Special thanks for to NETC user Wreckraider (in a previous thread) for directing our attention to this site. While NETC user Wreckraider has not been able to confirm or deny the information or true purpose/goal of this Veterans Today website. The site is worth looking, thanks again.

WARNING - BE SAFE AND DISABLE FLASH PLUG-INs BEFORE GOING TO THE WEBSITE BELOW.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/17/your-radiation-this-week-no-26/

Here is a quote from that site http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/17/your-radiation-this-week-no-26/

I think October has been a concern so far, as seen by my outside graph.

Bob Nichols, the author of Your Radiation Week, totally misrepresents the EPA Radnet gamma and beta station data reported on Netc. He starts by taking the highest peak reading for both the Station 5 EPA gamma, and Station 4 EPA beta, and then adds them to get the highest cpm possible. Then he compares this number to the advertised background for a SE International Digilert 100 of 5 to 20 cpm. In fact his times normal is calculated by taking the highest number of the combined EPA beta and gamma peaks for the week, and dividing this by five, which is the lowest advertised background cpm for the Digilert 100.

He basically is saying that this:


Should be recording the same cpm as this:


Just think of all the taxpayer money the EPA could have saved by buying Digiler 100 Gc, instead of those complicated air monitoring stations.

Yes, I know your being sarcastic with the above quote. Nice analysis of the authors breakdown, thank you. Radiation analysis can be very difficult and I am not even close to being an expert on radiation. Using the same type of equipment when doing a comparison is important unless your just pointing out a pattern between elevated readings and the timeline of those readings. What I do know is that my readings are real and using a GMC-200 ($85) on the intake filter side of a HEPA air purifier I have a great early warning detection unit.

Those spikes are interesting indeed. I'm planning an outdoor filter setup as well. Assuming you are not changing the filter, I guess these spikes represent either:
a) particles are stopped by the filter and radiation is dropping afterward due to short half-life (so no Cesium-137 or Strontium-90 but maybe Radon or Iodine-131), or
b) particles or gasses are so small they are passing right through the filter so based on the pulse shape the radioactive air mass has a rather defined front and back edge (or the particles/gasses have short half-lives again).

Since it's a HEPA filter, I guess a) is more likely. Comparing nearby sites, the St. Charles detector on a Holmes filter has spikes coincident with 2 of your 3 recent one (Oct 10 and 18). Oddly, those peaks seem to be a little ahead in time. Do you know the wind direction those days? Prevailing wind is from the west, so maybe this is just a data submission / time stamp thing. Did it rain those days or was it overcast with an inversion? The EPA told me natural increases can occur during these times (but I have not been able to verify that statement).

I change my filter around once a month, sometimes slightly longer. I believe the graphs drop off shows decay. To answer your question if it was raining during my spikes, no not every time. I have confirmed using my outside radiation monitoring station unit that much like the history of Chernobyl has proven, rain can bring a rise in radiation readings. I disagree with the EPA's assumption that all of that radiation is "normal" radiation. I have also seen clear patterns with a rise in radiation from time to time in the same path as the jetstream.

Here is a great video of nuclear expert Professor Chris Busby talking about radon and rain.

THIS IS A MUST WATCH VIDEO!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ_zACG1wC0

Yup, the EPA taxpayer line above was sarcasm, but I wasn't sure how to use the smilies on this forum -- lets see if this works

I think that the spikes were seeing are actual increases in radiation, and not an occasional hot particle caught in the filter. The filter increases sensitivity as described at this site: http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/acc4.html

As you know Japan is covered head to toe with detectors, and it was this english website from the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Health that convinced me.

http://monitoring.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/en/

I compared some hourly measurements from their different air monitoring sites, and found the peaks and troughs lined up fairly closely. I was also fascinated by the Shinjuku air monitoring station graph from March 2011, which caught the initial fallout and steady decay.

I looked at Veterans Today, Your Radiation This Week No 30, By Bob Nichols on November 14, 2015.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/14 ... k-no-30-2/

Bob's numbers simply didn't make any sense. They didn't match anything that Netc reported, and he listed them as Gamma, Beta, but many of the EPA sites don't have Beta data. To see what's going on I did a EPA RadNet query for the top two cities in Bob's report. (The query tool on the EPA Central Data Exchange is extremely tedious btw. Pulling up charts on Netc is far more user friendly, and nearly instant compared to the minute or two it takes pull up data no the EPA site.)

What I found is Bob is now adding the highest reading from both the gamma energy range 4 & 5 data to get cities over 1000cpm.


1655 + 1049 = 2704


997 + 662 = 1659

I'll let folks reading this make up their own mind, but there's really no reason to pick two energy ranges and add them together, except to get more cities on the list of over 1000 cpm.