The proposed rule change worries some about the regulation of radiation
The proposed rule change worries some about the regulation of radiation
The EPA is making changes to the rules that experts say would weaken the way radiation exposure is regulated, drawing on the outliers that argue that some radiation damage is really good for you, like a little sunlight.
The current government guide, which has been around for decades, says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher exposure levels for workers at nuclear facilities and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers who perform x-rays and CT scans, people who live near the Superfund sites, and Any member of the public who might one day be exposed to a radiation emission.
The Trump administration has already addressed a number of other regulations on toxins and pollutants, including emissions from coal power plants and automobile exhaust, which it considers costly and burdensome for businesses. Supporters of the EPA proposal argue that the current government model indicates that there is no safe level of radiation, the so-called linear model without threshold, which forces unnecessary expenditures to manage exposure in accidents, in nuclear plants, in medical centers and other places.
In question is the standard proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency on transparency in science.
EPA spokesman John Konkus said on Tuesday: "The proposed regulation does not talk about radiation or any particular chemical, and as we indicated in our response, EPA's policy is to continue using the linear model without a threshold. for radiological protection at the population level, purposes that, according to the proposed regulation that has not been finalized, will not generate any change in that policy ".
But in an April press release announcing the proposed rule, the agency cited Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts who said the weakening of radiation exposure limits would save billions of dollars and have a positive impact on human health.
The proposed rule would require regulators to consider "several threshold models across the range of exposure" when dealing with hazardous substances. Although it does not specify radiation, the statement cites Calabrese as describing the proposal as "a scientific breakthrough" when assessing the risk of "chemical products and radiation."
Konkus said the launch was written during the term of former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. He could not explain why Calabrese was quoted citing the impact on radiation levels if the agency does not believe there is any.
Calabrese would be the main witness in a congressional hearing Wednesday on the EPA proposal.
Radiation is everywhere, from potassium in bananas to microwaves popping our popcorn. The majority is benign. But what concerns us is the shorter wave radiation and higher energy, such as X-rays, which can penetrate and interrupt living cells and, sometimes, cause cancer.
As recently as March, the EPA's online guidelines for the effects of radiation advised: "Current science suggests that there is some risk of cancer from any exposure to radiation."
"Even exposures below 100 millisieverts," an amount roughly equivalent to 25 chest x-rays or about 14 CT scans, "slightly increase the risk of getting cancer in the future," the agency's guide said.
But that online guide, separate from the rule change proposal, was edited in July to add a section that emphasizes low chances of cancer: "According to experts in radiation safety, radiation exposures of ... 100 millisieverts usually do not cause harm to health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk, "says the revised policy.
Calabrese and his supporters argue that smaller exposures of radiation harmful to cells and other carcinogens can serve as stressors that activate the body's repair mechanisms and can make people healthier. They compare it with physical exercise or sunlight.
The general scientific consensus on radiation is based on misleading science, says Calabrese, who argued in a 2014 essay on "correcting past deceptions and correcting current errors in environmental regulation."
EPA spokesman Konkus said in an email that the proposed rule change is about "increasing transparency in assumptions" about how the body responds to different doses of hazardous substances and that the agency "recognizes uncertainty with respect to health effects at low doses "and supports more research on that.
The regulation of radiation is supported by Steven Milloy, a member of Trump's transition team for the EPA, known for challenging widely accepted ideas about human-induced climate change and the health risks of tobacco. He has been promoting Calabrese's healthy radiation theory on his blog.
But Jan Beyea, a physicist whose work includes research with the National Academies of Science about the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, said the EPA's scientific proposal represents voices "generally rejected by the vast majority of scientists."
The EPA proposal would result in "increases in exposure to chemicals and radiation in the workplace, home and the outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites," Beyea wrote.
At the level the EPA website talks about, anyone's risk of cancer due to radiation exposure is perhaps 1 percent, Beyea said.
"The individual risk will probably be low, but not the accumulated social risk," Beyea said.
"If you look at that, no, no, no," said Terrie Barrie, a resident of Craig, Colorado, and an advocate for her husband and other workers at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in the United States. The government is compensating certain cancer victims, regardless of their history of exposure.
"There's no reason not to protect people as much as possible," Barrie said.
The US agencies UU For decades they have followed a policy according to which there is no threshold for exposure to radiation that is risk free.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reaffirmed this principle this year after a review of 29 public health studies on cancer rates among people exposed to low doses of radiation, through the atomic bombing of Japan in World War II. World, a Soviet plant prone to leakage. Facilities, medical treatments and other sources.
Twenty of the 29 studies directly support the principle that even low-dose exposures cause a significant increase in cancer rates, said Roy Shore, head of research at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a joint project of the United States and Japan . The scientists discovered that most of the other studies were inconclusive and decided that one had defects.
None supported the theory that there is some safe threshold for radiation, said Shore, who chaired the review.
If there was a threshold that was sure to go down, "those who profess that would have to provide some data," Shore said in an interview.
"Certainly, the evidence did not point that way," he said.
The US Food and Drug Administration UU., Which regulates electronic devices that emit radiation, reports, in general terms, that a single CT scan with a dose of 10 millisieverts can increase the risks of a deadly cancer by approximately 1 chance in 2,000.
Supporters of the proposal say it is time to rethink the regulation of radiation.
"At this time we are making a huge effort to minimize the low doses" at nuclear power plants, for example, said Brant Ulsh, a physicist at the California-based consultancy M.H. Chew and Associates. "Instead, let's spend the resources on minimizing the effect of a really big event."
.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq('init', '369524843414444');
fbq('track', 'PageView');
.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario