Folks, we appreciate your interest in the Radiation Network, and thank you for your support.  You may send us an email, but we will not be able to respond to most.  Instead, this Message page will address issues that you raise.  So please read this page and the archived Messages in lieu of, or before emailing us.  We update it occasionally, and it will answer a lot of your questions.

Email:    tim@radiationnetwork.com

Update: 2/05/12, 9:40 A.M. - Private Network open to the Public

Some viewers asked about high readings in Virginia on 2/2/12, from stations denoted on the map by a White Circle.  That designation signifies a Sim, short for Simulation, meaning those stations did not have a Geiger counter connected, and instead were running a Simulation to demonstrate the action of a typical Geiger counter, including at elevated levels in some cases.  In short, the readings were not real.  Study the Map Legend at the bottom left corner of the map.

This brings up a point which some viewers may not understand.  While the Radiation Network is privately owned and operated, it is nevertheless open to the responsible public.  All  you need do is make a one time purchase of the underlying GeigerGraph Software that runs the network.  Many of you have shown strong and loyal interest in our network, so you might consider joining, even if you do not have a compatible Geiger counter.

To review, membership in the Network gives you access to a fully interactive Radiation Map of all countries, with zoom and other navigation features, clickable ID of Monitoring Stations and Nuclear Sites, real time access to minute-by-minute Radiation Count data for every station, and participation in an integrated Chat with other Network members to discuss radiation levels, interpretation of alerts, logistics of monitoring setups, etc.  Once you become a member, you will never need to return to the live web page anymore, because you will do all of your monitoring within the powerful and information-laden software itself.

So please feel free to join our Network, even if you don't have a Geiger counter at present.  Thanks.

Update: 1/25/12, 7:30 A.M. - Follow up to Taos Alert

Since the Taos alert, others have chimed in, including PotrBlog, who first corrected me on the jet stream flow, and then offered an interesting theory in explanation of the elevated detection.  See this youtube link for full details:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P015zuShnUg&feature=share

PotrBlog suggests that the Taos radiation detection is Fukushima based, related to a nearby earthquake occurring on about January 11th, then carried by the jet stream, the southern edge of which flowed over Taos.  Contrary to my instinctual thinking, PotrBlog maintains that the fallout zone of jet stream borne radiation is not the high speed center of the flow, but instead along the relatively slower and rippled edges, which in this case, positioned right over Taos.  Without taking a stance on PotrBlog's theory, I find it interesting and wanted the rest of you to be aware of it.

Update: 1/19/12, 11:30 A.M. - Radiation Alert from Taos

On January 18th, at about 5:48 PM local time, the Nokaoi station in the Taos area of New Mexico broadcast a Radiation Alert over the Network.  See the graph at right, depicting elevated readings averaging over 100 CPM (Counts per Minute) for a sustained period of about 20 minutes, then subsiding to near normal background levels of about 60 to 70 CPM.

For context, the station is operating the Inspector Geiger counter, which is a high count rate model built around an ultra-sensitive pancake style Geiger- Mueller tube.  Between that high count rate, and the high elevation of Taos at 7,300 feet, their background count of about 60 CPM is therefore considered normal.

During the alert period, the station reports they were monitoring indoors on the second floor of an adobe structure, with the instrument sitting on the bed, monitoring the environment only - no specific materials were being scanned at the time.  A few minutes of outdoor monitoring preceded the graphed activity shown above, which readings were also elevated.  It was neither raining nor snowing at the time, and the wind was still, against relatively clear skies, although the station reported a "heavy orange cloud" on the western horizon at dusk, reminiscent of an LA sunset that is color enhanced by smog.

So what was the cause?  In short, we don't know, but the fact that the elevated radiation levels were sustained for many minutes, versus a momentary spike, and then fell back to normal levels, tends to rule out a false alert that our network occasionally generates from an instrument glitch or the like.  A jet stream map from last evening located the flow too far north to be a factor, its southern edge dipping down only as far as Colorado.  Did the orange cloud somehow relate to the elevated radiation levels?  Was there a passing radioactive "plume" from Japan?  Or perhaps a downwind release from Los Alamos National Lab to the west?  These are speculative questions only.  A greater number of Monitoring Stations would provide a chance to corroborate readings, so that must be the continuing mission of the Radiation Network.

Update: 11/27/11, 9:00 A.M. - Radioactive Rain - Natural or Contaminated?

On multiple occasions since April, we have reported to you the detection of radiation from rainwater, by stations on this network, and here is yet another example.  The Seattle WA station, which operates a real-time, rainwater capture and radiation scan feature (see the 10/9/11 Update), registered a level of radiation on the morning of November 21st high enough to momentarily exceed the 100 CPM (Counts per Minute) Alert level on our network.  Rainfall had moved into his area, and raised his detection from normal background of 36 CPM to about 85 CPM for an extended period.  The graph at right shows the radiation level subsiding over the ensuing 2 hours.

To review, the Geiger counters that drive the Radiation Network give only a total radiation count, and lack the ability to identify by isotope, and given that the presence of certain isotopes provides a clue to the source of radiation, we have been unable to say whether these radioactive rainfall detections are Fukushima in origin, or naturally occurring.

But this is all changing as of recent.  We now have 1 to 2 stations on our network investing in the analytical tools needed to determine isotope content.  This is specialized and expensive equipment that combines a Gamma Scintillation Detector with a Multi-Channel Analyzer, to perform Gamma Spectroscopy and quantify energy levels.  These measured energies serve as a sort of fingerprint or DNA marker for each isotope, so for instance, a naturally occurring component of rainfall like a Radon gas daughter product will show a different signature than will an Iodine-131 contaminant.  Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this for those wanting greater detail:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_spectroscopy

So the plan is to use this diagnostic equipment to analyze rainwater, soil, and food samples for Radiation Network members, at least for starters.  We will report what we find, so stay tuned.  I should acknowledge that other institutions are already conducting this type of analysis, so what comes out of this network should be considered an additional and independent source beyond Government agency or University research.

