EPA Says Higher Radiation Levels Pose 'No Harmful Health Effect' (bloomberg.com)

Readers share a report: In the event of a dirty bomb or a nuclear meltdown, emergency responders can safely tolerate radiation levels equivalent to thousands of chest X-rays, the Environmental Protection Agency said in new guidelines that ease off on established safety levels. The EPA's determination sets a level ten times the drinking water standard for radiation recommended under President Barack Obama. It could lead to the administration of President Donald Trump weakening radiation safety levels, watchdog groups critical of the move say. "It's really a huge amount of radiation they are saying is safe," said Daniel Hirsch, the retired director of the University of California, Santa Cruz's program on environmental and nuclear policy. "The position taken could readily unravel all radiation protection rules." The change was included as part of EPA "guidance" on messaging and communications in the event of a nuclear power plant meltdown or dirty bomb attack. The FAQ document, dated September 2017, is part of a broader planning document for nuclear emergencies, and does not carry the weight of federal standards or law.

Comments

Debated for a long time

[XXongo]

This has been debated for a long time. It's a question of whether the data from higher exposures can be correctly extrapolated to lower doses using the Linear No Threshold model.

Re:Debated for a long time

[bluefoxlucid]

Essentially, the debate is about keeping as broad a safety margin as possible.

If it were trivially-cheap to analyze water for the presence of lead--let's say it cost 1 penny per hundred billion gallons of treated water to remove and verify lead content down to the 1/1,000,000 ppb level (that means any given lake-sized volume of treated water has a high likelihood of having zero lead atoms in it period)--we would mandate that. Why wouldn't you?

What failures in measurement expose us to additional radiation? What procedures (e.g. radiology) do we go through that exposes us to additional radiation? For a population of hundreds of million, is this level of radiation prone to cause a hundred more incidences of cancer (trivial) on its own, before interacting with other factors?

One person in America dying every year might be a triviality. If it costs millions of dollars to prevent that, well, let's not do it: you'll save more lives investing that in charity and anti-poverty measures. If it costs pennies per year, then yes let's do that.

"Pennies" quickly becomes "dollars" and "millions of dollars" as you add zeroes onto the end of that one person. 1,000 persons per year? Maybe we want to invest several million dollars into this--especially since "dying" isn't binary when you get past bullets to the head. Even highway safety measures come down to death, dismemberment, or property damage.

It's a matter of risk--a highly-technical concept nobody seems to know all that much about.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

They can, remember, you are alive till you cease functioning. But, I extrapolate, from this, there is not enough iodine tablets to clean water, and overdose the thyroid gland. The idea now should be, test subjects, to test their hypothesis. But, wait, Chernobyl, and japan, have just the databases that could be used. Their records should show the exposures and outcomes of their patients. Or is that not why and how they died.

Re:Debated for a long time

[bobbied]

Neither of those events are old enough to determine the long term exposure limits. Chernobyl's data also suffers from a haphazard collection efforts, the haphazard radiation exposure of the nearby population and the opaque nature of the government at the time. Both of which greatly reduce the usefulness of the data.

What happened in Japan is definitely not old enough for long term exposure studies, being less than 10 years ago. Also, there was extremely low exposure to anybody outside the plant boundary, with the bulk of adverse effects being from stress, not radiation up to this point.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the US government has a dirty bomb planned for its populace. Either that or another nuke meltdown.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

the Linear No Threshold model

The dose is irrelevant when the model you are using doesn't match reality. I feel the same way about LNT as I do when an economist assumes people are rational. What is the basis for the LNT when background doses have no apparent impact?

Re:Debated for a long time

[Obfuscant]

Essentially, the debate is about keeping as broad a safety margin as possible.

No, actually, it isn't. "As broad a safety margin as possible" is an argument for zero. Zero lead, zero radiation, zero everything bad. Smaller is better, because smaller is a bigger safety margin. When you argue for "as broad a safety margin as possible", any number greater than 0 is too big.

The real argument is about what level has acceptable levels of danger. That level may not have as broad a safety margin as is possible, but it is safe enough.

Of course, the standard "argument" when someone wants to try to embarrass those who understand the concept of "safe enough" is that "they're trying to kill the children with lead!" or whatever the contaminant is. Obama institutes ridiculous low levels because his true constituency loves it; anyone who puts them back to realistic values is killing the planet yada yada yada.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

1945 probably is plenty of time for such studies actually

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a matter of risk--a highly-technical concept nobody seems to know all that much about."

Epidemiologists would probably laugh at the absurdity of this claim.

Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years. It's one of the reasons why many changes were made to the yearly chest x-ray to check for lung cancers and tb, limiting and lowering dental xrays, reducing exposure from CT scans, targeting treatments to limit exposure, and the like. They already had good studies and data extrapolating the difference in risk from exposure due to the screen and the cases they do capture versus non or limited screening based on symptomology (someone showing up with a problem), all coupled to outcome (what cases they do treat and the percent that recover).

Besides smoker exposure (radiation), radioactive iodine treatments, other radiation cancer screenings, and occupational exposures (xray techs, nuclear plants workers), radiation is well studied. Stating or suggesting otherwise is, frankly, absurd. Decisions along these lines are what you expect from an administration that doesn't believe in science, can't do math, lies all the time, and is in deep cahoots with industry.

Most increases are reported on a scale of 10k persons, so for a single increase on that scale, that's 100 new cases. You go from, say, 86/10k to 105/10k with a 80% 10 year survival/cure rate, you just abided by essentially a kill rate of the WTC bombing of 9/11 because you chose to have shit regulations.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

s/he used a wrong word - replace "possible" with "feasible". you win!!

Re:Debated for a long time

[AmiMoJo]

There are many problems with trying to do this. As TFA demonstrates, most people don't understand the difference between radiation from x-rays and emitted by coal and nuclear plants, for example.

Number of deaths are not the only factors either. Non-fatal healthcare costs, lost productivity... And the manner of death. It's different if it's one person who dies quickly and painlessly, or a long slow suffering over years. We had this debate with smog and drinking water.

In any case, this is just an attempt to boost industries that pollute a lot in a variety of ways, by cutting their costs.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Obfuscant]

In any case, this is just an attempt to boost industries that pollute a lot in a variety of ways, by cutting their costs.

This has nothing to do with the levels emitted by anything, it's a statement about the levels acceptable for FIRST RESPONDERS in EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.

In other words, IF there is a leak or accident, which because it is a leak or accident is already outside the regulated levels or it wouldn't be an issue, THEN what levels will we allow first responders to work in while they are dealing with the emergency.

Note that "cleanup" is not a first response. "Rescuing trapped people" is a first response. "Turning off the leak" is a first response. Cleanup is a long-term activity that doesn't have the emergency aspect that a first response requires.

And since it is an emergency, it is quite reasonable that the levels might be higher than for long-term exposures.

Re:Debated for a long time

[AmiMoJo]

Fukushima is great example of why the actual amount of radiation is almost irrelevant. Confusion and no way of knowing how bad it might get mandates an evacuation. Lack of solid evidence and knowledge mandates difficult wide area decontamination.

You catch just say "it's fine, go back" because you don't know that for sure.

Re: Debated for a long time

[hackwrench]

It's a question of safety shifting as genomes evolve. The genomes of living things become more resistant as evolution occurs.

Re:Debated for a long time

[hey!]

Of course where the cost-risk-benefit calculations gets really political is where the people bearing the costs and taking the risks are different.

This makes an already difficult question incredibly difficult.

Take water. Even in areas where people get their water from a public entity, not everyone will agree on how much to pay for a given level of safety. In fact differences can be traced to objective bases; someone who is 75 isn't going to be interested in cancers that will arise in 30 years, unless he has grandchildren in the district.

In areas where water is provided by a private monopoly, things get even more complicated, because it's not necessarily in the company's interest that people understand what's at stake. I know of one private water company that sold off most of its watershed protection land to developers. Both the company and the developers were politically connected, so friendly regulators let it pass. I don't think most people in the district realized it, but this means water prices will go up in the long term as additional treatment is needed. And when that happens, they'll blame the environmentalists.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

Risk management and mitigation is a well research area. Period.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.

Yes, it is. And we've known that our safety limits have been ultra conservative for quite some time. Its not been a big issue because it hasn't necessarily caused any problematic compliance costs. However, it has caused confusion among the public that would naturally but wrongly assume that 100 times the safety limit must be a high risk danger when in most cases it isn't

The easy answer has always been to always do what you can to minimize exposure, so that's how we've characterized it, lower is better. But when we talk about something like a dirty bomb, its more important to eliminate fear and over-reaction with facts. It would be extremely hard to have a dirty bomb actually harm a large number of people, and if one went off near you the biggest danger would be the physical explosion, not the radiation.

The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

You catch just say "it's fine, go back" because you don't know that for sure.

Yes, you can. And we do know for sure. What prevents us from doing that is the lack of rationality society has with dealing with radiation risk.

You can't be sure you wont' die in a car wreck tomorrow, that doesn't mean we can't make a determination to say its OK to get in a car. And knowing that the risks of living in the Fukushima exclusion zone is less than things like car travel or daily sun exposure, the only thing preventing us is ignorance and those that take advantage of that ignorance to spread radiation FUD. Just like your 'can't be sure' FUD.

Re:Debated for a long time

[alvinrod]

Personally, once we get beyond a certain threshold where we're pretty sure it won't cause harm based on good empirical evidence across several replicated studies then I think it's fine to just label values and let the market sort it out. Let someone who demands under .000001% of some substance pay extra for it and the rest of us who are willing to except under .00001% take our chances.

The problem is that when you go in the other direction and have regulations that are too loose, it's really hard to calculate the non-immediate effects or those that ripples of ripples. Reducing the amount of lead in gasoline is widely believed to be a factor in greatly reduced crime rates. More often than not, humans fail miserable to foresee the consequences of their actions or the side effects of the policies that they implement.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

As for Fukushima safety, there are several pieces you can find (if you sort through the FUD articles) that talk about how it is safe to return, here's one of them. People don't even trust their doctors when it comes to radiation fear;

Some doctors told me that while the initial evacuation was necessary, the failure to plan a swift return as radiation levels fell had been disastrous. Apart from a few high-dose areas in the mountains, the psychological risks of staying away exceed the radiological risks of coming back. But the confusion has contributed to a serious loss of trust among the public for medical, as well as nuclear, authorities. “When we try to explain the situation,” says Nollet, “we are seen as complicit in nuclear power.”

http://e360.yale.edu/features/...

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points....Good post.

Another little fact people might find interesting; navy personnel on nuclear submarines get less radiation exposure then the typical civilian that goes about that daily life, yet they are clearly not that far from a nuclear reactor for many months on end.

Just goes to show, people really don't know squat about radiation. Hint, the sun is pumping lots of it out and that's why you get a sunburn.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because people love the linear model. If you get 100 times less exposure, your chances go down by 100 times. For a certain range, this linear model makes sense. Very low exposure levels, probably not. Your body has evolved to tolerate low doses for very long periods.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of being blind. It's a matter of not giving a shit. "Fuck you, I got mine" is modern America.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Jack9]

> "As broad a safety margin as possible" is an argument for zero

No, actually, it isn't. That is an idiotic extrapolation.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on. You can't say 'background doses have no apparent impact'. People who are otherwise healthy get cancer for no 'obvious' reason...now that doesn't mean radiation is 'bad' (TM) at these levels as radiation at these levels also likely led to almost all of evolution & could provide benefits on a 'statistical' basis as well...we age & die, its quite possible that has a bit to do with being bathed in radiation. But I'll take the risk of being bathed in radiation for the benefit of having the Sun rain down on my & keeping me from freezing to death.

It's not the LNT that's the problem, extrapolate down past background and your risk vs background effects clearly goes down (that's the most rational thought if you can't show it just goes to '0' at background..e.g. have a 'threshold'). The problem is idiots who try to claim that the harm goes UP at lower levels under the basis that "we haven't measured it at these levels so how can you prove harm doesn't go up"...it's like Homeopathy in terms of the absolute cognitive dissonance.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened in Japan is definitely not old enough for long term exposure studies, being less than 10 years ago

While that might be true, there are consequences to over reacting:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx

"Official figures show that there have been well over 1000 deaths from maintaining the evacuation, in contrast to little risk from radiation if early return had been allowed."

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.

The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.

Your perception of the risk from radiation is so far from reality, you've simplified the model to the point of being useless.

That's been my experience of your posts, that all of the knowledge gathered since the 1950s just doesn't exist. You don't understand :

• The difference between a radionuclide and the radiation it emits
• The difference between internal and external radiation exposure
• The difference between being exposed to radiation and having an emitter inside you exposing you 24x7
• What bioaccumulation is
• That detection in food and water is really hard
• That you can eat a radionuclide
• That you can drink a radionuclide
• That you can breathe in a radionuclide
• That some radionuclides appear like different types of micro-nutirents to a matabolism
• That it deposits in different parts of the body
• That it can be organically bound in the body and not excreted
• That organically bound exposure increases absorption of radiation
• That it can be chemically toxic
• That children are more susceptible than adults
• That an effect could be death
• That an effect could be cancer
• That an effect could be gene damage
• That an effect could be failed birth
• That an effect could be a birth defect
• That an effect could be transgenic disease that effect the next generation
• That an effect could be reduced brainweight of, and lower IQ in infants
• That there is still stuff we don't know

Then you:

• Ignore facts even when they are cited from reputable sources
• Don't seem to want to understand
• Continue to shill as if you have an agenda
• Claim everything is FUD
• Minimize the apparent harm
• Ignore data collected from unbiased sources
• Refuse to accept that some data *is* biased Nuclear PR
• Refuse to accept the impact of media blackout for Fukushima
• Refuse to accept the work of Ukrainian scientists studying Chernobyl

There is a reason the NRC uses ALARA, figuring out this stuff is complicated and the easiest thing to do so your brain doesn't explode from thinking about it is to keep the potential risk of exposure ultra conservative.

