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: 4
44
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
im not sure how i feel about this. we all know radiation can be dangerous and anytime you have to send emergency responders they are going to be at risk and id imagine they know that well ahead of stepping foot in the crisis zone. so is this just a preemptive thing to avoid lawsuits since at the current levels every emergency responder would undoubtedly be exposed to levels considered to be unsafe therefor opening them up for lawsuits from the affected responders possibly?




posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:24 AM
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.



This was covered in Britain, with more of a jokingly you get what you paid for tone.
Part of trump's election thing was too many regulations hurt America, science is wrong, he mentioned it once or twice.

A popular joke over here a while back aimed at farage that went over ukip supporters heads, farage wins the election and scraps regulations and goes down the pub to celebrate, drops dead from the arsenic used to top up his beer, we need some regulations.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So, you don't point out that the Obama administration was already working on increasing this limit?... I wonder why?... Oh wait...nvm...


RADICAL DRINKING WATER RADIATION RISE CONFIRMED IN EPA PLAN

EPA Hid Planned Exposure Levels 1,000s of Times Safe Drinking Water Act Limits

Posted on Dec 22, 2016 | Tags: Drinking Water, EPA

Washington, DC — In the last days of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to dramatically increase allowable public exposure to radioactivity to levels thousands of times above the maximum limits of the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to documents the agency surrendered in a federal lawsuit brought by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). These radical rollbacks cover the “intermediate period” following a radiation release and could last for up to several years. This plan is in its final stage of approval.
...

www.peer.org...



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know this has nothing to do with regulations, right?
You know it has nothing to do with changing drinking water standards, right?

The PAGS are guidlines for use in situations when cleanup operations are carried out by authorites other than Superfund programs or other state or federal authorities. As guidelines, the PAGs do not "permit" anything. The updated PAGs do not "raise" any allowable levels.


This guidance does not address or impact site cleanups occurring under other statutory authorities such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund program, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decommissioning program, or other federal or state cleanup programs.

As indicated by the use of non-mandatory language such as “may,” “should” and “can,” this Manual only provides recommendations and does not confer any legal rights or impose any legally binding requirements upon any member of the public, state, tribe, locality, or any federal agency.

www.epa.gov...

edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know this has nothing to do with regulations, right?
You know it has nothing to do with changing drinking water standards, right?

The PAGS are guidlines for use in situations when cleanup operations are carried out by authorites other than Superfund programs or other state or federal authorities. As guidelines, the PAGs do not "permit" anything. The updated PAGs do not "raise" any allowable levels.


if only everyone actually read whats in the links eh?



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You know that it does have everything to do with the Obama administration doing this but only making it effective under the Trump administration right?... That's the point. Meanwhile the Obama administration started and made sure this would become law, they waited until it would be effective under the Trump administration, just so that people like you, and the op can blame President Trump and his administration when it was the Obama administration who started this and wanted this implemented.

I do hope however, that the Trump administration can change this.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know that it does have everything to do with the Obama administration doing this but only making it effective under the Trump administration right?
What became "effective?" You have no idea what PAGS are, do you?



Meanwhile the Obama administration started and made sure this would become law,
No. PAGS are not law. Never have been, never will be. You have no idea what PAGS are, do you?



just so that people like you, and the op can blame President Trump
Who blamed Trump? Not me. The last PAGS were issued in January. I've seen no evidence of revision under the current admin.


I do hope however, that the Trump administration can change this.
With Pruitt in charge? Heh, that's a good one! He wants to neuter the EPA. Regulations? Too many of them things!

edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...
With Pruitt in charge? Heh, that's a good one! He wants to neuter the EPA. Regulations? Too many of them things!


And here you are trying to claim this is not an attempt to blame this on the Trump administration...


And despite your claims of the contrary.


For Immediate Release: Dec 22, 2016
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
RADICAL DRINKING WATER RADIATION RISE CONFIRMED IN EPA PLAN

EPA Hid Planned Exposure Levels 1,000s of Times Safe Drinking Water Act Limits

Posted on Dec 22, 2016 | Tags: Drinking Water, EPA
...
To cover its embarrassment after being caught dissembling about Fukushima fallout on American soil, EPA is pursuing a justification for assuming a radioactive fetal position even in cases of ultra-high contamination,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has called for the PAGs to be withdrawn on both public health and legal grounds. “The Safe Drinking Water Act is a federal law; it cannot be nullified or neutered by regulatory ‘guidance.’”

Despite claims of transparency, EPA solicited public comment on its plan even as it hid the bulk of the plans effects. Nonetheless, more than 60,000 people filed comments in opposition.

“The Dr. Strangelove wing of EPA does not want this information shared with many of its own experts, let alone the public,” added Ruch, noting that PEER had to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to force release of exposure limits. “This is a matter of public health that should be promulgated in broad daylight rather than slimed through in the witching hours of a departing administration.

www.peer.org...


edit on 19-10-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Define "this."

Blame what on the Trump administration? It sounds like the usual ignorant arm waving that showed up with the previous revision in 2013.
test.abovetopsecret.com...


Who is Kerstin Stade? Drinking water standards are not being modified. You have no idea what PAGS are, do you?


As indicated by the use of non-mandatory language such as “may,” “should” and “can,” this Manual only provides recommendations and does not confer any legal rights or impose any legally binding requirements upon any member of the public, state, tribe, locality, or any federal agency.

www.epa.gov...
Why not try reading it? Why not try understanding what PAGS are?
edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

You know this has nothing to do with regulations, right?
You know it has nothing to do with changing drinking water standards, right?
...


Uh huh...


For Immediate Release: Dec 22, 2016
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
RADICAL DRINKING WATER RADIATION RISE CONFIRMED IN EPA PLAN

EPA Hid Planned Exposure Levels 1,000s of Times Safe Drinking Water Act Limits

Posted on Dec 22, 2016 | Tags: Drinking Water, EPA
...

Despite claims of transparency, EPA solicited public comment on its plan even as it hid the bulk of the plans effects. Nonetheless, more than 60,000 people filed comments in opposition.

“The Dr. Strangelove wing of EPA does not want this information shared with many of its own experts, let alone the public,” added Ruch, noting that PEER had to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to force release of exposure limits. “This is a matter of public health that should be promulgated in broad daylight rather than slimed through in the witching hours of a departing administration.

www.peer.org...

Yet you want to claim this has nothing to do with changing drinking water standards...


edit on 19-10-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add excerpts.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...
Who is Kristin Stade?



...
Kirsten Stade is PEER's Advocacy Director. Prior to coming to PEER, Kirsten worked on scientific integrity issues with a DC nonprofit and on campaigns targeting Kirsten Stadeextractive industries on public lands with nonprofits in New Mexico and Oregon. Kirsten has published research with WildEarth Guardians on the impacts of livestock grazing on fire ecology and ecosystem health in the American west, and has a Master's degree in Conservation Biology from Columbia University and a Bachelor's in Earth Systems from Stanford University. She is also a dog groomer, rescuer, and trainer, and enjoys studying and performing African music and dance. kstade[at]peer.org
...

www.peer.org...



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Yet you want to claim this has nothing to do with changing drinking water standards...


Yes. Because it doesn't. If you read it you would know that:

The drinking water PAG is for use only during an emergency; it is not a substitute for compliance with EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for Radionuclides. EPA expects that any drinking water system adversely impacted during a radiation incident will take action to return to compliance as soon as possible.


PAG levels were calculated based on a maximum 1 -year exposure and provide a level of protection roughly equivalent to applicable NPDWRs for radiation, which are based on 70 years of exposure.

www.epa.gov...
You have no idea what PAGS are, do you?

Reposting what Kerstin whatshername says is not helping your case. No matter how often you do so. PAGS are not regulations. Read it. I dare you. Forget Kerstin, go to the source.

edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I bet she's a liberal.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...
Repost what Kerstin whatshername says is not helping your case. No matter how often you do so. PAGS are not regulations. Read it. I dare you.


Riiight, is that why the Obama administration hid the bulk of the plan's effect?...

BTW, trying to shift the blame by concentrating in one word i misused doesn't help your case either... More so since your beloved Obama and his EPA aimed at making this "plan" effective under the Trump administration.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Riiight, is that why the Obama administration hid the bulk of the plan's effect?...

What plan?
What is the bulk of its effect?



More so since your beloved Obama and his EPA aimed at making this "plan" effective under the Trump administration.
It's not a plan. The PAGS were published in January. While Obama was still president. Read it. Then you won't sound quite so ignorant about what it is.

edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I bet she's a liberal.


LOL, I am not sure what her "political affiliation is"... There are plenty of scientists, even environmental scientists who are conservative, but you could be right, she could also be a liberal...

Still it doesn't change the fact that this was something the Obama administration wanted implemented, they hid the bulk of the plan from the public, and set it up so that it would become effective under the Trump administration.

As we have seen in the responses several members already tried to blame this on the Trump administration...



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Still it doesn't change the fact that this was something the Obama administration wanted implemented, they hid the bulk of the plan from the public, and set it up so that it would become effective under the Trump administration.

It is not a plan. Nothing was made effective. It was published before Trump was president. And the same ignorance you are exhibiting was exhibited in 2013, the last revision.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
...
It's not a plan.
...




Washington, DC — In the last days of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to dramatically increase allowable public exposure to radioactivity to levels thousands of times above the maximum limits of the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to documents the agency surrendered in a federal lawsuit brought by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). These radical rollbacks cover the “intermediate period” following a radiation release and could last for up to several years. This plan is in its final stage of approval.
...

www.peer.org...

But i guess according to "Phage" environmental scientists covering this issue don't understand what this is...



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Right there in your quote. It blames it on Obama.


But i guess according to "Phage" environmental scientists covering this issue don't understand what this is...
Whoever they are, they don't (or they're into doom porn). And neither do you. It is not a plan. It is a set of guidelines to be be referred to by local authorities in preparing their plans to deal with radiological incidents. Some places have little reason to be concerned. Others (where there are nuke plants, for example) have more reason to be concerned.


You have no idea what PAGS are, do you? Read it. There is no plan in there.

PAGs are guides to help officials select protective actions under emergency conditions during which exposures would occur for relatively short time periods. They are not meant to be applied as strict numeric criteria, but rather as guidelines to be considered in the context of incident - specific factors. PAGs do not establish an acceptable level of risk for normal, non -emergency conditions, nor do they represent the boundary between safe and unsafe conditions. The PAGs are not legally binding regulat ions or standards and do not supersede any environmental laws.


edit on 10/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
Anyone who trusts the EPA or the government with their life is someone who isn`t going to live an average lifespan.

I completely agree, and honestly, that goes for all government agencies, such as the FDA. I have literally heard people say, "Well, the FDA says it's good for me..." as they commence consuming something unhealthy for their body.

Reliance on government-fueled guidelines for living will absolutely result in a lower life span...and, IMO, is evidence of a Forrest Gump IQ.

"The government always told me that [insert most recently changed advisement here]."
edit on 19-10-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join