Comments on: Radiation Plume From Port Chicago Found? http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html Scooping up science news and dropping it on your desk Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:03:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Kelly http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-7023 Kelly Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:55:01 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-7023 Has anyone thought of analyzing tree rings in the areas surrounding Port Chicago? On another note, my husband's entire family lived in Port Chicago after the military opened it again. They built low income housing on the land... hmmm.. Anyway, my husband passed away from kidney cancer in 1992. Most of his family that lived there is dead of kidney cancer as well.. With the exception of his older brother. He discovered kidney cancer and one of his kidneys was removed... We thought he beat it till this year.. He is terminal... If anyone would like to interview him for info let me know. I think someone should track down all the residents of this low-income housing project.. You may uncover absolute evidence... I believe that there was some sort of nuclear/hydride/atomic event there based on how i have watched everyone in my husbands family die of the same type of cancer!! Has anyone thought of analyzing tree rings in the areas surrounding Port Chicago? On another note, my husband’s entire family lived in Port Chicago after the military opened it again. They built low income housing on the land… hmmm.. Anyway, my husband passed away from kidney cancer in 1992. Most of his family that lived there is dead of kidney cancer as well.. With the exception of his older brother. He discovered kidney cancer and one of his kidneys was removed… We thought he beat it till this year.. He is terminal… If anyone would like to interview him for info let me know. I think someone should track down all the residents of this low-income housing project.. You may uncover absolute evidence… I believe that there was some sort of nuclear/hydride/atomic event there based on how i have watched everyone in my husbands family die of the same type of cancer!!

]]> By: ikluft http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5973 ikluft Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:26:16 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5973 The system records a reading from the geiger counter every time it gets a location from the GPS. Nominally, that's once per second. <p> So whether I'm stopped or moving, it's recording. Yes, that means there is more data that can be recorded by stopping in every location. Maybe there will be time for that some day. But for now we're still scoping out the whole situation. This mobile collection mode is useful for catching anything out of the ordinary over a wide area, just by driving there. <p> What speeds get reliable readings? It looks like the slower the better. I did one run through Grizzly Island at 35mph and it missed almost everything. At 20 mph it catches things pretty well. But the first drive there was at times as slow as 10 mph and got the most data. So, yeah, eventually that will have to be recorded with a lot more stops. I think I'd prefer to recruit some helpers with similar equipment before trying to do that exhaustive a survey, except maybe in small sample areas. <p> For areas like that, it might be useful to experiment with turning down the readings from a 60-second moving average down to 30 or even 20 seconds. It wouldn't be as well-averaged data. But it may help catch things that need a closer look. <p> But for now I'd put a higher priority on making another run further to the northeast. I did Hwy 12, Hwy 113 and Shiloh Rd at highway speeds. So far, Shiloh Rd had one 14 uR/hr reading and consistently elevated readings even at 65 mph. Since it's in the area which appears to be further downwind, it'll also need another pass at a slower speed to take a closer look. As long as I keep finding discernable elevated readings, I'll have to keep checking around them to find the overall shape of the elevated background radiation area. <p> So far unproven, it <i>looks</i> like it elongates and fades in the direction that the winds usually go in the area. That's what formed the basis of the hypothesis that this could be a plume. The system records a reading from the geiger counter every time it gets a location from the GPS. Nominally, that’s once per second.

So whether I’m stopped or moving, it’s recording. Yes, that means there is more data that can be recorded by stopping in every location. Maybe there will be time for that some day. But for now we’re still scoping out the whole situation. This mobile collection mode is useful for catching anything out of the ordinary over a wide area, just by driving there.

What speeds get reliable readings? It looks like the slower the better. I did one run through Grizzly Island at 35mph and it missed almost everything. At 20 mph it catches things pretty well. But the first drive there was at times as slow as 10 mph and got the most data. So, yeah, eventually that will have to be recorded with a lot more stops. I think I’d prefer to recruit some helpers with similar equipment before trying to do that exhaustive a survey, except maybe in small sample areas.

For areas like that, it might be useful to experiment with turning down the readings from a 60-second moving average down to 30 or even 20 seconds. It wouldn’t be as well-averaged data. But it may help catch things that need a closer look.

