Talk:Nuclear Regulatory Commission

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011083513/http://www.homestead.com:80/clonemaster/files/cancel.htm to http://www.homestead.com/clonemaster/files/Cancel.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080917222325/http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/the-future-of-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/the-future-of-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section in dire need of replacement
The controversy section says in general that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not tough enough on the Nuclear power industry. I can't help but suggest that this is blatantly unbalanced and omits most information and points that could be contrary to whatever narrative the author(s) wanted to portray about the NRC and Nuclear Energy. There has not been a "Major"(as in damaged the health, not threatened the health, of thousands of people, like the Chernobyl accident, for example) accident in United States history. One might say Three Mile Island was, but scholarly and official findings [https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island#:~:text=No%20adverse%20effects%20to%20the%20surrounding%20environment&text=It%20was%20determined%20that%20very,the%20individuals%20or%20the%20environment. disagree]. Since the Nuclear Regulatory commission is responsible for all nuclear power plants in the United States, this shows an amiable track record that is not reflected in the article. Rather, it seems to be a mouthpiece for anti-nuclear rhetoric which is supported by predominantly anti-nuclear sources. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists is cited extensively, even though its starkly anti-nuclear. According to a Harvard University analysis, Nuclear Energy poses much less danger and has caused less death than all other forms of electricity generation. This article seems to focus in on potential risks of "slacking" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, despite the fact that because of the Nuclear industry's strict regulation, the United States has shut down a sizeable number of Nuclear plants and not a single major accident has taken place.

Therefore, I propose redoing the Controversy Section, first by shrinking it to remove redundant points and text, and then adding a PRO-nuclear point of view to make the section more neutral. For example, the section could discuss the role of the NRC in failing to act appropriately in communicating what was happening during Three Mile Island. Another point could be raised about the NRC's role in the Nuclear Industry's decline. Before making a change this big(I'm a new contributor), I'd like to know what other contributors think. Cheers EtalonOr (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)