Update: 10/30/11, 6:30 P.M. - Radiation Report from Japan

Some viewers of the Radiation Maps on our Network wonder why radiation levels in Japan seem to be lower than those in the US in some instances.  For example, of the stations in Japan reporting in real time as I write this, their average readings are about 14 CPM (Counts per Minute), in contrast to some stations in the US showing levels in the 30's and 40's.  Well, the explanation of that difference is simple.  First of all, our network is fed by readings in CPM because that is what almost all of the contributing detectors send out of their data ports, and as we have stressed many times, not all detectors are equal in the design and size of the sensor, or GM (Geiger-Mueller) tube that they are built around.  It just so happens that most of our Japan stations use "standard tubed" Geiger counters, while many stations in America use the ultra-sensitive pancake-tubed detectors, which have about a 3 to 1 higher count rate than standard tubes.  So whenever you see readings in the 30 or 40's, it is usually because the station is running a pancake tubed Geiger counter.

Unfortunately, that has led to some understandable confusion, but you see, the Radiation Network is an equal opportunity practitioner, i.e. we allow almost any model of radiation detector to contribute to our network - we are non-discriminatory.  But because of the differences, we need to do a better job of providing context for the readings.  A future version of the underlying software that runs the network will incorporate a technical database of the different models of compatible detectors, and offer an "Equalizer" function for those who want to try to adjust for the different GM tubes in the various Geiger counters.

But back to Japan.  Those average readings of 14 CPM are from sea level stations monitoring indoors, located in the Tokyo/Yokohama metroplex, as well as the Sendai area farther north and closer to Fukushima.  So what conclusions are we to draw from those readings?  Well, unless one ventures into the evacuation zone around Fukushima, environmental radiation levels elsewhere in Japan are pretty normal to slightly elevated.  We have said before that one must be within 20 to 60 miles of a Fukushima like emission to get an elevated detection just "in the air".

Having said that, many reports come back from Japan about elevated radiation levels from rainfall, along with hot spots of soil contamination.  Here is one such study from one of our stations in Yokohama - "These are all averages of 10 minute total Counts Per Minute as measured by the CRM-100 around our apartment."

"In conclusion, radiation tends to be slightly lower inside than outside, and very small hot spots are being created around ditches and other drainage areas.  This is also reasonably consistent with other experiments at a nearby park where I saw a radiation drop from 20 to 30 CPM, to less than 10 CPM when I entered a metal tower (without open windows)."

Thanks to our "Yokohama Rad" station for this report.  He added that an increasing number of radiation maps are finally being released, which tend to show radiation apparently scattered by the wind.  The data generated by the folks at safecast.org includes a couple of maps that show the radiation they measured as they drove through Fukushima Prefecture.  Definitely check out safecast because the number of their data points is quite large.

Update: 10/9/11, 6:15 P.M. - Another Real Time Rainwater Scan

The Seattle WA member station of the Radiation Network, the same one that gave us a demonstration of a Mobile Monitoring Station (see Update 7/24/11), has built an outdoor Radiation Monitoring Station with a real time Rainwater Capture accessory (photo at right).  The goal is the same as what the acomfort station conceived (see 9/10/11 Update), but Seattle's design is quite different, yet apparently just as effective.

Look at the graph below, from 9/19/11.  Overlaid on top is a third party weather program showing rainfall (bright green) in the Seattle vicinity at the same time that he was monitoring outdoors with his rainwater capture feature.  Notice the ebb and flow of radiation levels, which rose as high as the 90's in CPM (Counts per Minute), about 3 times his normal background of 32 CPM.  Interestingly, his elevated readings were just below the Radiation Network's 100 CPM Alert level.

As to the details of Seattle's setup, he is using the Inspector pocket Geiger counter, the one with the high count rate GM (Geiger-Mueller) tube, seen in the top photo, laying flat in the center of the feature, protected from direct overhead rainfall.  The sloped contraption above is the rain collector and guides the water to a reservoir underneath the Inspector's GM tube, which is on the back, or bottom of the instrument when laid flat.  That reservoir has a seep hole for water to drain out and make way for a new sample.

Meanwhile, the feature incorporates vents to allow free flowing air to pass under the detector, for picking up possible contamination.  Because of the rainy and humid environment synonymous with the Pacific Northwest, Seattle has affixed a heater to add a drying process to control dew.  And all this while Seattle is connected in real time to the Radiation Network, so the rest of us can benefit from his scanning data.

In summary, the Seattle WA station is detecting radiation in his rainwater, and on more than one occasion.  To review, there can be a naturally occurring radioactive constituent to rainfall, namely daughter products of radon gas that make up part of the atmosphere, and according to one expert, also tritium.  What we don't know is whether those are the only cause of Seattle's radioactive rainfall, so this detection setup is only a first step.

On a lighter note, beyond the functionality, when you look at Seattle WA's construction from a different angle, it seems worthy of Best in Show within the category of Outdoor Sculpture, from the School of Industrial Arts :-)

Update: 9/17/11, 10:30 A.M. - More Nuclear Sites

Based on feedback from network members and other interested viewers of the Radiation Network, I just added a few more nuclear sites to the Radiation Map, as follows:

Thanks to all of you who contributed to updating our Nuclear Site database.

Update: 9/15/11, 9:00 A.M. - "American in Paris", er uh "Paraguay"!!!

We just added a Radiation Map for South America because we have a new Monitoring Station in Paraguay of all places, operated by an American.  But beyond the surprise, we heartily welcome him.  His station represents the first on our Network from the Southern hemisphere, which may be relevant. So check out the new map.

