Not to mention that in one of those links, the two engineers who "tattled" on nuclear plant owners were blacklisted forever. That hits home pretty hard. They cannot get jobs now.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > Nuclear power would make terrific sense, IMHO, IF we could > > > trust the folks who design, build, and run the plants, or > > > at least trust the government to inspect and regulate them > > > properly. > > > > Unfortunately, I ascribe to the notion that we have the best > > governement money can buy. > > In that case, we can't afford nuclear. > > > But regulating nuclear plants would seem to be a > > relatively easy thing to do-politically speaking. I mean, > > I know the FDA does a mediocre job at best inspecting meat > > plants, and yet the food supply seems relatively safe. > > But regulating nuclear plants, when the payoff for safe > > nuclear energy is so immense? I don't see where the > > opposition would come from? > > Industry *always* resists regulation because it reduces > their potential profits. It costs more to keep a nuke > plant running safely. If they think they can reap the same > payoff without worrying about whether the plants are safe, > they will. They pay lobbyists lots of money to convince > legislators to let up on regulation oversight and to > repeal regulation when possible, or just to give the > agencies less money to do their jobs. > > See the NYTimes article I just posted a link to on the > Union of Concerned Scientists report on the failures of > regulation of nuclear plants. >
