As Japan nuclear fears spread, so does crowdsourced radiation tracking

Above, "Tokyo Geiger Counter," built with this DIY kit. The location is Tokyo/Kotoku. (thanks, Francesco Fondi)

CNET: "The intensifying nuclear crisis in Japan is raising anxieties on both sides of the Pacific over the potential impacts of radiation exposure, and a relative dearth of official information on radiation levels is leading some to turn to crowdsourced options. (...) With official estimations of the threat from radiation across Japan changing rapidly and sometimes inconsistent, a number of real-time amateur radiation monitors have popped up online."

Below, a Google Map of "unofficial" radiation monitoring sites.

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: News • Technology

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

OliviaScienceHalifax

You can build yourself a radiation detector from stuff around the house:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVj69R66Agg
Takes about 10 minutes and will show you if you are in a hot zone.
Sork

Live streaming a video of a display is such a good use of Japans currently very limited international bandwidth.
Tamooj

The real problem with crowd-sourcing something like this is calibration – there detectors are NOT calibrated against a common known-rate source, and some of them are so cheap as to not even be capable of adjusting the calibration. The crowd-sourced data becomes just so much noise. And, no I’m not talking about nuances in the third decimal place- the lower-end devices are notoriously inaccurate. The govt/city should offer to freely calibrate any citizen detectors at local shelters, decontamination stations, etc. etc.

This effort *might* be useful as a broader ambient alert system for whole neighborhoods since the individual detector inaccuracies *might* cancel each other out enough to allow some utility… but that’s way too Monte Carlo for any real science. False security and false panic are the more likely outcome of this. Let’s get ahead of the curve and do this right for the West Coast immediately.
JohnnyOC

Ahh..I understand it better now, Anon (and travtastic).

Just gathering real-time data is fine, it’s just I was concerned about that some data would be wrong because of inferior or amateur equipment or methods. I imagine that with crowdsourcing and having a large enough dataset the outliers would eliminated.

The other danger is that the people who are doing the collecting are also interpreting when they really shouldn’t be because they have no expertise in the field and are putting their opinions/results on the net and getting people riled up.
- travtastic
  
  It’s certainly possible that people will make bad assumptions on this data. It’s also possible that people will make bad assumptions based on what they see on TV. Or misinterpret radio messages. Or think a random smoke cloud is fallout.
  
  Good data has a tendency towards good interpretations. All they need to know is what, scientifically and physiologically, constitutes a reasonable threat level. And if they have the sense to build a DIY radiation detector, I’m sure they’ll spend a couple of minutes finding out what those danger thresholds are online.
  
  The bottom line, really is thus: information doesn’t like to, and shouldn’t have to, have a gatekeeper; and certainly not one as entrenched and biased as the nuclear industry, or the government who has so much to lose politically if this goes from bad to a shitstorm.
  - Anonymous
    
    “Good data”
    “DIY radiation detector”
    
    Humm…
    
    How are these detectors calibrated?
    What does the device sensitivity/’response function’ look like?
    Are they indoors, or outdoors? What direction are they pointed? What is the instrument’s directional sensitivity? Has this been corrected for? What’s their sensitivity as a function of intensity? Has this been corrected for? Are they detecting radiation from air suspensions, or that deposited on a surface? Is there a difference?
    
    Order of magnitude may be fine, but still, a pinch of salt may be necessary.
Hans

There are really great possibilities here, but also some real problems. Hooking up a Geiger counter, reporting CPM or something, isn’t going to tell us much of anything other than the trend through time at that site. Different geiger counters are differently sensitive, so a count per minute is not really meaningful without calibration. It is easy enough to find reputable sources (some of those on the map are weather stations and such), but we need information on the Geiger counter model and calibration and such to calculate dose, which is the critical element here.

The ideal data would be a time series of rem/time. I didn’t see it in the Tokyo area, but that would be helpful.
Ito Kagehisa

Ugh, the comment rewrite bug is so annoying. Three times just now.

Clearly, we must never measure anything, because people might get frightened. I’m pretty sure that would be bad; why, someone might get hurt! Just assume your foot is one foot long and buy shoes to suit, that’ll work.

