Better to have a skeptic like Jaczko than a nuke industry suck up of the ex Governor's preference.

Well John, since you didn't get into it - I thought I'd offer the readers here a little perspective on who the other members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are, and let them make up their own minds as to the notion that any of them could have anything but "an absolute priority for safety" and how suggesting otherwise would be both "arrogant and insulting". Let's take Mr. William Ostendorff. This gentleman used to be the Admiral of an attack squadron of nuclear submarines which all carried nuclear bombs. Let's see, could anyone be more pro-nuclear? He was also Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee at one point. Hmmm, could ANYONE be more pro-nuclear? I'm not sure. Maybe that person could one of the OTHER members of this Commission. Let's take a look at Mr. William Magwood. This guy is so into nuclear power that he invests in it himself and promotes private business enterprises here and abroad. He is so pro-nuclear that when Magwood was nominated by President Obama in 2009 to become a commissioner, nearly a hundred environmental groups, along with the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), urged his defeat in the Senate, arguing that he was too close to the industry to be tasked with regulating it. And finally, we have Kristine Svinicki, a former aide to Republican Senator Larry Craig from Idaho and former pro Yucca Mountain waste depository cheerleader. So no, John I'm OK with the current Chairman Jaczko being a bit cautious. Go kiss some more Republican patoot.

Magwood - http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/10/obamas-radioactive-regulator

Seabrook ended up costing $6.5 billion to bring on line -more than six times the cost estimated when the plant was proposed in 1972. The Clamshell/Dukakis Alliance strung out the plant's approval and construction process for almost two years. In 1987, Rep. Edward Markey sponsored a bill that would have effectively shut down the nation's entire nuclear power industry. Fortunately, his colleagues in the House of Representatives killed it by a 261-160 margin. The late Senator Paul Tsongas pointed out our blindness to the benefits of nuclear power when he said, "We denounce nuclear power. But, no nuclear power means one certain result - massive reliance on coal. Any environmentalist who can accept massive coal-burning is not an environmentalist by my standards." The poor do not read Mother Jones, but they do read their utility bills.

A very comical article. Tell this to the citizens of Vermont who are trying to rid their state of a nuclear reactor resanctioned by the NRC

A very comical take on the NRC. This would be news to the citizens of Vermont as they try to rid their state of a dangerous reactor.

So the license for a new nuclear power plant is approved, and John Sununu is upset because the vote wasn't unanimous? Have we really reached the age where EVERYONE on EVERY commission MUST have the same views on EVERYTHING or the right wing machine will mobilize to eliminate any dissent? Sieg heil, indeed.

I know it's not required for Opinion pieces but it would be great to know who Sununu is lobbying for with this piece.

I can't say whether poor people in general read Mother Jones. I try to stay away from generalizations but I would imagine more than a share of them do. If you are taking the stand that burning coal is bad for the environment, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I find it unacceptable and believe that burning coal (and the inevitable and subsequent poisoning of the world's ecosystems with heavy metals) is abhorrent. If on the other hand, you are opining that the potential harm to the earth's ecosystems including human beings is greater by using coal for energy rather than nuclear, your view is opposite the truth by about a power of ten. Nuclear power is not going to work for humanity. It simply needs to go away and I'm not sure, no offence meant, that you have the capacity to understand why - maybe it's willful ignorance. If you can't see further than the tip of your nose or maybe your electric bill, then we'll have to disagree on the rest. People in modern society can get by with much less energy. Much less. Estimates range from 23 to as much as 60 percent of all the energy we use is wasted. We need clean renewables like wind, solar, geothermal and tidal to carry the day. Everyone should live closer to where they work would be a good start. Coal bad; nuclear much, much worse.