Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 20, 2016 - 03:46pm PT
|
President Obama and the EPA are considering a proposal to massively increase the amount of radiation allowed in our drinking water -- up to THOUSANDS of times more than is currently allowed.
Here's more info:
https://secure.foodandwaterwatch.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2639&s_src=taf_sp&s_subsrc=071916&sp_ref=215812445.63.173224.e.547157.2&source=email
The letter I got:
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to allow more radiation in drinking water.
And it's not just a slight increase they're proposing. We're talking the equivalent of 250 chest x-rays a year!
We only have a short window of opportunity to stop this proposal, with comments due by Monday, July 25th. Send a message to the EPA: Do NOT increase the limits on radiation allowed in my drinking water!
The Safe Water Drinking Act was created to protect our public drinking water, including in the event of a disaster like the one in Fukushima or a “dirty bomb” emergency.
There's a reason that radiation limits were imposed in the first place — high levels of radiation are dangerous. And there is no justification for exposing people to high levels of radiation, emergency or not. For the EPA to consider higher amounts is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous.
This new proposal would force people to get the radiation equivalent of chest x-rays 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year for up to 4 years — with no informed consent — just from drinking water. That’s unacceptable.
Nobody should have to consume highly radioactive water, no matter the emergency.
The nuclear industry has been lobbying to increase this limit for a long time, but the EPA caving on this is perplexing. Our drinking water is way too valuable for EPA to give industry a free pass.
The EPA has already heard from the nuclear industry. Now they need to hear from you. Submit your public comment to the EPA today and tell them to withdraw the proposed increase in radiation levels.
Thanks for taking action,
Sarah Alexander
Deputy Organizing Director
Food & Water Watch
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 04:06pm PT
|
Petition submitted.
I infer the Nuclear Industry now accepts emergencies as an integral part of their business plan. This
needs to be disclosed in their promotional literature.
As I understand it the last operating power reactor in California is scheduled to be closed somewhere
around 2025. The industry may be hoping to reduce their liability associated with radioactive leaks
from closed facilities, such as were encountered with units 2 and 3 at San Onofre. As it is the cost of
closing is estimated to be 3.8B$
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diablo-canyon-nuclear-20160621-snap-story.html
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 05:25pm PT
|
I infer the Nuclear Industry now accepts emergencies as an integral part of their business plan
Well, yeah, at least since Three Mile Island and probably for decades before.
I remember taking an environmental science course in the 1960's that was all about the trade offs in the different forms of energy production.
Here's a company that is focused on serving those industries.
http://www.ene.com/Media/Default/RelatedDownloads/Emergency%20Preparedness%20for%20the%20Nuclear%20Industry2.pdf
And I don't think one dinky California nuclear plant is what this is about. It has dawned on folks that there is no way they can keep radiation out of water supplies dependent on the Columbia River (Hanford) and the Savannah River.
|
|
overwatch
climber
Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 06:45pm PT
|
It is probably already in there this is their way of covering their ass
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 06:46pm PT
|
It is .
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 08:50pm PT
|
In an emergency you're on your own.
If you think the gubmint has got your back, well.... that's funny.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 11:07pm PT
|
I don't understand what Obama has to do with this, other than create another fear-mongering headline just to grab attention to what the darkie is doing, now.
BTW, the radiation they are talking about is about the amount that you get from a single Cat Scan.
They are talking about emergencies, then talk about drinking for 4 years. What kind of an emergency is that??
For me, this sort of tactic has the opposite effect. I now support the proposal, and have so written.
Oh, and the primary purpose of this "petition" is to harvest your email for their use. Thanks!
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 05:26am PT
|
I don't understand what Obama has to do with this, other than create another fear-mongering headline just to grab attention to what the darkie is doing, now.
BTW, the radiation they are talking about is about the amount that you get from a single Cat Scan.
They are talking about emergencies, then talk about drinking for 4 years. What kind of an emergency is that??
Why change the regulations?
Could it be the nuclear power companies expect problems down road and want to get ahead of them?
|
|
HermitMaster
Social climber
my abode
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 05:56am PT
|
another fear-mongering headline just to grab attention to what the darkie is doing, now.
the "darkie"?
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 06:23am PT
|
Maybe this is part of our "lowering the costs of health care" plan.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 10:35am PT
|
Why change the regulations?
Could it be the nuclear power companies expect problems down road and want to get ahead of them?
Working in water policy to a degree, I know that when they set these levels, they do so very conservatively, particularly when there is no good data as to safety levels.
However, with time, safety data accumulates, allowing another look at the appropriateness of the levels stated in regulations.
Remember, this is for EMERGENCY use, not routine use.
Could it be the nuclear power companies? Sure. But that is speculation, not founded in any objective information. I don't even see that it is particularly beneficial to them.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2016 - 10:57am PT
|
For the record, I have always supported Obama as our president. Ken M, you are getting distracted about something that never occurred to me as an issue when I shared this. I think of the office, not the man. The idea here is to get there attention of the Office of President and the EPA.
Companies that have to pay the liabilities of a nuclear "emergency" will clearly benefit if they don't have to pay for water access for millions of people over a 4 year period. Any smart person is being disingenuous if they can't see the financial motive of the industry. That in itself is not bad, trying to reduce costs and be more efficient. But it gets ugly when that conflicts with human health (and the health of ecosystems dependent on the same water supply). The biggest concern for me is how this wiggle room in reduced liabilities would affect corporate decision-making for cost/safety trade-offs.
I can't validate the claim of "equivalent to 5 chest x-rays per week for 4 years" but that definitely is outside my comfort zone.
I do expect it is a fundamental duty of my country to enforce regulations that protect citizens from health, safety, and environmental risks that result from corporations trying to honor their reason for existence: to maximize profit. I don't think corporations are inherently evil, but I do think their sole reason for existence is sometimes at odds with what is good for society. We need something bigger that corps to manage those issues to keep our lives liveable. We're slowly losing that war because of corporations' relentless pursuit of profit while people get tired and lazy about protecting the things we cherish.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 11:51am PT
|
H20 is not radioactive and cannot be 'made' radioactive.
Drinking water can however transport radioactive elements. Untreated water from my 600' granite well is considered very "radioactive" from the Radon-222 dissolved therein. It's removed with a simple GAC filter which then collects the Radon and progeny of it's decay.
Water can also of course transport Tritium or Cesium or anyone of 100 other known radioactive elements in countless compounds from both human accidents or natural events.
The actual impact on human health then is highly variable depending on those pesky details of exactly what is in the water. To try and craft legislation on the mere "radioactivity" then of such contaminated water based on typical absorbed dose measurements is folly.
I'd rather drink 'hot' Radon water at 1mSv/hr than drink the same dose contaminated with Plutonium....
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2016 - 12:14pm PT
|
Ontheedgeandscared is correct... this is not a direct change in regulation to the nuclear industry. But it will have critical indirect effects.
Here is the immediate change being considered
(quoted from https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268-0210):
As part of its mission to protect human health and the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes protective action guides to help federal, state, local and tribal emergency response officials make radiation protection decisions during emergencies. EPA, in coordination with a multi-agency working group within the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee, is proposing an addition to the 2013 revised interim Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents (“2013 revised PAG Manual” hereafter) to provide guidance on drinking water. The Draft Protective Action Guide for Drinking Water is now available in the EPA Docket, under ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268, and EPA is requesting comment on the draft guide.
So that directly will set the baseline cost of the expected response to an emergency. That will be used in any subsequent legal battles for attempting to get companies to pay for the cost of cleaning up their disasters. If this "Protective Action Guideline" becomes less stringent, then the exposures/liabilities of the companies that trigger these emergency responses will be reduced. That will cause companies to make more bets that affect our health, and regardless of who pays the financial cost for it, more people are exposed to more contamination.
I don't want to split hairs over which radioactive isotopes of which elements that are present in the water are going to cause more damage- I just want that existing protections are not weakened unless mountains of unbiased science support the fact that they are unnecessary. Doesn't seem like that burden of proof has been met but I'm willing to change my mind with more data.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 12:32pm PT
|
The claim seems to be this is a "standard to" be set only for radiological emergencies.
"The PAG levels are guidance for emergency situations; they do not supplant any standards or regulations, nor do they affect the stringency or enforcement of any standards or regulations. The PAG levels are intended to be used only in an emergency when radiation levels have already exceeded environmental standards. EPA expects that any drinking water system adversely impacted during a radiation incident will take action to return to compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act levels as soon as practicable."
So say... president Hillary's neocon marching orders result in nuclear war. Elevated levels of hundreds of isotopes are raining down all around.
What are some guidelines about rough "exposure" we can get away with in a time of extreme peril. People have to drink or they die. So pool of 500mrem/hr or 1000mrem/hr...
Just my take on it. Seems reasonable to have guidelines in such an event.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2016 - 01:11pm PT
|
Another example threat to our water and food supply...
http://www.snopes.com/fruits-irrigated-fracking-wastewater/
There is a carefully crated statement from Chevron (former Texaco) along the lines of "all required tests are performed, no contaminants found". But they are only required to test for a very small subset of the toxins they introduce!
It is because of citizen activism that California now has a law where the oil companies have to disclose the chemicals they are injecting. As of 2012 the agency supposedly regulating this stuff didn't even know where fracking was happening or what chemicals were being used. Here is a website as a result of the new law that shows what they are using:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/WellStimulationTreatmentDisclosure.aspx
I could not find public references to what items are part of ground water testing for the agricultural industry. The closest I could find was suggested groundwater testing for private wells:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/wellowner_guide.pdf
So look at that short list of items to be tested, and now consider the following list of what the oil industry puts into the water (I extracted this from a spreadsheet available on the website link above)... see any reason for concern about the industry statement "we perform required tests"? I didn't see most of these tests in the list for groundwater testing.
1,2,4,5-Tetrabromobenzene
1,2-Diiodobenzene
1,3,5-Tribromobenzene
1,4-Dibromobenzene
1-bromo-3,5-dichlorobenzene
1-Bromo-4-iodobenzene
1-Butoxy-2-Propanol
1-Chloro-4-Iodobenzene
1-Iodonaphthalene
1-Methoxy-2-Propanol
2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
2,4,5-Tribromotoluene
2,4,6-Tribromotoluene
2,4-Dibromomesitylene
2,5-Dibromothiophene
2-Bromonaphthalene
2-Butoxy-1-Propanol
2-butoxyethanol
2-hydroxytrimethylene,bis(trimethylammonium) dichloride
2-Iodobiphenyl
2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One
2-Monobromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
3,5-Dibromotoluene
3-aminopropyl (sileanetriol)
4-Chlorobenzophenone
4-Iodo-o-Xylene
4-Iodotoluene
5-Chloro-2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One
5-Iodo-m-Xylene
9-Bromophenanthrene
Acetic Acid
Aldehyde
Ammonium Bifluoride
Ammonium chloride
Ammonium Fluoride
Ammonium Persulfate
Benzoic acid
Boric Acid (H3BO3)
Citric Acid
Citrus terpenes
Crystalline Silica (Quartz)
Crystalline silica, quartz
Crystalline Silica: Cristobalite
Crystalline silica: Quartz (SiO2)
Diatomaceous Earth, Calcined
Diethanolamine
D-limonene
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid
Erythorbic Acid
Ethanol
Ethoxylated alcohol
Ethoxylated Alcohol C12-15
Ethoxylated Castor Oil
Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (2-Butoxyethanol)
Formic Acid
Guar gum
Hemicellulase enzyme
Hemicellulase Enzyme Concentrate
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid)
Isopropanol
Isotridecanol, ethoxylated
Lactose
Magnesium Chloride
Magnesium Nitrate
Methanol
Methyl Borate
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Modified Polymeric Alkoxylate
Monoethanolamine borate
NITRILOTRIS (METHYLENE PHOSPHONIC ACID)
Nonionic Alkoxylate
Orange Terpene
Organic Phosphonate
Organic polyol
Oxyalkylated Fatty Acid
Paraffinic Petroleum Distillate
Petroleum Distillates
Phosphonic Acid
Polyalkylene
Polyamine Polyethers
Polydimethyl diallyl ammonium chloride
Polyethers
Polyethylene Glycol Trimethyl Nonyl Ether
Polyethylene oxide
Polymer
Potassium Acetate
Potassium Bicarbonate
Potassium Carbonate
Potassium Iodide
Propylene Glycol
Quaternary Ammonium Compound
Silanetrio; (3-aminopropyl, homopolymer
Sodium bisulfite
Sodium chloride
Sodium hydroxide
Sodium persulfate
Sodium polyacrylate
Sodium sulfate
Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate
Sulferized Polyolefin
Sulfuric acid
Tar bases, quinoline derivs., benzyl chloride quaternized
Triethanolamine
Some of these are probably fine, but I wouldn't bet a paycheck that all of these things are good to be in water that irrigates citrus fruits.
Bottom line, citizen activism does lead to changes that benefit our society, and complacency and laziness lead to more human suffering. There is no instant gratification, but there are tangible positive results from staying alert and actively participating in our democracy beyond voting.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 05:47pm PT
|
So, opponents, what is the current radioactive limit, that this would replace?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 07:03pm PT
|
According to that .gov link they don't replace any standards but set new ones for "emergency" situations.
At least as I read it.
Of course the gov't will fu$# it up implementing it but at face value that proposal doesn't seem unreasonable.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!