I have really enjoyed your newsletter and do not have the background to have a full critique but although many off these regulations seems redundant and unnecessarily erroneous some seem reasonable.
No fuel to any country that has not ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol.
Translation: force Saudi Arabia to buy nuclear from Koreans, Chinese, or Russians.
Things like this make sense to me. The US is often accused of meddling in other nations affairs yet our markets are used in the exactly the same way. Its a strategic choice. Know your customer. Why is it unidirectional when it comes to market forces. Ours are open.
I'm assuming that (possibly naively) we are talking about global safety with a collective minimum standard applied evenly.
This is my just desert for trying to make a smart ass crack about every section.
The Additional Protocol has to do with nuclear weapons proliferation. The original IAEA inspection agreement was written rather loosely, allowing countries like Iraq and Iran to come up with very narrow interpretations of what the IAEA inspectors could look at. The Additional Protocol attempts to prevent that. There is nothing in it that is not consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Section 103 is not unreasonable. My bad.
Just trying to get rid of the building. Only been there once, but it is the most dispiriting piece of architecture I have ever seen. If the NRC has to go to make that happen, we can live with that.
I have really enjoyed your newsletter and do not have the background to have a full critique but although many off these regulations seems redundant and unnecessarily erroneous some seem reasonable.
No fuel to any country that has not ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol.
Translation: force Saudi Arabia to buy nuclear from Koreans, Chinese, or Russians.
Things like this make sense to me. The US is often accused of meddling in other nations affairs yet our markets are used in the exactly the same way. Its a strategic choice. Know your customer. Why is it unidirectional when it comes to market forces. Ours are open.
I'm assuming that (possibly naively) we are talking about global safety with a collective minimum standard applied evenly.
Binder,
This is my just desert for trying to make a smart ass crack about every section.
The Additional Protocol has to do with nuclear weapons proliferation. The original IAEA inspection agreement was written rather loosely, allowing countries like Iraq and Iran to come up with very narrow interpretations of what the IAEA inspectors could look at. The Additional Protocol attempts to prevent that. There is nothing in it that is not consistent with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Section 103 is not unreasonable. My bad.
That was excellent, Jack! This is one hell of a knot to untie.
Oh, Jack... people will think you don't LIKE the NRC! ;-)
Jess,
Just trying to get rid of the building. Only been there once, but it is the most dispiriting piece of architecture I have ever seen. If the NRC has to go to make that happen, we can live with that.
Oh, come on. Who'd care if they worked out of a tin-roof shack? What they DO is all that matters.
(Were you just kidding?)