> There's no industry on the planet where "must accept" regulations are set by the world's most sensitive physics experiments.

The criteria is not industry vs. "world's most sensitive physics experiments", it's industry vs. "agreed activity for public/societal benefit". And there are many examples for it.

We regulate light/noise and other pollution in consideration of wildlife and plants, we regulate nuclear waste disposal considering our responsibilities to the greater public good.

We could also not regulate anything with regards to wildlife and plants, there is no immediate economic benefit to preserve all variants of rhinos, tigers, reptiles etc., we could kill all plants except the most resilient one, it's much more economic to maintain them in long-term then.

We could also globally agree to dispose all nuclear waste in one place on earth and just never go there again.

Actually we could disband entities like the EPA, because we can figure out solutions to each environmental impact on-demand if there's enough incentive for it.

But we don't, because there is (or used to be) consensus that there are also goals beyond short-term economic growth. Areas of interest for greater society, for mankind if you will.