Update: 9/10/11, 11:30 P.M. - NYC well equipped

As the nation plans for the anniversary of 9/11/01, the task is twofold - to both memorialize, and to guard against another attack.  In the aftermath of that tragedy 10 years ago, when most Americans deemed the possibility of a repeat attack quite high, New York City was preparing.  They contacted us in search of radiation detectors for their first responders, and we worked with the manufacturer, International Medcom, to furnish 500 units of the Radalert 50 Digital Pocket Geiger counters to the NYC Fire Department, in a transaction privately funded by the Centurion Foundation of New York City, chaired by Albert Fried, Jr., a long time supporter of New York's finest.

The Radalert 50 has since been succeeded by the Radalert 100, but it is perfectly suited for first response - compact and wearable on an officer's belt, yet all-around in capability, with a standard Geiger-Mueller tube capable of detecting Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation, along with a programmable audible alert feature.  But unlike the civil defense models of circa 1960, which were geared quite high in operating range commensurate with expected radiation levels from a nuclear exchange between the superpowers, the Radalert and most modern detectors are far more sensitive on the low end to meet today's requirements such as dirty bomb detection.

To review, a dirty bomb is not a nuclear device, but rather a conventional explosive surrounded by radioactive material, which could be anything from medical waste to uranium ore.  So its range is only as far as that of a conventional bomb, perhaps a hundred yards immediately, but airborne particles could extend that perimeter much farther.  So within that zone, the Radalert should be capable of detecting the corresponding radiation.  While a dirty bomb is quite dangerous, especially from the explosive impact, and while the radiological dispersal would require an extensive clean-up effort, relative to a genuine nuclear bomb, a dirty bomb is mainly a weapon of terror.

God forbid we ever witness this, but in such case, NYC and most other major cities are well equipped to immediately detect this type of hazard so that they can control exposure.

Update: 9/10/11, 9:15 A.M. - Detecting Radioactive Rainwater in real time

Yesterday evening, September 9th, one of our Bay area Monitoring Stations, specifically in Menlo Park, CA, broadcast a Radiation Alert at about 9:00 P.M., averaging around 100 CPM for a period of 13 minutes (see graph at right).  We are pretty sure what triggered the alert - radioactive rainwater, and this particular station detected that in real time!  This is the one of the first station's on our network to have prototyped a system to do just that.

As orientation, this is the same Station that we previewed as a model of Outdoor Monitoring - scroll down to the 4/22 Update.   Remember, his ultra-sensitive pancake tubed Inspector Geiger counter is safely strapped to the underside of the lid of this cooler, with the end window of the GM tube pointed downward.

As to the the rainwater capture accessory - he collects free-falling rainwater off of his solar panel (see photo at left), instead of his roof (which earlier tests showed to be slightly radioactive), and then uses the gutter plumbing to pass that rainwater directly under and by the radiation detector, adding a "dam" in the gutter to slow the rainflow sufficiently for a valid reading.  For extra measure, the system ends with a paint can to collect the rainwater for later analysis.

Remember, this detection system operates while his Geiger Counter is still connected to the Radiation Network, thus the real time component.  So once again, the "acomfort" Monitoring Station has led the way in modeling an optimal and relevant outdoor radiation monitoring system of the kind that you and I can easily build, and we should commend him for this.

So what is the value of detecting radioactive rainwater in real time?  A number of youtube videos are showing scans of alleged rainwater, in a few cases over 1,000 CPM !!!, but after the fact.  Not that those experiments are illegitimate, but a detection in real time, in contrast, is more difficult to manipulate than a later analysis, if that were one's agenda, so real time detection adds credibility to the system.  In addition, acomfort's detection was made while connected to the Radiation Network, where other members were able to follow his minute-by-minute radiation counts through his Remote Graph and Spreadsheet, while the elevated levels were being recorded.

As to the relevant danger from this contaminated rainwater, if any, I will leave that to the experts for now.

Update: 9/7/11, 1:30 P.M. - Radiation Alert in New Mexico

A new Monitoring Station in Taos, New Mexico broadcast a Radiation Alert in the early afternoon today, averaging about 150 CPM, and sustained for many minutes.  Normal background for that station is 64 CPM, high to start with because of the 7,500 foot altitude in Taos, and also because the Geiger Counter in use is built around the same ultra-sensitive pancake GM tube used in the Inspector line of detectors.

The Station asserts it was scanning captured rainwater from an outdoor picnic table, harvested with a paper towel, then brought indoors, set on a paper plate, laid in turn on top of a piece of styrofoam, then sitting on an oak table.  This is a very high reading for captured rainwater compared to similar scans known to have been performed under conditions that pass scientific muster.  We can not independently verify these readings, but remain open.

Generally, experiments are to be done while disconnected from the network, so for the time being, until the experimentation is over, we have disconnected the station.

Update: 9/2/11, 9:30 A.M. - Radiation on Airplane Trip

I recently flew round trip from Phoenix to Milwaukee, and recorded the radiation counts on the return flight using a new Geiger Counter model, the PRM-8000, one of the few to have a data logging feature that enables radiation count history to be stored remotely in the instrument, and then later uploaded to a computer for analysis.  The graph at right illustrates the journey.

As orientation, the normal background count for the standard-GM tubed PRM at base elevation of 634 feet in Milwaukee was 16 CPM (Counts per Minute), versus the Phoenix experience of 19 CPM at 1,124 feet elevation. 

Studying the graph, first note the spike in radiation at the beginning of the trip.  The PRM was being scanned by the X-Ray machine as part of carry-on luggage, and for that minute, averaged a radiation level of 2,130 CPM.  Once the Boeing-737 took off, background radiation climbed in unison with the plane's altitude, and by the time the airliner leveled off, probably at around 40,000 feet, radiation had peaked at 511 CPM, and was averaging 423 CPM, or about 25 times normal background.

