Black Cat rad Monitors just peaked 775 in Ontario

Well, we're left with the rather consistently highest readings on the map from the same meter. Higher than Denver and Nevada! They've ranged from 14 to 30. I wonder what detection range they have since these all seem to be so spread out and localized. Someone could set up next to a landfill and be getting readings downwind. It's too bad there wasn't a network of thousands on-line, but I appreciate what we've got.

Lot of numbers tossed around but what d\are the reading? rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels? Makes a BIG difference ya know

And if these are individuals doing the readings, how do you know he has it calibrated correctly? And if he was living next to me my garage would likely make those readings way off All those betafites I have. I suppose one day I should put them in a lead box

Originally posted by zorgon
Lot of numbers tossed around but what d\are the reading? rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels? Makes a BIG difference ya know

And if these are individuals doing the readings, how do you know he has it calibrated correctly? And if he was living next to me my garage would likely make those readings way off

All those betafites I have. I suppose one day I should put them in a lead box

They are in CPM (counts per minute) which, as you know from other threads, is totally worthless unless you know the calibration of the detector used. And considering that the BCS doesn’t list that type, and considering the BCS network uses a range of meters…. That number is totally meaningless.

There is no way in heck to figure out how many rads, rem or what ever it is………

It's counts per minute, the actual measurements being in ubq. Please note what is bolded below ...

Counts per minute (CPM)

The counts per minute is an aggregate measurement that detects all decay events at a particular point. This could be alpha particles, beta particles or mixed gamma/beta, gamma/alpha, alpha/beta actual decays. This can be used with a conversion factor, knowing the type and composition of materials to convert to Roentgen or Coulomb per kilogram. Counts per minute can be useful when detector efficiency is in question.

Ionizing Radiation Units
en.wikipedia.org...

It states on Black Cat systems site that the range is the actual reading, and deviation is measured by three times the square root of the measurement, either way. So a reading of nine has a square root of three, the deviation is three times that, giving a range of +9/-9 or 0 to 18. Since it read "something", the variation won't be as low as zero. Consistently higher readings are not "useless" because they still indicate higher readings on balance.

They're a first alert system only. The next step was to glance at the emergency services for reports, twitter, find more local people, etc. No need to get too technical about an exact figure if the numbers do get extremely high.

hisz.rsoe.hu...

reply to post by Northwarden


The problem is that unless you know the type of detector being used, you don’t have any idea how much the radiation has actually increased.

Remember, the natural background radiation level varies by a large margin across the US. Some places have over an order of magnitude (10x) higher level other places.

That “three times square root” sounds all nice and technical, but it’s meaningless.

A detector could be in a low radiation area and it would be tripping when ever some radon decay products (from lands far away) come down with the rain. Another area could be in a high background radiation area and that would make the deviation margin (calculated by their formula) so high that it would never trip short of direct exposure to a large radioactive source.

And their use of alpha and beta capable detectors in the network also throws a monkey wrench into the works. That fact makes it way to sensitive to radon and radon decay products. If they are in a high radon area, the reading will skyrocket if the leave for a vacation, close up the house and shut off the AC. Remember that most of them have the detector in the house. If the close up the house, then it will trap radon, and the reading will go through the roof.

And earthquakes also have a tendency to release a lot of radon into the air (from ground fracturing), so you will get large radon spikes after local earthquakes.

All that makes for a poorly implemented, poorly documented network with meaningless data.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


I agree it could be better, but to look at what is already in place ...

The people who set up these monitors have a RAD guide to work with, and although this appears more of a trust network, should be setting them up in good conscience and in accordance to guidelines and their own understanding of radiation/sources.

No one is going to want to set one up next to a hazard because they know that millions of eyes could be investigating the place they put the monitor! If it happens, and there is a source, then great - we located something and the monitor worked out well.

Secondly, unusual hazards can be investigated by contacting the site owner. And he has been contacted, in regards to the NY readings. I'd rather see something not in the hands of a government agency, how about you?

If we see a radiation device operating with abnormally high numbers, then it is something worth looking into. Everything that happens is regional to some location, and some coverage is better than none. They may not pick up all radiation sources, but they will pick up Gamma, and Alpha, Beta, and Gamma with three of the four detectors they supply.

Gamma radiation, also known as gamma rays (denoted as γ), is electromagnetic radiation of high frequency (very short wavelength). They are produced by sub-atomic particle interactions such as electron-positron annihilation, neutral pion decay, fusion, fission or inverse Compton scattering in astrophysical processes. Because gamma rays are a form of ionizing radiation, they pose a health hazard.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, I think we should be thankful for what we have. Do you propose a better alternative that's open to the public?

reply to post by Northwarden


The problem is their “concept” of radiation detection. And not to knock you, but your post is showing some of the twisted logic too. That is caused by reading too much fudd on the internet. In a lot of situations, you don’t want to detect all radiation.

Alpha and beta particles will only travel a short distance in the air. So, if you have a detector that can sense them, and the detector is located IN the house, then any alpha and beta counts will be coming from stuff “INSIDE THE HOUSE”!!!!!!!

That is not monitoring the radiation in the “environment”, it is monitoring the radiation INSIDE THE HOUSE”!!!!!!!!!

And in addition to that, since it is a “Geiger” counter that means that the output is not proportional. So 100 alpha particles will give the same reading as 100 gamma particles. The energy of 100 alpha particles does not equal the energy of 100 gamma particles.
That is why a Geiger tube is calibrated for gamma radiation.
Measuring any other type of radiation field with a Geiger tube is purely arbitrary and has no meaning beyond general limited uses.

If the people that made those networks dictated the types of detectors to use, and where they would be used, then you could gain useful information from the readings.

If they are going to be located inside the house. Then you want to restrict the detectors to the type that can only detect gamma or higher energy particles.

The side benefit of a tube that is only sensitive to gamma rays is that you wont see the radiation from radon decay products which cause nuisance spikes in the data.

If it is going to be used for detecting gamma, beta and possibly alpha, then it has to be outside, and it has to be a proportional counter that can detect what type of particles are impacting it, with a known calibration for each type of radiation detected.


That is all that is needed. Some uniformity in equipment, and simple guidelines for type and placement. With the requirement that the type of equipment located at each site, and location on the site, will be documented and available to the person looking at the data.

All the ones I have seen so far, have no guidelines at all!!!!!!!

I found this yesterday, April 27 at 7:30 am. It cleared up to a reading of 4, then bottomed out to 1.



At present, there is a very high reading that's still current. The capture is 9 pm, April 28th.



www.blackcatsystems.com...

Any cause for concern?

edit. Ignore. I zoomed in and it's a 6 and a 16, close together.
Not trying to alarm anyone without good cause!

reply to post by Northwarden


616 in AZ - I would be concerned. Not sure what to think of these readings.
Japan sometimes showing low readings, other more unlikely places
showing high readings. I would like to know just how dependable
these readings are. How much of what we get in readings are due
to glitches?. Its getting more difficult to know what to go by and what
to do to get the right information, especially regarding radiation readings
and that is something we all need to know.

reply to post by crazydaisy


Sorry about that ... when I zoomed in on the readings at other times, the numbers remained the same.
But not this time.

All sorts of things happen in Oklahoma, a search reveals, but there's no mention of radiation in very recent news.
I've searched through ATS and public news for a time, but could locate nothing immediately outstanding to suggest a problem or another warning.

So, a new alert is here, and can anyone verify with additional readings? Sorry these images are so small on screen; the originals are twice the size they appear here.

Yesterday @ 11:32 pm est (45 cpm):



Today @ 10:04 pm est (82 cpm):



It seems a steady rise over the past day, and remains high. There's a reading creeping higher in South Carolina as well, at 29 cpm.

www.blackcatsystems.com...

Still at 82 this morning, so bump; at least a few people might want to be aware of the streak.

It's "only" cpm, but a consistantly high cpm means higher radiation levels.