3 ms·

I wish Congress would leave the decision making on such matters to the experts. Politicians have no valid role in this process. Why isn't this farmed out to a

I wish Congress would leave the decision making on such matters to the experts. Politicians have no valid role in this process. Why isn't this farmed out to an appropriate regulatory entity with deep expertise? Akin to the FAA for aeronautical.

dyauspitr 2y ago
The republicans are actively trying to neuter any agency with expertise and default all these decisions to congress.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Some are to be sure. Just look at the Project 2025 plans for eliminating NOAA because the talk about climate change
jojobas 2y ago
The problem is that given enough time, these "expert" bodies become just as politicized and worse, completely unaccountable to the voters.
- dylan604 2y ago
  just look at the experts involved in the W3C ratifying HTML standards
  - jojobas 2y ago
    Just look at Covid experts refusing to say the truth because it would play to Trump.
FredPret 2y ago
There are strong arguments to be made both for strong technocratic bureaus that make decisions, as well as for direct democracy where the people decide everything directly or through congress. You don’t want to have completely unaccountable bodies ruling society (called the deep state by its enemies) and you don’t want to have zero governing capacity either (what would liberals call this, Galt’s Gulch?) There’s a balance to be struck.
arrosenberg 2y ago
> Why isn't this farmed out to an appropriate regulatory entity with deep expertise? It is, they just also happen to be a major impediment to new Nuclear power in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission
- credit_guy 2y ago
  > It is, they just also happen to be a major impediment to new Nuclear power in the US. I'm very pro-nuclear, but I'm glad we have the NRC, and I think they are doing a good job. I'm currently reading the book "The Curve of Binding Energy" [1], about the physicist Ted Taylor. It was written in 1973 and the focus was the possibility, even likelihood, that one day a terrorist organization could build a nuclear bomb. This was before the split of the Atomic Energy Commission into the NRC and the Department of Energy. Reading the book is a bit like time travel. You move from today's industry-hostile NRC to the absolute opposite: the AEC was completely industry-captured. The laxity of the controls was terrifying. Of course, the author had no idea that in 6 years we'd have the Three Mile Island incident, but for someone in 2024, TMI now makes perfect sense. Did the NRC become too much of a break for the nuclear expansion. You bet. But I prefer 100 times more to live in a world like we have now than in a world like it was in 1973. We are very lucky that things worse than TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't happen. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_Of_Binding_Energy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_Of_Bindi...
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Nah, instead atmospheric CO2 is quickly headed to 450ppm. 2-3 meltdowns would be far more manageable (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside the USSR).
    - metabagel 2y ago
      > (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside the USSR) Why would you only look at the death toll outside the USSR? That doesn't seem like the right way to go about risk analysis and management.

dyauspitr 2y ago

The republicans are actively trying to neuter any agency with expertise and default all these decisions to congress.

dylan604 2y ago
Some are to be sure. Just look at the Project 2025 plans for eliminating NOAA because the talk about climate change

jojobas 2y ago

The problem is that given enough time, these "expert" bodies become just as politicized and worse, completely unaccountable to the voters.

dylan604 2y ago
just look at the experts involved in the W3C ratifying HTML standards
- jojobas 2y ago
  Just look at Covid experts refusing to say the truth because it would play to Trump.

FredPret 2y ago

There are strong arguments to be made both for strong technocratic bureaus that make decisions, as well as for direct democracy where the people decide everything directly or through congress. You don’t want to have completely unaccountable bodies ruling society (called the deep state by its enemies) and you don’t want to have zero governing capacity either (what would liberals call this, Galt’s Gulch?) There’s a balance to be struck.

arrosenberg 2y ago

> Why isn't this farmed out to an appropriate regulatory entity with deep expertise? It is, they just also happen to be a major impediment to new Nuclear power in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission

credit_guy 2y ago
> It is, they just also happen to be a major impediment to new Nuclear power in the US. I'm very pro-nuclear, but I'm glad we have the NRC, and I think they are doing a good job. I'm currently reading the book "The Curve of Binding Energy" [1], about the physicist Ted Taylor. It was written in 1973 and the focus was the possibility, even likelihood, that one day a terrorist organization could build a nuclear bomb. This was before the split of the Atomic Energy Commission into the NRC and the Department of Energy. Reading the book is a bit like time travel. You move from today's industry-hostile NRC to the absolute opposite: the AEC was completely industry-captured. The laxity of the controls was terrifying. Of course, the author had no idea that in 6 years we'd have the Three Mile Island incident, but for someone in 2024, TMI now makes perfect sense. Did the NRC become too much of a break for the nuclear expansion. You bet. But I prefer 100 times more to live in a world like we have now than in a world like it was in 1973. We are very lucky that things worse than TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima didn't happen. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_Of_Binding_Energy https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_Of_Bindi...
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  Nah, instead atmospheric CO2 is quickly headed to 450ppm. 2-3 meltdowns would be far more manageable (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside the USSR).
  - metabagel 2y ago
    > (especially considering the non-existent death toll outside the USSR) Why would you only look at the death toll outside the USSR? That doesn't seem like the right way to go about risk analysis and management.