Re:Debated for a long time

[fazig]

Well, there's a documented and irrational fear of nuclear radiation in Japan. And there are also reasons why Japanese fiction rather depicts victims of radiation as destructive monsters (Godzilla and the likes) instead of super heroes like American fiction does for example. It may have something to do with the events that date back to the 1940's. As far as I know there's also a fear of people who have been irradiated, even if they themselves do not emit any radiation. Basically denoting them as 'genetically inferior' it creates a lot of societal barriers for them and makes it unlikely for them to ever have any children with someone Japanese in Japan.

So I'm not sure how useful it is to use them as a sample for anything related with radiation, one way or the other.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing ionizing radiation with non-ionizing radiation. Bad post.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

But apart from that he's right, yeah?

Re: Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

Just preparing for Korean War 2.

Re:Debated for a long time

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that in the evacuation zone the danger varies greatly from place to place, even within one town or dwelling. The emitted material is not spread evenly over the area.

This creates a difficult problem for anyone wanting to live there. Realistically the only way to handle it is full decontamination, because you can't live your life carrying a dosimeter and checking the soil every time it gets disturbed. But decontamination efforts have proven to be less than effective, with some areas having to undergo multiple passes and very large amounts of waste being generated because it's very hard to filter.

On top of that you have the non-nuclear issues. Everything is decaying after being left unrepaired. It's hard to get insurance evaluations because the legal process required to get the entire contents of your previous dwelling declared a write-off is long and slow and there are hundreds of thousands of other simultaneous claims being made. The insurance companies are busy suing TEPCO as well, and have to rely on TEPCO and the government paying out or it will financially cripple them. And of course, good luck getting new insurance on your newly rebuilt home, or even agreeing on what it is worth now.

And even if you overcome all that, a lot of people are not going back now. They started lives elsewhere. Your former home town might not be a viable community any more.

I think the hostility towards people like Nollet is not that they are seen as "complicit in nuclear power", they just don't understand the reality of the situation in Japan right now. Even if you could magically decontaminate the whole area, a lot of people don't want to go back, can't go back, and just want TEPCO and the government to compensate them so they can get on with their lives.

Re: Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

But apart from that he's right, yeah?

Nah, that's just the stuff that is on-topic.

Oh and a correction: That an effect could be transgenic disease that affects the next generation.

Re:Debated for a long time

[dywolf]

No, this is nothing more than Pruitt continuing to use his newfound power at the EPA to cut costs for his corporate owners.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

Radiation exposure is well understand and extrapolated, and has been for years.

The public risk perception of radiation is so far from reality, it could possibly make us do stupid things.

Your perception of the risk from radiation is so far from reality, you've simplified the model to the point of being useless.

That's been my experience of your posts, that all of the knowledge gathered since the 1950s just doesn't exist. You don't understand :

• The difference between a radionuclide and the radiation it emits
• The difference between internal and external radiation exposure
• The difference between being exposed to radiation and having an emitter inside you exposing you 24x7
• What bioaccumulation is
• That detection in food and water is really hard
• That you can eat a radionuclide
• That you can drink a radionuclide
• That you can breathe in a radionuclide
• That some radionuclides appear like different types of micro-nutirents to a matabolism
• That it deposits in different parts of the body
• That it can be organically bound in the body and not excreted
• That organically bound exposure increases absorption of radiation
• That it can be chemically toxic
• That children are more susceptible than adults
• That an effect could be death
• That an effect could be cancer
• That an effect could be gene damage
• That an effect could be failed birth
• That an effect could be a birth defect
• That an effect could be transgenic disease that effect the next generation
• That an effect could be reduced brainweight of, and lower IQ in infants
• That there is still stuff we don't know

Then you:

• Ignore facts even when they are cited from reputable sources
• Don't seem to want to understand
• Continue to shill as if you have an agenda
• Claim everything is FUD
• Minimize the apparent harm
• Ignore data collected from unbiased sources
• Refuse to accept that some data *is* biased Nuclear PR
• Refuse to accept the impact of media blackout for Fukushima
• Refuse to accept the work of Ukrainian scientists studying Chernobyl

There is a reason the NRC uses ALARA, figuring out this stuff is complicated and the easiest thing to do so your brain doesn't explode from thinking about it is to keep the potential risk of exposure ultra conservative.

That's it, post a long list of stuff to mask the fact you have no actual data. Radiation risk data is readily available, why don't you ever bother to use it?

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

The problem is that in the evacuation zone the danger varies greatly from place to place, even within one town or dwelling.

The risk varies, but within an acceptably low band. Calling it a 'danger' just because it is radiation is a FUD tactic. The "danger" of sun exposure varies as well, should you stay inside?

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

BTW, KAOS, you are the one who refused to accept the studies done on Fukushima, where they have determined actual health impacts are much lower than predicted. You ignore long established and proven conservative risk data with some sort of conspiracy claims, where is your risk data and what is your so called 'credible source". All you do is list crap with zero actual risk discussion. Since you ignore risk, you demonstrate your ignorance as that is the only frame in which to discuss radiation health impacts. You have show to be completely incapable of characterizing the risks associations with your long list of FUD line items.

Yes, there is a reason ALARA is a useful principle to practice. Its a practical approach.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

^correction - meant studies done at Chernobyl (not Fukushima) have shown health impacts much lower that predicted.

Zero health impacts for Fukushima radiation are expected.

Re:Debated for a long time

[AmiMoJo]

That's the problem, it's not an acceptably low band. It was well above the government set limit, so the government raised the limit, and it was still above it in some places. It's above internationally recognized limits for clean-up workers' exposure in some parts.

Besides, this argument really just boils down to "it's inconvenient for us, so you should take more risk. We screwed up, our nuclear plant went into meltdown and exploded, but reducing your risk below a certain level is just too expensive for us, and anyway how are you going to know if that cancer you get 20 years later, or that birth defect your grandkids have is out fault?"

Re:Debated for a long time

[coofercat]

Way to go on the put-down. I think I'd be quite complimented if someone put me down like that. All I seem to get is "you're an idiot" though.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

That's the problem, it's not an acceptably low band. It was well above the government set limit, so the government raised the limit, and it was still above it in some places.

The Japanese limit is hundreds of times lower that the amount where we have been able to measure a detectable statistical increase is health risks, and that is after a tremendous amount of study. Limits don't = risk levels. They are often set for convenience.

Re:Debated for a long time

[AmiMoJo]

Common misconception. It's lower than the acceptable background levels in some places, but background levels have little to do with the particles emitted from Fukushima. For example, most radiation can't penetrate the top layer of skin, but caesium particles from Fukushima can easily get inside your body and your organs and sit there slowly irradiating them almost indefinitely.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

Common misconception. It's lower than the acceptable background levels in some places, but background levels have little to do with the particles emitted from Fukushima. For example, most radiation can't penetrate the top layer of skin, but caesium particles from Fukushima can easily get inside your body and your organs and sit there slowly irradiating them almost indefinitely.

News for you... there are radioactive particles in your body right now, and there always will be, doing just that. Why are you not worried about that? It should scare the hell out of you. Not to mention all the other toxins in your body that are killing and mutating cells. And there is that sunlight hitting your skin every time you walk outside doing cell damage, how can you dare expose yourself to such dangers?

Re:Debated for a long time

[AmiMoJo]

The stuff in my body is mostly harmless. For example bananas contain radioactive potassium, but my body regulates the amount and where it is stored so it's fine. Unfortunately it doesn't regulate caesium.

Similarly, to some extent my skin is designed to protect the stuff inside it from solar radiation. There is a limit to its effectiveness though, so I apply sunscreen when necessary.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

The stuff in my body is mostly harmless. For example bananas contain radioactive potassium, but my body regulates the amount and where it is stored so it's fine. Unfortunately it doesn't regulate caesium.

Similarly, to some extent my skin is designed to protect the stuff inside it from solar radiation. There is a limit to its effectiveness though, so I apply sunscreen when necessary.

But there is potassium in your body all the time, the fact that some leaves and some enters doesn't change the actual exposure, which is fundamentally the same as an exposure from a particle that stays longer. The amount of exposure and related risk is what matters. I see you come up with rationalizations to accept the risks your perceive as natural even though scientifically there is nothing to distinguish them.

It only takes one exposure to sunlight to cause melanoma. You accept that risk and even by your own statement don't apply sunscreen up to a point.

The real issue you have is that you don't understand the relative risk of exposures from something like living in the Fukushima area. The fact that you can't articulate those relative risks compared to things you happily accept every day is telling. You are operating under that same skewed risk perception that the general public has, and not the scientifically demonstrated and well established risk profiles. Or, you have some inherent conspiracy belief and a form of denial similar to those that deny global warming.

If you took time to actually understand the relative risks, you might learn something. But you'd rather stay ignorant to them and just profess a grave danger.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Doc Right]

It's about time. Scientists have known for a very long time now the Linear No Threshold model is garbage. Not only are there safe amounts of (ionizing) radiation exposure, but there are levels of exposure which have been proven to be beneficial to those exposed. Places on earth with higher levels of radioactivity, where the populace has a much lower than normal incidence of cancers as a result. People need to stop thinking of radiation as "that awful gas that deforms ya", and think of it as sub-atomic bullets. Going after Godzilla with a BB gun isn't going to do him much harm, but, get enough people with enough BB guns and he's dead meat.

Re:Debated for a long time

[bluefoxlucid]

Excessive costs actually reduce what other things can be done, increasing problems elsewhere--more poverty, more sickness and death that way.

I should have said "feasible" though. The extrapolation into whole-system is complex and it wasn't a whole-system-optimization statement.

I did go into a full explanation of cost-benefit trade-offs, though, so you're just being obtuse tbh.

Re:Debated for a long time

[bluefoxlucid]

Number of deaths are not the only factors either. Non-fatal healthcare costs, lost productivity...

especially since "dying" isn't binary when you get past bullets to the head. Even highway safety measures come down to death, dismemberment, or property damage.

I think I had that covered.

Re: Debated for a long time

[HiThere]

It's true that the linear model is easier to think about, but it's clearly incorrect. Reasonable data are available, however. E.g. people in Denver get more exposure to radiation than people at sea level (with exceptions for local minerals). And we can measure how much, and note that there's a higher cancer rate and how much higher it is (and what kinds of cancer). Etc.

The data are available. The models can be tested against it. But that's a lot of work, so few people do it. And the results aren't easy to understand. And, of course, there are confounding factors, e.g. "Do people in Denver smoke more than people in Los Alamos? How much more? or less?"

Still, it's pretty clear that even low levels of radiation increase risk. The argument is really over "How much risk is it reasonable to expose people to?". And that's one that can't be answered by a study, unless you put a validate-able definition on reasonably. No body wants to argue on those terms, so they argue over the models rather than improving them. Just about everyone accepts that even low levels of radiation are hazardous to some degree. And just about everyone accepts that you can't avoid some exposure. Just living around granite rocks exposes you to radiation that has been measured and found to be dangerous...just not very dangerous.

Re:Debated for a long time

[HiThere]

That's my interpretation.

But it is a fair question to ask what is the increment in risk. It's clear that there is *some* increase, but it's not clear to me how much. Or whether the people being exposed know.

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

BTW, KAOS, you are the one who refused to accept the studies done on Fukushima, where they have determined actual health impacts are much lower than predicted.

Yes, I remember them, however it was about Chernobyl, you were trying to disprove LNT and, in a classic Mr D moment, the data you provided disproved your own argument. I pointed that out and you didn't respond. The irony was hilarious that you say I didn't accept it when I embraced it. It's appropriate here because it shows how you continue to spread ignorance about LNT even when you provided the evidence that found a significant linear dose response for all leukemia two years ago.

That's shows a deliberate, calculated deception you are conducting with your posts here today, trying to twist circumstance so to falsify your own perceptions. That's why your lies are so convincing, you believe them. You know what your saying is wrong, you provided that data to show you are wrong, yet you refuse to accept data you provided because it doesn't fit the narrative of your nuclear idealism that you try to transpose onto reality.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

LNT or not, the risk profile shows the Fukushima area is quite safe. You brought up LNT, which was used to predict Chernobyl health impact, what we have found is that actual health impact is significantly less.

But once again you shift the discussion. At the core of the matter is you inability to coherently talk about it in terms of risk, and that belies either ignorance or unwillingness. Frankly I don't care which one. You will just continue to do what you do, post lists of things that sound scary, which could be done for any number of things we all experience every day.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

FYI;

Chernobyl's Harm Was Far Less Than Predicted, U.N. Report Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

LNT predicted about 4,000 deaths. Actual deaths measured at time of report only 50.

An expected spike in fertility problems and birth defects also failed to materialize, the study found.

