California Wildfire Likely Spread Nuclear Contamination From Toxic Site? | Hacker News Reader

California Wildfire Likely Spread Nuclear Contamination From Toxic Site?

truthout.org

33 pointshoward94115 comments

Realtime radiation maps:

http://radiationnetwork.com/DetailMaps.htm

https://www.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-dat...

https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-air-data-bakersfield-ca

Thanks https://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-air-data-san-francisco-ca shows a clear increase during the fires. Note that graph is log10 scale.

Now, can someone explain what this data means, and how dangerous these levels are?

doesn't help much since the southwest map shows 3+ radioactive sites/sources near the densely populated coastal area, and only two detectors thousands of miles inland from the sites...

The good news is this article is bullshit, fear mongering.

Proof?

This is fairly easy to independently verify. Take your Geiger counters around the affected areas and tell me if they spike. There is also plenty of commercial equipment that detects other chemicals. It is simply a matter of time before someone unexpectedly picks up dangerous readings (or doesn’t, because there’s no threat).

You won't pick up alpha particles with Geiger counter. Plutonium, which is the main concern in this case, is an alpha emitter, so it will very difficult to pick up with a Geiger.

You may pick up its decay products, which emit beta and gamma radiation. According to the EPA chart [0] there is a little spike in gamma.

Now whether this represent an immediate danger to the public is open to discussion, as the levels seem to be pretty low.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-dat...

> It is simply a matter of time before someone unexpectedly picks up dangerous readings (or doesn’t, because there’s no threat)

How long do you have to wait for absence of proof to become proof of absence ?

Depends on your null-hypothesis. Or, from a baysian point of view, it depends on your prior distribution.

truthout is not a great source for actual information, it's like a left-handed FOX.

Are those chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer?

Most non-Californians won’t get this joke. But I did.

It is not uncommon knowledge that California has Proposition 65, and that many products bear this warning even if sold outside of California because they are are also sold unaltered in the state and must follow the appropriate labeling rules. So many people are already aware of this “meme”.

well, if the contaminants are in the air, business have two choices: either fully hermetic spaces with air filtration, or every single place will have now to show the warning, because of the air inside.

Are there businesses that don't have to show the warning?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com