Coming, Mother...

This is where evaluation of the evidence by an informed and sensible citizenry comes into play. As matters stand now, we have a "nanny" government that dictates what is good for us and what is not. The government regulators who determine the "rules" usually do so in a manner that will make them popular with those they think are important - it's a process called politics. And almost every "rule" they make has a single stated purpose: to protect us from something, someone or ourselves. If our FDA had been around in Edward Jenner's 1796 England, how many people would have died from smallpox waiting for a bureaucracy to approve vaccinations?

With regard to our subject matter, a presentation by a Canadian regulatory official offers a case in point [at the 1998 Ottawa Conference on Low-Dose Radiation]. The radiation exposure regulators are well aware of the eventual demise of the LNT and the strong evidence that low-level radiation is beneficial. These are not "bad" or conspiratorial activists who want to destroy Canada. But will they consider relaxing the already miniscule limits (5 mSv or 500 mrem) for public exposure to radiation? Will they adopt a policy raising limits for hormesis studies? Absolutely not! They intend to lower the limit even further to 1 mSv (100 mrem)!

Because of a clear and present danger? Not at all. It is because of political pressure from the "all-radiation-is-dangerous" crowd and the eagerness on the part of the regulators to avoid a confrontation with the politically powerful "green lobby." What, pray tell, would it take for the regulators to change their minds and look at the evidence? (I copied this one down verbatim.) They will not consider changing "without the other worldwide regulatory agencies agreeing to adopt it [the less stringent regulations]."

Let's see now, if country A won't change until B, C and D have changed; and country B won't change until A, C and D have changed... gee, it doesn't seem like there's going to be a whole lot of changing going on.