EPA To Allow Exposure To Radioactivity Thousands Of Times Above The Maximum Limits

Yummy, Radiation hundreds and thousands of times beyond the stated limits are going to be A-OK now. Well, I guess in a few months people will care and blame it on the new administration. See, I really don't get it. When Republican administrations do crap like this everyone is up in arms (and should be) and crap like this gets exposed and protested. When a democrat is in the white house, nobody cares, no code pink protesting the wars every day, nobody cares about the same negative policies, etc.

www.peer.org...

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).

The proposed PAGs for two radionuclides (Cobalt-60 and Calcium-45) are more than 10,000 times Safe Drinking Water Act limits. Others are hundreds or thousands of times higher;

According to EPA’s own internal analysis, some concentrations are high enough to deliver a lifetime permissible dose in a single day. Scores of other radionuclides would be allowed at levels that would produce a lifetime dose in a week or a month;

Is this like a doomsday machine response to Trump getting elected?

a reply to: infolurker

I thought Obama and the epa were taking care of the American people.

a reply to: infolurker

It is Obama's final desperate attempt at facilitating hope & change by creating an army of unstoppable soldiers, each one with a unique power brought on by the mutation that will - God willing - occur as a result from exposure to the radioactivity. These brave men and women will bring about a new dawn for America?

Sorry for the sarcasm. New Years resolution: avoid the water?

I thought the GOP wanted to do away with the EPA and its restrictions.

Well people this is priceless.

O bans offshore drilling.

Strangled the coal industry.

Then pulls this crap.

Prepare to rot from the inside out.

I Can't wait!

a reply to: Grimpachi

The new administration wants to reign in the EPA back to their original mandate and cut the enforcement arm. The EPA was created to offer safe guidelines and breeches were reported to the Judicial branch for enforcement.

There is no stated policy that I'm aware of to eliminate the EPA

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I thought the GOP wanted to do away with the EPA and its restrictions.

Think again.

a reply to: infolurker

(Cobalt-60 and Calcium-45)

I'm no expert, but it looks to me like these two isotopes are man-made.

I can see why they would claim background radiation is on the rise, and we're slowly becoming more immune to it?

Thanks for the thread.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I thought the GOP wanted to do away with the EPA and its restrictions.

Trump certainly does.

originally posted by: Trump

Q: Would you cut departments?

TRUMP: Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations.

Q: Who's going to protect the environment?

TRUMP: We'll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses

This is probably a response to the Fracking water having many times the allowable amount of Radioactivity than allowed..

a coverup to allow Fracking to continue poisoning our people.

a reply to: infolurker

The way I figure it, the EPA has done such a bad job, that they raised the limits to hide their incompetence.

Like schools changing what constitutes a passing grade to raise their graduation numbers.

In order to debate this with any sense of accuracy I think you need to examine the law that set these "limits" in the first place. These "limits" were put into place by congress; they aren't intrinsic to anything but the law. So the question is: How were these limits decided in the first place? Are they based on solid scientific evidence or politics? If it's politics, perhaps these limits should be questioned. The same goes with this EPA change. Is the proposed change in these limits based on scientific evidence or politics? If the scientific evidence shows that the original limits in the original legislation were too strict, then you can make a case for loosening the limits. If it's all politics, you can't. Without the knowledge of what is actually at stake here, this debate is worthless.

a reply to: rickymouse

Possibly Fukushima?

Less than a month after the EPA raised the exposure limit. Radiation was being recorded in SoCal. Now it has worked its way across the pacific. And again they raise the limit.

I mean... nothing to see here!! Move along.

a reply to: infolurker

Thanks Obama!
(20 more days how many more times can we use it?)

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: infolurker

Thanks Obama!
(20 more days how many more times can we use it?)

It's a repeat of the twelve days of Christmas Obama style.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: rickymouse

Less than a month after the EPA raised the exposure limit. Radiation was being recorded in SoCal. Now it has worked its way across the pacific. And again they raise the limit.

So is SoCal east of Hawaii or something? Geez, I thought I could get there on Interstate 5.

Could it be, that they can no longer hide Fukishima? Sea life die offs, even in Nova Scotia. Could Fukishima be a Extinction level event?

a reply to: rickymouse

Yup. Fracking is the equivalent of draining the oil out of your motor and wondering why it's knocking- while drinking the antifreeze like it's fine.....

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Check our the futures index for tuna. But don't worry Westinghouse has a partner in Japan that's been hoarding tuna and deep freezing it. Just waiting till the supply hits near zero and demand soars.... along with all the the aquatic wildlife that's being affected.