DC:
- AP reported Tuesday EPA was weakening radiation regulations.
- Now, AP has backpedaled on the claim and issued a major correction.
- ‘[S]top the spread of alarming misinformation,” EPA said in a statement on the correction.
The Associated Press issued a major correction on Wednesday to a story claiming the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said “a little radiation may be healthy.”
EPA officials said AP’s story “was not only wrong, but contrary to information provided to the reporter by the EPA press office in response to her inquiries.” EPA officials welcomed the correction and said media outlets who parroted AP should do the same.
“If you used AP’s inaccurate reporting from October 2nd on EPA’s radiation standards you should want to immediately correct your stories to stop the spread of alarming misinformation,” EPA said in an emailed statement sent Wednesday.
AP published a story on Tuesday claiming EPA was moving to “weaken U.S. radiation regulations” by changing a “decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk.”
This change, AP noted, “could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations.” AP admitted that while the policy change did not explicitly mention “radiation,” it quoted University of Massachusetts toxicologist Edward Calabrese. read more
You could say without risk of being inaccurate that all the news agencies cannot handle technology reporting more complicated than a pencil sharpener without fucking it up.
Now that I think about it, there are electric pencil sharpeners.
Dang.
Maybe they should all just cover celebrity lifestyles, and leave it at that.
There’s a lot of political, regulatory, and environmentalist crap flying over the issue of radiation hormesis, and it’s been going on for decades. The big deal is that there have been a lot of well designed and replicated studies that suggest that continuing low doses of ionizing radiation are good for you: it keeps your body’s repair mechanisms in good working order. Thus, the use of the term “hormesis” – defined as
Environmentalists both outside and inside govt deny the validity of this idea and all their calculations (models) assume that any radiation at all is bad for you, with the damage decreasing to zero only when the dosage decreases to zero.
The govt and NGO greenies behave that way, of course, because they are totally and irrationally opposed to anything at all that involves the terms “radiation” or “nuclear”.
For anyone interested, you can read a 2006 paper in the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine publication Dose-Response titled Radiation Hormesis: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
(Yeah, it’s a govt publication, but there are a few good people working there although I’m not quite sure why.)
Being republicans that utilize manners, the AP was offered salt and pepper to spice up the sh#t sandwich they were forced to eat.
From Uncle Al’s link: “…produces laws which have no basis in mammalian physiology.”
Holy shit! Who knew there was a link between ionizing radiation and them gender twisted mental cases we have to accommodate?
According to some theories, medications are poisons, and it is their effects that are selectively exploited for benefit.
I prefer my radiation to originate from the sun or the natural environment. If I should need radiation, for a treatment or such, I will arrange for that administration. I don’t need, nor do I condone, accepting a raised background level above natural ambient. Levels are rising, and this is just a rationalization, not an admission.
obama’s response to fukushima was to raise allowable limits of exposure to radiation. Japan did similar. Substantially. That certainly made things better. obama style. Didn’t cost anything, either.
‘Don’t change the program, change the documentation.’
Fukushima is still going on. 24/7/365. There is no known technology to stop it, and it is killing the Pacific. Not this week, but it is ongoing.
Just the other day, I made a rather attractive bet with someone that I could find a cesium isotope, associated with Fukushima, in the field behind the house. In New England. As I coordinated the equipment to find that, they backed out.
“could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations.”
Bullshit!
Time, distance, shielding are what determines amount of radiation exposure.
The nuke utilities work long and hard trying to keep exposure down for work being performed.
When I started in the industry… 5 Rem/yr was the limit by the gov’t. Our company had a 2 Rem/yr limit.
With a 50 Rem exposure…the first signs of effect on blood start. So…we were way, under that level.
Ive worked in high rad/high contamination areas. Most of the 3000 workers at a typical refueling outage receive very little dose….not us. Our crew usually worked around the reactor head….where angels fear to tread. We usually had an RP (radiation physicist) with us or in constant audio/video communication with control central and on camera. When you were focused on performing a task we had full coverage. We were continuously coached/trained on ALARA (as low as reasonably achieveable).
A little trivia:
Every American receives an average 360 mRem/yr from normal background radiation.
Grand Central Station in New York is a ‘hot spot’ of background radiation due to all of the granite.
Coal burners emit more external radiation than a nuke plant, due to the amout of coal being burned the ash contains naturally occurring radiation, concentrated.
We had a saying among our crew… Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light. ‘Devil’ was our code word that kept us focused when we were in the danger zone.
Definitely not for everybody….
“Coal burners emit more external radiation than a nuke plant, due to the amout of coal being burned the ash contains naturally occurring radiation, concentrated.”
And the ash piles are pretty interesting too.
I thought exposure/dosages was done in Sieverts today? Haven’t been ‘exposed’ to anything in the field for three decades so my experience is dated.
Sieverts are the Uropeein designations.
Rem and millirem are American.
Kinda like inches/centimeters…
They know they’re printing lies when they print them. The ‘retraction’ is a mere formality to cover their asses, that no one really reads.
Their missions is accomplished when they print the lie.
This whole issue has nothing to do with radiation.
The reality is that the EPA wants to implement a new TRANSPARENCY RULE.
For too long the EPA made rules based on single, biased studies, without allowing dissent.
FTA: The AP’s report is actually referring to a transparency rule EPA proposed earlier in 2018 that would require the agency to include a wider range of public health models when crafting regulations.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/19/epa-scott-pruitt-secret-science/
Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations
The EnviroWhackos HATE open debate. Thus the AP and the rest of the Democrat Media Mafia will gladly send out fake news on the EPA opening the debate.