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: 3
44
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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.


All the more dangerous - basicly saying - you don't have to report **** but maybe when the air or water that all living creatures ingest gets to these (horribly high) levels you might want to think about reporting it to someone else who will ignore them.

Think Fukushima people.




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
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?


Got one and from conservative propaganda site:

www.zerohedge.com...

Then a list of relevant articles regarding the topic and possible health effects - middle of the road: Woods Hole Oceanographic:

www.whoi.edu...

Then something pretty sensational that might just get your attention - not very well supported:

countercurrentnews.info...



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
If the new guidelines are for occupational health reasons with respect to emergency nuclear event responders, then relaxing them a bit to a more realistic level makes it easier to manage the response. Less time has to be invested in making sure the responders are reasonably safe. Safety of the responders is automatically going to be one of the highest priorities in any event. There seems to be little benefit to implementing tighter than realistic guidelines.

If the new guidelines are for dissemination to the public to inform them of "safe" levels of radiation in the event of a nuclear emergency, then providing a more realistic number will buy the responders a reasonable amount of time before the public starts to freak out. However, if such a nuclear event did occur, does anyone here think that the US government would tell the truth anyway. You could be sitting in your living room looking like a giant green glowstick and they would still tell you that you're safe.

With respect to relaxing environmental guidelines in general, I think that the long-term effects of relaxing those levels should be calculated. All aspects of the changes should be taken into consideration; including government costs of any necessary cleanup, the value added for the economy, and the cost of providing healthcare and support for those negatively affected by the changes.

And, of course, the value of the number of human lives, if any, that will be lost because of the change. While this may seem to be a rather callous variable to consider, in any society a few will always be sacrificed for the many.

-dex



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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.


All the more dangerous - basicly saying - you don't have to report **** but maybe when the air or water that all living creatures ingest gets to these (horribly high) levels you might want to think about reporting it to someone else who will ignore them.

Think Fukushima people.


you are just straight up stupid.
this has NOTHING to do with ANY reporting.
try reading the source material before posting on it.


edit on 17/10/2017 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Name calling - really weak.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

But isn't there a difference between a realistic amount one could expect and potentially obfuscating the agency of the responder themselves? Nobody would argue that first responders aren't likely to heroically put their lives on the line, but to say (and I'm not implying that you specifically are) that 'X amount of radiation is fine' is perhaps disingenuous and unwisely warranted when its not really known the full scope of ramifications (even the PAG limit chart is an assumptive reference).

Something like, "exposure should be minimized to the greatest degree in all cases where possible" and then listing the relevant assumed lethality value metric for exposure amounts over time periods and let the emergency responders themselves decide how much 'chance' they want to take absorbing radiation could serve the same purpose, and place the responsibility for deciding in the responders hands rather than claiming safety where the end results is not well understood.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: shooterbrody

Name calling - really weak.

Not being able to read or comprehend the source is weaker.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: ChrisM101

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



No one will give up the convenience of things like wifi, cell towers, and flying, then theres cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, etc.

But yeah the expectation of zero is unattainable, yet you absolutely want to minimize it. Especially in healthcare, it is a run away ridiculous amount of CAT Scans being done for minor things. And each scan is roughly 500-1000 times a plain film xray



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Like Shooterbrody noted, this only discusses nuclear emergencies, and in nuclear emergencies, testing for, knowing, and avoiding certain radiation levels is almost a moot point for the average person, and in a true emergency, you do what you have to do, regardless of governmental regulations or administratively adjusted limits.

But I'm no radiologist, so I'm not even going to pretend that I can confidently say that the existing radiation levels were safe under Obama, nor that the proposed adjustment's effects can be. I'm unwilling to discuss that part of it out of ignorance.

As for finding a "conservative news perspective," that's not what I meant what I said that this was "spin reporting," I was referencing how you presented what was being reported. In any event, news shouldn't need a conservative or liberal perspective...it should have a factual perspective.


originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

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

You cannot--well, should not--rebut the point that you're misrepresenting what is happening by employing the slippery-slope logical fallacy. That actually makes it worse.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You cannot--well, should not--rebut the point that you're misrepresenting what is happening by employing the slippery-slope logical fallacy.


Its at the top of the article (bloomberg) and bulleted. I didn't pull the thought out of my ass. I'm not misrepresenting (as I've admitted I mis-spoke regarding a recommendation and a regulation). As I've mentioned earlier, Pruitt has already de-regulated a record number of environmental protections. Are you implying that his past actions hold no bearing on the direction the EPA is taking and potentially aligning itself behind?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
My issue is that you are taking this.....


As I've mentioned earlier, Pruitt has already de-regulated a record number of environmental protections. Are you implying that his past actions hold no bearing on the direction the EPA is taking and potentially aligning itself behind?

and trying to use an update to an emergency planning document to push your agenda.

There is no doubt that the current administration installed Pruitt as a thumb to the eye of "environmentalists".
There are actual reasons to question this appointment and, perhaps Pruitts judgement in that position.

Using an update of a planning document that holds absolutely no legal regulatory power to infer such is either ignorant or just a blatant lie.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I've been pondering whether this is the beginning of something bigger, or not. Clearly you don't believe this has any bearing whatsoever on future environmental movement (as far as the EPA has regulatory authority to pursue) one way or another, and that's a valid opinion (though I disagree). There are many other people besides myself that feel like this is a prelude to something else, but time will tell of course.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

I've been pondering whether this is the beginning of something bigger, or not. Clearly you don't believe this has any bearing whatsoever on future environmental movement (as far as the EPA has regulatory authority to pursue) one way or another, and that's a valid opinion (though I disagree). There are many other people besides myself that feel like this is a prelude to something else, but time will tell of course.

And none of that matches the thread title.
And yes, none of this nonsense about a nuclear emergency planning document, has anything to do with future epa plans. Planning documents get updated on a regular basis, no matter who is in office.

Personally I think Pruitt was a piss poor choice for the head of the EPA. Personally I think repealing some of the regulations pass during the past administration may be wrong.
None of that has ANYTHING to do with the title of this thread, or the people who read the headline like it is true and then comment.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I can see your viewpoint about the thread title. Unfortunately I am unaware of how to edit it to more accurately reflect the nature of the PAG document (as a recommendation rather than a regulatory change).



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

From O.P.


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).


Care to check your timeline?
My recollection is that Obama was not Pres. until 2009, right?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Not all radiation exposure is the same.

Alpha radiation exposure in the air in very low risk.
Alpha radiation exposure on the skin is a slightly higher risk.
Alpha radiation exposure from a alpha emitter in the body is a lot higher risk of cancer.

Beta radiation exposure is a little worse follows the same rules.

Gamma radiation exposure is dangerous.
Its deep penetrating and does most cell damage.

The EPA does not tell you which type they are basing there exposure on.

A good gas mask and decontamination will help a lot with alpha and beta radiation exposure.

but not much with gamma radiation exposure



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
when you can`t control the levels of deadly poisons the only thing to do to appear credible is to raise the "allowable" limits of deadly poisons. Anyone who trusts the EPA or the government with their life is someone who isn`t going to live an average lifespan.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
A moderate level of pollution boosts the immune system and makes people better off.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus




when you can`t control the levels of deadly poisons the only thing to do to appear credible is to raise the "allowable" limits of deadly poisons.

Except that's not what this is actually about. If you get beyond the headline, that is.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tardacus




when you can`t control the levels of deadly poisons the only thing to do to appear credible is to raise the "allowable" limits of deadly poisons.

Except that's not what this is actually about. If you get beyond the headline, that is.



I rarely do read beyond the headlines because it`s mostly filled with personal opinions and personal politics




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join