|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nick Pope’s
“investigation” of the Rendlesham Forest radiation
readings
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is Nick Pope’s handwritten memo
concerning the radiation readings from the MoD’s
Rendlesham Forest UFO file. It is folio 9 in Part 1 of the MoD file. The memo, signed and dated
dated 1994 April 15, reads as follows:
“Spoke to Giles Cowling at the
Defence Radiological Protection Service re the radiation
readings recorded at the time of the Rendlesham Forest
incident. 0.01 would be the general level of background
radiation, so the 0.1 reading is about 10 times what would be
normal. [Ian’s note: this would be true if 0.1 were a
steady level, but as we know it refers only to a random peak.]
“However, military radiation
detectors are geared for high level readings, so low-level
readings may be difficult to record accurately, as the scale
will be small at the bottom of the meter.* We don’t have
details of what instrument was used.
“It is just possible to hoax such an
event. A university lab might well have some radioactive source
with a very short half life, and could could use it so as to
give readings which would not be recorded a few days later.
“The level of radiation of 0.1 is
completely harmless.
“ *Especially if the needle was
fluctuating.”
Page added 2005 April.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||