Upload of the Month

This is the upload as it appears in the API link below.

Above: This is the upload as it appears in the SAFECAST API.

Every now and then we get a data submission which strikes us as particularly interesting for one reason or another, and we’d like to start highlighting them. So here’s our first “Upload of the Month.” .

User Kevin Kamps, co-credited with Beyond Nuclear, posted this recently with the description:
“Walking around the northern perimeter of the Entergy Palisades atomic reactor, within the confines of the Van Buren State Park.”
The location is in South Haven, Michigan, USA, right on the shore of Lake Michigan.

A lot of people are concerned about radiation levels in areas near nuclear power plants, but we rarely see reliable independent surveys of the sort that can help inform people about what is normal and what is not. Safecasters can quickly and easily survey and post readings like these, and as more a data like this becomes publicly available it will help establish baselines for radiation levels in areas of concern. This bGeigie Nano survey shows readings mainly in the 25-40 CPM range, with a few slightly higher areas. We don’t have a lot of data from this area to compare this to, but it seems well within the range of normal background.

This is the upload as it appears in our new web map.
This is the upload as it appears in our new web map.

Another reason we’re happy to see this upload is that Beyond Nuclear was one of the groups which participated in the bGeigie Nano workshop we held in Washington DC in April of this year. It’s great to see concrete results like this emerge from that important effort.

4 Comments on “Upload of the Month

  1. great work however on the first map with the white and green dots there is no indication of the values for the green dots.

  2. As an analytical data expert, I must insist that the measuring investigator document the instrument’s name and model; the calibration method before and after sample readings and the readings taken from several known reference sources ( not the standardized calibration standard traceable to the NBS) be taken and reported for reference..

    If this is not done, the measurements from the unknown samples are not believable nor can they be comparable to the next set of readings.

    Do it correctly or don’t do it and look like, and be, technological fools.

  3. As a former Particle Physicist, very concerned in the 70’s for, and fighting against, deep dumping of high-level nuclear waste, concerned for radiation levels around UK Nuclear plants, this good and simple and straightforward work fills me with admiration.

    Dick Feynman held up a small piece of rubber gasket at the Challenger Enquiry, dipped it in ice-water, showed it stiffen and become useless, and in face of NASA, uttered those immortal words: “Nature is not fooled.”

  4. As a former Particle Physicist, very concerned in the 70′s for, and fighting against, deep dumping of high-level nuclear waste, concerned for radiation levels around UK Nuclear plants, this good and simple and straightforward work fills me with admiration.

    Dick Feynman held up a small piece of rubber gasket at the Challenger Enquiry, dipped it in ice-water, showed it stiffen and become useless, and in face of NASA, uttered those immortal words: “Nature is not fooled.”