1198 CPM
NETC.COM   © 2014
Station ID 4:923   Bakersfield, CA, US
Click here for data charts
CPM: current 1198 Low 13 High 1802
Average 217, Deviation 286.4
(CPM of Beta particles)

Last updated: 2014-12-09 11:34:00 GMT+0000


400 CPM
NETC.COM   © 2014
Station ID 4:610   Albuquerque, NM, US
Click here for data charts
CPM: current 400 Low 21 High 605
Average 161, Deviation 89.9
(CPM of Beta particles)

Last updated: 2014-12-10 03:00:00 GMT+0000

454 CPM
NETC.COM   © 2014
Station ID 4:919   Tucson, AZ, US
Click here for data charts
CPM: current 454 Low 14 High 502
Average 153, Deviation 96.7
(CPM of Beta particles)

Last updated: 2014-12-10 13:41:00 GMT+0000




numbers are going up  across the country.. do u even care?

Quote from freethisone on December 10th, 2014, 07:48 AM

numbers are going up  across the country.. do u even care?

As a matter of fact yes, I do care and I'm going to get to the bottom of it.

I've asked the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center to run some calibrations for the sites you listed and place dual instrumentation in those areas so we can confirm the data is accurate.   At the moment I know this much, these sites are offline and the data is junk:

5:918 near Sacramento, CA, US   230   2014-12-09 13:13:00   I
5:923 near Bakersfield, CA, US   614   2014-12-09 11:34:00   I

This site has unreliable data:

4:610 near Albuquerque, NM, US   400   2014-12-10 03:00:00   U

Reference:  http://netc.com/activealerts.php

These are all of the inactive EPA sites regardless of reading:

  5:622    Fort Smith, AR, US       Last CPM: 305       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 13:32:00 
  5:948    Yuma, AZ, US       Last CPM: 199       Last updated at: 2013-08-19 02:01:00 
  5:923    Bakersfield, CA, US       Last CPM: 614       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 11:34:00 
  5:918    Sacramento, CA, US       Last CPM: 230       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 13:13:00 
  5:915    San Diego, CA, US       Last CPM: 386       Last updated at: 2014-12-07 17:39:00 
  5:916    San Jose, CA, US       Last CPM: 162       Last updated at: 2014-12-04 18:38:00 
  5:406    Miami, FL, US       Last CPM: 447       Last updated at: 2014-10-06 09:34:00 
  5:402    Atlanta, GA, US       Last CPM: 266       Last updated at: 2014-09-05 23:37:00 
  5:725    Mason City, IA, US       Last CPM: 278       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 12:47:00 
  5:415    Louisville, KY, US       Last CPM: 461       Last updated at: 2014-10-15 21:55:00 
  5:111    Worcester, MA, US       Last CPM: 367       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 17:37:00 
  5:301    Baltimore, MD, US       Last CPM: 130       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 01:23:00 
  5:724    Kearney, NE, US       Last CPM: 267       Last updated at: 2014-11-21 01:45:00 
  5:212    Buffalo, NY, US       Last CPM: 186       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 10:30:00 
  5:213    Rochester, NY, US       Last CPM: 262       Last updated at: 2014-11-07 11:24:00 
  5:208    Shirley, NY, US       Last CPM: 200       Last updated at: 2014-12-09 14:06:00 
  5:207    Syracuse, NY, US       Last CPM: 134       Last updated at: 2014-12-01 06:42:00 
  5:707    Dallas, TX, US       Last CPM: 210       Last updated at: 2014-12-05 00:33:00 

Reference:  http://netc.com/inactive-epa.php

Having seen "Inactive" weather (MET) sites, this typically means the sensors are removed and the data signals are free floating.  So anything recording these signals is simply recording noise.

Also worth mentioning, this statement is listed on the footer of their website:

Quote from netc.com

**  Disclaimer:

Some radiation monitoring sites are maintained by the government and other are privately owned. In either case the reading may not be accurate. Our software uses statistical analyses to generate these alerts. CPM (counts per minute) is modified by our software to reduce false radiation alert messages.

Do Not PANIC. It could be software failure or bad equipment. Always check with a second source like the news stations or the government before making any decisions about this alert.

Translation:

You get what you pay for and since that is zero, well...   You see where this leads Free, uh hum.  :blush:

interesting Matt, but it still does not explain the radiation above my house. My ionizing detector proves that there is huge levels of 03 being produced.

my nose knows.   cold wet runny. only if i go out side, or if i let the central heat stay on during the times it is very high.

i know when there is ionizing radiation, and i know that the numbers being reported are false.

either way u have to get a radiation detector made before 2010 without the new calibrations to lower the actual readings.

so regardless when i see the numbers spike across the country, and it makes its way to me way east coast. i know that its true because  the amount of cold runny nose, and the large spark on my detector.

    

Learn to photograph Northern Lights like a pro. Sign up for Peter Rosen's Aurora Photo Courses in Abisko National Park.
        
Lapland tours

RADS ON A PLANE, CONTINUED: Regular readers may remember last month's reports by Dr. Tony Phillips of radiation measurements inside commercial airplanes. During a round-trip between Reno, Nevada, and Washington DC, inside planes that flew as high as 39,000 feet, he absorbed a dose of ionizing radiation equal to approximately 3 dental x-rays.

Not every trip, however, is so "radioactive." Yesterday, he flew from Reno to San Francisco--a short hop over the Sierras to attend the American Geophysical Union meeting--and the dose was much less. Here is the radiation profile during the flight:

The data come from a pair of radiation detectors routinely flown to the stratosphere onboard Earth to Sky Calculus Space Weather Buoys. The pager-sized devices are sensitive to ionizing radiation such as X-rays and gamma-rays in the energy range 10 keV to 20 MeV. Ideally, the two detectors should register the same dose rates throughout the flight. Slight differences between the two curves are an indication of the uncertainty in the measurements.

Compared to last month's travel, there was relatively little radiation detected during this flight. From take-off to landing, the total dose was only about 3% of a dental X-ray -- about a hundred times less than before.

Why so little? For one thing, the flight was brief, less than an hour long.Moreover, it was low. The cruising altitude of the small commuter jet was only 26,000 feet. When it comes to "rads on a plane," altitude matters a lot. The source of the radiation is cosmic rays from space; the closer you are to space, the more radiation you are going to absorb. Short, low flights are best for avoiding exposure.

It is important to note that the sensors Phillips carried onboard the plane do not detect one of the most important forms of radiation: neutrons. Neutrons provide much of the biologically effective radiation dose at altitudes of interest to aviation and space tourism. To account for these uncharged particles, the doses discussed above should be doubled or tripled. To improve our estimates of the total dose rate, the students of Earth to Sky Calculus are evaluating neutron detectors for future balloon missions and plane flights. Stay tuned!



interesting as it may be, why the detailed analysis now?   all though radiation is not included in there write up from ground sources we now know that this is the case.. O:-)