3 ms·
That sounds like an indictment of the commercial industry and deep corruption of US regulatory bodies. Its not an indictment of nuclear itself. The new designs
by kazagistar 6y ago
That sounds like an indictment of the commercial industry and deep corruption of US regulatory bodies. Its not an indictment of nuclear itself. The new designs are fundamentally safer, but i can see the value in the aegument that its not worth trying in as risky and corrupted a regulatory environment as the United States without significant political change first.
- nl 6y agoDid you read the article? It's the exact opposite of your claim. In it he points out how the regulator actively worked to enable the nuclear industry in the US. It's also worth nothing that this didn't appear to be corruption by any conventional definition. It seems more like the regulators believed that nuclear power was beneficial and acted based on that belief rather than a particular commercial motive.
- sudosysgen 6y agoRight, so you get regulators that are rational and won't enable the nuclear industry beyond reason.
- nl 6y agoWhich is either the situation we are in now, or even tighter controls (which he proposed). Either way, it doesn't lead to more nuclear power (which is what the OP was arguing for).