Increase in global radiation levels due to Fukushima fallout?
Evidence of Fukushima Fallout: Increase in Global
“Background” Radiation Levels, Majia’s Blog 2 Jan 2013.
An Enenews poster, Vital1, has been collecting and graphing his
radiation monitoring data. His careful data collection help document
an increase in background radiation over the last year and a half.
I find his data particularly concerning because he is in the southern
hemisphere and therefore is not directly downwind of Fukushima fallout
from the jet stream, which is I believe the most significant
atmospheric conduit of Fukushima fallout outside of Japan.
Furthermore, his data support my empirically based observations that
fallout significantly increased in December of 2011 and January of
2012.
EPA Radnet data indicate large spikes in US west coast cities during
this time period. Furthermore, many people I know living in
California, Arizona, and Nevada experienced “clinical” symptoms of
radiation exposure late winter and early spring 2012 including: bloody
noses; receding gums and dental problems; hair and nail loss; weight
loss and widespread inexplicable stomach problems that could not be
diagnosed by internists and gastroenterologists. Over the summer of
2012 people I knew began experiencing problems in late pregnancy.
Still others, aged in their 40s and 50s, experienced heart
palpitations that could not be explained causally, even with extended
hospital stays.
I have no way of proving these anecdotal symptoms were caused by
Fukushima fallout.
Likewise, I have no way of proving that the anomalies I detected in
wildlife beginning the summer of 2011 were caused by Fukushima
fallout:…….
Vital’s data provide additional empirical evidence that Fukushima
fallout (and any other radiation contamination dumped/released during
that time) has impacted background levels:
Below please find Vital’s comments and links to his graphs:
ere is a chart for December 2012, plus this years monthly average chart.
This December was 43% above the pre-Fukushima 4 year average for
December, making it equal with the month high we had in January 2012.
http://sccc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Caloundra-local-average-background-radiation-levels-December-2012.jpg
The average for the year of 2012 was 21% above the pre-Fukushima 4
year average, see the month average chart.
I have incomplete data for December 2011, as the new Gamma Scout
Geiger Counter had just arrived. It was a while before I set up data
logging on this unit. Didn’t realize how important data logging would
be at the time.
http://sccc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Caloundra-local-average-background-radiation-levels-December-2011.jpg
As you can see from the data I did record for that month, the average
for December 2011 was 26% percent above average. As you can see in
that chart, there were more dynamic swings in background levels,
compared to December 2012.
The data is clearly showing increasing background levels of radiation
over the last two years, at my location on the central east coast of
Australia.
Full historical data can be found here.
http://sccc.org.au/archives/2630 http://majiasblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/evidence-of-fukushima-fallout-increase.html
3 Comments »
Leave a comment
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Dear Christina,
Out of general interest – please feel free to publish or not publish this. There are three of notes on those levels:
a) The typical gamma monitor (like the ‘scout’ one) would have a variability of at least +/- 10-15%, even the best ones will have about 10% difference. Basically, I switch it on and it shows me 0.13; then I switch it off and on again – and I can expect anything between 0.11 and 0.15 – which is perfectly OK due to the statistical variability of the equipment. Plus all this stuff is normally calibrated only for caesium-137 and if there is something else around – one can get quite weird results.
b) The normal background is extremely variable. For comparison, the place where I live (in Perth Hills) – some places in my backyard are about 0.25 – 0.30; just two weeks ago I’ve seen a gravel road with 0.40, on the oil rig out in the sea or on the ship in blue water it would be around 0.02-0.03, and in one area in Kenya I’ve measured 3.50 three months ago.
c) The last point – solar activity. I have used an environmental monitor with the long probe (30 cm) and detected the difference of at least +/- 20% in readings of low natural backgrounds (around 0.1-0.2) – depending on the fact how I hold this probe – vertically or horizontally.
Please pass this info to the poster who put the charts up, if you see fit.
Kind regards and a Happy New Year!
Nick
LikeLike
A calibrated Gamma Scout Geiger Counter was used to log this data. It has been in the same location during all this data logging period. It is measuring the day average local background radiation level, using 60 second data logging.
This method was used to eliminated the natural variability in measurement, that can occur if you move from location to location, as you describe.
The data collected after the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster day and month averages were then compared to the 4 year pre-Fukushima Nuclear disaster recorded data average. The 4 year average prior to the Fukushima Nuclear disaster, was 0.10 uSv/hr.
LikeLike
Thank you very much for the reply. This makes the issue much more clear – as I did not know how the monitoring was done. As I am sure you know – this can be done by simply switching the monitor on once a day, or 365 days in a year, 24-hour logging.
As you did describe – there is a little doubt that the background values have indeed increased. Sure, there is ‘statistical variability’ but for the ‘original’ 0.10 one would expect, say, the variance of between 0.08 to 0.12, probably not more than that (especially taking into account the data logging). However, I must note that I did study the gamma scout manual just now and have not seen an exact ‘variability’ value – it seems to be somewhere between 5 and 7%, so I’d say assuming the difference of 10-15% will most definitely cover all possible statistical variation – and an increase from 0.10 to 0.14 is, of course, outside this range.
Of course, this may be due to Fukushima. But, by the same token, this may be due to a neighbour putting some fertiliser in his/her backyard or using gravel for garden paths… The only sure way to get to the ‘origin of the thing’ would be to use one of ‘radioisotope identifiers’ – those things are quite complicated and expensive and at low levels will not identify the isotope straight away. Though one could download a spectrum and study it on the computer screen to see what is causing elevated levels. For example, when there was a dispute in one of the Asian ports – “why the background here is a double of normal value”, one side was saying that it is all from the natural granite all around the place (that has elevated uranium/radium-226). It took me quite a while to take the measurements, study the charts and come to the conclusion that what is causing the double values is the decay product of thorium, thallium-208 (emitting quite strong gammas) – thus clearly showing that there was a spillage on mineral concentrate containing thorium in the area.
I do use my ‘exploranium-135plus’ relatively often and so far was unable to identify any ‘gamma peaks’ that could be attributed to any artificial isotopes, but that is in Western Australia and around Africa – so I would not know the situation in Eastern Australia…
Kind regards and thank you again for the reply
Nick
LikeLike