are seeing the same counts that we saw at that time. Therefore levels are safe. They are within historical background levels.

reply to post by Chakotay

I just clicked the link you posted and the page loaded in less than a second.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chakotay

 

I just clicked the link you posted and the page loaded in less than a second.

For you.

But not for me and not for many others.

Why? That is the question: Why is the EPA rad website not transparent to all common browsers right now?

Good on you that it works for you. But for the rest of us: pfffffffffffffffffffft.

reply to post by Chakotay

You must be special. Or maybe you need a different ISP.

reply to post by Phage


Looking at their source I get closer to the heart of the issue:

"https://cdxnode64.epa.gov/cdx-radnet-rest/service/graph?type=graph&startDate=03012011&radType=BETA&state=CA&city=Anaheim" alt="Anaheim - Gross Beta" width="750" height="511" class="imgcontainer-l">

Now I'm studying HTTPS and I am asking myself: is the issue https links to content?

So convenient, so accidental it almost... seems... like... an accident.

Maybe I can help you figure out radiation limits.
But we have to use a wide variety of information to determine that, and it's not going to be easy because they have so many different units of measurement (probably on purpose to make us laymen waste weeks trying to figure it out).

Perhaps the link you are looking for on conversions

Wiki link on "Radiation Poisoning" w/numeric charts
Also a wiki on "Ionizing Radiation"

Please keep in mind though, we are dealing with more than mere radiation here, we are dealing with highly energetic particles of various substance, such as Cesium 137.

Due to caesium-137 mostly being a product of artificial nuclear fission, it did not occur in nature to any significant degree before nuclear weapons testing began. By observing the characteristic gamma rays emitted by this isotope, it is possible to determine whether the contents of a given sealed container were made before or after the advent of atomic bomb explosions. This procedure has been used by researchers to check the authenticity of certain rare wines, most notably the purported "Jefferson bottles".

Now that's pretty interesting. Sorry to sidetrack, back to the gig.

Link on millirads
link on Sievert
link on roentgen
link on CPM
link on becquerel

Interesting link with conversion charts = scroll way down for cpm
mega-resource on detection meters

I want to point out something really important here though. Sure ionizing radiation is dangerous especially at higher energy levels, BUT our main worry should be the actual particulates flying everywhere through the sky from this breach of containment at the plant.

Pretty much any significant amount of these particles is really bad news, as many of them are extremely rare in nature and are highly damaging to organic structures.

There is no "safe" level of cesium 137 for example. Those two words do not go together in the same sentence very well. *safe - cesium137= incompatible*
There is "not that bad yet", "getting worse", "looking real bad", and "holy crap this sucks".

CPM apparently is rarely the same thing between different types of meters. There are various meanings for it depending on calibration etc.
By the time we actually research all this stuff, cesium137 will have reached its half-life or beyond (30+years).

reply to post by Druid42


as Phage and i said we need the conversion factors for each instrument to know actual exposures. for example the gieger in boulder city near las vegas has a norm of around 20 cpm. so in that case 130 would be VERY high. when you start getting 5 and 6 standard deviations higher than the norm for and extended period of time, thats probably good evidence of something more than just background emissions. To me the lack of the conversion would be the question of intent. Im trying to find more reliable sources and most ive seen like the various counters are within historical norms, see the berkeley link for real quantification of know particulates for that area at least. i would also be appreciative of anyone with links of similar quality!

edit: Muzzle got it! thansk for those! Great work...ill shut up now!

reply to post by Chakotay


WHY DONT WE ALL JUST PONY UP AND CHECK OF OUR OWN RADIATION DETECTORS. ALSO, HAS THERE BEEN ANY NEWS ON SICKNESS ON THE WEST COAST. ASK THE CORRECT QUESTIONS.

im sorry im frustrated

I would also argue that the political environment is so toxic in this country right now, that regulators are frozen into paralysis. Frozen because so much of this government is in bed with the big polluters. Frozen because of getting hammered by the enviro-whackjobs for not being stringent enough. I don't know if it's incompetence as much as its inertia. Common sense has no voice in government anymore.

Originally posted by Phage
We can assume that prior to the tsunami and earthquake radiation levels were safe. That being the case, we still are seeing the same counts that we saw at that time. Therefore levels are safe. They are within historical background levels.

I loved your entire post until this came rolling along.

#1) These levels are not exactly "Safe" even before the quake. Have you seen the cancer rates in humans over the last 50years ?? I bet you know this all too well...

#2) The only "historical" levels are what has been linked from the last year or so, which isn't really a great guide to history now is it? We simply have no data prior to the advent of nuclear pollution.

and #3) With these multiple reactors having breaches of containment, it is entirely logical to assume that the current levels will increase over time. Adding something to something, makes more of it. And these reactors have TONS of this stuff in there. Way more than Chernobyl.

I starred your post anyways because other than the issues I had with that little tidbit, I still think you are giving good information. But you really really need to stop saying "safe". Say "not that bad yet" or something more accurate lol.

Is any amount of radiation safe?