But for now I’d put a higher priority on making another run further to the northeast. I did Hwy 12, Hwy 113 and Shiloh Rd at highway speeds. So far, Shiloh Rd had one 14 uR/hr reading and consistently elevated readings even at 65 mph. Since it’s in the area which appears to be further downwind, it’ll also need another pass at a slower speed to take a closer look. As long as I keep finding discernable elevated readings, I’ll have to keep checking around them to find the overall shape of the elevated background radiation area.

So far unproven, it looks like it elongates and fades in the direction that the winds usually go in the area. That’s what formed the basis of the hypothesis that this could be a plume.

]]> By: mtigges http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5946 mtigges Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:49:42 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5946 I was wondering if you stopped the car, and took a measurement. I really know nothing about radiation, but it seemed to me with my ignorance somewhat logical that it would make a difference. But I didn't want to point out my ignorance. You know ... that whole don't open your mouth, lest you remove all doubt thing. I was wondering if you stopped the car, and took a measurement. I really know nothing about radiation, but it seemed to me with my ignorance somewhat logical that it would make a difference. But I didn’t want to point out my ignorance. You know … that whole don’t open your mouth, lest you remove all doubt thing.

]]> By: ikluft http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5920 ikluft Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:47:59 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5920 <a href="http://www.kluft.com/~ikluft/pc44/">The background radiation observations page</a> has been updated. I fixed the image-generation software so that the colors are displayed correctly. And it uses a more intuitive choice of colors now. (And an improvement that helps me too - instead of taking an hour averaging too many data points, the new algorithm takes only a few seconds to run.) <p> Also, an update on the July 11 drive. There was a 14 uR/hr data point on Shiloh Rd which I missed. (It's easy to miss one point when you're sifting through hours of data taken at 1-second intervals.) The image has been updated to point out where it was. <p> I've been back to Grizzly Island two more times to collect more data. That should be posted either over the weekend or early next week. Highlights of what I learned... <ul> <li>If you drive too fast, you won't see the small "warm spots" as more area around it gets included in the counts per minute. <li>When driving slower, one reading on Grizzly Island went up to 20 uR/hr, which is now the highest reading I've recorded in that area. </ul> The background radiation observations page has been updated.
I fixed the image-generation software so that the colors are displayed correctly. And it uses a more intuitive choice of colors now. (And an improvement that helps me too – instead of taking an hour averaging too many data points, the new algorithm takes only a few seconds to run.)

Also, an update on the July 11 drive. There was a 14 uR/hr data point on Shiloh Rd which I missed. (It’s easy to miss one point when you’re sifting through hours of data taken at 1-second intervals.) The image has been updated to point out where it was.

I’ve been back to Grizzly Island two more times to collect more data. That should be posted either over the weekend or early next week. Highlights of what I learned…

  • If you drive too fast, you won’t see the small “warm spots” as more area around it gets included in the counts per minute.
  • When driving slower, one reading on Grizzly Island went up to 20 uR/hr, which is now the highest reading I’ve recorded in that area.
]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5884 Anonymous Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:44:39 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5884 Well i did say they were decontaminated at sea primarily, although i saw a site from one of the navy bases near san francisco where they said the area was used for decontamination. I still kind of doubt that much actual decon would have been done there as the ships would have had to be cleared and screened to be allowed to come in through the bay anyway. It did say LCI-549 was towed to PC but it had already been cleared. I dont really think it is all that relevant anyway IF there was significant radiation found across the bay it really wouldnt be from ship decon anyway. Well i did say they were decontaminated at sea primarily, although i saw a site from one of the navy bases near san francisco where they said the area was used for decontamination. I still kind of doubt that much actual decon would have been done there as the ships would have had to be cleared and screened to be allowed to come in through the bay anyway. It did say LCI-549 was towed to PC but it had already been cleared. I dont really think it is all that relevant anyway IF there was significant radiation found across the bay it really wouldnt be from ship decon anyway.

