Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 2010

General discussion about the Rendlesham forest incident

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Daniel » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:46 pm

Cheers for posting this Admin, and the Earthfiles link in the other post. I'll take a look at the article and it read later.

Daniel
Daniel
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby stephan » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:50 pm

Admin wrote:In an interview with Linda Moulton Howe released today, Nevels said the following (which I think is most definitely relevant to Strom's article):

Monroe Nevels: [...] So, when the silver tube shield was off to look for beta, you didn't get any radiation reading, but when you were measuring gamma radiation, that's when it pegged on the .5 meter and on the 5 meter it was hovering around 7 (milliroentgens)?

[...]

So then I dropped it down to the 50 and I still didn’t get anything. I dropped it down to the 5 and I noticed the needle was twigging a little bit. So, then I dropped it down to the .5 and it blasted all the way over to the right, pegging out of the range.


on the 5 meter there's no seven. 7/10th would be the value I guess which is 0.7 mR which is roughly 30 times higher than usual background radiation. A possible deviation from natural values ? I think it's possible although I have to admit it would be quite a strong deviation. Still no threat to health whatsowever if you are not exposed to it over a long period of time.
send me a signal
User avatar
stephan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Storm » Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:41 am

Still no threat to health whatsowever if you are not exposed to it over a long period of time


Perhaps it would at this point be prudent, given that you are speaking with obvious authority there, to tell us how you know. I mean obviously your job is working in the field of radiation, but what do you specifically do Stephan.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby stephan » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:08 am

it's obvious I suppose. But if you want to have some expert view on this check this out:

Health Physics Society wrote:below 5–10 rem [a year] (which includes occupational and environmental
exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent.


source: http://www.hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf

as the q value (conversion factor) for gamma rays equals 1 that would be 0.57 - 1.14 mR/h. But keep in mind that the exposure mentioned in that article refers to a continued average exposure of these values over one year (!). If they were exposed say 4 hours that would only mean an additional 4.56 mR (at the most) over one year or less than 0.1 % of the negligible dose/ year. As far as research goes the effects of low dose exposure vary between ''dose-response relationship, often referred to as the linear, no-threshold model'' and ''the effect of biological mechanisms such as DNA repair, bystander effect, and adaptive response on the induction of cancers and genetic mutations''. Some studies (debatable though) suggest that low dose exposure below a certain threshold may even be beneficial to health:

Another model is the adaptive-response model, which postulates that certain doses of low-dose radiation may even be beneficial. Typically the adaptive response is induced with 1–100 mGy of [gamma]-rays, doses 100–10,000 times larger than the natural background of [approx.] 0.01 mSv/day. This model was first proposed in 1984 to explain the finding that cultures of human lymphocytes growing in low concentrations of radioactive thymidine developed fewer chromosomal aberrations than cultures of nonradioactive lymphocytes when both were challenged with high-dose radiation (22). Other studies also seem to support this model


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154280/
send me a signal
User avatar
stephan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Storm » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:00 pm

No you missed my point. I want to know what your job is. What is your Job in Nuclear Health Physics. The one that enables you to speak with such authority on the subject of radiation. I mean anyone can look stuff up - who doesn't lol. No what I want is your authority. You see I can look up anything online - do some maths and then state facts till my hearts content. But If I have not worked in that field I could make some dodgy calls.

So what is your Nuclear Health Physics role. I am really interested, professionally interested. :mrgreen:
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby stephan » Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:34 pm

what I do ? I'm trying to analyze the case and if I think I can make a contribution I do just that. The sources I mentioned ARE authorities, at least they are linked via NASA. If you don't trust them, then whom do you trust ?

I mean anyone can look stuff up - who doesn't lol. No what I want is your authority. You see I can look up anything online - do some maths and then state facts till my hearts content. But If I have not worked in that field I could make some dodgy calls.


