Geophysical Journal International

Geophys. J. Int. (2013) 193, 1110–1118 doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt057

Advance Access publication 2013 March 19

Anomalous non-isotropic temporal variation of gamma-radiation

from radon (progeny) within air in confined conditions

G. Steinitz, P. Kotlarsky and O. Piatibratova

GJI Geodynamics and tectonics

Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel. E-mail: steinitz@gsi.gov.il

Accepted 2013 February 7. Received 2013 February 7; in original form 2012 September 28

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020

SUMMARY
New experimental results add information on the space–time variation pattern of nuclear
radiation from radon in air at confined conditions. Using five gamma sensors placed around
a canister containing radon in gas demonstrated temporal variation consisting of a long-term
variation, which may be related to an annual variation, multiday (MD) signals and periodic
daily radon (DR) signals. Separate processes drive the MD and DR signals. Both MD and DR
signals exhibit inverse temporal variation patterns in the east–west and north–south directions.
The MD and DR signal patterns along the vertical axis are associated with the north–south
directed radiation pattern suggesting that the up–down axis of the system is actually inclined
relative to the vertical axis of the canister, i.e. related to the latitude of the experiment.
The relations of the time–space variations including the apparent tilt relative to a principal
geographic direction imply a connection to global orientation. These results are in line with
the proposition of an influence of a component of solar irradiation on variation patterns of
nuclear radiation from radon.
Key words: Gas and hydrate systems.

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
Radon (222 Rn) is a radioactive inert gas formed by disintegration
from 226 Ra as part of the 238 U decay series. It occurs at varying
concentrations in geological environments. The combination of its
noble gas character and its radioactive decay makes it a unique ultra-
trace component for tracking temporally varying natural processes.
Using nuclear techniques, the measurement sensitivity for 222 Rn in
the subsurface geogas is extremely high and can be performed with
a time resolution in the order of 1 hr or less.
Both different and similar variation patterns and phenomena are
documented from diverse geographic and geologic locations (see
Choubey et al. 2011 for a recent review). Large temporal varia-
tions of radon (222 Rn) are often encountered in air in the geologic
environment, at time scales from diurnal to annual. Interpretations
as to the nature of these variations, unique to 222 Rn, often invoke
either above surface atmospheric variations, or the influence of sub-
tle active geodynamic processes. During the last decades numerous
publications have been devoted to clarify the possible reasons of
observed variation patterns and their potential geodynamic conse-
quence (see below). To date, however, a unique theory and physi-
cally sound explanation of the observed variation patterns remains
elusive.
The application of stress to rocks is thought to enhance the ex-
halation of 222 Rn from the solid mineral phase, rendering 222 Rn
a potential sensitive tracer of geodynamic processes in the upper
crust. Transport of 222 Rn in soil and water has been investigated as
a tool for monitoring volcanic activity (e.g. Cigolini et al. 2001,
2009; Burton et al. 2004; Alparone et al. 2005; Immè et al. 2006).
The proposition that 222 Rn may serve as a useful proxy for seis-
mic activity has been repeatedly raised (e.g. Monin & Seidel 1992;
Segovia et al. 1995; Toutain & Baubron 1999; Hartmann & Levy
2005 and references therein). Trique et al. (1999), using measure-
ments in a tunnel within massive gneiss, associated multiday (MD)
222
Rn bursts with transient deformation due to loading and unload-
ing of a local water reservoir. Using an 8-yr record of 222 Rn, obtained
next to a major active boundary fault of the Dead Sea Transform,
a statistically significant relation between MD radon signals and
earthquakes in the nearby sector of the DSR was demonstrated by
Steinitz et al. (2003).
We are presently monitoring 222 Rn at several arrays spanning
a 200-km segment along the western boundary fault of the DST,
from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba (Steinitz et al. 1992,
1996, 1999). The 222 Rn signals are characterized by: (i) unam-
biguous temporal signature types; (ii) similar patterns at the dif-
ferent locations within the same geologic unit; and (iii) similar
features recorded in diverse geographic, geological and geody-
namic situations. A new geophysical framework for the tempo-
ral patterns of 222 Rn was obtained by Steinitz et al. (2007) and
Steinitz & Piatibratova (2010a,b). The primary outcomes concern-
ing the 222 Rn signal in the subsurface were: (i) the compound
variation is composed of a periodic annual radon (AR) signal, a
periodic daily radon (DR) signal containing diurnal (24-hr) and
semi-diurnal (12-hr) periods, and non-periodic MD signals; (ii)
the MD signals may be representing transients with a mechanical
association; and (iii) the AR and especially the DR signals are

