• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Except it took a whistle blower to point out the reckless behavior during the clean-up to prevent a potential catastrophic event when the NRC was all for signing off on the reckless plan.

    +50 years ago

    • miak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Boy, you are just really bothered by this. Why does it being 50years ago matter. Can you explain why we should trust them more today than we should have then?

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Just to clarify you want to know why five decades of doing good work means nothing? I just want to make sure I get the coal lobby’s question correct.

        • miak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Right, how have their incentives changed and would you trust them regardless of the administration in power? I’m open to them being more trustworthy, but I don’t trust them easily.

          And just for the record, I’m not against nuclear power. I think it’s great and I would love to see more use of clean energy to move away from coal, so your pitchfork is not really necessary. Being skeptical of the organization charged with your safety is not the same thing as being against the technology they look over.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Right, and it is not on me to prove that they are doing a good job when I can point to five decades. If you want to stop lobbying for big coal go get a job with the NRC and do it yourself.