You WANT my authority, lol, you don't know how funny that sounds :lol: ... just as you say: anyone can do that, no matter if it's a physics professor or a graduate or just an ordinary person. If his/ her maths is correct that's okay. If it's not it can be discussed. As for the sources that are used you either trust them or not. But it's also important to see that those organisations I mentioned certainly have numerous experts and decades of experience in the field. I don't think that you or me - as single individuals - can keep up with that. After all it's empirical data (i.e. data obtained via studies which probably involved a lot of probands) which speaks here, not authority.

I think it's more important to stay on topic rather than trying to find out who's got the most stars on his shoulders. We are not here to gain something (except the truth), are we ?

and finally, what seems to be your main ''problem'', my statement that the measured radiation did not pose any threat whatsoever. I know it sounds so definite, how can I just dare, right ? Well, considering the sources I've mentioned I think I'm pretty safe here :wink: To calm you down, I don't say it is a 1000 % proven fact but I'm damn sure about it - based on what is known so far and based on the allegedly measured values.
send me a signal
User avatar
stephan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Storm » Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:02 pm

Right, well I could play games Stephan but I see no point considering the significance of the data re this case and the aggressive nature in which you have decided to react.

1. Clearly your not professionally qualified to dictate what is safe and what is not. Your sources are credible but you are not. Had you been qualified you would know that any radiation worker assumes all radiation as potentially dangerous and works to strict limits. As I would as would Nevilles at the scene. Pertinent to this case enough for you - good.

2. Given the fact that radiation was found at the scene you would as a radiation worker be surprised to find that level in that area. As a radiation worker, not knowing the source of it, you would have to do a complete survey of the area to work out stay times and also survey the area for future clean up operations. As a radiation worker you would totally concerned with the type of radiation. Alpha being the most lethal especially if it is in gaseous form. Something that Nevilles meter could not measure for. In fact he would have had to do passive air filtration to discover that but he would accept it as a possibility as would I. However you as a non radiation worker would not know that. Not your fault but stating or rather decreeing that all was well nothing to see here move on is negligent. I have tried to lead you to make the same conclusion on your own by asking blatant questions but it seems that you are more concerned with being right and assuming a peeing up the wall competition. Which is a shame. I have no need to count stars on shoulders I am qualified and had you been we could have had an academic debate about the data found on that night. Trouble is like Ian ridpath you seem to think it is sufficient to scan the Internet for quick info. However instead of adding to the understanding of what happened that night you just devalue the significance of the data found.

3. Now to be accurate the important and only important factor is that the radiation was above background and that it exceeded limits that would set into motion a procedure that would have changed how those nights played out. Being that this was not a civilian matter as such it also helps if you were in the military because we deal with things very differently. Having worked in nuclear health physics for many years on both side of the fence as it were I can say that.


I am sorry to put you on the spot but this is a difficult enough subject to deal with at the best of times let alone the attempts over the years at debunking this case using the radiation readings as a starting point. If we have radiation readings on tape and we have Nevilles saying they got more and you cannot accept that there is a possibility of them receiving a significantly bigger dose, then I am sorry but you are being a fool. I don't want that for you because I want you to enjoy the investigation. But I won't allow you to derail a significant factor of evidence when you are not even qualified in that field, unchallenged. I hope you understand Stephan.

Storm
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby stephan » Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:49 pm

Storm wrote:Right, well I could play games Stephan but I see no point considering the significance of the data re this case and the aggressive nature in which you have decided to react.

me, aggressive ? NO way. :roll: You have continiously attacked my views, you even said that you enjoy it. :neutral: Here's what I would interpret as aggressive or rather as an attempt to asperse me:

1. Clearly your not professionally qualified to dictate what is safe and what is not. Your sources are credible but you are not.

[...] it seems that you are more concerned with being right and assuming a peeing up the wall competition. Which is a shame. I have no need to count stars on shoulders I am qualified and had you been we could have had an academic debate about the data found on that night.

[...] I am sorry but you are being a fool.


I don't see why you should be any more qualified than any other person on the forum to interpret the radiation readings. With all the available information on the net it should be easy for everyone to do that. Claiming that you would be the only qualified person will only discourage others to participate in discussions with you.

