Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:32, 27 October 2005

Latest revision as of 14:52, 14 January 2025

(968 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk1|Talk Archive: One]]'''

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Energy|importance=Low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}

|algo = old(365d)

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|counter = 8

|archive = Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Archive %(counter)d

}}

==Request for comment==

'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk2|Talk Archive: Two]]'''

Here again - the Issues I find that could use attention.

'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk3|Talk Archive: Three]]'''

#A Key point - that Taxpayers would cover the cost of Industry mistakes and negligence is asserted as a parenthetical.

'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk4|Talk Archive: Four]]'''

#The title term "Indemnity" is used self-referentially to define "Indemnity"

#A related point - that taxpayers ''and not the company responsible'' would be charged even for malicious and willful acts of negligence is missing from the intro and only introduced in the quarantined section marked "Criticisms"

#The introduction fails to include the fact the Victims of a nuclear accident are denied the usual rights to recover damages as determined by a fair and impartial jury of peers, including punitive damages for willful negligence.

#The article fails to include the latest and best assessment of the risks covered by the ACT ([[CRAC-II]])

#The intro asserts a motive for passing the Act without citation.

I have proposed new copy to remedy these defects. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk5|Talk Archive: Five]]'''

:The entry for this RfC can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex]. Respondents should understand that this article went through the RfC and RfM processes starting about mid-2005 (see Discussion Archives). [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk6|Talk Archive: Six]]'''

::Yep. And the article was included in Ben's arbcom case. This is very well treaded territory. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]} 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I wonder if a topic ban might be in order. It's been over a ''year'' and Benjamin is still doing the exact same kind of tendentious argumentation on the exact same article. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</b>]] 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Indeed. It'd take 3 non-involved admins. Usually we handle it through AN/I. But yeah. This is all old territory. It's not a coincidence that this article had next to 0 changes in the year he was gone and now it's on my goodness this article is so incorrect. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]} 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Ben, CRAC-II isn't a risk study, and it was never meant to be. [[User:Ajnosek|Ajnosek]] ([[User talk:Ajnosek|talk]]) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

==Reworked Proposal as per Marks issues (precision - clunk)==

The '''Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act''', passed in the US in [[1957]] and renewed in [[2005]], is a government-guaranteed self-insurance pool which limits the liability of non-military [[Nuclear power]] plants, processors, laboratories, and storage facilities in the United States and reduces the rights of victims to sue for damages in the event of an [[Extraordinary nuclear occurrence]]. Given that the potential liabilities for a Nuclear accident are higher than power-plant companies are willing to accept, the Government decided to stimulate the development of Nuclear power by holding the industry financially harmless for damages, even in cases of malicious or willful negligence. The Act requires "Licensees" first to purchase all the insurance available, then promise to share the cost of the next $10 Billion dollars in damages which they can only escape by declaring [[Bankruptcy]]. After $10 Billion dollars, the Congress is required to ''consider'' compensating victims if necessary.

== Private Participation ==

In [[1978]] the Supreme Court overruled the District Court's finding that ''the Act tends to encourage irresponsibility in matters of safety and environmental protection'' asserting instead that ''nothing in the liability-limitation provision undermines or alters the rigor and integrity of the process involved in the review of applications for a license to construct or operate a nuclear power plant''

Within a decade, however, Congress concluded that the national interest would be best served if the Government encouraged the '''private sector''' to become involved in the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes under a program of federal regulation and licensing. See H. R. Rep. No. 2181, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 1-11 (1954). The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Act of Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, 68 Stat. 919, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011-2281 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), implemented this policy decision, providing for '''licensing of private construction, ownership, and operation of commercial nuclear power reactors''' for energy production under strict supervision by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1 See Power Reactor Development Co. v. Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961), rev'g and remanding 108 U.S. App. D.C. 97, 280 F.2d 645 (1960). SCOTUS

(I believe we have good sources for all of that in the discussions)

'''Private industry''' responded to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with the development of an experimental power plant constructed under the auspices of a consortium of interested companies. It soon became apparent that profits from the '''private exploitation of atomic energy''' were uncertain and the '''accompanying risks substantial'''. See Green, Nuclear Power: [438 U.S. 59, 64] Risk, Liability, and Indemnity, 71 Mich. L. Rev. 479-481 (1973) (Green). SCOTUS

I think it improves the Intro because it is 1. More Complete, 2 More Detailed 3. Not self-referential, 3 Includes all unique aspects of the ACT which are raised as important by both pro sources (nei, supreme court, etc..) AND con sources (District court, Union of Concerned, CATO etc) I have no problem including the "pro" points, but I think there should equally be no objections to including the objectionable aspects of the act in a cohesive and concise introduction. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:Ben, you never change. Don't put this rant in. [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]?

