Saturday, October 6, 2018

Regulatory Capture Illustrated Effectively

The EPA has sent Edward Calabrese as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:
Conley, Julia (2018, October 3). Making 'Fringe' Scientist Who Argues Exposure Good for People a Key Witness, Trump's EPA Moves to Roll Back Radiation Safety Rules.  Common Dreams
Provoking outrage among environmentalists, Trump's EPA sent toxicologist Edward Calabrese—who has argued that loosening radiation regulations could have positive health effects on humans, as well as saving money for businesses that currently work to limit exposure—as its lead witness to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA began changing allowable radiation exposure levels years back. I've been documenting these efforts to change guidance on exposure, especially in the wake of radiological emergencies, for years here:

Majia's Blog: The SOCIOPATHS Have Won: EPA Changes Guidance ...

Majia's Blog: EPA Sets Disturbing Precedent by Walking Away from ..

Majia's Blog: Did the EPA Dramatically Raise The Allowable Level of ...

Majia's Blog: On EPA Censoring and Failure of Transparency in ... 

I believe the decision has been made by back-stage technocrats that radiation contamination is inevitable and the cheapest way of dealing with it in the short run is to increase allowable exposure levels in combination with a full scale propaganda campaign to change public perceptions regarding radiation risk.

This PR campaign isn't simply pushed by the nuclearists. They have support from the telecommunication industry and the medical scanning and isotope industries.

Good luck to our collective human DNA as we are going to need it to survive the human-engineered  radiation and chemical attack against life, which is especially damaging for precarious beings such as we are....


  1. Did Josef Stalin have a lot of emppathy? Or Pol Pot? If you are going to harm many human beings empathy is a real hindrance. If I were the hiring officer for the nuclear business I would shy away from hiring empathetic persons. I suppose it could be argued that people low on empathy also have a right to decent employment. Does anyone suppose that Monsanto is a business full of highly empahetic individuals?

  2. I think we all assume a greater level of intelligence, education and experience on the part of people than is actually the case. What percentage of Americans could you talk with who would appreciate the radiation problem? Don't you suppose many would go along with the "positive health effects". I am now getting almost daily phone calls from United Health Care reminding me to get a flu shot. In my opinion that is an invitation to get sick and/or put some undesirable stuff in my body. Now if we had a really good educational system in the USA where a high school graduate actually knew thngs then that would make a great deal of difference.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.