Hence discussion at this point with you is over. What I sense here is a high degree of an inferiority complex and craving for recognition. Rather than exchanging arguments you like to attack people with useless allegations. It has happened before and I had hoped you would have changed. If I had known you wouldn't change I would not have involved in any discussion with you. Perhaps you should check the red line on top of this page before you post. If you change your attitude let me know and we may return to a normal discussion.
send me a signal
User avatar
stephan
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:10 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Storm » Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:35 pm

You assume that I would want to continue to converse with you and I do not. However this is my thread and therefore i am responsible for anything that happens within it pertaining to the info I posted. Including any interpretation placed on it. Further more when someone who is not qualified to do so makes sweeping claims regarding radiation safety practice behaviour I will step in on my thread. If you don't like it start your own. I beg you. Assuming your cavalier attitude I apparently could gen up on wikipedia and a few other well chosen sites and waltze into the nearest hospital and start hacking out an appendix. But after the police had carted me off I would I am sure have my credentials checked by concerned staff and police alike. Whilst I can read all I want about the procedure I cannot assume the role. I would need to be qualified and experienced to create credibility.

The inferior sense you get I suggest is closer to home. And as for personal comments about me it would be water off a ducks back dude. Also the reference to the insults statement in red. Sigh - really though.

If anyone chooses to take your assumptions seriously that is their choice. Missguided though it may be IMHO.

Finally Stephan maybe it is your non English origins but when someone in England asks for your authority they mean your qualifications. I had hoped for fellow Nuclear health physics worker to mull things over with. Obviously I will have to go wanting. I look foreword to reading your newest thread on the radiation readings.
Storm
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Frank » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:03 am

Found some interesting stuff on UFO's and radiation in Ruppelt's book (Ruppelt headed Project Blue Book).
His book is a real page-turner, and can be read on-line here: http://www.nicap.org/rufo/contents.htm
The part on UFO's and radiation is in chapter 15: http://www.nicap.org/rufo/rufo-15.htm
(More info on Ruppelt can be found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Ruppelt)

For convenience: Here are some relevant excerpts from chapter 15:

