You are a senior engineer working for S&T instructions, a prominent government contractor. You are working on a mega construction site building nuclear reactor facility. Along with other responsibilities on the site, you were also the safety in charge. After weeks of working as the safety in charge, you noticed that the site, you were also the safety in charge. After weeks of working as the safety in charge, you noticed that the site had not followed procedures and used the wrong materials in some sections. The situation was worsened by the fact that you found the water pipes carrying coolant and the reactors core were hazardous since some defective welds apparently caused the danger. Although you called a meeting of the welding supervisors to instruct them to rectify the faulty welds, but even after two weeks had passed, the welds remained unfixed. And when asked, the supervisors said they had no instructions from the site in charge. You travelled to the HQ to inform the senior management. Instead of taking corrective action, the senior management transferred you to a different site and warned you about disclosing the safety practices of the nuclear site. You needed the protection of your new workplace security. After a few years, the reactor was in the news for pipe bursts, killing ten engineers and due to the lack of the nuclear fallout, the neighbouring villages had to be evacuated. You could see your fears coming true. The nuclear incident happened in the above case? Questions: 1. What are the issues involved in the above dilemma? 2. What options do you have in the above dilemma? 3. After evaluating the options, identify which option you would choose. 4. Do you think if taken seriously at that time could have been a good option five years back?