Re: Miniscule fallout reaches California

[Guest guest]

Yes. I have been watching the two geiger counter sites suggested here,and I have not noticed any sharp increases at least by day, accept Denverhopped up to 77 yesterday, which was quite a large unexplainable jump.AliOn Mar 18, 2011, at 11:39 AM, baxrox wrote:

March 18, 2011 - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiationmonitors.html

[Guest guest]

From www.radiationnetwork.com: " Depending on your location within the US, your

elevation or altitude, and your model of Geiger counter, this background

radiation level might average anywhere from 5 to 60 CPM, and while background

radiation levels are random, it would be unusual for those levels to exceed 100

CPM. Thus, the " Alert Level " for the National Radiation Map is 100 CPM, so if

you see any Monitoring Stations with CPM value above 100, further indicated by

an Alert symbol over those stations, it probably means that some radioactive

source above and beyond background radiation is responsible. "

Perhaps it is Denver's elevation that could make it an early detector? Or

perhaps just a spike in background radiation in their location?

>

> >

> > March 18, 2011 -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiat\

ionmonitors.html

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

It's neither large nor inexplicable, cinsidering their base background average is 62. Jim

From: Alison Trotta-Marshall <rubyrain11@...>iodine Sent: Fri, March 18, 2011 3:07:22 PMSubject: Re: Miniscule fallout reaches California

Yes. I have been watching the two geiger counter sites suggested here, and I have not noticed any sharp increases at least by day, accept Denver

hopped up to 77 yesterday, which was quite a large unexplainable jump.

Ali

On Mar 18, 2011, at 11:39 AM, baxrox wrote:

March 18, 2011 - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiationmonitors.html

[Guest guest]

I have seen Denver in the upper 60s several times this week so a jump to 77 is

not significant, especially since the upper limit on this website is 130 and

because they explain that upper elevations might have higher readings on

average.

Pamela

>

> >

> > March 18, 2011 -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiat\

ionmonitors.html

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That's new. Earlier this week, they said that 130 was the max normal value.

Wonder why they lowered it. I noticed that the blackcat site raised their max

value from 18 to 28, too.

Pamela

> >

> > >

> > > March 18, 2011 -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiat\

ionmonitors.html

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

If you click on the Message, they explain the Denver reading.

Re: Miniscule fallout reaches California

I have seen Denver in the upper 60s several times this week so a jump to 77 is not significant, especially since the upper limit on this website is 130 and because they explain that upper elevations might have higher readings on average.Pamela> > > > > March 18, 2011 - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiationmonitors.html> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Of course the reading today is low. The bulk of what was released will not

arrive until Monday according to an article on drudgereport.

>

>

> March 18, 2011 -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiat\

ionmonitors.html

>

[Guest guest]

Right. They said, as did I, that higher average readings are not unusual are

higher elevations.

Pamela

> >

> > >

> > > March 18, 2011 -

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014533541_apuswestcoastradiat\

ionmonitors.html

> > >

> > >

> >

>