When you think about it, this experiment all but proves that the primary source of ever-present background radiation on Earth is cosmic in origin.  The farther that a Geiger counter travels away from the surface of the Earth, the greater the background radiation count because of the lesser atmospheric shielding at higher altitude.  This experiment should also put to rest a myth held by a few that the source of our background count is the radioactive remnants from circa 1960 above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada and the Soviet Union.  Not that such detonations were, or are not, a component of background, but in magnitude, they pale in comparison to the strong cosmic ray constituent.

So how harmful is radiation from plane flights?  For the PRM-8000, a radiation level of 423 CPM equates to .423 mR/hr, so the total round trip flight time of 7 hours contributed toward my annual radiation dosage by the amount of about 3 mR.  Since the NIH (National Institute of Health) recommends limiting annual radiation dosage to no more than 100 mR, over and above normal background radiation, that would correspond to 33 such flights per year.  I rarely fly, but you can estimate the accumulated dosage that our dutiful flight crews receive over the course of a year of service.

Some might wonder if taking a radiation detector on a commercial flight is allowed.  Neither the TSA nor most airlines have such a prohibition. Of course, any one security officer could still question it, so you might have along an operation manual or invoice as documentation.  By now, 5 months after Fukushima, I would imagine most TSA personnel are trained on this, given a number of American residents who are taking radiation detectors on flights to Japan.

A cautionary note - if you do take a radiation detector in carry-on to observe the high radiation count in flight, I advise discrete monitoring - turn off any audible clicking or beeping so as not to alarm passengers nearby.

Update: 8/28/11, 10:10 A.M. - Server Upgrade

To support growth of the Radiation Network, we are upgrading the server on Sunday, August 28th.  The Network will be down from time to time during that period.   Thank you for your patience.

Update: 7/24/11, 11:15 A.M. - Mobile Monitoring Station

The underlying software that runs the Radiation Network provides not only for permanently located Monitoring Stations, but also Mobile Monitoring Stations, and we were treated to a show of this last week.  The Seattle WA station led us on a trip to Portland, Oregon, the first leg of which can be seen on the map at right.  When a station goes mobile, its yellow circle grows an arrow, indicating direction of travel, and it leaves a red-lined GPS trail in its wake.

Participating members on the network were also able to follow Seattle WA's progress through a pop-up GPS menu shown at left, indicating satellite reception, map coordinates, altitude, speed, and bearing and direction of travel.

During the course of a mobile radiation monitoring journey, the software program combines the above data with a minute-by-minute radiation count, all recorded on an internal spreadsheet so that a full logged history is developed, but all of this available in real time as well to participating network members.  This powerful GPS feature has application in a number of areas, including these examples:

If you are a Monitoring Station on the Radiation Network, and want to "go mobile", then this is all you need:

Update: 7/6/2011, 7:50 A.M. - Kauai Radiation Alert - again

After some investigation, we can now confirm that the Kauai Monitoring Station in Hawaii broadcast yet another Radiation Alert recently (see graph at right), commencing toward midnight of June 29th and continuing into the early morning hours of June 30th.  This is becoming somewhat of a routine event for the Kauai station, considering elevated radiation detections twice before, on June 10th and June 22nd (see Updates below).

This most recent Alert was triggered by a detection of over 100 CPM (Counts per Minute) for a sustained period of almost 15 minutes, followed by lower, yet elevated radiation levels for another half hour, making this the longest detection period yet for the Kauai station (clear sky this time - no rain).  Background radiation for that station approximates 37 CPM, so these sustained levels were 2 to 3 times normal.  Again, our best judgment is that the source of this radiation is probably Fukushima, perhaps from recent "releases" - we will try to correlate.

This detection by the Kauai station brings up an interesting and related story.  A few days before the recent alert, the station operator was remounting the external probe of the Geiger counter under the eaves of the structure, and unwittingly scanned the roof shingles themselves, only to discover an elevated reading at a sustained rate of easily twice normal background.  Moving the probe in closer proximity to the shingled roof returned more frequent audible clicking, confirming the shingles were the source.

So the question is, "Why are these roof shingles emitting radiation - is it because of contamination over time by rainfall precipitating it own radioactive particles, or are the shingles themselves 'hot'?"  To answer this, the station operator scanned a pile of surplus shingles in storage that had never been exposed to the rain, and found them to also set off the Geiger counter.  So while we do not think of shingles as being radioactive, because they are often "composition", of stone-based products in part, any one sample can be slightly radioactive.  This story serves as a lesson - when scanning captured rainwater for potential radioactive contamination, do not harvest it off any stone-based roofing material lest you get a false signal.

Update: 6/30/11, 6:15 P.M. - Web Sites down

A brief note to confirm our web sites were down for half a day.  This is "Chapter 2, the Final Saga" with our previous web host (see 6/9/11 Update for background), who is now history.  As was the case in Chapter 1 of the story, even though this web site was down, the Radiation Network itself continued to operate, which monitoring included another tentative Radiation Alert from the Kauai station which we are investigating.  Looking forward, it will take a couple of days to fix everything, including timely updating of the maps.  Thank you for your patience during this period.

Update: 6/23/11, 7:50 A.M. - Kauai Station, the "Perfect Storm"

Yesterday, June 22nd, our network's Monitoring Station on the island of Kauai, within the Hawaiian island chain, broadcast yet another Radiation Alert over the Network, at 8:08 A.M. local time - a 3 minute surge of 209, 456, and 186 CPM (Counts per Minute) respectively, accompanied by a generally elevated level leading up to that, and followed by another blip at 2:52 P.M.  The Kauai station indicates it was raining at the time, so we believe the precipitation brought down Fukushima fallout from the atmosphere.

This detection follows a similar, sustained elevated radiation level from the Kauai station on June 10th - see the Update below dated 6/11/11.  Other than this, since the nuclear disaster in Japan, the stations on our Network that we believe to have detected Fukushima radiation in significant and noticeable levels have been limited to a couple of high altitude stations in Colorado, and an obvious one in Japan itself.  So the question is, "What is so special about the Kauai station?".  In answer, I think we what have here is "the perfect storm":

So there is your "perfect storm" - in relatively close proximity, amidst a rainy environment, set up for outdoor monitoring, and using an ultra-sensitive detector.  The next order of business is to place additional monitoring stations around Kauai, in both high rainfall and rain shadow areas to provide confirming readings and to test out some of the theories offered above.  We also need to correlate detections with weather patterns and movements of the jet stream, combined with any verifiable "releases" of radiation from Fukushima.

Update: 6/22/11, 9:00 A.M. - False Alert

Yesterday, a false alert was broadcast by one of our Monitoring Stations in South Bend, Indiana.  A weird circumstance - a limb from a tree trimmer fell across the power lines killing electricity to the house, and because the radiation detector is on a A/C power supply, some sort of power surge made it through the Geiger counter.  The station plans to add an electronic filter to prevent a recurrence.  Sorry, folks.

Update: 6/18/11, 12:00 P.M. - Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant

A number of concerned citizens have been following the activity at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant in Nebraska.  It is perched on the Missouri River which is in flood stage, and there is concern the plant structure could be breached, possibly impacting the cooling system of the reactor, an eerily similar circumstance as in Fukushima, and only 3 months later.

Our network has one Monitoring Station nearby, in Boys Town, 20 miles away to the south southwest.  On the map at left, Fort Calhoun is the nuclear site at top center, on the blue-lined river, while the Monitoring Station is the yellow circle at bottom left.  For context, Omaha is the urban center at bottom right.  The Boys Town station is monitoring indoors for the time being, and her readings of environmental radiation levels are averaging 37 CPM (Counts per Minute) which is quite normal for the high count rate, pancake-tubed Inspector model that she is using.

Circumstances permitting, Boys Town will try to get more specific readings.  Until then, someone in the vicinity might suggest to the local TV crew that filmed the nuclear plant from a boat on the Missouri, to return with a radiation detector and report their finding on the evening news.  As low as our inventory is, I could probably come up with a Geiger counter for the TV station to use, and help them interpret their readings.  Thanks.

Update: 6/16/11, 7:55 A.M. - Hong Kong online now

This morning, a new Monitoring Station in Hong Kong joined the Radiation Network.  See the Map at right, showing the yellow circle at the southern end of China.  This station runs the standard-tubed Monitor 4EC Geiger counter capable of detecting Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation, and for starters, is monitoring indoors.  He is close to sea level, but his background radiation count of 26 CPM is pretty high.

Normally, you might expect a Monitor 4 at sea level to register background at about 12 CPM, so why the high reading?  We are exploring a couple of theories.  While the detector is not sitting on any kind of stone countertop, the building itself is concrete which, while not radioactive by definition, can emit a weak radiation signal.  To test this theory, the Hong Kong station will do comparative outdoor surveys well removed from any concrete structures.

The second theory is that his Geiger counter may be picking up radioactivity from an atmosphere polluted by coal-fired power plants.  That's right - I said coal, not nuclear.  From the EPA, "Coal contains trace quantities of the naturally-occurring radionuclides uranium and thorium, as well as their radioactive decay products, and potassium-40. When coal is burned, minerals, including most of the radionuclides, do not burn and concentrate in the ash.  While most of the ash is captured, tiny solid particles known as 'fly ash', including some radionuclides, escape from the boiler into the atmosphere."

Many of us have seen the news reports that China is already operating and continues to build large numbers of coal-fired power plants to fuel its fast growing economy.  The Hong Kong station confirms that its metropolis is powered by its share of coal plants, and adds that in the capital of Beijing, the "pollution is horrendous".  So, if we have a significant follow-up on this issue, we will let you know.  In the meantime, you may find intermittent live readings from the Hong Kong station as part of the uploaded Japan map.

Update: 6/11/11, 8:00 A.M. - Hawaii station detects Fukushima Radiation?

Early yesterday morning, at about 3:00 A.M. local time, one of our new Monitoring Stations in Hawaii broadcast a Radiation Alert over the network, reaching a sustained level of over 100 CPM (Counts per Minute) for a period of about 15 minutes, peaking as high as 141 CPM at one point.  The readings then subsided to normal background levels of about 37 CPM for that station, but within less than 2 hours, trended quickly up again to over 100 CPM for another 5 minutes or so.  The graph at right depicts this activity.

For context, this is the Kauai station, and within the Hawaiin archipelago, Kauai is the main island at the far northwest end of the chain, actually 300 miles from the Big Island of Hawaii, placing it closest to Japan about 3,500 miles away.  And to boot, the Kauai station is located on the north shore of the island, in Princeville.   You can see the station on the map - the yellow, numbered circle at top left.

The station is operating a traditional Geiger counter, affixed with an external probe built around the same ultra-sensitive, oversized pancake tube as in the Inspector line of instruments, so it is capable of detecting low levels of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation.  Data output is through the headphone jack of the survey meter.  The Geiger counter is set up for outdoor monitoring, protected from the elements under the eaves of the structure, with the thin mica end window of the Geiger-Mueller tube oriented downward to prevent contamination from possible fallout.