]]> By: deckard http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5848 deckard Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:40:05 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5848 Could you be a bit more specific about 'which' several ships made their way to Port Chicago? Let's remember that Port Chicago was essentially an ammo depot. The ships that were destroyed and damaged in the explosion were cargo ships, specifically Liberty-type ships. This would have been the most prevalent type of ship at Port Chicago. The sub pens were at Mare Island. And other combat types were supported via Alameda. Also, I cannot find any evidence of 'secondary' or 'tertiary' decontamination of ships at any of the Bay area facilities. For instance, http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/p2/parche-i.htm points out that Parche (USS-384) was decontaminated at Bikini and then proceeded to Mare Island. No mention is made of a second decon procedure. Also, take a look at: http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/crossroa.htm. Several of the veterans described the harrowing decontamination procedures that were used at Bikini--lye, seawater, & buckets--but none describe these procedures as taking place at Port Chicago, Mare Island, etc. I do not doubt your claims, I would just like an opportunity to view the original source materials. Thanks... Could you be a bit more specific about ‘which’ several ships made their way to Port Chicago? Let’s remember that Port Chicago was essentially an ammo depot. The ships that were destroyed and damaged in the explosion were cargo ships, specifically Liberty-type ships. This would have been the most prevalent type of ship at Port Chicago. The sub pens were at Mare Island. And other combat types were supported via Alameda. Also, I cannot find any evidence of ’secondary’ or ‘tertiary’ decontamination of ships at any of the Bay area facilities. For instance, http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/p2/parche-i.htm points out that Parche (USS-384) was decontaminated at Bikini and then proceeded to Mare Island. No mention is made of a second decon procedure.
Also, take a look at: http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/crossroa.htm. Several of the veterans described the harrowing decontamination procedures that were used at Bikini–lye, seawater, & buckets–but none describe these procedures as taking place at Port Chicago, Mare Island, etc.
I do not doubt your claims, I would just like an opportunity to view the original source materials. Thanks…

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5807 Anonymous Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:20:40 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5807 I would not be too excited by a 3 to 5 micro-r difference, that is really not too significant, but it is likely all that would be expected if there really is a plume, and if the wind direction that night matches the plume. That kind of difference could even be accounted for being too close to the road, or the soils used in the levee, or the geology of the area, etc. Soil samples are the answer and should be analyzed for fission product isotopes. I would not be too excited by a 3 to 5 micro-r difference, that is really not too significant, but it is likely all that would be expected if there really is a plume, and if the wind direction that night matches the plume. That kind of difference could even be accounted for being too close to the road, or the soils used in the levee, or the geology of the area, etc. Soil samples are the answer and should be analyzed for fission product isotopes.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5760 Anonymous Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:17:26 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5760 The crater was completely dredged out by the navy after the explosion, but not before scientists from Los Alamos' Manhattan Project thoroughly studies the damage pattern, the crater, and even the tidal wave that was produced by the explosion. These documents are all available from Los Alamos. The crater was completely dredged out by the navy after the explosion, but not before scientists from Los Alamos’ Manhattan Project thoroughly studies the damage pattern, the crater, and even the tidal wave that was produced by the explosion. These documents are all available from Los Alamos.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5706 Anonymous Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:14:02 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5706 There were several ships that were taken to PC for cleaning, but they were also decontaminated at Bikini, if there was any fission products that came off ships at PC they would only likely be found in the immediate vicinity and not across the bay. There were several ships that were taken to PC for cleaning, but they were also decontaminated at Bikini, if there was any fission products that came off ships at PC they would only likely be found in the immediate vicinity and not across the bay.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sciscoop.com/2004-7-16-94228-2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-5651 Anonymous Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:12:30 +0000 http://localhost/~arielschwartz/wordpress/sciscoop/?p=2047#comment-5651 Keep in mind Trinity was a plutonium bomb detonated 100 feet or so above the ground, whereas the bomb at PC would have been uranium and detonated inside a metal ship under at least ten feet of water. Results from pacific testing showed very little fallout from underwater blasts as compared to airbursts. Keep in mind Trinity was a plutonium bomb detonated 100 feet or so above the ground, whereas the bomb at PC would have been uranium and detonated inside a metal ship under at least ten feet of water. Results from pacific testing showed very little fallout from underwater blasts as compared to airbursts.

]]>