NRC may be better than its Japanese counterparts, but that's not saying much

As reported by the Washington Post, the head of Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission had admitted in the aftermath of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe that the country's nuclear safety regulations are dangerously flawed and inadequate. Previous disregard for the risks of massive tsunamis is but one example. In another sign of deep incompetence, it is reported that the head of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) lacked nuclear, technical, or scientific expertise himself, as did his staff. He largely "sat out" the critical initial weeks of the crisis, even lacking a hotline capability at his office.

However, indications in the article that U.S. nuclear safety regulations are far superior to Japanese regulations, or are somehow adequate to ensure nuclear safety, are false. Last summer, AP, for example, published a four part series on "Aging Nukes," showing how the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission weakens its safety regulations in order to allow old reactors to keep operating. The Davis-Besse Hole-In-the-Head fiasco near Toledo is but one of many examples of close-calls with disaster that have occurred in the past decade alone, due to NRC prioritization of industry profits over public safety. Anti-nuclear watchdogs in the U.S. have known about, protested, and resisted these sorts of short cuts on safety, and derelictions of duty, for decades.