Last week, the EPA under Donald Trump and Andrew Wheeler moved to significantly weaken regulations on mercury. As the New York Times reports, the proposed new rule doesn’t eliminate all mercury regulation … yet. It just significantly weakens the standards and allows Trump to completely kill what remains whenever he feels like it. It’s a major victory for coal-burning power plants that are the major source of mercury pollution. And it was at the top of the wish list coal baron and squirrel-whisperer Bob Murray gave to Trump when he took office. Trump has treated that wish list very seriously, cutting regulations of coal ash, eliminating regulations on mining waste in streams and rivers, and dropping plans to regulate greenhouse gases, weakening mine safety regulations, and now preparing to dump thousands of tons of mercury on Americans. None of it will save coal, but it will certainly up the profits for Murray and other mine owners as they mop up the last of a dying industry.
But just removing all checks on a neurotoxin that’s particularly harmful to children isn’t enough of an accomplishment. Because three days after all but eliminating the regulations on mercury, the EPA is back again to propose a signification weakening of regulations around radiation.
Read that again. The EPA is now moving to significantly weaken regulations around exposure to radiation. Now, add on this—they’re saying that it’s good for you.
As reported at NBC News, Trump and company aren’t just softening up on the ability of companies to spread around a little alpha, beta, gamma. They’re defending this action by turning to crackpot theories from fringe researchers who believe that a little radiation is a good thing. For example, University of Massachusetts toxicologist Edward Calabrese says that loosening up the rules around radiation—including exposure from nuclear waste—would “have a positive effect on human health.” How is that possible?
Calabrese and his supporters argue that smaller exposures of cell-damaging radiation and other carcinogens can serve as stressors that activate the body's repair mechanisms and can make people healthier. They compare it to physical exercise or sunlight.
In other words: Calabrese and his supporters are dangerous crackpots who are being used by the Trump EPA to justify policies that are known to lead to illness, disability, and death.
The theory put forward by Calabrese is based on ideas that go back literally centuries and which often creep into popular culture and second-tier “men’s health” magazines. What they’re not based on is a spec of sound science.
In a 2003 article in the Wall Street Journal, Calabrese is quoted as saying that his discovery that a little bit of toxin is good for you was based on accidentally over-diluting a herbicide used on peppermint plants. From this is spun an entire wild and nonsensical theory of “hormesis,” a kind of updated version of homeopathy, in which things that are dangerous above a certain threshold become helpful below a magical line. That includes radiation.
Exactly one paper from Calabrese showing hormesis among a limited group of chemicals stood up to peer review. Many, many others have not. That’s true of every paper on the idea of “radiation hormesis” whose underlying mechanism appears to be indistinguishable from “because that’s the answer that generates sweet research grants.”
Why would someone like Calabrese advocate for such radical and openly harmful positions? For the same reason that there are always a handful of “scientists” who are ready to argue that climate change has nothing to do with dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere, or that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. Because there’s money in it. Because being one of a handful of people out there saying “hey, industries should be allowed to cheap out on safety and public health” always finds support. And the beautiful thing about the hormesis theory is that it can be used for anything harmful, not just radiation, not just mercury. But pesticides, lead … anything.
Exposing children and adults to toxins and radiation does not make them “tougher.” It makes them sick. It robs them of potential. It gives them cancer. It kills them.
Basing EPA policy on the work of Calabrese and other hormesis-believers is exactly equivalent to turning over children’s health programs to the “researchers” who made their names advocating against vaccines. It’s an extraordinary risk that a very, very small group of people are right, and that everyone else working in the field is wrong, with millions of lives in the balance.
