Unlike some of the issues surrounding human forced global warming that I’m familiar with and willing to discuss/debate to the end of the world as we know it.
This issue, not so sure. Still worth posting and seeing if it warrants any discussion. Maybe I’ll even learn something new.
Forbes Mag | James Conca | May 19. 2013
The Obama Administration made a bold and correct scientific decision last month to allow risk-based decisions to guide responses to radiological events like a dirty bomb attack or a nuclear reactor accident. And not to treat it like a superfund site. This is very important because, in such events, the normal response can be worse than the event itself for many of those affected.
The Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s nominee to head that agency, quickly came under attack for releasing draft guidelines last month that could significantly relax evacuation triggers, drinking water and cleanup standards, and decisions about who becomes a refugee, in the case of a radiological event in the United States. The draft is a revision of the Protective Action Guideline (PAG) that makes recommendations on how to respond to a large release of radioactive material into the environment.
EPA had tried to issue a similar version of the PAG during the waning days of Bush’s second term (Global Security Newswire), but the new incoming Administration blocked its publication because it sounded like people would be drinking water with radiation levels thousands of times higher than present environmental limits.