[ RadSafe ] EPA to make radiation standards more protective? Comments alr...

Sat Aug 2 22:50:13 CDT 2014

Radsafe:

      Perhaps radiation or chemicals in low doses  resemble, or are, 
nutrients or energy.

      Joe Preisig

In a message dated 8/2/2014 10:35:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
gneilkeeney at gmail.com writes:

Thanks  Mark:

I think content of the links you provided were exceptionally  well
described. In particular, the excerpts and citations provided by  the
Kennecott synopsis seem to support a very good case for   hormesis.

The initiative behind resurrection of this proposed  rule-making would seem
to be an effort led by one or, at best, a couple of  individuals in a policy
area rather than a scientific viewpoint from the  agency as whole...

I continue to puzzle over what actual problem is  resolved by the proposed
regulatory limits other than a compulsion to  adhere to the precepts and
presumptions of LNT dose.

As you and  others have pointed out over time and as has been repeatedly
demonstrated  across the domain of biological insults in general, there is
an apparent  pro-survival response to and effect from biological insults
delivered at  low levels or concentrations.  This example concerns the
classic -  bacterial growth versus penicillin  concentrations...
(http://tinyurl.com/pdqpwnq).

These observations  were stated to have been cited, ironically enough, by
the some of the  earliest radiological researchers, (the Curies) in their
descriptions  concerning anaphylaxis .  Recall also that Charles Richet was
awarded  the Nobel Prize (*in 1913!)* for his work in this specific area.
Radiation  exposure, at low levels, is biologically stimulative and, by  all
appearances, enhances organismal pro-survival qualities...

Neil  Keeney

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Miller, Mark L  <mmiller at sandia.gov> wrote:

> 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....."
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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