In the fall of 1949, at some unspecified place in the United States, a group of scientists had set up equipment to measure background radiation (…).
According to the rumor, two of the scientists at the unnamed place were watching the equipment one day when, for no apparent reason, a sudden increase of radiation was indicated. (…)
A quick check revealed no obvious trouble with the gear, and the two scientists were about to start a more detailed check when a third member of the radiation crew came rushing into the lab.
Before they could tell the newcomer about the unexplained radiation they had just picked up, he blurted out a story of his own. He had driven to a nearby town, and on his return trip, as he approached the research lab, something in the sky suddenly caught his eye. High in the cloudless blue he saw three silvery objects moving in a V formation. They appeared to be spherical in shape, but he wasn't sure. The first fact that had hit him was that the objects were traveling too fast to be conventional aircraft. He jammed on the brakes, stopped his car, and shut off the engine. No sound. All he could hear was the quiet whir of a generator in the research lab. In a few seconds the objects had disappeared from sight.
(…)
They checked the time. Knowing almost exactly when the instruments had registered the increased radiation, they checked on how long it took to drive to the lab from the point where the three silver objects had been seen. The times correlated within a minute or two. The three men proceeded to check their radiation equipment thoroughly. Nothing was wrong.
(…)
Almost a year after I had first heard the UFO radiation story I got a long-distance call from a friend on the west coast. (…) Now, on the phone, he told me he had just been in contact with two people he knew and they had the whole story.
(…)
Both of my informants were physicists working for the Atomic Energy Commission, and were recognized in their fields. They wanted no publicity and I promised them that they would get none. One of the men knew all the details behind the rumor, and did most of the talking. To keep my promise of no publicity, I'll call him the "scientist."
(…)
The scientist said that after the initial sighting had taken place word was spread at the research lab that the next time the instruments registered abnormal amounts of radiation, some of the personnel were to go outside immediately and look for some object in the sky.
About three weeks after the first incident a repetition did occur. While excessive radiation was registering on the instruments in the lab, a lone dark object was seen streaking across the sky. Again the instruments were checked but, as before, no malfunction was found.
(…)
About a year later the scientist and these original investigators were working together. They decided to make a few more tests, on their own time, but with radiation detection equipment so designed that the possibility of malfunction would be almost nil. They formed a group of people who were interested in the project, and on evenings and weekends assembled and set up their equipment in an abandoned building on a small mountain peak. To insure privacy and to avoid arousing undue interest among people not in on the project, the scientist and his colleagues told everyone that they had formed a mineral club. (…)
The equipment that the group had installed in the abandoned building was designed to be self operating. Geiger tubes were arranged in a pattern so that some idea as to the direction of the radiation source could be obtained. During the original sightings the equipment malfunction factor could not be definitely established or refuted because certain critical data had not been measured.
To get data on visual sightings, the "mineral club" had to rely on the flying saucer grapevine, which exists at every major scientific laboratory in the country.
By late summer of 1950 they were in business.
(…)
Early in December, about ten o'clock in the morning, the grapevine reported sightings of a silvery, circular shaped object near the instrument shack. The UFO was seen by several people.
When the "mineral club" checked the recording tapes in the shack they found that several of the Geiger tubes had been triggered at 10:17 A.M. The registered radiation increase was about 100 times greater than the normal background activity.
Three more times during the next two months the "mineral club's" equipment recorded abnormal radiation on occasions when the grapevine reported visual sightings of UFO's. One of the visual sightings was substantiated by radar. After these incidents the "mineral club" kept its instruments in operation until June 1951, but nothing more was recorded. And, curiously enough, during this period while the radiation level remained normal, the visual sightings in the area dropped off too. The "mineral club" decided to concentrate on determining the significance of the data they had obtained.
Accordingly, the scientist and the group made a detailed study of their mountain top findings.
(…)
Now, more than a year after the occurrence of the mysterious incidents that they had recorded, a year spent in analyzing their data, the "mineral club" had no answer.
By the best scientific tests that they had been able to apply, the visual sightings and the high radiation had taken place more or less simultaneously.
(…)
The scientist then told me about a far more impressive effort to verify or disprove the findings of the "mineral club." Word of the "mineral club" and their work had also spread to a large laboratory in the East. An Air Force colonel, on duty at the lab, told the story to some of his friends, and they decided to look personally into the situation.
Fortunately these people were in a wonderful spot to make such an investigation. At their laboratory an extensive survey of the surrounding area was being made. An elaborate system of radiation detection equipment had been set up for a radius of 100 miles around the lab. In addition, the defenses of the area included a radar net.
Thanks to the flashing of silver eagles, the colonel's group got permission to check the records of the radiation survey station and to look over the logs of the radar stations. They found instances where, during the same period of time that radiation in the area had been much higher than normal, radar had had a UFO on the scope. These events had occurred during the period from January 1951 until about June 1951.
Upon learning of the tentative but encouraging findings that the colonel's group had dug out of their past records, people on both the radiation survey crews and at the radar sites became interested in co-operating for further investigation. A tie-in with the local saucer grapevine established a three way check.
One evening in July, just before sunset, two of the colonel's group were driving home from the laboratory. As they sped along the highway they noticed two cars stopped ahead of them. The occupants were standing beside the road, looking at something in the sky.
The two scientists stopped, got out of their car, and scanned the sky too. Low on the eastern horizon they saw a bright circular object moving slowly north. They watched it for a while, took a few notes, then drove back to the lab.
Some interesting news awaited them there. Radar had picked up an unidentified target near the spot where the scientists in the car had seen the UFO, and it had been traveling north. A fighter had been scrambled, but when it got into the proper area, the radar target was off the scope. The pilot glimpsed something that looked like the reported UFO, but before he could check further he had to turn into the sun to get on an interception course, and he lost the object.
Several days passed before the radiation reports from all stations could be collected. When the reports did come in they showed that stations east of the laboratory, on an approximate line with the radar track, had shown the highest increase in radiation. Stations west of the lab showed nothing.
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby DeanF » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:47 pm

Storm's in depth 'article' is very good but there's a couple of omissions which subsequent posters have tried to fill in the gaps but I don't think these gaps have been filled in sufficiently well, so I'll clarify.

The difficulty with these kind of discussion groups, is they become full of armchair experts, that go off and look up bits on the net, then think they have an understanding of the physics but haven't really studied to any real depth in school/university.

1) Alpha and beta radiation are particles. They have mass. They are indeed charged particles and forms of ionising radiation.
2)Gamma radiation are electromagnetic photons.

The two are types are very different. Storm talks about the 'power' of radiation. The use of the word power is inappropriate, I know what Storm is trying to suggest, but rather than cloud the issue behind the word power, let's distinguish between the types of radiation as I have done in points 1 and 2 above.

The word power in scientific terms is actually wrong, because is power is defined as rate at which energy is used. And would be measured in Watts, = Joules/second.

And when we talk about energy in relation to radiation, there are actually mathematical formulae, for example: e=hf
where h is Plank's constant, f is the frequency of the photon, and e is the energy.
Last edited by DeanF on Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DeanF
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:24 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby DeanF » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:13 pm

There's a lot of heavy detailed technical discussion and it's mostly centered on exposure limits, which in reality, isn't important.
It's important to a person's health but it doesn't actually tell you whether a UFO landed or not.

I also get a bit worried when there's a lot of people talking about the physics of radiation and then talk about electrons orbiting atoms - which is school level physics, which anyone that has studied any physics beyond school level knows is untrue.

I hope it's done purely as a simplification. I also worry about the application of 'conservation of momentum', need to be a tad careful when we're talking about atoms and electrons and trying to apply real world, macro-scale Newtonian concepts to something to which they don't apply.

Let me return to what is important, if you want to know if a UFO landed.
Ideally, you need to know what the radiation levels are before and after the UFO landed. Obviously, people don't have radiation levels before the UFO landed, having said that, 30 years have passed, the matter, the radiation would have decayed so perhaps a radiological survey today could be useful.

There's been some mention in the last few days by an expert with regards to the Geiger counter used, and there's been discussion whether the radiation levels were significant, or still considered background level.

It doesn't matter if the levels are so low as to be regarded as background levels. The fact is, there was a change in readings over the geographical area. And those change in readings were a number of times higher than the 'nominal' level.
So this means something was triggering the Geiger counter to record higher counts.

The question is, is that something natural - the presence of radio-isotopes in the rock formations under the ground, or was it caused by residual matter left behind by the UFO itself.

So the precise position, size and shape and number of those radiation increased areas is important. Could that match the footprint of the feet of the UFO? And this is where producing a more detailed radiological map of the area would be useful.
DeanF
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:24 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby DeanF » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:19 pm

"What I was trying to say is that low energy particles (gamma photons or beta or alpha particles) would not yield residual radiation, only high energy particles will. "

By definition gamma photons are very high energy. As I've articulated in an earlier post: e=hf, gives you the energy of the gamma ray photon.
And it worries me, you're mixing up electromagnetic radiation (gamma ray) with alpha/beta radiation. It suggests a lack of understanding of the differences between them: you're saying only high energy particles but then exclude gamma radiation as being high energy, and this is not correct.

In my opinion, all those years ago, when they termed "radiation" and then grouped in the three different types of radiation under one banner was a mistake. It leads to the public not really understanding that the three types of radiation are fundamentally different, and trying to discuss all three and make comparisons between them in terms of energy is just plain wrong. They're different things and they have different effects.
DeanF
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:24 pm

Re: Accuracy of Geiger Counters

Postby DeanF » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:50 pm

In other threads it's been stated that third parties have challenged the accuracy of the Geiger Counter.
Without checking the detailed operation of the counter, I'd have thought it'd been hard for a Geiger counter to be inaccurate.
And I suggest that the accuracy of the counter isn't that important anyway, not in this particular instance.
What they were doing is scanning an area of land taking measurements and they noticed an increase in level of the radiation, it's the increases in different places that possibly suggests something happened, the exact measurement - the accuracy of it doesn't really matter. It's the change in level that matters.

