Los Alamos National Laboratory links to site home page

Monitoring Gamma Radiation

The Neighborhood Environmental Watch Network, known as NEWNET, is able to give early indications of increases in radiation due to radioactive particulates in the air.

Los Alamos High School, NM
1/9/2006Mike McNaughtonAt 9 PM UTC, Jan 9, 2006, the multiplier for the LAHS PIC was changed from 1.00 to 1.05.Station InfoData Graph
6/25/2003Allen TreadawayThe gamma PIC was calibrated at about 19:45--20:00 hrs Z using the Cs-137 source # 812-44-1. The spike is a result of that calibration.Station InfoData Graph
12/2/2002Mike McNaughtonThe increased gamma rate at about 17:00 Z December 1 was caused by a mixture of rain and snow. A similar increase was observed at S site.Station InfoData Graph
10/30/2002Allen TreadawayWhile testing the 300 Vdc battery for the HPIC (High Pressurized Ion Chamber) for comparison to other NEWNET stations, a small increase in the gamma value appeared on the display outside. This test was done while the NEWNET station was still powered on to prevent any loss of other data.Station InfoData Graph
10/22/2002D YoungAt 15:10Z Kevin Anderson put a calibration source on the gamma detector to perform a calibration test. Source will be removed at 15:35Z.Station InfoData Graph
8/8/2002Mike McNaughtonThe increased gamma rate from about 1900-2100 Z August 7 was caused by rain.Station InfoData Graph
7/22/2002Mike McNaughtonThe gamma peak at about 1300 Z July 22 was caused by rain.Station InfoData Graph
7/1/2002Allen TreadawayThe dip in the gamma readings around 1730Z on June 28, 2002 was a result of the power at the station being turned off temporarily for a few moments to reset the datalogger. Station InfoData Graph
3/20/2002Kevin AndersonThe increase in barometric pressure is due to a correction of the calculation in the Cam[bell Datalogger programStation InfoData Graph
2/25/2002Kevin AndersonAt approximately 1700 Zulu, Allen Treadaway and Kevin Anderson will perform a calibration check of the gamma detector. The detector was checked with the calibration source, and the readings were ~2% of the expected readings, well within the 5% acceptability range.Station InfoData Graph
Visit Blogger Join Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter See our Flickr Photos Watch Our YouTube Videos Find Us on LinkedIn