1110 
C The Authors 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Astronomical Society.
 Non-isotropic variation of radiation from Rn 1111

possibly generated in the subsurface by an above surface periodic

process. This feature combined with the lack of tidal gravity period- 2 E X P E R I M E N TA L M E T H O D S
icity (indicated by the lack of periodicities due to the gravitational
The setup used (Fig. 1) is a slight modification of the setup
effect of the Moon; Wilhelm et al. 1997) led to suggesting the
used in EXP #1 described by Steinitz et al. (2011). It con-
influence of a process related to solar radiation.
sists of a 3.53 L cylindrical stainless steel (SS) canister, ultra-
New insight on the temporal variation of 222 Rn was recently
high vacuum (UHV) tested (<10−8 mbar), and equipped with
gained by experimental simulation of radon signals in confined vol-
a UHV valve (Varian 34  right angle valve with mini (NW16)
umes of air (Steinitz et al. 2011). Laboratory experiments were
conflat flange). Radon is let in (diffusion) from a commercial
performed using air in closed canisters with attached natural and 222
Rn source (Pylon Inc. (Ottawa, Canada) model 2000A; 103.2
commercial 222 Rn sources. The expectation is that stable (constant)
kBq), placed within a leak tight SS enclosure, via a similar
radiation patterns will be observed, once release/decay equilibrium
UHV valve on the source and a 110-cm-long SS pipe, result-
is attained within the internal experimental volumes. In contrast the
ing in a radon level in the order of 8400 kBq m–3 . Detection of
results demonstrate radiation patterns that are non-uniform in space
temporal variation of radiation is achieved by utilizing gamma
and in time being composed of AR, MD and DR signals. Internal
detectors with NaI(Tl) scintillation detectors. Four instruments

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020

and external gamma and alpha detectors recorded variations of the
(PM-11; Rotem Industries Inc., Beer Sheva, Israel) are based on
radiation, up to around 20 per cent of the equilibrium level. Simi-
2 × 2 crystals tuned to the energy range of 50–3000 keV. A further
lar, related, inversely related and dissimilar temporal patterns were
instrument (Scionix Ltd.) is based on a 36 × 76 mm crystal and is
manifested in the measured time-series of the different sensors. Di-
tuned to the energy range of 475–3000 keV. The utilization of these
urnal periodicity was dominated by the solar tide components S1,
gamma detectors for monitoring radon in air has been described in
S2 and S3 (Wilhelm et al. 1997), exhibiting dissimilar relative am-
detail by Zafrir et al. (2011). The experimental setup is enclosed
plitudes and different phases at the different sensors. These results,
(bottom, sides) by Lead shielding (5 cm) to minimize the influence
obtained under static and isolated conditions, are in disagreement
of gamma radiation from the source and from the environment.
with the expected radioactive equilibrium and its spatially uniform
Temperature is measured in the air about 50 cm above the canister.
expression within and around the experimental volumes. Therefore
The experiment is placed on a table, north of the east–west lab-
it was concluded that the external influence which drives the daily
oratory wall (Fig. 1). Four gamma sensors (PM-11) are set verti-
signals evolving from radon inside the canister is non-atmospheric
cally around the central horizontal plane of the canister. They are
and seemed to be from a remote source and traversed a 5-cm-thick
placed, relative to the canister, according to the global directions.
Pb shield.
The orientation of these sensors is estimated to deviate no more
Further experimental results, presented herein, indicate a rela-
than 5o from the true geographic directions. The sensors were inter-
tion among temporal variation patterns of radiation from radon and
calibrated during the experiment using the radon in the canister
global orientation, thereby substantiating and extending the above
by placing each sensor at position north and recording the radia-
frame of interpretation of radon signals in air.
tion from radon in the canister (relative sensitivities: north = 1,

