One interesting take on radation was what I saw in a commentary piece a few months ago in WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-energ

One interesting take on radation was what I saw in a commentary piece a few months ago in WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-energy-regulator-radiation-climate-change-11632257020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-... (mirror: https://archive.fo/LITQT https://archive.fo/LITQT) A key passage: > In 1957 the internationally recommended limit for radiation exposure was about 15 times the natural background radiation that people absorb from rocks and cosmic rays. Without evidence of harm from exposures within the 1957 limits, the U.S. had by 1991 ratcheted its public limits down to less than a third of natural background radiation. It makes me question some of the people that are on the NRC. Government regulators want to err on the side of caution, as they don't want to be responsible if things go wrong. So many of these bureaucrats hold positions that likely aren't actually the optimal for society at large.