Email exchange with Bruno Chareyron, head of CRIIRAD.

I was hoping to get to this earlier today, but I have been enduring a truly hideous flare-up, with neuropathic pain. Pain and fatigue have been getting worse every day for two weeks now. This is different… previously symptoms would hit me like a ton of bricks, and then slowly ebb away. Now they are slowly increasing, day by day.

Bruno Chareyron is a nuclear physicist and the head of CRIIRAD. The CRIIRAD laboratory is a French NGO which specializes in the analysis of radioactivity in the environment. It was in reference to the post “Radiation plume after Japanese earthquake. Iodine-131 cloud reached France.” Mr. Chareyron claimed that the Montelimar graph indicated no iodine activity, and that the beta nuclides detected were from natural radon, as was explained in the text. He also said that the Avignon graph, which was clearly labeled to indicate a detection of iodine-131, was actually a measurement gamma emissions in the range of 320 to 400 keV. This range includes iodine-131, as well as the radon-222 daughters, lead-214 and bismuth-214. The variations were due to increases in the current of the Rhone river.

Mr. Chareyron claimed that this was misunderstanding from translating French into English. I pointed out that it was misleading to label a radioisotope measuremnt as iodine-131, when it was actually lead-214 and bismuth-214. He then asked me to say that CRIIRAD says that these changes were due to natural activity, and not to Fukushima. I then published this as an update. Then I commented that, in my opinion, they could not tell whether it was from Fukushima or not, and it certainly looked like CRIIRAD claimed it was I-131. Even if the increase was due to radon daughters, “Radon-222 is a member of the radioactive decay chain of uranium-238“. And corium is mostly uranium-238. Could it not be that the corium itself is being emitted from the Fukushima plant?

However, Mr. Chareyron retorted that CRIIRAD unequivocally demands that I remove my comment because it is introducing doubts as to the graphs indicating anything but variations in natural radioactivity. This I will not do. I won’t do this because this is MY OPINION. And it is an informed opinion, which also includes Japanese sludge measurements, and health reports from people. All anyone has to do is look in this blog, over time, at iodine-131 in Japanese sludge, and how it correlates to the measurements in Rhone river water.

But, since the graphs themselves are imported from CRIIRAD, I WILL remove all these graphs from this blog if I am specifically asked to do so.

So, once again.

1. CRIIRAD claims that the I-131 measurement is actually a measurement of a range of isotopes, including I-131, Pb-214, and Bi-214.

2. CRIIRAD claims that the iodine detection was actually of natural radioisotopes such as Pb-214 and Bi-214.

3. CRIIRAD unequivocally claims that this variation is NOT from Fukushima.

I never said that CRIIRAD claimed anything, except that the graphs indicated I-131. This is because they said “Iode 131”. I know that the post has been retweeted and reblogged, maybe some people said something else. I am not responsible for what other people post on the internet.

Anyone can make up their own mind.

14 thoughts on “Email exchange with Bruno Chareyron, head of CRIIRAD.

  1. He probably just wants to travel in small planes once in a while, Bobby1. I’m relieved that you don’t.

    Makes you wonder who do they make these graphs for? Are they not for the public? I thought that is why everyone put things on the internet.

    You didn’t change the graphs, just posted images of them. Can’t CRIIRAD post their interpretation on their website?

    • They actually did say below the graphs, in French, that the variation was due to natural causes. But I-131 is not natural.

      I thought the whole point of the website was to display I-131 readings, due to emissions from nuclear reactors.

      “(Translation from French)

      English-speaking users misinterpreted graphs radioactivity measurements taken in air Montelimar and water in Avignon in the period 4-7 September 2013 and published on the site managed by the CRIIRAD tags. They are circulating on the internet information that would CRIIRAD detected in September 2013 on the French territory abnormal radioactivity bound to Fukushima. This information is false and comes from a misinterpretation of graphics online in French on the website. CRIIRAD will redesign its graphics to reduce the risk of misinterpretation by non-French citizens.”

        • It’s all about criticalities. Nobody will admit it.

          The nuclear mafia does not want to pay monetary compensations for victims of the global epidemic of thyroid cancer & other thyroid diseases. Connect the dots.

        • Note in the first graph how the three distinct lines of data are labelled “ALPHA”, “BETA” & “IODE”.

          Isn’t that odd?

          Another oddity is how one location is measuring air contamination, yet the other displays precipitation.

          It seems like a pair of graphs are not included.
          Were they in CRIIAD’s original article?

          I wonder how long that particular air-mass traveled and from where.

          • Apologies, there is only one station measuring water-bourne contamination in the Rhone, not precipitation. That explains the lack of “precipitation” graphs at other stations. I wonder what happened to the atmospheric graph from Avignon?

