Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Friday, January 1, 2016

Chicken Little Radiation Reporting Hurts the Anti-Nuclear Movement

Although Bob Nichols does an important service in bringing to light many of the radiation tragedies playing out in real time now, set up by 70 years of arrogance, shielding from the public eye, and just plain incompetence, and the ubiquitous  excuse of "we are at war, we have to save lives, we are in a cold war" that makes any irresponsible act seem permissible.

That said Mr. Nichols does a disservice to the community and the message and activism by a broad mis-truth of comparing apples to oranges.    And here it is quickly and succinctly.  

He is using Clicks Per Minute (CPM) from a Gamma Scintillator (high numbers) and comparing it to Clicks Per Minute from a conventional Geiger Counter which measures all 3 types of radiation, but with much less precision than a Gamma Scintillator (low numbers, say like 25 CPM).

So no, we are not living in the USA in cities that have 200 times normal radiation.    This is not constructive, damages the message, gets fringe activists talking about the wrong thing and discredits the anti-radiation movement.

Nichols also states (see screen capture) that "normal radiation" is 5 to 20 CPM.     This may have been true in 1900, but it is extremely rare to get any measurements of less than 20.    25 to 35 is normal in most places in USA.  

Nichols knows the difference between Beta and Gamma, between Gamma Scintillators and Geiger Counters.   Maybe he doesn't know enough.   Maybe he just wants to get people excited and talking to their elected representatives about radiation.   Maybe he just wants more clicks to his site.    I will take him to task on this in the near future, directly.    It hurts the anti-radiation anti-nuclear movement.

As the nuclear industry spend over $1.4B per year to send out propaganda to promote itself and distribute lies about how good it is....we can't afford to damage our own grassroots movement.

Here is a previous review I did on this "Chicken Little" or the Bob that Cried Wolf too often.

Another guy who has done some good research in the past (which I do not always agree with, but often do), is Ian Goddard.

Please review his video on the LNT radiation model, a very important (although flawed in a fundamental way, which does not incidentally take away from it's usefulness in protecting your safety)

By Ian Goddard

Since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the focus of nuclear advocacy has been to prevent private property owners from holding nuclear utilities liable for damages incurred by future nuclear disasters. Toward that goal, nuclear advocates have set their sights on the linear no-threshold (LNT) risk model.

According to the LNT, even the lowest doses of radiation increase risk of cancer. So the LNT informs the rationale for nuclear liability from disasters that spread radioactive fallout across the landscape.

In 2006, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences endorsed the LNT risk model in their BEIR VII report. But has radiation epidemiology since 2006 continued to support BEIR VII? That was the question I set out to answer at the National Library of Medicine, and what I found is presented in this video:


  1. not to forget, Lucas of Enformable explains issues with those rad reports as well

    1. Which comment or link in particular were you referring to?

      that one?

    2. Lucas' multiple & detailed contributions at Cafe Rad Lab (link I provided above), Stock

  2. Yeah hey...LastChants here. I'm so glad you wrote this about Nichols, as I'm aggravated by sites that screech purposely misleading information and I never refer anyone to his. It takes away from and doesn't help me encourage folks to learn a few simple ways to use their devices, such as getting to know their average background readings and watch for changes and note any reoccurring or new physical effects that might correlate with the patterns.

    I've been busy (away from enews this year) but still forging ahead informing and connecting people behind the scenes. Your work is great and I often link to your page. You've got some new young people feeling more empowered. :) Thanks for putting such good info out.

    1. hey LastChants, good to hear from you. A lot of strong contributors are getting tired of hijinks at ENE, as I am sure the $1.4B is nuke propaganda budget can achieve with only a few $100k of trolls.

      We need to excite people to see the threat, enough to take action, but flat out lies about radiation are so easily shot down, they do not help the cause.

      Happy and Healthy 2016 to you.

    2. Nuclear proponents are not trolls. I looked up the definition recently and its more directed to behavior rather than belief. We both have been guilty of bad behavior. I think that does not move the discussion forward. We need to move in a positive direction.

      I am grateful you have allowed me to participate in discussions. For 2016 I want to strive not for flame wars but for understanding.

      You need to realize its not really about science or physics or health and safety, power or money.

      Its really about people.

      You have to ask yourself "what do people want and what do people need"?

      It does no good to tell a person they are inferior because their living standard is low. For some that's all they need. They go about their day, fishing in the river, getting their drinking water from there, using it as their toilet. They then cant use the river to irrigate their ctops, they cant power their substandard homes. They get sick and die. We can help them. They live in a country of billions in less real estate. They procreate like rabbits and further grow their population. They want to live as all people live, in peace and hapiness. We can help them.

    3. Ya der, loose kook, we can give them solar, or we can enslave them in debt to the nuclear precious with an $18B bill that really cost $65B by the time the interest is paid and the plant is operated.

      Then they have a pile of precious and no solutions for the precious.

  3. Does know about this? Or is this simply an "op-ed" supplied and canned by beforeitsnews, then printed? Sounds strange that the web site would not see the disparaging and inaccurate information.
    Happy New Year

  4. I posted an e-mail reply from Mr. Nelson stating where he gets his information and now it's gone from your site.

    Whats up?

    1. The comment system does have occasional weirdness, not too often. For some people the problem occurs more frequently, I have to live with it for now, until I can migrate everything to wordpress.

  5. I asked Mr. Nelson where he was getting his information and respond to his high CPM.
    His reply:

    Mr Cxxxx Sxxxx

    Mr. Sxxxx,

    Readings differ as to type of monitor and the percentage of the radiation that is actually detected. There is considerable variance among monitors, especially in Sensitivity.

    The sources are publicly available to all and are listed in the first three footnotes in the section Sources and Notes. Just Page Down or Search for Notes and Sources.

    I use EPA staffed and maintained monitors that run 24/7/365. Everybody can see the records, everybody with access to a computer can look the readings up.

    Write me again should you want more info.


    Bob Nichols

    Notes and Sources

    1. The Radiation charts and graphs of the EPA at Individual queries can be built at the EPA RadNet Query Builder. Don’t skip the “2” in www2.

    2. The EPA based reporting of an LLC.

    3. * This station’s Radiation equals combined Beta and Gamma Radiation. Note: Not all locations have reporting Beta Radiation Monitors. Gamma Radiation Monitors are reporting publicly at all these locations.

    1. So he knows exactly how he is lying.

      It is a black eye on the anti radiation movement.

    2. He has deceived many with his half truths and made a mockery of those who print his lies. Any news organization would check it's source and authenticity before printing, but few do.

      One cannot correct a wrong such as this but one can discredit his authorship with facts.

    3. The black eye to the antinuclear movement was COP21 and the revelation to the world that the largest expansion of coal use and pollution the past 40 years was due to antinukes.

      Got a little Excel exercise for you if you are up to it:

      Determine the amt of trapped uranium and thorium liberated from burning world wide coal the past 40 years. Any good researcher can determine that amt.

      Take the spontaneous fission rate of nat U with that gram amt liberated and find the amount of Sr90 and Cs137 created in the atmosphere by burning coal.

      Its a non trivial number.

      So there you have it. Antinukes cause more coal use that liberates uranium and thorium at trace Amy's yet add up to massive poisoning of the planet.


    4. The irony is that countries that have gone hard core solar have experienced less coal usage.

      The old coal lie, how stale is that, nukist, come on take the red pill. But you may wish to kill yourself after seeing the error of your ways. So maybe don't.

      Germany power rate also going down due to solar

    5. Dude, Im not talking what they are doing now, even if its lip service. Im talking about what they did to serve the base before 311. They built massive amts of coal plants. Even your precious Germany installed TWe of coal. So do the exercise if you have the stones.

      You have to consider "what constitutes the energy deposition components of background dose rates. Every day the nuclear argument gets stronger as reasonable start to wake up to the slander of low low radiation as some world killer.

