• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comments due 19 Nov 2015
Proposed Rule Posted 21 Aug 2015 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles...-radiation

Comments submitted and posted http://www.regulations.gov/?utm_campaign...-2015-0057
just pm me if needed.
The NRC is proposing a rule change to allow more radiation exposure to the public.  Proposed is a change from LNT to Hormesis.
Docket ID NRC-2015-0057
copy docket id into search

Instead of acknowledging the harmful effects of radiation, the NRC would like all of us to get a protective dose of radiation.  They say it is only radiophobia causing stress and cancer and killing people.  LNT underestimated the danger of low level radiation.  Hormesis theory claims health benefits from exposure.  The rule change is open to public comments until November 19, 2015.  
Here's my comment.
Quote:The radiation hormesis model has not been adequately proven to have any benefits or mainstream medicine would already be prescribing our protective dose.  The petitioners are claiming health benefits from low doses of radiation without providing enough medical research on the dose deemed protective and the dose deemed dangerous.  Atomic bomb testing and nuclear power plant deployment have increased the levels of background radiation and now everyone is getting more radiation than previous generations; yet, cancer rates have not fallen, instead, they continue to rise as do immune disorders.  If the NRC changes the rule from LNT to Hormesis, will people be allowed to bring malpractice cases against the medical profession for not adequately protecting them from immune disorders and cancers with a protective dose of radiation? 
Radiophobia must be rampant in the nuclear industry since so much effort goes into building strong containment of nuclear fission piles and moving nuclear waste to remote locations.  The medical industry spreads radiophobia with the radiation labels required on radio-medical diagnostics/therapies indicating danger.  Will such labeling no longer be required or desired under a new rule? 
Will the NRC be trying to raise or lower the background levels of radiation to a protective dose?  What level of background radiation will be deemed protective?  If an accident were to occur near a metropolitan area too large to evacuate, will this rule change provide cover to the nuclear industry for dangerous radioactive contamination levels above background that will affect people’s health? 
This rule change does not bring clarity and only adds more confusion to people’s perception of nuclear energy’s safety and the risks of low level radiation. 
Please add your comment to the NRC website before the deadline.  Don’t expect your comment to be posted promptly, mine took two weeks. 
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
Mine submitted & posted: Comment of Pia Jensen on FR Doc #2015-15441 runs the gamut. lots of references attached and multiple issues that can be addressed further. I'm quite interested in all the potential conflicts of interest inherent in petitioner's requests and was shocked at the apparent copy cat practice of petitioners.
just pm me if needed.

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)