Shared publicly  - 
Nuclear Safety:
A Nuclear Regulatory Commission member should not be appointed to a second five-year term because of her record on safety issues, Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Thursday. The senator cited Kristine Svinicki's vote to extend the operating license for the problem-plagued Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor one week after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. The commission acted in haste "without even pausing to consider the safety implications for the Vermont plant which shares the same design as the Fukushima reactors that melted down," Sanders said.
April 19, 2012. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission member should not be appointed to a second five-year term because of her record on safety issues, Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Thursday. The senator cite...
Liane Allen's profile photoGerardo Tasistro's profile photoAnthony DeTommasi's profile photoKeith Childers's profile photo
It's as if the ruling was timed specifically to preempt any data from Fukushima from informing the decision.
Can you pick lottery numbers with success Gunther? If so, please post them in tongues.
Thy words hath made me rolleth about upon the floor
Dear Senator Sanders. I think the regulation would be more simple and applicable if it was reduced to something along the lines of "you soil it you clean it". Decontamination costs for Fukushima are estimated at 13 Billion USD (, Who's picking up the tab? You guessed it the Japanese government. "The Japanese government said it anticipates spending a minimum of $13 billion to rehabilitate all of the territory exposed to radioactive contaminant" (

The problem in Fukushima occurred due to a wall being too low among other things. But lets stick to the wall. The criteria for the wall height was based on the periodicity of earthquakes with such an intensity. As I understand the prior one occurred some 900 years ago. Let us put it at 1000 years to keep the math simple. So 13 Billion divided by 1000 is 13 million a year. Thirteen million US Dollars a year buys a lot of bricks for a wall. If we multiply 13 x 40 (the years in operation since it started in 1971) that's 520 million US Dollars. That's a lot of bricks!

If companies like TEPCO that operated the Fukushima had to cleanup messes like these they would be a lot more conscious of their security. If companies like TEPCO had to insure this I don't think any private company would do it given their security standards. If they did the premium would be so high it would be cheaper to put in higher security.

If they don't want to implement government set security standards why should the government pick the tab when they have incidents like these? Surely the country can't be left with the land contaminated, but the company should pay for the cleanup and if it can't it should be intervened by the company and criminal charges filed against it.

This lack of regulation is the biggest risk in nuclear energy not the radiation. The bad name nuclear power has attained over the years is due to human negligence. It is ironic that they are destroying their own reputation in the sake of profit. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
OMG It's Ral[ph]!!! And he really is a prophet! Ralf, there's this cowboy guy you simply have to meet. Hold on let me get my video camera.

Bob Sagat let's see you try to snub me again this time...
It would seem that by sheer force of will I am able to create fictional characters who magically come to life on Google+, and who possess many orders of magnitude more extreme character attributes than originally ascribed.

I shall now use this power to produce a progressive primary challenger.
It hit me like a bolt from above.....

I NEED TO SERIOUSLY REFINE and add some new appellations to my name...think of the opportunities I am missing out on, in the absence of inspired bootstrapping!
+Ralf Günther I did not quite follow that last you know someone in need of legal representation for an injury, something like a tbi? 
I think the US is showing increasing obesity these last decades because of that damnable Al Gore! I am told that he created the internet...and but for him, people would exercise much more, wandering the streets disheveled, when comes the time to unleash a sermon. 
+Ralf Günther says "God gives people so again one last chance to determine their fate." I don't really agree with that. I'd say God gives people one last chance to realize their fate. Fate is set pretty much set when you make the decision. The issue is people tend to believe they can get away with it. Particularly if the consequences are not in the short term. In their minds they're like the Schrödinger Cat that's simultaneously alive and dead until someone opens the box to see if it is really alive or dead.

Am I morally correct? In my mind I can be both. I can be immoral as I'm not being truly moral, but remain moral because the consequences haven't caught up so I'm living as if I was moral. Only when, "someone opens the box", is my immorality revealed to the world. In the case of the Fukushima power plant the box opener was the earthquake.

The commandments you mention and all derivative moral values are of no consequence as long as people remain with their "boxes closed".
I say negligence is per se immoral. In particular criminal negligence.
I retract that...reread your prior post...the commandment stuff threw me off.
I agree with you as to criminal negligence...ordinary negligence not really...that is why we impose criminal penalties only for the former.
Although there are many degrees of negligence and saying that all negligence is immoral is an exaggeration, I do believe some negligence outside criminal negligence is also immoral. For example, neglecting to put salt in the soup is hardly immoral, but neglecting to put gas in the car when asked to do so although not life threatening is not of great moral value. Neglecting to study when your parents are paying for your college tuition isn't high on the moral rankings either. But I digress.
Btw...I am fully aware that I am equally in love with the sound of my own voice. 
You are correct...societal law is far too blunt an instrument by which to be a true measure of morality; it is meant only as a workable approximation vested toward preservation of the social fabric.

My point, which you in part also explore, is that simple mistake genuinely made, does not constitute moral defect.

Additionally, some instances -- even where the consequences are dire -- such as when a physician absently leaves a sponge in a surgical cavity -- are ALSO not immoral. Occasional stupidity, if honestly come by (no foreseeably avoidable component such as drugs or alcohol, etc., compounding things and otherwise imparting a negligent culpability) is quite literally part of being human...unless one is The Son of God and/or a Prophet, of course.
Agreed +Anthony DeTommasi clearly an accident or simple mistakes do not constitute a moral defect. Although they can carry a moral burden or guilt afterwards.

It is also impossible to be all knowing. So some negligent acts might be come by due not to the lack of moral values, but lack of proper prior knowledge. While at the same time not being due diligent in gaining some prior knowledge can be constituted as negligent.

As you say it is "only as a workable approximation vested toward preservation of the social fabric".
Ralf is posting a selection of his prior writings for our benefits, it seems, so may not be taking calls at the moment.
Add a comment...