3 ms·

[Edit: Title was changed, it previously only mentioned "former NRC chair".] so, let's see who that may be..... .....aaand it's Greg Jaczko, nothing to see, mo

[Edit: Title was changed, it previously only mentioned "former NRC chair".] so, let's see who that may be..... .....aaand it's Greg Jaczko, nothing to see, move along, dude's biased as hell, with some really poor work ethics on top. From his wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko): A report by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General Hubert T. Bell accused Jaczko of "strategically" withholding information from his colleagues in an effort to keep plans for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository from advancing.[11][12] In October 2011, all the other four NRC commissioners—two Democrats and two Republicans—sent a letter to the White House expressing "grave concern" about Jaczko's actions at the NRC. On December 14, 2011, Commissioner William Ostendorff, a Republican, told a House oversight committee that Jaczko's "bullying and intimidation... should not and cannot be tolerated."[13] At a House Government Reform and Oversight Committee hearing on December 14, 2011, NRC Commissioner William Magwood, a fellow Democrat, testified about what he called Jaczko's abusive behavior towards employees, especially female subordinates. “One woman told me that she felt the chairman was actually irritated with someone else, but took it out on her,” Magwood said. “Another said she was angry at herself for being brought to tears in front of male colleagues. A third described how she couldn’t stop shaking after her experience. She sat, talking with her supervisor until she could calm down sufficiently to drive home.”[14]

kyrra 5y ago
One interesting take on radation was what I saw in a commentary piece a few months ago in WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-energy-regulator-radiation-climate-change-11632257020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-... (mirror: https://archive.fo/LITQT https://archive.fo/LITQT) A key passage: > In 1957 the internationally recommended limit for radiation exposure was about 15 times the natural background radiation that people absorb from rocks and cosmic rays. Without evidence of harm from exposures within the 1957 limits, the U.S. had by 1991 ratcheted its public limits down to less than a third of natural background radiation. It makes me question some of the people that are on the NRC. Government regulators want to err on the side of caution, as they don't want to be responsible if things go wrong. So many of these bureaucrats hold positions that likely aren't actually the optimal for society at large.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruturo 5y ago
To the poster who deleted their reply to my post: > I'm not sure how anything you said is a reason to discount him. You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't take his position seriously because he backs up his beliefs with action. And what about the others standing along side him?? Yeah when Democrats and Republicans manage to agree on something, and that something is that you are apparently a not very ethical person (with alleged bullying on top) and the same President who appointed you made you step down.... I indeed stop taking your position, and everything you write/say, seriously. I won't discount the other 3 experts from France, Germany and UK, I'll read the article, but Jaczko's name is a sizeable black stain on the paper.

kyrra 5y ago

One interesting take on radation was what I saw in a commentary piece a few months ago in WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-energy-regulator-radiation-climate-change-11632257020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-regulatory-council-nrc-... (mirror: https://archive.fo/LITQT https://archive.fo/LITQT) A key passage: > In 1957 the internationally recommended limit for radiation exposure was about 15 times the natural background radiation that people absorb from rocks and cosmic rays. Without evidence of harm from exposures within the 1957 limits, the U.S. had by 1991 ratcheted its public limits down to less than a third of natural background radiation. It makes me question some of the people that are on the NRC. Government regulators want to err on the side of caution, as they don't want to be responsible if things go wrong. So many of these bureaucrats hold positions that likely aren't actually the optimal for society at large.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruturo 5y ago

To the poster who deleted their reply to my post: > I'm not sure how anything you said is a reason to discount him. You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't take his position seriously because he backs up his beliefs with action. And what about the others standing along side him?? Yeah when Democrats and Republicans manage to agree on something, and that something is that you are apparently a not very ethical person (with alleged bullying on top) and the same President who appointed you made you step down.... I indeed stop taking your position, and everything you write/say, seriously. I won't discount the other 3 experts from France, Germany and UK, I'll read the article, but Jaczko's name is a sizeable black stain on the paper.