Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Radiation in the Pacific Ocean up 472%, Real Data Collected in Hawaii

This post consists of:

1) Real radiation measured in Hawaii ocean water using boiled off samples taken and measured by the nukepro.
2) Original "background radiation" levels in the ocean.
3) Analysis of what it means

 1) Measured Radiation

Inspired by Dana Dunford, I hooked up with a friend in Hawaii who had a small enough dinghy it could be transported by hand and launched on the beach.      We went to Rabbit island which is a small island off Oahu's windward coast.

here is a link to Dana Durnford site ---visit, consider a small donation, he does paypal, you can donate $2 with no fees.

 We spent 2 hours at Rabbit Island, freediving and spearfishing.    We caught 4 fish and I will present data analysis at a later date.     I froze with guts intact.

I collected about 4 liters of ocean water, and later boiled this off.   The remainder was an amazing amount of "stuff" presumably mostly salt.     I tested it with a Geiger and did about 6 total test runs of 10 minutes each.

2)  Here is a source of information on background radiation in the oceans

3) Analysis. see the Calc Sheet 1A and Calc Sheet 2A

Radiation is Hawaii Ocean Water is 472% higher than prior "background radiation" in ocean water.    this is going to be primarily Strontium and Cesium. 

And here is nicely formatted Engineering based Fukushima blog


  1. How can 'background radiation' in the oceans come from after global nuclear atomic bomb tests spread fallout globally?
    what page numbers is the data??
    The book referred to... what page number?

    and one must use the correct equipment...
    boiling the water can RELEASE radionuclides with the steam!

    "Geiger Counters are pretty useless if you want to deal with the real thing: Radionuclides in food. Air radiation is not representative for radionuclides in food and soil.
    These are devices people should buy:

    1. Thank you for your comment. I am confused by your comment "The book referred to ...what page number". I did not refer to any book in my post.

      Also, should you wish to chip in on a Gamma Scint I will be happy to discuss that with you.

      I respectfully disagree that Geigers are 'useless' for testing food. By removing all the water (the radiation blocker), a Geiger can easily be used to determine the presence and quantities of radiation present. By using the Alpha window one may sleuth out Alpha.

      By using a "Beta Block" one may sleuth out the remaining Gamma (also slightly blocked by the Beta Block. And that of course implies the Beta.

      A $600 to $700 quality Geiger is the most that is realistic that most people will be able to handle. We need to get smart on how to pull maximum data from this citizen scientist resource.

    2. @Marushka - Is there no help then, only sales of equipment?

    3. Would a Theremino Bridge, or audio output from your device be possible?

      Quote: "Il team del sistema Theremino si occupa solo di ricerca e non vende hardware. Il sistema è completamente “Freeware”, “Open Source”, “No Profit” e “DIY”"

      Perhaps money in itself isn't an issue to prevent a "citizen scientist" from gathering meaningful data in manifold ways for each sample.

      I wonder where one could get audio drivers for Windows? is a very reputable source from Russia, and is where he originated his project from, if i remember correctly.

      Ciao. :)


      Persone molto meravigliose qua e là!

    5. Quote: "Questo è un diodo PIN di tipo BPW34, costa circa 0.5 Euro ed è uno dei migliori per rivelare radiazioni BETA/GAMMA."

      Butthead dice "Beavis è un fai-da-te 'er! :lol

  2. 1 Bq = 60'd better check your math and also appreciate that at levels of a few Bq/m^3 of seawater you won't be able to measure 137-Cs or 134-Cs with a pancake geiger counter.

    1. Thanks for the comment. Upon a second review, I realized that my testing technique only picked up a little less than half of the activity, the other half shot down away from the GM pancake of the Inspector.

      Also, I do believe that my math was wrong in incorrectly overstating the "background". Both factors lead to the net result being even a higher increase of radiation over background.

      These results are surprisingly high, if not Strontium and Cesium, what would you attribute the results to? Are various compounds of salts capturing radioactivity?

    2. You are a factor of 60 to high as you compare background in Bq (counts per second) and what you consider to be a contaminated sample in CPM (counts per minute). Recent measurements in the North Pacific that might affect Hawaii show 137-Cs from Fukushima at about 5-10 Bq per meter cubed of seawater or 0.005 to 0.01 Bq/L. That is 5/1000th to 1/100th of a decay from 137-Cs per second compared to ~14 Bq/L of naturally occurring isotopes.

      So if you count for 10 minutes with perfect efficiency you would see ~8400 total counts or 840 counts per minute (cpm). In 10 minutes at the levels of 137-Cs likely to affect Hawaii you would see that of those 8400 counts 3 to 6 might be from Fukushima Cs. That would require precision on the order of 0.04 to 0.07%.

      Scientists who measure 137-Cs in seawater process about 60 liters of seawater and separate the 137-Cs from the seawater using a special resin. This resin is then placed in a highly sensitive high purity germanium detector and counted for days to achieve the precision necessary to confidently say how much 137-Cs is there.

    3. Quote of Anonymous: " Recent measurements in the North Pacific that might affect Hawaii" ...

      You mean those done by WHOi just south of the Aleutian Isles?
      That might affect Hawaii someday ... maybe.

    4. I was thinking of measurements made in the north Pacific near the dateline by Kamenik and colleagues in this paper ( All monitoring by WHOI in collaboration with citizen scientists have not detected any Fukushima radioactivity in Hawaii waters as of at least February 2014. You can find those results here:

      Sample taken at Kaneohe Bay, Oahu on Feb. 1, 2014

    5. At Anon, RE K-Bay test.

      I do appreciate your comments and will use them to improve my methods and presentations. That said....

      After reading a number of items written by "ourradioactiveocean" aka Woods Hole, I am convinced that they are a 100% pronuclear source of information. The way they present information is without a doubt, slanted. I like your 60L approach, although impractical for the average citizen scientist, but in the Maui test they show a picture of three people, and your little white dog, apparently sampling with a milk jug in a milk crate. Just saying, it falls short of your 60L by a factor of 60. If they are getting crowd sourced paid thousands of dollars, I would like to see a little more on the actual testing protocol and methods, and base results before any correction for background. stock out

    6. Quote: ... "measurements made in the north Pacific near the dateline by Kamenik and colleagues in this paper" ...

      It might be of import concerning exactly when those particular samples were collected, and whom may have collected them.

      That doc from WHOi appears dated September of 2013.

      Quote: "Received: 30 December 2012"

      ... "Surface seawater samples (20 to 100 L) were collected on several scientific cruises and ships of opportunity between March 2011 and February 2013 (Fig. 1). Coastal sampling was performed periodically in Honolulu on the south shore of Oahu starting 27 March 2011. At Station Aloha, about 150 km north of Oahu, offshore samples have been collected
      monthly beginning 13 April 2011. Samples were also gathered from around the Hawaiian Islands between 29 March and 19 April 2011. Several expeditions covered the area between Japan and Hawaii in June 2011 and in June–September 2012. Near-shore samples were collected in Guam starting 26 March 2011 until mid-May 2011; additional sampling was
      performed in September 2012."

      Correct me if am wrong, s'il vous plait.

    7. Citizen scientists through our radioactive ocean collect 20L samples into a polyethylene "cubitainer". Scientists who want more precise data collect larger volumes (60L or more). I don't see how their science on this is "slanted" or "pronuclear". . As to yours you simply can't detect the radioactivity present in seawater owing to Fukushina because 1) it is not likely in Hawaii yet and 2) your method is incapable of detecting the levels that will get to Hawaii.

      I copied this from their website as to their methodology which you can read the rest at:

      How We Analyze Samples and Report Data

      Samples collected by scientists and citizens for Our Radioactive Ocean are analyzed in our labs at WHOI using a method that is capable of detecting extremely low levels of radioactivity produced by cesium isotopes in seawater. We report our data in units of Bequerels per cubic meter of seawater (Bq/m3), where one Bequerel is equal to one decay event per second.

    8. Don't forget this link -->
      Quote: "I don't see how their science on this is "slanted" or "pronuclear""

      N/A US Governmental partners & sponsors include NSF, DOD, NOAA, NASA, USGS, DOE, NIH, & the EPA.

      Industry partners & sponsors include Chevron, Flatly Research Lab, Flatley Discovery Lab, University of Tokyo, James Fisher Defense, Kongsberg Hydroid, Raytheon, McLane Research Laboratories, Schlumberger Doll Research, Sonardyne, Teledyne Technologies.

      There are some interesting names that are actually hidden on that page, including the University of Tokyo. Isn't that the "Smiling Doctor" Yamashita's alma mater?

      Quote: "Smile and radiation cannot harm you"?

      If those polyethylene containers are cube-shaped, were they rotomolded or injection molded? One does wonder if any styrene (etc) remains after manufacture.

      Refer to the document you linked to earlier ( as they concluded that manmade Fukushima radionuclides could be arriving in Hawaii by 2014.

      Are Stock's results impossible? No, not in my humble opine.
      I would hope he would take time to attempt to repeat his results armed with more equipment. :)

    9. Correction: Dr. Shunichi Yamashita is of the University of Nagasaki & is apparently a WHO Radiation Expert, and Chairman of Japan's Thyroid Association (etc?).

