High radiation measured in Maine

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

4 posts / 0 new

Tonight was the first time I watched a video on youtube by a guy who goes by the name connectingdots1. Here is a link to the video.


This video inspired me to do exactly what he did, which was to wipe down the windshield of my car during a rainstorm with a paper towel to measure the radiation from the rain collected in the paper towel. I measured the paper towel before and after wiping the windshield, and the result was upsetting! The geiger counter sounded its alarm! And it does repeatedly every time I measure the paper towel. This means it's a dangerous radiation level.

The background radiation was approximately thirty counts per minute, but I counted over one hundred counts per minute from the wet paper towel!

It's an old counts per minute geiger counter, so I can't tell you the exact reading, but I'm going to go to the local Department of Marine Resources here in Maine and ask them to analyze the sample. Regardless of the lab's results, I encurage everyone who has this capability to repeat the process and share your' results. I'm afraid its time to stop waiting for our government to tell us that it's radioactive outside, and go find out for ourselves!

So what are we going to do about the radiation in the rain?



Brian Papineau's picture
Brian Papineau
Feb. 14, 2011 6:31 pm


I am new here - what is this from, Japan? is it just everywhere now?

Apr. 8, 2010 1:11 pm

A Major Canadian Paper Reports That The Government Covered Up Massive Amounts Of Radioactive Material From Fukushima In Canadian Air” And Are Continuing To Manipulate Radiation Monitoring Data.

Alexander Higgins
August 4th, 2011

While the alternative media has reporting on a cover up of the Fukushima nuclear fallout throughout the disaster we haven’t seen a mainstream news source do much more than act as a stenographer for the government and the nuclear industry through the ordeal.

This could clearly be seen in the nuclear fallout maps.

Japan Nuclear Radiation Fallout Forecast For US West Coast On April 6th, 2010

To be fair, Forbes blogger Jeff McMahon called out the government for switching their so-called safety levels but really haven’t heard much from him since. The rest of the media has been silent.

Today we a major Canadian paper has lashed out at the government of Canada after finally coming to the realization the cronies knew about and covered up “massive amounts of radioactive material from Fukushima in Canadian”.

Before I send you to the link, I would like to clarify the caption beneath the photo of the expert they interviewed which reads as follows:

Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, says that while radiation coming from Fukushima will lead to higher cancer rates among Canadians, the risk posed to individuals is very small.

Shame on this man for spewing the nuclear apologist talking point that while the population is at a higher risk the risk to an individual is small. The Feds spit out the same bullshit saying if 1 in 2,200 people are going to get cancer there is a risk the overall population but not the the individual.

Forbes’ McMahon does an excellent job of objectively explaining that for that 1 in 2,200 who get cancer there is a risk.

That kind of statement failed to reassure the public in part because of the issue of informed consent—Americans never consented to swallowing any radiation from Fukushima—and in part because the statement is obviously false.

There is a question whether the milk was safe.

In spite of the relative level of Fukushima radiation, which many minimized through comparison to radiation from x-rays and airplane flights—medical experts agree that any increased exposure to radiation increases risk of cancer, and so, no increase in radiation is unquestionably safe.

Whether you choose to see the Fukushima fallout as safe depends on the perspective you adopt, as David J. Brenner, a professor of radiation biophysics and the director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center, elucidated recently in The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists:

Should this worry us? We know that the extra individual cancer risks from this long-term exposure will be very small indeed. Most of us have about a 40 percent chance of getting cancer at some point in our lives, and the radiation dose from the extra radioactive cesium in the food supply will not significantly increase our individual cancer risks.

But there’s another way we can and should think about the risk: not from the perspective of individuals, but from the perspective of the entire population. A tiny extra risk to a few people is one thing. But here we have a potential tiny extra risk to millions or even billions of people. Think of buying a lottery ticket — just like the millions of other people who buy a ticket, your chances of winning are miniscule. Yet among these millions of lottery players, a few people will certainly win; we just can’t predict who they will be. Likewise, will there be some extra cancers among the very large numbers of people exposed to extremely small radiation risks? It’s likely, but we really don’t know for sure.

via Fukushima: What don’t we know? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

A few people certainly will “win,” which is why it’s so interesting that the EPA’s standard for radionuclides in drinking water is so much more conservative than the FDA’s standard for radionuclides in food.

The two agencies anticipate different endurances of exposure—long-term in the EPA’s view, short-term in FDA’s. But faced with the commercial implications of its actions, FDA tolerates a higher level of mortality than EPA does.

FDA has a technical quibble with that last sentence. FDA spokesman Siobhan Delancey says:

Risk coefficients (one in a million, two in ten thousand) are statistically based population estimates of risk. As such they cannot be used to predict individual risk and there is likely to be variation around those numbers. Thus we cannot say precisely that “one in a million people will die of cancer from drinking water at the EPA MCL” or that “two in ten thousand people will die of cancer from consuming food at the level of an FDA DIL.” These are estimates only and apply to populations as a whole.

The government, while assuring us of safety, comforts itself in the abstraction of the population-wide view, but from Dr. Brenner’s perspective, the population-wide view is a lottery and someone’s number may come up.

Let that person decide whether we should be alarmed.

Source: Forbes http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/08/04/canada-government-covered-massive-amounts-radiation-canadian-air-49771/

harry ashburn
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I could tell something strange is afoot. I am in the midwest near Chicago and shortly after the Fukushima disaster my tap water began picking up an odd metallic odor seemingly overnight. I don't have a geiger counter so I can't really prove anything, also the smell has subsided a bit now. In fairness we have replaced two faucets so maybe, hopefully that was it. But truthfully, I never noticed any odor from the new faucets previous to the disaster. Very odd indeed, and I have heard that Fukushima has gone or is very near to going all China Syndrome hitting the ground water over there. I think this disaster is far worse than any government officials anywhere are willing to admit to the public.

Rage on Godzilla, most honorable big lizzard, start with stomping the neo-cons if you will. :-P

brett.iso's picture
Jun. 27, 2011 12:08 pm

There's a 1 in 20 Chance of the Apocalypse. Shouldn't We Act Now?

A new study published in Science argues that we as a civilization need to move "rapidly" -- as in almost immediately -- towards a carbon emissions free future if we are to have any chance of holding off runaway global warming:

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system