Figure 1. The experiment comprised of a 3.53 L cylindrical (r = 7.5 cm) SS canister and five gamma sensors in vertical orientation. 222 Rn diffuses from a
commercial source to the experimental volume via a tube and valves. The distance between the source and the canister (centre) is 70 cm. All components of
the system—radon source and air—are enclosed within leak tight SS components (canisters, tube) which are connected using UHV flanges and valves. Four
sensors (PM-11) are placed around the middle of the canister, in perpendicular positions (γ -E, γ -N, γ -W, γ -S). A further sensor (Scionix) is placed in the
middle of the top of the canister (γ -T). Lead shielding minimized the effect of radiation from the source and lowered environmental radiation. The laboratory
wall is oriented E—W.
1112 G. Steinitz, P. Kotlarsky and O. Piatibratova

east = 1.65, west = 1.8, south = 1.78). The results were used to
adjust the measured values among the sensors. In this experiment
the air was first evacuated from the canister and the radon source
to around 5 × 10−2 mbar. After evacuation the source valve was
closed and krypton was introduced to around 1 atmosphere (con-
trolled with a Pirani gauge). Once the system was isolated diffusion
of radon was enabled by opening the source valve. Data acquisi-
tion was with a datalogger (CR-800; Campbell Inc., Logan, UT,
USA) which also supplied the stabilized power to the detectors by
a continuously loaded 12 V supply battery. Collected data (1-min
intervals; timing precision better than ±30 s) were integrated to 15-
min intervals. In conformity with our previous work time is shown
on a decimal-day scale (Day 0 = 1.1.1992; UT).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020

3 R E S U LT S
Fig. 2 presents the general pattern during the first 40 d of the ex-
periment. Once radon is allowed to diffuse from the source into the
canister the count rate at the PM-11 sensors rises from a background
level in the order of 10 kcount (per 15 min) to the range of 700–1500
kcount due to a radiation level of around 8400 kBq m–3 (Steinitz
et al. 2011). In the course of the buildup of radon in the canister
fluctuations start to be observed.
Once the radiation levels off, reflecting equilibrium between dif-
fusion of radon into the canister and its radioactive decay, large
signals are recorded. The temporal variation is dominated by DR
signals which are superimposed on a more subtle MD variation.
The signals recorded differ in form and phase among the sensors
around the canister. This spatial in-homogeneity shows a regular
organization in the horizontal plane. Using the measured signal it is
seen that the variation is dominated by daily signal (Fig. 3, top). A
similar pattern is observed between pairs of opposite sensors (east
and west; north and south), and a clear dissimilarity among these
two pairs. Presenting the average hourly values in the east–west
versus north–south directions on a correlation diagram (Fig. 3, bot-
tom) demonstrates that in these two primary directions the gamma
radiation varies in an inverse pattern. This indicates directionality
of the gamma radiation evolving from radon in the canister.
Figure 2. Time-series (40 d) of the measured radiation (counts/15 min)
at the five gamma sensors. Following the introduction of radon buildup of
radon inside the canister takes around 20 d. Background count rates for the
PM-11 sensors (E, N, W, S) is at a level of 10 kcounts/15 min. The level of
radiation in the canister is in the order of 8400 kBq m–3 . Prominent daily
radon (DR) and multiday (MD) variations are observable during the buildup
and in the following plateau. The amplitude of the DR signal is of the order
of 10–20 per cent.
Figure 3. Top: The variation pattern of the measured radiation at the four
gamma sensors placed around the middle horizontal plane of the canister.
The 10-d record shows that the variation, dominated by daily signals, is
similar in the east–west direction and in the north–south direction, while
being dissimilar among these two primary directions. Bottom: Correlation
diagram of the average hourly values (during 10 d) in the east–west versus
north–south directions.
Independent collections of gamma rays, emerging from the can-
ister due to the decay of radon progeny, are recorded by each sensor.
A representation of the gamma radiation in the horizontal plane,
using the daily average among the four sensors around the periph-
ery and along the vertical axis (g-TOP) of the canister, is shown in
Fig. 4. A longer-term variation occurs at both dimensions, which
may be part of an annual signal observed in other cases. The rise
in the horizontal plane and the parallel decrease along the vertical
axis indicates a systematic 3D temporal variation of this radiation
pattern.
The spatial characteristics are examined by decomposing the
signal, applying a 25-hr sliding average, into the MD and DR signals,
as shown in Fig. 5. This example demonstrates that the DR signal is
not related to the MD signal, indicating separate influences. Similar
phenomena are found at each sensor.
Taking into account the above-mentioned (Fig. 3) similarity of
the variation in the east and west directions and also in the north
and south directions, the decomposed data were further treated by
referring separately to the average gamma radiation in the east–
west direction (E&W) and in the north–south direction (N&S).
This approach bears in mind that separate (independent) collections
of gamma rays are recorded by each sensor. The ensuing temporal
patterns at these primary horizontal directions are also compared
with the corresponding variations along the vertical axis of the
canister.

