4 ms·

And all of the nuclear stans have constant tantrums over them enforcing regulations. There are also regulatory safety bodies for rail and dangerous chemicals bu

And all of the nuclear stans have constant tantrums over them enforcing regulations. There are also regulatory safety bodies for rail and dangerous chemicals but we see how well they work when there isn't constamt hypervigilence.

credit_guy 4y ago
> There are also regulatory safety bodies for rail and dangerous chemicals but we see how well they work when there isn't constamt hypervigilence. That's a pretty smart comeback, I have to admit. But aside from being smart, what are you trying to say? Should we get rid of railways? Should we get rid of "dangerous chemicals". What does "constant hypervigilence" mean for rail and dangerous chemicals? Assuming the public is guilty of not showing constant hypervigilence (as you seem to imply), what should the public do? Not rely on regulatory bodies? Supplement somehow what the regulatory bodies do? How? Back to the NRC, do you feel the public has to tell the NRC how to do its job? I mean, you obviously are saying that, but how do you propose that to happen?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  See now you're just trying to pretend you weren't proposing a change and I was. This is called gaslighting. The "unjustified" focus is the primary mechanism by which an extremely corrupt industry was brought into some semblance of safety after windscale, church hill, and browns ferry. There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety. The 'irrational' strict rules are the only system that has ever worked in safety critical industries like aerospace. Without strict adherence you get a challenger disaster or similar. This lesson has been learnt in other industries over amd over, we don't need to learn it again with an actually uncontained meltdown or by listening to the kinds of people that call filters Cockraine's Folly. When politicians know relaxing the rules and letting the usual corner cutting thrive would end their entire party's careers we at least get a mostly-safe nuclear industry and the corruption is focused on stealing tax money.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > See now you're just trying to pretend you weren't proposing a change and I was. Indeed I was not proposing a change. I was suggesting, quite explicitly, that it's better to store the nuclear spent fuel on site, as it is done today. You are not proposing a change per se. You'd simply like the whole nuclear industry to disappear overnight, if that were possible. Or maybe I'm mistaken? > There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety Maybe you can provide some links. I'm not familiar with attempts of regulatory capture in the context of the nuclear industry, but I'm familiar with the general concept of regulatory capture. As for the rest of your argument, it looks like you are trying to refute something I never said. I personally consider that the NRC are doing a good job. I don't consider that what they do is "irrational", and my guess is that the engineers working for NuScale or Holtec, or other nuclear companies don't find them "irrational" either.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You're pushing for complacency where there is currently vigilance. Public awareness is what gives the NRC power to regulate.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        > You're pushing for complacency where there is currently vigilance. What are you talking about? I am pushing for complacency? What gave you that idea? Just so we are clear: I am happy that the NRC is doing its job. The public has absolutely no idea what the NRC is doing, because it's much too technical. I'm not sure you ever took some time to see what the NRC is doing, although most of what it's doing is not classified and posted for the public. If you have a few minutes to spare, head over to [1] and check some of the recent correspondence with Holtec related to Holtec's SMR approval. You will see how thorough the NRC is, how technical, and how detailed-oriented. I'm very happy they are like that, I would want, and expect, nothing else. If that public vigilance actually exists (and it looks to me you consider yourself one member of the movement), then the public should spend time going through all those documents, and spot errors, and bring them to the public debate. Instead you are just spreading FUD, that somehow we are on the brink of a new Chernobyl, and just because of the public vigilance we don't have an (actual quote from your comments) "uncontained meltdown". Here's my proposal: take some time and browse through the NRC posted documents. Get to appreciate how extraordinarily thorough they are. If you find any hint they are not, take action, either write to them or to your representative. This way you'll be constructive. If you don't find, then maybe you'll get to respect them for the hard work they are putting in. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-activities/pre-application-activities/holtec/documents.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...

credit_guy 4y ago

> There are also regulatory safety bodies for rail and dangerous chemicals but we see how well they work when there isn't constamt hypervigilence. That's a pretty smart comeback, I have to admit. But aside from being smart, what are you trying to say? Should we get rid of railways? Should we get rid of "dangerous chemicals". What does "constant hypervigilence" mean for rail and dangerous chemicals? Assuming the public is guilty of not showing constant hypervigilence (as you seem to imply), what should the public do? Not rely on regulatory bodies? Supplement somehow what the regulatory bodies do? How? Back to the NRC, do you feel the public has to tell the NRC how to do its job? I mean, you obviously are saying that, but how do you propose that to happen?

Schroedingersat 4y ago
See now you're just trying to pretend you weren't proposing a change and I was. This is called gaslighting. The "unjustified" focus is the primary mechanism by which an extremely corrupt industry was brought into some semblance of safety after windscale, church hill, and browns ferry. There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety. The 'irrational' strict rules are the only system that has ever worked in safety critical industries like aerospace. Without strict adherence you get a challenger disaster or similar. This lesson has been learnt in other industries over amd over, we don't need to learn it again with an actually uncontained meltdown or by listening to the kinds of people that call filters Cockraine's Folly. When politicians know relaxing the rules and letting the usual corner cutting thrive would end their entire party's careers we at least get a mostly-safe nuclear industry and the corruption is focused on stealing tax money.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > See now you're just trying to pretend you weren't proposing a change and I was. Indeed I was not proposing a change. I was suggesting, quite explicitly, that it's better to store the nuclear spent fuel on site, as it is done today. You are not proposing a change per se. You'd simply like the whole nuclear industry to disappear overnight, if that were possible. Or maybe I'm mistaken? > There are constant attempts at regulatory capture and undermining safety Maybe you can provide some links. I'm not familiar with attempts of regulatory capture in the context of the nuclear industry, but I'm familiar with the general concept of regulatory capture. As for the rest of your argument, it looks like you are trying to refute something I never said. I personally consider that the NRC are doing a good job. I don't consider that what they do is "irrational", and my guess is that the engineers working for NuScale or Holtec, or other nuclear companies don't find them "irrational" either.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You're pushing for complacency where there is currently vigilance. Public awareness is what gives the NRC power to regulate.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      > You're pushing for complacency where there is currently vigilance. What are you talking about? I am pushing for complacency? What gave you that idea? Just so we are clear: I am happy that the NRC is doing its job. The public has absolutely no idea what the NRC is doing, because it's much too technical. I'm not sure you ever took some time to see what the NRC is doing, although most of what it's doing is not classified and posted for the public. If you have a few minutes to spare, head over to [1] and check some of the recent correspondence with Holtec related to Holtec's SMR approval. You will see how thorough the NRC is, how technical, and how detailed-oriented. I'm very happy they are like that, I would want, and expect, nothing else. If that public vigilance actually exists (and it looks to me you consider yourself one member of the movement), then the public should spend time going through all those documents, and spot errors, and bring them to the public debate. Instead you are just spreading FUD, that somehow we are on the brink of a new Chernobyl, and just because of the public vigilance we don't have an (actual quote from your comments) "uncontained meltdown". Here's my proposal: take some time and browse through the NRC posted documents. Get to appreciate how extraordinarily thorough they are. If you find any hint they are not, take action, either write to them or to your representative. This way you'll be constructive. If you don't find, then maybe you'll get to respect them for the hard work they are putting in. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-activities/pre-application-activities/holtec/documents.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-acti...