Posted on 11/14/2003 4:37:03 AM PST by Born Conservative
The are no nuclear facilities being run by druggies. It is the temps, and problems with temps go far beyond using drugs. Large numbers of temps are hired for projects after the regulars begin to burnout on the long hours. The temps game the system using every trick in the book in attempts to delay project completion. The incentive against getting it done is being laid off.
Chances are, those people aren't going to be given access to sensitive areas, anyway. For example, a janitor isn't going to go poking around the residual heat removal system, or the backup diesel generators. You don't have the SCRAM interlocks routed through the restroom. Window washers don't "run" the facility. Even if they're the World's Most Dangerous Saboteur, the most damage they could do given the access to the areas they're likely to have would be unlikely to compromise the safety of the facility.
My point is this article is just more anti-nuclear agitprop, likely designed to raise the anxiety level among the sheeple to the point of being more opposed to an energy source and technology that, if anything, poses less risk in terms of being a target than a stadium full of people on a Saturday afternoon, or an airport on a moderately busy travel day.
This is comforting. I live around 1 mile from a power plant.....
I don't care. Why does it matter?
Some occupations require freedom from drugs, particularly illicit ones.
If the employee is not willing to live with that he/she should be doing something else.
Zero tolerance is not only appropriate, but essential in certain occupations.
Nothing personal, since I don't know you, but...
Based on the tone of your initial paragraph, I am very happy that you are a "former" nuclear plant worker.
I would feel exactly the same way if you were my own son.
Some people are not genetically inclined to accept the fact that they are not the center of the universe, and that they do not always get the final word.
D'OH!
Nice try.
If they weren't involved in the OPERATION of the plant, either directly or indirectly, they wouldn't be there.
A persuasive argument for prohibiting unions anywhere near sensitive facilities.
Like air traffic control.
Or airport security.
Or nuclear facilities.
I objected (then and now) to working in an environment where good, productive employees could have their reputations ruined and even lose their jobs because their boss "didn't like them".
Not only is that immoral, it's against the law (not that the EEOC regs are ever enforced in this area).
Here's a better try. There are operations, and there are operations that have safety implications. Cleaning a restroom in the Administration Building, for example, likely does not involve safety-related functions. Even if the worker cleaning out the crappers in the ad building was a druggie who was compromised and converted into The World's Most Dangerous and Awesome, Fear-Mongering Saboteur, it's unlikely he'd have access to the same areas, as, perhaps, the plant's I&C engineer, who has to calibrate the trip setpoints.
My point is let's not flip out and run off the emotional, fear-inspired deep end before we think these things through for a minute. Chances are, this was a story written to grab attention and sell newspapers, and perhaps to push a particular political agenda on energy policy. It's unlikely to pose a threat on the order of Oh My God We're All Gonna Die!
Most of them end up being bureaucrats. The seem to gravitate toward regulatory agencies, and they don't care wheather the last word is rational or not, as long as they get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.