Reply #33: I am supposed to believe data from the company who is at fault? n/t

[abqmufc]

Not that I am sure whose data I'd trust, but I will say I don't trust TEPCOs data one bit. Their track record prior to this event was enough. Their initial handling of information during the early days of this accident are the icing on the "I don't trust TEPCO data cake."

Personally I've not seen any data that shows me what I want to know. What I'd like to see is trajectory modeling of radiation plumes into the atmosphere. The only one I've seen is by the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, it has been on this site. But I am not 100% this is a real NILU model. I'd then like to see a massive sampling of rainwater in the radiation plume's trajectory. Only rainwater data I've seen is from the Bay Area (UC Berkley) and only on March 17-19. Personally I think rainwater samples should be sampled daily from Anchorage (ideally Kivalina) down to Portland, OR. It seems the modeling I've seen would suggest San Francisco is farther south than the plume's direct path.

I'd also like to see sampling of US agriculture be tested for toxins and radionuclides that are linked to the accident in Japan, this testing should begin now and run through this year's growing season. A lot of people depend on rainwater for food in the USA, be it your back yard garden or commercial fields. Maybe there is nothing to worry about. But having worked with backwards trajectory air quality monitoring for Tribes, I know we can pinpoint where a radiation plume from the Japan site is headed and we can also determine where that radiation may fall from the atmosphere to the ground via rain or snow. Yet I am unsure why this is not being done.