What Geiger counters do is count events. Radiation takes 3 forms: alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays.
As an atom decays a quanta of energy is released in the form of one of those types of radiation, that's what a radioactive decay event is.
The particle (alpha or beta) or gamma ray is detected by the counter, each detection results in an audible click being produced by the counter.

As its name implies, the Geiger counter is counting radioactive decay events. Whilst it is a measuring device (and arguably needs calibrating against a more accurate reference device), it's not the same as trying to measure electrical power (in watts) or electrical current expressed in amps.
The latter two are continuously variable quantities, the Geiger counter is measuring, counting discrete events. Either the event has occurred or it has not.

The source of inaccuracy in a Geiger counter is then, I would suggest, translating the detection of the discrete event into a deflection of a needle on a meter.

Either a current or a voltage pulse will occur when a radioactive particle is detected - and you can see how this is simply amplified to drive a loudspeaker to generate an audible click. Any inaccuracy is going to come about by taking that pulse in voltage or current and driving the meter.
Meters are either moving coil or moving magnet. The deflection of the needle is related to the current passing through a coil of wire. (Faraday's laws of electromagnetic induction).

There's a few options to move the meter, (and the needle) with a set of pulses. you could just drive the meter directly from the voltage(or current) pulse and rely on the mechanical design, the inertia inherent because the moving parts of the meter have mass, so a certain rate of clicks causes a certain amount of angular deflection of the needle, the fewer the rate of the clicks, the less is the deflection.

Or you could start using electronics to measure the frequency and generate a current which is proportional (or a function of) the frequency, use the current to drive the meter and hey presto.

There's a few techniques I can think of that could be used using electronics, including simple RC(resistor-capacitor) filters, even operational amplifiers.
They might have even used digital electronic techniques, but I doubt it, in the 80's. Sure, we had digital electronics but in those days you could get around 6 logic gates to a 14 pin chip, not particularly dense by todays standards! - so a portable device using digital electronics, well, it could just have been possible, but would have probably resulted in a fairly hefty unit - perhaps not quite so portable.

I'd suggest it was probably more likely in those days that the Geiger Counter was designed more along the lines of direct drive of the pulses directly to the meter, to the coil, in which case the linearity of the device is set by the design of the thing, and accuracy also by the mechanical design.
It might have had a screw adjustment to set the 'zero level', but anyone using such a meter would have set the zero level (just turn the screw until the needle shows zero) before making any measurements.

But in general, any measurement device should be calibrated, that is, it's accuracy set by comparing against a more accurate reference level device.

Being a military outfit, being that nukes are handled, I would expect that the calibration of devices, their accuracy determined and re-set possibly once a year. So the question is, how much drift in the accuracy can people expect to occur in between those yearly calibration checks?
I'd say, not a lot, because if they did drift a lot, you wouldn't be able to rely on the measurements made 6, 10 months since it was previously calibrated. Users, the military wouldn't have tolerated that. It'd have been a case of changing to a different model of meter or increasing the frequency of the calibration checks.

So to summarise, I don't think the argument that the Geiger Counters weren't particularly accurate holds much weight, and as I already said, it doesn't matter quite so much. What matters is there was a significant change in the reading on the meter (which I acknowledge could be subjected to linearity errors and so the higher readings might not have been as many times higher as people felt they were), and that there was a dramatic change in the pitch, frequency of the audible clicks.

But linearity and accuracy are two different things, though they're related.
DeanF
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:24 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Frank » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:55 pm

Hi Dean,

First of all, welcome to the forum. We can use a little more help in clarifying this complicated case.

