100 mSv, 10000 mrem, acceptable risk, BEIR VII, Big Lie, cancer, cancer risks, Chemicals, Confuse and Deceive, distortion, Ed Calabrese, excess cancer deaths radiaton, excess cancer risks, excess cancer risks ionizing radiation, exposure to ionizing radiation, health effects, Hormesis, Koch Brothers, Linear No Threshold Model, LNT, low dose radiation, low level radiation risk, NAS, National Academy of Sciences, no safe dose of radiation, Nuclear cleanup, nuclear energy, nuclear power, nuclear worker cancer, nuclear worker cohort, nuclear workers, peer review, pollution, propaganda, public exposure nuclear effluents, S.A.R.I., SARI, scientific consensus, scientific method, T D Luckey, TI, time period exposure, tobacco industry, Tobacco Institute, tobacco lobby, U. Mass Amherst, unsubstantiated claims, US
Comment to EPA here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259
A Forbes author suggested on Monday that everyone read the EPA draft. Better to believe the 985 scientists, as well as the Trump-Pruitt track record. The 985 scientists address some of the lies: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/nearly-1000-scientists-tell-trump-pruitt-epa-dont-restrict-epas-ability-to-rely-on-science-comment-by-may-30th
It is important to know that the US FDA allows more radiation in US food than any other country in the world, among those with limits. Clean air and water are even more critically needed, so that some people will still be spared life-shortening cancers.
Here is a big lie deception in the EPA document, probably the most important one: “there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects“. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0006
[Update note – linearity, in this context, means increased dose leads to increased risk. Their underlying non-linearity argument is that there is some safe dose of pollutants.]
It doesn’t say which…
View original post 1,198 more words