      Even Fukushima consequences which only added 0.0001% additional radiation to the environment has had its backlash to antinukes. Its opened the dialog because reasonable people understand the limits of man vs nature. Reasonable people understand technology evolves.

      Nuclear isnt perfect, nothing is. However now that unreasonable people have slandered a technology that has saved lives, those that support the technology (not necessarily the companies oe business practices) are pushing back.

      This push back was long overdue and shows that reasonable people will go out and learn and earn degrees to actually solve technical challenges. While the unreasonable will continue to trudge out old tired slogans.

      The next decade is important for the new message. Its stupid to latch on to slogans. Get your hands dirty and do REAL work. Stop faking it. Get a MS in nuclear engineering. It will take you a year maybe two. But the payoff will be good for many years after. You are my age or around. Its not too late. UW has a distance/online program. Do it.

    6. Look at the nuke waste dumps....just an example of how man cannot be trusted with nuclear.

      You are incorrect, exactly what we need is slogans for the dumbed down populace with an attention span less than a goldfish.

      BTW dude I am 90% retired, no interest in getting another MS, especially in nuclear. I was thinking about creating a practical course in solar design and installation, and sales. 47% closing rate here, and that is my gross closing rate. The rate related to only those who actually bought from someone is 60% to 75%.

      No lies are needed to sell solar.

    7. Most all of the inventory in nuclear waste dumps as you say is low level with hospitals and radwaste from clothes and tools. Very little process waste by volume.

      No lies needed to sell nuclear. Youve been trapped by antinuclear misinformation. Gundersen sold you a bill of goods.

      Ever wonder why whistleblowers become whistleblowers? Some are genuinely concerned, very rarely.

      It usually boils down to money.

      What is really needed is grass roots science and nuclear education without the bias. Fairewinds has an agenda and constituency. Cant really call that objective.

      Ill be retired in less than 5 yrs then its either academia, consulting, or something totally different. But I will always find time to give back to the science and tech.

      There are many things on a list that man cant be trusted if you are going to get specific. Cars, planes, vaccines. ..

      You cant live your life in a cave.

      Wisconsin about to repeal their moratorium on nuclearn

      The new gen tech addresses shortcomings and improvements. Technology evolves with understanding. People fly, drive without concerns yet risks always there and way way larger than nuclear.

      Why do you hate the tech and people behind tech? Not talking business models or corp America but nuts and bolts tech.

      The tech and people behind it, the Fermi's and innovators should be championed.Not vilified. No reason.

  6. Its not Clicks per Minute. Its Counts per minute. And it has very little to do with H*(10) or effective dose equivalent which is noted in units of Sv. You people talk CPM as if its tge tell tale sign of radiation dose with some instrument-specific conversion factor. Swinging a meter from an airplane or little dingy looking for radiation spikes is amateurish and never ever represents reality with respect to H*(10).

    If you arent talking H*(10) you are just wasting your time and those that believe you.

    Do me a favor nuke pro. Be a real pro, do your homework on H*(10) and then tell me how your EBay purchased RadScout is really going to deliver the mail.

    You cant determine H*(10) by swinging your meter and H*(10) is the only thing that matters.

    Do your due dilligence.

    For once.

    1. I'll get my chuckle in now....the only thing that matters is RD reality dose. And that is determined by isotope, intake, biolife, age, sex, personal effect, other disease, and then luck.

      RD is stochastic to a degree. Coined it I have.

    2. RD or whatever you call it isnt H*(10) which IS stochastic which no one can define for low low. You think you can swing a meter, make a conversion to Sv then apply say 5e-3/Sv deaths to a population? Doesn't work that way.

      BTW a Geiger doesnt discriminate the radiation type or energy.

      Cmon man, you need to be better. After 5 years since Fukushima there are people who graduated JSN in 2011 that are now getting Masters degrees in nuclear engineering.

      You have had ample time to both get it right and do it right.

      But the road to perdition they say ....

      Cmon man!


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments