MikeG
Senior Member.
From Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
EPA literally wants you to DIE from radiation
I am starting to get used to looking past Mike Adams’ usual hysterical claims to get to their source. It seems pretty clear upon closer examination that the EPA is developing a contingency plan for a potential disaster.
The actual policy document mentioned by Adams, “Draft Protective Action Guide (PAG) for Drinking Water after a Radiological Incident,” is attached.
The PAG includes exposure guidelines for water consumption.
The PAG draft originally comes from Executive Order 12656 (1988). The main focus of the older document is disaster preparation.
During a “radiological incident,” the EPA’s responsibility is determining acceptable levels of contamination in water after an emergency, specifically in the time involving cleanup efforts.
What constitutes a “radiological incident” has changed since the Cold War in the eighties. It now includes terrorist acts as well as disasters similar to Fukishima.
https://www.epa.gov/emergency-respo...diological-and-nuclear-consequence-management
The intent of a Protective Action Guide is made clear in the proposed policy
The PAG does allow for radiation levels that are higher than those allowed under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-an...ted-drinking-water-contaminants#Radionuclides
The Department of Energy provides good context on a range of normal annual radiation dosages.
http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/externa...rmation/aboutradiation/tabid/319/default.aspx
The EPA is also soliciting public comment on the draft PAG throughout July.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268-0210
EPA literally wants you to DIE from radiation
Adams concludes later in the article that:We really have reached a point of such insanity across human civilization that governments have become the terrorists who actively seek to harm and kill off the people. The latest example demonstrating this very point is the fact that the EPA just announced its plan to allow gigantic increases in the allowable radioactivity in drinking water... increasing it by over 3,000 times in the case of radioactive Iodine-131... while calling it "safe" to drink even though it's almost certain to give you cancer.
http://www.naturalnews.com/054537_radiation_in_water_EPA_limits_radioactive_elements.htmlWith this radiation decision, the EPA cements its position as the Environmental POLLUTION Agency which now systematically pollutes the air, water and soil, poisoning hundreds of millions of people and even labeling as "safe" toxic water that just might kill you.
I am starting to get used to looking past Mike Adams’ usual hysterical claims to get to their source. It seems pretty clear upon closer examination that the EPA is developing a contingency plan for a potential disaster.
The actual policy document mentioned by Adams, “Draft Protective Action Guide (PAG) for Drinking Water after a Radiological Incident,” is attached.
The PAG includes exposure guidelines for water consumption.
It does not mention radioactive Iodine-131.EPA is proposing a two-tiered intermediate phase drinking water PAG of 100 mrem projected dose in the first year for infants, children and pregnant or nursing women and 500 mrem projected dose in the first year for the general population. The proposed PAG is designed to work in concert with the other Protective Action Guides currently in place for other media in the intermediate phase (i.e., the Food and Drug Administration’s 500 mrem PAG for ingestion of food) and provides an additional level of protection for the most sensitive life stages.
The PAG draft originally comes from Executive Order 12656 (1988). The main focus of the older document is disaster preparation.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.htmlA national security emergency is any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.
During a “radiological incident,” the EPA’s responsibility is determining acceptable levels of contamination in water after an emergency, specifically in the time involving cleanup efforts.
What constitutes a “radiological incident” has changed since the Cold War in the eighties. It now includes terrorist acts as well as disasters similar to Fukishima.
https://www.epa.gov/emergency-respo...diological-and-nuclear-consequence-management
The intent of a Protective Action Guide is made clear in the proposed policy
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pagsThe PAG Manual is not a legally binding regulation or standard and does not supersede any environmental laws; PAGs are not intended to define “safe” or “unsafe” levels of exposure or contamination. As indicated by the use of non-mandatory language such as “may,” “should” and “can,” the Manual only provides recommendations and does not confer any legal rights or impose any legally binding requirements upon any member of the public, states or any federal agency. Rather, the PAG Manual provides projected radiation dose levels at which specific actions are recommended in order to reduce or avoid that dose.
The PAG does allow for radiation levels that are higher than those allowed under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-an...ted-drinking-water-contaminants#Radionuclides
The Department of Energy provides good context on a range of normal annual radiation dosages.
http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/externa...rmation/aboutradiation/tabid/319/default.aspx
The EPA is also soliciting public comment on the draft PAG throughout July.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0268-0210
Attachments
Last edited: