cancer, Chernobyl, clean water, Clean water compliance, corruption, dangers of nuclear, drinking water, environment, Fukushima, killing their own, NRC, nuclear, nuclear accident, nuclear disaster, nuclear energy, nuclear industry, nuclear power, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, plutonium, radiation in water, radioactive waste, radionuclides in water, risk management, US DOE, US EPA, US NRC, USA, water, water contamination, water pollution, WIPP
The US EPA proposes to increase the amount of radionuclides allowed in drinking water in the event of a nuclear accident or other radiological emergency, despite the warning of health impacts in the US EPA’s own “Radionuclides in Drinking Water: A Small Entity Compliance Guide“, p. 3:
Although the US EPA appears to be trying to get comments while many are on vacation, summer-time is not a bad time to remind people that they need to drink water. You can do without food for extended periods but without water you die. In the heat you need more water. And, who wants to drink radioactive water? And, yet, that’s what the EPA has planned. Instead of taking nuclear and environmental safety seriously, the US government wants Americans to drink radioactive water and eat highly contaminated food. They call it PAG, protective action guide, but it’s NON-protective action guidelines which endanger health and the environment. The only protection is for the bottom line of the nuclear industry. For government clean-up sites, it allows the contractors to do a less thorough job, probably for the same price. The taxpayer, families, and society will all pay dearly for the additional cancers, along individuals.
Clean water guidelines were the only protection which Americans had left. The US FDA already allows 15 times more radiation in food than Japan does in non-emergency situations.
Comment here https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268 on “Guide for Drinking Water after a Radiological Incident Due Jul 25, 2016 11:59 PM ET 06/10/2016 ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268
Based on a government funded study of nuclear workers, published last October, risk from radiation exposure may be estimated as around 15 times worse than even BEIR VII thought, perhaps even higher. This means that there will be around 15 excess cancers per 100 mSv per one hundred people. Around half will die, on average at around retirement – what BEIR calls life-shortening cancers (average life expectancy of 14 to 15 yrs): https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/another-look-at-the-recent-low-dose-radiation-exposure-study-inworks/
What are some tricks to look for when examining the docket? From what we know of the food exposure tricks, the exposure is probably even higher than they claim is proposed. For radiation in food they assume that people eat significantly less than they do; they sometimes use outdated dose coefficients (which estimate risk for specific radionuclides); they do not include all radionuclides and not even all major ones; and they assume that only a small percentage of food is contaminated. Europe just passed a new law assuming only 10% of food intake will be contaminated, for instance. This must be for an accident outside of Europe. But, an accident in Europe is imminent too. With support from the USNRC and US ORNL, the French operator of Belgium reactors put 2 nuclear reactors full of around 8000 defects in their pressure vessels back into operation. The US won’t even require ultrasonic testing of their own nuclear reactors. Most discussions of radionuclides in water exclude the majority of radionuclides on the US EPA list. The current, non-emergency, amount allowed for radionuclides in water is supposed to be for all combined and not just one or two (See bottom of this post, below comments).
While we try to find the answers to these questions, in the context of this docket, we invite you to read four short comments posted to the docket.
Mr. Hughes, author of the fourth comment below wonders: “Why do you hate me, why do you hate the people who live in my city, why do you hate Americans?” Why does the US Government Hate Its Own People So Much?
Four of the Comments submitted by the public:
Tracking Number: 1jx-85cp-wvh0
It is your job to protect human health not the lead-lined pockets of the nuclear industry. Citizens are already burdened with subsidizing the nuclear industry via government funded research and development grants, tax incentives to the industry, and increased utility costs designed to off-set the construction of new nuclear power plants that we do NOT want to begin with. Now, you intend to preemptively approve poisoning of our drinking water. Such a move will certainly provide protection. Should a disastrous nuclear accident occur such regulations would protect nuclear corporations from a number of law suits. That potential regulations have been proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, which would shield a corporation from legal action at the expense of human health, is testament to the lack of honor, integrity, and decency in our government agencies today. Please, urge whoever conceived of this ridiculous lowering of standards to submit his/her resignation and register as a nuclear lobbyist.” https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268-0026
Tracking Number: 1k0-8qcm-bkm9
There is no legitimate reason for the EPA to up the minimal safe requirement for human exposure to radionuclides. EPA has already done this after Fukushima blew in March 2011! Now why is EPA again planning to increase the amount of radiation that is safe for humans? EPA is supposed to protect the health of US citizens. Instead it shills for industry. I, and hundreds of other citizens, demand that EPA start protecting our health instead of protecting, in this case, the declining nuclear power industry. This plan is a gigantic farce and gigantically illegitimate.
Bottom line: There is NO radiation, no matter how minimal, that is safe for human exposure. This fact has been established already by doctors of medicine. It was established before Fukushima’s 3 reactors melted down and the Daiichi nuclear plants are pouring 800,000 gallons of radioactive ‘cooling’ water into the Pacific ocean off their shores. Nor, does the US protect us against fish and seafood caught off Japan’s shores: such exports from Japan are allowed!”
Tracking Number: 1k0-8qc9-x1tx
Do not raise the radiation limits in water! Why do you want to kill fellow Americans? Why do you want to kill me and my family? https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268-0230
Tracking Number: 1jx-85pq-4kz6
F— you for weaking protections on radiation and having the rules go into effect before the end of the comment period. It is really disgusting at a time like this with Fukushima you guys are trying to put in worse rules than Bush did at the end of his term. Why do you hate me, why do you hate the people who live in my city, why do you hate Americans? https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268-0045 (Emphasis added to the comments, originals found at the links.)
US EPA Normal Rules, NOT Proposed PAG Rule, which show how many radionuclides are supposed to be considered is found below. Normally they pretend that there is only one, when giving the amount allowed. Excerpts from:”Radionuclides in Drinking Water: A Small Entity Compliance Guide” https://web.archive.org/web/20151014190302/http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/compliance-radionuclidesindw.pdf
IF THEY DO FILTER IT ONE HAS TO BE SURE THAT THEY DON’T DO LAND APPLICATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE SLUDGE AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO IN SOME PLACES WITH HIGH LEVELS OF URANIUM IN WATER. THEY APPLY IT TO THE LAND SO IT CAN GET INTO THE FOOD WHERE HIGHER LEVELS OF RADIATION ARE ALLOWED. FOR ISL URANIUM MINING THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO LAND APPLICATION OF RADIUM WHICH IS LEFT WHEN THEY TAKE THE URANIUM.