WHO, IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD ACTUALLY RAISE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF ANYTHING RADIOACTIVE IN AMERICA'S WATER SUPPLIES AND SOIL?
THE ANSWER IS THE PREZ AND THE EPA!
I STUMBLED ON THE SURPRISING RESULTS OF THE EPA's "SIX-YEAR REVIEW" BY ACCIDENT AND IT MAY BE OLD NEWS TO SOME OF YOU WHO WATCHED THIS DEVELOP SINCE 2012.
Sunday, 27 October 2013
"The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs.
The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects: In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems.
This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period; In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.”
“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.”
WHO IN AMERICA WAS AWARE THEY COULD HAVE HAD A SAY IN THIS?
WHO SAW ANY CLUE IN "ACCEPTABLE" AMERICAN MEDIA THAT THE EPA WAS ALLOWING AVERAGE CITIZENS TO COMMENT ON THIS?
WELL, NO ONE HAS A SAY ONCE THE FEDERAL AGENCIES MAKE UP THEIR MINDS ON ANYTHING, AS THIS PROVES.
IT'S A CULMINATION OF A DECADES-LONG INFIGHTING BETWEEN THOSE IN THE EPA WHO ARE SLAVES TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (WELL, BIG BUSINESS IN GENERAL) AND SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE STRUGGLED TO PUT HUMAN HEALTH FIRST.
HUMANS LOST.
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WINS!
FROM NOW ON, WE WILL PAY THE PRICE OF THIS NEW ACCEPTABLE LEVEL WITH OUR HEALTH AND WITH OUR LIVES.
IT'S A MORAL OUTRAGE, IT'S UNETHICAL, IT'S SICK, BUT NOW WE COME ONTO NEW KILLING FIELDS AND BOTH OBAMA AND THE EPA HAVE ABANDONED COMPLETELY THE IDEA OF PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM CANCER-CAUSING RADIONUCLIDES.
IT'S A MORAL OUTRAGE, IT'S UNETHICAL, IT'S SICK, BUT NOW WE COME ONTO NEW KILLING FIELDS AND BOTH OBAMA AND THE EPA HAVE ABANDONED COMPLETELY THE IDEA OF PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM CANCER-CAUSING RADIONUCLIDES.
HERE'S ANOTHER KNIFE IN THE HEART FOR YOU.
OUR FLUORIDATED WATER...YEAH, FLUORIDE INHIBITS ABSORPTION OF IODINE,
SO THOSE WITH FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER WHO LIVE IN AREAS WHERE THE EPA KNOWS LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES IN PUBLIC WATER SOURCES WERE ALREADY TOO HIGH, TAKING POTASSIUM IODIDE WON'T HELP LIKE IT SHOULD.
WITHOUT A LABORATORY TO ANALYZE OUR WATER FOR OURSELVES, ALL WE HAVE IS THE WORD OF BOTTLED WATER COMPANIES THAT THEIR WATER IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ONE CAN GET FROM A TAP AT HANFORD NUCLEAR FACILITY.
WITHOUT A LABORATORY TO ANALYZE OUR WATER FOR OURSELVES, ALL WE HAVE IS THE WORD OF BOTTLED WATER COMPANIES THAT THEIR WATER IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ONE CAN GET FROM A TAP AT HANFORD NUCLEAR FACILITY.
WITH FRACKING BEING COMMON, NO ONE KNOWS IF THEIR PRIVATE WELLS, OR ARTESIAN SPRINGS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THAT DIRTY BUSINESS WITHOUT INDEPENDENT TESTS BY SOMEONE WE CAN TRUST....
WHERE CAN WE FIND SOMEONE LIKE THAT?
I SIT HERE AND STILL CAN'T BELIEVE THIS.
IT TAKES A CRIMINAL MIND TO COME UP WITH A PLAN LIKE THIS!
IT TAKES ABJECT HEARTLESSNESS AND COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE, BECAUSE, LET'S FACE IT, NO WATER, NO LIFE, AND POLLUTED WATER MEANS NO LIFE AFTER A FAIRLY SHORT TIME.
I'VE POO-POOED MY "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS FOR DECADES, BUT WITH THIS, I MAY JUST GO JOIN UP WITH THEIR GROUP.
IT TAKES A CRIMINAL MIND TO COME UP WITH A PLAN LIKE THIS!
IT TAKES ABJECT HEARTLESSNESS AND COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE, BECAUSE, LET'S FACE IT, NO WATER, NO LIFE, AND POLLUTED WATER MEANS NO LIFE AFTER A FAIRLY SHORT TIME.
