[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

[Howard]

Robert,
Banks were forced by Dodd-Frank to lend our deposits to home-buyers incapable of repayment, so not a valid simile.
 Nothing could have prevented meltdown in an even more unlikely Mt Fiji lava flow, either ("full range").
Howard
On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:40 PM, "Robert J Gunter, CHP" <rjgunter at me.com> wrote:

> The problem with self regulation is the utilities are not capable or willing to assume the liability of the full range of accident scenarios (much like our banks....).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:23 PM, William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> "Self-regulation" is an oxymoron.
>> 
>> Bill Lipton
>> doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Howard <howard.long at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nuclear "Business" is better regulated by customers than by self-serving
>>> bureaucrats, Dewey, -
>>> 
>>> - as is physician care. 94% of Medicaid cost in KS is for other than
>>> doctors, their overhead, labs and imaging. The bureaucracy is 98% of
>>> "health" cost for Medicaid  in New Jersey!
>>> 
>>> Read Rockwell. Review the finance costs for nuclear plants.
>>> Would you invest in regulatory harassment for 15 years (while interest cost
>>> mounted)?
>>> Palo Verde puts out electricity 1/4 the cost gas or coal generators do.
>>> Why does it have just 3 instead of the planned 10 reactors? State of Fear
>>> (Crichton)
>>> 
>>> Read Freedomnomics (Lott) if you believe government regulation keeps
>>> nuclear reactors safer than Westinghouse or GE would, or that economics is
>>> not choked by cancerous government growth.
>>> 
>>> Howard Long
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2011, at 5:55 AM, "Thompson, Dewey L" <DThompson3 at ameren.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All right, I'll bite.  I think you got it wrong Howie.
>>>> 
>>>> The impediment to new nuclear power is NOT regulation.  It's economics.