      Quote of Iori Mochizuki: "According to Dr. Yamashita Shunichi, you won’t be affected by radiation if you are smiling. He tested it with animals."

      How can i repeat such an experiment?
      Do i start with Laughing Hyenas, for instance?

      The telltale "Yamashita smile" starts about midway from the trachea to the ear, slopes downward, then about midpoint slopes upward. It is generally found near where the thyroid glands used to be.

      There are allegedly so many of them that they raise 131I detections well past ND (not that ND means "nothing") in large metropolitan areas, such as Philadelphia & Tokyo Prefecture.

    10. Dud, the simple point is that with the equipment Stock has, the method he applies and the levels known to be in the North Pacific from Fukushima he can't detect Fukushima derived radioactivity.

  3. Resonate 528hz to cure the water, research paper by David Hutchison who used it for the OIL spill in Florida, Water resonates at 528hz

    1. Bunch of crap. Not even psuedo science.

    2. Chelsei, agreed, adding energy may increase a niological process, but certainly won't change the half-life of radisotopes

    3. Here is Published Technical details on Radiation on one of the volumes, on Radisotopes. (Links not working on Alamo)

  4. Alamos Reserach Papers....... Look for "Frequency Resonanance" at 528hz it will heal everything water because it vibrates at that specific frequency.

    1. Thats a very interesting site Adrian, its archived LANL docs that are stated as being no longer available at LANL but archived there. But nothing in there supports your cleaning by frequency assertion.
      LA-10038 Estimation methods for process holdup of special nuclear materials 6.4MB Local PDF
      LA-10042-MS Plasma energy deposition from the nuclear elastic scattering of tritons on tritons 844KB Local PDF
      LA-10049-M-Rev.1 User's guide for TWODANT : a code package for two-dimensional, diffusion-accelerated, neutral-particle transport 2.9MB Local PDF
      LA-10049-M User's guide for TWODANT : a code package for two-dimensional, diffusion-accelerated, neutral-particle transport 2.6MB Local PDF
      LA-10069-PR Applied nuclear data research and development semiannual progress report : April 1, 1983 - September 30, 1983 5.1MB Local PDF
      LA-10111-MS Thermal equilibrium population of the first few nuclear excited states (Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf isotopes) 1.7MB Local PDF

    2. Doesn't hydrolysis function better with a power supply driven by a DC square wave of about 1kHz to overcome like-charge repulsion in the electrolytic medium? That would be about two times 528 Hz.

      Always loved half-cell electrochemistry. "Which one's the cathode? Why that's negative, just like Cathy!" :lol

    3. @dud, nothing quite as dry scientist humour, lol, thats even dryer than a fully fermented hard cider.

      I think I lost an electron! sheesh are you positive???

    4. Quote: "In a device which consumes power, the cathode is negative, and in a device which provides power, the cathode is positive."

      I tend to think of the e- flow, instead of hole movement. Battery charging - consuming power. Battery discharge - delivering power.

      You DON'T want me to recite how i was taught to easily remember resistor color codes! That's dryer than a salty popcorn fart! (and actually extremely politically incorrect)

      I wonder why we weren't taught "Bad beer rots our young guts but vodka goes well – get some now."
      Oh, they didn't want to teach about alcoholism. Surely there is a better way.

  5. A follow up on my message re: retesting with Medcom's equipment he wanted to assure you it could be Anonymous. His interest is Hawaii readings as he's been testing in Maui as well as California. Those results were clear of radiation from Japan done this year. Please contact me at thanks

  6. Your instrument is a child's toy

    1. LOL, always great to have trolls and detractors show up.
      After, wouldn't want to put actual data in peoples hands, lol

      But no, it is not, it is a quality scientific instrument quite capable of detecting ionizing radiation

  7. California had Beach 145 Miles of DEAD Fish,

    1. Where is the article?
      All i see so far is unsolicited commercial sales opportunities.
      The word "dead" isn't even on the page.

      Surely this was done in err?

  8. Thanks Stock your work and so many other's means so much us out here ,who
    are just beginning to grasp the full understanding /reality of whats been done to us.

  9. At Spike, thanks for your comments, I will contact The Inspector manufacturer to get a better idea of efficiency for the beta and efficiency for the Gamma.

    I do appreciate the comments and have captured them for further inclusion after I can refine the results.

