You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Eco-Nuts Reject Natural Levels Of Radioactivity As Dangerous
2006-10-21
The United States, in a twist on social Darwinism, maintains protection standards so low that they shield only the strongest people from cancer-causing radiation. So say scientists whose conclusions are propelling a new campaign to provide greater safety for women, children, and others at greatest risk.

"A central principle of environmental health protection--protecting those most at risk--is missing from much of the U.S. regulatory framework for radiation," said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Takoma Park, Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and co-author of a study, released Thursday, that is driving the campaign.

Many federal radiation protection standards, such as limits on how much residual radiation is allowed in contaminated soil, are designed to protect "Reference Man," a hypothetical Caucasian male, says the report, Science for the Vulnerable: Setting Radiation and Multiple Exposure Environmental Health Standards to Protect Those Most at Risk.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#13  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-10-21 17:42  

#12  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2006-10-21 13:51  

#11  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Hupeger Creamble4059   2006-10-21 13:15  

#10  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: .com   2006-10-21 12:29  

#9  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: .com   2006-10-21 12:22  

#8  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-21 12:15  

#7  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: .com   2006-10-21 12:03  

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-21 11:56  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-21 11:48  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2006-10-21 10:44  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Mike   2006-10-21 10:24  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: .com   2006-10-21 10:09  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-10-21 10:00  

00:00