Talk:Krypton-85 and climate change

The EPA as victim of politicking, or...?

I'm a bit wary of th claim about the EPA supposedly caving to krypton-85 hysteria based on the sources given. As far as I can see, the document cited never refers to climate change at all, but to "environmental" concerns and these are always put in terms of specific effects on specific organisms, not to mention that the limits to krypton-85 output is explicitly pointed out to effect only a specific subset of nuclear power producers:

"Thus, only nuclear power plants and potential reprocessing facilities need to be considered when determining compliance with krypton-85 and iodine-129 limits."

Similarly, the motive for the updating of the standards are also made quite specific:

"The Agency based the limits for plutonium-239 and other alpha-emitters on emissions levels that could be achieved with best available control technologies. The limits for krypton-85 and iodine-129 relied on control technologies demonstrated on a laboratory scale, but not yet in actual use by 1975. Other long-lived radionuclides considered for regulation under this portion of the standard (i.e., tritium and carbon-14) ultimately were not included because appropriate control technologies were either not feasible or unavailable."

The linking of the passages about environmental concerns to the krypton-85 climate change hysteria thus seems at best circumstantial from the current sources cited and at worst this is a straw man based on cherry picking and selective reading/quote mining of the sources. Similarly, the highly critical article is hardly written by a disinterested scientist either, but by one who has made/makes his living in the nuclear industry and as a contributor to Forbes, which was also the original publisher of said article. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Omission from the article

Any mention of Kryptonite (being equally relevant). Anna Livia (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)