Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Thank you for this wonderful data; pervidod without any context whatsoever of course which should scare the heck out of everyone who doesn't know the difference between pico-curies and pico de gallo.For starters you could have noted that the EPA standard for I-131 air concentration is 0.21 pico-curies per cubic meter); the NRC standard is 0.20 pico curies per cubic meter or about 5% lower than the EPA limit. As you can see from the data, most of the air readings are less than 10% of the lower NRC limit. This is the information the public needs to know. The same comparison to the more restrictive NRC standards can be done for the Gross Beta particulate, Gamma emitters and Strontium, and the other measured results.Quickly scanning the data, I didn't note anything beyond the background radiation (much up it likely from upwind coal-fired power plants which produce a much higher proportion of environmental radiation effluent than nuclear facilities). As the EnviroGuy, I would expect you are knowledgeable in basic health physics. However, data pervidod out of context isn't information it is either useless at best or misleading at worst. As a ratepayer whose electricity costs are going to rise as a result of the decision to close nuclear power plants and replace that power with more environmentally damaging and costly sources of power, I should at least be entitled to a thoughtful analysis of this very comprehensive data set.
