Debunked: EPA Allowing Lethal Radioactivity in Drinking Water

MikeG

Senior Member.
From Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

EPA literally wants you to DIE from radiation

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.
Content from External Source
Adams concludes later in the article that:

With 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.
Content from External Source
http://www.naturalnews.com/054537_radiation_in_water_EPA_limits_radioactive_elements.html

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.

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.
Content from External Source
It does not mention radioactive Iodine-131.

The PAG draft originally comes from Executive Order 12656 (1988). The main focus of the older document is disaster preparation.

A 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.
Content from External Source
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html

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 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.
Content from External Source
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags

The PAG does allow for radiation levels that are higher than those allowed under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Ground Water Radiation Limits.png
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.
Levels of radiation.png
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

  • epa_drinking_water_pag_fr_notice_6-1-16r_pre-pub.pdf
    134.2 KB · Views: 506
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
It is not intended for long-term or everyday use. The proposed PAG does not affect EPA’s drinking water standards for radionuclides. Therefore, affected public water systems are expected to take actions to return to compliance with drinking water standards after a radiological emergency as soon as practicable.
Content from External Source
The proposed PAGs are developed for up to one year of exposure. In comparison, the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) were developed assuming 70 years of continuous exposure. The PAGs are intended to 1) prevent short-term health effects, 2) balance protection with other important factors that may arise during an emergency (ensuring the actions result in more benefit than harm), and 3) reduce the potential for longer term health effects. In considering these key principles, EPA is proposing drinking water PAGs of:
Content from External Source
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags


PAG Factsheet:
Why has EPA updated the PAG Manual?

The last version of the PAG Manual was issued in 1992. Since then, there have been advancements in scientific understanding of radiation dose and risk to human health. EPA worked with multiple federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Department of Defense to develop the revised PAG Manual. EPA believes that guidance based on the best available science can help local authorities save lives and minimize the impact of a radiological emergency
.....
This proposed revision to the PAG Manual includes updated dose calculations based on the latest science. A number of other changes in the revised PAG Manual are based on lessons learned from actual radiological emergencies, including the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/pagfactsheet.pdf
Content from External Source
 

killjoy

New Member
Iodine-131 is the first isotope listed on the Fukushima wiki. It is also not the worst on the list by any stretch it's 8 day half-life makes it less troublesome than say Caesium-137 with it's 30 year half-life and high solubility.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
It is not intended for long-term or everyday use. The proposed PAG does not affect EPA’s drinking water standards for radionuclides. Therefore, affected public water systems are expected to take actions to return to compliance with drinking water standards after a radiological emergency as soon as practicable.
Content from External Source
The proposed PAGs are developed for up to one year of exposure. In comparison, the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) were developed assuming 70 years of continuous exposure. The PAGs are intended to 1) prevent short-term health effects, 2) balance protection with other important factors that may arise during an emergency (ensuring the actions result in more benefit than harm), and 3) reduce the potential for longer term health effects. In considering these key principles, EPA is proposing drinking water PAGs of:
Content from External Source
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protective-action-guides-pags


PAG Factsheet:
Why has EPA updated the PAG Manual?

The last version of the PAG Manual was issued in 1992. Since then, there have been advancements in scientific understanding of radiation dose and risk to human health. EPA worked with multiple federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Department of Defense to develop the revised PAG Manual. EPA believes that guidance based on the best available science can help local authorities save lives and minimize the impact of a radiological emergency
.....
This proposed revision to the PAG Manual includes updated dose calculations based on the latest science. A number of other changes in the revised PAG Manual are based on lessons learned from actual radiological emergencies, including the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/pagfactsheet.pdf
Content from External Source

Nicely done.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
Iodine-131 is the first isotope listed on the Fukushima wiki. It is also not the worst on the list by any stretch it's 8 day half-life makes it less troublesome than say Caesium-137 with it's 30 year half-life and high solubility.

Thanks.

Where is Mike Adams getting his "over 3,000 times" increase?

I found an earlier reference to these numbers in a website called Food and Water Watch.

06.7.16
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the U.S. EPA quietly issued proposals to allow radioactive contamination in drinking water at concentrations vastly greater than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The new guidance would permit radiation exposures equivalent to 250 chest X-rays a year. Today, environmental groups called the proposal “shocking” and “egregious.”

The EPA proposed Protective Action Guides (PAGs) would allow the general population to drink water hundreds to thousands of times more radioactive than is now legal. For example, radioactive iodine-131 has a current limit of 3 pico-curies per liter (pCi/L), in water but the new guidance would allow 10,350 (pCi/L), 3,450 times higher. For strontium-90, which causes leukemia, the current limit is 8 pCi/L; the new proposed value is 7,400 pCi/L, a 925-fold increase.
Content from External Source
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/n...increase-radioactivity-allowed-drinking-water

But the PAG cited has no such figures
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Nicely done.
they were your links. i just formed different questions when reading your OP. Like "why?" and 'what are the PAG levels for a radiological emergency NOW?'. since NN et al, keep saying 3000% higher, i thought 'higher than what? then everyday healthy non-emergency levels?'. The answer of course is YES.

The latest PAG for nuclear/radiological disaster is the 1992 one [page 6-1]. And there are NO levels recommended for drinking water. So technically we were REALLY unprotected up until now. Presuming of course this proposal is actually accepted and put into use.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
@MikeG oh btw, one of the epa links i was reading specifically said these protocols would only be for certain large scale situations, like Fukishima, where water was SCARCE. But then i 'lost' which link it was (actually im too lazy to go refind it).

So it doesnt sound at all to me like they WANT people to drink the water. They also had some potassium inhibitor recommended in such cases. Must be like the stuff Infowars is always trying to sell for Fukishima. So anyway, certainly doesnt sound like they in anyway WANT to poison us or allow consumption of contaminated water if at all preventable.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
@MikeG oh btw, one of the epa links i was reading specifically said these protocols would only be for certain large scale situations, like Fukishima, where water was SCARCE. But then i 'lost' which link it was (actually im too lazy to go refind it).

So it doesnt sound at all to me like they WANT people to drink the water. They also had some potassium inhibitor recommended in such cases. Must be like the stuff Infowars is always trying to sell for Fukishima. So anyway, certainly doesnt sound like they in anyway WANT to poison us or allow consumption of contaminated water if at all preventable.

I think that's exactly right. The EPA is talking about an emergency where water can't be shipped to a location in adequate quantities.

If you look at the bottom of the Natural News article, it looks like they also have a solution ready to sell:

Solutions.png
http://www.naturalnews.com/054537_radiation_in_water_EPA_limits_radioactive_elements.html

Hucksters.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
the Natural News article, it looks like they also have a solution ready to sell:
? how did Mike Adams get his hands on uranium?
( i dont know what cesium and strontium are and the Berkey people dont mention them as far as i can find:
View attachment 19827

I dont know about you but i wouldnt trust Mike Adams as far as i could throw him. I think i'll wait for Berkey to do tests and say their filters make the water safe. (well, i lie, if i have uranium in my water im moving in with my brother 1,000 miles away, until the emergency is fully remedied).
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Public Law 105-85 Allowing Testing of Biological and Chemical Weapons [It's the Opposite] Conspiracy Theories 21
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top