EPA moves to weaken radiation regulations, says a little might be good for you
64 replies, posted
Yes. However, as it did in the 1910s if people really buy into the 'health benefits' rhetoric then they'll go 'oh, hey, this drink is a lot stronger for the same buck!' and then they'll buy it and consume actually dangerous crap. That's exactly what happened back then -- it can happen again.
Personally, I can't wait for the next breaktrough in what's actually healthy for you: outer fucking space.
I'd love to recommend having those proposing this to be the first wave of a study of such effects. It's only fair they get the health benefits first after all.
We need to get a democrat into the White House and have them enact the "CTRL+Z Act" whereby everything and anything Donald Trump has ever done in office is reversed back to how it was shortly before Obama left.
Seeing as how he seems to have a hate boner for Obama and seems to undo everything Obama did because he's mad the black guy won, I think it's only fair the same is done to his "work" in office once he's gone. Undo it all, and ignore his time in office, pretending like it never happened. Whenever someone asks "What about President Trump?", we just reply "President who?".
As much as I would support this, it would set a precedent for the Republicans to do the same, so we'd have nothing but deleting and restoring back and forth like two students arguing on a Google docs paper.
I've heard that filling your lungs with water causes the human body to go under a rapid onset evolution in which you grow gills.
EPA Trump Transition Team should be murdered in the street, and everyone should look the other way while it happens.
Wait, if it's comparable to physical exercise, doesn't that mean it's bad? I mean Trump does believe that exercise inexplicably shortens one's lifespan. This administration is horrible at being consistent.
Can we cull it with the death wish posts? Garry doesn't need more FBI agents at his door again
Funny story. Back when I used to be a conservative, I read a shit load of National Review. And they had advertisements for expensive cigars in literally every issue. Romancing tobacco is very much a conservative thing, especially among conservative "intellectuals." As with everything else, they are permanently stuck in an imaginary version of the 1950s, where everything was basically perfect (for white people), and you didn't actually fucking die from smoking regularly.
Bring the asbestos back!
What fucking timeline am I in?
It's already back.
EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing
Nuclear Engineer here. This topic has been a huge issue in the Nuclear Engineering/Health Physics Society community because there is a lot of scientific evidence supporting a hormesis model (ex. some bacteria is good for you to help develop an immune system) for radiation. The data exists for really low doses (nuclear power plant workers & medical professionals) and atomic bomb survivors. To be conservatively safe without any significant scientific data for low-medium level radiation, Health Physicists have connected the dots for practical purposes in associating more radiation = more cancer.
From Wikipedia (for illustration):
Current models use line B; proposed hormesis model is line D.
From the American Nuclear Society:
Background: The Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model is
based on high dose rate nuclear weapons data. Its application to nuclear
reactor, medial, and irradiation applications is tenuous at best. New
evidence in radiation and chemical toxicity fields is suggesting that
LNT models are likely overly conservative, and the way in which they are
used makes this conservatism inordinately expensive. While LNT is very
straightforward to regulate, scientific evidence from the past several
decades has indicated that low doses of radiation do not pose risk of
cancer in a linear fashion, as is well-established among higher doses of
Nuclear Grand Challenges
From a recent journal publication:
The effects of low-dose radiation are being increasingly investigated in
biological, epidemiological, and clinical studies. Many recent studies
have indicated the beneficial effects of low doses of radiation, whereas
some studies have suggested harmful effects even at low doses. This
review article introduces various studies reporting both the beneficial
and harmful effects of low-dose radiation, with a critique on the extent
to which respective studies are reliable. Epidemiological studies are
inherently associated with large biases, and it should be evaluated
whether the observed differences are due to radiation or other
confounding factors. On the other hand, well-controlled laboratory
studies may be more appropriate to evaluate the effects of low-dose
radiation. Since the number of such laboratory studies is steadily
increasing, it will be concluded in the near future whether low-dose
radiation is harmful or beneficial and whether the linear-no-threshold
(LNT) theory is appropriate. Many recent biological studies have
suggested the induction of biopositive responses such as increases in
immunity and antioxidants by low-dose radiation. Based on recent as well
as classical studies, the LNT theory may be out of date, and low-dose
radiation may have beneficial effects depending on the conditions;
otherwise, it may have no effects.
Overview of Biological, Epidemiological, and Clinical Evidence o..
I just to illustrate that this proposal has been a long time coming for the government to review the science behind radiation protection, and this isn't merely the Trump administration slashing regulations to fuck over the environment/people.
I saw a post about how low levels could be beneficial in that massive post about how nuclear is cool several years ago, but I absolutely don't trust the current EPA to run studies of this in a decent manner.
It's never about fucking people over. It's about money.
That's the reason why 'Trump slashed regulations to allow Asbestos to come back'.
coming from the same official defending tobacco use and proposing to remove regulations rather than regulate radiation differently, this is laughable
but, like the other poster above said, it's about the money rather than the environment
i mean it worked for daredevil who says it cant work for me
The last EPA head seemed to have bumblefucked himself into at least 10 different scandals at once so yeah I don't trust the EPA right now.
I am keeping the scope of my discussion to low-dose radiation rather than the EPA/Trump administration.
First, the analogy that gets used when I talk to Health Physicists is the following question: What distance between two flying planes is enough to prevent a collision? 10 ft? 1 mi? 10 miles? The separation distance should be kept large to be conservative when you don't really know what a good distance is. Of course more distance is always better, but when you have many planes flying in the air with a large required separation distance, the flights take longer, complicated paths and use more fuel. This leads to more waste and more expensive tickets. Years of flight experience have given us a lot of safety data that gives us a good idea for how far the planes should be kept from one another (in practice its ~1000 ft vertically, 3-5mi laterally).
The article says that the EPA is being asked to consider other models which have scientific data to support them for regulatory purposes. This is similar to having the FAA review safety data to determine separation distance. Using models that are more accurate can save money, but money isn't the primary goal. Regulations are supposed to be updated to reflect the extent of knowledge of the issues the regulations deal with. If increasing the acceptable amount of radiation people or the environment is exposed to through human activity has no significant negative consequences, wouldn't you want update the regulations? You save businesses money on shielding equipment, lower the cost of medical and commercial radiation services for private citizens.
Regarding the scientific debate (ex. conflicts of interest, how good the data is, etc.)... the answer is complicated. Health Physics is a small community (heavily weighted with older people), there are many types of radiation, and each type of radiation affects organs differently. If you are interested in this area I recommend looking at/joining the Health Physics Society (free university student membership) or publications from the International Council on Radiation Protection (ICRP), since those are the primary groups the government listens to when it comes to radiation health science. There are people (and publications) on both sides of the argument in each group.
I don't advocate for removing/modifying regulations solely for the sake of "good" economics, and I am not trying to identify the EPA's personal motives or the quality of their oversight. I am trying to illustrate why low-dose radiation is such a hot topic in regulatory circles.
I mean, there's some truth to that, with bacteria. It's one of the reasons doctors might say hey, let your kid eat his boogers.
But I don't think it applies to radiation, as that can damage DNA and that damage gets transmitted to every fucking copy thereafter
You may find this video on DNA repair interesting. The body has several mechanisms for dealing with DNA damage
There is also a good overview of the hormesis model (and its counterarguments) in this paper. Check pages 5 - 11. This paper also makes an interesting point on page 10, there is a huge market for radiation protection equipment that can lead to financial conflicts of interest with radiation protection professionals:
OK, so. Here's the problem.
You're assuming that if the regulations would be updated, they would be updated ethically.
Would you still be for 'updating the regulations' if you traveled 1 year into the future and found out that how they 'updated the regulations' was to entirely discard all regulations regarding radiation therapy or experimental medicines regarding? Sure, you get your businesses saving money on shielding equipment and some medical and commercial radiation services for private citizens.
The problem begins with those exact same 'radiation services'. Much like asbestos: Asbestos is perfectly fine so long as nobody ever mishandles it or uses it unethically to make money. Without any regulations, that would mean vulture-capitalists could swoop in on vulnerable people and offer a 'miracle cure' of 'stimulating their body to regrow its cells' through radiation therapy - and all for a much cheaper and more negotiable rate than a legitimate hospital would; these are people, mind, who are already eyeballs deep in debt but are nonetheless still grasping for any solution. We both know there's no way that the low-intensity therapies being looked at here have any probable use to a case like that and, in fact, would harm them greater by assuaging them to think that 'this therapy will work' -- thus stopping them from seeking other options or expert opinions.
So when those people inevitably die because they were vultured on, where the rad-therapy may have in some cases made their illnesses even worse (because of course they don't calibrate or check their equipment, so who's to say that they even deliver the right dosage), who would those people who are scammed go to? There's no regulations on the subject anymore. It's not against the law for them to offer it; they weren't practicing 'medicine' so much as offering 'alternative therapies'. If anyone was an actual doctor they might lose their license -- but there's no license requirement to administer this sort of drug if the EPA de-regulates the whole of it.
So all that said, given how absolutely predatory this administration has shown itself to be -- where it's absolutely fine with ignoring climate change, allowing businesses to dump toxic waste into public water supplies, and allowing companies to return en masse to using asbestos in the unregulated and often poorly-done environment just as it was in the past which caused so many deaths -- would you be comfortable with the 'regulations being updated' to save a few businesses some moderate amounts of cash and introduce services that can be wholly abused at the expense of legitimate healthcare?
I didn't realise the cancer lobby was so influential
Guys its simple, if you shoot yourself in the foot enough times, you'll become immune to bullets and they'll just bounce straight off your skin.
I always thought hormesis by radiation was a mostly unfounded hypothesis according to the bodies in charge of this stuff. Seems like a cursory look into the literature supports this
The possibility that low doses of radiation may have beneficial effects (a phenomenon often referred to as “hormesis”) has been the subject of considerable debate. Evidence for hormetic effects was
reviewed, with emphasis on material published since the 1990 BEIR V study on the health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. Although examples of apparent stimulatory or protective
effects can be found in cellular and animal biology, the preponderance of available experimental information does not support the contention that low levels of ionizing radiation have a beneficial effect.
The mechanism of any such possible effect remains obscure. At this time, the assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit
to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from radiation exposure at the same dose is unwarranted.
Research Need 4. Identification of molecular mechanisms for postulated hormetic effects at low doses
Definitive experiments that identify molecular mechanisms are necessary to establish whether hormetic effects exist for radiation-induced carcinogenesis.
Arguments have been put forward that sufficiently small
doses of radiation induce either no increase in cancer risk (i.e.
a dose threshold), or a reduction in cancer risk (i.e. hormesis)
[L45, K19, K22, P9], although these interpretations have been
challenged [C15, U3].
The C15 source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663578/
In the parallel editorial (7), evidence is presented for possible real (or at least “practical”) thresholds or “hormetic” (beneficial) effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. As we summarize here, and in
contrast to the arguments of Tubiana et al (7), we judge that there is little epidemiologic or biologic evidence for these for cancer. The arguments are of three forms: (a) assessment of the degree of
curvature in the cancer dose response within the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and other exposed groups (in particular, departure from linear or linear-quadratic curvature), (b) consistency of risks
between the Japanese and other moderate- and low-dose cohorts, and (c) assessment of biologic data on mechanisms.
Most of the information on radiation-induced cancer risk comes from (a) the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, (b) medically exposed populations, (c) occupationally exposed groups,
and (d) environmentally exposed groups (6). In the higher-dose radiation therapy studies, where doses received are very much higher than in the LSS, sometimes in the range at which cell sterilization
occurs, excess cancer risks per unit dose tend to be less than in comparable subsets of the LSS (8,9). However, as we show, risks in moderate- and low-dose medically and occupationally exposed groups
are generally consistent with those in the LSS.
The U3 source: http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/1993/UNSCEAR_1993_Report.pdf
Even for a believer in moral relativism, I have seldom seen so many examples of pure evil in my life as have been enacted by this administration. And this comes from a guy who lived in Saudi Arabia.
An underground landfill fire in Saint Louis has been burning out of control for 5+ years, and has been slowly making its way to the West Lake Landfill -- where the radioactive waste of the Manhattan Project from World War II is buried. When the fire reaches it, the radioactive fallout will affect tens of thousands of people. Predominantly poor people North County (majority of whom are people of color).
Excavating and moving the radioactive waste would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, which isn't possible for state and local government. The EPA was going to come take care of that for us. Something tells me that's no longer the case. If they pull their funding for the landfill fire cleanup, people will die.
Well lead by example then and jump right into a radioactive pit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.