The White House wants to get rid of a radiation safety rule that is over 50 years old and has been adopted by other countries.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is looking at eliminating the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle, which mandates that hospitals, nuclear plants, and other facilities keep radiation levels at an absolute minimum, even when they are already below legal limits. The rule would be replaced with a “graded approach” that puts different safety measures in place based on expected radiation exposure levels.

The legal limits for workers and the public would stay the same, and the NRC said that the public would not be any less safe.

“We’re just removing the ambiguity,” NRC Chair Ho Nieh said. “But the standard for exposure to workers and the public, those are not changing. We’re just putting in place greater clarification.”

The nuclear industry is in favor of the move, with its main trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, claiming that safety is still a priority.

If safety is a priority, why are you in favor of eliminating a rule that promotes safety?

  • infinitevalence@discuss.onlineEnglish
    113·
    15 days ago

    This is strangely a good thing. Current regulations are based on atomic bomb explosions and don’t correctly account for natural and background radiation.

    The old reg used a cumulative model which is Obama since all life on earth evolved with radiation exposure. The new regulation should reduce construction and operation costs while making no difference in cancer or radiation related deaths.

    A trans Atlantic or Pacific flight already exposes average people to more than the nrc is talking about here and we don’t even think twice about that exposure.