Ethics 101

Dear God!

I've encountered some troubling news.

No, I'm not talking about the reduced power output at Vermont Yankee, or the fact that pipes serving the cooling towers have sprung a leak or two, or that the fiberglass supports with which we replaced timber supports have not actually provided support.

No, I'm not talking about the fact that Stephen Wark of the Department of Public Service is finally disappointed with us. (Took him a while, don't you think?)

No, I'm not talking about the fact that the plant is now swarming with NRC inspectors, because, frankly, the NRC inspectors have never been a problem before.

I'm talking about this thing I learned casually reading the New York Times just the other day, and it is this:

Addiction cannot be satisfied by its object.

Really! Sounds terribly ominous, doesn't it? But that's what some high-priced psychoanalyst said. And he makes $600/hour, so that fellow should know.

Well, hell's bells, Lord. I mean, if you took that axiom through a few permutations, it would suggest that people addicted to cheap energy should take stock of their lives and figure out how to use less energy—if the "price" they would have to pay to satisfy their addiction meant saddling themselves, their friends, and their families with the risk of safety-related components failing catastrophically in this aging nuclear plant. (Lord knows the non-critical components haven't been holding up too well.)

It would mean that people addicted to cheap energy should consider the long-term consequences of letting a company with clear contempt for them befoul their water and their air--and befoul their land, in perpetuity. It would mean they should stop believing promises about corporate responsibility, especially when those promises prove to be no more substantive than cotton candy--and ESPECIALLY when the corporation making the promises turns out to deny having owned the plant about which the promises were made.

It would mean that they should see news stories like July 7th's, "Decades Later, Toxic Sludge Torments Bhopal," and quake in their boots, realizing that large corporations with no meaningful ties to a community skip out on clean-up responsibilities again and again. Exxon's behavior regarding the Valdez oil spill should be for them another cautionary tale.

And that would be bad for me, my salary, my daily lunch in the cafeteria, and my health benefits—which I may need considering how well I am irradiated.

Actually, Lord, there is another piece of news that's got me upset. Apparently, there is a code of ethics for PR people. The Green Mountain Daily has a great story on it.

Furthermore, that code implies that lying by omission is a "sin" if you will. So that's got me worried. Lord, will it be a problem with you if, as I continue to release news about problems at our plant, I omit making the obvious connections to what is happening here and what happened in Bhopal and Alaska? Or are ethics not really that important, sin-wise? Because, frankly, shutting up about all of the clear inferences to be made would be my preference.

Thanks again!

Fake-Rob