[ RadSafe ] EPA to make radiation standards more protective? Comments already submitted - add yours!

[Miller, Mark L]

Here are some comments that others are making.  Folks should read them and submit their own comments ASAP.
http://radiationeffects.org/2014/08/01/kennecott-uranium-company-comments-on-epas-proposed-anpr/
http://radiationeffects.org/2014/08/01/u-s-nuclear-regulatory-commission-staffs-comments-on-epas-proposed-rulemaking/
http://radiationeffects.org/2014/08/01/saris-response-to-epas-anpr-regarding-its-standards-for-nuclear-power-operations/

http://radiationeffects.org/

Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Maury [mailto:maurysis at peoplepc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:22 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. .
Best,
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

Dear Friends,

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....."