Thursday, August 25, 2011

Radnet Data Tampering

People have been telling me for some time that the Radnet data are not reliable.

Radnet is not operated by the EPA but rather was outsourced under Bush.

The contractor has been accused of not calibrating equipment properly and not maintaining monitoring as contracted (hat tip Craig and Anonymous for links)
http://www.naturalnews.com/032525_EPA_RadNet.html
http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/radnet-or-sadnet-the-epas-failed-radiation-detection-system/
(Scroll down to see an exterior shot of RadNet's headquarters.)
My feeling has been since April that seriously high levels from Fukushima are being tampered with to make them look lower, or are simply not reported at all (for example, through the ubiquitous "under review" until levels drop).

But here is a strange situation.

Radnet has been reporting very high levels for Harrisonburg Virginia.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/net2/Harrisonburg-VA-Real-Time-US-Radiation-Monitoring-Graph.aspx

And now two people claim to have seen Radnet post timed data for Harrisonbug prior to the time the data were supposedly measured. (see comments here http://enenews.com/confirmed-virginia-nuke-plant-automatic-shutdown-after-quake-shaking-interrupted-circuits-causing-loss-power-cooling-systems/comment-page-1#comment-123911)

It is, I suppose, possible that they, the technicians [?] took the readings earlier than the time stamp to avoid taking them later, when the data were supposed to be posted. (I thought it was automated but I don't know)

Another possibility is that the data were just outright forged.

So, the question is, has Radnet been forging data all along (even prior to Fukushima?) or is forging data new? If it is new, how new?

If Radnet has been forging data all along, one wonders why?

Have real radiation levels been even higher than the EPA's reported high of 800 CPM beta in Harrisonburg?

If the levels have been extraordinarily high, WHY?

Are high levels from Fukushima?

Or are plants all over the country emitting higher and higher levels of radiation due to aging and weather related problems?

Someone suggested that the source of the levels matters less than addressing their existence. However, I wonder how we argue for fixing a problem that we don't really understand the source of.

Maybe I'm wrong.

The take away point here is that the government is manipulating data that is vital to understanding risks to our health and we need to know why and how and what the real risks are.

Tomorrow I will explain one important deception involved in their risk assessment procedures.





No comments:

Post a Comment