More Radiation Exposure Won't Hurt You, Says U.S. EPA

[unhappycamper]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/57356/more-radiation-exposure-wont-hurt-you-says-u-s-epa

“Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations” means what?

More Radiation Exposure Won't Hurt You, Says U.S. EPA
by William Boardman | August 4, 2014 - 8:57am

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States is a full blown oxymoron when it comes to protecting U.S. residents from the danger of increased exposure to ionizing radiation. That’s the kind of radiation that comes from natural sources like Uranium and the sun, as well as unnatural sources like uranium mines, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power plants (even when they haven’t melted down like Fukushima). The EPA is presently considering allowing everyone in the U.S. to be exposed to higher levels of ionizing radiation.

In 1977, the EPA established levels of radiation exposure “considered safe” for people by federal rule (in bureaucratese, “the regulation at 40 CFR part 190”). In the language of the rule, the 1977 safety standards were: “The standards [that] specify the levels below which normal operations of the uranium fuel cycle are determined to be environmentally acceptable.” In common parlance, this became the level “considered safe,” even though that’s very different from “environmentally acceptable.” Acceptable by whom? The environment has no vote.

The phrase “considered safe” is key to the issue, since there is no “actually safe” level of radiation exposure. The planet was once naturally radioactive and lifeless. Life emerged only after Earth’s radiation levels decayed to the point where life became possible, in spite of a continuing level of natural “background radiation.” The reality is that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

In January 2014, the EPA issued a very long proposal (in bureaucratese, an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”) to consider raising the “safe” radiation levels established in 1977. According to the EPA, the proposal “does not propose revisions to the current regulation, but is being issued only to collect information to support EPA’s review.” The public comment period on the EPA proposal ­– titled “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations” – has been extended to August 4, 2014.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Pernicious nonsense!

[htuttle]

7. LOL

Beat me to it.

[Mnemosyne]

2. Not until you have bio-accumulated enough, then - pow. nt

[NickB79]

3. They had me ROFLing with this line

The phrase “considered safe” is key to the issue, since there is no “actually safe” level of radiation exposure. The planet was once naturally radioactive and lifeless. Life emerged only after Earth’s radiation levels decayed to the point where life became possible, in spite of a continuing level of natural “background radiation.” The reality is that there is no “safe” level of radiation exposure.

Life evolved almost as soon as the planet was able to sustain liquid water. The amount of background radiation had absolutely ZIP to do with it.

[The Traveler]

4. Just out of curiosity

what WAS the background radiation level at that time? You are implying those levels were fairly high.

A high level of background radiation could also imply a higher mutation rate ... which is bad for most of the mutated individual critters but could have resulted in an acceleration of evolutionary processes.

Radiation ... good for evolution but bad for us peeps?

Trav

[NickB79]

5. The worst radiation the early Earth experienced was from UV

There was no ozone layer for over a billion years after life evolved. Water protected the early species from this, for the most part.

And the OP's article was the one to imply it was quite a bit higher than today (which is probably true); I was pointing out that there was no way that life was inhibited by it until it decayed to lower levels, given the long half-lives most naturally occurring radioactive elements have. The only limiting factor for life to take hold appears to be liquid water, not radiation.

[caraher]

6. Weird take on what EPA actually did

I skimmed through the EPA call for comments and didn't see any hint that they were implying "More Radiation Exposure Won't Hurt You." They note that standards should be reviewed periodically (as was intended from the start) and updated to reflect advances in scientific knowledge and the expectations for the nuclear industry. There were several areas, such as monitoring groundwater near nuclear plants, where if anything the suggestion is that tighter regulations will be likely.