@allochthonous
There's definitely value in further investigating the validity of the linear no threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection (the current basis of regulating worker and public radiation exposure, also known as ALARA, "as low as reasonably achievable").

A lot of data over many decades supports alternative models, the most notable (and politically charged) probably being hormesis. One interpretation of this model suggests that small doses of radiation trigger immune system responses which make the body better at repairing damage from radiation. Analogous to a vaccine.

This isn't to say one should start intentionally dosing himself.

The LNT has one definite benefit: it's very easy to implement. It requires little technical understanding of radiation. For example, suppose I can reduce the dose by putting in more shielding. LNT says I should.

This adds material cost and increases time to complete the job using a model that *assumes* any radiation insult is increased risk. The cost is of course passed on to the customer.

Protesters to this model want to further examine the nature of low radiation doses and determine if the ALARA concept is actually correct. (Note, I'm not taking a position.)

One desired outcome is finding out whether we are indeed wasting time and money on unnecessary protection measures.