Talk:Nuclear power in Belgium

Extending this article to Nuclear power in Belgium

There are quite some interesting research reactors in Belgium which are worth mentioning. Perhaps a part about the delivery of uranium for the Manhattan project in exchange for intelligence about peaceful nuclear power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCvarial (talk • contribs) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

FANC independence

There appears to be a bit of an battle over the section about FANC, nuclear watchdog. I already undertook one attempt in the past to reword the paragraphs by User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse . Because i judged they were too opinionated. I believe the core point remarking some of the problems at FANC are valid and worth noting. Equally, I think that perhaps there are too many words, and only the essence should be in this article. If there is enough to say about FANC it should have it's own page. But i believe there once was, and it was removed for not being noteworthy enough. Pinfix (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The audit in question was a communication audit, it does not reflect the technical independance of the watchdog.

The audit itself says: Absoluut niemand trekt de expertise van het FANC in twijfel, staat verder in de audit. Maar "toch wordt het Agentschap niet erkend als een grote autoriteit met :coherente acties die erin slaagt zich in het institutionele landschap van België te positioneren en duidelijk aan te geven welke richting het uitgaat".

MCvarial (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that nobody doubts the technical expertise of FANC. Playing devil's advocate however being a nuclear watchdog is not just about technical expertise. It is about communication, setting and enforcing rules neutral independently. Not being susceptible to pressure. The section mentions more than just the report.

I would defend that there are enough valid references to remark that there have been questions raised about how well FANC is functioning. On a personal level i would argue that the situation at fanc should be improved rather than hidden. But this Article is not the place.

I am definitely not married to the section. I believe it can (and has been) said in other parts of the article. I do however think we should resolve the conflict

Pinfix (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Shinkolobwe mine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)