Figure 4. The temporal variation of the radiation in the horizontal plane of
the canister and along its vertical axis. The average radiation in the horizontal
plane is calculated using the daily averages (adjusted) for the four peripheral
sensors. The evolving pattern shows a long-term rise on which MD signal
are superimposed. On the other hand, the daily averages of the sensor (top)
located along the vertical axis of the canister shows a long-term decrease on
which MD variation are also superimposed.
Figure 5. Decomposition of the adjusted measured signal at g-West into the
MD and DR signals, using a 25-hr sliding average. The variation (amplitude)
of the DR signal is of the order of 25 per cent of the overall signal level. A
relation between the MD and DR signals is not evident.
The averaged MD and DR signals at directions E&W and N&S
are shown and compared in Figs 6 and 7. In these perpendicu-
lar horizontal directions both signal types show inverse variation
patterns. Furthermore, the MD and DR variations along the vertical
Non-isotropic variation of radiation from Rn 1113
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020
Figure 6. The temporal variation of the decomposed MD signal. Time-
series in the upper diagram are of the adjusted average values of the sensors
in the east and west (E&W) and of the adjusted average values of the sensors
in the north and south (N&S). The average values of the two perpendicular
horizontal directions show inverse temporal patterns. The MD variation
of the temperature is also shown. The lower diagram shows the measured
values at the sensor (top) placed along the vertical axis of the canister. The
variation pattern along the vertical axis follows the N&S direction. See text.
Figure 7. A 10-d example of the temporal variation of the decomposed DR
signal (adjusted). Time-series shown in the upper diagram are of the average
values of the sensors in the east and west (E&W) directions and of the average
values of the sensors in the north and south (N&S) directions. The average
values of the two perpendicular horizontal directions show inverse temporal
patterns. The DR variation of the temperature is also shown. The lower
diagram shows the DR signal of the sensor along the vertical axis of the
canister (top). The variation pattern along the vertical axis follows the N&S
direction. See text.
1114 G. Steinitz, P. Kotlarsky and O. Piatibratova
Figure 8. Periodograms (FFT) of the radiation recorded by the four gamma sensors placed around the central horizontal plane of the canister during Days
7050–7145 (using adjusted hourly averages). Different spectral patterns occur, in terms of both absolute and relative intensities. See text.
axis of the canister exhibit similarity with the north–south pattern,
and dissimilarity with the east–west direction.
Spatial differences are also indicated in the frequency domain,
using the adjusted values. The spectral patterns of the radiation at
the principal directions in the horizontal plane (Fig. 8) show clear
periodicities of 1, 2 and 3 cycles/d, and probably also 4 cycles/d.
In conformity with previous observations (op cit.) these primary
periodicities are related to the relevant diurnal tidal frequencies
S1, S2, S3 and S4. The patterns differ among the sensors in terms
of both absolute and relative intensities. In all sensors the 24-hr
periodicity is accompanied with subsidiary oscillations or quasi-
oscillations, in the range of 0.7–1.2 cycle/d (a form of bandwidth
widening?). On the other hand the higher periodicities occur as
sharp and well defined peaks. Different spectral patterns occur at
the different directions. Comparison of the intensities shows that:
(i) S1 is strongest at g-E, intermediate at g-N, and around half
at g-W and g-S; (ii) S2 is strongest and close to the level of S1
at g-N, lower (30 per cent) at g-W and g-S and obscure in g-
E; (iii) S3 in prominent at g-W and g-S, and practically obscure
at g-N.
Looking at the average DR in the two perpendicular horizontal
directions (Fig. 9, upper diagrams) the complexity of the directional
variation of the cyclic variation pattern is also observed. Filtering
out of the lower frequencies (MD) variation retains the S1 signal
and the subsidiary oscillations around it. The S2 signal also occurs
at both directions. The periodogram along the vertical axis (lower
diagram) shows: (i) the S1 signal and the subsidiary frequencies;
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020
(ii) Strong and sharp signal of S2 and S3 periodicities, where S2 is
significantly larger than S1.
4 E N V I R O N M E N TA L C O N D I T I O N S A N D
T H E I R I N F LU E N C E
The conditions obtainable in the laboratory in which this experi-
ment was performed are far from being the best setting for inves-
tigations of the described type. This relates primarily to temper-
ature. The issue of the eventual influence of local environmental
influences was discussed in detail and negated by Steinitz et al.
(2011) while discussing a previous set of similar investigations
performed at the same conditions. Instrumental configuration crite-
ria were used when addressing the issue of pressure. The primary
criteria utilized for further in-depth examination of an eventual in-
fluence of pressure and temperature on the gamma radiation from
radon (progeny) was correlation analysis in the time-, frequency-
and in the frequency–time domains. In light of the importance
of this issue details pertinent to the present experiment are given
below.
The eventual influence of temperature on the performance
NaI(Tl) detectors has been raised and was investigated in several
publications (e.g. Moszyński et al. 2006 and references therein).
The influence of temperature on the response of the PM-11 gamma
sensor used in the experiment was investigated at background val-
ues and against a Cs-137 source. In an experimental setup similar
 Non-isotropic variation of radiation from Rn 1115

