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

reply to post by JoshNorton
yea and we are to take your word for it??? www.abovetopsecret.com... is this not your post and not of site link? i cold do the same thing, not nice thing to do.

reply to post by Chakotay
i feel the same way, just before the accident there were 6 RAD sites now there is none that have real time monitoring, log in sing up and wait for up dates , an other way of saying lets see who you are and then if not gov or edu, related then we will give you false info, just to pleas you and make you feel safe. no fear just the way it is. did none of you learn from the last disasters????? wake up and smell the coffee!!!!! this site use to have it were did it go?? www.nws.noaa.gov... oh and if you say it went here www.arl.noaa.gov... post the link would you thanks.

I was kinda behind the Jap governments "economical truth" statements and announcements about fukushima when it first kicked off, however as the debacle continues and gets progressively worse there really does need to be more transparency. Unfortunately, the opposite is true and instead of getting the information needle back towards the truth, it streaks from the marginally informed, to the Mushroom reading (kept in the dark and fed crap).

Something that is proper doing my sweede in at the moment is this webcam link.

www.ustream.tv...

I've had this link bookmarked since shortly after the two reactor buildings blew and it was only at around 10,000 views.

Over the last week, that number has sky rocketed to nearly 2.5 million. The initial readings were around 12.28 cmp and it peaked several days ago at 27.08.

There were also a shed load ( at least 10 - 15) other cams available to view on the right, a bit like the Youtube "Recommended" section and they were all around 12 - 14 cpm.

So is anyone else a little disturbed that this particular cam hasn't been broadcasting for the last three days and ALL the previously "recommended" brooadcast/videos have mysteriously disappeared too. .

A 1000 points for anyone who can get a live streaming giga-counter from Japan (bonus points available if the cam is in Tokyo), as I wager that they've all been taken down.

reply to post by skunkmunky


First one

Second one

Third one

Aaaaand....TOKYO!

Originally posted by Chakotay
Josh, the links don't work.

Everyone who gets on, please post.

And everyone who doesn't, please post.

I've tried using Google Chrome and IE. No joy.

The EPA site is plain user-unfriendly in a time of crisis.

Help me out here, ATS sleuths-- the Emperor's clothes are fail...

edit on 21-3-2011 by Chakotay because: CLASSIFIED

Working fine for me.

I use IE9.

reply to post by BecauseiSaidso


I was looking up my question, and I found something really cool lol. Thank's for your links because it led me to help me with my questions. I was wondering about everything decaying and if it were possible even seemingly "stable" things.
gsu.edu hyperphysics page

Along with neutrons, protons make up the nucleus, held together by the strong force. The proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and one down quark.

It has long been considered to be a stable particle, but recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 10^32 years. Experiments are underway to see if such decays can be detected. Decay of the proton would violate the conservation of baryon number, and in doing so would be the only known process in nature which does so.

I think that works fine with superstring theory too possibly since strings vibrate, and the absolute lowest vibrations are undetectable at our primitive stage of tech. But yes I also agree it's good to question and disagree with a lot of those theories at the same time like they said we still can't detect it lol.
I was very concerned about the answers to that question.

Here is an experiment they tried to test it.

Such a long half-life is exceedingly difficult to measure, but the hope of doing led to a deep mine experiment in the Soudan iron mines of Minnesota. The Soudan 2 Proton Decay experiment ran from 1989-2001 without observing any convincing proton decays. Such experiments serve to push back the lower bound on the proton decay halflife.

There is tons of cool stuff about physics at that link. Mostly all theories and history of experimental testing. I realize even theories or ideas decay though , and some have longer half-lives than others. (The story of life).

To stay on topic about the EPA, Phage posted a link about Hawaii actually making a detection consistent with Fukushima, and I believe that actually is consistent with the French agencies models to some extent.
I honestly didn't expect it to reach that location for another week or two...I thought it would mostly blow around the northern pacific.

Have they mentioned Alaska? You would think the Aleutian Islands would be getting hit worse than Hawaii or anywhere in North America...Hmmm I'll look for something. I don't remember hearing anything official, if there was it really didn't hit the news very big.

reply to post by 00nunya00


Nicely done.

