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: 2
44
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I'm surprised no one mentioned pacific fishing industry as a group that may want this standard relaxed.

Fukushima?




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

That's an interesting take. Are the radiation levels still high enough in that area to be relevant for the recommended levels in the report?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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).

From the EPA website:


PAG Manual The PAG Manual is a planning guide for emergency responders, and does not change federal, state or local environmental standards. The PAG guidelines are only for use during a large-scale emergency, when radiation levels could be high enough to cause health effects unless public safety measures are taken.

Notice the part where it reads The PAG Manual is a planning guide for emergency responders, and does not change federal, state or local environmental standards.
This is the end of me doing your research for you.
There are actual reasons to be angry with the current administrations epa; this is not one of them.

Your original quote:


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.

Enjoy your willful ignorance on this matter.
This in no way has any capitalistic perspective for reducing regulations.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well, its either that or admit that the entire north Pacific Ocean was irradiated by Fukushima, and is still being polluted by it.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

There is little point in having specific radiation limits to its toleration. Oh, if you are testing or scientifically using radiation, yes, limits should be in place. But when it comes to accidents, it better to not have limits. Or as with the case with Fukushima's uncontrolled radiation, that will exist as long as humanity is around to suffer the effects one way or another, it just makes for bothersome talk among the natives when little can be done other than moving millions of people from their home areas. And no government wants to do that. Better that they are left to stay in place and cancer rates quietly increase. Cheaper that way.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

There's no research you need to do for me. The fact that you deliberately avoid my follow up questions is more telling of your lack of insight into this other than to misdirect the thread.

You can not explain why the PAG would be relaxed beyond the point of the actual regulations. Don't conflate you inability to formulate reasonable responses as a deficiency on my part.

The only reason I could imagine to reduce restrictions (again as a prelude to relaxing restrictions eventually) was in some way to stimulate the economic sectors that were hampered by the restrictions. I can't figure why a 'recommendation' would be relaxed beyond the law unless it is a sign that the EPA would like to push for relaxing actual regulations (again because it doesn't make sense why you would recommend getting dosed by a much higher amount of radiation than the law would nominally allow).



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

There's no research you need to do for me. The fact that you deliberately avoid my follow up questions is more telling of your lack of insight into this other than to misdirect the thread.

You can not explain why the PAG would be relaxed beyond the point of the actual regulations. Don't conflate you inability to formulate reasonable responses as a deficiency on my part.

The only reason I could imagine to reduce restrictions (again as a prelude to relaxing restrictions eventually) was in some way to stimulate the economic sectors that were hampered by the restrictions. I can't figure why a 'recommendation' would be relaxed beyond the law unless it is a sign that the EPA would like to push for relaxing actual regulations (again because it doesn't make sense why you would recommend getting dosed by a much higher amount of radiation than the law would nominally allow).


lol
You have done no actual research. You do not understand the source material. No change in regulation has occurred.
You imagine things because you have no actual knowledge on the subject. You have no idea what the actual legal limit is to begin with.
The source material is intended for the easily manipulated. Don't be angry at me because you took the bait.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
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.


Radiation is my Job, well in healthcare. Those numbers of zero are ridiculous and unattainable.
atleast the new ones are realistic.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I'm guessing this was pushed by cell phone, smart meter, and/or other electronic companies to make their products appear safe. Meanwhile, cancer rates continue to rise....Well, I guess this is what trump supporters want. Deregulating and putting our faith in corporations because the people can just say no to their product. I mean, we live in a society of very informed people, right?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
I'm guessing this was pushed by cell phone, smart meter, and/or other electronic companies to make their products appear safe. Meanwhile, cancer rates continue to rise....Well, I guess this is what trump supporters want. Deregulating and putting our faith in corporations because the people can just say no to their product. I mean, we live in a society of very informed people, right?

Another non reader.
This is for emergency response planning only.
No actual legal regulations have been changed.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ChrisM101

Well, what can be done to prevent the rise of more and more electronic radiation exposure?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, misleading headline then.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

That is what I posted earlier.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Wait a second. Nobody's going to point out the other obvious lie in the OP?


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).

LOL In 2007, Barack Obama was just a US Senator. He was elected President in November of 2008 and wasn't sworn into office until January of 2009.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The entire article kind of sucks no?
I swear people can't read anymore.
As long as the headline hurts your feelings nothing else matters..

I'll explain though.
If a nuclear power plant melts down first responders can take a certain amount of radiation..
This has nothing to do with regular circumstances..



Click here for larger picture



It's a 48 page pdf file if you are willing to read what it really says and I think it should become apparent what you are looking at..

Mostly that it DOES NOT apply to YOU unless a nuke goes off or a nuclear plant melts down..

50mSv in an emergency as total exposure.
It's not saying that a nuclear plant can leak that much around people.. or that doctors or nurses can get that much around their scanning equiptment.. or that you can get that much around granite countertops and dental xrays..

It's emergency "guidline" not a "regulation" in any emergency situation you would always shoot for 0 mSv radiation exposure.. 50mSv seems like a reasonable emergency exposure.. get around 800mSv and it's not so fun...

In context radiation workers are regulated at no more than 20mSv per year and regular people 1mSv per year.. That is regulatory.. the 50mSv during a nuclear event is to give you an idea as a guide about where to draw the line..




And if you are worried about radiation in an Emerhency situation guess what??

There is your guide.

Read it so if something were to happen you know all the steps recommended to you by the EPA to take.

EPA Emergency Plan Action Guide Q and A pdf

Got it?

The mSv part is on page 18 item number 55..


The current regulations on radiation exposure were set January 13th 1977 for nuclear plants

Nuclear waste regulation last updated January 19th 1994

Uranium mill regulation was enhanced for better protections last in January 2017



You cannot regulate an emergency.. you're going to make it illegal for the nuke to be over a certain limit?? You are going to sue NK??

That's the difference between regulations and guidelines..

EPA.gov should be your source, not dummies writing "news articles"


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



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
I'm surprised no one mentioned pacific fishing industry as a group that may want this standard relaxed.

Fukushima?


Our food regulations are not in question.. couldn't find for fish maybe that's under FDA, but for drinking water the rules were set in the 70s updated a few times for greater protections up until 2004.

Nothing has changed since then

Here we are.. the levels of radiation inside foods meant for human consumption was last changed in 2005 and you can read about it here:

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



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Late to the party here... but this is primarily for occupational exposure. If you don't work in the nuclear field you'll never get close to that...



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chromium51
Late to the party here... but this is primarily for occupational exposure. If you don't work in the nuclear field you'll never get close to that...


This is for nuclear emergencies.. like a nuclear meltdown.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: Chromium51
Late to the party here... but this is primarily for occupational exposure. If you don't work in the nuclear field you'll never get close to that...


This is for nuclear emergencies.. like a nuclear meltdown.


5 Rem a year is the annual hard limit. Most places limit you to 1/10th of that number. Also combatting an emergency situation is 1R per year old you are



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Thank you for the information and links - it's very useful.

And you said it "for capitalist reasons" - the health of living beings is not even in the equations.




top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join