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020

Figure 9. Periodograms (FFT) of the radiation of the decomposed DR signal along the principal directions of the experiment. The patterns along the two
perpendicular directions in the horizontal plane are shown in the upper graphs, and along the vertical axis of the canister in the lower graph. Similar patterns
occur in the horizontal plane and a different one along the vertical axis. See text.

to the one used (see EXP #1 of Steinitz et al. 2011) two PM-11
detectors used, both enclosed inside the Pb fortress (5 cm thick)
placed around the experiment. One sensor (g-E) recorded the count
rate from the closed canister and the other from a Cs source placed
next to it while adding a further 5 cm thick Pb shield between the
canister and the Cs source. Measurement during 10 d (Fig. 10) in-
dicates that the significant variation of the lab temperature does not
affect the performance of the PM-11 gamma sensor.
A similar examination at a higher count rate is shown in Fig. 11
during a 10-d test in which a PM-11 gamma sensor was placed on
the table between the Pb shielded experiment and the adjoining con-
crete laboratory wall. In this situation the gamma sensor is affected
primarily by the environmental gamma radiation in the lab, due
primarily to gamma emitters in the walls and the floor. The over-
all level of the environmental radiation is similar to the radiation
level encountered by these sensors from radon in the experimental
canister. Comparison of the pattern of the environmental radiation
recorded by the gamma sensor and the temperature variation in the
lab indicates that the sensor response is not affected by temperature
to a significant extent at such levels of radiation.
The influence of pressure and temperature on the radon+air sys-
tem itself is often mentioned. In the case of this experiment the
influence of pressure is considered as irrelevant due the leak tight
configuration of the experimental system. The radon and air and the
commercial radon source are enclosed within a stainless steel sys-
tem the components of which are of UHV standard. Furthermore,
the whole system is leak tested.
The eventual influence of temperature is examined using the ex-
perimental data itself. A comparison in the time domain (Figs 6 and
7) of the temperature pattern versus the average radiation patterns in
the E&W and N&S directions already indicates the disagreement.
Temperature in the laboratory varies also in both MD and diurnal
patterns. Thus examination of an eventual influence of temperature
on the variation pattern of radon is performed by a comparison
per decomposed MD and DR components of the measured values
(Fig. 12) and for the difference between consecutive measurements
(Fig. 13). The dispersed patterns in these four independent exami-
nations, performed in the E&W direction for different time scales,
indicate that the variation of gamma radiation from radon in the
experiment is not related to the temperature variation pattern. The
statistical significance of the distribution patterns among tempera-
ture and gamma radiation of the decomposed variations was exam-
ined using the Kendall rank correlation test. Table 1 summarizes the
outcome for four tests in the east–west direction (Figs 12 and 13)
and also for four tests in the north–south direction. Seven tests yield
p-values <0.1. The p-values are extremely low in the case of the
MD variation (4 tests). Based on the outcome the null hypothesis
that a dependency exists between temperature and radon is rejected.
1116 G. Steinitz, P. Kotlarsky and O. Piatibratova
Figure 10. Test of the stability of the PM-11 gamma sensor at the varying
temperature of the laboratory. Gamma sensor g-E is placed against exper-
imental canister (see EXP #1 in Steinitz et al. 2011) containing only air
(blank) and is shielded from the environment with a 5 cm thick Pb shield.
Sensor g-N is placed is placed next to the same canister in the following
manner: a further 5 cm Pb brick is placed against the canister wall, blocking
the blank radiation from the canister; a Cs-137 source is inserted between
the Pb brick and the sensor g-N which is also shielded from the environment
with a 5 cm Pb shield. The radiation level from the Cs source is ×10 that
of the blank. The pattern of the hour averages of gamma radiation at both
sensors is not related to the intense temperature fluctuations.
Figure 11. A 10-d test in which a PM-11 gamma sensor was placed on the
experiment table between the Pb shielded experiment and the adjoining con-
crete laboratory wall. The gamma sensor is affected by the environmental
gamma radiation in the lab, primarily from the solid emitters (K, Th, U) of
the walls and the floor. A minor contribution may be from radon in the pores
of the walls and a small contribution from the radon of the nearby shielded
experiment. Temperature variation in the lab is reflecting the ambient tem-
perature and is also influenced by heating or cooling events in some of the