::He's been banned from nuclear articles for a year per ArbCom. So. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]} 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

==Nuclear Safety at a facility level?==

(This is a reply to Simesa - I see an awful lot here focussed exclusively on '''Private Industry''') [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

I have added the nuclear safety article in the "see also" section. I also am expanding it with "list of civilian nuclear accidents" and a couple others that appear relevant. Any other cross references that might be useful? [[User:HatlessAtlas|HatlessAtless]] ([[User talk:HatlessAtlas|talk]]) 15:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

:A lot of verbiage, desperately trying to regain the point, but it doesn't change that key first sentence. DOE incidents are covered. [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 09:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think I'm looking to see if any articles discuss nuclear safety in the context of something like the chemical industry, which might put it in context with other large-scale safety programs. That might be a useful context-link for the see also section for technically minded individuals. [[User:HatlessAtlas|HatlessAtless]] ([[User talk:HatlessAtlas|talk]]) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

::And the nonsequitar award goes to ... The first sentence says nothing about DOE incidentse. Yes, given, DOE facilities are included. But there is no verbiage from the Supreme court to suggest that "insuring" the DOE was the prime purpose, the effect, or the problem presented to Congress as a precedent to the passage of the Act, and they have cited many contemporary reports in support of that position. I believe it's clear from the record that Price was invisioned and intended to provide a bridge of insurance to cover the experiential period after which insurance companies ought to have collected enough information and experience to calculate the risks of nuclear energy in the private sector. The fact is that period has passed, and includes Chernobly and private insurers are no closer to fully insuring nuclear energy than they were in 1954. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

== New Introduction ==

== Can we get a little structure please? ==

*Current:

I really must object. This article is being modified all over the place without any kind of prior consensus or even raw discussion. I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way this is going, or not going. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 04:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The '''Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries [[Indemnity]] Act''' (commonly called the '''Price-Anderson Act''') is a [[United States]] [[federal law]], first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-[[military]] nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially [[indemnify]] the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from [[nuclear incident]]s while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a [[no fault insurance]]-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of [[nuclear power]] — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate. <ref>[http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/Price-Anderson.htm Price-Anderson Act]. Nuclear Power Pro/Con. Retrieved on 2011-03-21.</ref>

*Proposed:

:Really Kate, I would suggest this is one of the more static pages on the wikipedia. I suggest it is not changing enough to keep the editors interested. I suggest we lift the no-edit ban entirely and let the wiki process run its course. One problem is that there is very slow participation on the consensus side. Simesa and I are trading substance, others, well, not so much. May I say as an aside - what a great time to be a Washington reporter. If I were you, and I say this with great appreciation and respect for your participation here, I think I would let this slip a bit and focus on the new and compelling issues boiling over in DC. What a ride! [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

The '''Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries [[Indemnity]] Act''' is essentially a subsidy of the nuclear Industry in the [[United States]] which protects the investors, builders and operators of [[nuclear power]] plants and related facilities from the financial fallout which occurs when nuclear power plants explode, melt-down, or otherwise release radioactive material into the air, the water, and the food supply - even if such release is caused by criminal malfeasance. Those killed, disfigured, and otherwise injured by the operation of a nuclear plant are deprived of the standard due process right to sue those responsible for their injuries, and are instead compelled to accept a compensation package organized by the federal government which precludes pain and suffering.

::Those are some novel comments, but they don't change my request above. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 04:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Then I wish you well of your quest. Seriously - you must be reporting on what's happening in Washington, is it to much to ask where you publish? [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

::::Yes. Ral? &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 05:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::Ral, this is just another attempt by Ben to declare mediation over. He tried that about a month ago. Look at alot of archive 5 for what I am talking about. We need some sort of conclusion here and him just backing out of this isn't it. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::Deal. Mediation shall continue so long as the mediator and every party to mediation participates at least once every second day. Once mediation lapses, it must be renegotiated. The perpetual censorship of drag-one's-feet mediation is unacceptable. Anyone who objects to these conditions can take it up with arbcom or use their majik powers to block me, but I will not voluntarily be silent unless we are making an attempt at progress. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:::::::This ultimatum is obviously not okay. We're in mediation specifically because we need a mediator in order to help us make progress. As long as we don't have someone taking an active hand, we're going to go nowhere fast. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 03:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Mediation is voluntary. I most certainly can assert the conditions under which I voluntarily agree to participate. My conditions are reasonable. It's been forever. It's time, i suggest to move on - however, i'll agree to a few more days of serious effort, if there is a coalition of interested parties, otherwise, I intend to use the Supreme court's conclusions to assert that nuclear energy is dangerous and this is why, in 2005, Bush signed the no-fault taxpayer insurance for Republican investors. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:::::::::Benjamin, you're happy to do what you want. But I'd like to continue mediation. I am active, for what it's worth; now that I have a handle on this issue, I'm going to be a lot more active in the matter. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 07:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks Ral. How do we proceed from here? &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 15:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::If Ben backs out, I'm putting this up for arby. I know they generally don't take content disputes, but I don't think we can let Ben get all he wants by just not being in the process. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 07:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Act(commonly called the '''Price-Anderson Act''') is a [[federal law]], passed in 1957 and renewed most recently in [2005], governs liability for all non-military nuclear facilities in the United States to date.

:::::::::Certainly, I have not backed out. I am merely stating that I intend to interpret lack of participation as conclusory. If Mike wants to go to Arb, I intend to show good faith by participating in mediation, but I do not believe that mediation should amount to self-cencorship for 12 months. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

*Reasons

::::::::::Self-censorship? Anyway. Yes Ral, how do you want us to go from here? --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 16:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

#The assertion of a "main purpose" is both a POV and ahistorical:

"The main purpose of the Act is to partially [[indemnify]] the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from [[nuclear incident]]s ..."

The Supreme court ruled that the gov was justified in screwing the victims in order to promote nuclear power - the historically accurate priority is to promote nuclear power - damn the torpedoes.

==My revert tonight==

I reverted back to the consensus version of October 15th. Let's come up with a consensus and THEN change the article. Not sure why this is proving hard for people. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 06:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

#The numbers belong in the text, but add little to one's understanding of the act. I have life insurance, it protects my family; the amount is not important to understanding life insurance.

:I applaud each of Uncle Ed's attempts, but agree with Woohookitty that we will have to do this the long way. And I agree with Katefan0 that ending Mediation precipitously would simply result in edit-warring.

#Given that PA was recently relitigated at a time with much greater liability availability, the importance of past limitations appears moot.

:I don't see either side budging on the Intro. I suggest we move on to "How the law works", which both sides agree is incomprehensible. [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 09:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

#Uses the word [[Indemnify]] to define the term [[Indemnify]].

#Repetitive, verbose without being informative.

*Thus propose dropping as POV, ahistorical, and numerically verbose:

::''basks in the applause'' [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 02:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"The main purpose of the Act is to partially [[indemnify]] the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from [[nuclear incident]]s while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a [[no fault insurance]]-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of [[nuclear power]] — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate. <ref>[http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/Price-Anderson.htm Price-Anderson Act]. Nuclear Power Pro/Con. Retrieved on 2011-03-21.</ref>"

[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] ([[User talk:Benjamin Gatti|talk]]) 12:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

== Can we get a little substance please?- Is Nuclear Dangerous or not? ==

{{reflist-talk}}

The Supreme court has indicated that the risk of a nuclear accident is the driving cause of Price Anderson. Our readers deserve to have this information. Simesa has argued that nuclear is not dangerous and that there is no risk, however, this argument has been to the Supreme Court and failed. There is a rule at law which says a party cannot argue both sides of the same issue when it suits their fancy. In that sense, the Nuclear Industry has lost the right to argue that nuclear is safe, when they went to the Supreme Court and argued that it is so dangerous that they deserve to have a special Constitution just for them. Accordingly, it is inappropriate for us to publish that which is inconsistent with facts which the industry has used to argue in favor of its narcotic subsidies.

== Main purpose of Indemnity Act is to Indemnify - not to "fund" an unfunded compensation "fund". ==

Now then who can provide a non-trivial objection to the assertion that (according to the Industry in their case to the Supreme Court) nuclear IS dangerous, in spite of efforts to make it safe, and that Price Anderson is a continuing tribute to the inherent risks thereof?