There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects.

Some scientists assert that low levels of radiation are beneficial to health (this idea is known as hormesis).

However, there do appear to be threshold exposures for the various non-stochastic effects. (Please note that the acute affects in the following table are cumulative. For example, a dose that produces damage to bone marrow will have produced changes in blood chemistry and be accompanied by nausea.)

Exposure
(rem) Health Effect Time to Onset
(without treatment)
5-10 changes in blood chemistry
50 nausea hours
55 fatigue
70 vomiting
75 hair loss 2-3 weeks
90 diarrhea
100 hemorrhage
400 possible death within 2 months
1,000 destruction of intestinal lining
internal bleeding
and death 1-2 weeks
2,000 damage to central nervous system
loss of consciousness; minutes
and death hours to days
www.epa.gov...



As interesting as all this is, it is meaningless unless you're wearing a dosimeter that tells how MUCH radiation YOU have came in contact with. The radiation we are dealing with is riding the wind, it is being shuffled like a deck of cards. What you are exposed to is haphazard.

reply to post by Phage


Exactly Phage, I did a search on the EPA site yesterday when you asked me where the EPA said the alert level was 130. I found it on radiation network but NOTHING on the EPA site about what counts was alert level. Bah not everyone is a nuclear physicist. They really need to tell us what an alarm level is because when they say the levels being detected aren't harmful really doesn't cut it.

reply to post by debris765nju


So the question really is..... After the plants stops emitting radiation, how much will our bodies accumulate? I guess that would depend on the isotopes life and how long the plants continue to emit radiation.

So........... the longer this takes the worse it is for everyone.

Everything is radioactive.
There are different types of radiation.

Ionizing radiation is the one we are most concerned about, to be specific.

The Sun "radiates" a lot of energy.
Light bulbs radiate.
Heat is radiation, whereas cold is the lack thereof.

Radiation is such a catch all term, it can be applied everywhere apparently.

Go up a few posts and check that link from wiki on "ionizing" radiation.

Regular heat radiation ain't a big deal when it's only 80degrees F, but when it reaches 400 degress F, yeah we have a problem.

So remember it's the "amount" of "exposure" we receive that determines how badly we are affected. Our body is always in a constant state of repairing itself and repairing the DNA molecules to combat the effects of radiation which is damaging. More exposure at higher rates means we break apart faster, and our natural ability to rebuild itself cannot keep up.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Everything is radioactive.
There are different types of radiation.

Ionizing radiation is the one we are most concerned about, to be specific.

The Sun "radiates" a lot of energy.
Light bulbs radiate.
Heat is radiation, whereas cold is the lack thereof.

Radiation is such a catch all term, it can be applied everywhere apparently.

Go up a few posts and check that link from wiki on "ionizing" radiation.

Regular heat radiation ain't a big deal when it's only 80degrees F, but when it reaches 400 degress F, yeah we have a problem.

So remember it's the "amount" of "exposure" we receive that determines how badly we are affected. Our body is always in a constant state of repairing itself and repairing the DNA molecules to combat the effects of radiation which is damaging. More exposure at higher rates means we break apart faster, and our natural ability to rebuild itself cannot keep up.

Pause. Ionizing radiation such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, x-ray, and neutron, are what come with radioactive decay. Xrays and gamma rays are high energy EM radiation, just a powerful photon. Light bulbs emit low energy EM radiation, NOTHING like what comes from radio active decay. Everything is NOT radioactive.

Originally posted by BecauseiSaidso
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Pause. Ionizing radiation such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, x-ray, and neutron, are what come with radioactive decay. Xrays and gamma rays are high energy EM radiation, just a powerful photon. Light bulbs emit low energy EM radiation, NOTHING like what comes from radio active decay.

All of them can be dangerous at really high levels of course.

Keep in mind I am not a expert or a nuclear physicist I am a layman who just reads stuff and is trying to learn at the same time as everyone else.

If I am wrong about something *highly possible-no ones perfect* though please explain in depth (links help also to save you time and breath), because I don't know everything but I love learning more. I appreciate anyone aiding in the quest of knowledge, and if I realize I am wrong I will quickly retract my incorrect statement or wording and rephrase or correct myself.

But yes the word "radiation" can be applied to everything. Now I'm going to go radiate some love towards my old lady.

Originally posted by BecauseiSaidso
reply to post by Druid42

 

as Phage and i said we need the conversion factors for each instrument to know actual exposures. for example the gieger in boulder city near las vegas has a norm of around 20 cpm. so in that case 130 would be VERY high. when you start getting 5 and 6 standard deviations higher than the norm for and extended period of time, thats probably good evidence of something more than just background emissions.

Questions, then:

1. To level off false spikes, should we consider averaging a 24hour period's worth of numbers and use that as our baseline? Or some other period?
   
2. If you say the gap between 20 and 130 is high, are we thinking on a linear or an exponential scale? Would the jump from a baseline of 130 to 240 be just as dangerous? (Still an increase of 120...) or 1000 to 1120?