EPA Relaxes Public Health Guidelines For Radiological Attacks, Accidents

[bananas]

Source: NextGov

After years of internal deliberation and controversy, the Obama administration has issued a document suggesting that when dealing with the aftermath of an accident or attack involving radioactive materials, public health guidelines can be made thousands of times less stringent than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would normally allow.

<snip>

“This is public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace,” Jeff Ruch, executive director for the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said in a statement Monday, referring to Peter Sellers’ character in the Stanley Kubrick film of the same name.

Along with other activists, Ruch laid the blame for the document’s perceived shortcomings on Gina McCarthy, the EPA air and radiation chief who is scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday regarding her nomination to become the agency’s next administrator. “If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” Ruch said.

<snip>

However, while the new guide will be subject to a 90-day public comment period once it formally is published in the Federal Register, it has been labeled for “interim use,” meaning it is effective immediately.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.nextgov.com/health/2013/04/epa-relaxes-public-health-guidelines-radiological-attacks-accidents/62381/?oref=ng-dropdown

[OnyxCollie]

1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[woo me with science]

47. It's impossible to make it up anymore, isn't it?

All the stuff we used to use as hyperbole to imagine how bad the corporate infiltration could possibly get, are *actual* Democratic proposals now.

You can't parody the betrayals anymore. They're all REAL.

[FBaggins]

49. Apparently not

Since "making it up" is exactly what they're doing.

[woo me with science]

50. ...

..............

[JDPriestly]

2. Wow! Fukushima must be hitting the West Coast worse than any of us thought possible.

They are not suggesting these changes without a reason. That is frightening for those of us who live on the West Coast and have children and grandchildren here.

[Octafish]

38. Tried to tell everybody...

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="blue"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area. [/font color]

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf

TEPCO: Plutonium is not dangerous. Where's the Boss?

PSA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=145466

[Journeyman]

3. Wonder what they expect to happen. Absent any rhyme, there's no reason for these changes. . .

[newthinking]

5. It's a new age... one of mediocrity and corruption

We can relax our expectations.. hey, China does? Why not us?

[newthinking]

4. Funny, nuclear threats have always been there... but somehow

we did not feel such a need to reduce the requirements.

Why now? What has changed? Maybe the power structure?

[stuffmatters]

6. Thousands of times less stringent...WOW

It's incomprehensible. The only strategic reasons for this apparent caving of radiation standards by Obama EPA I can think of:

1) Yes, Fukishima "drift" & Japan is joining the Trans Pacific Partnership.

2) So many of our nuclear power plants are past their expiration date & no longer safe...even, like San Onofre here, leaking w/out remedy

3) That cold war nuclear waste dump in Washington State lately reported as increasingly dangerous

4) Michael Chertoff's TSA airport xray cancers might start manifesting

[newfie11]

7. Well this will solve the Medicare SS problem

What's a little innocent radiation gonna hurt....

[midnight]

37. Ann Coulter: Radiation Is Good for You

[Buzz Clik]

8. Before anyone comments further, I strongly suggest clicking the link and reading the entire article.

That's a damned irresponsible OP. The selective nature of the quotes was ridiculously biased and designed to create unneeded concern.

I dare the author of the OP to justify such bullshit.

[Javaman]

11. Okay, I read it.

yes, there is a 90 day window for the public to propose changed to the guidelines, but it still appears to me that the new guideline changes as proposed by the EPA are pretty damn harsh. And yes, I will be adding my voice to prevent those changes from happening.

And no I do not believe the OP was wrong in posting the original portions of the article nor was the OP irresponsible.

The new guideline proposals reads as if it will be a myriad of double talk and watered down rules, mixed in with vague references complicated by poor indexing and referencing. And confusing the concept of a dirty bomb as a opposed to a nuclear bomb.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Here are critical portions totally missing from the OP or any subsequent discussion:

Agency officials had tried to issue the protective action guide during the final days of the Bush administration in January 2009, but the incoming Obama camp ultimately blocked its publication in part due to concerns that it included guidelines suggesting people could drink water contaminated at levels thousands of times above what the agency would typically permit.

The new version of the guide released Friday does not include such dramatically relaxed guidelines its text, but directs the reader to similar recommendations made by other federal agencies and international organizations in various documents. It suggests that they might be worth considering in circumstances where complying with its own enforceable drinking water regulations is deemed impractical.


Such circumstances could include the months – and possibly years – following a “dirty bomb” attack, a nuclear weapons explosion or an accident at a nuclear power plant, according to the guide, a nonbinding document intended to prepare federal, state and local officials for responding to such events.

For example, the new EPA guide refers to International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines that suggest intervention is not necessary until drinking water is contaminated with radioactive iodine 131 at a concentration of 81,000 picocuries per liter. This is 27,000 times less (sic) stringent than the EPA rule of 3 picocuries per liter.

<snip>

In a statement to Global Security Newswire, EPA spokeswoman Julia Valentine said the new document does not propose specific drinking water guidelines, but rather seeks comment on what guidelines are appropriate. “The agency would like to hear from state and local partners on this issue and is seeking input from states and local authorities as it considers the appropriateness of, and possible values of, a drinking water PAG,” she said.

This is the same bullshit -- only worse -- that DU does with every issue. Someone starts a rumor of what MIGHT happen if certain things fall into place, and we spend an incredible amount of time working ourselves into a frenzy and getting outraged over absolutely nothing.

Irresponsible doesn't even begin to describe the OP!

[Javaman]

19. So basically...

it's proposed guidelines that have yet to be determined.

So my question is: if the current guidelines are working then why the need to change them?

I still don't see the irresponsibility you claim the OP shows?

The guidelines will be changed, to what, no one knows and it's up to us to make sure they are maintained to a high standard.

So while the OP might have chosen parts of the article that may appear alarmist, those parts are still in the article and also need serious consideration.

Of course it's what MIGHT happen as you wrote, but that's enough for me to get my eyes on this issue and explore it more. Isn't that a good thing? And if there is a small amount of people that only read the OP as their only source of the information, in regards to this topic, and not read the entire article, I seriously doubt their outrage will go no farther than DU.

I read it, digested it, and thought about it. And I still find no issue with the OP other than them being concerned about our health in the event of some horrible event that causes our water to be contaminated and the standards by which the EPA determines it's safety.

It got people to read the article did it not?

[Buzz Clik]

20. We read the same text and came to totally different conclusions.

You read it and translate it to mean that the guidelines are fully established to ensure that our collective health will be at risk.

I read it as a work in progress. I've been part of this process, and it is not anywhere near completion.

[Javaman]

23. Um what??

In my very first line of my previous post I wrote...

"it's proposed guidelines that have yet to be determined."

How the hell did you misconstrue that to be "You read it and translate it to mean that the guidelines are fully established to ensure that our collective health will be at risk."



We, are as they say, done.

and besides, as Forestpath points out from the article...

Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California-Santa Cruz who led a coalition of some 60 watchdog groups against the Bush-era incarnation of the EPA guide, argued the Obama guide is worse than the Bush document"

and you consider that "innuendo"?

Get back to me when you are a nuclear policy lecturer at any University and who leads a single watchdog groups let alone 60.

Wow.

Yes, we are most certainly done.

You may now have the last word because that appears to be your mission.

[sikofit3]

25. Fracking!

This is about fracking and probably also the Japanese nuclear reactor meltdown...... the shit is about to hit the fan

[Buzz Clik]

26. Fracking? Do tell.

[sikofit3]

33. Well

Well I suspect with the contamination aquifers, more than we will currently know, with not only fracking chemicals but with the NORMs - natural occurring radiation materials is a game changer. If large cities have over the levels of these compounds they are going to have to change the limits or millions of peoples water would be deemed unsafe for drinking under current regulations and since they don't know really what the damage is going to be, they need un-limitless room to change those standards. The Underground injection wells are also not only for waste water from fracking but pharmaceutical and other chemical companies also inject waste into the ground next to our drinking water sources and they are leaking. It is a hidden truth and not only are we in danger from low levels of available water from droughts and population increases but also from contaminating the water we have left as unfit for consumption. The only way that we will have available water for anything is to change standards like they are imposing. It is terrifying that they would rather do this than regulate these industries.

