Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
References
Grok this - Supreme court said the risk is substantial
So no more saying the risk doesn't exist and pretending as though it doesn't exist. The supreme court said the risk is substantial, and that's that. Any other qualification of the risk will need a better source than the Supreme Court. (none exists) So until one of you files a suit and takes it to the Supremes, your going to have to live with "Substantial risk" Benjamin Gatti 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The supreme court said (as has been in the article for some time): 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. 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. 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. Thus, while repeatedly stressing that the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote, spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation.
Well, apparently the definitive view of the supreme court was that:
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....[but]... Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur...the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote
all depends how you quote it, eh?
The only time the supreme court judgement used the word substantial in a relevant way was in the quote above profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were uncertain and the accompanying risks substantial. Deconstructing this sentence it says either (1)the risks accompanying private exploitation of atomic energy were substantial, or (2) the risks accompanying profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were substantial. The supreme court statement is entirely consistent with the view that there are no risks associated with atomic energy, only with private exploitation of it. It is entirely consistent that the risks are financial rather than radiological. Now, I think the court meant all the risks, of whatever sort. But it does not say there is a substantial risk of a nuclear accident. In fact, taken overall it says that private industry believed that profits would be small, accompanied by a remote possibility of being wholly bankrupted, and that as a business proposition this did not make sense. Sandpiper 17:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not so fast there - Mr. quote parser. The Supreme court asserted that "it was clear .. that the risk was substantial" but it only quotes the Industry (they of little bias) as "being confident" that the risk was remote. There is a world of difference between assertions made by the industry and facts asserted by the Supreme Court. I have never challenged as factual that the Industry claims to be safe. You can print that in bold letter at the head of every paragraph - I don't give a damn. But what the Supreme Court ITSSELF has found to be factual - is that the risk is substantial. I will insist that wherever the risk is quantified that the Supreme court's qualification be used - and not as the (see-no-danger) crowd would have it that we sweep "substantial" under the rug and pleasure ourselves by reporting only the facts consistent with our bias. Benjamin Gatti 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I checked the entire judgement for occurrences of the word substantial, and the only relevant mention I found was this paragraph above. It does not say what you claim it says. In fact it literally says as I discussed above. The entire paragraph is reporting the views of the industry: so if you would have it that the merely the industry is claiming it is safe, then it is also merely the industry maintaining there is substantial risk. I understand this apparent paradox as meaning that different risks are referred to. The high financial risk, and the low risk of an accident. The financial risk may have absolutely nothing to do with any nuclear risk at their plant: There is the tiny issue of borrowing billions of dollars to build a plant which you may then not be allowed to use for no reason within your control. 81.7.59.14 10:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)(User:Sandpiper)
Supreme Court is unassailable source
Until someone can truump the Supreme Court - I am going to argue that their findings of fact are supreme and unassailable. If we go to arbcom because I insist that the version of the truth held by the Supreme Court be maintained - then we go. Benjamin Gatti 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- We have a consensus Intro. Your proposed intro explained very little about Price-Anderson. Simesa 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- what is the issue? The supreme court ruling was included before, and is now. The only issue seems to be that you wish to leave half of it out, altering its meaning. Sandpiper 10:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well then. Why don't we just include the entire decision then? I'm of the mind that a summary of what they said was permissible. I don't like listing all of the points or some of the points like we did. Summarize it. This article is not about the decision. It's about the Act. Keep it as short as possible. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- what is the issue? The supreme court ruling was included before, and is now. The only issue seems to be that you wish to leave half of it out, altering its meaning. Sandpiper 10:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree - it ought to summarized - not watered down. The act asserts the risk as being "substantial" now how do we get from that to this idea that the risk is insignificant? Won't wash with me, and I suggest it won't wash at arbcom. Benjamin Gatti
- The arbitration committee does not decide content disputes. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. If an arbcom case was ever opened on this matter, it'd be on user conduct, not this article per se. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee does not decide content disputes. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree - it ought to summarized - not watered down. The act asserts the risk as being "substantial" now how do we get from that to this idea that the risk is insignificant? Won't wash with me, and I suggest it won't wash at arbcom. Benjamin Gatti
The issue seems to be just the one paragraph. It was already in the article in its entirety before, it just didn't say it was quoted from the supreme court. Ben wished to add points from this paragraph to the section listing supreme court conclusions. I realised that actually all his quotes were from this one paragraph, and that it was already there. So how is it a problem to have this entire paragraph-everything ben wanted to include- in its entirety in the section listing views of the supreme court. Ben, if you think the meaning is altered by quoting the entire paragraph, then I can only think the proper meaning is exactly as the supreme court wrote it. If you do not think the meaning is changed by quoting the entire paragraph, what is your objection to it?
woohikity, this article is about the decision. My reading of the judgement is that it supports the act. It is a respected body and deserves to be heard. I do not object to Ben putting in a clear explanation of what other organisations have said in separate sections. Without rebuttal, so long as they accurately quote the source. It becomes a bit silly if we have several sections, each one cross-referring to an opposite POV from someone else. I am of the view that there is a significant body of opinion which does think this act is abominable, and it is fair to say so. Unfortunately, the supreme court did not say that.
Ben, are there other sections of the judgement saying different things which you would like to include as well? 81.7.55.187 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)User:Sandpiper
By the way Ben, i read what you posted on talk:Hubbert peak theory Conservation and Alt Energy are not likely to support the same levels of over consumption, but let's be honest - wind turbines are being built with less subsidy than nuclear plants, and nukes are part of the cheap energy reality. So we can and do have sources of energy which while they may not be fully competitive, are nonetheless, so closely competitive that the effect of losing one and coming to depend on the other is trivial. It's like losing GM, and having to depend on Hyundai. There's a difference, but far closer to a matter of preference than a calamity. Benjamin Gatti 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Ben, do I take it you think nuclear power is as near in cost to convential power sources as makes no difference? Sandpiper 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, even with the reseach subsidies, and Price Anderson, Wind energy, wave energy, and yes Nuclear energy are all close enough in cost that the increased reliance on any one of them would not threaten our current standard of living. That is a far cry from saying which of the three is more competative in a very close race, or that they are so close that it makes no difference. In the context of Bubbert, the emphasis is on a sudden disruption in our way of life being vaused by the end of cheap oil. My point is that wind is close to nuclear, and nuclear is competative with natural gas, and so in the end, even alternative energies are not so much higher in cost that we can justify irrationa fears in connection with the disruption of cheap oil (note that cars are a horse of a different color). Benjamin Gatti 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
great
A revert war. I think that's the only thing we had avoided. Oi vey. I wish I had never gotten into this mess. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Serious and well intentioned people are just the worst, aren't they? Sandpiper 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well I've learned alot. There are just times when I wish I had told katefan0 (who first told me about this back in June) "no thanks". :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Capitalisation
Hi Ral, I reverted Constitutional challenge to Constitutional Challenge. However, I think I figured out what you were getting at. I checked a few articles and heading capitalisation varies, probably because no one else knows exactly the preferred style either. I havn't changed it back again, because under the circumstances it didn't seem a good plan to generate yet another edit. (and it is on my list of things to investigate) Sandpiper 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
"Does not adequately protect the public" is incomplete
I interpret critics to be arguing the act was designed with the purpose of protecting the nuclear industry at the expense of the public so "does not adequately protect" is incomplete or the opposite/wrong way of thinking about this. I believe they are saying "is detrimental to public safety". zen master T 18:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- from my own point of view, i have not progressed sufficiently far with this to analyse exactly what the critics have claimed. One of the acts stated aims was to protect the public, the other to encourage nuclear power. It is arguable that the act improves the public's position as compared to no act, even though it might still be criticised as inadequate. The supreme court upheld that it did adequately protect the public. Perhaps another interpretation of the criticism is that anything furthering the existence of nuclear power is creating a grave risk to the public, which might more accord with your suggestion.