[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

proposed change to "how it works / how it is funded" section:

:When did Simesa say that there was no risk in nuclear power? I don't remember that. I do remember you insisting for the longest time that he was a paid mouthpiece for the nuclear industry because he worked for the nuclear industry over a decade ago and then become a whistleblower. But I don't you remember him saying there was no risk in nuclear power. Besides, I think the possible danger of nuclear power belongs in the [[nuclear power]] article. Besides, if you read this article in full, you can gather that nuclear power is dangerous. I'm not sure we have to yell it from the mountaintop here. This section basically hints its dangerous.

First to prioritize who and what are Indemnified against what risks and how etc...

:"Although the AEC offered incentives to encourage investment, there remained in the path of the private nuclear power industry various problems - the risk of potentially vast liability in the event of a nuclear accident of a sizable magnitude being the major obstacle.Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage."

Indemnification is to "hold blameless", it has nothing to do with "funds or funding or any such thing" as such the "unfunding" part belongs under the fold. This is about risk management and should focus on the risks under management (ie horrific deformities caused by nuclear exposure), and who is not liable for them (ie the people who cause it), and who ultimately bears the risks (the victims and taxpayers; and to a lesser an unfunded extent - the "industry") [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] ([[User talk:Benjamin Gatti|talk]]) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

:In addition, the tone of the article is that this is essentially a handout to the nuclear industry so their asses are covered in case the inevitable accident will occur.

:And then we have the issue that Simesa, kate and I have been solid on for awhile. This article's tone is anti-nuclear. We have a criticisms section that takes up more of the article than any other section. We do not have a section with reasons for the act. We have essentially a paragraph and then it's mixed in the first few paragraphs of the article. In other words, we have an article heavy on criticism already. If we make it any more critical, it's going to be basically an essay on how evil Price-Anderson is. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 13:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

We're not here to critique the SC decision. From what I read of it, they don't call the industry dangerous. So it shouldn't be here. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 02:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

::This sounds like a promising avenue to go down. It looks like Price-Anderson came about because of the '''perception''' that [[nuclear power]] is dangerous.

::As a student of [[physics]] (one year high school, one year college) I think there is something to this perception. A chunk of [[uranium]] the size of a grapefruit can destroy an entire metropolis: think [[New York City]], not just [[Manhattan]]. And [[Chernobyl]] proved what can happen if you don't take elementary precautions (since when did the Soviets really care about not killing innocent people?!).

::A lot of activists have claimed the ''US nuclear power'' can not be made safe, and that therefore it should be abolished. I believe this claim was connected ideologically with the "no nukes" movement which sought [[unilateral disarmament]] by the US during the [[Cold War]], in the hopes that the [[USSR]] would gain a decisive advantage. I met organizers of the [[Clamshell Alliance]] in Boston and talked to various related others - this is not just me talking out of my hat here.

::Then there are the opponents of US energy use in general, such as the [[environmental movement]] (which in turn connects to the [[Kyoto Protocol]] and [[global warming]]).

::The whole thing is a tangled mess. It's no wonder that we haven't been able to resolve anything. There is too much under the surface (see [[elephant in the living room]]). [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 17:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Well, I certainly agree with that, and would go a step farther to say that some of the problem is that there is too much "truth-seeking" going on and not enough attention paid to just summarizing disputes. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Hard to argue with that point. Let's not forget that we entered mediation because some wanted to summarize the views of theose who believe nuclear is dangerous - including the SCOTUS, while using the authoritarian voice to represent the other side - including the assertions of the GOA regarding the motivations of Congress. So if there is going to be an argument for focus, I would suggest focussing on that question.

::::To Ed. Sure, its a tangled mess. I think more accurately, this, like Hubris peak and Evolution for that, is a subject which is scientific in its fundamentals, and yet so speculative as to preclude a scientific conclusion in our time. Kate has a point which is that we should summarize arguments. Really it's a point I have been making since forever. Assertions should be verifiable summarizations of identifyable sources. iE, "The SCOTUS held (here) that nuclear is more dangerous than all the insurance companies in the world combined could afford to insure." [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:::::Wow. progress. I might have to give everyone a cookie for that. ;-) --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 03:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What I get from the SCOTUS decision is "The potential consequences of a worst-case nuclear accident are unknown, so that private insurance companies are unable to cover all of them." The word "danger" (as "dangerous") is used only once, in repeating a claim - SCOTUS never used it. The exact SCOTUS decision is:

<blockquote>We disagree. We view the congressional assurance of a $560 million fund for recovery, accompanied by an express statutory commitment, to "take whatever action is deemed necessary [438 U.S. 59, 91] and appropriate to protect the public from the consequences of" a nuclear accident, 42 U.S.C. 2210 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V), to be a fair and reasonable substitute for the uncertain recovery of damages of this magnitude from a utility or component manufacturer, whose resources might well be exhausted at an early stage."</blockquote>

The closest SCOTUS comes to Ben's wording is:

<blockquote>Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage. Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur, but the very uniqueness of nuclear power meant that the possibility remained, and the potential liability dwarfed the ability of the industry and private insurance companies to absorb the risk.</blockquote>

My wording is significantly different from Ben's, but more accurate and closer to the SCOTUS decision.

