Geez, I Hate To Pick on a Couple of Kids, But the MIA Put Them Up to This
Be ready to stop the video when their notepad listing the results comes on, almost to the end. They don’t mention that the background radiation is higher than most of what they measure, and they apparently don’t realize that you can’t eliminate the background radiation from the measurements.
So nothing under 16 (their background or Alone as they call it) is at all radioactive, in fact, the items tha are lower must be blocking some of the radiation from the countertop under the striped towel covering the countertop.
Since this is from the MIA, I wonder what type of countertop is under that towel? Could it be ……..Granite? Isn’t that special…..
Another thing is very suspicious. This exact meter was shown in the Air Chek video on Radon and geiger counters. Most of the meters read about the same as our meter read that paticular slab of Niagara Gold (yes, that was one of our samples we sent in to show them there were hot slabs out there), 220 uR/hr or so. Yet our meter says our background is around 7 to 8 depending on when and where you measure, but the MIA video is 16 background. What is under that towel?
These kids most likely didn’t know any better, but I bet they were put up to this by a parent that is a MIA member. What a sad lesson to teach a kid, that it is okay to fake video evidence.
And, was there any child labor involved? The young lady was apparently quite hungry, was food withheld before the video? Were the children paid for there work? 
I do have too much fun with this at times.
5 Responses to 'Geez, I Hate To Pick on a Couple of Kids, But the MIA Put Them Up to This'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on August 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It is difficult to compare apples and oranges. They are doing a 1 minute count and posting results in counts per minute (CPM). Your surveys were done with a meter reporting microRads per hour (uR/hr). All GM tubes start with CPM. Those that read out in mR/hr (or uR/hr) use an internal correction factor. This can vary wildly. For example a Ludlum 44-9 (the common pancake probe) has a sensitivity of 3300 CPM/mR/hr (137Cs gamma). An energy compensated meter such as the Ludlum 2401-EC2A has a sensitivity of 120 CPM/mR/hr (137Cs gamma). If you go to a meter with a scintillation probe, Ludlum 2401-P, the sensitivity can be as high as 120CPM/uR/hr! (120,000 CPM/mR/hr137Cs gamma). A 2″ by 2″ Sodium Iodide scintillator (Ludlum 44-10) has a sensitivity of 900 CPM/uR/hr (900,000 CPM/mR/hr.
If this gets a bit confusing, we can take a shortcut that will have some limited value. We can compare reading from different meters in the same background. I have a meter with a pancake probe, calibrated in CPM and a meter with a 1″ by 1″ NaI scintillator calibrated in uR/hr. (both to Cs-137)
In the same background, one reads 50 CPM and the other reads 15 uR/hr. Each meter has a different response curve, so the relationship is one point only(cannot be scaled up).
But, roughly, their ‘16′ is 16 CPM which is a really low background ‘about’ 5 uR/hr, and their ‘26′ ‘about’ 8 uR/hr. So…if there was a granite countertop involved, it is very very low level. They could have made more points for MIA by showing it.
on August 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
No, we aren’t really comparing apples to oranges. I brought up the Niagara gold uR/hr because THAT paticular meter was used to measure a slab that we had a known value for, I was pointing out that our meter was reading the same uR/hr as the one they used.
The fact of the matter is they didn’t mention what the meter was set on. However, in my research, 16 cpm is about one quarter of what should be expected in their area according to the background radiation maps.
From that fact, it is obvious they had the meter set on uR/hr, unless they had some really radioactive materials.
Our only point in the article was that the majority of the items they claimed were “radioactive” were in fact lower than background (their “alone )measurement.
My assumption since they didn’t show the “alone” measurement, that it was taken on the towel covered countertop. From a “16″ reading including background, which is pretty average for a low level granite countertop material, and their lower readings, I assume the lowest reading is the true background although our vidoes of measuring bananas and potatoes did not show any radiation at all.
on August 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I am afraid they were trying to “score points” for the MIA, or were doing the best they could with the limited education and experience available to them. Been there, done that.
Another point is that the MIA should have known this video was quite misleading. Why then, did they use it if they had anything else?
on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
If the meter was set for uR/hr, then the one minute count would have been unnecessary, and the reading would have varied up and down around the average dose rate. Since the readings started at zero and went up till stopped, it was set for CPM. BTW it would be nice to have a meter that would average the dose rate over a one minute period and report it in uR/hr, but they are usually pretty expensive.
on September 4th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Hmmm, I see your point on the timed reading, but I would think that 16 cpm would be way too low for background radiation. Here it is 60 cpm or around 5 to 6 uR/hr from a scintillator. Our shop building, concrete walls, floor and roof, has around 7 uR/Hr background. Here is a map of the US showing Gamma radiation
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/usagamma.gif
Nothing over 8.5 shown on the map. No doubt there are places like that that I don’t know about.
I would say that they didn’t understand the meter and ran a timed test out of ignorance. Sixteen is pretty high in a home and they reported the so called “radioactive” food to be lower than their “alone” readings. Those readings are consistent with a fairly low level granite countertop under that towel.
An accurate meter would be nice. One of our researchers took one of my ideas, using dosimeter film badges, and has ordered some to try out at a pretty hot granite countertop she found in San Jose CA.
There is a Bicron Analyst for sale with both a pancake and scintillator probe. Not sure if this is accurate enough for this type of work, might have it confused with another Bicron meter.
Dr. Llope is continuing to say that regardless of the meter’s accuracy, only a few percent of the radiation will be counted any way. Could you take his Gamma Spectrometry results and compute an exposure at different ranges? Will having the CPM and the isotope make for an accurate uR/hr calculation?