Much of the discussion of nuclear power on HN centers on the engineering view: nuclear doesn't have climate consequences and uses a very energy-dense fuel. No

Much of the discussion of nuclear power on HN centers on the engineering view: nuclear doesn't have climate consequences and uses a very energy-dense fuel. No doubt true. The "administrative" picture is not so rosy! Of course, the history of atomic energy in the US is replete with examples of lies told to the public to obtain "consent" - exhibit A, the Nevada Test Site and the "downwinders" [0]. These lies were told to citizens by the AEC, the predecessor agency of the NRC, which now regulates nuclear power in the US. A review of a recent book [1] by a former member of the NRC indicates that, in the view of some, administrators rolling over for commercial operators of atomic plants remains standard operating procedure. This sounds very similar to the problem with the Challenger shuttle: "The political infighting was particularly intense after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Jaczko visited Japan and grew impatient with the “litany of guarantees” from industry about American nuclear facilities. He tried to insist on new requirements to mitigate accidents triggered by natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and tsunamis. One internal NRC report drafted after Fukushima criticized the practice of relying on voluntary industry initiative to address safety concerns. Jaczko's descriptions of other commissioners' attempts to quash or edit the report provide a disturbing glimpse of the dynamic of trust and betrayal within the agency." [0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/american-ground-zero https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/american-ground-zero [1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/237 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/237