[Buzz Clik]

34. I don't think this has anything to do with fracking or pharmaceuticals.

If you actually read the article, you'll see that the context is pretty clearly defined.

[sikofit3]

36. Yes

You are correct, just a knee jerk reaction on my part. I did go back and read it and the context is clear. I appreciate that because this is why I like DU, we keep each other honest and on topic, would be nice if we had that within our government cause there seems to be no checks and balances at all anymore!

[Mnemosyne]

9. "a recipe for absolute mayhem in the midst of an emergency". And it will allow spreading the waste

to regular landfills. Sounds as if they are following the Tepco model, spread it around.

A couple of weeks after Fukushima, our gov decided to cut access to the Western states monitors. I remember when they did it. Haven't checked recently to see if there is access now, but it was definitely not there for awhile after Fukushima.

I just checked, radnet is back on.

They know what is coming, another reason single payer is not happening, too much money to be made over the coming years.

[on point]

10. The standards are in place until we actually need them. DISGUSTING !

[forestpath]

12. Sure feels like Bush is still president.

[Buzz Clik]

17. That's because you were intentionally misled by the OP.

[forestpath]

18. Bullshit. You're the one doing the intentional misleading. Tell it to this guy:

However, while the new guide will be subject to a 90-day public comment period once it formally is published in the Federal Register, it has been labeled for “interim use,” meaning it is effective immediately.

Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California-Santa Cruz who led a coalition of some 60 watchdog groups against the Bush-era incarnation of the EPA guide, argued the Obama guide is worse than the Bush document in not only ultimately referencing many of the same controversial recommendations, but by forcing the reader to dig through a myriad of other documents to find them.

“What I find particularly tragic is, because it is so corrupt, it now is a useless document,” Hirsch told GSN. “If you have an emergency, you want to go to a protective action guide, look up tables, and know what you’re supposed to do.”

In Hirsch’s view, McCarthy, along with acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe, “moved the most horrible stuff into references” so that “they could somehow claim that it is not identical to the Bush-era PAG.”

The new 86-page guide’s reliance on other documents is “a recipe for absolute mayhem in the midst of an emergency,” Hirsch said. “And that’s because of politics.”

[Buzz Clik]

21. And there isn't a single fact to back up those extreme opinions.

It's all innuendo with the sole purpose of inflaming and instilling fear.

I call bullshit on all of it; basically because this is where the hard-left of the US environmental movement now resides. They have abandoned reason and science and replaced it with abject fear.

[brentspeak]

35. Sounds like you'd be more comfortable over at Free Republic

More your type.

[newfie11]

22. Exactly

Thanks for posting that

[Myrina]

13. Smaller government at work ...

Marvelous.

[Sunlei]

14. where are the records of radiation readings published?

all those Gov employees they must take readings off roadsides to storage mountians, around power plants and along the coastlines, water and air. Even milk, raw foods in grocery stores should be checked.

There is no public website with a daily report?

[Buzz Clik]

16. Have you looked?

[newfie11]

24. I have

But if there is I must not have looked in the right place. Do you have a link? I would love to have it.

[Sunlei]

41. yes, I see there are some EPA? stationary stations in spots across America.

They shut the pubic daily reports OFF when Japans radiation was mixed in the rain right after the disaster. remember several youtubes of leaves across america where rain drops killed the leaves.

There is noone, no place doing things like go into a grocery store and scan milk and produce for radiation. At random along roadsides to all the storage sites.

I priced geiger counters, decent ones are about 300 dollars. Be pretty cool if a group would start that randomly checked products like milk and reported.

[darkangel218]

27. Okay. Where are now those who were saying getting a radiation detector was a silly idea??

Nevermind.

[FBaggins]

31. Right here.

And if you're getting it becuse you're worried about radiation from Fukushima two years later (or to check a car that you purchased that was made in Japan)... it's STILL a nutty idea

And somehow you think that a proposal to change guidelines to what the health physics specialists have been advising for years changes that because some anti-nuke shill wants you to believe that it's dangerous and dramatically mischaracterizes the proposal?

[Sunlei]

45. I'm not going to buy one, I can't afford it.. Our Gov should be checking the food supply daily.

The leaves that were damaged from the rain, grew back.

Instead of preventing cancers by condeming products like milk untill the milk is clear. We can do it the backasswards American way. Wait untill the rate of thyroid cancer skyrockets. Be great future mega-profits- for 'for private profit' corporations who use our federal funds to treat people under our welfare/medicare/medicade system.

[byeya]

28. What's with Obama's EPA? It looks like EPA vs the Environment instead of the EPA

helping to keep the environment intact for the next generation.

[darkangel218]

29. Japan did the same after Fukushima. They upped the "safe limits " thousands of times.

The easiest way to deal with the problem

[FBaggins]

32. Nope.

What an active imagination you seem to have.

Makes you easy prey for those who would take advantage of irrational paranoia.

[Octafish]

39. No imagination needed. It's a fact in Japan and the U.S.A.: 'Safe Exposure' levels reduced.

Japan.

and

USA.

And that was 2011. Since then, the safety regs have gotten even more industry friendly.

[FBaggins]

40. So what you're saying is...

When you divide 250 by 100 you get "thousands of times" ?

And that was 2011. Since then, the safety regs have gotten even more industry friendly.

Not really. They're getting more reality friendly. It doesn't make sense to legislate mandatory short-term decisions based on long-term standards.

For instance... the EPA's arsenic standard for drinking water is one part per hundred million. That's not because consuming 1,000 times that level in a glass of water would be dangerous. It's because consuming many times that level all year long for many years would be potentially dangerous. So they set the standard for ongoing contamination by arsenic very low (and then make exceptions where appropriate).

But the question then arises... "what if there's an arsenic spill into a river that supplies our water - and for a week or two the levels will be WAY above the EPA standard (say... 100-times higher)?" At what point do we mandate turning off the water supply and forcing people to evacuate of bring in bottled water?

Well... drinking that water for a week or two simply isn't a danger... so it makes sense to have a higher standard for emergencies.

In the case of a radiation event this means that fewer people would feel the need to race away from an exposure that doesn't increase their risk appreciably... so that the people who DO need to evacuate can be focused on.

Health physics professionals (not the industry) have been recommending this for decades.

[Octafish]

42. Let me be more direct...

Got a link for any of that?

[FBaggins]

44. For which?

Most of the post is either statements of fact or explanation of the proposed changes.

darkangel claimed that they upped the safety limits by "several thousands times" and I corrected the statement. You claimed it was a fact and then backed it up with one link that said that a limit of 100 was raised to 250. I pointed out that 250/100 is not "several thousand". Do you need a link for that?

I tried to put the change in terms that more people would understand, but I don't know what link you could ask for. Surely you can google the EPAs drinking water standards for yourself?

You could also benefit from reviewing the actual proposed changes (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/pags.html) rather than take an activist's spin as absolute truth.

[Octafish]

55. No. The fact is the EPA is raising the threshold of what it considers 'safe' exposure to radiation.

My point is that they changed that threshold shortly after Fukushima started spewing radiation into the environment in 2011.

Why do you need to allege I wrote something else to make your point?

[greatlaurel]

30. This is a very bad idea.

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

As a retired environmental inspector with some experience with federal rad sites, it is my opinion that this proposal is a bad idea and a nightmare for every citizen in the US. It means that if there is an accident, you will not be compensated for loss of property due to radioactive contamination as it will just be declared a "safe" level. My guess is that this change is greatly desired by the American nuclear power industry. As someone else stated, we have a bunch of very old nuclear power plants and a shocking number of other sites that have stored radioactive wastes, that are all ticking time bombs. Hanford is not the only site. The old nuclear enrichment facilities in Oak Ridge, Tenn, Paduca, KY and Portsmouth, Oh have thousands of casks of radioactive waste just sitting there with no where to go, for example. It is only a matter of time before one of these sites has a serious problem that will contaminate a wide swath of land.