"The health effects of the accident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validated conclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly as substantial as had at first been feared," Michael Repacholi, manager of the World Health Organization's radiation program, said in a statement.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

The biggest health impact was the number of thyroid cancer cases, which was also lower than projected. Thanks to stringent screening, they caught cases earlier than normally would have been detected, and the cure rate was 99% in line with typical early detected thyroid cancer cure rates. What is interesting is that some percent of these children would have gotten thyroid cancer anyhow, their chance of survival were improved by the added screening.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

There are two big challenges to nailing down the exact risk due to low level exposure. The first is that your cannot necessarily tie any given case of cancer to radiation exposure as the cause, so you must correlate statistically while other causes are also involved. The second is that the risk levels are so low that the studies cannot find statistical significance in their findings even when monitoring huge numbers of people. Thus we default to a very conservative LNT model, which like you say is simply easier since it provides us with definable terms.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

We know the risk is lower than LNT projects, the problem is that the risks are so low for these lower exposure levels, they cannot find enough statistical significance to define a model at all, even among large study groups. For reference, LNT projected many more deaths and negative health impacts from Chernobyl than actually occurred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

And for those that still insist on spouting FUD, here is another good read for you, or to ignore if you want to remain ignorant.

Fear vs. Radiation: The Mismatch

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10...

This author also has written a good book on skewed risk perceptions in general. It maybe helps explain why some folks here exhibit irrational fears and remain so deeply rooted in them even when readily available facts don't support them.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Obfuscant]

No, actually, it isn't. That is an idiotic extrapolation.

Are you claiming that zero exposure is not the broadest safety margin possible? How can you get better than that? If ten ppm will kill you, and 5 ppm will make you turn green, then isn't 0 ppm much better than any other number? But thanks for pointing out that it's idiotic. Now look up the phrase "reductio ad absurdum".

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're just being obtuse tbh.

That's typical for Obtuscant.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is whether 'they' are making the assessment for themselves or only for others.

How would the Powers That Be respond to an offer to food and drink that contains the new levels?

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

If you took time to actually understand the relative risks, you might learn something. But you'd rather stay ignorant to them and just profess a grave danger.

I'm sorry, but in this whole discussion you come across as a belligerent pro-nuclear fanatic that is trying to talk opponents into a corner rather than have a reasonable discussion, whereas AmiMoJo is far more realistic.

Try to put yourself in the position of the average Japanese person that had been evacuated: s/he has been forced to live away from home for a danger that is (a) not visible, (b) varies from place to place, (c) may or may not kill you in a painful way based on statistics that even experts find difficult to express, (d) is now played down by an authority that has been economical with the truth before, and has an obvious financial interest, and (e) is not shared by the authorities that assure you the danger is small.

And sweeping away all such doubts as FUD and wilful ignorance is bloody arrogant, to avoid even stronger terms.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work in nuclear weapons effects. These levels are INSANELY high. We worked with radioactive materials for DOD and our Health & Safety people freaked out at 1/1000th these levels.

These are the levels you'd want if nuclear war was on the agenda and you wanted to have a fig leaf of "EPA-approved levels". These are levels you'd expect from fallout from an nuclear exchange, say in North Korea.

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

Claim everything is FUD

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

Minimize the apparent harm

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

Refuse to accept the work of Ukrainian scientists studying Chernobyl

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

Continue to shill as if you have an agenda

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

You just can't understand what you are reading.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

I see names come easier to you than actual facts. One liners don't cut it, how about going back to an actual discussion of risk, or is that too hard to twist into FUD?

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

Ignore facts even when they are cited from reputable sources

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

Only the study you refer to does in not necessarily dispute what I"ve said or referred to, and even refers to total cases in numbers much less than initially estimated using LNT basis. You simply don't understand what you are reading, and you evidently skipped over the talk of error and uncertanties. In otherwords, the study results are considered 'evidenciary' but not 'conclusive'. Sorry to bust that bubble.

We observed a significant increase in the risk of leukemia with radiation dose based on the entire study sample. However, a preliminary examination of differences in various characteristics of participating cases, ascertained using the two methods described above, indicated that cases with direct in-person interviews greater than 2 years from start of chemotherapy treatment had mean bone marrow radiation dose estimates significantly lower than other cases interviewed in-person (16.8 vs. 121.4 mGy, 7-fold difference in means, p Wilcoxon = 0.036), and these doses were uniformly lower across all types of work performed in the 30-km zone, whereas the mean doses for controls from both groups were almost identical.

And ends with this very clear statement;

Further investigations are needed to develop a better understanding of the association between radiation and CLL.

Meanwhile, larger studies such as the UN one I references are well accepted in the scientific community. You can deny them, just like climate science deniers do, if you like.

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

I see names come easier to you than actual facts. One liners don't cut it, how about going back to an actual discussion of risk, or is that too hard to twist into FUD?

Your nuclear ideology is fake news. You try to exhaust and lambast people into spending their mental energy diffusing your constructs. That feeling you are experiencing now is what you do to other posters.

Even when you, yourself cited them,you don't accept facts you supplied. Then you accused me of not accepting them in an attempt to re-write your memories of how you humiliated yourself. Which, again, demonstrates how you try to twist circumstances to fit reality, which you were doing then and are doing now. You're not even original enough to use your own words however you are clever enough to present a premise that is easy for people to process by wrapping up your dogmatic skepticism in motherhood statements.

Your comments are like popcorn that puff up to take up space when everyone is looking for a nice steak of facts to chew on. Your constructs are very easy to destroy and I happen to like popcorn while I am entertaining myself making you think and watching the feats of mental gymnastics you have to perform to maintain the falsity of your nuclear ideology when I haven't got something more important to do.

You're not even a tenth as smart as some of the people here who are smart enough to just ignore your ideology. They probably realize you're not interested in an actual discussion of the facts because you are not sincere and all you a looking for is an opportunity to steer the conversation into one of your own pre-packaged thought bubbles so you don't have to think. If I wanted an actual discussion I'd talk to one of them. You don't respect people here because you treat them like fools and the contempt you show is obvious to me. You are very clever.

You will just continue to do what you do, post lists of things that sound scary, which could be done for any number of things we all experience every day.

I discovered that a few year ago the Nuclear industry had an outreach program to teach people like you how to post favorable comments about them in forums like this on their behalf, do they pay you for this work or are you just being a useful idiot? When I see some of your posts on this subject I actually find my disgust response being activated, like your attempts to undermine LNT has today.

Today I'm disgusted enough that I had to break down and counteract your entire nuclear ideology. You've demonstrated that counteracting your shilling with the one reputable source of information that you supplied where you disproved your own argument isn't enough. You should realize, when you post your nuclear ideological claptrap is that I maybe waiting to call you out on it and force you into a situation where I make you bend, contort, writhe, squirm and twist around the facts to maintain your ism.

Now that I've shown people how to dismantle your nuclear ideology, I hope it happens a lot more.

And its MrKaos to you.

Re:Debated for a long time

[MrKaos]

You just can't understand what you are reading.

I understand exactly what I am reading. I'm reading the projections of an idealist, who means well and wants the best for everybody however is blinded by a nuclear ideology that relies on social proof. When confronted by the complexity of the subject you shut down and leave it to people who you trust to make up your mind for you. Critical thinking skills aren't your forte. Then you make it personal and political when confronted with the reality, because then you have to confront the complexity.

What you do is use your freedom of speech to bludgeon the truth about this industry and people trying to confront and understand the reality of its danger and complexity. You're flippant with it in an arrogant way that seeks to conceal the facts. You falsify it and therefore make the civilization that supports our culture, weaker because you refuse to confront the awesome power and danger of these materials and their capacity to alter our genome. That's why I use my freedom of speech to confront you so that the reality is out there and we get stronger.

You and your type of nuclear idealism has been around here since the beginning, you think your the first? Unless you're a sockpuppet, you're not even the third generation of advocate who thought they had the energy to to maintain their fallacies, you're just another. Constantly making us weaker, and that's how Fukushima happened according to the report from the Diet. An arrogant ideology about Nuclear power's infallible high technology that bought collusion, falsification and corruption into the system, prevented improvements and created scope for the accident. Your kind of "Fifties" thinking allowed scope for Fukushima because you never call for these systems to be tested and hardened to ensure they perform, you blame NIMBYS and call everything FUD.

Which brings us to the other thing nuclear idealists do: Blame. Because everything is someone else's fault instead of something to confront and use as a reason to make the industrial nuclear processes stronger. When enough people like you corrupt the system, we have nuclear accidents because of weakened standards.

I'm reading that you don't take the subject seriously enough or treat it with any respect.

Re: Debated for a long time

[HiThere]

They're low, but they're not *that* low. People living at higher altitudes do have higher rates of cancer than those that live at lower altitudes, unless there are other risk factors. People living on top of granite have higher rates. Etc.

I'll grant that the data are uncertain enough that there's a LOT of swing to the error bars, and there are enough confounding factors that if you have an agenda you can construct a reasonable sounding argument that it's a statistical artifact. But that not the way any neutral observer would evaluate things.

You are clearly correct that no particular cancer can be traced to radiation. That's true even in cases where there has be fairly strong acute exposure. But the statistical evidence is strong enough that nobody reasonable should doubt the correlation. And the causal reasoning is sound enough that nobody should doubt the connection. But it's also fairly clear that it's not a linear relationship, though the details of why are, AFAIK, obscure. I suspect it has to do with the immune system, but I'm not expert in the field.

Re: Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

Good points, I agree and never mean to imply there is NO correlation at low levels, only that the existing LNT model has proven to be conservative and that risks at low levels are much smaller than the typical person perceives.

BTW, thanks for a coherent and thoughtful response on this topic.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

Conspiracy theory's I see. Just like a climate denier.

Re:Debated for a long time

[Mr D from 63]

You are spending a lot more time talking about me than you are articulating anything that makes sense about the study or point at hand. I guess you are just frustrated that I've peeled away your BS posts and provided references and articulate explanations.

And with all that, and the number of times you've tried it, I would think you could at least talk a little about risk. Maybe do your homework and next time you can actually make a point.

BTW, notice the exposure levels in the study you cited... think about them for a minute. I just leave you with that. Good day or evening.

Re:Debated for a long time

[RockDoctor]

you just abided by essentially a kill rate of the WTC bombing of 9/11 because you chose to have shit regulations.

More people died from fear of flying after the 2001-09-11 terrorist attacks than died in the planes and on the ground. By now, it may well be double the number.

People are not very good at understanding risk, probably because it pretty much requires manipulating numbers.

Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Cashews]

When the neutered Secretary of State says diplomacy will continue with North Korea until the first bomb drops, and the EPA comes out with revised radiation levels that ups the ante from before, I start to worry.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, he's just saying, is all.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Maury Markowitz]

Ha! +5 mod points to the OP.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. The US has a diplomacy-denying, science-denying administration that basically wants government agencies to give it a blank check to do whatever it wants (even if it has no idea what it wants). What counts is quick buck and a quick bang to keep the base chanting, even if they start pulling tufts of hair out. After all, you can always blame it on Democrats and John McCain!

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[shaitand]

The problem is people don't trust this particular President, not that a President expects the executive agencies he is in charge of to do what they are told. That is the primary function of the President, to control and lead the executive branch. Rather than have a king with absolute authority, the President is a king with absolute authority over the execution of the law, appointment of justices in the highest court, and the ability to check congress by vetoing their laws.

The purpose of the President isn't to charge congress with making the changes people want to legislation, that is just what politicians have to promise to do in order to get elected, the purpose of the President is to command the executive and it's varied agencies. We might not approve of the orders this President is giving but we shouldn't confuse that in a way that cripples the next President from being able to run the executive.

On the other hand, the role of the federal government changed drastically after the civil war. There is nothing within the original purpose of the federal government that would require an FBI or federal laws you and I could break and go to prison for or all these government agencies. The federal government is supposed to provide a central currency, the military forces that are by nature multi-state (Navy, Air Force), and to police the state governments. The federal government isn't even supposed to have a standing army let alone additional military agencies like the NSA, CIA, and Homeland Security. These were created by acts of congress but its kind of a stretch to create these sort of entities without constitutional amendment.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[AmiMoJo]

Trump associates with people who see nuclear war as a viable option. It's survivable, not even that bad really. Nuclear winter doesn't last forever.

But what do they consider acceptable losses? The US nukes NK, China nukes the US, maybe Russia joins in, the US retaliates... Or are they hoping that China won't do anything?

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Cashews]

Or are they hoping that China won't do anything?

Based on Trump's limited understanding of nuclear politics, yes. They want to nuke Korea and Iran (as a last resort, of course). Neither China nor Russia will ignore exploding nukes on their doorsteps.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[dryeo]

Where does the Constitution allow an Air force? The navy having an air corps, yes.
Sadly the Air force is a perfect example of over stretch by the federal Government, it would have been so easy to pass an amendment allowing it but they never bothered and everyone thinks it's fine. As you sorta point out, even a standing army was considered a bad idea back in the 18th century, with the Constitution saying that it has to be funded regularly and mentioning militias in a couple of places IIRC. One of the main reasons for the 2nd was to not need a standing army.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[shaitand]

The original Constitution didn't allow an Air force but aircraft didn't exist so there is no possibility it could have. I think the air force being federal vs state level is consistent with the obvious intent of the founders though, very expensive craft that travel in a manner that need to cover more ground (air) than an individual state would control. This could have been done as an expansion to the Navy though rather than calling it a separate branch though.

