Does the author think the scientific bodies mentioned above are insufficient or unqualified to decide the matter? If so, what is the alternative? This debate always sounds to me to be inspired in kind by the push for deregulation in any industry (finance, environmental pollution, labor standards, consumer product safety, etc.). That somehow, the only way to create a viable and commercially successful energy business is with lower standards and less regulation. We really can’t think of anything better. Our collective experience over the last 100 years fighting tooth and nail with corporate and special interests (particularly with extraction industries, environmental polluters, and more), and achieving real and tangible gains for the public interest, doesn’t teach us better. Yes, we have some productive areas of new research in this area, much of it lab based, but to go so far as to say low dose radiation is “healthful” and a benefit to public safety, is a stretch, and does little to improve public confidence on the matter (educated or otherwise). In fact, it probably does the opposite. Especially when such science, uncertain as it is, is misapplied and misconstrued by active and special interests actively campaigning on the matter.