Talk:Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]