Actually the federal government has hedged on all this, between the Marines, the blue angels, and the actual ships/nuclear subs we have all three branches replicated within the Navy.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[dryeo]

As I said, an amendment would have been easy to pass. Knowing new things would come up was one of the reasons for an amending formula and it should be used more.
Instead there is the crazy situation where the Supreme Court has got in to the habit of extending the Constitution or allowing Congress to. You listed a bunch of departments that have questionable Constitutionality, amendments would at least be clearer and allow debate on these departments. Good to remember that amendments can be amended too, illegalizing alcohol wasn't a good idea, repeal it with another amendment.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[ChrisMaple]

Amending the Constitution to allow extensions of the types of military is the way it should have been done.
The need for a standing army became obvious with the sacking of Washington D.C. during the War of 1812. A standing army shouldn't change the Constitutional requirement that the military be funded for no more than 2 years, which reduces the likelihood of a military coup.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Ol Olsoc]

When the neutered Secretary of State says diplomacy will continue with North Korea until the first bomb drops, and the EPA comes out with revised radiation levels that ups the ante from before, I start to worry.

This was the first thing to pop into my mind as well.With both Dear Leaders waving their nuclear dicks at each other. Rumor has it that Kelly is there to tackle our Dear Leader when he tries to implement the launch codes.

You'll know shit's getting real when school students see this video again https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So don't worry folks, them old nuclear firecrackers can't hurt you as long as you follow the rules!

Re: Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question:
Why would China or Russia retaliate against the US if the US nuked NK?

Complain and yell about trade sanctions for their own political and economic enrichment of course, but nuking the US back would lead to them getting mass nuked back and full on war.

The obvious plot is Russia gave NK nuke tech to give them a way for NK to initiate. US retaliates and China pays if the winds are bad. The problem is that the NK threat to the US is sufficient that Trump the unstable narcissist may lash out to distract from domestic issues and he might nuke them first.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Gavagai80]

Rather than have a king with absolute authority, the President is a king with absolute authority over the execution of the law, appointment of justices in the highest court, and the ability to check congress by vetoing their laws.

You've managed to be wrong on every count. The President does not have absolute authority on court appointments -- congress has a responsibility to vet and approve or deny. Nor is the President's veto an absolute authority, congress can override it. Likewise the executive branch has its own complex structure designed to prevent any one person from exercising absolute authority.

Re: Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question:

Why would China or Russia retaliate against the US if the US nuked NK?

Would the US do nothing if someone nuked Mexico City?

Re: Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[bestweasel]

"the Constitutional requirement that the military be funded for no more than 2 years"

Good luck with that. US society is based on worship of the military and would probably collapse if that was removed.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay - your government is working hard to make sure you have top-notch health care to fix you up if they get any of these new standards wrong.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[rtb61]

I just see it as, I wonder what is wrong with a US nuclear power station or they are looking a hugely reducing decommissioning costs, https://www.nei.org/Master-Doc.... Hmm, lot of decommissioning going on and well, expect a lot of people to get 'not radiation poisoning' because the downgraded law says it isn't radiation poisoning even if it is. Looks like a lot of decommissioning suddenly got a lot cheaper.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Talderas]

This could have been done as an expansion to the Navy though rather than calling it a separate branch though.

They could have made the Air Force an expansion to the Army. Oh wait... they did form the United States Army Air Force in 1907 which was a branch of the US Army. Then the boys in blue got all hot and bothered about being under the budgeting of the US Army and wanted their own budget and not be forced to act as a sub branch of the doughboys even though the US Army brass was mostly hands off with the USAAF during WW2. 1947 saw the creation of an independent Air Force in a likely violation of the Constitution.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[MightyMartian]

Go to your cognitive therapy sessions. Your Aspergers tendency to black and white thinking is taking over. Airforces began simply as extensions of existing militaries in the leadup to WWI and didn't really become separate services until later, but the intent of hte Founding Fathers was pretty damned clear, that the Federal government was responsible for defense.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[david_thornley]

Article I, first paragraph of Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power...provide for the common Defense"

The Air Force provides for the defense of the US.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Constitution didn't allow an Air force but aircraft didn't exist so there is no possibility it could have.

Aircraft did actually exist at the time of the constitution. They'd only been around for about 7 years, however, and hadn't been used extensively in warfare yet.

Re:Nuclear Winter is A-OK...

[shaitand]

What are you defining as "Aircraft?" The wright brothers first flight was in 1903 which is long after the time of the Constitution... also depends on what you consider the "Time of the Constitution", I meant when it was written but if the "Time of the Constitution" is referring to when it was largely respected and enforced you can debate the exact point it was lost but there is no question that time period doesn't extend beyond the civil war.

It's funny, the civil war may have been about slavery rather than states rights but winning it abolished the independence of states and states rights far more decisively than it abolished slavery.

Easy enough solution

[Ogive17]

The policy makers must be the 1st to respond to such a disaster.

We'll find out very quickly if they believe they did the right thing.

Re:Easy enough solution

[GrumpySteen]

Why wait? Since it's safe, surely they'll have no problem submitting to thousands of chest x-rays right now.

Re:Easy enough solution

[93 Escort Wagon]

The policy makers must be the 1st to respond to such a disaster.

Nuclear meltdowns don't happen very often, so I think it's feasible to require the head of the EPA to accompany any first responders as they make their initial foray into the site.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait? Since it's safe, surely they'll have no problem submitting to thousands of chest x-rays right now.

Well, at least their health insurance will cover 1,000 chest x-rays.

Re:Easy enough solution

[ColdWetDog]

Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans. While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get. Not a great idea, but a 'tolerable' level of radiation.

Remember, these are for first responder guidelines. Not chronic exposures. First responders are at some risk of various and sundry hazards. And often first response safety considerations means balancing various issues. Sure, you can dress up in a Class A Hazmat suit but if you keel over because of heat prostration or trip over the bit of rebar you didn't see you may end up with a bunch of x-rays anyway. Being an adrenaline junkie has it's dangers.

It would, however, be nice to see if there was some sort of substantive evidence for this.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah, sure thing. But if their response is, "You've got a fatal dose of radiation, we can give you a quick painless death", or "You've got radiation-induced cancer, we'll make you comfortable as possible while you die", then I'm all for dosing each and every one of them with polonium so they can share a painful and lingering death, too. Wecolme to the NEW EPA, America: We don't give a FLYING FUCK about your health or safety, so long as our CORPORATE MASTERS MAKE AS MUCH PROFIT AS POSSIBLE. Hope all you goddamned Trump voters are REAL FUCKING HAPPY with your choices when you're in hospice care waiting to DIE.

Re:Easy enough solution

[CanadianMacFan]

Just put the appropriate amount of nuclear waste in their meeting room and tell them about it a month later. I highly doubt that their reactions would be that it's perfectly fine since it's within the range of the first responder limit and should pose no harmful health effect.

Re:Easy enough solution

[The Grim Reefer]

Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans

I really hate when CT scans are used as an example. The range of exposure is so wide and varies a lot depending on the type of scanner it is. A cardiac function CT scan on a 10 year old scanner could be 30 mSv or higher. Yet the same scan on a 2 year old scanner would be under 5 mSv. And with a newer sequence from the last 6 months could be as low as 1 mSv. An angiogram from a few years ago could be 16 mSv, but are well under 1 mSv on a modern scanner. There are many scans that are done these days that are at .2 mSv.

It also depends on what body part is being scanned. The exposure in the extremities are different than the head or thorax. The age of a patient is also a big factor. hitting an 85 year old with 10 mSv is a hell of a lot different than a 6 month old.

Re:Easy enough solution

[mrclevesque]

"Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans. While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get. Not a great idea, but a 'tolerable' level of radiation."

In other words, it's tolerable for a sick person who might die if they don't get the scans, but it's not ok or 'tolerable' for a healthy person.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a sec. You are not frothing at the mouth cursing Trump... Are you Russian by chance?

Re:Easy enough solution

[GrumpySteen]

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer for 20 CT scans of your entire body, including your brain and reproductive organs, in a row without any form of protection? That would give us some substantive evidence of the effect on the human body.

No? Why not? You're arguing that it's okay.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Obfuscant]

You're arguing that it's okay.

He's arguing that it is an acceptable risk in an emergency situation. That's quite different than just "okay", and it is quite dishonest to try to equate the two.

If I said that it is an acceptable risk for a firefighter to enter a burning building in search of trapped people, would you then try claiming I said it was okay for everyone to run into burning buildings? Yes, that's what you just did here, so I expect you would.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Actually, I do RTFA]

While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get. Not a great idea, but a 'tolerable' level of radiation.

And if you compare it to radiation therapy, it's downright less!!

Re:Easy enough solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this guidance is sensible.

It means that in an emergency, the first responders will be able to be on the scene longer (for instance, shepherding people away from the danger zone, or attending to injured victims).

Otherwise you could have a situation where, to save the first responders from a limited amount of danger, the general public is exposed to a much greater danger. In any area there only a limited number of first responders, and if you limit them to very short exposure to the radiation they would be forced by policy to stop their essential work very quickly.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Mr D from 63]

He's arguing that it is an acceptable risk in an emergency situation. That's quite different than just "okay", and it is quite dishonest to try to equate the two.

Intellectual honesty is not something that the anti-nuke FUD mongers worry about. They happily take risks every day and must not even realize it, because if they took the same approach as they claim we should with radiation, they'd never get in a car unless they absolutely had to. They'd never expose themselves to sunlight unless they absolutely had to, etc. But rationality is loss when perception is off.

Re:Easy enough solution

[GrumpySteen]

He's arguing a far worse than that. He's literally arguing that the risk is more acceptable than the first responders being given radiation hazmat gear to protect them during the response because they might get too hot in it or trip because of reduced field of view.

For your comparison, it would be like arguing firefighters shouldn't wear a heavy fire coats when going into a fire because they might overheat or trip because of the reduction in dexterity.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Darinbob]

What if the policy makers are playing golf that day, and can't respond until the optics are better?

Re:Easy enough solution

[Mr D from 63]

Why wait? Since it's safe, surely they'll have no problem submitting to thousands of chest x-rays right now.

We don't need to do that, we have plenty of evidence already.

But the public has much to learn. Take for example the Mexican Cobalt 60 theft, where the thieves got exposures much much greater than the limits we are talking about. You remember, there were tons of articles about how they were doomed. ("dead men", "doomed", "will soon die", etc) But if you listened to me at the time, I said that was a tremendous over-reaction. The thieves were caught and release with no charges because they were kids and had the crap scared out of them. One of the six had some minor symptoms of exposure, none are expected to have any long term health effects.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/...

So, lesson to be learned, don't believe the FUD. Take time to learn about radiation risk on your own, look at the statistics and compare to risks you happily accept every day in life. You'll find better things to worry about.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Anonymous Coward]

> In other words, it's tolerable for a sick person who might die if they don't get the scans, but it's not ok or 'tolerable' for a healthy person.

In other words, it's tolerable for a first responder or other trained emergency cleanup worker whose job is to contain and limit the spread of contamination. The goal is to minimize the _total_ harm. If exposing one cleanup worker to 20 CT scans prevents the exposure of a thousand people to 20 CT scans, then that's a net win.

  Ideally, robots would be our first responders and HAZMAT workers, but we're not yet at that point. So -for now- we have to put people in harm's way to save many orders of magnitude more people from far greater harm.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting this in some perspective, it's something less than 20 CT scans. While that seems high, it's well within the range of what some (sick) people get.

More perspective:
20 full body CT scans works out to a 1 in 60 chance of contracting a fatal cancer*.

*a single full body CT contributes a 1 in 1200 chance.

Re:Easy enough solution

[GrumpySteen]

Sanchez had been hospitalized for six weeks with radiation poisoning and still wasnâ(TM)t able to expose his skin to sunlight for very long. He was only 41 but looked like an old man, sun-weathered.

He wasnâ(TM)t wearing a shirt and had a large bandage covering his left shoulder and another taped over his hand. Radiation sickness can be fatal, but Sanchez said heâ(TM)d had on a thick jacket that morning and had only carried the cylinder a few meters. âoeLook,â he said, then slowly peeled the bandage to reveal skin that was still seared and pink. Normally, he said, he would have been out in the fields preparing for the summer rains, but he hadnâ(TM)t worked since that morning in December.

Minor symptoms, you say? Good thing cancer is an immediate thing and not a long-term risk after exposure, right?

Re:Easy enough solution

[Obfuscant]

He's literally arguing that the risk is more acceptable than the first responders being given radiation hazmat gear to protect them during the response

No, yet again, that's not what is being said. He said that you have to BALANCE THE RISKS vs. the benefits. There is a risk that a hazmat suit can cause the wearer to overheat -- a risk that anyone who has ever worn the old military MOPP suits is well aware of. You need to balance that risk against the radiation risks. He's not saying "don't wear hazmat suits even if there is radiation".

For your comparison, it would be like arguing firefighters shouldn't wear a heavy fire coats

You're the one who came up with the "don't wear" statement.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Solandri]

In other words, it's tolerable for a sick person who might die if they don't get the scans, but it's not ok or 'tolerable' for a healthy person.

That's really the problem. We don't know if it's "tolerable" or not for a healthy person.

The assumption so far has been to err on the side of caution and assume any elevated radiation exposure is harmful. Unfortunately that turns science upside down by setting an unfalsifiable hypothesis as the null hypothesis. You cannot prove that radiation exposure is safe. You can expose 1000 people to the equivalent of 20 CT scans, and if their long-term cancer rate is the same as unexposed people, the nay-sayers can always argue "no you're wrong, it was just luck that none of them got cancer" or "those people weren't a random sample" or a myriad of other possible explanations why your data is wrong.