So those are the facts of the case.  The question now is, "Did the Kauai station detect radiation emanating from Fukushima?"  To answer that, let's review these points:

Update: 6/9/11, 8:20 A.M. - RadiationNetwork.com down

Last evening, our web site RadiationNetwork.com went down.  Since we use that site to upload the Radiation Maps for the benefit of the general public, there is a perception that the Radiation Network itself went down.  But this is not so - the Monitoring Network continued uninterrupted during this period, and contributing members of that network were still sharing their radiation count data over the network, and monitoring activity using the Radiation Maps and Remote Graphs available within their copies of the underlying software which "run" the network.  Here is the back story, though.

After the terrorist attack of 9/11, when Americans didn't know what might hit them next, we conceived of this idea of creating a citizen-based radiation monitoring network, and proceeded to develop software which linked together radiation detectors from across the country to create a sort of National Radiation Map.  Initially, there was a lot of interest in the general idea, and we issued a number of licenses for Monitoring Stations.  But with the passage of time, and the absence of any radioactive "event", interest waned, human nature being what it is, and our network reverted to a semi-dormant status for a number of years - until Fukushima.  At that point, the die-hard Monitoring Stations that had loyally operated through the dry years were suddenly joined by dozens of new contributors, but more to the point, concerned citizens flocked by the thousands to RadiationNetwork.com in desperate search for any information they could get on potential radiation danger.

Well, that triggered a bandwith overage with our web host because we had reverted to a low cost hosting package to get us through the semi-dormant years.  As soon as our web host notified us of the overage, however, we immediately upgraded our site to premium, unlimited bandwith status, which was supposed to fix the problem.  But because the left hand of the web host (who shall go unnamed) was not talking to the right hand, our web sites were unexpectedly shut down.  Early this morning, the sites were re-activated, and hopefully this outage will not recur.  The good news is that since we administer the actual Radiation Monitoring Network through our own server, it continued to operate uninterrupted.

So, there was nothing sinister about the "shutdown", and our apologies for the outage.  We know that many of you have come to depend on RadiationNetwork.com as one of many sources for information on radiation levels.  This is probably a good opportunity for a reminder, though:

For those of you wanting more information and capabilities beyond that available to a passive viewer of our RadiationNetwork.com web site, you can purchase a copy of the real software, GeigerGraph for Networks, that makes all of this work.  Installed on your local computer, you then have ability to zoom in on the Map to separate clustered stations (or use Picture in Picture), Spin the Globe over to Hawaii or Japan, Identify Monitoring Stations by Geiger Counter model, altitude, etc., look up Nuclear Sites, access Remote Graphs and Spreadsheets of radiation count data for every station to identify trends, engage in Chat with other Stations on the Network, and much more.  Thanks.

Update: 6/5/11, 6:20 P.M. - Radiation Fallout in Japan

A new Monitoring Station in Japan registered a passing radioactive cloud in the last 24 hours.  This contributor is located north of Tokyo, on the Fukushima side of the metropolis.  The station operates a 20 year old Radalert, a standard-tubed Geiger counter able to detect Alpha and Beta radiation, in addition to Gamma and X-ray, of course, and in this case, was set up for indoor monitoring!

His background count is somewhat high for that model, which may speak to an elevated environmental radiation level, post-Fukushima.  Trendwise though, the graph at right shows the "wave" of the passing cloud, accelerating in the late evening, peaking after midnight at around 40 CPM, then falling over the course of the early morning, and finally troughing at around 7:00 A.M to about 30 CPM.

The ailing Fukushima nuclear reactors are giving new meaning to the term un-cool, and as long as they remain so, they "operate" un-controlled as well, and the Japanese archipelago bears witness to and remains victim of this radiation fallout.  Keep your eye on the Japan map within this website for similar evidence in the future.

Update: 5/29/11, 10:30 A.M. - Contamination checking - follow up

Mother Nature showered us with another unseasonable rainfall here in Prescott, Arizona on May 18th.  This time though, the radiation check turned up negative (in the medical sense of the word, that is).  Using the same procedure as before, the captured rainwater read 21 CPM, versus background of 22 CPM.  I also scanned some milk from the local supermarket, and I "dairy" say that it turned up normal also -  21 CPM.

Then I just couldn't resist - for umpteen years, I have read and heard that bananas are radioactive?, so I scanned one, but that effort also proved "fruitless" - the same 21 CPM.  Now, I can imagine what the radiation mythologists are protesting, "Ahhh, but the peel was on, so surely that explains why your banana did not turn up radioactive."  So okay, I peeled the banana, cut it in half revealing its cross section, and scanned the nitty gritty center, seeds and all.  Answer, 20.4 CPM - sorry, guys (or maybe I just had an uncooperative banana).  My theory on this is that someone long ago confused benign potassium content in the banana with radioactive potassium isotopes, and everyone since then has repeated the myth, instead of doing original research like I just did.

Even if a real scientist could prove to me that bananas are radioactive, what's the point?  It is tall tales like this that give many people the wrong impression that, "Well, everything is a little radioactive" when in fact that myth is based upon the misidentification of ever-present background radiation for radiation from a specific object, because after all, "When I turned on my new Geiger counter and put it up to my cat, it started clicking, so even my cat is radioactive..."

Back to the real world - I performed a radiation scan of Soy Sauce, specifically of the Kikkoman (Tamari) brand, and the label clearly indicates it was brewed in Japan.  There is no date printed, but my wife believes it is pre-Fukushima.  Because this food item originates from Japan directly, I upped my timed count from 20 to 30 minutes, and this time switched to using the ultra-sensitive, high count rate Inspector.  Results - Soy Sauce, 63.9 CPM; Background 63.4 CPM, so this Soy Sauce is free of radiation.  This test will serve as a baseline for comparing future brews in the ensuing months.  BTW, I proceeded to scan the Sake in our wine cabinet, but wouldn't you know it? - brewed from California rice!  Will have to get a brand directly out of Japan - stay tuned.