But really, we needn’t worry; as we all know, the plural of anecdote is not data, so all citizen measurements are inherently meaningless anyway. Only data gathered by Official True Scientists contains One Hundred Per Cent Pure Objective Reality (now with Vitamin Glow!).
Anonymous

Private monitoring sounds good right now. This report implies [~2:07-2:20] that California is _not_ actively monitoring radiation levels. I hope one of their periodic monitoring intervals happens right as the levels ramp up, rather than before or long after. I realize that with the current information we are unlikely to be exposed to significant doses across the Pacific, however I’m still concerned, and conditions will change. I would think in the face of a crisis, regular ongoing monitoring would be considered proactive rather than a panic inducing liability.
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201103150850/a
Tzctboin

More neo-pseudo-luddism in BoingBoing (real luddites would avoid computers and related technology).

Quelle surprise.

First thing to notice is that the points in the maps are from official institutions, most likely the kind the government is using for its own reports.

If the government is giving conflicting information maybe it is because the situation is somewhat chaotic.

I don’t think this “crowdsourcing” (where is the crowd?) is really helping much with anything.
- Ugly Canuck
  
  I like the idea of citizen radiation monitoring; but the components making up the fallout, the f different radioactive elements, each carry different levels of risk to people.
  
  The radioactivity in the air is generated by the specific nucleotides present therein: that zoo includes things some of which are more, and some of which are less, harmful to human health. And they differ as well in the length of time they may remain dangerous, and their likelihood of absorption into human tissues.
  
  This is why, if i understand correctly, the specific place and time that the measure takes place is very important; as is, I would think, the specific chemical compositon of the radiating elements being detected.
  
  Besides that, the effect of differing levels of radiation exposure on people’s health is not as cut-and-dried as the blanket pronouncements of some would leave you to believe.
  
  But these are details: and perhaps too technical for easy or widespread explication and absorption.
  
  The detectors will tell them if radiation is present, not if that level is necessarily dangerous, nor its specific chemical make-up, nor even its true source – as some have pointed out, granite or bananas release enough radiation for them to activate counters.
gmoke

There’s been citizen monitoring networks around some US nuclear power plants for over 20 years. Two that are online and active are looking at Seabrook, NH
http://www.C-10.org/monitoring.html#airborne
and TMI
http://www.tmi-cmn.org/

Kelp is high in iodine and a reasonable substitute for potassium iodide pills.
Anonymous

I had this same idea the other day, and yesterday I ordered a USB geiger counter and started a website: http://www.issanfranciscoradioactive.com/

The geiger counter is on backorder and won’t get shipped for 3 or 4 weeks (I think I got one of the last ones from this vendor, the only vendor I could find that sells USB ones — they aren’t accepting orders anymore until they get more in stock) so the website won’t be working until then.
Anonymous

Hopefully everyone knows not to set up their monitoring at granite buildings. Or near other natural/man made blips in radioactivity.
Thebes

My understanding is that Japan’s official radiation monitoring network is, unfortunately, offline due to computer issues. Or so they say.

Given the lack of government transparency in any recent disaster (or in any nuclear disaster, they’ve all been initially covered up, especially Chernobyl)… given tight lips people will seek out information on their own.

Its not rocket science. A geiger counter or dosimeter is a fairly simple thing. Calibration and failure could be issues, poor use could be an issue (ie siting it next to a smoke alarm would raise the count). But any maker could build a simple dosimeter out of normal household items, there are plans for the (very rudimentary) KFM dosimeter online.
holtt

This is both cool but also an incredible ratcheting up of the whole “uninformed experts” issue by an order of magnitude.
- Xeni Jardin
  
  I would agree with that 100%.
- travtastic
  
  God forbid people take their safety into their own hands! Or write encyclopedia articles without a degree! Or record news without a journalism background!
  - andygates
    
    God forbid it gets trolled or suffers inaccurate meters! ;)
    
    The crowd, with luck, should be proof against this: a ridiculous hotspot would be obviously bogus. But hey, with epic lulz like “stampeding Tokyo” on offer, expect the usual suspects to have a play.
    - travtastic
      
      How would that be different than running out into the street and screaming that there was another tsunami coming?
      - taj
        
        Both would be evil if done for lulz, no?
      - travtastic
        
        Yep. And I doubt if either one is going to happen. The nihilism always comes out when we’re talking about these situations, even though there’s rarely every any examples to back it up.
- Anonymous
  
  This is both cool but also an incredible ratcheting up of the whole “uninformed experts” issue by an order of magnitude.
  
  I don’t think you understand the issue. The “uninformed experts” problem is when one person or group interprets data for other people when they don’t have the ability to do so correctly. This is a minor but real problem that is caused by freedom of expression, much compensated for by the many benefits realized by allowing said freedom.
  