For science to work properly, the null hypothesis has to be falsifiable. The assumption has to be that increased radiation exposure is safe. And only when you find experimental evidence that a certain level of radiation exposure is dangerous, do you reject that hypothesis at that radiation level.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Ol Olsoc]

Unfortunately that turns science upside down by setting an unfalsifiable hypothesis as the null hypothesis. You cannot prove that radiation exposure is safe. You can expose 1000 people to the equivalent of 20 CT scans, and if their long-term cancer rate is the same as unexposed people, the nay-sayers can always argue "no you're wrong, it was just luck that none of them got cancer" or "those people weren't a random sample" or a myriad of other possible explanations why your data is wrong.

There are some experiments that provide major ethics issues. Under your proper science scenario, one turns science upside down - I presume you mean that is unacceptable - if controlled tests are not preformed.

The problem of course, to satisfy your demand for such. Humans must be exposed to carefully calibrated doses of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and also tested for various routes of exposure.

Then we average out the effects on each group. Since different people are likely to have different reactions in the same group, we need to average it out if we are to give a strict number.

A simple ranking might be "no effect", "recoverable with no obvious effect ", "recoverable with permanent effects", and "he ded"

What we have done, since those silly liberals don't want to reenact those wonderful tests where tehy injected people with plutonium to find out what happened.

I would note that in addition to the above, that the USA and Soviet Union performed quite a few tests, some that our Slashdot nuc lovers will probably get erections over, such a sfeeding orphans radioactive mile, irradiating prisoners balls to see if they will have deformed kids after release, some children were injected with radioactive material as well, althought I was told those kids were going to die anyhow.

I won't bore you with any more, but if you actually want to look it up, there is a lot of information on human teasing.

So anyhow, are you volunteering yourself, wife children or parents to get randomly assigned to one or another groups for testing? For science to work properly, the null hypothesis has to be falsifiable. The assumption has to be that increased radiation exposure is safe. And only when you find experimental evidence that a certain level of radiation exposure is dangerous, do you reject that hypothesis at that radiation level.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Mr D from 63]

Sanchez had been hospitalized for six weeks with radiation poisoning and still wasnâ(TM)t able to expose his skin to sunlight for very long. He was only 41 but looked like an old man, sun-weathered.

He wasnâ(TM)t wearing a shirt and had a large bandage covering his left shoulder and another taped over his hand. Radiation sickness can be fatal, but Sanchez said heâ(TM)d had on a thick jacket that morning and had only carried the cylinder a few meters. âoeLook,â he said, then slowly peeled the bandage to reveal skin that was still seared and pink. Normally, he said, he would have been out in the fields preparing for the summer rains, but he hadnâ(TM)t worked since that morning in December.

Minor symptoms, you say? Good thing cancer is an immediate thing and not a long-term risk after exposure, right?

Yes, minor compared to death, a little pink skin and some bandages aren't so horrible are they? Of course the article you are referencing is long on hyperbole, and doesn't state the reasons he hasn't worked. Maybe Buzzfeed isn't the best place to quote without skepticism. Here's the picture (comes across different than the words); https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzf... And although his risk goes up he is still not likely to get cancer from this statistically. The 'jacket' would have nothing to do with protecting him, reflecting the ignorance of the article author.

Re:Easy enough solution

[AmiMoJo]

CT scans are a poor comparison anyway, because they are a one-off hit. The problem with nuclear accidents and dirty bombs is that the material lingers, and can get inside the body and bypass the layers of skin and flesh that protect organs from radiation.

How do you compare a one-off dose to a much smaller but constant dose being administered directly inside your thyroid? It's very difficult to even prove which effects you suffer years or decades later are as a direct result of the radiation.

Re:Easy enough solution

[Rick Schumann]

Oh gee did I piss off the Trump voters, who are now seeing the truth? Does it hurt? IT SHOULD. Maybe you'll know better next time.

Re:Easy enough solution

[david_thornley]

Remember, these are for first responder guidelines. Not chronic exposures.

That depends on exactly how many incidents involving radioactivity we have, doesn't it? If we have more than a few, we may be asking first responders to take another dose. The alternatives are to fire first responders after their first radiation accident, or tell them to stay home and have an inadequate number. We'd like to see emergency-level doses repeatable without hurting the first responder too much.

Re:Easy enough solution

[mrclevesque]

"Ideally, robots would be our first responders and HAZMAT workers, but we're not yet at that point. So -for now- we have to put people in harm's way to save many orders of magnitude more people from far greater harm."

For now I think the best is to manage exposure time. Rather than increasing the maximum exposure time per person, the usual thing to do, if need be, is to increase the number of persons exposed.

This is what you wanted

[rsilvergun]

If you voted for the party of less regulation. Yes, there's a lot of silly laws on the books, but the really silly ones are ignored by everyone. When it comes time to cut regulations these are the ones that get cut.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Maury Markowitz]

> Yes, there's a lot of silly laws on the books

The real problem with "silly laws" is that, in the past at least, they weren't.

For instance, I know there was a law in the Roman Empire that made it illegal to use someone else's plough. You had to have your own. That lasted into the middle ages in England.

I have no idea why that law exists, but I suspect it's not just "someone wanted to pork". I don't know the reason, so it seems silly. Is it really? I doubt it.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we've long wanted the eco-politicians stop lying and recognize the science.
And it *is* a nice surprise that this lie could persist only for a measly couple decades after its being uncovered. ;)

Re:This is what you wanted

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's what TFS implies too: "...recommended under President Barack Obama. It could lead to the administration of President Donald Trump...". But how much of all of this is really the result of Trump's administration? I'm not saying it isn't, but there have been a few other cases in the past, where the press has blamed the Trump administration for seemingly poor decisions, which turned out to be simply stuff already in the pipeline since Obama.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. That is what we wanted. Time to slash and burn as many ridiculous regulations as possible. Hopefully they can cut another trillion bucks out of the budget too.

While they are at it, raise the damn limit on radon. It was set so artificially low that everyone fails the fucking test when they sell their house.

Re:This is what you wanted

[wonkey_monkey]

For instance, I know there was a law in the Roman Empire that made it illegal to use someone else's plough

But... then how did ploughshares work?

You can take my neighbour's plough out of my cold dead hands!

Re:This is what you wanted

[Gr8Apes]

> Yes, there's a lot of silly laws on the books

The real problem with "silly laws" is that, in the past at least, they weren't.

I have to completely disagree with you There are laws there that were always silly, although some person with mental issues probably thought they weren't. e.g.:

If a child burps during church, his parent may be arrested.

Might as well write a law against cows passing gas or jailing the farmer.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

The party of deregulation wants to deregulate rules that protect consumers but cost corporations.

The regulations that protect corporations are not going to be cut.

Re: This is what you wanted

[Obfuscant]

Well considering this is Trump's EPA doing it,

The summary says "it COULD lead to Trump's administration..." (emphasis mine), not "is IS leading to...". This whole thing is a scare piece political hatchet attempt by Trump haters, making up their own fantasy world of what Trump "could" do and then forging full steam ahead as if he was doing it just to kill them personally.

The suggested guidelines for what first responders could be exposed to were increased. That's not removing exposure levels for the general population, and it's not changing what industry is allowed to release. It's not the end of the world as we know it, and you aren't going to glow in the dark because evil Trump is poisoning your air.

Re: This is what you wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

The law as you claim to have existed has one purpose:
To ban slaves from farming.
Slaves generally didn't own ploughs, so this prevented slave labor from displacing free-man farm labor.

Re:This is what you wanted

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to, say, voting for the democratic party, whose last president ok'ed drilling for oil in the arctic, and took away the DEA's ability to prevent predatory opiod marketing by drug companies. Not to mention how both the current and previous administration supported the cartel of usury which is the health insurance companies.

NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do we mandate radon inspections for so many home sales?

How to fix the current craziness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bump the Trump?

Re:How to fix the current craziness?

[ColdWetDog]

Pensive stare.

Trump's EPA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft. They'll be saying mercury and lead is good for you too pretty soon so don't worry about those industrial runoffs that occur when those evil-job killing-freedom hating government environmental regulations are no longer enforced.

Because the more children who have their IQs reduced from lead and mercury exposure, the more that grow up to be Republicans.

Re:Trump's EPA?

[Anonymous Coward]

must be hard to live in the land of hyperbole.

Re: Trump's EPA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole? That's like Superbowl but better, right? When can I move in?

Re:Trump's EPA?

[david_thornley]

Hyperbole? We've got hyperbole.

The US produces the best hyperbole in the world, and we're proud of it! It's part of what makes America great!

You need a radiation suit....

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure you have a radiation suit in your emergency kit.

Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[cunina]

There is no more EPA. It's gone. This article has no meaning and should be filtered out as noise.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[worldthinker]

You speak the truth. unfortunately...

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

The EPA during Obama's term was out of control. Remember when they declared water to be a pollutant?

The goal now is to make regulations sensible; sometimes that requires compromise.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[MightyMartian]

By "out of control", you mean put citizen's welfare ahead of commercial interests. Yes I agree, it was totally out of control, and it's high time that people got bigger doses of poison and radiation because JOBS!

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

My god you are full of it!

No, the Big Giant Orange Head isn't interested in sensible regulatory reform. He is interested in cutting costs for the Coal owners and making fake promises of jobs to Coal miners. If the EPA regs get in the way of any of that then the EPA regs are being rescinded. Safety be damned!

Your attempts to normalize the behavior of the Big Giant Orange Head are laughable at best.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like just yesterday when water was "polluting" most of Houston, downtown Miami, Puerto Rico, and a big chunk of the Caribbean.

Oh, wait, I guess water can be a "pollutant" in a given situation.

The issue you cited seems to be complicated and has a long history, but water where it's not wanted is a kind of pollutant.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, storm water is a huge threat and there are lots of rules keeping you from dumping it the wrong place. It is perfectly sensible to regulate storm water.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

By saying something I don't agree with, do you mean something I do agree with? If so, I agree

Well done.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[PPH]

keeping you from dumping it the wrong place

I dump mine outside of the environment.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Solandri]

The problem with the EPA under Obama was that instead of regulating to manage risk, they were often trying to regulate to eliminate risk.

Life will always have risk. The key is to find an acceptable level of risk which doesn't compromise your ability to accomplish things whose benefit exceeds the drawbacks of the risk. If you try to eliminate all risk, you also eliminate all ability to accomplish anything. Vaccines are a perfect example. There's a very tiny chance you will get sick from a vaccine; there's even a tiny chance that you'll die from getting a vaccine. But that risk is tiny compared to the benefit - near-elimination of your chance to die from the disease you're being vaccinated against over the course of your natural life. The risk is worth the reward. But using the logic sometimes used by the Obama EPA, the presence of that tiny risk invalidated its use regardless of the potential benefit.

tl;dr - Some risks are worth taking.

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they just renamed it the EDA. take a guess

Re:Let's all keep one thing in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake nukes!

Make America Great again

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you think America was to become Great again? Just lower the definition of what Great means and America is great again. Easy!
2% economic growth is now Great, Dialup speeds are now Broadband, so why not this? Corporations can now dump radioactive waste into drinking water and we can still call it Great.

Trump...North Korea...Iran...

[Taskmage]

Maybe i'm just paranoid (most likely) but...does this look like preparing the public for a planned nuclear war?

Re:Trump...North Korea...Iran...

[ColdWetDog]

Nah, just the South Koreans. Not to worry.

Re:Trump...North Korea...Iran...

[Strudelkugel]

Maybe i'm just paranoid (most likely) but...does this look like preparing the public for a planned nuclear war?

More likely Sec Energy Perry's attempt to get subsidies for nuke and coal plants. But I also wonder about the WIPP The WIPP is a DOE project. Maybe Perry wants to change the standards to make underground storage less dangerous.

Re:Trump...North Korea...Iran...

[pipingguy]

Just eat lots of bananas to up your resistance.

Re:Trump...North Korea...Iran...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dutch government gave out iodine pills recently. Also very re-assuring.

Although that's probably because Belgian nuclear plants are being run past their planned end date with lackluster maintenance.

Hmmm.

[TheCastro1689]

This is the kind of thing you put out so people aren't afraid to enter dangerous areas when they will die and have shorter life spans later.

Re:Hmmm.

[joe_frisch]

It may also be the sort of thing you put out to keep people from being unreasonably afraid.

I work at an accelerator lab where we have dangerous radiation levels when the accelerator is on, but quite low levels when it is off. I was talking with some emergency response guys and they said "I'm not walking past all those radiation signs". These are the same guys who will walk into burning refineries to save people. The problem is that they had not been given accurate information on the relative risks of radiation and other risks.

10rem is not "safe" in that the general public should not be exposed to that level of radiation. It is also not so dangerous that people should take higher risks to avoid being exposed to that level of radiation.

The issue is giving people accurate information so that they can balance risks.

Re: Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

What 'higher risks' would a person take to avoid radiation? Avoiding certain places puts nobody in danger, and radiation can't be seen. Most people don't own a Geiger counter or any practical means to inform themselves. Instead people are told to trust authorities who've been shown they aren't worthy of trust.

Yes, radiation is everywhere. It doesn't make it a good idea to walk into a higher concentration.

Keep in mind the 'science' that says radiation isn't all bad is the same science that led to putting radeon on watches and rotting womens' faces due to exposure.

