3 Comments

  1. More words on paper from politicians (figurative, probably paperless by now). There is no way that strongly worded “mission alignment” statement effects the change the “Nuclear Bros” want to see, which is the rubber-stamping of conceptual designs from MSRs, SFRs, microR garage bands. It seems similar to when top level managers make changes to the org chart because that is the only aspect they can control.

  2. @Michael Scarangella

    Speaking as someone who has been accused of being a “Nuclear Bro,” I think you are being harsh and dismissive. I have a great deal of respect for the staff at the NRC (overall) and I certainly recognize the need for good regulation to ensure both public and worker safety.

    But I have also been observing the NRC’s functioning during the past 30+ years and researching what happened before that. With good guidance from the top, they are productive, with less good guidance they have been obstructive. Clearer legal guidance will, in my opinion, shift the performance closer to the productive side than the obstructive side.

  3. Does this change anything about ALARA or LNT guiding regulations? Then I don’t see it as anything more than a response to strong criticism of both. Changing the “mission” of the NRC without changing either of those is just more of the same, just “better”. Which is not better for energy availability.

    The mission of the NRC is still “avoid accidents”, not balancing the tradeoff of “energy is dangerous, lets make sure its both available and safe.”

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Five Atomic Geek Lunch at ANS Meeting

    I am in Atlanta, GA for the American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting. Though the use of Twitter, email and face to face communications, five active atomic geeks with web presences got together for lunch. We had a wide ranging conversation that only true geeks could love. People at the table included: John Wheeler – This…

  • Treasure trove of documents about the ML-1, the US Army’s trailer-mounted, nitrogen-cooled, atomic fission-heated generator

    I recently published an article featuring a video from the Army Nuclear Power Program that focused on the Army’s mobile, low power closed cycle nitrogen cooled nuclear reactor designated the ML-1. The article generated a good discussion that indicated a strong desire for more information about the program. My initial searches didn’t turn up a…

  • The Atomic Show #121 – LFTR with Kirk Sorensen and Charles Barton

    Kirk Sorensen and Charles Barton are some of the world’s most vocal advocates of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) concept. Together, they operate Energy from Thorium, one of the richest veins of energy knowledge available on the web. During our conversation, they provide a lot of food for thought with their detailed descriptions and…

  • Atomic Show #219 – Mike Rosen misused Edward Calabrese’s Earth Day column

    On Atomic Show #218 – Ed Calabrese – Researching Dose Response Dr. Calabrese shared some important stories about the data manipulations he had discovered relating to the establishment of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response assessment. Those stories will shake the established order. Not surprisingly, two commenters immediately added statements apparently aimed at discrediting Dr….

  • Nuclear Energy: Past, Present, and Future

    On Friday, March 28, 2014, I had the privilege of attending a symposium at Dartmouth College titled Three Mile Island 35th Anniversary Symposium: The Past, Present, and Future of Nuclear Energy. If you are curious and have a free nine hours, you can watch an archived copy of the main event on YouTube. The thing…

  • A Path from Coal to Nuclear is Being Blazed in Wyoming

    Many of those who care about finding solutions to the physical distress that our climate is experiencing, as reported on this week in a landmark 1,300 page report by the IPCC‘s Sixth Assessment Working Group 1 (Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis), are not looking at Wyoming. But based upon the announcement made in…