workdays. Comparison of the pattern of the environmental gamma radiation
and the temperature variation in the lab indicates that the sensor response is
not affected by temperature to a significant extent at such levels of radiation.
Based on the above criteria we conclude that pressure and tem-
perature variations in the lab do not affect to a significant extent the
variation of gamma radiation from radon in the canister.
5 DISCUSSION
Several tens of years of research on the variation Rn in nature, espe-
cially in geogas at subsurface environs, have shown that the encoun-
tered patterns are unique in terms of their complexity. Review of the
published literature clearly indicates the lack of a physical explana-
tion and the insufficient understanding using pertinent knowledge.
At the outset, a temporally and spatially varying radiation pattern
from radon in the isolated atmosphere of the canister is not ex-
pected. In contrast, recent experimental work (Steinitz et al. 2011)
demonstrated that the nuclear radiation from radon (in air) within
confined conditions varied systematically in the spatial and temporal
dimensions. The present contribution substantiates the previous ob-
servations and provides further insight on the space–time variation
pattern of radiation from radon.
Inside the canister the gamma radiation, due to the immediate
progeny of the decaying radon, varies in a systematically non-
uniform 3D pattern. In the horizontal plane similar temporal vari-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020
ations occur in the E and W directions and inverse similar pattern
the N and S directions. These variations are manifested in an anal-
ogous manner for the decomposed non-periodic MD signal and
the periodic DR signal. The geometrically inverse manifestation,
which is associated with the perpendicular E–W and N–S direc-
tions, is interpreted to indicate a connection with global orienta-
tion. Linkage with global orientation is supported by the longer-
term variation showing a gradual rise of the overall radiation in
the horizontal plane and a corresponding decrease in the vertical
dimension. The association of the MD and DR signals in the ver-
tical dimension with the variation in the N–S direction suggests a
latitude-related tilt of the true principal up–down axis, constitut-
ing a further indicator for the link of the 3D variation pattern to
global orientation.
Generation of a 24-hr periodicity (S1 tidal component) in geo-
physical systems is well understood due to the direct connection with
the diurnal rotation of Earth around its axis. Interactions among dif-
ferent systems generate additional periodicities close to S1 and also
higher harmonics (i.e. S2) as well as further nearby frequencies.
Examples include interaction with: (i) the moon—in the case of
gravity; (ii) earth surface and atmosphere—in the case of pressure
and temperature; (iii) ionosphere—in the case of magnetic pattern.
Being secondary manifestations the higher harmonics have in gen-
eral lower relative amplitudes. Generation of the S1 signal of the
gamma radiation from radon in the canister is undoubtedly due to
an external 24-hr periodic driver and is thus directly related to the
rotation of Earth around its axis. The broadening (blurred appear-
ance) of the S1 peak may be due to the influence of associated
subsidiary interactions, which are also external. On the other hand,
the development of the higher harmonics seems to be due to a fur-
ther internal interaction. The considerations for this are: (i) primary
external geophysical processes with significant S2 and S3 period-
icities which can be considered as external drivers are not known;
(ii) S2 and S3 periodicities are sharply defined and their amplitudes
are often high and may even exceed the amplitude of S1; and (iii)
they lack the influence of the peak broadening of S1.
It was previously demonstrated that nuclear radiation from radon
in air varies in time and in space. Based on the characteristics of the
signals in spatial, time and frequency domains, and especially in the
frequency–time domain it was suggested that a component of solar
radiation is driving the periodic patterns. Reanalysis by Sturrock
et al. (2012) of the long experimental radon time-series (Steinitz
et al. 2011) could: (i) corroborate the results; (ii) present evidence
of solar rotational frequencies (which are independent of Earth) in
the nuclear radiation time-series; and (iii) show a 24-hr modulation
of the gamma radiation of the radon system in the annual and solar
frequency bands. In conformity with the view in previous works
Sturrock et al. (2012) suggested that the decay is influenced by
 Non-isotropic variation of radiation from Rn 1117

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020

Figure 12. Correlation diagram of decomposed MD (left) and DR (right) components of the measured values (hour averages) of temperature and of gamma
radiation in the E&W direction.