1000 ponts, plus 20 bonus points are yours.

Still doesn't change the fact that there were shed loads of these, with varying readings, however now there are very few. Also this one www.ustream.tv... appears to indicate as high as 40 cpm, which (If it is in tokyo) kinda confirms why the more popular stream has ceased.

reply to post by muzzleflash


You've got some good posts up here on the nature of exposure vs ingested radiation it's VERY important stuff, but to stay on topic first,

I didn't have a problem with the little stunt noticed in this thread using mozilla 4.0 although;

the Epa site has way too many locations not reporting, also some of the site's info does not match with other sites info at similar times , and there is a weird lag and some wildly varying info ( especially if you click on a bunch on towns and then circle back around to them in a relatively short period of time ) , but even if all that can be explained under normal circumstances There are a couple of things worth noting;

1) no one is looking for alpha counts so things like particularized plutonium (which is an alpha emitter and a neutron absorber) could easily go undetected. In fact why do none of the EPA numbers reflect this
beautiful plume of Xe-133 ( go to the bottom of the page ) that covers 70% of the US?

2) just giving raw radiation counts is HIGHLY deceptive because as MuzzleFlash points out there is an initial hazard ( exposure) which is mostly not lethal or even close to it and then there is PARTICULATE MATTER ingestion/ absorption or inhalation, which is dangerous(even though rarely immediately fatal) .

one can consider exposure like this:
someone shines a flashlight on you, how bright was it, how big was it's beam, where did it shine on you and how long did it shine there?
particulate hazards can be though of as :
O.k. you swallowed the flashlight, now was it on? how big was it ? how fresh were the batteries did you swallow more than one? is it a shape that is likely to get stuck inside you ?

If the EPA were on the up they would be educating people getting them to help with soil and water samples (hey we can't all be with Obama in the southern hemisphere) like this: www.llrc.org... site is. if there was nothing to see this activity would still serve as an example of the EPA doing it's stated job AND generating good public relations(plus gathering valuable one of a kind data )

3) if these Geiger counters that are being linked to are to have any meaning we need to know :
a) Are they only measuring ionization or do some of them have neutron measuring capacity also, and how large what sensitivity and what type of radiation are the counts for ?
b)where are they located physically (inside out side , etc) and whom is operating them

4) If you noticed on the German site the second to the last plume on the page is Cesium -137.
It is quite a large plume. Why should this be of concern?

5) Cesium-137 is a byproduct of the fission of plutonium, it is found in the plutonium/uranium cores, so if you have flying particulate cesium you have flying plutonium and uranium too (almost certainly from the "waste rods")

A good article from the EE-times, can be found explaining 'criticality events' , of which the EPA has said nothing (you think they'd be concerned with uncontrolled nuclear chain reactions),

6) but most importantly the history of this plant is abysmal (cracked reactors, failed safety checks corroded cooling systems, etc..) and the plant should have been decommissioned this (it's 40 years old) but prior to the accident got approved for another ten years, even though there were multiple critical safety failures at the plant.

That's not even the worst of it; the plutonium/uranium cores ( the plutonium is used in cores as a way to "get rid of" 'surplus' weapons grade plutonium) are called MOX and are ONLY SUPPOSE TO BE used in reactors especially designed for them because plutonium gets hot faster (as a neutron absorber and having a lower thermal conductivity than uranium) and so requires more cooling rods and better cooling solutions.

The older reactors at Fukushima have smaller containment cores (newer ones are larger to allow for more expansion space in case of rapid hydrogen production) and given their safety history SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED WiTH MOX.

And now that there has been a disaster it would seem that those things should interest the EPA, it would seem their silence on certain issues is even more damning than the control of timely information

Having worked with the EPA in the past and present I will say just this.

They are utterly worthless. Don't believe anything they say. They are/can be bought off. As they are in this situation...

They know how bad it is but what can they really do? Evacuate a 50 mile radius(tokyo and other major cities)? That would cripple Japan's economy. People are expendable in the governments eye. Yet people are too naive to see it. Hopefully this will be a real eye opener for people in the next 20 years when the cancer rates sky rocket.

