Hello Costo, thanks for the message, yet I must admit I have little success in understanding what troubles you: you can still open the map with radiation selected by default: http://uradmonitor.com/?sensor=cpm

The model A is still part of the portfolio, being one of the best products designed so far. So is the A3, which continues the radiation monitoring legacy.

Pollution affects more people (about 7million/year worldwide and about half a million per year in Europe) than radiation related incidents did during history. And the numbers are increasing considering where our society and way of living is going.

So the project tries to help more people, adding more sensors and leveraging on the mature IOT infrastructure developed so far. What’s wrong with that?

Hello, I am happy to report that Radiation has been selected as default view. There is also a label under the map, to provide more information on what sensor is presented.

Please test and provide some feedback.

I’m now seeing radiation as the default and that is great. But my problem is that if this project is truly a way to monitor the environment then the information has to be accurate. If it isn’t, it totally defeats the purpose of the map and the project. I’ve often scanned the map looking for radiation hot spots. I find many suspicious clusters of units which I suspect are not really environmental readings. Several are in Romania, which I suspect is Radu testing units. Others are in Hong Kong, which I’m guessing is where they are manufactured. There is also a unit in Monaco. Should I be concerned? I don’t know because I have been fooled by other high readings. So I would suggest the following: Have a flag for each thing being monitored that can be set if the unit is actually monitoring the environment. If it isn’t, exclude it from the map. So, for example, my unit monitors radiation, but the temperature is the ambient temperature inside the unit. So the environmental flag for my radiation reading would be set on, and the flag for temperature would be set off. The defaults for all new units should be off. Part of the process of registering a unit would be to have the owner confirm that the unit is installed for public environmental monitoring. Next, there should be a way to contact anyone with a consistently high environmental reading to find out the cause of the reading. Perhaps this could be done with an automated e-mail. If there are several contacts without the owner confirming that the readings are truly environmental readings, the unit would be flagged as suspicious or malfunctioning. There should be a checkbox for showing or hiding these suspicious units. And I also suggest that offline units should not be showing in the default case. Having them appear only makes the data inaccurate. Bad data destroys warning systems. If there is constantly data that would cause alarm, people learn to ignore the data. Then, when there really is a danger, nobody pays attention. Please fix this.

@Sam & @Wolferl , thanks both for the good suggestions . I’ll see that they are implemented .

@samwantman-net , that would be an excellent feature to have. Not easy to implement but I will look on a way to allow users to mark/flag their data.