Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Evidence of Fukushima Fallout: Increase in Global "Background" Radiation Levels

An Enenews poster, Vital1, has been collecting and graphing his radiation monitoring data. His careful data collection help document an increase in background radiation over the last year and a half. 

I find his data particularly concerning because he is in the southern hemisphere and therefore is not directly downwind of Fukushima fallout from the jet stream, which is I believe the most significant atmospheric conduit of Fukushima fallout outside of Japan.

Furthermore, his data support my empirically based observations that fallout significantly increased in December of 2011 and January of 2012. 

EPA Radnet data indicate large spikes in US west coast cities during this time period. Furthermore, many people I know living in California, Arizona, and Nevada experienced "clinical" symptoms of radiation exposure late winter and early spring 2012 including: bloody noses; receding gums and dental problems; hair and nail loss; weight loss and widespread inexplicable stomach problems that could not be diagnosed by internists and gastroenterologists. Over the summer of 2012 people I knew began experiencing problems in late pregnancy. Still others, aged in their 40s and 50s, experienced heart palpitations that could not be explained causally, even with extended hospital stays. 

I have no way of proving these anecdotal symptoms were caused by Fukushima fallout. 

Likewise, I have no way of proving that the anomalies I detected in wildlife beginning the summer of 2011 were caused by Fukushima fallout:

King Salmon Missing
Unusually Unmanageable wildfires in the west in the summer of 2011 and 2012 http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/radiation-fallout-from-fukushima-and-us.html

Speculation on MIA Hermit Crabs in San Diego

Cockroaches MIA

Strange Weather and Arctic Melt-off

I've been trained in the scientific method so I acknowledge that my anecdotal observations and intuition are no basis for certainty.

That said, I know at a deep and core level that I am not wrong in my belief that the constellation of observations point to Fukushima fallout.

Vital's data provide additional empirical evidence that Fukushima fallout (and any other radiation contamination dumped/released during that time) has impacted background levels:

Below please find Vital's comments and links to his graphs:
Australia,  Queensland,  Sunshine Coast,  1st, January, 2013

Here is a chart for December 2012, plus this years monthly average chart.

This December was 43% above the pre-Fukushima 4 year average for December, making it equal with the month high we had in January 2012.


The average for the year of 2012 was 21% above the pre-Fukushima 4 year average, see the month average chart.


I have incomplete data for December 2011, as the new Gamma Scout Geiger Counter had just arrived. It was a while before I set up data logging on this unit. Didn't realize how important data logging would be at the time.

As you can see from the data I did record for that month, the average for December 2011 was 26% percent above average. As you can see in that chart, there were more dynamic swings in background levels, compared to December 2012.

The data is clearly showing increasing background levels of radiation over the last two years, at my location on the central east coast of Australia.

Full historical data can be found here.


Majia here: I appreciate his careful work, and the work of all others attempting to bring understanding to the ongoing problems of nuclear and chemical contamination of planet earth.


  1. "I've been trained in the scientific method so I acknowledge that my anecdotal observations and intuition are no basis for certainty.

    That said, I know at a deep and core level that I am not wrong in my belief that the constellation of observations point to Fukushima fallout."

    The Precautionary Principle:

    "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action."


  2. Great comment. The precautionary principle seems more hypothetical than real when it comes to government and corporate policy, unfortunately.

    1. Majia, I talked about this principle with Joe Mangano. He told me it is one of those golden principles, which are true in theory, but nobody actually ever follows. Research is 100% dependent on who pays for it. Unless you're a lone-wolf blogger.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.