"Nuclear Agencies Are Wholly Controlled By (and Serve) the Nuclear Industry..."
Congressman: There’s Been an “Attempted Coup” at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/congressman-theres-been-an-attemp...
Search
Congressman: There’s Been an “Attempted Coup” at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/congressman-theres-been-an-attemp...
NRC - Sycophants Transparent
With quivering spams rubber stamp they did, while the mouthpiece lackys of the oligarchy blathered on about the price of tripe and Jay Lo....
Two US nuclear plants had quakes exceeding operating basis… while in process of getting licensed ...
http://enformable.com/2012/01/september-1st-2011-two-us-nuclear-plants-e...
How did the plants do?
How did the plants do?
Did the earthquakes disable the plants and cause them to release radioactivity?
I don't recall hearing that this was the case.
Japan Nuclear Safety Commission - BRIBERY
Japan Nuclear Safety Commission - BRIBERY
That works out to about $50k each, already. Not bad for starters.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/12/24-nuclear-safety-commission-members-...
24 Nuclear Safety Commission members received 85 million yen of donation from nuclear companies
Nuclear Safety Commission, which has responsibility for the governance of the nuclear industry, has been involved in bribery
24 of 89 members, including the chairman Madarame Haruki, have received 85 million of “donation” from nuclear related companies or organizations for these 5 years.
11 of 24 members even received money from electric companies and nuclear fuel manufactures which must be checked by Nuclear Safety Commission themselves.
http://fukushima-diary.com/
Posted by Mochizuki - December 31st, 2011
Original Source:
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1231/OSK201112310119.html
Google Translator Page:
http://translate.google.com/#ja|en|
Doing the Math
$1M / 4 = $250k EACH
One (1) Million Dollars split 4 ways
The corrupt Japan officials split $1M about 20 ways, for about $50k apiece.
What IS the 'Going Rate' for a government commissioner in the US of A?
It looks like the bribery auction bids may open at $250k
That would be 2.5 X 10 E5 [SMACKAROOS] in scientific notation
;)
Honest to God I'm trying to
Honest to God I'm trying to stay as open minded as possible, exploring both sides of this complicated issue, but the more I delve into the dirty connections of the industry, the more I lean toward opposing nuclear power.
Meanwhile in the US of A
Two By Two
Note - (2) Republican and (2) Democrat NRC Commissioners …
Apparently, bribery is a bi-partisan activity …
1. Four NRC Commissioners attempted to delay and otherwise impede the creation of the
NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima
2. Four NRC Commissioners conspired, with each other and with senior NRC staff, to delay
the release of and alter the NRC Near-Term Task Force report on Fukushima
3. The other NRC Commissioners attempted to slow down or otherwise impede the
adoption of the safety recommendations made by the NRC Near-Term Task Force on
Fukushima
4. NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko kept the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed
regarding the Japanese emergency, despite claims to the contrary made by these
Commissioners.
5. A review of emails and other documents indicates high levels of suspicion and hostility
directed at the Chairman.
6. The consideration of the Fukushima safety upgrades is not the only safety-related issue
that the other NRC Commissioners have opposed.
According to Congressman Edward J. Markey …
http://markey.house.gov/docs/regulatory_meltdown_12.09.11.pdf
4 NRC Suspects
4 NRC Suspects
With the four commissioners (AKA - Suspects) flanking NRC Chairman Gregory at the witness table –
Kristine Svinicki and William Magwood on his right,
George Apostolakis and William Ostendorff on his left
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/return-long-knives.2011-12-14
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/14/4122195/nrc-commissioners-chairman-jacz...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-13/jaczko-s-outbursts-undermine-nr...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/12/11/lawmakers-split-over-supporting...
A dispute among members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has moved to Capitol Hill, where four NRC commissioners (AKA - Suspects) told a House committee that "bullying and intimidation" by the panel's chairman have damaged the commission's effectiveness.
The four commissioners (AKA - Suspects) - two Democrats and two Republicans - said NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko (YAHTS'-koh), a Democrat, is responsible for an increasingly tense and unsettled work environment at the NRC. The four commissioners sent a letter to the White House in October expressing "grave concern" about Jaczko's actions.
http://energy.aol.com/2011/12/15/gregory-jaczko-stands-his-nrc-ground-at...
Commissioner William Ostendorff, a Republican, told a House oversight committee that the letter was not politically motivated, as some lawmakers have said. Ostendorff said the real issue is Jaczko's "bullying and intimidation," which Ostendorff said "should not and cannot be tolerated."
