> This is fine, except for when it is abused and cited to stop progress. This is a more reasonable stance than the blanket 'radiation regulation is silly', but

> This is fine, except for when it is abused and cited to stop progress. This is a more reasonable stance than the blanket 'radiation regulation is silly', but I hesitate to award it too many points - it's hardly a big step to say you're against abuse and for progress. You can have progress and prevent abuse while adhering to (potentially overly) strict safety regulations. (I may also balk at your stark claim of unverifiability - radiation damage is pretty demonstrable.)