Searching the EPA site I still can't find a chart or anything that explains the Gammy energy ranges. I see they run 2-10 but what are the dangerous limits for each? Anyone know? Kindly direct me to an explanation.

reply to post by skunkmunky


LOL, you can keep your points.

The truth (found easily via a simple Google search) is enough for me.

Google is your friend.

reply to post by favouriteslave


The cpm is click per minute, but the data is almost useless because we don't know what type of devices are being used how and when they were calibrated and where/what their defined ranges are (there is no bottom limit for the frequency of gamma wavelengths so presumably each of the ten 'ranges' is an arbitrary division separating gamma energies into bands similar to the divisions in the visible and otherwise rest of the spectrum) in relation to actual radiation levels.

The cpm, ranges SHOULD BE CALIBRATED FOR REPRESENTATION AS SOME FORM OF ACCEPTED RADIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT LIKE the FEMA used standards: roentgen (R) or milliroentgen (mR:
or even any of these from wikipedia:

The measure of gamma rays' ionizing ability is called the exposure:

The coulomb per kilogram (C/kg) is the SI unit of ionizing radiation exposure, and is the amount of radiation required to create 1 coulomb of charge of each polarity in 1 kilogram of matter.

The röntgen (R) is an obsolete traditional unit of exposure, which represented the amount of radiation required to create 1 esu of charge of each polarity in 1 cubic centimeter of dry air. 1 röntgen = 2.58×10−4 C/kg However, the effect of gamma and other ionizing radiation on living tissue is more closely related to the amount of energy deposited rather than the charge.

This is called the absorbed dose: The gray (Gy), which has units of (J/kg), is the SI unit of absorbed dose, and is the amount of radiation required to deposit 1 joule of energy in 1 kilogram of any kind of matter.

The rad is the (obsolete) corresponding traditional unit, equal to 0.01 J deposited per kg. 100 rad = 1 Gy. The equivalent dose is the measure of the biological effect of radiation on human tissue. For gamma rays it is equal to the absorbed dose.

The sievert (Sv) is the SI unit of equivalent dose, which for gamma rays is numerically equal to the gray (Gy).

The rem is the traditional unit of equivalent dose. For gamma rays it is equal to the rad or 0.01 J of energy deposited per kg. 1 Sv = 100 rem.

To NOT DO SO IS a little like trying to estimate the number of inches of rainfall by counting only a small sampling of raindrops while they are falling, or in other words HIGHLY MISLEADING, INACCURATE, and simply inexcusable

ALSO, in fact government Geiger counters are calibrated to do just such a thing. a great site for more info on the relationship between Geiger counters CPM and actual radiation content is here

As it is without some form of context from the EPA about how they go about linkingCPM to actual radiation levels/per hour all one can do is look at the data averaged over time and look for spikes, perhaps though the EPA believes that all things are relative so that "frame of reference" and context are special relativeties ( ha cough ha)

I'll repost the solution to EPA's problem from time to time on the thread, for those just dropping in:

I'll repeat this from time to time, so it doesn't get lost in the thread:

OK I got a fix for Chrome, Firefox and Windows:

For Chrome:

Click your upper-right corner wrench icon;
Click OPTIONS on the drop-down list;
Click UNDER THE HOOD on the left side;
Scroll down to SECURITY;
Check Use TLS 1.0
Do not uncheck USE SSL 3.0
Close toolbox window.

Fix for Windows and Firefox HERE.

Open this address to test: RADNET PUBLIC and be sure to scroll down- the map is at the bottom of the page.

If that works, go to Japanese Nuclear Emergency and surf away.

This INCREASES your security and then Rad Net Public will display properly. Technical: Transport Layer Security

I'll edit this in a bit to discuss WHY the EPA did this...

Found this on Google search for EPA SSL 3.0 TLS:

[PDF] T i R l I t T i R l I t Toxics Release Inventory Reporting ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Mar 11, 2011 ... www.epa.gov... •EPA's CDX recently changed from SSL encryption to TLS encryption. 3/11/2011 ... www.epa.gov/tri/training/2011/RY10_Advanced_Concepts.pdf

That gave me the clue as to what was blocking us.

The EPA changed site security protocols, effectively blocking access to RADNET data for millions of Americans without the computer-savvy to reconfigure- a process that took me an entire afternoon to complete with no help from the EPA.

If my life depended on having that data in a timely way to avoid dangerous radiation, I and my family would be dead.

Did they make that protocol change to non-standard browser settings out of coincidence, stupidity, or with the idea of limiting timely access to information for millions of Americans?

You be the judge.

As for me, I will ALWAYS make sure I have multiple sources for critical data, not just US gov't...

If you're with EPA, get the webmaster to put up a prominent issues box with the fix!!

Originally posted by Chakotay

The EPA changed site security protocols, effectively blocking access to RADNET data for millions of Americans without the computer-savvy to reconfigure- a process that took me an entire afternoon to complete with no help from the EPA.

You know, it's funny you keep saying this because the proper settings are the DEFAULT for Chrome.

YOU changed your TLS and SSL settings if they were unchecked. Chrome installs with the proper settings for viewing this page.

It wasn't the EPA's fault that you went tweaking your settings without remembering what you had done.

ETA: Oh, but wait, I'm a disinfo agent. So, I guess I hacked into your computer and changed them, right? It's certainly not your fault that Chrome installed on your system differently than the other millions of systems it's been installed correctly on, and that you couldn't follow my directions on page 3 to check your TLS and SSL settings. It's all a big conspiracy----not you trying desperately to find a conspiracy where there is none, even after you've been repeatedly proved wrong.

Originally posted by 00nunya00

You know, it's funny you keep saying this because the proper settings are the DEFAULT for Chrome.

YOU changed your TLS and SSL settings if they were unchecked. Chrome installs with the proper settings for viewing this page.

It wasn't the EPA's fault that you went tweaking your settings without remembering what you had done.

If you were within reaching range, I'd hand you your head in your hat.

Make your own thread, and quit making up troll comments on an honest thread.

Would the EPA cover up anything? Why Denver's Radiation Count Is So High...

reply to post by Chakotay


LOL, quit making up conspiracies where there are none.

You asked why the EPA is conspiring to keep this info from the public, and you were answered they are not, and then you continued insisting that they're trying to hide and conspire.

Don't like the fact that I'm pointing out the truth and facts? End your thread and admit it was all a big misunderstanding. Quit bumping it with your silly "here's how to overcome the EPA's evil conspiracy settings" posts.

reply to post by 00nunya00

Personal attacks much?

Like to run other people's threads often?

Going to write thread number five soon?

(BUMP)

OK I got a fix for Chrome, Firefox and Windows:

For Chrome:

Click your upper-right corner wrench icon;
Click OPTIONS on the drop-down list;
Click UNDER THE HOOD on the left side;
Scroll down to SECURITY;
Check Use TLS 1.0
Do not uncheck USE SSL 3.0
Close toolbox window.

Fix for Windows and Firefox HERE.

Open this address to test: RADNET PUBLIC and be sure to scroll down- the map is at the bottom of the page.

If that works, go to Japanese Nuclear Emergency and surf away.

reply to post by Chakotay


I like this version much better. Actually, it's perfect----it gives the solution without accusing someone of nefarious intentions you can't even begin to prove. This is actually much more beneficial to ATS, as it doesn't slander and libel a government agency with very serious accusations in a time of emergency. Because they don't particularly like it when someone does something akin to screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Wouldn't want ATS to get sued, right?

reply to post by 00nunya00


Here's a link to some real data coming out: Levels In Rainwater

Meow, asking questions in the middle of a fire is not shouting fire where there is none.

reply to post by Chakotay


Is this a question, or a statement?

The EPA has forced Americans to rely on reports filtered by media and the gov't during this crisis, or to fall back on fledgling private radiation monitoring networks such as Radiation Network and Black Cat Systems.

Personally, I think the EPA's actions are deliberate, and reprehensible.

And thanks for the link, that is good data. But you'd think the EPA would force that page offline if they were trying to hide something, right?