Content deleted Content added
m come on ben! |
Zen-master (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 126:
Do critics generally agree the public has been protected by the act? If I am the only one then I digress. It would be accurate to state that because of the act the public is forced to seek redress and compensation for damages over a certain amount from the government, not from the industry, right? Would it also be accurate to state that the normal right to be able to civily sue the industry that harmed someone in an accident was removed by this act for the nuclear industry, right? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:The intro already covers all these points. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::Not as comming from critics and not directly nor explicitly. If because of this act the public has less rights and avenues for recourse in the advent of an accident we should state that directly, rather than watering it down with "does not adequately protect the public". What does "Instead of problematic resuls from claims in state cours..." mean anyway? Who exactly is alleging whatever is being alleged is "problematic"? That seems like the pro industry position to me (a caveat should be added for NPOV). [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
==Yay us==
| |||