• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Bloomberg Duped: Falsely Reports Trump’s EPA Is ‘Weakening Radiation Safety Levels’

by Michael Bastasch
October 18, 2017, 2:08 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
1

A report that the Trump administration set the allowable level of nuclear radiation 10 times higher than the drinking water standard during the Obama years sent shockwaves through the media, but the report isn’t quite accurate.

Bloomberg reported on a recently-released FAQ document that allegedly set radiation standards at a level many times higher than what the Obama administration recommended for drinking water in the event of a nuclear disaster.

The story suggested the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was quietly “weakening radiation safety levels.” Bloomberg’s report was based on documents provided by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a liberal group.

Bloomberg reported the FAQ said the high levels of radiation “usually result in no harmful health effects because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.” Bloomberg noted a similar 2007 document found there are no safe levels of radiation.

But there’s one glaring problem. The September 2017 FAQ is a public communications document based on guidelines released by the Obama administration in January, not the Trump administration.

The “Protective Action Guides” (PAG) manual was released days before President Donald Trump took office, and the guidelines have no force of law. They are for emergency situations where people could be exposed to high levels of radiation for relatively short periods of time.

Bloomberg did mention the Obama administration’s last-minute guidelines but claimed the FAQ document recommended radiation safety levels 10 times higher — hence, it’s Trump’s fault.

Bloomberg reported the FAQ document said “radiation exposures of 5-10 rem (5,000-10,000 mrem or 50-100 mSv) usually result in no harmful health effects,” which was allegedly ten times higher than the 500 millirem radiation threshold for drinking water set by the Obama administration.

But that’s comparing apples and oranges.

The 500 millirem threshold laid out in the PAG manual is just for radiation in drinking water. The drinking water standard is lower for vulnerable people, like pregnant women and children, at 100 millirems.

The 5,000 millirem standard, on the other hand, relates to radiation exposure from the whole range of sources for up to one year, not just levels in water.

“The [International Commission on Radiological Protection] recommends reference levels in the range of 2,000 to 10,000 mrem (20 to 100 mSv) for protection of human health in emergencies, and in the range of 100 to 2,000 mrem (1 to 20 mSv) for occupational exposure, exposure by caregivers, or residential radon exposure,” according to the PAG manual.

EPA also did not change any regulations related radiation safety. The PAG manual is purely for planning purposes in the event of a catastrophe, and it doesn’t supplant daily radiation standards.

“The PAGs are developed for up to one year of exposure,” EPA’s Office of Water said, according to a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In comparison, the [daily radiation standards] were developed assuming 70 years of continuous exposure,” EPA noted. “The PAGs are intended to 1) prevent short-term health effects, 2) balance protection with other important factors that may arise during an emergency (ensuring the actions result in more benefit than harm) and 3) reduce the potential for chronic, or long-term, health effects.”

And the PAG manual lays out that “[r]adiation doses should be reduced to below [Safe Drinking Water Act levels] as soon as practicable” after a nuclear disaster.

“EPA has not changed its standards regarding radiation exposure, and no protective guidelines were changed during this administration,” EPA spokesman Michael Abboud told Axios. “The guidance was released on January 11, 2017 — before the President was inaugurated.”

Read more at Daily Caller

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Bipolar

New Study: Ice Core Data Shows Modern Warming Is Statistically Unremarkable

Mar 05, 2026
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024

Comments 1

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    8 years ago

    Bloomberg is no different then CNN,NBC,ABC and CBS or the daily birdcage liners/Parrots Toilets/Fish Wraps nothing but LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES

Stay Connected!

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Get notified when new posts are published!

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Recent Posts

  • Meteorologist Torches BBC For Linking Climate Change To Trillion-Dollar Disaster Losses
    Apr 10, 2026
    Meteorologist challenges BBC trillion-dollar climate damage claim, citing disaster loss data and no clear trend after adjusting for growth and exposure. […]
  • transmission linesElectric Shock: How Bad Green Policy Sent Power Prices Soaring
    Apr 10, 2026
    US electricity prices have surged after years of stability, driven largely by policy choices shaping generation, regulation, and grid costs. […]
  • starmer energy pricesUK Energy Costs, Net Zero Push And Red Tape Kill Massive OpenAI Investment
    Apr 10, 2026
    OpenAI’s delayed UK investment highlights energy costs, net zero pressures, and planning delays that continue to strangle major tech projects. […]
  • nuclear cooling towersNew Jersey Ends Decades-Old Nuclear Power Ban To Tackle Rising Energy Costs
    Apr 10, 2026
    New Jersey ends a decades-old ban, allowing new power projects as officials look to lower sky-high energy costs and improve grid reliability. […]
  • gas pump stationMinnesota Lawmakers Turn Budget Crisis Into ‘Climate Superfund’ Cash Grab
    Apr 9, 2026
    Minnesota’s proposed climate superfund targets energy companies, but costs won’t stay there—they’ll be passed on to consumers at the pump and beyond. […]
  • roulette newsomEU Bets On Newsom As Trump Clashes With Europe’s Climate Socialism
    Apr 9, 2026
    Europe and the UK look to Gavin Newsom as the 48th president to roll back Trump’s agenda and resume climate socialism. […]
  • miliband solarMad Miliband Overrules Locals, Greenlights Britain’s Largest Solar Monstrosity
    Apr 9, 2026
    Ed Miliband approves a massive Lincolnshire solar farm over local protests, raising concerns over farmland loss and Labour’s planning powers. […]
  • refinery aerialWith India’s Help, Trump’s Brownsville Refinery Set To Supercharge U.S. Energy
    Apr 8, 2026
    A new Brownsville refinery built by India’s Reliance will ease U.S. shale bottlenecks, boosting exports, capacity, and energy dominance. […]
  • sunrise movement protestAntifa-Linked Green Group Plans ‘Political Revolution’ Against Trump, Billionaires
    Apr 8, 2026
    Far-left Sunrise Movement training materials reveal plans for a political revolution targeting Trump, corporations, and the two-party system. […]
  • boulderBoulder Unlikely To Hit Climate Goals Despite Aggressive Anti-Fossil Fuel Policies
    Apr 8, 2026
    Boulder’s anti-fossil fuel policies won’t get it to net-zero by 2035 or impact global warming due to rising emissions elsewhere. […]

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

Cold Facts About the Great Global Warming Scam

Climate prn book

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky