Yeah, this fallout and the mysterious way it moves is no easy task for regular people to figure out. Yes I'm 95% certain it is coming in on the jet
stream from fukushima Japan. I thought potrblog explained it very well. As for other stations showing it.... have a look at how many states between
the rockies and Minnesota aren't checking. Lots. Especially along the Canadian border.
Some months ago a civilian U-tube rad checker in the Chicago area had picked up some hot rain. He was under the jet stream so I watched it, and it
curved under the great lakes and came up north of the St. Lawrence into my area 15 hours later. Sure enough, not only did I get hot rain, I got higher
readings than the man in Chicago.
All I can say is the more you test, watch and the more you speak with other civilian testers, you start to see patterns. First they're just hunches.
Then it happens again and again. Then you know. If my rain blows up from the south it reads normal background or slightly elevated. If it's jet
stream from the west.... it could be anything from triple background, to a lot higher.
Remember, the Radnet folks are testing the air inside their homes. I check the rain and I do a few 1 hour air tests every week. At least by doing lots
of 1 hour air tests at different times of day, I know what my avereage background is very well. If my average background starts to inch up more [I'm
already on the high side of normal], I won't need any more convincing.
I bought my geiger last November and I must have about 20 rain check videos by now. It's calibrated to cesium 137 [beta]. it's in microsieverts per
hour and I'm learning all I can, as fast as I can.
You know what? As a general rule the first six months my rain test readings are about 5 to 10 X background. The last six months the readings are more
like 9 to 30 X background. You don't need to be an "Expert" to know it's not getting better.
Hey TD, North Anna is a mess and I'm sure a few are venting because they know it will be blamed on fuk but Anna's on the east coast and it's not in
meltdown [Hopefully lol]. I don't think it wouldn't effect this area, especially with the wind directions.
Alekto, I had never seen one of these before so I have a question. What isotopes are they calibrated for? The add doesn't say.
"SoftBank claims that it'll be accurate to within 20 percent, and doesn't recommend its use in critical situations. Still, it should be able to
provide a ballpark figure for anyone concerned about their environs."
I sent our bud "potrblog" a question about this vid. My geiger according to the soeks rep, is only calibrated to cesium 137 [beta] but it can be
sensative to other beta or gamma, so I could be reading 0.50 microsieverts per hour and it is 2 uSv/h, depending on how that batch of radioactivecrap
is mixed in the rain. My question was, Doesn't this radiation travel equally? If I'm getting 15 or 30 X background in C137, wouldn't I also be
getting all the other nasty isotopes at 15 or 30 X background? This was in reference to potr saying that he thought 4 cpm of his reading was really
nasty long-life stuff.
Somehow we have to make fallout understandable to the rest of us
I want to thank him for a great answer.
Give me a visual answer and I get it everytime.
Here is his answer..... Re:A question
Different radioactive materials decay at different rates. Its like candles burning at different rates. The candles that burn "decay" the fastest are
the brightest but also burn out the quickest. The candles that burn the slowest give off light for a long time, but are also are harder to see.
The long half life stuff is like the slow burning candle; it is more difficult to "see" with the geiger counter, but it hangs around for a long
time. It hangs around long enough that what ever falls in the next rain storm adds to what ever is there from the last storm. So over a long time
period, things can get very bright from the build up of a lot of slow burning candles.
The amount of build up is one of the things we look to estimate with our tests. What we do with test samples is let them sit in a lead cave while and
measure how their radioactivity changes, simultaneously we measure how the background radiation changes. We subtract the 2 measurements to see what is
there above background. In essence we're letting all the fast burning candles burn out so that we can see how many slow burning candles are left.
That which is left is the stuff that can build up in the environment.
Fortunately, so far, the on going build up (post explosion) here seems to be slow. Last year's drought played a role in that. Usually (but not
always) we find between 1 and 4 cpm left that just does not go away in the time frame we have to measure it.
In regards to the radiation traveling equally, it does not. How far it goes, how long it stays up in the air, and how much comes down in the rain
depends on the properties of the element. For example, radioactive gasses are harder to wash out. On the other hand, particles can wash out of the air
more easily; but even that depends on how soluble they are in water and/or whether or not they are attracted to static charges.
Our measurements are still a work in progress, but our best guess is that worst was the initial explosion, and that post explosion build up in the
soil and plants is happening very slowly here in the Saint Louis area. I also suspect that it is a lot worse on the west coast.
Were expect to put out a video soon on the results we got back from some professional testing. Right now we think the best risk mitigation is to stay
out of the rain, and avoid any foods from the west coast and points further west.
Ok, my rain last Friday night
So here it is Sunday Oct 28th, 2 pm.... still raining here, so I did the ole windshield swipe with the paper towel.
What was that about "natural radon" washes out through the rain in a few hours? This is after two days of rain.
Now at the same time my down spout [150 ft away] was reading 0.45, so maybe like in Japan you can get a different reading every 20 ft?
One of potrblogs vids from last January explaining how the jet stream split the fallout into both hemispheres. As far as I know the spike in Australia
was found to be from a local uranium mine, but the rest of this vid is right on the mark.
Here is side of the elementally school. Oct 24th 2012
Date city is 12.7km(8 miles) from Fukuichi and it takes just 23 min by car
1000 X background ? at 0.07 [Normal average] on ground.
Some feed back from a smart friend on that July 011 Tokyo radiation reading video of over 28 microsieverts.
Peak @ 22 Micro Sievert per hour = 245 Milli Sievert per Year:
This is the equivalent of 816 mammo grams. Fired on Fetus, Children, everyone walking by. Only External. ratical.org...
Now I know some will disagree with me. We all know those public gumball machine geigers, in Japan are phony and have been rigged from day 1. Well,
I'm going to step out and limb and call "safecast" just as rigged and phony. If I'm wrong I'll eat my words later, but I never see any shocking
numbers from them. I think some people look not to find rads, if you get my drift?
Ok, maybe someone can translate a bit? Where in Japan? How far from fukushima? Which direction from fuk would be spiffy too!
Nihonmatsu ... about 60+ km north west from Daiichi. The plume from the R #1 explosion blew this way. The Japanese folks I know say it's been hot
here since March 12th 011... and it's double the distance of the evacuation zone.
I haven't posted in a while because I can't really contribute in any meaningful of substantive fashion. But I just wanted to say that I am still
reading and watching with interest and your efforts at keeping us informed are greatly appreciated. I continue to wish more could be done.
This man is great. I have the highest respect for him. He does the leg work. I'm wondering if he has just given us a clue to what might be an
Indicator of fallout? By the looks of this the rads spiked when he walked under the forest canopy. Wow. Like the trees overhead hold it in? So maybe
some 1 hour tests in the forest would show an elevated background? It's sure worth a try.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.