Figure 13. Correlation diagram of decomposed MD (left) and DR (right) components of the difference (gradient) among consecutive measurements (hour
averages) of temperature and of gamma radiation in the E&W direction.

Table 1. Results of the Kendall rank correlation test for correlation between temperature and radon (see text).
MD DR
τ P τ p
East and west Temperature and gamma − 0.0634 0.311 × 10−6 − 0.0313 0.03993
Diff. temperature and diff. gamma − 0.1609 0.465 × 10−27 − 0.0288 0.05882
North and south Temperature and gamma 0.2456 0.175 × 10−59 0.0203 0.18284
Diff. temperature and diff. gamma 0.1898 0.128 × 10−36 0.0563 0.00022

solar radiation and solar neutrinos were considered as a possible
particle involved.
The new experimental results add information on the nuclear
radiation pattern of radon in air and further confirm the proposition
of an influence of a component of solar radiation. The observations
demonstrated:
(1) Temporal variation consisting of a long-term variation, which
may be related to an annual variation, and MD and periodic DR
signals.
(2) Separate processes seem to drive the MD and DR signals.
(3) The MD and DR signal exhibit systematic spatial variations.
The principal axes of the time–space variations seem to be related
to the north–south and east–west global orientation axes.
(4) The affinity of the MD and DR signals along the vertical axis
with the north–south directed radiation patterns indicates that the
north–south axis of the system is actually inclined. If this effect
is related to the latitude of the experiment (Jerusalem) then it is
probably a further indication that global orientation is involved.
The observations described in this and the previous contributions
(op. cit.) on the temporal and spatial variation of radiation from
radon in air bear on two issues:
(i) Radon time-series measurements are often used to indicate
transfer and transport processes in the environmental and earth
science milieus. The basic assumption is that there is a simple and
straightforward relation between the concentration of radon and its
activity as measured by nuclear detectors. The results obtained on
the temporal variation of the radiation (alpha and gamma; op cit)
demonstrate that this assumption probably cannot be applied in such
a simple manner.
(ii) The possible influence of a component in the solar irradiation
might be connected to further phenomena dealt with in the last years:
1118 G. Steinitz, P. Kotlarsky and O. Piatibratova
• Evidence for variation in the nuclear decay rates of several
nuclides was discussed by Jenkins et al. (2009) and
Fischbach et al. (2009). One of the possibilities raised is
that the perturbation of nuclear decay rates may be related,
among other, to the Earth–Sun distance.
• Indications for variations in decay rates as a function of
global position are given by Baurov et al. (2001) and Shnoll
et al. (2008).
The results obtained so far in the geological environment and in
experiments indicate the relevance of studying radon signals in the
subsurface and in the laboratory in terms of earth-science geody-
namics, geophysics of the Earth and probably also solar irradiation
and Earth–Sun interactions.
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
The authors thank E. Fischbach and P. Sturrock for their review
and constructive remarks. Remarks by two anonymous reviewers
improved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alparone, S., Behncke, B., Giammanco, S., Neri, M. & Privitera, E.,
2005. Paroxysmal summit activity at Mt. Etna (Italy) monitored through
continuous soil radon measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L16307,
doi:10.1029/2005GL023352.
Baurov, Y.A., Konradov, A.A., Kushniruk, V.F., Kuznetsov, E.A., Sobolev,
Y.G., Ryabov, Y.U., Senkevich, A.P. & Zadorozsny, S.V., 2001. Experi-
mental investigations of changes of β-decay rate of 60 Co and 137 Cs, Mod.
Phys. Lett., 16(32), 2089–2101.
Burton, M., Neri, M. & Condarelli, D., 2004. High spatial resolution radon
measurements reveal hidden active faults on Mt. Etna, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 31, L07618.
Choubey, V.M., Arora, B.R., Barbosa, S.M., Kumar, N. & Kamra, L., 2011.
Seasonal and daily variation of radon at 10 m depth in borehole, Lesser
