But there still are huge conflicts of interest in self-certifying equipment, wether it’s an airplane or a nuclear power plant.
In this case, following the crashes, the FAA's safety model is one of the reasons the EASA refused to delegate safety approval to the FAA on that specific plane.
Clearly signalling they consider Boeing, the FAA and the FAA's safety model to be untrustworthy.
I really don’t see why a process that is considered untrustworthy in the aerospace industry should be applied to nuclear power plants.
Now, to be clear, if some US airline's plane full of US citizens suffers some malfunction due to some design defects and crashes in the middle of the US because some government agency in the US decided to trust some US plane manufacturer to certify itself, it’s sad, but it’s a US problem for the US people. I really couldn’t care less.
Same with US power plants. Should a US nuclear power plant suffer catastrophic failure because some US regulator couldn’t learn from the FAA's mistake and decided to trust some US power plant operators with their own inspection, it would be a problem for the people living in and around the US.
Regarding the totally unrelated coal plants tangent and the blatant attempt to change the topic, I don’t care either. Over here, considering the dangers they pose, it’s been decided they should be entirely phased out over the next year.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I am somehow against nuclear power, or consider it inherently too dangerous.
I am not, and I do not.
I’d even go as far as to say I consider it to be one of our best bets in facing climate change, air pollution, and our need to quickly and drastically lower global greenhouse gases emissions.
But there still are huge conflicts of interest in self-certifying equipment, wether it’s an airplane or a nuclear power plant.
In this case, following the crashes, the FAA's safety model is one of the reasons the EASA refused to delegate safety approval to the FAA on that specific plane.
Clearly signalling they consider Boeing, the FAA and the FAA's safety model to be untrustworthy.
I really don’t see why a process that is considered untrustworthy in the aerospace industry should be applied to nuclear power plants.
Now, to be clear, if some US airline's plane full of US citizens suffers some malfunction due to some design defects and crashes in the middle of the US because some government agency in the US decided to trust some US plane manufacturer to certify itself, it’s sad, but it’s a US problem for the US people. I really couldn’t care less.
Same with US power plants. Should a US nuclear power plant suffer catastrophic failure because some US regulator couldn’t learn from the FAA's mistake and decided to trust some US power plant operators with their own inspection, it would be a problem for the people living in and around the US.
Regarding the totally unrelated coal plants tangent and the blatant attempt to change the topic, I don’t care either. Over here, considering the dangers they pose, it’s been decided they should be entirely phased out over the next year.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I am somehow against nuclear power, or consider it inherently too dangerous.
I am not, and I do not. I’d even go as far as to say I consider it to be one of our best bets in facing climate change, air pollution, and our need to quickly and drastically lower global greenhouse gases emissions.
[1]: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...