I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, that is right. A small or even non-existent harm for vast benefit to many people justifies the harm. Given that we know there are far more serious problems, not just environmental, but of the human condition, this is a strong indication that we should be bothering with those big problems rather than obsessing over the small or non-existent ones.

"IF". I doubt the poster I was replying to qualifies as a government or a puppet regulator.

It's pretty straightforward actually. We do valuable things and sometimes they cause pollution, sometimes minor sometimes massive. Instead of being "sick and tired" about the non problem of minute pollution (especially given that there is actual large scale, heavy, life-threatening pollution out there), do a cost/benefits analysis instead.

What makes your "common view" any more valid than any other "common view"? Especially given that "generally recognized as safe" is a completely non-scientific quantity. In the end, you need evidence to back up such assertions not alleged consensus of vague groups of people.

Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.

At least, I don't go bug-eyed and rant four times about the shills modding down a single post (and the modding in question is as flamebait and off-topic, looks like appropriate modding to me).

But not trillions of dollars less.

Because obviously, Japan will forgot how to pump water. A few diesel generators and some hose means that your scenario doesn't happen - even if you somehow came up with the huge earthquake and the structural failure.

But that is mostly easy money for US defense contractors not oil companies.

The obvious counterexample here is that if NASA gets their Space Launch System (SLS) built and SpaceX does the same for its Falcon Heavy, then they will be competing with each other. It doesn't matter that NASA contracted all that work out. NASA's fortunes would be tied to the success of the SLS which would vary inversely with the success of SpaceX's rival platform. That's the nature of competition.

Just because they didn't bother to look doesn't mean that they couldn't. But my point was not to second-guess NASA for this accident but to point out that the failures of the Challenger accident are not something that can't ever be avoided - particularly with today's technology.