Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Talk7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Status Question

Is anyone working on what we've discussed before in terms of writing more background into this article? We still have damn little on how the process works in terms of filing the claims and such if something does happen. I'm not the guy to do it...maybe Simesa could?? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pursuing it - I did find one quote, from 1979, that "The claim was handled by American Nuclear Insurers, a private company, for under Price-Anderson the federal government does not pay until the claims from an incident reach $120 million" but I will get a better source." Simesa 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Is not the Supreme Court's opinion a suitable source for background copy? I think, in the main, how it works (to the degree that how it works is even specified) is described by the Supreme Court's opinion. As far as specifics are concrned, it doesn't really "work" for victims in any specific way - the only thing it does specifically is relieve nuclear reactors from worrying about what happens when a nuclear catastrophy hits. Benjamin Gatti
I think Mike is looking for something more like the following. An authoritative source may be [1] - "Within twenty-four hours of the Pennsylvania Governor’s advisory for pregnant women and pre-school age children to evacuate a five-mile area around the site, we had people in the area making emergency assistance payments. Two days later, a fully functioning claims office staffed with some 30 people was open to the public. The claims staff grew to over 50 people within the next two weeks. All of the claims staff came from member insurance companies from around the country. ... As the office was being set up, we placed ads on the radio, television and in the press informing the public of our operations and the location of the claims office. Those people affected by the evacuation advisory were advanced funds for their immediate out-of-pocket living expenses, that is to say, expenses for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and emergency medical care. Approximately $1.3 million in emergency assistance payments were made to some 3,100 families without requiring a liability waiver of any kind." (That amount sounds kind of low to me, but then again there wasn't any physical damage - we know that eventually $70 million was paid.) Simesa 03:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The man to talk to is Dan Antion of American Nuclear Insurers, Glastonbury, CT. I've attempted to contact him by mail and e-mail. I also found that FEMA incorporates ANI in accident drills. Simesa 02:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a nice paragraph, and like thanksgiving dinner, it quickly fills one with warm thoughts, but this was not the situation experienced in the aftermath of chernobyl, neither does it begin to touch the scale of disaster contemplated by Price Anderson. In the event of a real emergency, taxpayers and victims would be compelled to absorb the damages - not those responsible, even in the event of criminal and frausdulent behavior, like the false and misleading behavior of Enron officials. Benjamin Gatti
I wasn't looking for a political statement. I was looking for what Simesa is offering. What is the process if an accident occurs? Whether or not P-A does a good job of protecting the public isn't the issue. The issue is...what is the process the law lays out when there is a problem? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, I suppose this is describing three mile island, and again, none of this represents "the process" of Price Anderson. The Process of Price is better spelled out in the Supreme Court finding. Generally, insurance covers the first bit, and the government picks up the tab after that = automatically to a point, and by congressional action beyond that - none of which is really even a process - except to say there will be a promise - ie congress agrees to invent one should a crisis occur. The only thing which is defined, is that the injured cannot go after those responsible for the damage - even if criminal action was the root cause. Benjamin Gatti
Yes, that's sort of what I mean, Ben. I mean...if something happens at a nuclear plant, how does it work? Another thing we don't address here is...according to P-A, what constitutes an "accident". It's all stuff that should be in here if we want a thorough article on the Act. Otherwise, it's a little like having an article on the War Powers Act but no discussion on what the Act means by "War". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Mike, if people are looking to Price Anderson as a Bible for emergency response, they are lost. An "accident" which meets the insurance threshold of Price would be geater than ~100 Million, Beyond that "mutual insurance" would kick in under which all the safe reactors "insure" the unsafe reactor. This isn't a fixed amount, but it can be calculated by the number of reactors times the roughly 100M figure. After that (~100 Billion?), then Congress kicks in a little bit more - like 500 Million, and beyond that a "retroactive mutual insurance" kicks in whereby reactors are committed to pay an addition premium if necessary - up to a limited figure, beyond that Congress has agreed to "do something" - whatever that means. All of which is rather imprecisely defined, and again, what is far more clear is that victims will not have recourse against those responsible.
For example: Without Price, if Enron were to try to cut costs by ignoring safety requirements and a large explosion took place, victims would have the ability to sue Enron for damages, which clearly they would, and into bankrupcy, which many would argue is what keeps most companies from cutting such corners. With Price, some insurance money would be available. generally a lot less for each victim, restitituion would be rationed, medical expenses would be rationed, treatment would be rationed, because the damages are limited to minimal numbers and the discretion of congress. In short, it would look like a remake of Louisianna, with widespread unfunded incompetance, and an inexplicable inability of huge government departments, run by former horse association lawyers and lottery commission members falling over themselves to explain that everything which could possible be done is being done. In the meantime, the funds of Enron would be unavailable to recompense the victims. Benjamin Gatti
I think I need to tape a sign to your head that says "Stay on subject Ben". lol I just want something on how it works. No political statements or judgements necessary. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I archived today

We're now up to 384K total in talk on this subject. We have 2 very small (8K) archived pages. Not sure why. I also think we've reached the point (7 archives) where there is value in making one big archive that users can go to as well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. I consolidated the archives a little since one was too short and 2 were out of order (i.e. talk 2 should've been talk 3 and vice versa). All fixed now. I didn't delete or move anything...just between pages so I could get the order right. Thank me. lol --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
And now we have one big ass archive that covers all of the discussions back to June 26th. Now, we're missing the talk from when we had that separate mediation page, but oh well. We have enough. lol --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for nothing for archiving away the explanation of why this page has a posted (if confusing) request for comment. Judging from reading the last archive, this is stillan active though unexplained request for comment. Sandpiper 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why the RfC

In response to Sandpiper -

Price is an Act which permits energy companies to commit crimes, and place people at risk of nuclear disasters, without worrying that they will sued for damages.

Some want to paint the act, as indeed Congress has tried to paint the act, as "intended to protect the public" when in fact it removed the basic protection mechanism in all 50 states - which is simply, if your harm someone, you and not they should suffer the costs of their health care, etc ... Benjamin Gatti

How Liability is Spread under Price

Executive Summary From the Supreme Court ruling:

Under the Price-Anderson Act as it presently stands, liability in the event of a nuclear incident causing damages of $560 million or more would be spread as follows: $315 million would be paid from contributions by the licensees of the 63 private operating nuclear power plants; $140 million would come from private insurance (the maximum now available); the remainder of $105 million would be borne by the Federal Government.

Here is the explainantion: In 1975, Congress again extended the Act's coverage until 1987, and continued the $560 million limitation on liability. However a new provision was added requiring, in the event of a nuclear incident, each of the 60 or more reactor owners to contribute between $2 and $5 million toward the cost of compensating victims. 7 42 U.S.C. 2210 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. V). Since the liability ceiling remained at the same level, the effect of the "deferred premium" provision was to reduce the Federal Government's contribution to the liability pool. 8 In its amendments to the Act in 1975, Congress also explicitly provided that "in the event of a nuclear incident involving damages in excess of [the] amount of aggregate liability, the Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident and will take whatever action is deemed necessary and appropriate to protect the public from the consequences of a [438 U.S. 59, 67] disaster of such magnitude . . . ." 42 U.S.C. 2210 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V). (SCOTUS) [2]

Just to point out some things: The words used are Nuclear Incident, and Disaster (not "accident"). "Liability ceiling" being spelled out to the penney, while the means of protecting the public is relegated to - "we'll see 'bout dat." "Whatever is deemed appropriate" sounds to me like a fly-over in the executive jumbo-jet for a Presidential Photo Op at 40,000 feet, and sending some useless spoonfed child of the aristocracy to stand around in a pressed suit and brylcream handing out water bottles to the recently rescued. Benjamin Gatti

Request for Comment on What?

I came here totally randomly from the request for comment page, only to find a heated debate, but about what?

Without knowing anything about this law before reading the page, plainly it is intended to protect the companies building nuclear reactors. The argument for it was apparently that no one would be willing to enter the business in the face of a potential open-ended risk of damages. It seems to me that this would be likely to remain the case. It would be wholly impossible for a private company to obtain insurance against the full extent of a possible worst case accident. Technocrats would probably argue that the technology is good enough to prevent an accident like chernobyl, but this seems poor defense against deliberate acts of man, or nature. The law specifies a capped level of insurance which is deemed legally acceptable. I strongly suspect that despite the law any company which had such an accident would be wholly bankrupted as a result, but the law serves to allow those runing a company to at least get into the business.

Whether this constitutes protecting the people, or unprotecting the people depends on your view of whether having nuclear power is good or bad. The law merely enables building of power stations, it does not really alter the consequences of a disaster or the benefits of this form of power production assuming all goes well. It would therefore be my view that effectively it is neutral in terms of protection to the public given the existence of nuclear power. However, in so far as it enables the existence of such station, it does presuppose that it is preferable to build them and take the benefits/risk than not to do so.

Has anyone said that already, in all those archives? Sandpiper 02:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A perceptive understanding. Two suggestions: first, we are doing our editing on [3]; second, the intent was to get past government-support by developing an experience base of accidents - this didn't happen, as the only two accidents have been Three Mile Island (trivial impact on populus except psychological) and Chernobyl (a design vastly unlike those of non-Soviet plants). The Pebble bed reactor, an inherently-safe design, may get us past the need for government support - one PBR has operated in Germany, and the design is under development. Have to go now. Simesa 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The suggested link leaves me more mystified, since it is a redirect to this page. An analogy of arguing in circles? It would seem to me (reminiscing now of sitting on the physics department roof, discussing radioactive lamb in Wales after Chernobyl) that the experience base of nuclear accidents has done exactly what might be expected- scared insurance companies to death. I am still unsure where the battle lines have been drawn here, I answered the RfC posed question, but I think there are other issues. My first reaction would be that the article as-is explained to me the main points about the act. In other articles, I have entered into fierce debate about what constitutes 'original research' and personal theories, rather than objective fact. I suspect you are largely arguing about theories of motivation for the act, rather than simply describing what it is and how it works. Have people agreement on that background, at least? Sandpiper 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, it is one of our main points of disagreement. Whether it is enough to list the publicly stated, well-documented historical reasons (Congressional and industrial) for the creation of Price-Anderson (my position), or whether to try to assert the "truth" about why Price-Anderson was desired (which has been what Benjamin has primarily sought). · Katefan0(scribble) 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked at a few Ben edits, and I fear they are a bit loaded with words like 'criminal', which in context would not be literally correct. I think it is necessary to start with a bland statement of the legal mechanics of what the act does. Then perhaps people can agree to fight over a later paragraph about motivation? It ought to be possible to get something agreed upon to start off the article? Sandpiper 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Not only a bit, usually. You're quite circumspect. We had a pretty to the point intro at one time, but Benjamin typically comes behind and insists on the inclusion of other speculative POV information. So here we are. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
IIRC Sandpiper, you are responding to a RfC that Benjamin Gatti put up because I had put up a *test* RfC on his user conduct on my user page. So it was not legit. We are already in mediation. In fact, this is our 2nd go round on mediation. So, if you want to stay, great, but you don't have to. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Sandpiper - welcome to the fray, I would hope to speak for everyone, in encouraging you to stay. It's good to see you've groked the essence of the Act. The chief concern among those who do not share your ambivilence is that in fact nuclear energy has consumed the lion's share of subsidies, and has not delivered on the promise of cheaper electricity. Personally, I think energy sources should be selected on the basis of their ability to deliver a marketable good, with minimal external impact on the environment. If nuclear is really the least expensive means of energy, than I support it, but where I (and others) are dissappointed is that nuclear is getting more than a head start, and so the market is being forced to accept a product which, in a free market, they would not prefer. You make the argument that we should recind our liability laws in order to make room for nuclear energy. Oddly, I don't necessary disagree, except that it ought to be recinded on an equal opportunity basis. If I want to invest in clean safe wind power, why should my investment not enjoy the same benefits of (say) your investment in a nuclear reactor? If I have to worry about the risk of a cat 5 hurricane, why shouldn't you at least weight the probability of a nuclear disaster before choosing to invest in an abomb-in-a-box? So yes - whatever you want to call it, the act removes barriors to energy, my complaint is that it doesn't remove them equally. (sadly, all of which is irrelevent, since all we can do is quote sources on the front page.0 So you will see me quote the Supreme Court which found that nuclear is in fact to dangerous to afford the cost of its own insurance. also - criminal behaviour is protected by the act. Benjamin Gatti
(Quick note to Sandpiper: my mistake, I left the "Talk" in - should be [4] Simesa 01:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Act III Enter Sandpiper, Simesa exit stage far right

Hi Ben. I was not intending to express ambivalence, nor argue that it was desirable to alter ordinary trading rules, rather trying to summarise what I saw. My impression of the act is as I said, that the consequences for individuals after an accident do not appear to be different despite the acts varying of normal rules. The government would be left to carry the can, either way. But as I also said, the distinction seems to be that the act is intended to encourage private companies to enter the market. In that sense, it merely enables a decision already made by the US government. I do see lots of scope to argue about whether that decision was good or bad. But the act in itself seems to be simply a factual subject.
The article seems to allude to subsidies enjoyed by Nuclear generators in as much as they do not have to carry their own liability insurance. I am not sure exactly how this works in the US, but I think in the UK nothing would stop you entering business with inadequate insurance. You would just be bankrupted when a disaster happened. Or someone might get a court injunction to stop your activities, if they could prove you were doing something immediately harmful to someone. If I was planning to do something like this then I would just create a company and get on with it. The problem would be obtaining permission to build it. But in the UK all nuclear power generation has been done by government, anyway. This kind of argument simply did not arise, as the Government is always its own insurer of last resort. Creating a legal structure which allows a private company to side-step insurance worries seems quite sensible if it is assumed that there is a small risk of an extraordinarily big bill. Normal insurance averages risks, and can not cope with that situation. I would not accept that avoiding vast insurance premiums amounted to a subsidy, unless it could be demonstrated before hand that these bills were certain. That is the normal standard applied to companies.
Now, if you are arguing that nuclear power has received other 'unfair' subsidies, then yes, it has. Again, I know more about the UK than the US. Development has first been driven by the need to develop nuclear technology to further bomb production, and second by the strategic importance of having alternative sources of energy not reliant on steady supplies of fossil fuels. I believe the US power program was originally based upon military propulsion reactors, and the investment needed to create them? Several UK governments have fallen/suffered due to energy supply problems. The UK nuclear power industry has now been privatised, but is essentially bankrupt and has had to be bailed out repeatedly for political and resource reasons. Despite massive trust funds for dealing with the problems of decomissioning, it has not even managed to make an operating profit. Nonetheless, the UK government is currently considering embarking on a new building program, for strategic reasons as the current reactors are reaching the ends of their working lives.
The principle argument currently being pushed in the UK for Nuclear power is that it does not release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is plenty of fossil fuel available to the world, but this argument is steadily gaining ground, apparently everywhere except the USA. From the UK, the US seems addicted to cheap energy. All fossil fuel burning comes at an environmental price, and presently absolutely no one is paying properly that price. Saying that the nuclear industry has a special indemnity against damages claims in some ways only puts it on the same footing as the fossil generating industry, which has never had to indemnify properly against pollution. Who will pay out if sea level rise floods New York? I have argued in a circle here a bit, since I seem to have returned to the issue of insurance.
Personally, I agree that we could use vastly more renewable energy resources than we do, that we would very probably be doing so now if the same amount of subsidy had been directed towards developing them as has been directed towards nuclear. But I am not entirely sure in what way people want to add or remove this background debate from this particular article. Sandpiper 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper, you've certainly hit the high points within the alloted time. Yes fossil fuel do get rather a similar dispensation with respect to the right to poisen people slowly without recourse, and I would argue in favor of fully burdening oil energies with their environmental costs - as would I prefer to see nuclear energy pay the piper - and to be fair wind, waves, and solar energy should pay their way as well, because I believe in a fair market, clean safe energies would be more competative. That said - to level the playing field, renewable energies ought to have the same trillion dollars of development headstart subsidies currently enjoyed by nuclear energy. (all of which is opinion and not publishable). What I do propose is to call a spade a spade, the DOE has called Price a "subsidy for investors", and we can state the facts - which is the Price exists to protect investors from being held responsible for nuclear incidents, and yes it protects investors even when criminal behavior is the cause of the disaster. As you appreciate (which I presume few others do), the risk of underinsurance is bankrupcy, but the problem in the US was that the companies lare enough to participate had deep pockets, and they were faced with exposing their investors to the deep risk of a nuclear disaster in exchange for minor returns relative to the risk. As you have deduced, this problem was real, and appears to be the one and only problem fully and specifically solved by the Price Anderson Act. Now some want to put lipstick on the pig by suggesting the intent was to protect the public. I call bullshit. There really is no movement towards protecting the public - as you say, the government is in both cases the insurer of last resort, and the difference between saying or not saying it is moot. - that leaves us with real motive, and real consequences.

