[ RadSafe ] EPA to make radiation standards more protective?
Richard D. Urban Jr.
radmax at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 1 03:34:56 CDT 2014
Maury, I think you misread... this 'alert' was in OPPOSITION to the EPA RAISING allowable limits, IOW, LESSENING the regulatory restrictions by allowing much higher annual dose rates to the general public more in line with ACTUAL radiation hazard than the traditional LNT dogma, and permitting the use of Effective Dose Equivalent (EDE, which the NRC adopted several years ago) for calculating dose to the public from various activities, most noticeably site closures.
Except for those in the field who sell their souls to the Ambulance Chasing Trial Lawyers... this is a good thing and should be encouraged as it will eventually lead to an even greater acceptance of 'good radiation'...
However, that being said... EPA is also taking a VERY backward action against Krypton-85 in power plant effluents, attempting to reduce output limits on a noble gas that has NO biological pathway...
As Joe said... it's time to get a few more HP's at the EPA...and also fire all the dead wood political appointees...
>From: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
>Sent: Jul 31, 2014 9:21 PM
>To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] EPA to make radiation standards more protective?
>I just wonder if folks on Radsafe are aware of this pending EPA increase
>in radiation restriction/regulation? Is this really what is needed ...
>more regulation? The following is an extract from posting by: Nuclear
>Information and Resource Service. Time is short but I wondered if anyone
>might wish to submit comments to EPA. .
>Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com)
>"Tell EPA to make radiation standards more protective
>Send additional comments to EPA now: deadline is Sunday, August 3
>July 31, 2014
>The Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Standards for the
>Nuclear Power Fuel Chain are so important that NIRS invites you to make
>a supplementary comment before the August 3 comment deadline. You can
>edit the comment we provide; as written it supports a longer document
>submitted by NIRS and many allied organizations. Offering the same
>points from many individuals underscores the importance of these points:
>Nuclear power operations that release radioactivity have been given an
>enormous “free pass” to expose communities (and the biosphere) to levels
>of radiation that are too high. When converted to RISK of cancer, the
>current regulation allows harm 2000 times higher than the EPA’s stated
>goal of allowing only 1 cancer in a million from licensed activities.
>Even using EPA’s more lax allowable risk level of 1 in 10,000 current
>EPA radiation regulations allow 20 times higher than that....."
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe