@justtracyjustcause: Who Pays When They Are Wrong? Before you approve it. Before you build it. Before you ask us to trust it— What do you mean by “safe”? Safe when everything works? Safe when something fails? Safe when the earthquake takes out the power, the water, the roads—and the plan? How much risk is acceptable? Who decides? Who benefits? Who cannot afford to leave? We are told what a facility costs to build. Show us what it costs when it fails. For Chernobyl, Belarus alone estimated US$235 billion in losses over thirty years, according to the UN Chernobyl Forum. That historical estimate excludes losses in Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere. Source For Fukushima, Japan’s December 2023 estimate was ¥23.4 trillion for compensation, decontamination, interim storage and decommissioning. Estimated costs—not a final bill. Source What do those figures include? What remains outside them? And when we say “compensated,” do we mean the loss has been paid for—or the life restored? Who pays for the home you cannot return to? The livelihood you cannot recover? The community you cannot put back together? What figure goes beside a loss that cannot be repaired? If your calculation leaves it out because it is difficult to price, whose interests does that calculation serve? When you say an accident is unlikely, have you answered what it would cost? When you call it an “accident,” what responsibility remains for a danger that was identified—and accepted? What would make you say: we must not build here? What evidence would stop the project? Who has the authority to act on it? Can they exercise that authority without political or financial interference? If approval cannot be withdrawn, what exactly are we assessing? And where is the evidence? Can the public examine it? Can independent researchers challenge it? Can an employee raise the alarm without gambling their livelihood? If a whistleblower releases information, how do we judge the public interest and the harm of disclosure? Do we investigate what the evidence reveals as vigorously as we investigate the person who revealed it? When residents report harm, must they first finance the research needed to be believed? The China Syndrome. Edward Snowden. Julian Assange. Erin Brockovich. Different stories. Different responsibilities. Who gets heard before the damage—and who must fight to be heard afterward? Can consent be informed when the information is withheld? Can it be meaningful when refusal changes nothing? And what of those who inherit the decision? The institution says continuity. Continuity of what? Authority? Revenue? Or responsibility? When the electricity stops and the income ends, who maintains what remains? Where is the money? Who protects it? Who keeps the records? Who answers when the institution changes its name, sells its assets or disappears? How far into the future does the obligation reach—and how far into the future does the funding reach? If those answers do not match, who inherits the shortfall? We call this a cost–benefit analysis. Then let us ask: Have we counted the costs—or merely decided who will carry them? Who gets to call it safe? And what power do the people bearing the risk have to say— NO. NOT HERE. Just Tracy, Just ’Cause. Parsimony. Clarity. Virtue. ⚖️🦉🪽⚜️ FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. © 2026 Tracy Peressini #Love #truth #power #public #energy

T-Touch

Open In TikTok:

Region: CA

Sunday 20 September 2026 20:30:19 GMT