Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
US Government Responds to Nuclear Accident by Trying to Raise Acceptable Radiation Levels and Pretending that Radiation is Good For Us Guest Post by George Washington in naked capitalism Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The EPA is closing ranks with the nuclear power industry:

       EPA officials, however, refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California. Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA's regional headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency's written statement would stand on its own.

        Critics said the public needs more information.

        "It's disappointing," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California. "I have a strong suspicion that EPA is being silenced by those in the federal government who don't want anything to stand in the way of a nuclear power expansion in this country, heavily subsidized by taxpayer money."

The EPA has considered, off and on since 1992, significantly raising allowable radiation exposures. Since 2010 it has been on again, if hue and cry over Fukushima fall out doesn't derail their plans.

And now, the EPA is considering drastically raising the amount of allowable radiation in food, water and the environment.

As Michael Kane writes:

   In the wake of the continuing nuclear tragedy in Japan, the United States government is still moving quickly to increase the amounts of radiation the population can "safely" absorb by raising the safe zone for exposure to levels designed to protect the government and nuclear industry more than human life. It's all about cutting costs now as the infinite-growth paradigm sputters and moves towards extinction. As has been demonstrated by government conduct in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Deepwater Horizon and in Japan, life has taken a back seat to cost-cutting and public relations posturing.The game plan now appears to be to protect government and the nuclear industry from "excessive costs"... at any cost.


    In 1992, the EPA produced a PAGs manual that answers many of these questions. But now an update to the 1992 manual is being planned, and if the "Dr. Strangelove" wing of the EPA has its way, here is what it means (brace yourself for these ludicrous increases):

        * A nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90;
        * A 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and
        * An almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63.

    The new radiation guidelines would also allow long-term cleanup thresholds thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever judged safe in the past.

While the tone may be a bit shrill it appears that Shadow Stats may soon have other than economic factors to track for comparison between old and revised definitions, limits and values. Changing the measuring stick appears to have helped The Masters of the Universe provide cover for their financial looting...

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 03:08:50 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series