3 ms·

So your argument is that we should remove safety requirements for Nuclear until it kills as many per year as other energy sources? Crazy requirements like bein

So your argument is that we should remove safety requirements for Nuclear until it kills as many per year as other energy sources? Crazy requirements like being able to survive a 1-10000 earthquake and etc seem overly cumbersome until it happens. Sure a giant oil spill is not great but you were allowed to go to the Gulf of Mexico post-spill(s) and not so much for Chernobyl. So the DOE should keep its red tape so it can keep its (better than the military, see Spain) record with nuclear power.

briffle 5y ago
at what point did I talk about removing safety requirements? I said to reduce red tape. Things like peforming multiple regulatory approvals at the same time. (do you really need to wait for the environment review to finish before you start the reactor safety review?) Or pre-approve reactor designs, so they don't all have to be redone from scratch for every new reactor. There is a TON of ways to speed up approvals in a way that don't comprimise safety.. but that was a great strawman agrument!