Update: 5/15/11, 10:40 A.M. - Rainwater contamination

Up to now, I have indicated that I have found no contamination in my rainwater, from a couple of previous tests.  This changed, however, on May 10th when we received an unseasonable 1/4" rainfall here in Prescott, Arizona.  The family car had been outdoors in the rain, so I wiped an otherwise clean, but wet window with a paper towel, brought that inside, and laid it on a paper plate, which itself was sitting on a wooden table.  First, I attempted a momentary scan with my Digilert 100, a "standard" tubed Geiger counter, aiming its thin mica end window directly at the wet towel, slowly surveying the surface area.  But the momentary scan did not indicate any perceptible radioactivity.

So in the interest of thoroughness, I resorted to a 20 minute count, using the Total/Timer mode of the Digilert, fixing the position of the instrument, with the end window oriented directly at the water-soaked towel just 1/4" away.  At the end of the test, the instrument had accumulated 514 radiation counts, or about 26 CPM (Counts per Minute).  Then I created a scientific control, conducting a similar 20 minute count on an identical paper towel moistened with tap water this time, sitting on an identical paper plate, and in the same position on the same wooden table.  The accumulated count was 407, or about 20 CPM.

If that comparison wasn't enough to indicate slight radioactivity from the rainwater, I looked at my logged average of indoor "environmental" radiation for the previous 20 minutes before disconnecting my Digilert from the computer to scan the water, and wouldn't you know it, but that was also 20 CPM.  So short of an even longer timed count, this analysis almost certainly revealed that the captured rainwater was emitting 6 CPM of radiation.  What are the lessons here?

Back to the rainwater, though.  The question is, "Was the radiation in the rainwater from Fukushima?"  I have received input from two scientists indicating that there is a natural explanation for radioactive rainwater.  By one account, the atmosphere includes radon gas among the other elements, and radon "daughters" are brought to the earth's surface by rainfall.  These radioactive particles include alpha and beta emitters often with short half lives, so the same scan of rainwater done hours or days or weeks later may no longer reveal any radioactivity.

The same scientist, from a recent trip to Japan, has indicated that there are "hot spots" of radioactivity in the soil at different locations there, presumably from localized rainfall.  In those cases, it would make sense that most of the radiation in the rainwater was from Fukushima.  To say the same thing about rainwater here in Prescott, Arizona would require more study, including analysis or baselines of rainfall from pre-Fukushima days, which I do not have.

A passing thought - we have a vegetable garden, and I have often wondered how natural rainwater seems to exert a magical, therapeutic effect on the plants, as compared to irrigation water despite its natural mineral content.  Could it dare be that a little, naturally-occurring radiation in the rainwater is a good thing?

Update: 5/7/11, 1:30 P.M. - Credibility in Radiation Surveys

In this position as both operator of the Radiation Network, and owner of GeigerCounters.com, a lot of people report back to me on their radiation surveys.  I really like that feedback - it keeps me close to the action, and provides a learning experience.  Having said that, over the 13 years I've used Geiger counters, these reports have come in all types, and I have learned to adopt a balanced attitude best described as a skeptic with an open mind.  In other words, I can be convinced that radiation emanated from a specific object or environment, but you have to convince me.  To illustrate the point, here are examples for both extremes from credible to incredible radiation surveys:

When a customer reports back to me that the Geiger counter I sold him is detecting a radiation level of 30 mR/hr (2,500 times normal background) from the pitchblende sample in his mineral collection, I immediately believe him because after all, pitchblende is a common form of uranium ore, is radioactive by definition, and strongly so at that.   And because pitchblende is strongly radioactive, a momentary scan of a few seconds is all that is required to immediately identify the object as such.

This is in stark contrast to the situation facing us at present, involving potential contamination of objects that are not radioactive by definition.  So when a customer reports that vitamins recently shipped from Japan are radioactive because he got a reading as high as 47 CPM (Counts per Minute), I revert to the skeptic with an open mind.  From experience, here are the most common reasons that some radiation surveys are not credible:

Study the graph above, with its spikes and troughs, along with the spreadsheet at right that logged radiation count data from one of our Monitoring Stations in the Bay area this morning.  First of all, you can see that background radiation is random and erratic.  Over the course of 10 minutes, the per minute Count spiked as high as 47, but also troughed as low as 24, about half as much.   Also note that the Average Count started out at the trough of 24, but after 10 minutes, moved up to 33 with the benefit of more experience.  Finally, you can see that it took about 5 minutes for the randomness of background radiation to average out, so for good measure, a 10 minute average is pretty reliable.

Many of you know Aesop's Fable of "The Tortoise and the Hare".  Imagine if he was alive today and conducted his own analysis with a Geiger counter, he might pen another fable, "The Spikes and the Troughs", ending with the moral of the story, "Those who would emphasize the spikes must give equal credence to the troughs."

The special problem with scanning normally non-radioactive objects and environments for radiation, is that if they are contaminated, it is usually weakly so, hence it is quite easy to confuse a spike in background radiation for radiation from that specific object or environment.  So here is the best way to deal with that:

In summary, before some of you wonder if this skeptic can ever be convinced of elevated radiation levels, look at my conversion over the following:

Update: 4/29/11, 9:00 A.M. - False Alerts

As a follow up to the previous report, I was able to confirm an equipment malfunction caused what was a false alert (without getting into the nitty gritty of the electronics).  Another false alert was triggered this morning from a station in northern Indiana, and yet two more in previous weeks from stations in New Hampshire and British Columbia, respectively.  So a reasonable person might ask, "What kind of network are you running here?!!!"  Well, I think these false alerts can be classified into 3 distinct categories:

Update: 4/24/11, 11:25 A.M. - Radiation Alert?

A radiation alert over 10,000 CPM was just broadcast over the Network from a station in Sidney, BC, Canada.  The preliminary explanation is an equipment malfunction.  Other stations in the area are showing normal readings.  I will follow up with more details later.

