It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA Increases Radiation Limit Tenfold

page: 1
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+30 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
www.epa.gov...

www.peer.org...

www.bloomberg.com...

As part of Scott Pruitt's quest to reduce environmental regulations, the newest EPA guidelines are out that increase the allowable limit of radiation exposure by 10 times the previous limit (set in 2007 during the Obama administration).

I have included both the EPA report as well as an article by Bloomberg thats pretty critical of the increase (for a variety of reasons) in the links above.

To quickly summarize, the report states “radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.”

However, the 2017 PAG guidance document (link also included above) pretty clearly states that under the new limits roughly every 86th person exposed to an event at the increased limits could expect to get cancer from it.

I can certainty see the appeal from a capitalistic perspective for reducing regulations, but I had imagined most people were pretty united in their distaste of radiation exposure. I'm curious what the perspective is for those who believe that this move is a good course of action.



+8 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Why do we have to get this kind of news from here? This kind of stuff needs to be debated in public before the EPA passes laws about it.




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Quauhtli

My gut tells me because there would be a lot of pad publicity/press about it, and there are ulterior ($) motives for relaxing the restrictions.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'm curious what the perspective is for those who believe that this move is a good course of action.


Me too.




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
From your op notice the part where it says DOES NOT CARRY THE WEIGHT OF THE LAW!


The change was included as part of EPA "guidance" on messaging and communications in the event of a nuclear power plant meltdown or dirty bomb attack. The FAQ document, dated September 2017, is part of a broader planning document for nuclear emergencies, and does not carry the weight of federal standards or law.
a reply to: Wayfarer
From your op.



This document is intended to help emergency planners prepare public communications prior to and during a radiological emergency; it is designed to be worked into emergency response plans and standard operating procedures. Each radiological emergency is unique; the messages contained in this book need to be adapted for the specific emergency at hand.

Either you intentionally misrepresented what you sited or you need to read what you posted.
Your Quote.


As part of Scott Pruitt's quest to reduce environmental regulations, the newest EPA guidelines are out that increase the allowable limit of radiation exposure by 10 times the previous limit (set in 2007 during the Obama administration).

This is a planning document and in no way sets ANY REGULATIONS on radiation exposure.
But hey try and use this info on the uninformed to bludgeon the current admin with.

edit on 17/10/2017 by shooterbrody because: derps gotta derp



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'm curious what the perspective is for those who believe that this move is a good course of action.


Me too.



it's great because Trump is making America great again. that's why.

we have grade A poultry heading to our super markets soon!



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which sets off bells as to a possible reason for the Vegas incident

edit on 17-10-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quauhtli
Why do we have to get this kind of news from here? This kind of stuff needs to be debated in public before the EPA passes laws about it.



cause their sh!t don't sink, Ergo, concordantly there's no need to inform anyone they took one...



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I was going to comment something similar, but my ADD kicked in and I started doing something else.

That's for saying it so that I don't have to...this is spin reporting, so to speak.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are we to assume this isn't a prelude to relaxing restrictions though? Furthermore, for what reason would you imagine they would relax recommended exposure levels (as it would make sense to give the most restrictive guidance as a rule of thumb rather than relax them for the sake of peoples health where one can't reliably correlate medical data).

I'm not trying to bludgeon the administration or Scott Pruitt. I'm sure there are many people here among ATS that believe in Trump and Pruitt's judgement (although I do not). I did not intend for this to be a partisan attack (though I am open about my distaste for it). In fact I'm more curious about your thoughts for why relaxing restrictions is good (if that is the case).



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

To represent this change as a "regulatory" change is just a straight up lie.

Nobody wants higher radiation levels.
By the same token in a NUCLEAR EMERGENCY low level exposure is the LEAST of ones worries.

What is really crazy is this person "read" this before posting it.........



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I tried to find a conservative news perspective on this but I was unable. I would welcome any assistance if you are aware of any.

To bring this back to the meat of what I was looking for, do you think relaxing restrictions on allowable limits (recommendation or actual law) is good?
edit on 42pm17fpmTue, 17 Oct 2017 14:09:11 -0500America/ChicagoTue, 17 Oct 2017 14:09:11 -0500 by Wayfarer because: grammar



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: SlapMonkey

To represent this change as a "regulatory" change is just a straight up lie.

Nobody wants higher radiation levels.
By the same token in a NUCLEAR EMERGENCY low level exposure is the LEAST of ones worries.

What is really crazy is this person "read" this before posting it.........


Well if you don't want higher radiation exposure levels, then why raise it at all? If it makes you feel better to focus on my mistake in labeling then go ahead. Again I'm not interested in arguing with you over the semantics, I'm rather curious what your take is on the reason behind relaxing the recommended limits.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer




Are we to assume this isn't a prelude to relaxing restrictions though?

You may assume whatever you like.
The title of your thread is not true.
Your own sources point out this is not the law.
No standards are relaxed.
This is an emergency planning document.
These are reviewed on a cyclic basis(3yr,5yr ect).
Scott Pruitt's "Scott Pruitt's quest to reduce environmental regulations" (your "non partisan" quote) are merely a review and update.
Your distaste is only at the current admin. Emergency planning documents are updated all the time by all kinds of people d and r.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

READ WHAT YOU POST BEFORE POSTING IT.
NO ONE CHANGED ANY REGULATIONS.
The reason for the change is a regular cycle update.
Nothing more nothing less.

You got hijacked by a bs headline and ran with it.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer




Are we to assume this isn't a prelude to relaxing restrictions though?

You may assume whatever you like.
The title of your thread is not true.
Your own sources point out this is not the law.
No standards are relaxed.
This is an emergency planning document.
These are reviewed on a cyclic basis(3yr,5yr ect).
Scott Pruitt's "Scott Pruitt's quest to reduce environmental regulations" (your "non partisan" quote) are merely a review and update.
Your distaste is only at the current admin. Emergency planning documents are updated all the time by all kinds of people d and r.


The title of my thread makes no mention of recommendation nor law.

Scott Pruitt's actions are very clear (as fact) regarding environmental de-regulation. If you believe he is not in fact de-regulating environmental regulations at a record pace please let me know and I will be happy to educate you.

My distaste is irrespective of party. Like I said in my first post, I was having a difficult time reconciling the idea that anybody would think relaxing radiation exposure limits (which of course is merely a recommendation as you have already pointed out and I have admitted to mis-speaking on) is a good thing.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

You got hijacked by a bs headline and ran with it.


There was no hijacking. I still think it unwise and unwarranted to relax even merely recommendations for radiation exposure (as I believe it places undue risk on lives). Again I'll reiterate that I can see no good reason to relax 'recommendations' especially as they hold no legal weight so there is no risk in maintaining a healthy margin of safety in that regard.

I would be interested if you could actually muster an opinion on why relaxing 'recommendations' is a good thing, and not just for the sake of expediency in emergency situations (since emergency responders are likely going to put themselves in harms way as a manner of principle).
edit on 42pm17fpmTue, 17 Oct 2017 14:17:43 -0500America/ChicagoTue, 17 Oct 2017 14:17:43 -0500 by Wayfarer because: tense



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Man, Scott Pruitt is intent on destroying everything that is nature in our country...



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Killing us slowly.

Nuff said..



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Just in time for the nuclear war with North Korea. ...Our government is always prepared to cover their tracks.


edit on 17-10-2017 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join