Radioactive rain falls in B.C. on June 16

In response to silence from government and the media, here’s citizen science:

Lake Louise:


And in Red Deer, Alberta:

Watch more videos from this citizen scientist.


Filed under News

17 responses to “Radioactive rain falls in B.C. on June 16

  1. And they blame the recent spike in infant deaths on “poor parenting practices:”

  2. msminxy

    The scariest thing is that in Kelowna for instance is the interior cancer agency, serving BC and the Yukon. This is the place to go to have radiation for cancer treatment (had my stay there). If there is that much in the air, then would they not have to modify doses that people are recieving? Radiation is cumulative, and it seems to me of they do not people are being very overdosed.

  3. Bob

    How is this not going viral?

    So does this mean the plant is still spewing large amounts of radiation or Is this what is still in the atmosphere?

    • “So does this mean the plant is still spewing large amounts of radiation”

      It has never stopped! But governments and the media have stopped talking about it.

      Alexander Higgins has been blogging about it. A number of doctors and epidemiologists have been talking about it. But nobody is listening.

  4. Scott Cameron

    Here’s an interesting visual representation of various radiation dosages found in various scenarios. It might help put these amounts into a slightly more reasonable perspective.

    • AAARRRGGGHHH! That chart is extremely misleading!

      Do not confuse exposure to radiation with radioactive contamination.

      This chart is about exposure to radiation, not radioactive contamination.

      When you ingest radioactive contamination, you continuously expose nearby tissues to intense bombardment of radiation. This chart is based upon “whole body absorbed doses” as measured in sieverts, NOT upon the radioactive contamination that (for example) irradiates your thyroid for as much as 80-160 days after you ingest I-131.

      • Scott Cameron

        Interesting distinction. Are the CRMT videos in this blog post measuring the radiation exposure (of the measuring device) or radioactive contamination? I was assuming the former.

  5. “Are the CRMT videos in this blog post measuring the radiation exposure (of the measuring device) or radioactive contamination? I was assuming the former.”

    Simple Geiger-Möller radiation detectors cannot discriminate between the two. Or more precisely, they only measure radiation.

    And yet, circumstances (wiping off a car and holding the device close to the cloth) indicate that it is radioactive contamination that is being detected here. I’ve had similar readings during high-altitude air flights that were clearly from cosmic rays, rather than contamination. But the chart would call the risk from the two the same!

    At some point, one should employ the “precautionary principle.”

  6. yirgach

    Haha – Those videos were hilarious! I can think of at least 10 reasons why the data was bogus. And it will NOT be repeatable by anyone else either.
    Just as silly as the “Increase In Infant Death Rates BS.
    Please stop spreading this alarmist nonsense.

    • If you look at the infant death rate link I posted, you’ll see that they are government figures for the entire province of BC, not data that has been “cherry picked” by some wild-eyed environmentalist.

      If you’re going to taunt people with “10 reasons,” why don’t you share that with us? Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.

      • yirgach

        Cherry Picking? See this:
        Want more info see here:
        As for the 10 reasons (I’ll give you 12) :
        1. Device Uncalibrated
        2. Device not calibrated at each location.
        3. Repeat 3 times.

        7. Windshield surface not cleaned before testing. repeat 3 times…
        There are many vehicles passing by spraying road surface particles on the windshield. What if one of them had been carrying hospital necleuaotide waste?

        11. Napkins not tested. Maybe they were made in Fukishima?
        Ridiculous? Only if if you don’t understand Science.
        12. Vehicle not tested after each movement.
        I could go on here, but there are many reasons why these readings will NOT be Replicated.

        The prob here is that junk science is NOT science.
        You need to realize the difference.
        One experimental result does NOT mean the end of the world.
        People with valid seeming credentials will scam you if they think no one is looking.


  7. @yirgach: nice graph with no attribution. I have access to graphing software, as well. Also, nice reference to a pro-nuke advocacy site. I’ve got lots of anti-nuke advocacy sites I could list, too, but instead, I gave you a link to a BC Government site, documenting a 38% increase in infant deaths in the first half of 2011 over ALL of 2010. You’re going to have to do better than that.

    I’ll take what you call “junk science” over “official silence” any day. You can’t give any scientific rebuttal because there isn’t any. Both the US NRC and the Canadian NSC have announced that they are NOT testing for radioactive contamination from Fukushima. In fact, Canada fired the head of their Nuclear Safety Commission (Linda Keen) when she insisted that the law be followed and that mandated safety equipment be installed at Chalk River.

    South of the 49th, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department are tasked with both regulating and promoting nuclear energy. No conflict there!

    It’s really quite simple: silence the regulators, and all you’re left with is data from amateurs — like professors of epidemiology, who recently noted the infant death spikes in the Pacific Northwest.

    Sorry, I’ll take a professor of epidemiology over your pro-nuke advocacy site any day.

    • yirgach

      Take the time to read the site, that graph was mentioned there.
      The epidemiologist is a known liar and was exposed for cherry picking the data. You need to keep an open mind or yoyu will be living in an echo chamber.

  8. @yirgach wrote: “The epidemiologist is a known liar…”

    Be careful. Without providing proof, that’s called “libel.” Perhaps that’s why you hide behind a made-up name.

    People who work in good faith, using data they believe in, are not liars — even if they are nuclear proponents.

  9. Pingback: How to protect yourself from radiation | The Bovine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s