The same is true of computer science and security experts. Prove you're trustworthy, or it's just another lie to calm people down while you squeeze every penny from them.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

The other danger is that outside the scientific community, companies touching this stuff will always at the very least straddle - if not try to tiptoe over - the safety line if it can save a buck. These new guidelines have nothing to do with your lab, but everything to do with disposal, "scanning" security theater equipment, and industrial handling.

In those, you can expect people to be exposed to the new minimum almost constantly, and these new numbers will ensure that downright dangerous practices are the new "minor slip-up" and "clearly not the company's fault or responsibility in any fashion" when someone forced to do regular overtime starts feeling nausea.

As with any change in regulation in the past few decades, you must absolutely look to the worst and most dangerous possible twisting and abuse: those are precisely what those pushing for the new rules are seeking to achieve.

If Obama did it, I'm against it

[PopeRatzo]

n the event of a dirty bomb or a nuclear meltdown, emergency responders can safely tolerate radiation levels equivalent to thousands of chest X-rays, the Environmental Protection Agency said in new guidelines that ease off on established safety levels. The EPA's determination sets a level ten times the drinking water standard for radiation recommended under President Barack Obama.

Let's not bullshit here. This is about Trump's effort to get rid of every single thing Obama ever did.

Trump is your racist, senile uncle. With nuclear codes.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you the one who stands up for Robert Byrd, the KKK leader?

Funny hearing someone who praises racists calling other people racists. Enjoy your next Klan meeting.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[GLMDesigns]

I hope you don't believe the bullsh!t you spew.

For your sake I hope you're a teenage troll.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ? You don't believe that Trump is all about destroying every single thing Obama has accomplished ? Somehow, the fact that he has actually done exactly that so far, and the fact that this was one of his campain promises doesn't convice you ?

For fuck's sake, are you actually living in the same reality as everyone else ?

Or am I also just a teenage troll ?

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[ClickOnThis]

Let's not bullshit here. This is about Trump's effort to get rid of every single thing Obama ever did.

This.

Trump is irked by anything that has Obama's name on it. It's like he gets up every morning and has to walk past a golden multi-storey edifice named "Obama Tower." His insecurity really does run that deep.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[SlaveToTheGrind]

For your sake I hope you're a teenage troll.

He's one of what is thankfully still a minority of people who keep getting older but never grow up.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[PopeRatzo]

He's one of what is thankfully still a minority of people who keep getting older but never grow up.

A minority yes, but he's still President.

Re: If Obama did it, I'm against it

[PoopJuggler]

Except that's what he does

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[SlaveToTheGrind]

[PopeRatzo]'s one of what is thankfully still a minority of people who keep getting older but never grow up.

A minority yes, but he's still President.

I rest my case.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[PopeRatzo]

I rest my case.

Good, it needs the rest.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what your God Trump thinks of you, his loyal followers ?

"I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and people would still vote for me."

That's what he said during his campain. He basically called you all fucking morons, and you proved him right by voting for him. And you keep proving him right by continuously supporting him. If Trump himself believes his supporters are morons, why would we believe otherwise ? For what other reason would anyone still support him after the nine-months trainwreck that has been his presidency so far, not even taking into account the forthy-some years trainwreck that has been his entire business career ?

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

How does it feel to be wrong so much?

If Obama didn't want "his legacy" undone he should have worked with congress instead of acting like a king with a pen and phone.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

What would your wife and children think of this kind of behavior?

It's fine to disagree. It's fine to be angry about a subject. But this...

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[ClickOnThis]

You have it backwards. Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him. They vowed to make him a one-term President, no matter what it took. They burned up countless days on the legislative calendar, trying dozens and dozens of times to repeal Obamacare. They shut the government down over a pointless spending-limit dispute that cost the country billions of dollars.

As for Obama being a "king with a pen" --- try again. The number of executive orders he signed was not at all remarkable, compared to his predecessors.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[gtall]

You mean a 15 year old, racist, senile uncle...accuracy matters.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a fucking retard

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him.

It doesn't matter. The president does not write laws and if congress wants a quacking president then they do not have to work with him. That is the point of separate bodies of government. Clinton in the 90's was able to compromise with a GOP congress, why coudln't Obama? Stop making excuses because congress is independent.

he number of executive orders he signed

The number doesn't matter. It's what they did that matters.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[HornWumpus]

Obviously, PopeRatzo is SlaveToTheGrinds sockpuppet.

Why else would he 'go middle school' in response to being called a mental child?

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is president. He's a republican president. And he's also unable to work with the republican controlled congress.

So what's his excuse ?

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

n the event of a dirty bomb or a nuclear meltdown, emergency responders can safely tolerate radiation levels equivalent to thousands of chest X-rays, the Environmental Protection Agency said in new guidelines that ease off on established safety levels. The EPA's determination sets a level ten times the drinking water standard for radiation recommended under President Barack Obama.

Let's not bullshit here. This is about Trump's effort to get rid of every single thing Obama ever did.

Trump is your racist, senile uncle. With nuclear codes.

I rather suspect trump thinks something along the lines of the following:
1. I want to wipe the "uppidy negro" from history.
2. My base would love if I did 1.
3. Appeals to racism got me this far. Why stop now?

He doesn't seem to much care about issues. He says he is going to make everything great and shiny, but never puts in any effort to do so. He just blames everyone else for not delivering great and shiny. His latest exercise in evil was killing the subsidies that congress approved, but didn't specifically tag a funding source for. That ends up costing the government money in the long term, but then it is the same as his other health care actions. (The court case for all that wasn't remotely settled.)

When the president threatens to destroy and then actually implements the destructions of key pillars of a law and then says, "Look it is imploding."

Why yes Obamacare, may implode now, but it is no different than imploding a building. When you use every tool at your disposal including dynamite, something is going to give. Donald Trump is a level of evil I never thought I'd see in power in my lifetime, but the hope I have is that Obama is right. Yes, we are going backwards, and backwards as fast as they can carry us, but the potential for us to recover is also there.

My biggest recommendation is to teach children critical thinking and not to be so easily misled by people who promise one issue or another they way you want it to be.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama did try to work with Congress. It was Republican-controlled Congress who wouldn't work with him.

It doesn't matter. The president does not write laws and if congress wants a quacking president then they do not have to work with him. That is the point of separate bodies of government. Clinton in the 90's was able to compromise with a GOP congress, why coudln't Obama? Stop making excuses because congress is independent.

he number of executive orders he signed

The number doesn't matter. It's what they did that matters.

Just curious. Have you ever sprained an ankle doing those sort of mental gymnastics? I'm pretty amazed. Must have taken a lot of practice.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

Honestly, I don't care. If the Congress decides that a president will quack then we a have a lame duck president. That is called working as intended.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[PopeRatzo]

Clinton in the 90's was able to compromise with a GOP congress, why coudln't Obama?

Here is a picture of President Clinton:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

And here is a picture of President Obama:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

If you look very closely, you will see the reason why the GOP congress would work with President Clinton but not President Obama. Take your time. It'll jump out at you.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

REALLY. Given this 'guidance' (which is regulation or change to regulation) hasn't changed since 1997 how does this have ANYTHING to do with Obama or Trump? Seriously, do you just hate because you like to hate? Is that what drives you in the morning? I live in Vegas, should I start watching over my shoulder because you can't control your impulses to hate?

You & dipshit #1 need to get a life

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

lol, sure thing. everything is racist according to me.

When does Obama own his own failings? Are you being a benevolent racist by not holding Obama accountable for his actions and excuse everything he has done to be the fault of someone else?

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[nickersonm]

As for Obama being a "king with a pen" --- try again. The number of executive orders he signed was not at all remarkable, compared to his predecessors.

That's only because he titled 70% of them "Presidential memoranda" and another unknown amount of "Presidential Policy Directives".

Even just enumerating Executive actions in general is a much more complex task that it would first seem.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Why else would he 'go middle school' in response to being called a mental child?

It's a fine question, but sadly one that I think is going to remain unanswered. I've tried to engage with the guy more than a couple of times thinking that there might be some sort of rational thought process lurking behind the sophomoric flamebaiting, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that he has only one speed.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

I would take the post as sarcasm commenting the politicization of issues that were supposed to be managed by experts with a sound scientific base for all their decisions and recommendations, and who serve the people to make the nation and the world a better place. In other worlds, the press and the Internet are to be blamed.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[HornWumpus]

That's what all the sock puppeteers say.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[dywolf]

no that is not the point.
the point of separate bodies is not stalemate and inaction driven by partisan agenda.
there is still an expectation of actually governing, of actually doing the job.
all the gOP did was take their ball and go home and refuse to do anything remotely resembling their job.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[dywolf]

only if you are extremely foolish and do not understand the concept of governance.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

You miss the point that if those separate bodies cannot agree for whatever reason then there is inaction. That is a feature not a bug. Many of those GOP were elected to stop Obama's agenda. They were doing the job they were elected to do which is represent their constituents.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If people elect a democratic congress that refuses to work with Trump, is that a good thing? You are dancing around the issue with excuses for Obama as if the only job of congress is to agree with POTUS and pass laws. While technically true (the pass laws part) people can elect stonewalls to stop the president from doing his job.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

I understand fine the concept of governance as well as I understand an independent bicameral congress.

You seem to assume that the only job of congress is to work with the current POTUS to pass the laws that POTUS want. That goes against that whole 'independent' part of congress.

Again, put the shoe on the other foot. If congress stonewalls Trump's agenda, would you be ok with that or would you take the same stance? Inaction by the government during disagreement is a feature not a bug.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, as a Leftie, I'll hold Obama responsible for his failings. Like the bait and switch that was the ACA (I'll give you guys a public option. On second thought, I'll just cowtow to the Insurance companies and leave you with a mandate). I'll hold him responsible for not closing Gitmo.

Now can we get off the Hillary and Obama bashing bandwagon and bash the guy who is actively trying to tease Kim Jong Un into nuclear war? Can we bash the guy who, despite having a majority in both the House and Senate, has not passed a single piece of planned legislation (health care, immigration, the wall, tax "reform")? How about the guy who was a complete asshole to Puerto Rico because the mayor of San Juan expressed dis-satisfaction at having to wait over a week for any kind of disaster response (Puerto Ricans are American citizens, after all)?

Let's stop blaming a guy who has been out of office almost a year now and start to scrutinize the actions of the current president. After all, Obama didn't get a year long writeoff for the state of the country after GWBush...

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Sheesh. What in the world did I ever do to you other than chuckle at your sig?

As you well know, I can't prove a negative (though you yourself could take a look at (a) my UID and his, and (b) my comment history and his, and draw some reasonable conclusions, but I get that conspiracy theories are more fun). Happy trails.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's relive this thread:
"unsubstantiated claim saying Trump undoing everything Obama did"
"refutation of said claim and critique for why Obama actions undone"
"excuse why Obama acted outside of congress"
"bad excuse is bad that does not excuse Obama working outside of congress"
"race bait"
"when is it not racist to criticize Obama"
and then you "let's all hate on Trump because he bad. stop talking about Obama even if OP brought up Obama." You are disingenuous. You are the person that says "Let's stop being political". All the while parading your politics. At least PopeRatzo doesn't try to mask his political bullshit as non-political.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[HornWumpus]

Lighten up, it's a joke on Ratzo.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Ah, clearly I needed more caffeine this morning.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[david_thornley]

Sure, Presidents are accountable for their own actions. How accountable are they for other people's actions? The Republicans were willing to compromise with Clinton, but not Obama. We know that. We're speculating on the reasons.

I'm not at all sure that it has much to do with race, but I think it's more Republican attitude than Presidential competence.

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[penandpaper]

I could actually agree with your statement. You are a voice of reason in a sea of turmoil! Even if I disagree with you it's nice to know there is still sanity on the internet with politics.

Obviously, the 'why' they obstructed is important. Whenever I read about that why (ignoring the race baiting) it seems to be a never ending "they started it". I think that is one reason why politics becomes inevitably toxic; people have a score to settle with the other side and there is history of slight. I do it too, it's natural.

I think part of my original point is that the 'why' should be irrelevant to the workings of the government. The 'why' will always change and there has always been a different reason to obstruct. All that means is that the government cannot agree and nothing should be done if no one can agree.

Any president that ignores congress (whether it be obstruction or not) is a bad president. Any president that feels they need to go around the congress to get what they want done is a bad president. By those criteria Obama was a bad president. Even if I agreed with his actions I would still think him a bad president. That goes for any president. Why congress obstructs a president is irrelevant to the fact that congress can obstruct a president making him a lame duck.

Too often we see people treat politics like sports. Well this is one of those instances where democrats are treating it like a sport because "their guy" did what they like in a bad way. It needs to be called out for what it is. Yes, I call it out for Trump and republicans too (he did something similar with ACA penalties iirc ).

Re:If Obama did it, I'm against it

[david_thornley]

The question is how the President goes around Congress. The President has a good many legal powers that Congress has voted the office over the years, which are in keeping with the government structure. The court system is there to tell the President that some executive order or another has crossed the line, and I haven't noticed the Republicans being slow to ask the courts. The Presidency really doesn't have all that many powers assigned by the Constitution, and it seems clear that Congress is to delegate power to that office. This seems reasonable to me.

Why the Republican Congress was so uncooperative doesn't affect how government works, although dedicating itself to partisan rather than national goals is reprehensible. The President will use the power of the Presidency for the President's own goals.

Hyperbole

[XXongo]

The headline is rather stretching. They are not "establishing new guidelines".

