• miak
    link
    fedilink
    25 months ago

    From what I recall of Three Mile Island, I don’t know that I’d put a lot of trust in the NRC.

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15 months ago

      I’m pretty sure Three Mile Island is more of a case study in how safety measures at nuclear plants can work.

      • miak
        link
        fedilink
        35 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. That, plus the poor communication with the surrounding communities did not help the people there feel confident that their safety was being looked after

        It’s not been uncontested through out history, and I won’t pretend that I follow the updates closely, but there have been studies suggesting increased cancer rates in the surrounding communities.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -25 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
            link
            fedilink
            35 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?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -35 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
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                5 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -15 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.

    • @Zink
      link
      05 months ago

      I bet on the day Three Mile Island had the meltdown, hundreds if not thousands of people died due to emissions from coal power.

      The issues with fission are issues with practically. It’s expensive, pretty much. Concerns about meltdowns or waste storage are discussions that need to happen, but they pale in comparison to the damage we already experience every day.

      Hopefully small modular reactors will get popular in remote areas or industrial uses, and that will bring down the price to make them a feasible compliment to renewable energy.

      • miak
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        I don’t disagree about the harm of coal and I am absolutely hoping fusion works out in the long run. All for clean energy!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      05 months ago

      I mean no one died and it seems like most studies find few to no significant adverse long term health effects from the event.

      • miak
        link
        fedilink
        45 months ago

        There have been studies that suggested increased cancer rates around TMI. I don’t pretend to follow TMI closely enough to know for sure, maybe those studies have been completely debunked. The trouble with cancer is there can be a number of different factors leading to it and isolating one incident as the main driver for cancer years down the line is difficult.

        There was also the issue with the way the surrounding communities were being “kept informed” and the fact that a whistle blower and to come forward to halt irresponsible clean up plans that could have caused a catastrophic event.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -35 months ago

          Really obsessed about this 5 decade long ago event. Btw the cancers studies have been debunked

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -15 months ago

      I see. So because of an incident five decades ago out of hundreds of plants running since the 1950s that resulted in no deaths the entire NRC for all time forever is untrustworthy.

      Hey everyone go shut civilization down. The bar has been raised. Did an organization make a mistake that had no victim 51 years ago? This means it is destroyed forever. Only perfect people who act perfectly forever and into the past as far as you can look get to do anything.

      Got to love this new world. Where the only thing that is real is our outrage. Can you tell me anything about the NRC? Can you describe their emblem without looking it up? Can you tell me who is running it now? Can you tell me about its organization structure? How about the license renewal process? How about how inspections are even performed? Betting no. But you don’t need to, you have outrage and that replaces data. It is the master play that can never be defeated. As long as you can be upset about something you don’t need to know anything.

      There are people who are grandparents who weren’t alive during that incident.

      • miak
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        With respect, you are the one that seems outraged. I’m not outraged, just pointing out that government can be just as untrustworthy as corporations and in the case of the NRC, there is some history to justify that.
        Government agencies generally should be looked at with critical eyes, as should anyone claiming power over your life.

        Also, you claimed there were no victims. The fact that no one died in the immediate aftermath of TMI does not mean there were no victims. The surrounding communities were victimized by poor business decisions and poor oversight.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -35 months ago

          there is some history to justify that.

          Emphasis on “some”.

          Also, you claimed there were no victims. The fact that no one died in the immediate aftermath of TMI does not mean there were no victims. The surrounding communities were victimized by poor business decisions and poor oversight.

          Do you think pedantically going after one word I said will make your pro-coal agenda work?

          • miak
            link
            fedilink
            35 months ago

            I just thought it was worth recognizing that there were victims as my point in my original post was regarding the trustworthiness of those that are supposed to be looking out for the people. And I guess I’m not sure where I’ve pushed coal, but you do you, I guess.

            Peace and love to you, Zombies