I agree with your comments. Don't worry, I got my education in physics at a good (Dutch) university. On the other hand I try not to make things more complicated than needed. If a simple planetary atomic model will do to explain wat I mean, why use anything more complex? And why give a full lesson in the electro-magnetic spectrum (and the fact that alpha and beta particles are not photons) if all I want to explain is that you need high energy particles to create radioactive isotopes?

Nevels did not measure beta particles (and alpha particles do not travel far enough) so basically only photons in the X-ray/gamma region were measured in this case. On top of that hot spots were seen through the starscope that match the spots with elevated X/gamma radiation. I assume a starscope amplifies the infrared+visible region. IR radiation due to heated soil is something you would expect from prior exposure to X-rays (but microwaves are also a possibility). So a hypothetical UFO radiating EM energy over a large part of the X-ray/gamma spectrum would exactly leave the "EM footprints" that were found (and would also explain the health problems of the witnesses). Interesting is that we know from the serious UFO literature that UFO's do seem to radiate in the X-ray/gamma region.

I agree with your views on the residual radiation readings. I my opinion, the relevancy of both the residual radiation and the starscope readings is in the combination of level and location. The levels alone were not shocking, but the fact that these elevated levels exactly corresponded with the landing spots, the (approximate) center of the landing site, and the sides of the trees facing the site makes them relevant. Unfortunately we do not know what they were prior to the landing, but Nevels did measure the general background radiation in the forest that night and it was almost nil. So what are the odds that rock formations with elevated natural radiation exactly correspond with the landing spots?

I read you have an engineering background. Maybe you already heard of this book. If not, you simply have to read it. It is by far the best book with an engineering/science approach on the market. I'm curious what you think of it.
http://www.amazon.com/Unconventional-Flying-Objects-Scientific-Analysis/dp/1571740279
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby DeanF » Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:09 pm

" read you have an engineering background. Maybe you already heard of this book. If not, you simply have to read it. It is by far the best book with an engineering/science approach on the market. I'm curious what you think of it.
http://www.amazon.com/Unconventional-Fl ... 1571740279"

I've taken a look at some brief reviews of this book online and every review I've read is giving it 5 stars, so I've ordered it!
I must confess to being quite interested to receive and read this, so thank you very much Frank for steering me in the right direction :)

In all honesty, I haven't read many books on the UFO phenomena, and I try to be selective about what I read, it seems to me, the authors get into spats with each other arguing over alleged 'facts', and it's clear that some books are portraying things as facts when they're not.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I was quite interested to read the book by Colonel Philip Corso, being in the USAF (now retired) and having claimed to work in the Foreign Technology division, I'd expected his account, his book to be 100% truthful. It isn't.
I started reading it with great excitement, anticipation and as the claims Corso was making became ever more outlandish I lost interest in it.
He was claiming that silicon chips were seeded by the UFO, that chip technology came from the crashed UFO at Roswell. And the same goes for optical fibre. I know the history behind these technologies, I know how they work, I know how they were created as I've worked with the technologies - I used to be an integrated circuit chip designer.

I had a brief email correspondance with Stanton Friedman whose book I had read shortly before Colonel Corso's, and Stanton Friedman basically rubbished, cast doubt on the truthfulness of Corso's book.

So I await with interest the book by Paul R. Hill.
Incidentally, if there are any other good books you can recommend, I'd love to hear of them.
DeanF
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:24 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Frank » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:09 pm

DeanF wrote:Incidentally, if there are any other good books you can recommend, I'd love to hear of them.


Hi DeanF,

Your question made me start a new thread here: http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=809

(I have not read Corso's book by the way, but have read much about it and watched an interview with him on Youtube. I agree: not very convincing..)
Frank
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Rendlesham Forest Incident - Radiation Readings June 201

Postby Deep Purple » Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:24 pm

This is the problem with UFOs--- some people dont tell the truth and make money out of them. Buried in amongst this is probably a truly weird world which is real.
Trouble is putting all the evidence together in a format that amkes final sense.
Deep Purple
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:48 pm

Previous

Return to The Rendlesham forest incident

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron