Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:28:44 -0800
To: Matt Wald @nytimes.com Bill Broad @nytimes.com”
From: Steve Krivit @newenergytimes.com>
Subject: What Plume?
Hi Bill,
[Yesterday,] I made a phone call and sent an e-mail to Annika Thunborg, Spokesperson and Chief of Public Information of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization too. No response.
I read with much dismay that the CTBTO was uncooperative with you as well.
Considering their stated abilities – “The CTBTO monitoring data have proven to be the most reliable and speediest data, with up to three minutes lead-time compared with most data from other sources” – it really makes me wonder.
Now, as to your recent article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/17plume.html?hp
I have very mixed opinions about this. The nut of the article is about a plume of radioactive material. You provide good information on direction and speed.
You write about it as if you know there is a plume and you have facts about it. Do you really? Or are you assuming a “plume” based on the terrestrial releases? If you have data on an actual “plume,” what is it?
You provide absolutely zero information on the contents and concentration of this plume. Perhaps you don’t have this information because the CTBTO didn’t give it to you. Perhaps you tried other sources as well. Still, I cannot figure out why you have either omitted this information or simply stated that you were unable to obtain it.
Talking about “the radioactive plume” – as a fact – without saying what is in it, what its concentration is on departure from the general area is, at what altitudes it has been detected, what its projected concentration will be when it hits North America, is missing a major piece of the story. It leaves people either poorly-prepared for a real emergency or in panic over an imaginary emergency.
Or does the world and our country truly lack the ability to obtain this scientific information?
Steve
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:44:23 -0800
To: Matt Wald @nytimes.com Bill Broad @nytimes.com”
From: Steve Krivit @newenergytimes.com>
Subject: What Radiation Cloud?
Matt and Bill,
You guys are providing great information but there is a huge gap between your work and the rumor mill about a so-called radiation cloud heading East.
You cite in your article that agencies plan to take steps “if necessary,” and they are “on two-hour call.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html
But many people (particularly in California) think a deadly radiation cloud is already on its way. I don’t think there has been sufficient release or a high-altitude plume to support this speculation. If I’m wrong, I’d sure like to know.
Can you guys try to shed some light on the gap?
Possible questions:
Based on events so far at Fukushima, what is the expected altitude and spread of radioactive particles?
Based on events so far at Fukushima, what has been measured of the altitude and spread of radioactive particles?
Based on predicted weather patterns, where might particulate travel and when would it arrive?
Based on what has been reported to have been released thus far, what would be the expected intensity of radioactive particulate to hit Hawaii or mainland U.S.?
I’m trying my best to help educate the public. This is what I’ve done so far on this.
https://news.newenergytimes.net/2011/03/15/demystifying-nuclear-radiation/
Thanks for what you’re doing,
Steve
