crosspost: Fake Firm Gets Nuclear License in U.S. Gov't Sting

[bananas]

Looks like they got rid of the "excessive regulation" problem:

"The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the license to the dummy company in just 28 days with only a cursory review, the Government Accountability Office said in a report to be released on Thursday.

"The GAO, which set up the sting, said the NRC approved the license after a couple of faxes and phones calls and then mailed it to the phony company's headquarters -- a drop box at a United Parcel Service location.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2914014

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Are you just Xposting everything with the word "nuclear" in it?

Or are you going to explain the environmental perils of a portable moisture density gauge?

Incidentally, I have two smoke alarms and a beard.

Fear me.

[bananas]

2. No

I made two crossposts, the other one has nothing to do with nuclear:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x103242

[Nihil]

3. I read that as "the environmental penis of a portable moisture density gauge"

:wow:

> Incidentally, I have two smoke alarms and a beard.

Hah! I have three smoke alarms and support from the MkII British Badger:

[YankeyMCC]

4. I saw this and while it does point to the ineptness of the shrub admin

since they were directed to make these controls tighter the description of the technique, cost and threat actually reassured me that this is not a major risk. Potentially nasty yes but the likelihood is low because of the cost to the perps. And they would not get the dramatic destruction they usually want to create, although I admit it would be psychologically dramatic and that's probably why some terrorists have at least considered it and will consider it in the future it sure looks like when they really want to get something done this is not how they are likely to go about it. Largely becasue while the devastation they could create more cheaply and simply with non-radioactive' material would be real and immediately felt, while the psychological impact of a dirty bomb is largely based on a 'false beliefs' about the real impact.