Garhwal Himalaya, India, Appl. Radiat. Isot., 69, 1070–1078.
Cigolini, C. et al., 2001. High-resolution radon monitoring and hydrody-
namics at Mount Vesuvius, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 4035–4038.
Cigolini, C. et al., 2009. Radon surveys and real-time monitoring at
Stromboli volcano: influence of soil temperature, atmospheric pres-
sure and tidal forces on 222 Rn degassing, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.,
doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.04.019.
Fischbach, E., Buncher, J.B, Gruenwald, J.T., Jenkins, J.H., Krause, D.E.,
Mattes, J.J. & Newport, J.R., 2009. Time-dependent nuclear decay param-
eters: new evidence for new forces? Space Sci. Rev., 145, 285–335.
Hartmann, J. & Levy, J.K., 2005. Hydrogeological and gasgeochemical
earthquake precursors - a review for application, Nat. Hazards, 34, 279–
304.
Immè, G., La Delfa, S., Lo Nigro, S., Morelli, D. & Patane, G., 2006. Soil
radon monitoring in the NE flank of Mt. Etna (Sicily), Appl. Radiat.
Isotopes, 64, 624–629.
Jenkins, J.H., Fischbach, E., Buncher, J.B, Gruenwald, J.T., Krause, D.E. &
Mattes, J.J., 2009. Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates
and Earth-Sun distance, Astropart. Phys., 32, 42–46.
Monin, M.M. & Seidel, J.L., 1992. Radon in soil-air and groundwater related
to major geophysical events: a survey. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res.,
314(2), 316–330.
Moszyński, M., Nassalski, A., Syntfeld-Każuch, A., Szcześniak, T.,
Czarnacki, W., Wolski, D., Pausch, G. & Stein, J., 2006. Temperature
dependences of LaBr3 (Ce), LaCl3 (Ce) and NaI(Tl) scintillators, Nucl.
Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., 568, 739–751.
Segovia, N., Mena, M., Seidel, J.L., Monnin, M., Tamez, E. & Pena, P., 1995.
Short and long term radon in soil monitoring for geophysical purposes,
Radiat. Meas., 25(1–4), 547–552.
Shnoll, S.E, Panchelyuga, V.A. & Shnoll, A.E., 2008. The Palindrome effect,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/193/3/1110/608232 by guest on 27 April 2020
Prog. Phys., 2, 151–153.
Steinitz, G. & Piatibratova, O., 2010a. Radon signals in the Gavnunim
intrusion, Makhtesh Ramon, Israel, Geophys. J. Int., 180, 651–665.
Steinitz, G. & Piatibratova, O., 2010b. Radon signals at the Roded site,
Southern Israel, Solid Earth, 1, 99–109.
Steinitz, G., Vulkan, U., Lang, B., Gilat, A. & Zafrir, H., 1992. Radon
emanation along border faults of the Rift in the Dead Sea area, Isr. J.
Earth-Sci., 41, 9–20.
Steinitz, G., Vulkan, U. & Lang, B., 1996. Monitoring of the tectoni-
cally related radon flux in Israel, Isr. Geol. Surv. Curr. Res., 10, 148–
153.
Steinitz, G., Vulkan, U. & Lang, B., 1999. The Radon flux at the northwestern
segment of the Dead Sea (Dead Sea Rift) and its relation to earthquakes,
Israel J. Earth-Sci., 48, 283–299.
Steinitz, G., Begin, Z.B. & Gazit-Yaari, N., 2003. A statistically significant
relation between radon flux and weak earthquakes in the Dead Sea Rift
Valley, Geology, 31, 505–508.
Steinitz, G., Piatibratova, O. & Barbosa, S.M., 2007. Radon daily signals in
the Elat Granite, southern Arava, Israel, J. Geophys. Res., 112, B10211,
doi:10.1029/2006JB004817.
Steinitz, G., Piatibratova, O. & Kotlarsky, P., 2011. Possible ef-
fect of solar tides on radon signals, J. Environ. Radiat.,
doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.04.002.
Sturrock, P.A., Steinitz, G., Fischbach, E., Javorsek, D. & Jenkins, J.H.,
2012. Analysis of gamma radiation from a radon source: indications of a
solar influence, J. Astropart. Phys., 36(1), 18–26.
Toutain, J.P. & Baubron, J.C., 1999. Gas geochemistry and seismotectonics:
a review, Tectonophysics, 304, 1–27.
Trique, M., Richon, P., Perrier, F., Avouac, J.P. & Sabroux, J.C., 1999. Radon
emanation and electric potential variations associated with transient de-
formation near reservoir lakes, Nature, 399, 137–141.
Wilhelm, H., Zürn, W. & Wenzel, H.G. (Eds), 1997. Tidal Phenomena.
Lectures in Earth Sciences, Springer, p. 66.
Zafrir, H., Haquin, G., Malik, U., Barbosa, S.M., Piatibratova, O.
& Steinitz, G., 2011. Gamma versus alpha sensors for Rn-222
long-term monitoring in geological environments, Radiat. Meas.,
doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2011.04.027.