Here is the link to USEPA radnet http://www.epa.gov/radnet/index.html. This is an easily accessed public data base collected by USEPA. It has a lot of useful info, but is really limited in areas monitored.

Exelon was a big BO supporter, so I am sure they are one of the backers of these changes, particularly based on their less than stellar records of leaks and spills. He has to pay back all his big campaign money suppliers somehow. Their home page is a real joke with the pictures of windmills, like they are really a renewable and safe energy supplier.

For the record, when Clinton ran, her policy on nuclear power was not to expand at all until the waste could be dealt with in a safe manner. This would have killed any nuclear expansion. She was far more progressive on environmental issues. Not perfect, but her platform was head and shoulders above any other candidate that had a chance in that election.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Welcome to DU

And for some odd reason San Onofre, up the road incidentally, came to mind.

[FiveGoodMen]

46. Obama administration ... suggesting ... health guidelines ... thousands of times less stringent

Obama administration ... suggesting ... health guidelines ... thousands of times less stringent
Obama administration ... suggesting ... health guidelines ... thousands of times less stringent
Obama administration ... suggesting ... health guidelines ... thousands of times less stringent

Wake up and smell the betrayal, America!

[FBaggins]

48. Or just recognize a lie when you see it.

The Obama administration did not create health guidelines that are thousands of times less stringent.

They (correctly) proposed guiding responders to treat chronic exposure differently from acute exposure. The underlying guidance that informs both is essentially unchanged.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. Are you taking that position based on the article?

"Agency officials had tried to issue the protective action guide during the final days of the Bush administration in January 2009, but the incoming Obama camp ultimately blocked its publication in part due to concerns that it included guidelines suggesting people could drink water contaminated at levels thousands of times above what the agency would typically permit.

The new version of the guide released Friday does not include such dramatically relaxed guidelines its text, but directs the reader to similar recommendations made by other federal agencies and international organizations in various documents. It suggests that they might be worth considering in circumstances where complying with its own enforceable drinking water regulations is deemed impractical.

Such circumstances could include the months – and possibly years – following a “dirty bomb” attack, a nuclear weapons explosion or an accident at a nuclear power plant, according to the guide, a nonbinding document intended to prepare federal, state and local officials for responding to such events.

For example, the new EPA guide refers to International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines that suggest intervention is not necessary until drinking water is contaminated with radioactive iodine 131 at a concentration of 81,000 picocuries per liter. This is 27,000 times less stringent than the EPA rule of 3 picocuries per liter."

Or have you got some other source?

[FBaggins]

52. No.

From reviewing the proposed changes and being aware of the proposal going back for many years.

This is a long time in coming... and if anything is more conservative than it needs to be.

[FiveGoodMen]

53. Well, I'll just have to take your word for that.

[FBaggins]

54. Not really.

Instead of taking the activists' spin on what's happening... you can look it up.

There has been a conflict for years between the guidlines that the EPA uses (say, for drinking water) and the guidelines other agencies use, because the EPA bases their limit on the assumption that you will be exposed to whatever it is on an ongoing basis all year long. So their limit for cesium in milk is based on a person drinking a certain amount of that milk every day all year long for a number of years.

But say there's a radiation release of Iodine 131 from a medical facility nearby. It's ten times the EPA limit, so the current guidelines would look like you have a problem. Except that I131 has a short half-life and it will all be gone within weeks. So you won't be exposed to it day-in and day-out all year long. But their guidelines weren't flexible enough to account for that.

It's really not a big deal. If a nuclear plant here failed and cesium was spread all around your neighborhood... that exposure would be ongoing and the EPA guideline would match other guidelines. The only change (again... the right thing to do) would be that they could better identify who to focus on evacuating. If your exposure is enough to exceed limits in a month... you don't need to be raced out on Day 1... they can ask you to stay indoors and evacuate you after the more exposed areas are taken care of.

[Sunlei]

56. all it will take to change this is one person with a counter and something VERY radioactive.

woah, will that be a viral youtube