I'VE POO-POOED MY "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS FOR DECADES, BUT WITH THIS, I MAY JUST GO JOIN UP WITH THEIR GROUP.
IT ISN'T A THEORY, IT'S A FACT!
WE JUST GOT HANDED A DEATH SENTENCE FOR SOME OF US!
AS A CANCER SURVIVOR, IT PISSES ME FURTHER OFF THAN MAYBE MOST MIGHT BE PISSED OFF, AS I KNOW TOO WELL HOW CAREFULLY WE MUST CONSIDER ALL THAT WE INGEST, ALL THAT WE COME IN CONTACT WITH DAILY TO PREVENT, AS MUCH AS WE CAN, BEING EXPOSED TO CARCINOGENS.
WE JUST GOT HANDED A DEATH SENTENCE FOR SOME OF US!
AS A CANCER SURVIVOR, IT PISSES ME FURTHER OFF THAN MAYBE MOST MIGHT BE PISSED OFF, AS I KNOW TOO WELL HOW CAREFULLY WE MUST CONSIDER ALL THAT WE INGEST, ALL THAT WE COME IN CONTACT WITH DAILY TO PREVENT, AS MUCH AS WE CAN, BEING EXPOSED TO CARCINOGENS.
BEING RETIRED FROM THE "MEDICAL PROFESSION" (AND IT IS MERELY A PROFESSION, NOT A TRUTH! WESTERN DOCTORS ONLY PROFESS TO TREAT FOR DISEASE BUT REALLY "TREAT" A FEW SYMPTOMS AND NEVER QUITE GET TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND CURE! "HERE'S A PILL AND I'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK BECAUSE YOU'LL NEED ANOTHER PILL TO COUNTERACT THE BAD SIDE EFFECTS OF THIS PILL, THEN WE'LL JUST SET YOU UP FOR WEEKLY APPOINTMENTS...YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THEM!")
I KNOW THE HALF-TRUTHS AND HALF-HIDDEN FACTS THAT ALL PATIENTS DON'T KNOW.
THIS IS A DEADLY ALLOWANCE BY THE EPA...YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO TRUST THOSE WHO TELL YOU THIS, UNLESS YOU GET BUSY RESEARCHING IT FOR YOURSELVES, AND LOOK IN PLACES WE'RE OFTEN TOLD NOT TO LOOK.
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS TIED TOO CLOSELY TO BIG PHARMA, AND THE FEW HOURS A WOULD-BE PHYSICIAN SPENDS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDYING NUTRITION OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS THAT ADVERSELY AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH ARE ALMOST NON-EXISTENT.
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS TIED TOO CLOSELY TO BIG PHARMA, AND THE FEW HOURS A WOULD-BE PHYSICIAN SPENDS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDYING NUTRITION OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS THAT ADVERSELY AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH ARE ALMOST NON-EXISTENT.
A BUSY DOCTOR SELDOM DIVES INTO CAUSES OF DISEASE THAT AREN'T BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED IN SOME JOURNAL THAT IS "SUPPORTED" BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY.
GULLIBILITY OR BLATANT "WHO CARES?", NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE WHEN PATIENTS DEPEND ENTIRELY ON A PHYSICIAN'S KNOWLEDGE.
LET'S LOOK AT THIS EPA THING MORE CLOSELY.
GULLIBILITY OR BLATANT "WHO CARES?", NEITHER ARE ACCEPTABLE WHEN PATIENTS DEPEND ENTIRELY ON A PHYSICIAN'S KNOWLEDGE.
LET'S LOOK AT THIS EPA THING MORE CLOSELY.
I'LL BE DROPPING LINKS TO THE EPA's WEBSITE (WHICH IS A BAD JOKE ITSELF) SO YOU CAN ASSUREDLY GO SEE THIS FOR YOURSELVES.
FROM Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
(KEEP IN MIND THIS WAS WRITTEN AT THE END OF 2013)
"Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted.
These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.”
The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office.
The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:
In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems.
This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;
- In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
- Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former.
- The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
- Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Reportedly, the PAGs had been approved last fall but their publication was held until after the presidential election. The rationale for timing their release right before McCarthy’s confirmation hearing is unclear.
Since the PAGs guide agency decision-making and do not formally set standards or repeal statutory requirements, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund, they will go into full effect following a short public comment period.
Nonetheless, the PAGs will likely determine what actions take place on the ground in the days, weeks, months and, in some cases, years following a radiological emergency."
[Copyright Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 2014***]
YOU MAY SEE, DOWNLOAD, OR JUST BROWSE THE EPA DOCUMENT, THIS "PAGs" ABOMINATION <RIGHT HERE>.
Draft PAG Manual for Interim Use and Public Comment (PDF)(86 pp, 842.86 K, March 2013.
"Comments were accepted until 09/16/2013. The comment period is now closed".
IF ANY OF YOU FIND IN ANY MAINSTREAM MEDIA SOURCE THE INVITATION BY THE EPA FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE LEAVE A LINK TO THAT IN A COMMENT HERE ON THE TEA ROOM'S PAGE/
I SEARCHED AND FOUND NOT ONE.
IT TOOK ME ABOUT THREE READS BEFORE I COULD ACCEPT THAT THIS IS NOW WHAT WE ALL FACE.
I FOUND SEVERAL PAGES, 'TABLES', ETC, QUITE INTERESTING, LIKE:
2.2
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS DURING THE EARLY PHASE
TABLE 2.1
PAGs and Protective Actions for the Early Phase of a Radiological Incident
2.3.4. Considerations for Potassium Iodide (KI)
Table 2-5. Recommended Surface Contamination Screening Levels for Emergency Screening of People and Objects at Monitoring Station in High Background Radiation Areas (0.1 mR/h to 1 mR/h Gamma Exposure Rate)
About the Proposed Revisions
ANOTHER THING THAT MADE ME JUST ANGRY WAS THE BLATANT MANNER IN WHICH THE EPA SIMPLY ANNOUNCES THAT IT ISN'T REALLY MONITORING MUCH AT ALL!
SAMPLING AND ANALYSES SCHEDULES
SAMPLING AND ANALYSES SCHEDULES
Sampling Frequency
~ Precipitation:
As rainfall, snow or sleet occurs. MONTHLY analysis of a COMPOSITE sample.
~Drinking Water:
Quarterly
QUARTERLY???
WELL, WHEN I TRIED TO FIND REPORTS ON DRINKING WATER FOR RICHLAND, WASHINGTON, THE UNFORTUNATE TOWN THAT LIES NEXT TO THE MEGA-MONSTER THAT IS THE HANFORD NUCLEAR SITE, THERE IS NO DATA.
THERE IS NO DRINKING WATER DATA FOR CORVALIS, OREGON...THERE IS NO DATA FOR A LOT OF "MONITORING SITES"!
NONE AT ALL!
WHAT HAPPENED TO "QUARTERLY TESTING"?
NONE AT ALL!
WHAT HAPPENED TO "QUARTERLY TESTING"?
ALSO, FOR POOR RICHLAND, WASHINGTON, I DISCOVERED THIS:
Location: RICHLAND,WA
Medium: AIR-FILTER
Nuclides/Radiation: Cobalt-60
Units: SI
Year Date Range : 2011 - 2015
Total number of records returned from your search: 0
DARE WE WONDER WHY?
WHAT IS TESTED "ANNUALLY", AS IN ONCE A YEAR?
"Isotopic plutonium (Pu) and uranium (U) analyses are performed on a composite sample from each site."
"A GROSS beta analysis is performed at NAREL.
If the beta concentration is greater than 1 pCi/m3..."
~ Drinking Water ;
Individual Samples
Tritium (H-3) analysis is performed on each QUARTERLY sample received.
Iodine-131 (I-131) analyses are performed on ONE sample PER STATION, PER YEAR.
Strontium-90 (Sr-90) is performed on COMPOSITE samples from ONE-FOURTH of the stations on a four-year rotating schedule.
ON A FOUR-YEAR ROTATING CYCLE???
ARE THEY INSANE?
ARE THEY INSANE?
Radium-226 if the gross alpha exceeds 2 pCi/L.
Radium-228 if the Radium-226 results are between 3 and 5 pCi/L.
Isotopic uranium and plutonium if gross alpha exceeds 2 pCi/L.
ABOUT DRINKING WATER...ACCEPTABLE LEVELS
"Radiation may exist in drinking water from nuclides dissolved in the water from natural sources in the earth or occasionally from releases from laboratories or nuclear power plants.
EPA regulates the following radionuclides in drinking water:
(Adjusted) Gross Alpha Emitters, Beta Particle and Photon (gamma) Radioactivity, Radium 226 and Radium 228 (Combined) and Uranium.
What are radionuclides’ health effects?
Contaminant
Combined radium-226/-228
Some people who drink water containing radium 226 or radium 228 in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
[MEDICALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S A DAMNED LIE! ANYONE WHO INGESTS JUST ONE RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE CAN SEE ALL HELL BREAK LOOSE WITHIN THEIR BODIES, OFTEN IN A VERY SHORT TIME!]
(Adjusted) Gross Alpha
Some people who drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Some people who drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
[HOW UTTERLY MISLEADING! ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE, THEY LIST, UNEQUIVOCALLY, THAT "INCREASED CANCER RISK" IS A FACT! IT'S NOT A "MAY" NOT A "MAYBE", IT IS A LONG-KNOWN FACT!]
Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity
Some people who drink water containing beta particles and photon emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Uranium
Exposure to uranium in drinking water may result in toxic effects to the kidney.
Some people who drink water containing alpha emitters, such as uranium, in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
What are EPA's drinking water regulations for radionuclides?
This health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for radionuclides.
Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of the most significant and probable health effects, associated with radionuclides in drinking water.
MOST SIGNIFICANT AND PROBABLE!
YOU BET IT'S "PROBABLE"!
IN THEIR DEFINITIONS, THEY GIVE IT ALL AWAY THAT THERE IS NO LEVEL, NO LEVEL, BELOW WHICH THERE ARE NO ADVERSE EFFECTS OF RADIATION ON HUMAN HEALTH!
ANY RADIATION INSIDE A HUMAN BODY CAN BE LETHAL!
NO TWO HUMAN SYSTEMS ARE IDENTICAL, AND NO ONE KNOWS HOW EVERY HUMAN WILL REACT, INDIVIDUALLY, TO EVEN A HINT OF RADIATION!
Definitions:
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) -
The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health.
MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) -
The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.
MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration.
MCLs are enforceable standards.
EPA sets the enforceable regulation, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), as close to the health goals (the MCLG) as possible, considering cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies.
WHY THE HELL ARE COSTS A FACTOR?
WHY CAN'T ALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS DETECT THIS CRAP?
OF COURSE IT CAN'T BE REMOVED!
THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DEVELOP A WAY TO REMOVE IT SINCE BEFORE THEY UNLEASHED IT ON THE WORLD!
IF THEY COULD REMOVE IT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE "NUCLEAR WASTE WATER" BRIMMING WITH RADIATION, WOULD WE?
NOW, TAKE THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN ABOVE AND HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT OUR EPA IS ALLOWING...AND DO NOTICE THEY BLAME ALL THE BAD OLD RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION THEY'RE HAPPY TO ALLOW ON "NATURE", "NATURAL RADIATION", NOT THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY EVER!
NOW, TAKE THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN ABOVE AND HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT OUR EPA IS ALLOWING...AND DO NOTICE THEY BLAME ALL THE BAD OLD RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION THEY'RE HAPPY TO ALLOW ON "NATURE", "NATURAL RADIATION", NOT THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY EVER!
Radionuclides
1~ ALPHA PARTICLES
MCLG none ---------- zero
MCL 15 picocuries per Liter (pCi/L)
Potential Health Effects from Long-Term Exposure Above the MCL
Increased risk of cancer
SOURCE:
Erosion of natural deposits of certain minerals that are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation.
Erosion of natural deposits of certain minerals that are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation.
2~ BETA PARTICLES AND PHOTON EMITTERS
MCLG none ---------- zero
MCL 4 millirems per year
Potential Health Effects from Long-Term Exposure Above the MCL
Increased risk of cancer
SOURCE:
Decay of natural and man-made deposits of certain minerals that are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation.
WHAT THE EPA IS REALLY SAYING IN ALL THIS IS THAT, YES, THEY ARE AWARE THAT NO RADIATION IS SAFE TO HUMAN BEINGS, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO ALLOW INCREASED LEVELS IN OUR DRINKING WATER, IN OUR SOILS, IN OUR SURFACE WATERS, EVERYWHERE!
IN 2010, THE BATTLE WITHIN THE EPA TO ALLOW THIS HEATED UP...2010!
IT'S BEEN A FIGHT WITHIN THAT "AGENCY" FOR MUCH LONGER THAN THAT!
IT'S BEEN A FIGHT WITHIN THAT "AGENCY" FOR MUCH LONGER THAN THAT!
RADIATION EXPOSURE DEBATE RAGES INSIDE EPA
Plan to Radically Hike Post-Accident Radiation in Food & Water Sparks Hot Dissent
April 05, 2010
Washington, DC — A plan awaiting approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would dramatically increase permissible radioactive releases in drinking water, food and soil after “radiological incidents” is drawing vigorous objections from agency experts, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
At issue is the acceptable level of public health risk following a radiation release, whether an accidental spill or a “dirty bomb” attack.
The radiation arm of EPA, called the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), has prepared an update of the 1992 “Protective Action Guides” (PAG) governing radiation protection decisions for both short-term and long-term cleanup standards.
Other divisions within EPA contend the ORIA plan geometrically raises allowable exposure to the public. For example, as Charles Openchowski of EPA’s Office of General Counsel wrote in a January 23, 2009 e-mail to ORIA:
“[T]his guidance would allow cleanup levels that exceed MCLs [Maximum Contamination Limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act] by a factor of 100, 1000, and in two instances 7 million and there is nothing to prevent those levels from being the final cleanup achieved (i.e., it’s not confined to immediate response of emergency phase).”
Another EPA official, Stuart Walker of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, explains what the proposed new radiation limits in drinking water would mean:
“It also appears that drinking water at the PAG concentrations…may lead to subchronic (acute) effects following exposures of a day or a week. In a population, one should see some express acute effects…that is vomiting, fever, etc.”
“This critical debate is taking place entirely behind closed doors because this plan is ‘guidance’ and does not require public notice as a regulation would,” stated PEER Counsel Christine Erickson. Today, PEER sent EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a letter calling for a more open and broader examination of the proposed radiation guidance.
“We all deserve to know why some in the agency want to legitimize exposing the public to radiation at levels vastly higher than what EPA officially considers dangerous.”
The internal documents show that under the updated PAG a single glass of water could give a lifetime’s permissible exposure. In addition, it would allow long-term cleanup limits thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These new limits would cause a cancer in as much as every fourth person exposed.
PEER obtained the internal e-mails after filing a lawsuit this past fall under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but the EPA has yet to turn over thousands more communications.
“EPA touts its new transparency but when it comes to matters of controversy the agency still puts up a wall,” added Erickson, who filed the FOIA suit.
“Besides the months of stonewalling, we are seeing them pull stunts such as ORIA giving us rebuttals to other EPA documents they have yet to release.”
MY OPINION IS, GIVEN THE MASS DIE-OFFS IN THE PACIFIC, GIVEN PEDIATRICIANS' WARNINGS TO WEST COAST MOTHERS ABOUT THE INCREASED RISK OF THYROID DISEASE AND CANCER TO CHILDREN (ESPECIALLY INFANTS AND THOSE CONTAMINATED IN UTERO DURING THE SPIKES WE HAD BACK IN 2011), AND GIVEN THAT MORE AND MORE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING WE MUST BEGIN SERIOUS TESTING OF OUR ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT TO SEE HOW BADLY WE WERE AND ARE CONTAMINATED, THE EPA KNOWS IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT SOME OF US, MAYBE MOST OF US, RECEIVED POTENTIALLY LETHAL DOSES OF RADIONUCLIDES.
INDEPENDENT MONITORING STATIONS HAVE SCREAMED FOR 4 YEARS THAT THE NUMBERS ARE WRONG AS PUBLISHED BY THE EPA.
BERKLEY ONCE SAID THE EPA NUMBERS WERE TOO LOW.
BEACHGOERS WITH MONITORING DEVICES HAVE REPORTED VERY HIGH LEVELS ON PACIFIC COAST BEACHES SINCE 2011.
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES FROM CALIFORNIA TO THE ARCTIC CIRCLE HAVE BEGGED FOR BETTER MONITORING AFTER THEY FOUND HIGH LEVELS IN THEIR ENVIRONMENTS AND FOOD ANIMALS.
EVEN WOODS HOLE HAS ARGUED FOR A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN, BUT IS HAVING TO CROWD-FUND THEIR OWN STUDY BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT WANTS NO PART OF IT!
THIS NEW ALLOWANCE OF INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS OF RADIATION IN ALL WE CONSUME IS GOING TO CAUSE HORRIFIC HEALTH ISSUES, POSSIBLY DEATH, FOR MILLIONS OF US.
THE EPA AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE DANGERS OF RADIATION SINCE WE EXPLODED THE FIRST NUCLEAR DEVICE.
THE EPA AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE DANGERS OF RADIATION SINCE WE EXPLODED THE FIRST NUCLEAR DEVICE.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR IMPOSING THESE NEW ALLOWANCES ON AMERICANS.
IT IS CRIMINAL.
[NOTE: RADIONUCLIDES ARE NOT THE ONLY CARCINOGENS THE EPA ALLOWS. FOR A LOOK AT WHAT ELSE THE EPA ALLOWS IN OUR FOOD, WATER, AIR, SOIL, PLEASE SEE "KILLERS ALLOWED BY THE EPA ..." <HERE>]
***No copyright is claimed in [content copied] and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. Material quoted is used only to inform and educate.
The material used has been properly cited.
This website is always happy to remove any quoted content if contacted by original authors and asked to remove it.
-
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues.
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who express, by reading here, a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
No comments:
Post a Comment