[[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 09:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

:So Ben, how does that equal "The Supreme Court said that nuclear power is dangerous"? --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 12:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

:It seems that both sides can find comfort and support in the SCOTUS opinion. What the SCOTUS are saying in their own special "greenspeak" is that the risk is enormous, the danger exists, the damage potential dwarfs private insurance companies (globally combined even) - but more importantly, it indicates and stresses that the purpose of Price is to "Subsidize the danger." - Which is discussed in far more column inches than is the politicaly correct nonesense "Protect the Public" - which in any case is a farce. In what way are the public "Protected" by encouraging power companies to install nuclear bomb on every street corner? Price does not "Increase" the public safety one iota. In truth is deccreases the public safety, but because it is a weapon technology, it decreases the safety of our enemies EVEN MORE. That is the definition of an arms race. Both sides in a race to the bottom. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

== Shortened criticisms ==

Now the Act is tilted in favor of nuclear because the criticism section is the shortest. Balance is happily restored. Anyway the important criticism is the fact that victims of criminal action (can you say Enron) by nuclear power companies (like Enron) are not afforded the protections of state and federal (equity) laws.

In this country, a thief who injures himself robbing a bank has more protection than a three year old child exposed to a lifetime of cancers, deformities, and the threat of bearing horribly mutated children against the criminal negliegence of an energy CEO who sacrifices safety to pump up his 100 million dollar year-end bonus.

[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:I mean this in the kindest possible way, but how can anybody take your edits seriously when you add things like this with absolutely no acknowledgement that it is a clearly disputed statement of opinion? ''The absence of liability protections effectively encourages investors to take short-cuts on safety issues'' You know how NPOV policies work. So why do this? &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]} 01:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

:Because he thinks he can slip one by us. Or he just doesn't care. From what he's said in the past, I'd take option B. He's acknowledged that he doesn't care what the other articles on Wikipedia say. He doesn't care how they are structured. He doesn't really care much about how neutral the article is. Again, these aren't attacks. I'm taking this from admissions he's dropped in from time to time during this entire process. And he keeps changing strategies. He's cooperative and then he's beligerent and then he's apologetic and then he's back to putting in whatever he wants. He makes edits without consensus. Threatens to back out of mediation whenever things are turning against his way. In the past, he's tried to game the system by quoting the NPOV policy but then leaving out important points. Again, none of these are personal attacks. It's in the record. To say it's difficult to make heads or tails of his intentions is an understatement. Ben, I kind of wish you'd just be consistent here. If you want to be beligerant and put in whatever you want, fine, but then don't act like you want to cooperate and then go right back to being beligerant. The thing is. We're assuming good faith. We have been since the start. It's just impossible to follow someone who continually reinvents his strategy and keeps altering behavior from one moment to the next. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 02:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

::Ben, even among those exposed to Chernobyl's massive fallout, "there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain." If by chance there was an accident and a containment leak and someone didn't get evacuated and was as a result exposed, there's a huge fund for their treatment, Congressional backing, and according to the SC the Tucker Act behind that. U.S. utility managers are highly motivated not to sacrifice safety, for several reasons, and you never did produce any cites about such doings at Entergy, the second-biggest owner of nuclear units (Exelon, the largest with 20 reactors, did have one allegation against them when I searched). Median utility CEO total compensation in 2003, including bonus and long-term incentives, was under $4 million [http://www.careerjournal.com/salaryhiring/industries/energy/20040721-capell.html]. The facts just don't support your rhetoric. [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 03:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Fact. Millions in those regions who were pregnant were encouraged to abort for fear of mutilations. That is prima facia evidence of a profound threat and substantial damages.

:::Fact: (Exelon, the largest with 20 reactors, did have one allegation against them when I searched).

:::Fact: Nuclear energy companies openly discourage public disclosure of safety violations by - among other things beating witnesses within an inch of their life.

:::Fact: A Burglar can sue his/her victim for negligence, but the innocent victim of a criminal nuclear incident is denied access to the liability protections of our "unjustice" system. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

Is there any non-trivial objection to citing the Supreme Courts position that all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't insure the nuclear industry from even a single nuclear accident? [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:Is there any non-trivial objection to making Ben stick to the point and not continually go off on tangents? This article is NOT about whether or not nuclear power is dangerous. It's about a law that was passed over 50 years ago, what that law says, how the process it sets works, what the criticisms are of it, etc, etc. It's not about whether or not nuclear power is dangerous. We have an entire article on [[nuclear power]]. That's where stuff like your facts belong. This is about the Price-Anderson law. Period. So quit making it something it's not please. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 04:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

==Reverts==

Ral, I'm not trying to do your job for ya, but I just reverted to the last consensus version. Again, I thought the whole point of mediation was to decide on a consensus version and *then* change the article to fit the consensus version. Ral, should we protect the article again? Frankly, I'm going to keep reverting back to the consensus version until we come up with a new consensus version. I thought that was the point of mediation. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 02:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ral, if we protect every article on the wiki which experiences an excess of 1 revert per week, we could rename the site CNN. No one yet has violated the 3RR rule, or even the 1RR "rule". Mike is demonstrating the lost art of overreaction. Kudo's M. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:No. See Ben, the point of mediation is to come up with consensus versions, i.e. versions that everyone is happy with. It is not to keep making changes when you feel like it. If that was the rule, we wouldn't have mediation since the whole point is to give and take so we can come to a consensus.

:What's annoying me is that it took me about 6 attempts to get this back reverted to the October 24th version. It's done now. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 04:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

:The point of this mediation (as it appears on the record) was to determine whether or not the wiki itself should presume infalible knowledge of Congress' "intentions" given an assertion of same by the GAO. Care to resolve the point Ral? The rest is just Kabisting while we wait for the jury to come back with the verdict. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:Um no. The point of this mediation was to come up with a version of this article that we can all be happy about. I really wish you'd quit trying to change the rules of the mediation. It's quite annoying. It's [[Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_system|gaming the system]]. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

::Protected for now. I'll discuss it in a new section in a few minutes. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 04:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

== Protected. ==

Some stats to consider (commenting on size, not substance)

'''Introduction:''' 77 words

: A pretty good length, I think. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]]

'''Background:''' 367 words

: It could be longer, but doesn't need to be if it explains the act fully. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]]

'''How the law works:''' 178 words

: Good length. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]]

'''Criticisms:''' 553 words

: Obviously, this is a problem for many (all?) of you. If we could boil this down to about 300 words, that would be great. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]]

I've set up a temp page for editing: [[Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Temp]]. '''As this is a page invisible to the public, feel free to make sweeping changes. But note that the ONE-REVERT RULE is still in effect there.''' The main article will be unprotected when I feel that we've hit a consensus, or everyone involved wants it unprotected. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 05:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Another note...refer to your edits here with the "permanent link" from the toolbar so that we can all see your particular revision. Thanks :) [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 05:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the 2nd go at trying it this way. Or is it the 3rd? :) But let's hope it's successful or else I'm going to run out of WikiAdvil. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 05:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Were you counting my recent version wherein the criiticism section was shortened? The criticism section is not long because of the "critics" it has been bloated by those trying to bury the ugliest truths in a mound of platitudes. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

I think it's an important part of Wiki policy that protected pages get listed in that section for protected pages - it tends to bring in additional points of view which may be valuable in resolving the issue. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

:Amazing. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

== How the law works ==

Okay, I made a first proposed change. [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 11:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

== Calling Spade ==

Price - removes "Public Protections" by suspending laws '''truly''' intended to protect the public from damgerous activities of others. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

== Objection to Censorship ==

"Protecting" a page on account of 1 to 2 edits a week amounts to censorship. Regardless of the subject or any other thing - it is antithetical to the spirit of wikipedia, and not supported by any published policy. I must therefore object. For comparison, the GWBush page is vandalized about twice a second, but remains open for business nonetheless. A double standard here can only be explained by bias or elitism, and the use of censorship to effect either of those is inconsistent with cooperative nature of wikipedia.. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]

: Simple vandalism can be reverted easily. This is a content dispute, and I'm using the protection not to censor anyone, but rather to encourage open discussion and editing on the temp page. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] [[User talk:Ral315|(talk)]] 14:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)