The discussion is about a few statements buried deep inside the pamphlet, "Protective Action Questions & Answers for Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies", which is not a "guideline" or any kind of regulation setting radiation standards: https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod...

The statement is on page 18, in the section "55. What are millirem (mrem) and millisieverts (mSv)?"
"According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk."

.. followed by repeating the same statement in the same words on the next page, in section 57. Will people who have been exposed to the radiation get cancer?
"There is clear evidence that high doses of radiation can raise your risk of cancer. Although cancer has been associated with high doses of radiation received over short periods of time, the cancers usually do not appear for many years, even decades.
According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.

And then repeating it in exactly the same words in the next page over again: 60. Are people at risk for radiation poisoning or sickness?
Radiation sickness is an illness from short-term exposure to a large amount of radiation. In the United States, dose is measured in units called millirem (mrem). The international unit is the millisievert (mSv). According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.
Safety recommendations are designed to keep your dose as low as possible.
It takes a large dose of radiation—more than 75 rem (75,000 mrem or 750 mSv)—in a short amount of time (usually minutes to hours) to cause immediate health effects, such as acute radiation sickness.

But these are not guidelines, and not even proposed guidelines. The numbers seem to be consistent with health effects stated in other sources, e.g., http://www.radiationanswers.or... or http://www.radiationanswers.or... :
* 10 rem received in a short period or over a long period is safe—we don’t expect immediate observable health effects, although your chances of getting cancer might be very slightly increased.
* 100 rem received in a short time can cause observable health effects from which your body will likely recover, and 100 rem received in a short time or over many years will increase your chances of getting cancer.

Re:Hyperbole

[cascadingstylesheet]

But these are not guidelines, and not even proposed guidelines. The numbers seem to be consistent with health effects stated in other sources, e.g., http://www.radiationanswers.or... or http://www.radiationanswers.or... :

Dang it, there you go being all rational and stuff. We're trying to be outraged here!

Re:Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

"According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 mrem or 50–100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk."
------------
Except 5 Rem is the 1-year limit for radiation workers, with 10 Rem being a 5-year limit.

During a nuclear cleanup, some workers may receive the 1-year limit in an hour. People shouldn't have to get increased cancer risk just to go to work by being expected to receive more.

There is no reason the general public should be exposed to anything but minimum levels of extra radiation (which are far less than for a radiation worker). However, radiation is all around us - we can't get away from it. Smoking cigarettes or living near a coal plant is a great way to increase your lungs to radiation exposure.

I worked at a nuclear facility, and no-one freaked out about small exposures. However, we took larger exposures seriously.

Re:Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

"Usually", "likely", with odds like that what science loving nerd could be upset with such impressive statistics.

Another alarmist Slashdot summary

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the exact same recommendation the EPA has made since 1992, and we're seeing the exact same response now as it got the first time it was suggested.

If a nuclear power plant is melting down

[Anonymous Coward]

You might wanna take a few risks.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[ColdWetDog]

Chronic vs. acute exposure. A couple of hundred millirems per week may not be as bad as a few milirems from an alpha particle for dozens of years for kids playing in the basement.

This isn't that surprising

[bv728]

The existing limits are pretty low in a lot of ways, because they're calibrated for maximum safety. There's also thresholds that seem to move from 'Long term small risk, body seems to handle pretty well' to 'short term damage, long term massive risk' to 'short term massive damage' pretty sharply - you can be pretty normal for a while, then have a large shift in risk.
As such, I'm not sure this itself is a bad thing - emergency responders almost certainly can handle elevated levels over normal with minimal health risks for the *duration of a rescue operation*. I'm just not happy it's coming out in a 'gut regulations' period, because emergency responders aren't going to *live* in those areas, and the nuance is unlikely to be communicated effectively.

Linear relation, with cutoff

[Okian Warrior]

If you voted for the party of less regulation. Yes, there's a lot of silly laws on the books, but the really silly ones are ignored by everyone. When it comes time to cut regulations these are the ones that get cut.

This discussion came up about airport X-ray machines years ago, and sparked a debate about exposure safety.

There appears to be a linear relation between amount of exposure and number of cancers(*), but only for rather excessive levels of radiation. The debate centers on whether there is a "cutoff", where any exposure less than some amount is negligible.

It's hard to get quantitative information about this because the exposure levels are small, and the results won't be known for decades. IIRC, my calculations at the time indicated that 10 or 20 new cases of cancer *might* be caused by 9 billion airline flights. (Those 10-20 new cancers is not nothing, I'm just pointing out that finding the correlation in all that noise is all but impossible. Attention paid to more likely health threats would be a better way to spend effort and resources**.)

The prevailing opinion is that the body deals with and repairs all sorts of damage in it's day-to-day operation, so that damage smaller than a set level will get swept up along with all the other repairs.

Strangely, there is actually no menace in this recent decision, and the "party of less regulation" is doing what appears to be the right thing.

(*) I once wrote an article about airport X-ray systems, which required a bunch of research.

(**) Interestingly, that was then and this is now. Since everyone has to register to take a plane flight, we now have about 15 years of data that could be mined here. Take a cohort of plane travellers and divide them into 2 groups: people who take many flights per year, versus people who take few flights per year, and compare their rates of cancer later in life, against a similar cohort taken from the general population.

Re:Linear relation, with cutoff

[Anonymous Coward]

People do tend to get stupid when it comes to radiation. Where I live, radon is a thing. We don't have exceptionally high cancer rates. When I researched it to see if I should put radon mitigation in my basement it seemed that only if I had small children who were going to regularly be down there.

Then of course uranium is a naturally occurring element and we've evolved to deal with the sort of radiation the non-enriched variety of that puts out. Toss in the radiation I get because I live at high altitude, and if people were as sensitive to radiation as a lot seem to think we are, I'd be dead already.

Re:Linear relation, with cutoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, there is actually no menace in this recent decision

That's a strange assumption for you of all people to make, Okian Warrior. You don't provide a citation to that, which is curious, because I recall that you're all about citations alleging malice for ideologies that don't match your One True Warrior ideology.

Re:Linear relation, with cutoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Radon is dangerous not just because of direct radiation but because it is a gas and can be inhaled and decay where normal skin protection from radiation is lost. Additionally, since you have inhaled, the decay byproducts (including lead) are in your lungs and the air. Radon exposure is vastly different than many "every day" radiation exposures. Further, radon testing should be completed because variations can be significant from dwelling to dwelling. You MAY NOT need a radon system, but if you haven't tested, you don't know if you do. Radon is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer in the USA behind smoking.

People may be stupid when talking radiation but radon is "no joke" in certain situations.

Re:Linear relation, with cutoff

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you smoke and live in a basement, you are doomed.

Re:Linear relation, with cutoff

[Anonymous Coward]

people who take many flights per year, versus people who take few flights per year, and compare their rates of cancer later in life

What is the comparison for the level of radiation from the scanner versus the increased levels of radiation just from being higher up in the atmosphere? Depending on the answer it might add so much noise as to make the scanner comparisons impossible.

Re:Linear relation, with cutoff

[david_thornley]

Then of course uranium is a naturally occurring element and we've evolved to deal with the sort of radiation the non-enriched variety of that puts out.

There's lots of things that are natural and not good for you. Also, most people don't have all that much uranium surrounding them.

Repo Man...

[sillivalley]

This is like a scene out of Repo Man, J Frank Parnell:
Ever been to Utah? Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day - nothing. Swept away. But I'll show them. I had a lobotomy in the end.

Re:Repo Man...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I had a lobotomy in the end.

Lobotomy? Isn't that for loonies?

Does it apply to everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see how much they truly believe in what they preach.

Whoever voted in favor of this should be exposed, along with their immediate family members, to those levels of radiation 24/7 for the duration of their term in the office. Deal?

The EPA...

[Lucas123]

Isn't that the same organization that in 2005 was found to have suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls, which were later exposed as not following the Clean Air Act?

And, in 2007, California sued for its refusal to allow it and 16 other states to raise fuel economy standards for new cars.

And, in 2008, the Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

Not saying the EPA is corrupt, but their word isn't gospel either.

Re:The EPA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not saying the EPA is corrupt, but their word isn't gospel either.

You cited 3 examples of the EPA not doing the job it was created for because the people in power at the time were in the pockets of those who would lose money from EPA regulations. It's not the EPA that is corrupt, it is the fact that they are not more autonomous that allows them to be controlled by whatever asshole is in the whitehouse.

You lefties are pro science, right?

[Orgasmatron]

You lefties are pro science, right?

From the PDF:

According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5 - 10 rem (5,000 - 10,000 mrem or 50 - 100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.

Safety recommendations are designed to keep your dose as low as possible.

It takes a large dose of radiation - more than 75 rem (75,000 mrem or 750 mSv) - in a short amount of time (usually minutes to hours) to cause immediate health effects, such as acute radiation sickness.

What does a physics lab have to say on the topic?

http://sbhepnt.physics.sunysb.edu/~rijssenbeek/RadiationSafety.html

The first detectable effect is a minor change in the blood count. As the cumulative dose increases in magnitude, the effects become more observable. Examples of expected effects versus radiation dose include:

25 Rad: Onset of minor observable blood changes

100 Rad: May observe radiation sickness symptoms (nausea, diarrhea)

250 Rad: Possible hair loss

450 Rad: Established lethal dose LD50/30 - (Without medical aid: 50% mortality within 30 days)

tl; dr version:

ZOMG! The EPA is saying there is no reason to panic over radiation doses less than half the dose that causes effects in your body that medical science is able to detect!

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[nasch]

You're talking about short term radiation poisoning right? What about long term effects?

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

From that same website:

"The linear extrapolation that is assumed, leads to an estimated:
4×10-4 risk of fatal cancer (to adults) per rem of radiation dose "

So, a 10 Rad exposure, which likely won't produce any acute health symptoms causes a person 0.4% risk of death by cancer at a future date (assuming no lifesaving treatment for the cancer exists).

That isn't nothing.

To cherry pick the part you did, you must have read that entire section, which means you are not being honest.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[HornWumpus]

Not measureable. There are lots of places that, due to their geology, have higher than average background radiation levels. They don't have higher cancer rates.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't been measured is not the same as not measurable. And even not measurable is not the same as no effect.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[Orgasmatron]

Linear extrapolation is not science. It does not match the evidence. Go read the article on hormesis that I linked up.

Doesn't matter who repeats it, or how many times. It is not real. It was adopted as a legal fiction out of convenience, and since then it has inflicted trillions of dollars in counterproductive costs on us.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can look at another radiation lab, which says:

For radiation protection purposes it is assumed that any dose above zero can increase the risk of radiation-induced cancer (i.e., that there is no threshold). Epidemiologic studies have found that the estimated lifetime risk of dying from cancer is greater by about 0.004% per mSv (0.04% per rem) of radiation dose to the whole body (NRC, 1990)

But hey, don't let mere science get in the way of your political point scoring.

Re: You lefties are pro science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last thing society needs is to worship corporations and productivity.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[HornWumpus]

So your position is nobody has done cancer rate studies in places with high background radiation? That tells me you can't be arsed to google.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[L. J. Beauregard]

From the article you linked: "Reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue[15] that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility.[16]"

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

So your position is that if x or y study didn't find something that there is nothing to be found?
This tell us all you can't be arsed to use common sense.

Re:You lefties are pro science, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

You lefties are pro science

Choke on my cock you alt-right faggot.

Now, what was the rest of your comment about?

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[bws111]

Most, if not all, mandatory radon inspections are only mandatory because the lender wants it. There are, as far as I know, no laws requiring radon inspection. The lender wants the inspections because even the appearance of a problem can drastically lower the property value.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[drinkypoo]

A couple of hundred millirems per week may not be as bad as a few milirems from an alpha particle for dozens of years for kids playing in the basement.

Wait a second, just how long did you keep your kids in the basement? If you keep someone in there for dozens of years then they definitely aren't kids any more... And you're a bad person

Why no data from Chernobyl or Fukushima

[oldgraybeard]

I would think that there would be a treasure trove of actual data related to those 2 events.

Re:Why no data from Chernobyl or Fukushima

[TeknoHog]

IIRC, here in Finland there are highly populated areas where the natural background radiation is higher than some of the Fukushima evacuation zones. I don't have any sources at hand, though. I have a background (pun intended) in physics and I used to wear a film badge at one job for a few months, so I generally take any radiation hysteria with a healthy dose of uranium salts.

Score:-5, Pwned

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness BitZtream getting pwned!... twice.....three times!

Depends on how you cope with exposure

[WillAffleckUW]

Look, reactor fallout and dirty bombs are not quite the same.

The main thing is this: incidental exposure in an area with rain is only that from direct contact and ingestion, either via air (masks) or water/food.

You can flush your system with drinkable water, on a residential level, from the water stored in your hot water heater and in your toilet reservoirs, as well as anything in your fridge or freezer.

It's only from crops grown or water collected after the incident that you have a risk. Shower if exposed, change clothes exposed. Don't eat local products grown after the time of exposure.

Re:Depends on how you cope with exposure

[deviated_prevert]

Look, reactor fallout and dirty bombs are not quite the same.

The main thing is this: incidental exposure in an area with rain is only that from direct contact and ingestion, either via air (masks) or water/food.

You can flush your system with drinkable water, on a residential level, from the water stored in your hot water heater and in your toilet reservoirs, as well as anything in your fridge or freezer.

It's only from crops grown or water collected after the incident that you have a risk. Shower if exposed, change clothes exposed. Don't eat local products grown after the time of exposure.

As Hanford starts to leach higher levels into the water table that feeds the lower Columbia basin it only stands to reason that the water source for that agricultural area needs to be deemed safe as it spikes. By increasing the level of water born exposure tolerated it slows down the cleanup required to keep the water at a lower level of contamination. Next on the chopping block is the cleanup super fund and costs of monitoring and reimbursing workers that are not able to work due to reaching exposure limits. Increase the exposure limits and bingo you can put off doing environmental work until the fish and Walla Walla onions start to glow in the dark.

You might not see on Whitehouse dinner menu in 40 years Columbia River wild salmon, Washington state Granny Smith Apple Pie, Famous Washington State Riesling with the asshole that is power today. Because you can almost bet that this move to increase the water born limits is a move to put off the super fund work necessary to slow the spread of radiation from places like Hanford. All bets are off if there is a major seismic event hits the area though or if one of the upstream Columbia major dams lets loose. At that point any attempt to stop or slow the leaching would be impossible. Perhaps the only solution to places like Hanford is to learn how to re use and break down some of the worst waste products safely in reactors.

Yeah

[DaMattster]

I don't believe half of what my government tells me.

Re:Yeah

[craighansen]

I don't believe half of what my government tells me.

Which half?

Re:Yeah

[TeknoHog]

Well, my government can grab the bottom half of your government and be proud of it, so nyah nyah nyah!

Re:Yeah

[Areyoukiddingme]

No harmful health effects at all. None. I mean, you will eventually get cancer but LOOK AT THE FUNNY MONKEY!

Trump was elected for a reason.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps they are his neighbours kids?
And he somehow simply forgot ...

TSA response

[Anonymous Coward]

... the event of a dirty bomb ...

I remember the TSA discovering 1 person might die from radiation (yes, that was the projected death toll) and going ape-shit with "OMG! We have to do something". To be fair, not much different from their job of shouting "Look, terrorist! We have to do something". My thoughts were "Stop the initial explosion, then this (and the associated immediate deaths) won't be a problem".

We're all going to die!

[nospam007]

Trump will start the nukes!

Fuck Trump and his crony appointments

[Anonymous Coward]

So concerned with sabotaging everything Obama did he doesn't care about killing more Americans. FUCK Trump, FUCK Republican faggots in love with him, and FUCK the god damn retarded EPA administrator.

The agency is still there and doing SOMETHING

[Cajun Hell]

You're still paying for the EPA, and they are still spending money on important things which I'm sure must be in the interests of the country. We know those things are important, because they're so sensitive.

Re:The agency is still there and doing SOMETHING

[deviated_prevert]

You're still paying for the EPA, and they are still spending money on important things which I'm sure must be in the interests of the country. We know those things are important, because they're so sensitive.

The morons look like they are trying to recreate a mem from episodes of Get Smart. When you are professional shill like Pruitt and you are appointed as a hatchet man you better not let your conversations be made public or the shit will hit the fan real quick. The actions and dealings of public servants in institutions like the EPA, the TSA, NASA, the CDC and the like should not be secrets they should be public record by law! We are moving towards a dictatorship and this is one of the first major steps in that direction. How government is dealing with issues that should be under continuous public debate and must be open to the public so the institution is directly responsible to the electors. This action simply goes to show that the muzzles of dictatorship is slowly being put in place.

When the moves to change the election process start by this obvious tyrant wantabee then perhaps some people will start to wake up and realize that the government of the US is in deep trouble. He has already hinted that this is in the works. Like Hitler said elect the NSDAP and you will never need to vote again. The republican party would be better served to formally split from these idiots and have a shadow leader appointed to expose their obvious moves toward a closed society.

this is how they decide safety levels

[strstr]

"some mutilation is ok, even if all it does is damage the DNA and children birthed to exposed individual."

they don't have a good way to track DNA damage. ones children can have defects in structures that only slightly changes them.

no radiation is safe radiation.

the republicans theory is their kids won't be as impacted and yours don't matter at all so who gives a shit how much radiation exposure happens.

https://www.trumpsweapon.com/

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, by the time they stop being kids, there's no longer any reason to keep them in the basement anymore. And by that point, the grief-stricken neighbors will have moved away and there will be new kids for your basement...

Yeah

[Greyfox]

No harmful health effects at all. None. I mean, you will eventually get cancer but LOOK AT THE FUNNY MONKEY!

Fear of Radiation kills more than the radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

The evacuation of Fukushima caused more secondary deaths than the radiation itself, and the Japanese government panicked and increased the evacuation area in the last minute. There are some that debate that the evacuation of Chernobyl also caused more damage than it prevented due to increased poverty and social stigma of evacuees, once you factor in the secondary impacts of these on health (the WHO reports cover some of this).

While you can argue the point for those two events, it is very well understood by analysts that for a dirty bomb event more than 95% of the damage and death will occur primarily from the fear and panic rather than the radiation itself. The typical radiation of dirty bomb scenarios in a city centre will at most impact a dozen or two people in closest proximity, but cause upwards of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damage due to panic and hasty evacuation and abandonment. There are a few analyses on dirty bomb scenarios available, if you are willing to look for them.

Political Bullshit!

[JimSadler]

Think about it. It is inevitable that some city gets a dirty bomb event. The financial consequences could destroy the national economy. From the federal government's point of view importance attaches to keeping the city, the insurance companies and the banks solvent. It matters little that the people die off early from all kinds of wretched diseases so they simply lie to keep the people functioning as they were before the event knowing that the deaths and losses will occur over decades and be less of a hazard to the system as a whole. If you don't believe the government would do that look at Puerto Rico and the US virgin Islands today. These people are being murdered by an absurd type of relief effort. Puerto Rico already had a huge problem. The nation is bankrupt and has been disallowed declaration of bankruptcy by the US courts. In order to pay their huge debt these people would be severely taxed and they are poor to begin with. As they are US citizens and fully able to migrate into the US proper any sane Puerto Rican would come to the mainland leaving less and less Puerto Ricans to pay the billions in debt. Now on top of that we have a hurricane that destroyed the nation. So they need many more billions to get up and running. That means huge taxes so why the heck would anyone stay in Puerto Rico? Obviously bankruptcy is one very good answer. Or simply abandon the island and have everyone come to the US. Meanwhile the US almost seems to be setting them up for mass executions by a very slow and foolish relief effort. Frankly I like Puerto Rican people. They are colorful, vibrant and generally hard working. I have also found them to be quite polite and humble. we could learn a lot from these good people.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[PPH]

If you keep someone in there for dozens of years

Keep him there? We can't get him to leave.

Sorry, I don't get your point

[rsilvergun]

what does this have to do with anything? I don't recall either party saying much about air port x-rays except maybe some more research should be done. Am I just missing something? Both parties pushed for more x-raying in the wake of 9/11 anyway.

Theres some suprisingly informed discussion here

[Jarwulf]

among the kneejerk 'hur durr Trump sux' comments.

No laws left

[Anonymous Coward]

What to do when CIA/NSA are spying on it's own citizens illegal? Well just change the law to make it legal!

What to do when the EPA is worried about being held accountable for radiation levels? Well just change the safety limits!

So......

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

How's life in the hypocrite lane?

Re: So......

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

This behavior is why people remain anonymous. If all you can do is call someone out by name and creep their profile, you add nothing to the conversation or culture. Slashdot is an insular playground for old nerds.

You do realize that BitZtream's own anonymity is what allows him to be what I call a "serial abuser" on Slashdot, don't you?

Let's review how BitZtream typically operates, ultimately revealing his own hypocrisy, shall we?

• - BitZtream reads a story or comment that somehow disagrees with his point of view or opinion.
• - Rather than voice his arguments in a civilized manner, BitZtream lashes out from his first reply, typically with profanities and/or insults, rejecting others' arguments rather than entertain the possibility of said arguments being logical or valid; he usually does this by belittling others to give weight to his arguments.
• - Someone calls him out on his abuse, and/or has the audacity to challenge his arguments, or provide alternative opinions of their own.
• - Feeling butthurt, BitZtream either continues his abusive streak, or calls for these people to "man up" and reveal themselves by using their account, seemingly ignorant to the fact his own account doesn't reveal anything about himself either (no more than the majority of accounts on Slashdot). He continues this streak until he "gets the last word".

(And yes, I fully realize that my nick is just as "anonymous", and as you'll observe from its name, that's the whole point. )

Judging from other replies to his posts, it's clear I'm not the only one that noted his repetitive abuse.

You claim my posts "add nothing to the conversation" - you're certainly entitled to think so, however I believe that pointing out his repeated abuse towards others adds value by bringing awareness of it to others, so they know that his posts, especially how he posts them, also "add nothing to the conversation".

And, of course, you should feel free to "report" my posts if you wish; however I'd expect you to also report any similar posts by any other member you see being abusive - you shouldn't let your dislike of my posts blind you to the abuse that prompted them (that is to say: don't be a hypocrite yourself).

Which Industry did this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the profit angle here, given that's the only thing that determines the policy-making in washington right now?

Is it power companies looking to build "budget" reactors near major cities without expensive shielding or contamination protections?
Have "security" equipment-makers managed to get some law enforcement contracts to x-ray everybody all the time as long as possible?
Or is it medical manufacturers who've decided that there simply isn't enough cancer these days?

Re: Fear of Radiation kills more than the radiatio

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one stupid retarded psychopath!

I am a radiation worker

[Anonymous Coward]

...and federal law limits my exposure to 5 rem per year. Nobody I know comes close to that in a year, although I know several people with lifetime does in excess of 20 rem.

The biggest dose I've personally taken is close to 100 mrem over the course of a week. Most weeks aren't like that.

Anything That Doesn't Kill Me

[seven of five]

Only makes me stronger.

Signed, Bruce Banner

oblig xkcd

[Anonymous Coward]

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

X-rays are super cheap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wait? Since it's safe, surely they'll have no problem submitting to thousands of chest x-rays right now.

Well, at least their health insurance will cover 1,000 chest x-rays.

The crippling cost you see when you have a chest x-ray done as part of a diagnostic imaging study of a live person is only a small part amortization of the cost of the equipment. You're also paying the x-ray techs' salaries, the radiologists' salaries who interpret the results, the film or nowadays, the imaging hardware and software that has largely (though not entirely,) replaced the old film... just having or making an x-ray source and being blasted with it would be MUCH cheaper than having to go through the rigamarole of having a medical clinic or hospital do it for you.

But it IS like you said... but in reality, it's the cost of treating all the cases of cancer that would naturally arise from getting blasted with all that hard radiation, that they've got covered as members of Congress, etc.

we wouldn't do what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

... we would deploy troops at the border and shoot at the refuges trying to flee to the US. Before you moderate this down, the Texas police and national guard this exactly this during Katerina where they refused to allow Americans into Texas from Louisiana. Google it.

Thank you EPA

[volodymyrbiryuk]

Now I can finally go spear fishing in the Chernobyl basin.

Unless it's in your basement...

[Anonymous Coward]

Elevated radiation is just fine, unless it's in your basement, in which case you must be willing to spend whatever it takes to reduce the level to an impossibly low level, to support the Radon Mitigation Lobby.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[thegarbz]

Wait a second, just how long did you keep your kids in the basement? If you keep someone in there for dozens of years then they definitely aren't kids any more...

24 years.

And you're a bad person

Pfft you sound like my jury. I'm not all bad. I even left 3 of her newborn children down there with her to keep her company.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[HiThere]

I'm reasoning this out from first principles here, so if anyone has actual knowledge, I presume they'll correct me.

It's not that simple. Acute exposure isn't entirely different from chronic exposure, there are large areas of overlap at low levels of total dose. E.g., induced single mutations happen in both, and can lead to cancer from either.

There is some sense in which acute exposure is less damaging for a given (low) amount of total radiation. e.g. it's more likely to kill a cell by inducing multiple mutations. And, of course, multiple mutations in different cells are more likely to overwhelm the immune system in the case of acute exposure...but at low levels one would expect multiple mutations to be common even with acute exposure.

Lets let atheism solve this tricky problem

[Anonymous Coward]

As a devote atheist, I want to spread the gospel of atheism to my fellow humans that are not enlightened like us atheists.

We need to increase the radiation levels around the planet to the extent that an an average human being on the planet is exposed to 50 rems per day. That may make people sick, but thanks to evolution, the weaker population dies out, or at least stops breeding. This process is called evolution, and needs to happen. Creationism is a myth perpetuated by lazy individuals who refuse to evolve an immunity to ionizing radiation. They insist that all life is sacred.

We need to government to once again start putting small quantities of healthful radium in our tap and bottled water.

Once people develop a natural immunity to ionizing radiation thanks to the miracle of evolution, we can start powering our airplanes with nuclear reactors, and thus cut down on toxic CO2 pollution.

nuclear war

[Anonymous Coward]

this is in preparation for a nuclear war

Rep EPA, remember ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reps believe government lies to them, so they elect representatives that do.

Re:NO RADON INSPECTION REQUIRED ?

[david_thornley]

Not to mention that alpha particles are destructive but have essentially no penetration. An alpha emitter near your hand isn't doing nearly as much damage as an alpha emitter in your lungs, which is where radon goes.

Question to EPA

[LifesABeach]

Are you willing to bet your life of it?

you are a cunt

[Anonymous Coward]

a slimy sneaky cunt