I suggest the motive is exclusively to illicit private investment in defense - er, military technology by taxing the population with the risk of a nuclear disaster (which anyway they can "afford"). This done, it is now expected that the population will continue to bear the risk of nuclear energy - while investors bear the rewards. The GAO has said the "intent" is to "protect the public". I have not objected to the statement, but I have objected to having it appear in the simple authoritative voice. That's it. That is the RfC, the mediation, the retracted and censored RfC by Mike (WHK), several blocks etc ... Benjamin Gatti

Scene II the contemplation of motive

Well, the problem is that you are expressing a particular point of view. It is not an unknown one, quite a lot of people would agree with you, at least some of the way. Your difficulty, is that it is wiki policy to create articles which express first the mainstream opinion. Well, as I suggested above, first to express the facts. Then to discuss interpretations, in so far as they are 'noteable'. I have no doubt that the sort of argument you are making is noteable enough and widely held enough to be included, but not as the banner headline. It would have to be in a balanced way, explaining both sides of the argument. This is the only fair way of doing it, really. Wiki does not set out to campaign on issues, only to report.
It is true that companies sole reason for existing is to make money. But they should not be criticised for that, we collectively let them do that because it benefits everyone else along the way. The art of it is to regulate the companies enough to keep them from doing harm, but not so much as to stifle them. It is unfair to blame companies which build power stations, acting almost certainly no worse nor better than other kinds of companies, when they have essentially been asked to do this by the government, acting on policy considered by democratically elected officials to be in the best national interest. Best national interest frequently covers a multitude of murky business, but balanced by some goal which is considered highly desireable. So I would hold that accusing companies of acting 'criminally' may or may not be true in particular examples, but in general is unfair. They are doing what they have been asked to do. If you like, what the government has bribed them to do. But that is still not to say they have been given 'unfair' subsidies. They have been given the price they negotiated to carry out what was asked of them. Normal business rules.
I think, there is no such thing as 'private investment in defence'. All defense equipment is now and has always been paid for by governments centrally. They collect money, somehow, and then pay someone to work on the technology. This is normal and very widely accepted. There is nothing different here. Whether you consider that nuclear power is a strategic national goal, or a stepping stone towards weaponry, it is still being funded by government. Perhaps this act is a means of relieving comanies of one cost and passing it on to the public, but that is just taxation by a different means. And in fact, it is quite a clever ploy because this is deferred expenditure. One day the bill may come home to government, but not now. Again, that is very very normal government policy, on any matter. Politically, it would be welcomed by many many voters who also prefer to defer their tax payments.
This act does not set out to protect the public, but rather the companies, I agree. But that does not mean it sets out to harm the public either, or that it actually does. The issue is rather like asking whether deforestation caused the demise of the Roman empire. Might have, who can say...it is too complicated to know. So with nuclear power. There have been enough accidents to demonstrate the risks. It is is not economic in the operating sense, but that is comparing it to very unfair competition from fossil fuels, where we seem to agree the generators do not pay the true cost either. So choosing to use it becomes a strategic issue, what is in the long term best interest. It is unfair to imply that those concerned are acting maliciously or with disregard for public safety. Sandpiper 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Protecting the public, is exactly what the act does not endeavor to do. I fully concur on the other points, Businesses should make money, the government has the right to contract for power; however two questions are raised, does the government have the right to contract for power from a particular source? or must it offer the same terms to all providers without discrimination? - and secondly, does the government not have the obligation to be truthful when it asks the democractic process to enact a law - in essense levying a risktax on non-voters by calling it "an act to protect the public."
If the government chooses to impose the costs and risks of nuclear experimentation on its people, I suppose that it can, where I would argue is that we as the press, ought to publish the truth of their actions, rather than the propoganda. That is the purpose and function of the first amendment (to shine the light of truth on the darker motives of government). It is no secret that corprations have a greater ability to lobby congress than do the unnamed potential victims of a nuclear holocaust, but this is no reason to permit the government to swindle the people by pandering to their financial supporters while lying to the public. I suggest that you and I agree that Price incorporates the big lie, which is that it's intent and effect is to better protect the public. Thus we as editors should not recoil from our duty to expose that lie for what it is.
Finally as to the power of government to specify the method of generation, I think this treads on equal protection. If I can generate power with wave energy, I should be entitled to sell that power in the same market, with the same advantages as other competitors, and I should not be discriminated against by having the government provide "earmarked" subsidies. If they want to subsidize power - fine, if they want to place a price on carbon - fine, but I believe the government oversteps when it says that "nuclear reactors" will get favorable terms in the marketplace because in their case alone, we will suspend the ordinary risks of conducting a business. In short what is good for the goose, is grand for the gander.
Accordingly, we have the right as editors to describe a "command economy" as one in which market decisions are dictate by a central elite, and to differentiate such from a "free market" economy in which consumers, rather than the government plays the central role in deciding which goods are preffered. Command economics are a trademark of left-wing socialistic/communistic elitist economic politics, and those who embrace it should be properly labelled. Benjamin Gatti
I see someone has a sense of the dramatic. It begins to sound as though your root objection is to commercial discrimination against wave power. Wiki is distinct from the US, and though it may be governed to some extent by laws of the US and its constitution, it is not an arm of the US government, or of the supreme court. It has its own constitution, which is to inform, not crusade. I dont really diasagree with that, as I think knowledge is power. Just tell the story accurately. But it has to reflect accurately the views of everyone concerned. For example, this act has no consequences for most of the world.
Governments, in general, are sovereign entities, which means they have a right to do just about anything they please. Particularly so, when the government in question is the USA. Most governments would maintain that they have a right not to be truthefull, too, when that is to further the national interst. It is not really true that paid lobbyists have a better ability to affect government than do ordinary voters. It would be more true to say that ordinary voters normally do not care very much about any particular issue. This apathy creates a vacuun in which lobbyists can be heard. I think you will find that what most people want is for the lights to go on when they flick the switch. How this is managed is not something which troubles them. So, that truth would be reported in wiki too.
Yes, governments do have a right to choose to push nuclear power, and arrange the legal structure for this to happen. That is one example of what governments do all the time: their job is to make decisions like that. Now, there is little point an adherent of renewable energy moaning about market intervention working against him. Fuel is heavily taxed, but still produces cheaper energy than the other possible sources. If all market intervention was removed, then the only game in town would be burning fossil fuel. The only reason renewable resources are being considered is because of the different players taxing energy sources and manipulating the market by restricting supplies. True, one day there will be an almighty crash when the fuel runs out, but a free market will go on partying to the last second. The only hope for a managed transfer is market intervention. So don't grouse too much because a different technology got in there first. Sandpiper 20:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The US government doesn't have unlimited power, and it is specifically prohibited from treating people differently for arbitrary reasons. And the US is atomic energy, France gets all its reactors from US designs, we paved the way, and without Price, none of that would have happened. So Price is an international law in effect. So here's the question - What is a non-arbitrary reason for buying energy from a nuclear plant for a different price than from a clean safe alternative (ie wind, wave)? I reckon to grow old waiting for that answer.
I think its worth the effort to expose the fact that Price Anderson does not do what it say it does. Benjamin Gatti

Scene III competative concerns

Price-Anderson no longer affects the world. Currently the Canadians, French, Russians, South Koreans and Chinese all have their own designs for nuclear power plants (the French even hope to sell in the U.S.). The pebble bed reactor was built in Germany and is being developed by other countries.
Part of your answer is that wind power isn't clean when the wind doesn't blow, wave power is not developed enough to be relied on, and wave power doesn't help large portions of the U.S. Simesa 01:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
WWII no longer affects the world - in the sense that you mean here. True, wind energy isn't when the wind doesn't blow, unless we find better ways of storing "fat". In cold weather we can boil water, and in hot weather we can freeze it. These are not expensive, and if there was a market for "intermittancy" we'd see them included in every building. Wave energy is far more reliable (80% availability) because the energy source is less localized, with DC interconnects it could provide significant power for much of the world. With Wind, wave, solar, hydro, and thermal we could be sustainable safe and clean. Benjamin Gatti
The UK gets lots of nuclear technology from the US, but the news etc here would certainly have you believe the UK developed its own reactors. So would the nice lady at the visitors centre, though we did scratch our heads a bit at some of the things she said. In fact several different designs, which was one reason they were outrageously expensive, if you insist on designing a new one every time you build one. If someone had managed to stabilise the design better we might have had a lot more. While I don't know a lot about the details of American law, it is not obvious that an enabling law for power generators treats people differently. In so far as it does, as I said, it seeks to place nuclear on an equal footing with fossil fueled power. The criticism of it, then, would be that it did not extend this equalisation to wind power. You feel it should have specifically included indemnity provisions for wind/wave generating companies, or at least that such should now be added?
I read some of the edits which Ben inserted, such as that the industry could not get insurance because it was too dangerous. This is not correct. Nothing is too dangerous to insure, the problem is that the risk remains unknown and unquantifiable. Precisely, that the exact danger remains unknown. Insurance companies are also businesses intent on making money, and it is an industry which has suffered very badly from guesswork about levels of risk (asbestos, tobacco). Absolutely the last thing it needs is to take on another unknown risk, so it prices accordingly. This act creates an affordable insurance scheme, which protects the public better than the ordinary law would, as it formally recognises the states obligation to bail out victims in the last resort.
As simesa mentioned, what do you propose to do if fossil is required to pay its full costs, when there is a calm day and little power is generated from renewables. Thermal power from the earths core?... just wait till there's a magma release. Don't get me wrong, I am in favour, but critics will persist in pointing out this rather serious difficulty. Sandpiper 09:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What we expect to do is to shut down unnecessary loads, ie boilers and coolers, and use the stored energy, to run on sodium bromide or hydrogen batteries, and in short, by lowering the price of energy during non-peak times, encourage conservation and scheduling during peak-or-unavailable-times. We can also burn natural gas "sweetened" with hydrogen from surplus generation during off-peak times.

As for insurance, you claim that "Nothing is too dangerous to insure". As a practical matte, many things are too dangerous to insure. Particularly when there are competitors which are safe and clean. What I have said consistently, is that nuclear is too dangerous to get insurance at a price which would allow it to compete with safe, clean wind.

The risk horizon for a nuclear company is in essence all of its liquidible assets, and those its contractors, and vendors. For GE and Westinghouse in 1954, this was a sum they were unwilling to risk, and for which they could not expect to get affordable insurance.

Renewable energies have risks as well. They are different risks, but risk is fungible from the perspective of an investor, and I would argue that where the government alieviates the risk for one persons, it must do the same for another (equal protection).

  1. Nuclear energy has a non-zero risk of disaster
  2. Without Price, the US has a zero-chance of nuclear disaster from large energy reactors.
  3. With Price, the US has a non-zero risk of catastrophy.
  4. Consequentially, Price imposes risk on the public.
  5. Conversley, Price does not "protect" the public.

Scene IV blame congress

Any disagreement? Benjamin Gatti

well,yes. You are blaming price for enabling constrution of reactors, and thereby creating a risk to the public. This is wrong, and unfair to write it up as such. The act is enabling, but it only expresses the will and deliberated choice of the US government, that in fact nuclear is both acceptably safe, and necessary. So blame congress, not the act. The existence of the act effectively presupposes that the US government has already decided nuclear is safe. The fact that neither generating companies nor insurers would touch the matter without this assistance merely says that they have different standards to the US congress. The power companies have decided that without sweeteners, the return is too small to balance the investment and risk. The insurers have decided that the risk is indeterminate, and thus again, not worth the risk. Also, when considering such potentially vast claims, there is the issue of their total resources to make payments, which might be too small to allow them to underwrite such a single event bill. Insurance is a business which relies on averages. On average, ther will be a certain number of events each year. It effectively assumes that the number of events will be big enough that there will be a steady stream each year, and constant payouts matched by constant receipts. This is not true of the nuclear industry, so no sensible insurer would touch it. And non sensible ones are no longer in business. Sandpiper 20:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee I'm confused, Congress says nuclear is safe - so uh - it's safe right, so insuring it should be very easy, you know, like a safe driver discount and all. If nuclear is safe, why suspend the rules? are you suggesting the rules are bad - why not suspend them for everyone, Under what conditions dear reader is a double standard acceptable? If congress "declared" the moon to be cheese, does that make it so? Our duty is not to condemn the act, nor to praise it, we are here only to report such things as are true. The truth is that the act serves to expose the public to a risk, which whatever it may be, is nonetheless far far more than either the nuclear industry or the insurance industry is every likely to accept.

Which of the above assertions are untrue? Benjamin Gatti

Well, if congress declared that the moon was made of cheese, with appropriate formalities, then legally within the authority of the USA (or its military), it would be. Obviously. I return to my earlier comment, that if a US company managed to have a really serious accident, then it would be out of business. period. So it is not true that the act absolves them from financial risk. If these companies believed that they were going to have such an accident they would never have started in business, because it would have been a financial loser from the start. If congress believed they were going to, it would not have passed the act. The whole point is that all these people believe that this risk is vanishingly small, but not cast-iron impossible. They believe that the risk is acceptably small.
An insurance company has a completely different outlook. You seem to think that insurance companies insure risks. They do not. They insure certanties. They love to sell fire insurance, or death insurance. They know everyone will die, they know houses will burn down. They insure these things because they know for certain they will happen, and therefore they know exactly how often or how soon they will happen. On average, of course. The people concerned take out insurance because although they also know for certain that they will die, or that someone's house will burn down, if it actually happened to them right now they (or their surviving families) would be in real trouble. For the individual it is an uncertain future, but for the insurance company it is a cast-iron fact and way to make money. Why would they want to give insurance to an industry where the risk is small (but in precise terms unqantifiable) and the payouts are potentially very big (and also in precise terms unquantifiable)? That is simply not what insurance companies do.
So, the act makes private provision for a scheme where there will be compensation money other than directly from the taxpayer. If, as congress, you believe that Nuclear is safe, but for market reasons getting insurance would be impossible (because no company would insure unquantifiable risks), then you have to do something. Either underwrite it yourself, or negotiate a deal with the companies. So they made a deal which does require companies to stump up quite a lot and spreads the risk over different plants and operators, and indeed insurance companies, as far as is possible. So it is also true to say the act provides compensation aside from government intervention would could not otherwise exist.Sandpiper 10:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tripe and Trivia

Mike, the RfC is legit. The fact that you deleted my response and ate the evidence is a burden on your own conscience. Benjamin Gatti
Do you have to argue *everything*? Look. The fact it was "legit" is your opinion. But the fact that it was deleted by an admin (when he didn't have to) without any question tends to tell me that it wasn't. The RfC wasn't live. It was on my personal page. And it's not a burden on my conscience. I'm perfectly ok with it, thank you. Now your RfC was bogus. This article is in its 2nd mediation. Requests for comment is the first step to handle disputes. It was done way back in June. That's how Kate (and eventually I) got involved. Mediation is the 2nd step. It makes 0 sense to go back to the 1st step in the middle of the 2nd. It was a revenge tactic. Period. Now why don't we drop this since neither of us is going to change our mind. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the RfC still seems to be there, and pragmatically it seems to me to make sense that getting more people involved would, at least, more easily demonstrate what is a consensus. Sandpiper 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, your voice is welcome. I wish you fortitude, however, in deciphering what all is the matter. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I will be on the road and away from internet access until Monday nght. Simesa 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish I was as well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper

I was going to give you a quick summary of what's happened here, but instead, I'd suggest reading the archives. Yes, everything you mentioned has been said in one form or another. At this point, we've drawn lines in the sand. This is our 2nd mediation and yet, nothing has changed since I got involved back in June. And just for quick background, Katefan0 and I are administrators...Simesa is a former nuclear engineer who became a whistleblower...and Ben is a very pro-renewable energy advocate. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text move = banks

"As with banks, claims above the insurance are required to be backed by the U.S. Congress. "

Yes - Bank accounts have some insurance, but it is limited to $100,000 per accountholder. This means that taxpayers are on the hook for an amount which is both finite and calcuable. Accountholders * $100,000. Price Anderson, on the other hand does not insure the first 100,000, it insures after the threshold is reached. Thus the taxpayer is exposed to an infinite risk, moreover, the institutional investors are protected. I'm not sure that if a bank goes under, its own investors are protected by the FDIC. I think the resources of the bank are consumed, and then the FDIC picks up whatever is necessary (Up to the threshold) - after which nothing. quite a different kettle of fish, and I object to the false analogy. Benjamin Gatti

I do not see that this act would protect the owners of a nuclear plant. Technically it might, but they would be unlikely to be allowed to continue in business having demonstrated a glaring danger in their plant. They could hardly sell off a closed down plant second hand. They would still have the expense of getting rid of it. The Price act may say explicitly that congress has to do something if the bill is bigger than anticipated, but this is also true of banks, even if not explicitly stated. If the failure of a bank was so serious as to threaten the rest of the economy, then the government would be forced to step in and pay for whatever had to be done to make the system safe again. No difference, really. Sandpiper 10:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Page unprotected

The page has been unprotected, and the temp page's history has been merged into here. I think it looks a lot better, and I think we have some more work to do, but we're on our way. Here's a quote from someone I asked to look at the article:

the current version needs citations for the POV references "irresponsible behavior" and "are generally fully liable for difficulties that their products cause". All accidents are not due to irresponsible behavior. Many businesses are not liable for difficulties they have disclosed in warning labels...

I think there are a few areas that need citations, definitely. One other thing I'd ask is what other problems editors have with this article. Ral315 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oi vey. I really don't think this is a good idea. Why? Because Ben is very good at acting like he's being cooperative and then when we unprotect the article, we go right back to extremely POV edits like we did tonight or he attempts to revert things that we agreed to during the protected period. It's the 3rd time that this article has been protected and then unprotected and Ben has done this every time. I kind of wish we'd discuss it before unprotecting. This is getting very old. This is just the latest in the long line of ridiculously POV edits that he's put up. He's very good at acting sincere as if he's going to be helpful now but then we just go back to the same old same old. Next time, please ask everyone first before unprotecting it. I know you aren't required to do so, but it would save us alot of headaches. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert of 7 Nov evening

I object to the following:

suspends protection

  • "is an act suspending public protections against nuclear corporations" -- Discussed before, 10CFR applies.
    • Are you saying its factually inaccurate?
      • Mediator: I'm not sure about whether this should stay or go. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It is factually inaccurate, since public protections are not suspended, they replaced by protection through intensive regulation and review, and responsible levels of compensation, rather than possible overreaction in the American civil litigation system. But just because the statement is inaccurate, does not mean it can't be in the article. After all, notable people hold inaccurate POVs all the time. Just provide a citation, and put it in the appropriate place, not the introduction.--Silverback 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • This is the argument that the American civil litigation system is the problem. If that's the case, then the act should have addressed the problem equally for all. The problem isn't the legal system, it's nuclear reactors. Benjamin Gatti
          • That is logical, except that it assumes the political system is logical. There are currently attempts to reform the tort system as a whole in congress, however, at the time of the legislation, there were sufficient votes that recognized the rather extreme case of public fears and misunderstanding of nuclear power required action at least at that margin of the system.--Silverback 10:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
              • All of which grossly fails to justify a double standard. Benjamin Gatti
  • "which do them harm" -- speculative, implies that utilities intend to do harm
    • Would "should they do them harm" suffice?
      • Mediator: "should they" might work. I'd have to see how the sentence flowed. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

risk sufficiently great

  • "The act was passed because the risk of a nuclear disaster is sufficiently great that neither the nuclear corporations nor the insurance industries are willing to be held responsible for a potential nuclear holocaust." -- While technically correct this is grossly misleading; the correct statement is that the risk in non-Soviet-built plants is tiny but non-zero.
    • I would like to see a direct replacement for this sentence - this is a critical sentence, which everyone agree is accurate. Your opinion that it overstates the case is your POV
      • Mediator: We shouldn't use "nuclear holocaust", really, as it's a media-like term that doesn't really mean what people think it means. The rest of the sentence could use a bit better structure. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually the statement is inaccurate. The risk of a nuclear disaster is so low, that society should be using more nuclear power, the problem is the American civil litigation climate which may impose outrageous liability even in the absense of real damage, such as was done in the cases of silicon implants and is currently happening with vioxx. Actual damage even from the worst melt downs such as chernoble, which is unlikely to occur in more responsible societies, is far less than the public feared and is geographically limited in scope. Far less land has been rendered inhabitable, than from say coal mining for instance. The statement is POV, should be attributed to a source. The public fears are real, if largely unjustified, and there are notable fear mongers stirring them up, that you should be a find references for. These fears and dangers should be covered in the introduction, however, keep the language neutral, and first provide a short descriptive first paragraph, and the next couple of paragraphs of the intro could get into the fears and risks, but provide citations and attributions. Wikipedia should not have its own position on nuclear power, but fairly present the positions that are out there.--Silverback 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Wind providers have to compete within the US Legal system. If the Legal system were the problem, it would not be a competative issue either way. Benjamin Gatti
            • Yet, they compete in a different environment of fear and misunderstanding, however unjustified that is. One hopes that congress has more resources, time and access to experts to inform their deliberative process than a mere jury trial does. However, even the congress, cannot afford to wholly ignore voter hysteria.--Silverback 10:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
          • The statement is inaccurate. It is not that the risk is sufficiently great, it is that the possible consequences are sufficiently great. Admittedly, the two are interrelated, because the consequences can only happen if the risk comes about. But it is the unquantified but vast bill if the worst imaginable accident happened which is what everyone is worrying about first. This has a lot to do with public perception, and the effects of atom bombs. Sandpiper 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I would suggest that "risk" encompasses (probability * damage_horizon). Your argument that the risk is weighted towards the damage horizon is well taken, but also a distinction without a difference. We insure floods, hurricanes, criminal acts with airplanes into large buildings; all of these are similarly weighted. The fact is the risk is great enough that nuclear energy would not be competative were it to bear the cost of its own risk profile. this very definately has the effect of moving the market away from safe technologis (which have unsubsidized risks) and towards energy with subsidized risks - which are also more dangerous. Accordingly the effect is to raise the price of energy (subsidies raise costs because a free market is more efficient) and increases the chance of a nuclear disaster. Benjamin Gatti
              • As I say below, not necessarily. We agree, the result is a compound of the risk and the cost. However it is not the business of an insurance company to consider a realistic resultant of these factors, but a worst conceivable one. Insurance companies makes money by betting on reliable probabilities, not by taking risks on uncertain one. If they are unsure, the only responsible course for the manager of such a company is to state rates calculated on the worst-case. That represents his responsibilty to his shareholders, not to society. Sandpiper 08:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

medical risks

  • "This means that children who experience Malformation, Death, Growth Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, Intellectual deficit, or experience heritable changes in their reproductive organs which could impact their own children [5]" -- inflammatory, to say the least. In the U.S., TMI caused none of these.
    • All word for word quotes from the army manual on the effects of nuclear exposure on a fetus. duly cited.
      • Mediator: Just because it's true doesn't mean it belongs in the article, just like the exact wording of the bill doesn't belong in the article. And to insert this makes the article blatantly POV, especially considering none of these have happened as a result of the bill. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • These should be attributed to that manual then. But keep in mind that the increase in incidence of these was so low, even in chernobyl, that it took sophisticated statistical analysis to separate the effect out from the background levels of these conditions. You could easily say that life itself has risk of malformation, death, etc. You also seem to forget that if nuclear power is used in a market economy, it will be because it has economic advantages, not only in conserving rare resources such as fossil fuels, but perhaps even in lower cost electricity. Such economic wealth and savings can provide far more health and life saving benefits and significantly outweigh rare accidents. --Silverback 11:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • True, financial benefits save lives, but also true a fair market tends to bring more economic benefit to more people - how does enriching a relatively few in the nuclear field improve the outcome over say hiring many more people to build windmills? Its quite possible that wind would avoid more deaths from financial causes, even than subsidized nuclear, the question is why not trust the market? if the market is not willing to accept the risk - or prefers the risk of wind to the risk of nuclear, that should be reason enough. Benjamin Gatti
          • But we are not talking about a fair or free market even without this act. In a pure market, I would be able to build a nuclear reacter on my land, and only worry about safety and liability later, and probably even then only if I had something to lose if an accident happened. In this market, even without the act, reacters would be regulated, building permits contested, and environmental impact statements required, etc.--Silverback 10:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

no reimbursement for loss

  • "could not expect to be reimbursed" -- this is baloney, PAA always pays and Congress is required to act.
    • The Act prevents reimbursement for pain, suffering, loss of consortium, punative damages necessary to discourage dangerous behavior and the right of a jury to set the proper value of reimbursement etc ... Y/N?
      • Mediator: It's badly worded. Even if it does limit some reimbursement, it doesn't flat-out block reimbursement, which is what it implies here. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "by the corporation which caused the harm" -- SCOTUS found that PAA was sufficient remedy for this
    • in otherwords you agree its factual - sufficient or not is speculative, what is true is that price prevents the victims from recovering from the corporation causing harm.
      • Mediator: Not sure whether this should stay or go. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You should keep in mind that corporations are all ready liability limiting organizations, created by government, this is just another level of liability limitation in order to decrease the risk of investment. Because of the excessive and unwarranted fear of nuclear power, and the thoroughly justified fear of the American civil liability system, it would be difficult to raise capital to finance this industry without reasonable limitations on liability.--Silverback 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Investors are more than willing to turn a blind eye to how corporations get profits (so long as they do) holding investors responsible, within the bounds of their investment for corporate crime is the only way to force the market to pay attention to whether or not corps are behaving. Benjamin Gatti
          • The act (or accompanying legislation) seems to include mechanisms to regulate, inspect and fine companies which are behaving dangerously. However, it is not done as part of claiming damages from them. It might be argued that this is an advantage for someone seeking damages, they do not have to prove exactly who was to blame. Sandpiper 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

criminal activity

  • "even if it were the result of criminal activity." -- always have to imply the utilities are dirty, don't we.
    • What kind of industry asks to be indemnifyied for criminal activity? If the shoe fits.
      • Mediator: Doesn't fit. We're supposed to present the information and let the reader deduce what they want, not steer them toward different beliefs. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, corporations are usually not liable for the criminal activity of their employees, unless it was sanctioned at the very top. This law probably provides compensation to injured parties, even when legally the corporations might not be responsible.--Silverback 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Price protects the investor - even if the CEO commits the crime I describe. I have no issue with immunity from "unknown criminal acts", but we should be honest - they has asked for criminal immunity. Benjamin Gatti
  • "This "Too bad" provision," -- if this isn't POV, I don't know what is.
    • Just imagine, you've been injured because the CEO of Nukes-R-us fakes the result of an internal inspection order to avoid shutting down the reactor as required by law. You're a fetus, and as a result, you end up stupid, short, missing an ear, so you sue the CEO and Nuke-R-us for damages in state court under the liability law, and the judge says - in short "tough luck pal."
      • Mediator: Benjamin, that whole paragraph above is POV. If you can't back up a statement with a NPOV reason to keep it, the sentence is certainly POV. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The fact is when an injured persons tries to collect damages against a nuclear reactor, the operator will file a motion to dismiss pursuant to federal immunity. and the judge will say "case dismissed". Now that is legalize for "too fr*king bad".
  • "or "limited laibility" as lawyers call it, is unique to the nuclear industry." -- You've never heard of investors not being liable for more than the corporation's assets?
    • Has nothing to do with the investors assets. It has to do with the corporate assets. Why should you, as a horribly disfigured victim not be equally protected from corporate harm regardless of whether they harm you with chemicals, nukes, lies, carginogens, etc ...
      • Mediator: Again, Benjamin, you need to back this up with something that isn't POV. A "what if you were disfigured" argument has nothing to do with what should be in an encyclopedia article. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "No other industy can expect to avoid paying for damages caused by criminal behavior." -- Under PAA, the industry pays without any question of who was at fault INCLUDING all criminal activity by anyone.
    • Non sequitur. Name one other industry that has asked to be held harmless for their own criminal behavior?
      • Mediator: It's true, but does it belong? I'm not sure. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Every other industry that uses corporations is protecting its owners from criminal activity, and there are even shell corporations within corporations to further limit liability both criminal and civil. The act, while limiting liability is also assigning it. You appear to be trying to assign collective guilt. The criminals will be held responsible under the criminal law. You appear to want to destroy whole corporations and the wealth of their probably innocent stock holders and other employees. People should and will be held responsible for their criminal and negligent actions. The actual risks of nuclear power are low, what is being laid out is the mechanism for determining levels of liability. Unrestrained civil court systems don't necessarily get to the truth, and often assign liability based on sympathy for the victims rather than any fault of the deep pocketed faceless corporations. This is just a different, perhaps more reasonable way of assigning responsibility and managing risk. It is not as if, nuclear plants are built in secret. For people willing to accept the risks, the fearmonging may benefit them, by giving them opporunties to obtain real estate a lower prices near power plants. Even those in fear of nuclear power, many find warning systems and evacuation plans an acceptable way to manage risks.--Silverback 11:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Corp X hires militia to enslave locals to build a pipeline. Of course it should be held responsible. The slaves earned the money which is now held by the corp - they are entitled to it. Investors are entitled to the proceeds - if there are any. Victims are entitled to a prior claim against the corp. Holding investors responsible for bad corporate behavior is a good way to prevent them from turning a blind eye to white color crime. Benjamin Gatti
          • The act does hold the companies liable. It creates a fund to make payments to claimants. The fund gets its money from the companies. You can be sure that if there did start to be lots of claims, congress would revise the terms and make the companies pay more. Just like any insurance company. So far, it has not had to do this, because there have been very few claims compared to the sum in trust. Sandpiper 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

