Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheMadMonk

(6,187 posts)
3. And the worst of those figures is less than 40% the EPA permissible exposure...
Wed May 2, 2012, 10:56 AM
May 2012

...which in turn is 100th the dose which can be statistically linked to increased cancer risk. That's assuming continuous exposure over a full year or more.

The limits on children and permanent residency aren't really there to keep the public safe. They could be set considerably higher and still maintain a decent safety margin.

I suspect the major reason that limits are set as low as they are, is to make personal injury lawsuits, effectively unwinable. Victims will get the usual government short measure for their material losses, but nothing beyond normal healthcare coverage for cancers 10, 20, 50 years down the track.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Daily radiation readings ...»Reply #3