    Posted 12:28 local time

    1. Your instrument uses a very common pancake GM tube. It is ubiquitous in the nuclear industry. For a beta emitter on a surface, the most commonly used default efficiency is 10%, though when counting beta emitters of higher energy, and high yield, very close to the source, they can sometimes reach 25% or so efficiency. This is a total efficiency that includes geometry (on a plane, at least half the radiation goes in the direction away from the detector, so the best total efficiency you could possibly have is 50%). These probes are optimized for beta counting. Gamma efficiency is much lower (gammas are more penetrating and do not interact in the detector as easily).

    2. Ah, there you are Spike!
      Please be careful posting with multiple names.
      Some admins don't approve, and that can get a commenter banned on some sites.

  10. Stock, why don't you post my comment? It is a valid, technically correct response to the gross error in your assertion of high levels of activity in the water. You are attempting to deceive everyone, and will not give any room to a technically responsible correction to your error.
    If you are willing to listen, and take some advice, I could help you present a technically defensible case, if you indeed have one.

    1. Please note that "Goggle" cannot seem to correctly distinguish CAPTCHA codes (try with a letter wrong), so there might be a delay between when a comment is posted, received, and publicized. That is, if it is actually received by our respective host here.
      Visit the page after clearing history, make a comment, clear history, then revisit page.
      There are comments that disappear before even my eyes here, and that has nothing to do with Stock.

      Please be patient. He isn't our "html-bitch".

      I did see that response after this one briefly, and if i clear my history after posting this comment, then revisiting, it will probably reappear to me.

      I thank you Spike.

    2. Hi Dud, I posted my first comment as Anonymous, but signed my post as Spike. Since then I went ahead and validated my blog ID. The original post has disappeared. I assume stock is the owner/admin of this page, and he decided to take the post down. He obviously read it, as you can tell from his comment. I admit ignorance to html and such, and I don't know what a captcha code is.

    3. I saw it earlier today. It was a good breakdown and very constructive criticism concerning methodology, in my humble opinion.
      Your words above might have been a little hasty, but we are all human, and prone to err from time to time. What would you hope to hear if somebody said those things to you?

      I didn't become polite simply because i am canadian, btw. All the violence of the past taught me that only begets more violence, even via text. Where is that quote of Dr. Goodheart?

      My favorite Green Road Ahead link:

      Quote: "Keep using language that connects people and keeps them human, rather than dehumanizing them."

    4. Quote: "I assume" ... "and he decided to take the post down."

      Not necessarily. That depends upon the platform his site here is built upon. It is possible that when a commenter uses two differing names from the same IP, that a) posts automatically get taken down & b) the commenter(s) are automatically banned. I don't actually know, but i can postulate some possibilities.

      Assuming might not be helpful, and you might address commentary made here -->

      If it were you that received such commentary, how would you respond? Would you be as magnanimous? I would hope so. Remember, you are still here able to comment, so i think Stock is being magnanimous, in my opine.

      Shit happens though. We all make mistakes from time-to-time. I have had my own fill of both my own feet from time to time. I would be thankful that we all learn from our own mistakes enough that we barely repeat them. I still look back at my former alcoholism in shame, for instance.

      I look forward to learning from both of you.

    5. Dud, your point is taken. Perhaps I am prejudging. The problem is that I have experienced this more than once, so I admittedly jumped to a conclusion based on my past experience. The "real problem" is that I am not an anti-nuke. I have many years professional experience in nuclear/radiological technology. This means that I am usually in the position of trying to debunk some crazy theory or another, and the anti-nuke people who host web pages and blogs decide that I am the enemy and they don't want to hear any dissenting voices (especially those who can speak with some expertise). I'm willing to accept the idea that posts can sometimes just disappear. But I have detected a trend. In my own defense, I didn't think my response was all that harsh, based on the tone of much of the commentary I come across on various pages. Maybe the standard here is higher - if it is, that is fantastic. I will stand corrected and chastised, and I'll re-post my original comments in a more magnanimous tone. Maybe this time it will persist. Thanks for the help.

  11. [OT] Be careful not to take pictures of your hands. [/OT]

