Comment by MostlyStable
7 hours ago
This is a much larger discussion, but the single most obvious one is getting rid of the Linear No Dose Threshold. There are an abundance of sources on why this concept is flawed and how it impacts nuclear regulation. It's not the only issue by far, but it's probably the single easiest to address.
In other words, allow higher exposure to ratiation?
Does not sound too great and obvious to me to be honest and it seems debated in the scientific community.
So irrational fear of radiation is surely a thing and maybe the models as to when real danger starts can be updated, but I would not call that question obvious when the experts debate it and I ain't one.
Nuclear Safety is extremely risk averse and the mortar in the bricks are incumbents for whom the strict regulations protect. Anecdotally, it is a very paranoid industry, for better or worse.
Allowing higher radiation dose does sound bad, but I would urge you to delve into the Linear No-Threshold Model. We have the lion's share of a century of cancer and health data and the results are somewhat counterintuitive.
Here is a short video statement from Robert B Hayes from NC State university: https://youtu.be/kFMKPpiiJgw