nuclear-news

Can we trust public officials on nuclear radiation?

I wish I could trust public officials to honestly appraise the public of conditions, risks, and mitigation strategies but I cannot.

I worry that even the environmental science on Fukushima and other radioactive contamination processes will be corrupted by capture.

Beta Spikes and Rising Radiation Levels http://majiasblog.blogspot.jp/2014/10/yesterday-and-perhaps-day-before.html
Yesterday and perhaps the day before Phoenix encountered a radioactive plume: I don’t know where it came from. It could have derived from Fukushima, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, or Palo Verde nuclear power plant. In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter because the overarching point is that nuclear power plants are contaminating our environment with man-made radionuclides (and I do mean “man” made).

After seeing this uptick in beta count, I perused the other west coast sites. Many Radnet sites are no longer reporting beta data at all, while gamma data patterns look odd,

The EPA Radnet data over the last three years have not been reliable because of many problems with collection, inexplicable temporary outages, and permanently offline sites. I strongly suspect these problems are deliberate because the EPA Inspector General chastised the Radnet system, and Gina McCarthy who was responsible for EPA’s atmospheric radiation monitoring, for poor performance during the March 2011 Fukushima disaster and yet the problems cited in their report remain unaddressed and now Gina is heading the EPA. Poor performance was richly rewarded.

My guess is that there have been deliberate efforts made to halt and/or censor atmospheric radiation reporting at locations that show strong beta surges with incoming radiation plumes from Fukushima and other spewing nuclear power plants.

The public has been re-sensitized to radiation contamination by the Fukushima disaster and so industry and its captured regulatory agencies are on the offensive. Atmospheric radiation data are selectively released, especially beta counts because they are easy to compare for novices.

I can tell you that in my observations of EPA’s Radnet beta charts for over 3 years now and from running reports from 2010-2009, that normal beta background in the US rarely extended beyond 60 cpm in the highest radiation areas prior to Fukushima UNLESS there was a plume from somewhere coming through (probably from re-fueling at nuclear power plants, which was recently documented by Dr. Ian Fairlee to raise background radiation levels substantially).

Many locations in the US that used to average under 20 cpm with very few spikes are running much higher now, as indicated in Radnet data for California cities located directly on the coast (e.g., LA, San Diego, San Francisco). West coast cities with mountains to the east of them (Bakersfield, Fresno, Sacramento, Yuma) typically have the highest beta levels, although cities under the jet stream in Colorado and the Dakotas also have huge spikes at times.

Private monitoring efforts all over the US and also within Australia reported at Enenews post-your-radiation-readings-discussion forum have found local radiation levels to have increased by 2 to 3 times in North America and slightly less in Australia since Fukushima. See here

However, until recently, the big spikes we saw in late 2011 and early 2012 in North America seemed to have subsided. Now I see that Phoenix is running high beta counts (like a patient coming down with a fever). Other west coast cities are also.

Is Fukushima now producing more atmospheric radiation than it did through the latter half of 2012 and most of 2013?

I don’t know what is going on but the new rising levels have me concerned.

I wish I could trust public officials to honestly appraise the public of conditions, risks, and mitigation strategies but I cannot.

I worry that even the environmental science on Fukushima and other radioactive contamination processes will be corrupted by capture.

For example, a friend shared with me this slick new radiation monitoring sight called Fukushima Inform available here http://fukushimainform.wordpress.com/about

The site seems completely neutral until one looks carefully at the board of directors. Director names are not listed alphabetically so one is led to conclude that those names listed first are of greater import than those names listed last.

Here is the name listed first:  Dr. Robert Walker (Chair) President & CEO, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

I’m guessing that Dr. Walker, CEO of Atomic Energy of Canada, is not a neutral party. It concerns me that his bias, in conjunction with his presumed leadership role among the board of directors, might adversely impact the environmental science on Fukushima eco-system effects through funding decisions and through controlling rights for data publication, the latter of which was a practice that occurred with BP grants to researchers studying oil spill effects in the Gulf of Mexico.

Everywhere I look I see WILLING CAPTURE evidenced by the steadfast refusal to step back and look overall at what is happening to many Pacific sea mammals and fish, among other life forms that are clearly suffering greatly from hazards that have yet to be fully disclosed because to do so would call into question powerful military-industrial institutional matrices.

January 2, 2015 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, USA