This summer, we need your help, and this page will show you how.
An executive order from May 2025 urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to abandon the well-established radiation science in favor of weakening radiation protection standards. The current U.S. radiation standards are already outdated and fail to offer adequate public health protection; now, the NRC's proposed rule (NRC-2025-1140) plans to weaken those standards even further. NRC's radiation protection standards are referenced and utilized widely, so any weakening of these standards would result in system-wide increases in radiation exposure.
Effects of Weakening Radiation Protection Standards:
- More radioactive pollution in our air, food, and water. (President Trump’s radical attack on radiation safety) (Dan Hirsch presents to the NRC)
- Increased allowable radiation in the consumer goods supply, radioactive materials being made into everyday items like cookware, dental fillings, zippers, and glasses. (Radioactive Waste "Recycling" Into the Free Market)
- More radiation emissions and pollution allowed across nuclear facilities, including toxic waste sites, power plants, uranium mines, etc. (EO 14300)
- Radioactively contaminated sites that already exist in the U.S. would not get cleaned up. (EO 14300)
- Worse health impacts for women, children, and marginalized communities. (Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation)
Here are the Facts:
- Radioactive exposure causes cellular damage. Radioactive exposure can lead to cancer, heart disease, infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth defects, cardiovascular disease, and auto-immune diseases. (Beir VII)
- Increasing the permitted radiation exposure standards allows the nuclear industry to generate more radioactive pollution —and more profit. This blatant attempt to make industry money by allowing more harmful radiation pollution exposure to the public is outrageous. (EO 14300)
- All radioactive exposure is harmful, exposure adds up over your lifetime and across generations. (Disproportionate Impacts of Radiation Exposure on Women, Children, and Pregnancy: Taking Back our Narrative)
- The current standards are based on an adult male body—not women, not children, not girls. Girls face higher lifetime cancer risks. Pregnancy exposures can affect three generations at once. (Disproportionate impact of radiation and radiation regulation)
- President Trump signing an EO does not change the science or the risks to the public. The NRC should follow the science, not a political agenda.
- NRC's Proposed Rules eliminate the longstanding As Low As Reasonable Achievable standard, also known as ALARA. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43463)
- NRC's Proposed Rules allow workers to be exposed to 2 times the current yearly occupational limit, as long as the total exposure over 5 years is under 25 rem. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43472)
- NRC's Proposed Rules increase allowable effluent releases from nuclear facilities by 2.5 times automatically, but polluters are allowed to increase releases by 10 times with the only penalty being that the polluter must send monitoring reports to the NRC. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43471)
- NRC's Proposed Rules allow polluters to apply for "alternate public dose limit" that will be approved on a case-by-case basis, with no specified upper bound. (Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 134 p. 43473)
How can I help?
You can submit a public comment now! Click on the yellow button below and you will be taken to the page where you can submit your comment.
How to Write a Public Comment
Do NOT copy and paste anyone else’s comment. It must be in your own words or it will not be counted. Short, personal, and specific is better than long and generic. You don’t need to be an “expert;” it is important for comments to be from all kinds of people with different backgrounds.
1. You can start by introducing yourself, you can say where you're from and your occupation or another descriptor about you.
2. Then, state your position on radiation protection standards.
3. Next, explain the reasoning behind your position and why this issue is important to you, your family, and your community. You can use any of the information that we have provided on this page. You can give as many reasons as you would like.
4. Conclude by restating your position
Example Comment Guide
Note that comments do not have to follow this format, this is just a suggestion. All submitted comments will be publicly viewable, so keep that in mind when submitting any personal information. You can submit anonymously if you'd like.
STEP 1:
My name is [name], and I am a [identity and/or occupation] in [city, State]. [Here, add anything else about you that is relevant.]
STEP 2:
I am writing to strongly oppose proposed rule NRC-2025-1140 and urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to...
- ...strengthen radiation protection standards, not weaken them.
- ...reject Trump's proposed revisions of EO 14300.
- ...protect the public's health from radioactive pollution.
STEP 3:
[Explain why this issue matters to you personally. You can write a personal story about yourself or someone you know or use one or more of the facts to the left in the blue boxes. You can use some of the prompts listed below to get started.]
- I am worried/concerned/upset about this new rulemaking because….
- This rulemaking will have direct impacts on the community I live in because….
- I urge the NRC to strengthen radiation protections because….
- The disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities are concerning to me because….
- I want the NRC to protect the public from radioactive environmental pollution because….
- I want the NRC to center protections on those most harmed from exposure to radiation by….
- This rulemaking directly impacts my family/community/workplace because….
STEP 4:
For these reasons, I am urging the NRC to...
- ...strengthen radiation protection standards.
- ...reject the proposed revisions that come from section 5(b) of Executive Order 14300.
- ...defend the public's health by rejecting the proposed rule change.