I personally feel that that page you linked is kinda bias and one sided in relation to regulation.

I am not against ALL regulations, only the regulations created by ignorance. Which seems to be a large number of them.

Example:

ALISO VIEJO, Calif. — City officials were so concerned about the potentially dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide that they considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production.

This is only one story, dihydrogen monoxide (water) has actually been banned in several cities and counties through petitions and pressure from hoaxsters.

Those same people create bans based on pressure/donations from advisers who are often entirely ignorant of the topic. Agencies and Bureaus also ban or allow things, not based on actual threats or problems, but out of fear of "not knowing" if something new could be used for good, evil, or neither. They tend to listen to who pays them, rather than those whom they represent.

The "no new nuclear power" mantra since 3 mile island (another human error), has crippled the US and made us even more dependent on coal. The reluctance against nuclear power has only kept existing nuclear plants designed 50 years ago in operation through today and into the foreseeable future, even though safer nuclear power plants exist, are proven, and available.

More people have died from Malaria since DDT was banned, than were harmed from DDT itself. Alternatives to DDT are too expensive and therefore simply not used. How is that better than allowing 100 times more people to die from Malaria because 1 in 1000 get cancer from DDT?

 

I love sunset clauses. They keep a legislature busy on the important stuff.

A favorite quote:
While legislature is in session, no one's life, liberty, or happiness is safe.

 

I am not against ALL regulations, only the regulations created by ignorance. Which seems to be a large number of them.

Example:


This is only one story, dihydrogen monoxide (water) has actually been banned in several cities and counties through petitions and pressure from hoaxsters.

Those same people create bans based on pressure/donations from advisers who are often entirely ignorant of the topic. Agencies and Bureaus also ban or allow things, not based on actual threats or problems, but out of fear of "not knowing" if something new could be used for good, evil, or neither. They tend to listen to who pays them, rather than those whom they represent.

The "no new nuclear power" mantra since 3 mile island (another human error), has crippled the US and made us even more dependent on coal. The reluctance against nuclear power has only kept existing nuclear plants designed 50 years ago in operation through today and into the foreseeable future, even though safer nuclear power plants exist, are proven, and available.

More people have died from Malaria since DDT was banned, than were harmed from DDT itself. Alternatives to DDT are too expensive and therefore simply not used. How is that better than allowing 100 times more people to die from Malaria because 1 in 1000 get cancer from DDT?

So you would give nuclear power a mandate?
It seems to be the only alternative to greenhouse emissions.
The nuclear dusts don't cause so much, except in some irradiated places.

But when mutations are reported, the supporters are out of arguments that it is safe and harmless.

 

So you would give nuclear power a mandate?
It seems to be the only alternative to greenhouse emissions.
The nuclear dusts don't cause so much, except in some irradiated places.

But when mutations are reported, the supporters are out of arguments that it is safe and harmless.

I am in full support of new reactor technologies. They produce little to no hazardous waste, a fraction of the radiation current reactors produce, and are meltdown-proof.

As far as mutations go, CDC is On Top Of Things.

 

Hi Takao.

Nothing is ever harmless.

Nuclear power provides a sensible balance of power and greeness, both of which we need.

Sure when nuclear is mis-managed, it can be dangerous, but so can water. Should we ban all water because it is sometimes dangerous? Should we prevent the use of water because it can sometimes be dangerous?

When people think of nuclear energy, they tend to think of nuclear explosions and bombs. This is very wrong compared to how nuclear power really works. People tend to forget the thousands upon thousands of safe operational hours nuclear power stations have, but they are quick to remember the one or two incidents where things have gone wrong with very dated technology.

 

Don't forget the U.S. Navy has ran nuclear power for over 50 years. Admiral Rickover is rumored to take the junior officers to a small nuclear plant and inject problems for them to solve ... quickly.