Update: 4/22/11, 6:15 A.M.

Designing an Outdoor Monitoring System

As discussed before, some of the Stations on the Radiation Network have improvised outdoor Monitoring systems, and I feature here one such design from a station in the Bay area on the West Coast.  This particular setup is on the roof of a building, and meets the following criteria:

Update: 4/19/11, 8:00 A.M. - More Readings from Japan

As the number of Monitoring Stations in Japan on our Network continues to grow, we have a supplemental report from one of our stations located in Yokohama, within 175 miles of Fukushima.  While outdoor radiation readings averaged 14 CPM or .14 uSv/hr (normal to somewhat elevated), the same reading on the ground was 20 CPM or .20 uSv/hr, which is definitely statistically significant given the 30 minute averaging period used.  For context, Yokohama is using the CRM-100 which is built around the same standard GM tube as the Digilert, and which incorporates a thin mica end window.

The higher ground reading from Yokohama is probably (but not necessarily) from fallout, for this reason - the ground reading from Sendai mentioned below, of .5 uSv/hr, was much higher, but Sendai is only 60 miles from Fukushima, so it is not beyond the bounds of reason that the fallout also made its way to Yokohama, but at a lower radiation level.

So combining the Yokohama and Sendai reports with that of the Japanese video journalists chronicled farther below, we can make a couple of tentative conclusions:

The point of this exercise is to translate for the US what we could expect from a similar type nuclear event in the US, and what it would mean for the surrounding cities and nearby states.

Update: 4/18/11, 6:20 A.M. - Compatible Radiation Detectors

While the supply of Radiation Detectors remains limited, I can report that from recent testing, most or all of the Geiger Counter models manufactured by Images SI in New York are compatible with our Data Cable and Software that runs the Radiation Network.  Not that Images SI isn't focused on filling backorders like everyone else now,  but there are thousands of their units already out in the marketplace, no doubt many of them stored away.  So if you have one, dust it off and plug in to the Network.

I have also had many inquiries whether the old civil defense Geiger counter, specifically the CDV-700 model, is compatible.  While the original design lacked a data output port, the audio from the headphone jack itself produces the same pulse output, so as long as you can adapt from that fitting to the 1/8" stereo plug of our Data Cable, you should be good to go.  And others have improvised interface with models of the Black Cat Systems that are functioning well.

Radiation Monitoring in Japan - follow up

Our customer in Sendai, who is located 60 miles from Fukushima, is reporting that air samples taken 5 feet above the ground are reading .08 uSv/hr, which is quite normal.  This equates to .008 mR/hr, or 8 uR/hr.  And since he is using the Inspector model built around the high count rate pancake GM tube, that reading also equates to 24 CPM, which is right in line with readings on the Radiation Map.

However, when he placed the Inspector on the ground, with the thin mica end window oriented immediately to the soil, his reading jumped to .5 uSv/hr!  His explanation?  "The ground level is high due to that the nuclear clouds reached and rain down to the ground."  The lesson, here, of course, is that it is not sufficient to monitor environmental (air) radiation levels alone.  One cautionary note, though - normally one would not determine a background radiation count by placing the detector on the ground because of possible distortion of readings from any radioactive minerals and radon gas byproduct.  But in this case, he was not determining a base background reading, but actually testing the soil for contamination.

By the way, I performed a similar test the other day, following a snowfall here in Prescott, Arizona, but came up with no obvious radiation.  It should be noted that I was using the standard tubed Digilert, with thin mica window, an excellent all-around model, but still lacking the ultra-sensitivity of the Inspector.

Update: 4/15/11, 6:55 A.M. - Indoor versus Outdoor Monitoring

I have written on this subject before, but it has arisen again with a suggestion that our Network's radiation data is incomplete because many of our stations monitor indoors (although a fair number do monitor outdoors).  This is true, and I agree that indoor monitoring is not optimal, although the radiation data is still relevant as I have argued many times below.

Yesterday, the air here in Prescott, Arizona had a sickly haze to it, not unlike periods when polluted urban atmospheres to the southwest blow through, and conditions were blustery, the spring being our windy season here.  On top of this, there were reports of another "plume" passing through.  So I disconnected my radiation detector from my office-based, indoor Monitoring Station long enough to take a 10 minute reading of the air outdoors.

I am using the Digilert 100 which detects Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and X-radiation through a fairly standard Geiger-Mueller tube.  This instrument includes a Total mode for accumulating radiation counts over time, so I set it for 10 minutes and proceeded to walk through the windy haze, holding the instrument at waist level, allowing the Geiger counter with its thin mica end window to "sniff" the air.  After 10 minutes of outdoor monitoring, the accumulated count was exactly 210, which equates to 21 CPM (Counts per Minute).  I then re-connected to my indoor station and checked the average CPM for the 10 minutes of indoor monitoring immediately preceding the outdoor count, and found that to be 20.7 CPM.  The difference of .3 CPM  over a 10 minute period is probably not statistically significant, so in summary, in this particular case, the outdoor monitoring revealed nothing that the indoor monitoring did not detect.  This is a good and recommended technique for the indoor Monitoring Stations on the Network, to either confirm indoor readings, or to reveal an elevated radiation level that the indoor monitoring is missing.

Okay, so my indoor and outdoor readings were the same.  But the question is, does the 21 CPM represent an elevated level compared to readings taken before the Fukushima disaster?  To answer this question, I reviewed my archived monthly radiation collection data for the same period last year, namely March and April of 2010, and the average readings for both months was 20 CPM.  So, that difference of 1 CPM may or may not be statistically significant.

More to come later... Thanks again for your support. Tim Flanegin

Back to the Radiation Network

Click here to go to Archived Messages