  12. Taking Dud's sage advice, I'm re-posting some comments regarding the author's radiation measurements, with some corrections and critique. I will do my best to be helpful, rather than negative.
    First, some things to keep in mind about your measurements. The pancake GM tube in your instrument is good for measuring moderate to high energy beta particles, gammas and x-rays down to a few 10's of keV, and it can detect alpha particles, but only at a very low efficiency (they are mostly blocked by the mica window). With that in mind, when you are measuring radioactivity in seawater (or anything else), you will be limited to those nuclides that decay by high energy beta/gamma. It's also not realistic to attempt to detect very tiny amounts of activity (you'd need a huge sample). So, based on this, we can safely say that our GM is not going to be able to see the tritium (it wouldn't matter how much there was, the GM is blind to H3), the uranium (emits mostly low energy gamma rays, some betas and alpha particles - you'd have to have an awful lot of it - it's certainly not detectable at 33 mBq/L), or the C-14 (again, there's just not enough of it, and it's a low energy beta). The rubidium is detectable, but there's only a few hundred dpm of activity in 4 liters, so it's not going to be measurable with your method. So it is the K-40 that you have a chance of detecting. Of course, if there was strontium-90 or cesium-137 in it, and there was enough of it, you could detect those nuclides with your meter.
    So, you've taken a grab sample of 4 liters of seawater and boiled it dry. What's left is essentially various mineral salts. The good news is that the K-40 should essentially all be there (if there was any Cs-137 or Sr-90, it should also still be there). By the way, if you have a container of Lite-Salt, you can pour it out on a plate, and probably get a similar (or higher) reading than you got on your sea-salt. So, your data is simple and straight forward. You took a couple background counts, averaging 28.4 cpm. One thing you should do is make a stab at the minimum detectable counts (statistical detectability). Using your raw background data, I calculated a standard deviation of about 1.2 counts per minute (when using two ten minute counts). Usual statistical treatment is to take roughly 2.7 times the SD to estimate "minimum detectable count rate". So, again, if you use the average of two ten minute counts for your sample, you can statistically "see" a net increase of about 3.2 cpm. [assuming an efficiency of 10%, this gives you a minimum detectable activity of 32 dpm, or about 0.5 Bq]
    So anything less than 28.4+3.2 = 31.6 cpm is just random variation in background.
    (continued next post)

  13. (continued from previous)
    Your sample read 36.1 cpm gross, so it has statistically detectable activity in it. You made an area correction for the size of your skillet, which is good. However, you should keep in mind that this is an estimate, and there are lots of factors that introduce error in the measurement. For instance, you can see in the photos that the distribution of salts is not uniform on the skillet, so the activity distribution will not be uniform. To account for this, you might take three to five measurements in different locations and average them. Also, although it's reasonable to just ratio the areas of the probe to the surface, this is a relatively crude approach, and there is considerable error in this estimate. This ratioing is fairly close for beta, but not for gammas. Pancake probes can see betas coming from the surface further away than the absolute edge of the detector, so the effective area for betas is somewhat larger than 3.14 square inches. And for gammas, the sensitivity is a complex function. In both cases, the only way to really know the area correction factor is to have a calibration source made, having a known activity, that you can use to assess the correction. Also, you don't know the actual beta efficiency of the detector (in terms of counts/disintegration). We can use a commonly applied value of 10%, which is probably good enough, but depending on source-detector distance, beta energy, and many other factors, the efficiency might be somewhere between 8 and 25% (it's probably on the higher end of that range for K-40). But the only way to know is to measure it with a known source of the nuclide(s) you are interested in.
    The main thing here is just to remember that your estimate, based on this measurement has considerable uncertainty in it. It might be good to a factor of 2 or 3 (yes, 200 to 300 percent error). But given that you haven't spent much money on the effort, you're getting a fair result.
    So, you reported a net count rate of 7.7 cpm above background. The only corrections you need to make are for surface area and efficiency. We'll assume 10% efficiency and 4% area correction. So: 7.7 / 0.1 / 0.4 = 1925 dpm. This is for four liters of water, so divide by 4 and you have 481.25 dpm/L. This can be converted to pCi or Bq. It is about 219 pCi/L or about 8 Bq/L. Given the table data you provided for K-40 (11 Bq/L), this is in pretty good agreement. Your table doesn't specify, but background activity can vary a fair bit from ocean to ocean, so, this is a very believable number.
    Importantly, the ONLY thing you can report from this measurement is the gross beta/gamma activity (you can't say much about specific nuclides, but based on the known constituents in seawater, you can safely attribute the activity to K-40). This measurement does NOT support any claim of a high level of activity in the seawater, or of measurable levels of Fukushima fallout (there's no way in the world you could detect Fukushima radiation with such a method, and to my knowledge, no radioactivity has been detected in Hawaii from Fukushima (and is unlikely ever to be)). The experts who are looking for it have the benefit of hundreds of thousands of $$ of equipment and decades of experience. If they haven't found it, you're not going to find it with a pancake GM.
    I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about any of this.

    1. That would be the non-carcinogenic 40K with it's billion year half life, neh?

    2. Given that potassium is a "spectator" ion in water, would you expect the K to leave the sample with the steam of boil off, or would it all precipitate out and remain in the skillet? Or break it down into rough percentages?

      But "they" have found it. I see, decades of experience is required, hmmm are you sure it is that complicated?


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments