NEIS2 wrote:
Hi,
My first post here. Many are concerned about the readings in St. Charles.
I notice the Aurora station near the St. Charles station, is listed as unreliable. I own an Inspector Alert, measures Alpha, Beta, Gamma. Yesterday, 12/14/2014 I went out and took some readings. In Aurora my 10 minute timed counts, I took just two, came in 32.6 CPM and 37.3 CPM. The NETC map showed a number in the 200+CPM in Aurora so I would agree that the Aurora site is unreliable. Why are unreliable sites kept on the map?
I took reading in St. Charles, it was 41.4 CPM, the NETC map for St. Charles showed 47 CPM at that time so I would say it was a reliable station at that time.
Am I correct that you are all thinking the high readings in November in St. Charles are related to a particle being stuck in the filter? Has the filter been tested?
Welcome to the forum, I own an Inspector too but mine is an EXP model. St. Charles did have problems but we are happy to see those issues have been corrected. If the Aurora station ID starts with 4: or 5: it is an EPA station, 200 CPM would not be uncommon because they do not use geiger counters. Please search the forum for more information on those stations, it has been explained in detail many times before and in better detail than here. If the station ID starts with 1: it is a NETC private station and if it is a new station it is always labeled unreliable until the NETC network collects a set number of days collected. I think it might be 60 or 90 days of readings, I can't remember for sure right now but I know it is automatic.