EPA’s proposed rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, sounds good. Who doesn’t want EPA to be more transparent about how it sets its regulations protecting people from pollution? The reality, however, is that EPA is attempting to abandon public and environmental protections in order to protect industry profits. EPA would do this by attacking the very science on which its regulations are based, not just how it uses this science. The EPA rule would apply to all pollutants, not just radioactive substances.
PLEASE COMMENT! DEADLINE EXTENDED to Thursday, August 16, 2018, 11:59 PM ET
Use TALKING POINTS BELOW to construct your comments and submit them:
- EPA radiation protection is already not protective enough. What protections EPA regulations do offer must remain. Increasing transparency alone is not enough to ensure increased protection so EPA must not approve this proposed rule.
- EPA must maintain the linear, no threshold (LNT) model for cancer risk from radiation. LNT must not be abandoned in favor of less protective models.
- The National Academy of Sciences determined a decade ago that damage can be caused by all radiation exposures so there is no safe dose. Scientific evidence supporting the LNT, and against less protective models, has continued to build since then.
- EPA must issue more protective regulations for sensitive females, since their cancer risk from radiation exposure is higher.
- EPA doesn’t specifically protect against non-cancer impacts of radiation exposure and should establish a hazard index for radionuclides – something EPA already has for toxic chemicals.
- EPA should figure out how much radiation exposure is costing us, including loss of salary from impaired neural development and lower IQ, cost of treating radiation-induced cancers, and cost of accumulating radiation damage across generations.
Thank you!
admin