With the four commissioners (AKA - Suspects) flanking him at the witness table – Kristine Svinicki and William Magwood on his right, George Apostolakis and William Ostendorff on his left – Jaczko insisted he had erred only in being "passionate" about nuclear safety issues. The other four (AKA - Suspects) described him as an abusive manager who screamed at, humiliated and tried to silence senior staff.
More like Markey's anti-nuclear ferver at work
It's more like Markey's anti-nuclear ferver at work...
The Commissioners in question, including an MIT Professor ( Apostolakis ) have merely asked for further study and consideration, and not to rush into making new regulations and applying them.
One may ask why not rush forward and apply these regulations as Congressman Markey wishes as soon as possible. The reason is because of unforeseen consequences. Regulations can sometimes cause problems that were not imagined when they were implemented.
A case where regulations actually caused a problem involves the 1979 crash of American Airlines 191, a DC-10 from Chicago to Los Angeles. Many may remember this case, where some faulty maintenance work caused the jet to lose an engine on take-off, which also compromised the hydraulic system of the craft. However, that's not what ultimately brought the plane down with a loss of 271 lives.
What actually doomed the plane was an FAA regulation. That regulation called for the flight crew in the case of an engine loss to fly at an airspeed called "V2". The problem was the craft was already above "V2" speed, and the flight crew, not yet knowing the full extent of the damage to the craft, dutifully complied.
Unfortunately, V2 speed was below the stall speed of the left wing which had lost hydraulic pressure to keep the slats extended. The reduction in speed stalled only the left wing, and the DC-10 rolled over on its back and crashed.
A PBS Nova program on this incident on the 25-th anniversary of the crash in 1994 had one of the authors of the regulation to go to V2 speed. He stated that when the regulation was written, they imagined that the craft would be below V2, and that the flight crew should speed up to this speed. They had never imagined that such a stricken craft might already be above V2 and slow down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
For Heavens sake people, the regulations of the NRC are studied and studied and studied for potential adverse effects. The process takes years. We have a set of recommendations that we have known about for only a few months.
Let's not potentially jump from the frying pan into the fire by replacing regulations with years of study by regulations that have only been vetted a few months.
The actions of the 4 commissions is laudable. It's the actions of Markey that are questionable. Markey is treating the Fukushima accident as a problem that needs a quick, urgent fix. Most of the deficiencies in evidence at Fukushima are already violations of NRC regulations. Current NRC regulations would not have allowed Fukushima to operate. We have no urgent emergency with regard to US nuclear power plants.
The call by the 4 commissioners to study the proposed changes to NRC regulations is quite sound. We could be creating a problem for ourselves in a rush to fix a problem that might not exist in the US plants.
BIG PICTURE: understand time is money = WCRM
When 'money is no object' Rome CAN be built in a day. Witness the creation of the devices dropped on Japan in WWII.
When the cost of doing a study is budgeted and therefore timelined based on a calculus that places a value on a certain likelihood of damage to the territory and the health of a population the rationale to doing less over a longer period of time becomes the sick and sad approach. Warped Calculus Rationale Method. WCRM
When money can be sent to the investment holders and the hired criminals can be indemnified by the government you can be sure the financial community will work behind the scenes to create maximum delay of a study for instance, the outcome of which will, eventually be, cost to the investment holders. The investment holders will work behind the scenes to see to it that WCRM is put to use. Presto, public screwed while RISK is socialized simultaneously INSULATING the flow of RETURN, of PROFITS to the PRIVATE Investment class. After all that is what government is for.
AGAIN. AGAIN. AGAIN.
Totally unresponsive...
The above post is totally unresponsive to the issues raised in the post it responds to.
"Time is money" is not the issue. The real issue is that we may make our nuclear power plants LESS safe by rushing regulations into effect that have only been studied a few months; and supplanting regulations that have been studied for years.
The analogy with the Flight 191 incident is apt. The FAA probably wasn't rushing when it put some regulations into effect; but those regulations had an unforeseen side effect when they were followed in an emergency. Because of those regulations, 271 people died that could have been saved if the pilots didn't follow the flawed regulation.
The US nuclear power plants are not in imminent danger of suffering the same fate as Fukushima. For the Fukushima scenario, we need an earthquake and tsumani, and to have nuclear plants with the same deficiencies that were evident at Fukushima. That is not the case with US plants.
Therefore, there's no emergency require untested and unstudied regulations to be rushed into effect. We should do as 4 of the 5 NRC Commissioners say and study the new regulations before they are put into effect.
As is discussed in another thread, there is no emergency in NRC regulated nuclear power plants, and hence the Chairman doesn't have emergency powers. So legally, the Chairman is presently just another voting Commissioner, with no special emergency powers, and he just got out-voted on this issue 4-1.
NRC IS UNRESPOSIVE BECAUSE THEY EXIST IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY
A reality where ample justification exists create delays where none need exist. Since the delays serve the monied criminals of the nuclear industry the NRC will of course do all they can to serve their true masters, the largely criminal nuclear industry.
The TWOFOLD effect of preservation of capital (the criminal nuclear industry's capital) and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the at least temporary indemnification against indictments that could result in criminal convictions.
The engineering studies for the safety improvements already exist. They need only be revisited and verified before proceeding with them.
The TIME required to update and apply the existing studies is DIRECTLY and inversely proportional to the money supplied.
The real time and money equation is this:
LESS MONEY (for new regulation enactment studies) YIELDS MORE TIME OUT OF, LESS LIKELIHOOD OF JAIL AND MORE TIME TO PROFIT FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT WHILE DELAYING SAFELY UPDATE OUTLAYS.
Very straightforward really.
NRC - the government representative of the nuclear industry. Think about it.
No evidence!!!
The TWOFOLD effect of preservation of capital (the criminal nuclear industry's capital) and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the at least temporary indemnification against indictments that could result in criminal convictions.
========================
I see no evidence that the NRC is serving the nuclear industry to the detriment of the public. One of the 4 Commissioners that are opposing Jaczko is an Obama appointee; MIT Professor Apostolakis.
I see these charges made by the anti-nukes all the time, that the regulators are only looking out for the regulated, to the detriment of the public. ( If that were true, then they are doing a poor job of biasing. Nuclear power is very heavily regulated.)
The poster above is factually IN ERROR. The recommendations are only a few months old, and there hasn't been the time to do the extensive studies to see if there isn't a flaw in the new proposed regulations that could make nuclear power plants LESS safe.
Again, the poster misses the apt analogy with the FAA and AA 191. The FAA wasn't rushing regulations into effect; but they promulgated a regulation that had the very, very bad effect of actually killing 271 people.
We don't want to have that happen with our nuclear power plants. The 4 Commissioners are not asking for permanent delays. The nuclear power plant owners will eventually have to pay for what ever upgrades are deemed necessary.
Just because some regulation is going to cost the industry some money doesn't automatically mean it is a good regulation. Of course, for the self-righteous anti-nuke who is only interested in doing damage to the industry whether or not the public is well served; then those are the people that want to ram through any costly regulation, regardless of how ill-considered.
Delay
LESS MONEY (for new regulation enactment studies) YIELDS MORE TIME OUT OF, LESS LIKELIHOOD OF JAIL AND MORE TIME TO PROFIT FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT WHILE DELAYING (long-planed, continuously delayed or unenforced) SAFELY UPDATE OUTLAYS.
Very straightforward really.
NRC - the government representative of the nuclear industry. Think about it.
Care to backup your accusations?
Care to backup your accusations?
Since you talk about jail for someone; then it should be trivial for you to cite the law being violated. Please don't just wave your hands. Please cite the law by giving its cite in the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 5, section 4b...
Then tell us who is violating that law.
The Criminals in Charge, the ones that roll in money,
can dodge the legal bullets because they have bought and paid in full for fifty years of government legal shielding. The laws protect them by design. There are many laws on the books that COULD be applied in this context such as those concerned with "conspiracy to commit" or "reckless disregard for the safety of human life" but will not be because of the legal and governmental barriers designed to protect them. These constructions are largely but NOT exclusively the result of behind the scenes operations of the military industrial complex. Once the public was sufficiently enrolled the bankers and industrialists needed indemnification before they would proceed. Congress obliged in a very public way.
If a people's tribunal gets hold of them they are however toast.
I both feel for and largely respect the individuals for whom the nuclear power industry is a chosen career. I wish I could have such faith that so many could perform so flawlessly and consistently. In large part history has shown that their faith is not misplaced. I also see the occasional failure as fairly damming to the body of the industry, an industry that should brook no failure. In a free market environment skills will tend go to the place where they can do the greatest good (best compensation) so as other sectors and industries blossom things will shift. God bless free enterprise and the well-formatted resume. Their skills will find new venues in the days and years ahead.
In a realistic sense all we can do right now is clean up and put in place natural limits (like economic and political constraints that result from an informed and empowered public) that will first balance and then eliminate these things from our world. We are fortunate in that we can now move past nuclear fission for our energy needs in just about every instance, creating an economy for the future and save and money in so doing. Times are changing.
So lets start with the workers that make it all run. While each of them are confident in their ability to perform they also know Murphy and it is the realization of Murphy's Law in the context of nuclear power generation that provides the context. Recruit, enroll and motivate to reduce and eliminate the threat from a perspective outside the confines of the industry.
Because we have so many examples of what can happen the technical community is increasingly active in working to reduce the threat in every respect. People are generally of good intent so we can start with the engineering community. After all they hold the keys to the nuclear kingdom and they should have a personal relationship and commitment to the culture and professional standards of the profession, for instance:
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
From NSPE
.....and we go from there.
Talking out of both sides...
There are many laws on the books that COULD be applied in this context such as those concerned with "conspiracy to commit" or "reckless disregard for the safety of human life" but will not be because of the legal and governmental barriers designed to protect them.
========================
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say that there are laws that could be used. Then you say that there are legal barriers designed to protect them. So which is it? Can a person be charged or not. If so, tell us EXACTLY what statute; not some "conspiracy to commit" or "reckless disregard".
I'd like you to cite a statute. Something like Title "X" Code of Federal Regulations Section "Y", subsection "Z".
I don't know where you got the idea that we could move beyond nuclear. If you've read the studies by the National Academy of Science and Engineering, they say that we can't run this nation on renewables alone. In fact, they say if renewables become >50%, then there has to be a new understanding or new expectations of the power system; i.e. electric power may not always be there 24/7 as it is now.
why do you stalk so many
why do you stalk so many comments here without revealing who you represent? It's a fair question. Who do you work for?
Proving a negative is difficult..
When 'money is no object' Rome CAN be built in a day. Witness the creation of the devices dropped on Japan in WWII.
---------------------------------------------------
There's a difference between building nuclear weapons and regulating the nuclear industry. In a way, the latter is tougher.
When the scientists that designed the nuclear weapons of WWII had completed their designs, what did they do? They conducted a test. They built what they had designed, put it up on a tower in New Mexico, and pulled the trigger and BOOM. They knew it worked; they did the experiment.
However, if one is regulating the nuclear industry or airlines, or any technological enterprise; how do you know if you've accomplished your mission? You can't do one test and know you're done.
There are always the unknown unknowns; the things you didn't think of. That's why it takes a long time to thoroughly examine a set of regulations in order to understand and be sure that those regulations do what you want, and perhaps more important, don't have unintended consequences that you don't want.
negative provides contrast - FACTS stand in sharp relief
Thanks for your kind reply.
Your pity statement:
"There's a difference between building nuclear weapons and regulating the nuclear industry. In a way, the latter is tougher."
is a declaration that we MUST, if safety is a primary concern, put MORE resources into regulating the nuclear industry THAN WAS EXPENDED IN THE MANHATTAN PROJECT (.6 billion a year over its course, or ABOUT ONE THIRD OF ONE PERCENT OF GNP).
So the real cost of regulating the nuclear industry today should be 135 BILLION PER YEAR if it were only AS EASY as creating nuclear bombs. Of course if we can AFFORD to have the occasional catastrophe we could spend less.
The nuclear industry is in many cases and unarguably its own worst enemy as its control of this anemic financing of regulation manifests, as this program of spending less and its predictable outcome is shown to be the plan, as we witness all the pro industry, 'dam the recent safety concerns' decisions / actions of the co-oped NRC and as we witness a landscape increasingly littered with Fukushimas, et al.
And yet ( post Fukushima ):
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's budget for the next fiscal year is a little more than $1 billion, a decrease of $28.7 million from FY2010 funding levels."
See the video:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congress-looks-at-Nuclear-Safety-and-Crisis...
Predictable.
money + politics = something you need to wipe of your shoe (realpolitik or RP)
RP + science = something that will kill you given half a chance (crap$ci or C$)
C$ + industry = eventual degradation and cessation of life
While the nuclear industry seems bent on its own destruction it would be a wise public that avoids being collateral damage.
All the best in 2012
I hadn't thought of that.
I hadn't thought of that. You have a very valid point. I had not thought about the possibility that we might actually be making our nuclear power plants less safe in an urgent rush to make them more safe.
This may be a manufactured crisis due to an appalling lack of thinking and consideration by Congressman Markey.
With regard to nuclear safety regulations, we shouldn't be rushing it. We need to give the NRC the time to do the job right.
It may be that Congressman Markey is doing more harm than good.
Smoking Crack
;)
Yeah, but you're smoking crack.
Meanwhile in the Real World ...
Public Policy and scientific research are best conducted in the open, in the sunshine
Enjoy what you are smoking, grab the money and run like a thief, Dude.
But don't drink the purple Kool-Aid
;)