Ah, i see this is further to a proposed change to the slightly wobbly consensus view of the first paragraph. So my POV would be that I do not support changes at this time, but am open to persuasion based upon exactly what the critics have said. However I doubt very much the 'federal body' claimed the act was 'detrimental to public safety', and reserve that the paragraph overal must not overstate criticisms of the act. Sandpiper 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Touche' - Indeed my objection to the current intro includes this complaint. The Federal body described it openly as a subsidy to investors - but unlike plebian editors, does not necessarily equate "subsidy" with "criticism" - and certainly did not go so far as to say that it did not protect the public. Subsidy (like Scheme) is a neutral word which may or may not be used critically. But the editors here tend to put a great emphasis on the connotation of words given their most pedestrian (and oh so often misunderstood) use. Benjamin Gatti 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suggest that we quit pretending to have a "consensus version", until we in fact do have. Benjamin Gatti 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well we actually do. IIRC it was agreed to by me, Simesa, katefan0 and I think Sandpiper...or he agreed with most of it anyway. The only person not to agree was you Ben. Consensus is not 100% approval. 4 or even 3 to 1 can be considered a consensus. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was agreed by me too. It needs improving, but that is about exact wording not meaning. people keep hacking at it (simesa, i see what your comment about 'problematic results from courts' was meant to mean, but I would have to argue it is criticism of the american legal system which deserves to be discussed later, as it was once upon a time)Sandpiper 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well we actually do. IIRC it was agreed to by me, Simesa, katefan0 and I think Sandpiper...or he agreed with most of it anyway. The only person not to agree was you Ben. Consensus is not 100% approval. 4 or even 3 to 1 can be considered a consensus. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Good point about any nuclear power could be interpreted as a grave risk to the public, I just interpreted the old intro to be understating or mistating the critics' view. If the point/title of the act is "nuclear industries indemnity act" how can the public possibly be protected in a civil law sense? My "public safety" phraseology is perhaps is a little too much and should be mofified, but "adquately protecting the public" is an inaccurate or opposite way of interpreting what critics are saying I believe. Perhaps we need a couple of sentences to succinctly paraphrase what each critic is saying instead of trying to find some generic, and potentially watered-down, consensus criticism? zen master T 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
'Bear in mind that legal protection is not the same as "safety" One suggests a recourse to damages as "protection", while "safety" would appear to refer to preventative measures designed to prevent an accident in the first place. My family is protected against my deat by life insurance, but I am not more safe as a result. Benjamin Gatti 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it could be argued that because the nuclear industry has a civil get out of jail free card they are much less likely to be diligent when it comes to safety. Though I agree "public safety" is a little too much and we should change it to something like "critics argue it eliminates or lessens civil protections and recourses the public would normally have after an accident" or some such. zen master T 21:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Does not adequately protect the public" IMO is fine for the intro. Zen argues that it's incomplete, but of course it's incomplete. It's the intro, it should hit the high points -- it doesn't need to be and shouldn't be complete. The article can (and does) later elaborate on just how its critics think it's flawed. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
actually, i think we need two sentences like a hole in the head. We have enough difficulty with just one. If you indemnify something, then you keep it from harm: in this instance you protect companies from being sued into bancruptcy, but you do it by creating a fund (probably considerably larger than the companies own resources, $10 billion) which will compensate any victims. So while the company is protected, the victims are also more protected than otherwise. Further, since all the money comes from the companies (but not just the one concerned), it is self-financing, just like ordinary insurance. Quite clever, really. Also, it alters the law to make suing easier. The rest of the intro is a bit negative already, as it were to balance the negativity around.
The issue of whether this makes a company less safety conscious is addressed by firstly the observation that they are likely to be out of business anyway if something serious happens at their plant, and secondly that the act has absolutely nothing to do with safety regulations, inspections,licensing, criminal penalties or fines for breeching regulations. Sandpiper 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I changed it to clarity the lack of civil recourse point. Also, after I've thought about it when I said "incomplete" I actually mean "mistated" as in "the critics' views were being mistated". What is wrong with "critics argue it was wrong to eliminate or lessen civil protections and recourses that would normally be available after and accident"? To resolve an interpretation of critics views I think we are going to have to examine them more closely. Kate, a suffict summary is good except when it's misleading. zen master T 21:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Does not adequately protect the public" is not misleading. Your version rather is, as it isn't as inclusive as the shorter version. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The point of the sentence is really to make it clear in the introduction that criticism exists. Trying to make it exact makes it very hard indeed to make it short. Write it under criticisms. The problem with your suggestion 'critics argue..lessen' is first whether they do, and secondly whether this is a sensible and widely held criticism which makes it worthy of mention in the introduction. Also, as said before, the supreme court held it did not 'lessen', which would inevitably mean you would ahve to mention that in the introduction as well. Sandpiper 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- If the point of the act is to give the nuclear industry indemmity at the expensive of the public then of course the public isn't "adequately" protected, they are in fact less protected than they would be absent this act, right? "Adequately" implies that act was actually trying to protect the public would would be an incorrect assumption, right? The summary of criticism should succinctly connote just how fundamental the criticism is, right? zen master T 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- ah, no. The whole point of the act is to give companies limited indemnity without harming the public at all. The magic of insurance, what this act really does (also mentioned into the intro) is create a mutual insurance company funded by all the reactor companies. It makes all the companies liable for a failure by any one of them. Sandpiper 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- If the point of the act is to give the nuclear industry indemmity at the expensive of the public then of course the public isn't "adequately" protected, they are in fact less protected than they would be absent this act, right? "Adequately" implies that act was actually trying to protect the public would would be an incorrect assumption, right? The summary of criticism should succinctly connote just how fundamental the criticism is, right? zen master T 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm asking for protection again
Here we go again. We've now had 8 reverts in the last 24 hours. We're heading for a slew of 3RR violations. I'm going to ask for protection again. Both Sandpiper and I are lost because we have too much going on here. Let's slow down again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, I didn't realize there were so many editors that were so keen on presenting the critic's view the old way. Let's try to resolve the disagreement(s) on the talk page. zen master T 21:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Zen, you are entering a hornet's nest here. I'd strongly suggest trying to read some of the archives or ask Sandpiper for help in getting up to speed, since he's relatively new to this too and just got up to speed himself. Otherwise, you are going to get lost and not necessarily add to the discussion. I mean we're in our 2nd mediation. We've literally had 4 protections. We have 500K of chat. Just a bit complex. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Summarizing critics' views shouldn't be this contentious. If people think my change is too long we can shorten it, but "does not adequately protect the public" seems to errantly imply that act was trying to protect the public, which is false right? zen master T 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- some pages I know, you post a suggestion and come back a week later to see if anyones noticed, and no one has. Needs a day here for everyone to catch up (this is a world spanning debate, I think. Wonderful to get foreigners involved in things they had never heard of before). And before I get another edit conflict, I think it would be correct to say the secondary aim of the act was to protect the public. That was a stated aim, and once again was confirrmed by the supreme court both in intent and effect. read the article, its has quite a few facts.Sandpiper 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes zen, you really have to get up to speed here. Not being critical, but as a new person to this mess, you have no idea what we've been debating for the last 6 months. Hell, I barely know and I've been involved since (almost) day 1. Read the archives and get up to speed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Zen, no, it's not false -- and in any case, it's not a valid argument with which to support the wording you seek. Protecting the public was one of the two main stated reasons Congress enacted the thing in the first place, those being to enable the creation of a private nuclear power industry, and to protect the public by creating a pool of funds from which damages would be paid in the event of a nuclear accident. Some critics argue that it does NOT protect the public, but that's only one view. The creators of the law clearly disagreed, so we can't argue that "does not adequately protect the public" is wrong because it's "false." That's passing judgment on a point of dispute, which WP:NPOV compels us not to do. ·Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes zen, you really have to get up to speed here. Not being critical, but as a new person to this mess, you have no idea what we've been debating for the last 6 months. Hell, I barely know and I've been involved since (almost) day 1. Read the archives and get up to speed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Back to my protection request. The complication is that we have 3 people who patrol the protection page and they include me and kate. *sigh* We just need a cool down period. I don't want anyone to violate the 3RR...yes...even Ben. I'd rather not have to complicate things any more than they are. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
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? zen master T 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The intro already covers all these points. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 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). zen master T 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yay us
Just created archive #8. We are at 614K and 160+ headings of archived talk. And we've settled basically zip since this started. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I take this seriously, but I laughed my head off when I read this one.Sandpiper
- I do too but I felt like lightening up the mood a bit would be helpful. Plus. It's damn funny. :-D That is the amazing thing about all of this. If you look back at archives 1 and 2, it's basically the same issues we're dealing with now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it might be. Serious, concerned people. Sandpiper 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- For different reasons though. Simesa, katefan and I just want the article to be NPOV. Ben is more concerned about the article sounding too pro-nuclear. Like I've said all along, we don't have a "side" really. Personally, I agree with Ben's views on nuclear and the Act. But the article needs to be NPOV on the point even if I'm personally not. Anyway. I'm wingeing on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it might be. Serious, concerned people. Sandpiper 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I do too but I felt like lightening up the mood a bit would be helpful. Plus. It's damn funny. :-D That is the amazing thing about all of this. If you look back at archives 1 and 2, it's basically the same issues we're dealing with now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
come on ben!
Ben, you wrote:
while exposing the public to the substantial risk of a catastrophic nuclear incident. Instead of the fair outcome in state courts, the Act substitutes a preferential resolution process and establishes
If it wasn't for the fact that some people might construe it as an insult, and insulting people is considered bad form her, but under the clear understanding that it isn't meant to be insulting, come on Ben, youre just taking the piss! Sandpiper 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)