            In addition, i can see how they would be sensitive to ensuring that their data is not misinterpreted. Look from their web site how they are also monitoring what appears to be downwind of some NPP’s.

            Here is a page of archived analyses:

            Pour Juillet et Août 2013:
            Pour Septembre et Octobre 2013:

            Within are listed Iode 131, Césium 137 et Césium 134.

            Merci Bruno de la CRIIRAD!

            • Sadly, their archives only go back to November of 2011.

              It would be swimmingly great to see some data from March and April of 2011 for some comparison….

              Ah, that can be had here –>

              Strange, the two pdf’s i have viewed have properties indicating a much later date.
              For instance; the Avignon atmospheric data from March and April of 2011 are dated within their respective Pdf’s as Authored by “jérémie” (probably Monsieur Motte) on 2011-08-18.

              IIRC, the initial plumes travelled along cold fronts hitting primarily the north.

              I have a strange sense of Deja Vu all over again, though…..

              • “Natural activity” when the precipitation during that time period is listed in the graph’s table, yet no precipitation appears on the graph. Does that concur with what was observed by during that same period?

                Odd. Perhaps CRIIRAD has made some mistakes? Is it not possible? That is not a statement, simply a request for more information. There is no shame in making mistakes. We are all human, after all. Mistakes are inevitable. Learning from them and hopefully avoiding repetition of mistakes is key, no?

  2. Something else from France:
    Their last 3 articles made me very sad, even with the hope that my poor French made me misinterpret the texts. The first one estimates the amount of I from the meltdowns. They compare the melting point of steel with the iodine`s temperature of evaporation. I agree with the logic of their claim, that the whole amout escaped in the air. One of the articles is in English, but I do not ubderstand the model they used to make the calculation. Another problem for me are all the numbers – too many and difficult to verify. If someone is better in French or have a better translator than Google, please, make these things clearer. (If you are interested in this and have the time, of course).
    In the light of what just happened, I`ll understand if no one discusses this in public. Just have a look.

  3. Bobby, can i just say, I am proud of you. We can tussle over personal things once in a great while, but when it comes to YOUR research and study, you are hard-core about being RIGHT or you won’t say so. You hem and haw until you KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that you are correct, even though here you called it ‘your opinion’. I see why you did, but yay for you!!!!

  4. Some background info (How’s your Japanese?):

    I see from Table 2 from Takasaki Report linked at:

    Lead-214 energies:
    351.9 keV(37.6%), 295.2keV(19.3%), 241.9keV(7.43%)
    Bismuth-214 energies:
    609.3keV(46.1%), 1764.4keV(15.4%), 1120.2keV(15.1%)

    following Quote from
    “Q: I have a question regarding the measurement of 226Ra by gamma spectroscopy. I’ve seen that some labs use the 214Bi line, while some use the 214Pb line to measure 226Ra in equilibrium. Are there significant advantages to the use of either line?

    A: As you know, both 214Bi and 214Pb emit measurable gamma rays, and both can be useful in the indirect determination of 226Ra, a precursor in the decay chain that produces the lead and bismuth progeny. The 214Pb emits lower-energy photons than does the 214Bi, the three most abundant gamma rays from the lead being at 242 keV (7.43 percent), 295 keV (19.3 percent), and 352 keV (37.6 percent). The dominant gamma rays from 214Bi are more in number and higher in energy than the lead gamma rays; the range of useful energies is from about 600 keV to about 2.5 MeV. The bismuth gamma ray of highest yield is at 609 keV (46.1 percent); there is a gamma ray at 1.12 MeV (15.1 percent) and one at 1.765 MeV (15.4 percent). The others have individual yields no higher than about 5 percent.”

    • Quoted from

      “Q: I have been told (but not seen any objective supporting evidence yet) that commercial laboratory measurements of 226Ra using the ingrowth method consistently underreport the “true” concentration of 226Ra. As a result, measurement by gamma spectrometry, using the 186 KeV line, is advocated. Can you point me to published data, pro or con, with respect to this issue?

      A: I cannot vouch for your cited observation that 226Ra analyses consistently underestimate the amount of 226Ra present when the ingrowth method is used, although underestimation has been observed. The fact is that the ingrowth method is often used for 226Ra analysis with good results. Variability in results and underestimates or overestimates may occur for a number of reasons. I shall assume initially that the analytical technique involving ingrowth of the short-lived progeny involves counting of the gamma rays from 214Pb/Bi.”

  5. Perhaps Monsieur Chareyron could enlighten us English readers (and other languages) how “Alpha, Beta, Iode” came to be used in France (and perhaps elsewhere) instead of, at least what i have been accustomed to since childhood, “Alpha, Beta, Gamma”.
    It may be especially helpful to me, as French Canadians may be using similar notations, although i am unfamiliar with that particular nomenclature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *