>> It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political dec

>> It was about calculating a risk (probability and impact) and then making a decision about what to do. That's not rational - that's in the end a political decision. > Wait, what? How else are rational decisions made? For example by actually dealing with underlying bias - which the (nuclear) industry does not. Example: if the profitability of a company is at stake, then costly decisions are out of scope. But 'rational decisions' probably don't exist and there is no method which can be applied to complex situations often found in energy politics. If somebody claims to know how to make 'rational decisions', then this would be a sign to me that this person does not understand its problems and limitations. > and was negligent there is nothing rational about 'negligent'