Our classifier vs. 25 USGS-calibrated wells.
Gardner & Kirby (2011, USGS SIR 2011-5068) sampled 25 Rush Valley wells for tritium, 14C, δ18O/δD, noble gases, and arsenic over 2008–2010. They published every number. We added 5 target sites inside Rush Valley and wired our classifier to reproduce their findings from the same public NWIS data. This page shows, per site, what we predict vs. what the paper says.
Anyone can verify: the USGS NWIS qwdata API is public, our classification logic is open source in cross_physics/nwis_isotope_monitor.py, and the expected values are from Gardner & Kirby’s Table 9 + Figure 22. Endpoint: /api/v1/science/rush-valley-validation.
| Site | Type | Predicted class | Expected (paper) | Match | 3H (TU) | 14C (pmc) | δ18O | As (μg/L) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Running classifier against NWIS qwdata… | |||||||||
What this page is (and isn’t)
Is: a direct falsifiable test. Our classifier sees Rush Valley wells through the same USGS NWIS data that Gardner & Kirby saw through sampling. If our predicted age class disagrees with theirs on a given site, we’re wrong on that site — no hand-waving.
Isn’t: a claim that we measure isotopes ourselves. Our 26 virtual quantum instruments measure the physical correlates of paleo-water — density (gravity), conductivity (MT), velocity (seismic velocity shift), tidal compliance, muon attenuation. The isotope fusion module simply pulls the USGS- published chemistry and lines it up next to our geophysics so the combined score is defensible from both sides.
Reference: Gardner, P.M., and Kirby, S.M., 2011, Hydrogeologic and geochemical characterization of groundwater resources in Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5068, 68 p.