4 ms·
The ever-evading part of the brain responsible for ethics tells me that if safety models have changed - like they did for lead, for example - then yes, it's up
by AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
The ever-evading part of the brain responsible for ethics tells me that if safety models have changed - like they did for lead, for example - then yes, it's up to Bob to comply.
If, on the other hand, I've built my house next to his plant and now started to complain about the proximity of a potentially dangerous thing next to me - well, in this case Bob was there first.
And then there are all these questions for extra credit like what's gonna happen if Bob wants to put a second plant right next to his current one?
- teachrdan 5y agoI think that's a great extra credit question. A real-life version is, Bob's reactor was scheduled to be shut down in a few years, but now he's applied to extend its lifespan by another 20 years. Should that be allowed? If so, are there any conditions under which he should NOT be allowed further extensions?
- vorpalhex 5y agoThe other set of questions we need to ask for this extension: 1. How many people depend on Bob's reactor for power? 2. If Bob shuts down, is the replacement something like solar or a coal plant? 3. Design/safety/longevity.