Slashdot Mirror
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You lefties are pro science, right?
From the PDF:
What does a physics lab have to say on the topic?
http://sbhepnt.physics.sunysb.edu/~rijssenbeek/RadiationSafety.html
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!
See that "Preview" button?
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.
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 :
Then you:
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.