  This is people crowdsourcing data points. This is the fundamental basis of a great deal of high quality science; gathering data, not interpreting data, and gathering it without bottlenecking through a specific person or technology.
  
  Gatekeepers at the back end are at least as bad as gatekeepers at the front end. Multiple sources and distributed analysis is better than trusting in the integrity of one person or profession.
  - holtt
    
    Anon, I get it.
    
    My thinking is that people see a number on a machine, and immediately take it in the same “it must be so” way as they do a talking head expert on TV. The machines become the experts. The problem is, this “expert” is quoting numbers and leaving it fully up to the viewer to interpret them.
    
    Now, if someone posted a live Geiger counter website along with a lot of reading material about how to interpret the numbers, I’d go for that.
Coal

As a trying to remain cool headed resident of Tokyo, I find these incredibly useful because we’re getting so much conflicting information. That is to say, all official sources and the vast majority of reputable scientists around the world (including Britain’s chief scientific advisor) are saying that it’s dangerous if you’re in the immediate area, a 20-30k perimeter is sensible and appropriate for a worst case scenario, and that in Tokyo there is no danger of contamination beyond what you’d get from a trip to Cornwall. On the other hand, you have conspiracy nuts, and widespread panic going on around you. When I can see that geiger counter readings are coinciding with official reports, I can breathe easy knowing which side to believe.
Anonymous

The people at alttokyo.com also offer radiation email alerts. Also it is located near Ebisu, 5 mins from Shibuya, where most tourists visit.
Mister44

Speaking of ‘uninformed experts’, there is a run on Potassium Iodide http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1311&_nkw=potassium+iodide&_sacat=See-All-Categories
- Anonymous
  
  I wonder how many people know that the potassium in your own bones is radioactive to begin with or that iodine has a toxic level.
  - Mister44
    
    I dunno, but I’m chomping down on bananas dipped in salt. nom nom nom nom
andygates

My inner crowdfan beats my inner cynic: looking at the data items on the map, they’re mostly academic or municipal organisations. We can follow their links and use internet street smarts.

The first part is done for you: organisations have markers with a dot. Markers without a dot are private individuals.

Crowd win!
JohnnyOC

There’s a difference between taking safety into your hands and fear mongering and making people upset with amateurish displays of tech..

Taking time to floodproof your house when a really bad storm is verified by the NWS = safety that is a responsibility.

Telling and texting everyone that you think it’s a category 4 hurricane coming with your homemade barometer and weather tech =
causing unneeded (and uninformed) alarm.
- travtastic
  
  I’m not sure what that comparison is supposed to explain. You’re describing long-range (in distance or time) prediction, while this is real-time measurement of a variable.
penguinchris

I don’t see this as worsening the uninformed experts issue… I see it as a positive. So long as expert information about what the numbers mean is available.

To me this seems like people trying to show that fear is unwarranted, because look, there’s no radiation problem here. Without this, you’re relying on information related to you via the news channels, which will be infrequent and vague at best.

If you lived in Japan wouldn’t you want to know what the radiation level was? If you knew that it was not above normal, you’d be a lot more comfortable.

I have a geiger counter myself (though not one of these fancy USB ones) but if I lived near a nuclear plant that was having “issues” I would certainly appreciate a network of radiation monitoring stations nearby so that any radiation leakage can be independently noticed and/or verified. If these detectors start showing increasing levels, people are going to know about it well before the news broadcasts will have the information.
holtt

I think if 15 people do this, then it’s just got a ton of FUD potential, as the vast majority of people have no idea what the numbers mean.

It’s not like a rain gauge or a wind meter where people can understand the equivalent of “wow, 2cm of rain in the last hour? That’s a lot!”. This is different. People don’t “get” radiation and honestly have an irrational fear of it because it’s so invisible.

OK now for the “why I think it’s cool” part.

If a couple hundred people were posting their live data, then you could do some really cool (AND INFORMATIVE) maps showing radiation detection levels over a large area. If a plume of radioactive steam were released that drifted across an area with these sensors, you would SEE it. That’s data that is good. That’s like looking on the live radar view and going, “Wow that is one major thunderstorm moving my way”

PS
I own a Geiger counter but it’s a classic old Civil Defense one. Trust me, when that thing (or any other modern one) starts ticking, I’d have known about it long before via the media.
- holtt
  
  Trust me, when that thing (or any other modern one) starts ticking, I’d have known about it long before via the media.
  
  … but at the same time would be fascinated to watch the spreading radiation front via the web as my hair fell out in clumps :)