SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The EPA is considering weakening regulations aimed at avoiding radiation exposure at nuclear power plants, medical centers, and other facilities. (Photo: Jeff Fusco/Getty Images)
Making 'Fringe' Scientist Who Argues Exposure Good for People a Key Witness, Trump's EPA Moves to Roll Back Radiation Safety Rules
"The agency is ignoring scientific evidence by instead claiming a little radiation is good for you. This is clearly an attempt to save industry money at the expense of women and children's health."
Oct 03, 2018
Provoking outrage among environmentalists, Trump's EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese--who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure--as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese, who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure, as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"Trump's EPA is attempting to convince the committee that allowing more radiation will not be harmful by presenting long-rejected theories as mainstream," said Cindy Folkers, a radiation and health hazard specialist at Beyond Nuclear, in a statement. "The agency is ignoring scientific evidence by instead claiming a little radiation is good for you. This is clearly an attempt to save industry money at the expense of women and children's health."
For decades, the government has advised that any exposure to harmful radiation carries cancer risks for humans.
The proposed rule would call on regulators to consider "various threshold models across the exposure range" when setting guidelines for exposure to substances and chemicals. In a news release about the proposal in April, the EPA quoted Calabrese as calling the move "a major scientific step forward" in assessing the risk of "chemicals and radiation."
In 2016, Calabrese suggested rolling back radiation regulations, saying, "This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars." Two years earlier, he called on the government to right "the past deceptions and [correct] the ongoing errors in environmental regulation."
Calabrese's views have been "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists," physicist Jan Beyea told the Associated Press.
The proposal would likely lead to "increases in chemical and radiation exposures in the workplace, home and outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites," he added.
As Beyond Nuclear explained, women and children are disproportionately more at risk from the regulatory rollback, with women suffering 50 percent more harm and female children suffering nearly 10 times more harm when exposed to radioactivity than adult males on which U.S. protection standards are based.
"Current standards are already not protective enough of women and children, nor is their susceptibility accounted for in the public health costs," Folkers said. "If the EPA allows even greater exposure, the costs to society could be very high."
The EPA has argued that the regulation is aimed at "increasing transparency on assumptions" about radiation exposure, and the agency demanded that the AP retract its reporting on Tuesday that the "EPA says a little radiation may be healthy"--despite the fact that its own lead witness on Capitol Hill on Wednesday has said just that.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Provoking outrage among environmentalists, Trump's EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese--who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure--as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese, who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure, as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"Trump's EPA is attempting to convince the committee that allowing more radiation will not be harmful by presenting long-rejected theories as mainstream," said Cindy Folkers, a radiation and health hazard specialist at Beyond Nuclear, in a statement. "The agency is ignoring scientific evidence by instead claiming a little radiation is good for you. This is clearly an attempt to save industry money at the expense of women and children's health."
For decades, the government has advised that any exposure to harmful radiation carries cancer risks for humans.
The proposed rule would call on regulators to consider "various threshold models across the exposure range" when setting guidelines for exposure to substances and chemicals. In a news release about the proposal in April, the EPA quoted Calabrese as calling the move "a major scientific step forward" in assessing the risk of "chemicals and radiation."
In 2016, Calabrese suggested rolling back radiation regulations, saying, "This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars." Two years earlier, he called on the government to right "the past deceptions and [correct] the ongoing errors in environmental regulation."
Calabrese's views have been "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists," physicist Jan Beyea told the Associated Press.
The proposal would likely lead to "increases in chemical and radiation exposures in the workplace, home and outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites," he added.
As Beyond Nuclear explained, women and children are disproportionately more at risk from the regulatory rollback, with women suffering 50 percent more harm and female children suffering nearly 10 times more harm when exposed to radioactivity than adult males on which U.S. protection standards are based.
"Current standards are already not protective enough of women and children, nor is their susceptibility accounted for in the public health costs," Folkers said. "If the EPA allows even greater exposure, the costs to society could be very high."
The EPA has argued that the regulation is aimed at "increasing transparency on assumptions" about radiation exposure, and the agency demanded that the AP retract its reporting on Tuesday that the "EPA says a little radiation may be healthy"--despite the fact that its own lead witness on Capitol Hill on Wednesday has said just that.
Provoking outrage among environmentalists, Trump's EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese--who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure--as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese, who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure, as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"Trump's EPA is attempting to convince the committee that allowing more radiation will not be harmful by presenting long-rejected theories as mainstream," said Cindy Folkers, a radiation and health hazard specialist at Beyond Nuclear, in a statement. "The agency is ignoring scientific evidence by instead claiming a little radiation is good for you. This is clearly an attempt to save industry money at the expense of women and children's health."
For decades, the government has advised that any exposure to harmful radiation carries cancer risks for humans.
The proposed rule would call on regulators to consider "various threshold models across the exposure range" when setting guidelines for exposure to substances and chemicals. In a news release about the proposal in April, the EPA quoted Calabrese as calling the move "a major scientific step forward" in assessing the risk of "chemicals and radiation."
In 2016, Calabrese suggested rolling back radiation regulations, saying, "This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars." Two years earlier, he called on the government to right "the past deceptions and [correct] the ongoing errors in environmental regulation."
Calabrese's views have been "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists," physicist Jan Beyea told the Associated Press.
The proposal would likely lead to "increases in chemical and radiation exposures in the workplace, home and outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites," he added.
As Beyond Nuclear explained, women and children are disproportionately more at risk from the regulatory rollback, with women suffering 50 percent more harm and female children suffering nearly 10 times more harm when exposed to radioactivity than adult males on which U.S. protection standards are based.
"Current standards are already not protective enough of women and children, nor is their susceptibility accounted for in the public health costs," Folkers said. "If the EPA allows even greater exposure, the costs to society could be very high."
The EPA has argued that the regulation is aimed at "increasing transparency on assumptions" about radiation exposure, and the agency demanded that the AP retract its reporting on Tuesday that the "EPA says a little radiation may be healthy"--despite the fact that its own lead witness on Capitol Hill on Wednesday has said just that.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.