unfair competition

  • "The Act is broadly viewed as enabling private nuclear reactors to unfairly compete with clean safe energy, such as Wind power" -- as phrased, this belongs in Criticisms, or in a commercial.
    • let's say we drop "unfairly" and just say "compete"? better?
      • Mediator: Without unfairly, this might work, but I'd have to see how it flowed. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The statement is POV and needs to be attributed. Safe is relative and a value judgement. Is it "fair" to for nuclear power to face unwarranted fears? Wind power is extremely dangerous to birds, and even humans must be kept at a distance by fencing, etc. Wind and solar power without accidents, may actually render more land uninhabitable, because they are land intensive, than nuclear power would even with accidents. And extracting energy from the wind may have consequences for the climate. After all, mountains have significant effects on the climate, and windmills increase the effective elevation of the ground. It just may be more difficult to attribute the risks, is that a fair way to compete?--Silverback 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Is it fair for wind to face the speculative concerns over decreased property values. Um yes or no, but certainly what is true for the good is true for the gander. Benjamin Gatti
          • Well, a fossil power station also has to worry about reduced property prices near it, when a new one is built. The difference is that people think the nuclear one might render their homes uninhabitable, and their children mutants. They do not think this of wind power. Sandpiper 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I would very much like to see the mediator comment on this list. Ral, you've been asking for a bullet list of diagreements, you won't get better than this. Benjamin Gatti

discussion

I agree, I won't get better than this. I think a lot of what was inserted is POV. Some of it is good, some of it is okay. But a lot was POV. That's my honest opinion, regardless of my personal beliefs about the act (it sounds to me like Price-Anderson is stupid, even if well-meaning, but I'd nevertheless try to keep this NPOV). Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • POV is OK as long as it is attributed. Unattributed hysterical fear mongering does not need to be in the very first paragraph, but such fears are so common, that they should be addressed in a responsible attributed manner in the next couple paragraphs of the intro. But the voice of wikipedia should be neutral in presenting these POVs.--Silverback 11:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
That isn't quite the NPOV policy. Sources used must be attributable AND fair. In other words, an article that has 28 sources attributed but they all represent one side of the debate is still a POV article. Attribution isn't enough. "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy." That's the basis of NPOV right from the official policy. So no, POV is not necessarily OK as long as it is attributed. That's a very common misconception. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Note

The company (or companies) I was a whistleblower against is/are no longer in the nuclear industry. Simesa 01:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

burden of those who would potentially be harmed.

I was copyediting the article and changed the sentence containing the heading above. This was firstly because the sentence makes better sense if it mentions the exception first, then the balancing reason held by the supreme court afterwards. I rephrased it to 'risk of harm'.

However, I am mentioning it here because it strikes me that it must be wrong, either way. My impression is not that the case was about risk to the public, but about legislation granting a special exemption to the companies, so treating the public differently. In which case the sentence ought to say something like 'loss of protection', or more NPOV 'unique means of compensation'. (I have the impression the constitution would have no objection to people being treated equally badly) Sandpiper 11:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No Fault Liability

I was under the impression that no fault liability was a good thing, since it was not necesssary to prove who was to blame, therby making it easier to claim compensation. The article implies it is a bad thing. Assuming for the moment I am correct here, those who think there is a bad thing in there somewhere really mean that compensation is also limited somehow? The two points would be distinct. Sandpiper 11:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

indemnity of gross negligence, Public Citizen quote.

Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups for a portion of the law that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel", Public Citizen. The Energy Department counters those critics by saying that the distinction is irrelevant, since the damage to the public would be the same. [6]

First, the first two sentences of this paragraph in the criticisms section are essentially one point from the cited 'Public citizen' page. So why is the second bit in quotes, but the first not? Is someone suggesting that the first sentence is more widely accepted than the second, or what?

Second, I don't like the rebuttal sentence, which seems muddled. I think it should probably read 'the damage and compensation to the public', which seems to me to be the actual case, but I do not know what the Energy Department actually said. Anyone? Sandpiper 12:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that compensation was part of their rebuttal, I believe it was only the damage part. I don't remember anymore. But you can look through the source link and see, if you find it confusing. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A good suggestion: check the cited reference. Ok. So, the reference is a report prepared for the Eureka county commisioners, Nevada??? Not the US department of energy??? There is this line,

A contractor is fully indemnified for public liability, even if the liability stemmed from acts of gross negligence or willful misconduct, because the damage to the public is the same [DOE, 1997].

This is part of a section defining who is insured under the act, absolutely nothing to do with answering anyones criticisms.??? There is another mention of 'damage to the public' in the context of an aeroplane with a faulty engine crashing into a reactor. The airline company would then be insured against any claims of its liability for causing a crash/ nuclear leak.
This reference seems to be a detailed explanation of the act, not of criticisms or responses to criticisms.
It seems to mention that any plant/contractor failing to follow nuclear safety rules can be fined $110,000 per day per offence for as long as they continue to not follow safety rules. Don't recall reading that bit in the article?
Well, I havn't got time now to read it all, but it has not helped with my query. Anyone who put this in can perhaps explain it? Sandpiper 20:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

In response to Sandpiper's question in Article History, the $300 million insurance is once per incident. The $95.8 million from each power reactor (as opposed to a research reactor) should also be once per incident. Simesa 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Claims response text

I have been unable to contact American Nuclear Insurance by e-mail, and I made a new submittal as well as put a letter is in the mail. Simesa 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) replaces the liability protections against nuclear corporations which may har the public. The act was passed because the risk of a nuclear disaster is greater that either the nuclear corporations or the insurance industries are willing to accept. The Act protects private and government nuclear facilities from being held fully responsible for harm to the public. Consequentially, children who experience the effects of radiation, which the army medical manual describes as: Malformation, Death, Growth Retardation and Severe Mental Retardation [7] are barred from suing those responsible for causing their illness or death even if it were the result of knowing, and intentional criminal activity by the chief executives. "Limited liability" means that the courts will dismiss any case in which an injured person seeks compensation for injury against the corporation which caused the injury. Such immunity is unprecedented; no other industy can expect to avoid paying for damages it has caused by the criminal acts of its CEO. The Act is broadly viewed as enabling private nuclear reactors to compete with alternative energy, such as Wind power. Environmental groups, consumer groups, taxpayer watchdogs and even an agency of the Department of Energy have criticized the act as subsidising the nuclear power industry.


  • An Updated Version

Benjamin Gatti

erm, but the reason they are barred from taking suits is because they have been given an alternative compensation scheme, which does not require them to prove exactly whose fault it was. This is an easier legal hurdle to get over when making a claim, surely? The point of barring other claims, is that they are not entitled to claim twice; by the special means, and also by the normal means. Sandpiper 20:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You make a compelling case for ditching liability laws in favor of socializing all harm; however you have not begun to make the case that it should be done for the goose and not for the gander. Benjamin Gatti
Most governments, including I think that of the US, are not 'comunist' and do not believe in doing things which the market can handle for itself. So, in general, the kinds of risks which industries runs are well understood mechanical, chemical explosion, crushed employees, and insurance companies have a good enough feel of what the costs will be to be happy to insure them. This article is strictly only talking about insurance. There is not much point the government extending this to other industries. In fact, the insurance companies would probably start screaming unfair competition if the government started taking business they wanted. Or are you saying that wave/wind power also contains unquantifiable risks to the public which prevent it getting insurance, thereby stopping its development? If so, then yes, I would agree this should be mentioned. Sandpiper 08:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Investments are always a package of risks, benefits, barriors, overhead, transaction load, etc... Wind, and Wave energy have risks, some of them are similar - for example the risk of public resistance to building a wind farm is similar - though for largely different reasons. Because renewable energy is high in capital and low in running costs, the risks are shifted highly towards the future marketability of the product. One chief risk is whether or not you will have access to a fair and free market - which is directly undercut by unequal subsidization of competitors in any way, and by the probability that the value of carbon abatement may change. These are "investment risks" - which is what Price addresses. Price does very little to mitigate "public risks".

It occurs to me to wonder just how much alternative energy plant could have been paid for with the costs of the current gulf war, which seems to have had quite a bit to do with ensuring energy supply. Never mind. Pushing up the price of oil has to be good for alternative energy producers.

The thing is, it is not clear to me that the consequence of the Price act is 'unfair'. Yes, it provides insurance at a lower cost than the market. But I have not been convinced that the market price would be fair. Everything depends on what you believe is the real risk and expense of making good actual damage from such plants. If you honestly believe that nuclear plants are uneconomic because of the damage they cause due to inevitable accidents, then , yes, it is unfair. But on the other hand, if you believe that nuclear power actually has a good safety record and including costs of damages will still produce power competitively, then, no, it is not unfair. I have not seen anything on this page which would help decide this issue. This is what I mean by repeatedly referring the issue back a stage, to the decisions made by congress. The act is just a tool. Its effect depends on the accuracy of the assumptions behind it. But unless you can demonstrate that congress' decision was wrong, or that actual insured expenditure is going to be greater than the industry is paying for, then you can't really write it as though it is so. Sandpiper 22:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You've constrained "fairness" to the relationship between the insurer and the operator. Generally I refer here to "fairness" as between a nuclear plant and (say) a wind plant. I assume that however good bad, or indifferent the insurance companies are, that they are rational, motivated by profit, legion, and competative. If it were possible to make a lot of money insuring nuclear plants, it seems that simple competition would ensure that one company would not be able to command an unfair profit.
The truth, and one we should not be faint to report, is that Subsidizing risk affects the market, and it gives an undeserved advantage to predefined parties. It is called "picking winners and losers, and amounts to the government replacing a free market as the final arbitor of which companies will survive, and which will not. I happen to believe that efficiency, quality, integrity, and safety are a better rubric to measure competancy than whether or not one has access to closed door meetings at 1600 pennsylvania ave. (for sandpiper - think #10 downing street). Those who think otherwise are welcome to join their ilk as socialists and communists, but it is absurd to sugest that capitalism is reflected by subsidizing individuals players in a competative market. Benjamin Gatti
Yes, i would constrain fairness considerations to the subject of the article, rather than to the entire debate over nuclear power, or to the state of the entire world economy. Not entirely, but this is an act about nuclear power. It addresses the issue of nuclear insurance, and people are arguing it gives the companies too good a deal. It may be that other people are getting different deals on different things which are unfair, but no, I do not think it appropriate to make this a general essay on unfairness. The direct issue is whether the nuclear insustry is getting insuranc at below cost. I have seen no evidence that it is. Equally though, I have not seen evidence that other companies (wind, waves) are suffering this same problem over insurance, which would be reasonable to mention. It might be that overall subsidies unfairly support nuclear, but we are talking about insurance here.Sandpiper 08:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It further occurs, that what I have said here is what is wrong with the wording of the introductory paragraph of the article. It states the act limits companies liabilty, implicitly saying this is good for the company. Well, yes, good for the company, but only unfairly good for the company if it is limiting below the real cost. If it is only limiting the liability to below the unfairly hiked up rates demanded by insurance companies, then it is not unfair at all. Sandpiper 22:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

--- I have yet to receive anything from American Nuclear Insurers, despite having contacted them by website form and letter. I suggest we quote the TMI claims response experience as an example. That experience is contained in testimony before Congress, in [8] Simesa 06:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the Intro

I just want to point out that I have backed up the assertions in the intro I propose with Supreme Court findings, DOE documents, and quotes from the hearings which lead-up to Price Anderson. Those who revert it have backed up their objections with what (personally speculation and opinion?) Now I am going to restore the NPOV, documented, cited, text, and I would challenge who ever takes it down to provide third-party documentation to support an alternative view. Benjamin Gatti

After all this time and all the careful and polite pointers, including Sandpiper's thoughtful discussions, these recent edits of Benjamin's lead me close to concluding that he either cannot or will not constrain his edits to information that is relevant to this topic (malformation?) and adheres to NPOV policy (all the rest). I feel that most of my time here in this mediation has largely, therefore, been a waste, and I am close to throwing up my hands. I am having an increasingly difficult time justifying the time I spend in this mediation trying to come to a consensus with someone who seemingly cannot or will not conform to WP's editing policies. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The flip side is that the confrontational process has the value of refining the issues (which we have done better recently than previously), and the process requires both sides to proffer candidates. Now my candidate is well documented, I think the sources include an army manual on the medical effects of nuclear exposure, a supreme court ruling, and congessional record. Hmm "foul" "wacko" "conspiricist". As much as I believe Katefan0 is a stellar human being talented journalist, and dedicated wikipedian, this is a complicated subject which turns on a casual understanding of negative void coefficients, non-zero probability, market risk, competative advantages in a risk-sensative commodity market, and it would be difficult to persuade me that my understanding of this subject is wrong, without making coherent arguments which run through the less pedestrian aspects of a very non-trivial pursuit. Of course, everyone is welcome to make an argument, but all arguments are not equal. It is sheer optimism to suggest that by determination alone, anyone can muster a persuasive argument related to the economics of nuclear risk. Benjamin Gatti
Could you turn down the condescending attitude a bit? Thanks. Katefan is as knowledgable as they come, but...news flash...THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. Keeping Wikipedia NPOV and on tangent is the issue. Not sure how many times we have to say that before you understand that. It's not about whether or not Price-Anderson is helpful or hurtful. That's not the issue. The issue is that this article needs to be balanced. Period. End of story. I'm also tired of your antics and I really don't think this mediation is helping a bit. Nuclear risk is not the issue. Whether or not nuclear power is safe is not the issue. And just like always, Ben basically avoided the issue that Kate brought up. And I'm sure he'll avoid the issues I bring up as well. You can ban me for personal attacks if you'd like, Ral, but we have ample evidence of his misbehavior. We're not making this all up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Mike, a whole paragraph, and not one word related to the article. Yawn. Ok you want balance, but where is the tipping point? Do we treat the pro nuke crowd as defacto normative, or do we accept the Supreme Court's finding that nukes are too dangerous to insure as normative?, or do we scramble for a dictionary to look up normative? Kate seems to be pining over the lack of progress, but Ral remarked that the last exchange was an excellent bullet list. You may find me ascerbic, dogmatic, persistant, as you would naturally find people who do not share your views, but I think if you set the personal issues aside you will see two or three informed advocates refining the critical differences in a nuanced subject, with some help from the gallery. Your participation is welcome, but if you want to do anything more than blow a plastic horn and cheer, you've got to get into the ring, and you'll know you're in the ring when the subject of your sentences are nuclear reactors, probabilities, risk, competitors, market theories, winners, losers, and in short, the subject matter. The fact that your comments continue to focus on other editors is as tedius as it is telling. Benjamin Gatti
Not playing your game. Not going to let you get me riled up and therefore, off subject. Keeping this article NPOV *is* the subject, not the stuff you rant on about. Your strategy is to get us off tangent so we start discussing nuclear power and all of this other stuff and then forget that we have to keep this article NPOV. And then you basically call me stupid and ill informed so then I'll get riled up and you can get me upset and off tangent. Not playing. And what progress are we speaking of? Your POV rants in the article the last few days show that we haven't made any progress at all. That's what Kate was saying. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy

I've stated this many times, but it's worth another go. Despite what Ben seems to think or what was expressed up above by Silverback, POV is *not* automatically ok if it's documented. It doesn't work that way. The assertions must be balanced. For the 45th time, this article already leans towards being anti-nuclear. I just don't see how adding more POV language in favor of the anti-nuclear forces can be called "fair and balanced". The idea is that both sides be represented fairly. Just because you can document POV doesn't mean that it's neutral. If that was the case, then you could have an article that has 45 cited articles that show one side and yet that would be called "neutral". No. Neutral is a fair showing of both sides of an issue or an article that is written with no point of view at all. I would quote the official Neutral point of view policy, but it's all over that document. But that's why you keep avoiding that issue, because you know that this article already tilts towards your side so you know that on a NPOV basis, you have no standing, so it's easier just to avoid the issue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Being anti-something is not necessarily unbalanced. Cancer sucks. We are not bound by NPOV to drum up enough positive aspects of cancer to form a 1:1 ratio of ying and yang. Price Anderson is what it is. There is no normative assumption that is either good or bad. If the facts are largely negative, that is that. I have nothing against a fair showing, but I do object to the presupposition that the outcome should be predestinated to assume the Price is moral, promotes public safety, promotes competition in the energy market, is cheaper than alternatives, is safe enough to insure, or any thing else which is untrue. I was the first to argue for NPOV here, check the history. My argument is that NPOV requires assertion of parties to be couched. I'm fine couching the Supreme Court and the Army Field manula and the DOE where they expound on the nature of the danger, the reality of the danger, and the economic effect of subsidizing the damger. Benjamin Gatti
You enjoy this, don't you? You enjoy gaming the system and getting rises out of people. I didn't say that being anti-something was being unbalanced. I said no such thing. I also didn't say "I do object to the presupposition that the outcome should be predestinated to assume the Price is moral, promotes public safety, promotes competition in the energy market, is cheaper than alternatives, is safe enough to insure, or any thing else which is untrue." I didn't say that. Nope. I said that the article needs to be balanced. That means that your view AND the other view both have to be included, fairly and equally. And like I said, again, you are missing the point. I'd like to see you present facts that show that nuclear power is safe and that P-A promotes that. Then I'd say you are trying to be fair and balanced. But you don't. Because you don't want a NPOV article. You never have. Quit wasting our time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Was there a writing mistake in that sentence about presenting facts, woohoo, or was it what you meant? Never mind. My own view is that I have seen no facts demonstrating that this is subsidised insurance. Sandpiper 09:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
No mistake. I was just saying that Ben would really show his fairness by writing for the other side. You probably don't know this, Sandpiper, but Simesa and Katefan0 helped Ben write alot of the criticisms section and they helped temper the original POV of this article (which was more pro-nuclear). Ben has never really shown any effort to make this article truly NPOV. In other words, he's never written things that have helped the other side. Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy has a good description of what I mean. See, you do a good job of that, I think. You are trying to see both sides of the issue and you are trying to help both sides. And Katefan and Simesa helped Ben alot early on. But he's never reciprocated. So despite his cries that he's for this being balanced, he's shown no inkling whatsoever to demonstrate it by helping the other side. He's done quite the opposite. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that I have written for the enemey, although this latest intro may not be an example, check the history for that phrase, I think you'd find it. Yes - you are right; Kate and Mike both helped move the article away from the original which listed toward simesa's POV ie nuclear is good and safe. The problem Mike faces, is that my sense of balance is not the same as his. Its an issue, not easily resolved - however more eyes can help - provided they can speak to the issue - which as I said, isn't trivial. A hundred screaming fans does not a fair fight make. Benjamin Gatti

And do me a favor Ben

Read this article as we have it right this instant. And tell me which side it favors. it sure as heck doesn't favor our side. It favors yours. And our side is not that nuclear is good. It's not that Price-Anderson is a wonderful law. It's that we have to present this law fairly and with balance. And frankly, to me, you are the one who keeps getting off subject, not me or our side. This isn't about right or wrong. It's not about what would happen if we had another attack. It's about fairly presenting the law. Simesa feels that way and so does Katefan0. You can call me stupid. You can call me whatever you want to. It's not going to change that fact. This is my last time engaging in a discussion with you that isn't about NPOV and making this article NPOV. I'm not engaging in any more tangents with you that just get us off topic. It's a waste of time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben's 3 day exercise.

Thought it fair to consider your last suggestion of opening paragraph.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) replaces the liability protections against nuclear corporations. ok so far.

which may harm the public.

  • perjorative. Raises the suggestion that this is exactly what it does. Not NPOV
    • The Supreme Court has said there is a real risk of a nuclear disaster, we can use the actual language, or shorten it as here, but the finding of the Supreme Court stays, it will survive mediation, arbcom, or anything else you want to throw at it I'm sure.

The act was passed because the risk of a nuclear disaster is greater that either the nuclear corporations or the insurance industries are willing to accept.

  • Not true. It implies that both these industires expect a disaster. Obviously they do not. They expect that little or nothing will happen. But there is a small risk that something very very serious could happen. They are not worrying about major parts of the US becoming uninhabitable, but about making a trading loss: that is the standard which they are concerned about.
    • Straw man, you suggest that my text asserts falsly that major parts of the US would be uninhabitable. It doesn't. What is says is that the (potential) risk (redundant but if you prefer) is greater than the industry is willing to ensure. WRITING FOR THE ENEMY your side should suggest this, that due to the nature of the risk, the government decided insurance companies would simply go bankrupt if they were allowed to insure, and so the gov decided it would be the exclusive insurer of nulear risk, and indemnify everyone. (You'd need a source however).
      • Then in the position of the enemy, I would sack you as copy writer, since you have missed the point. The point is that neither the government, nor the nuclear industry, nor the public, seriously expects any major accident to occur. If any of them did then there would be congressmen demanding plant closures, industrialists cancelling their contracts and mothballing their plants, and rioters in the streets. None of these people seriously expects any major accident. The sentence as you posted it implies a significant likelihood of a nuclear 'disaster', which is not the accepted view. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Act protects private and government nuclear facilities from being held fully responsible for harm to the public.

  • Not true. It merely alters the rules. Arguably, they are much more strict than apply to other industries.
    • "Fully" here means the court's definition of the term "equity". Look it up. And it is certainly true.
      • No it doesn't. It means what it means in the normal usage of a person reading the article, in common english. A reader would not take it as a legal term and should not be expected to. Again, it is the impression it gives rather than exact wording which is objectionable. The act does alter the rules, but it imposes different penalties instead. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Consequentially, children who experience the effects of radiation, which the army medical manual describes as: Malformation, Death, Growth Retardation and Severe Mental Retardation [9]

  • Deliberate attempt to raise fears about peoples children. naughty, naughty.
    • only because other words were viewed as opinion and POV. These are the words used in the manual. This is what the act insures against. True or False?
      • If you insist on putting it like that, then false. False, because it cites an example which is not representative. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

are barred from suing those responsible for causing their illness or death

  • implies they have no fair redress. Again Untrue.
    • they have less redress, and it is not full equity redress. It could be very little redress, we don't know. We know they are barred from suing those responsible for full equity. you have a better way to say that?
      • Well, if you claim we don't know exactly what the redress will be, then we certainly do not know it is unfair. Again, you are trying to use a particular legal standard. I think this was one argument used to the supreme court, that this departed from normal procedure. But the fact that redress is provided differently does not mean it is unfair. The text needs to explain that redress is different, not imply there is none.Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

even if it were the result of knowing, and intentional criminal activity by the chief executives.

  • Apparently also untrue. Sanctions both criminal and financial still exist against the company, just a different system.
    • sure criminal sanctions exist, but what does that have to do with "making the victim whole"? the point is they can't sue for equity - even if they were harmed by criminal behaviour.
      • You get recompense from the insurance fund, obviously. And save yourself the trouble of suing them. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Limited liability" means that the courts will dismiss any case in which an injured person seeks compensation for injury against the corporation which caused the injury.

  • I though limited liability meant that liability was limited to a certain level, usually financial. It does not mean a case would be dismissed. In this instance, there is a different mechanism of redress, so courts would dismiss a case because anyone trying to bring one would be following the wrong legal process.
    • Perhaps this could be better worded. The act bars actions for equity in state courts, and limits liability in federal courts. For practical purposes, victims would have little or no recourse.
      • Ah well, there we seem to disagree. All I know about this is what I have read here. Nothing has demonstrated to me in what sense there is unfair treatment of claimants. That is what I need information about. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Such immunity is unprecedented; no other industy can expect to avoid paying for damages it has caused by the criminal acts of its CEO.

  • You have not demonstrated that the industry would avoid paying for its acts (it already pays premiums into the insurance scheme and would suffer other sanctions including bancruptcy in the event of an accident). Limited liability is a very common concept in company law.
    • This sort of (federal indemnity) limited liability is unprecendented, and if one doesn't understand the difference one isn't paying attention. What other corporation is indemnified for criminal acts? just name one before you strike the phrase.
      • well, every sentence is a can of worms. It seems to me extraordinarily unlikely that actual accidents would be an issue of criminal action by the CEO, so first this is promoting a small issue to prominence, which is not balanced reporting. Next, I am less worried about the degree of precedent than about the 'avoiding paying'. Third, this is still the same issue, that all that has been excluded is the traditional legal route. This differs in detail as well as major substance in different countries around the world, anyway. Are you suggesting all other legal system are unfair, and only the US has a fair system? The concept of limited liability is absolutely not unprecedented. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


The Act is broadly viewed as enabling private nuclear reactors to compete with alternative energy, such as Wind power.

  • No, it creates an affordable insurance scheme, and it is not clear this is subsidised. It may, or may not, be broadly viewed as allowing competition with alternative energy, but I have not seen any discussion/evidence on that point either. How many people think this: did you mean 'quantity of people' or 'summary of effect' by 'broadly viewed'? The real issue is competion with fossil power, which is the current established norm.
    • The DOE say Price is "a subsidy for investors in nuclear power". Assuming arguendo that those same investors might feel more comfortable investing in other energy sources without this subsidy, we can safely assume they might well invest in the fastest growing energy sector: wind. Agins, this assertion is sourced by the enemy.
      • I have yet to see that quote. I repeat, who else thinks this and how representative are they of the population? And as I also said, alternative energy is a minority generator. Real competition is directly with fossil generators. You are arguing it is unfairly treating wind generators, yet, if anyone, it mainly affects conventional operators. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Environmental groups, consumer groups, taxpayer watchdogs and even an agency of the Department of Energy have criticized the act as subsidising the nuclear power industry.

  • Maybe so, I don't know. However, I suspect that a similar list may also not have criticised it, so this may still be unbalanced.
    • Good point, we should add, Energy Executives laud Price Anderson as just reward for their political contributions to the likes of Tom Delay.


  • Well, another load of waffle, but my point is that this seems to me riddled with inaccuracies. It would not be so important if it was later in the text, but on the assumption that some people will only read the first paragraph, it must be accurate. Sandpiper 09:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it really inaccurate? I have backed every claim, and be honest - have you provided a single source to back up your claim of inaccuracy? Benjamin Gatti
      • If I had to generalise, I would say you are making a case as one might in court, by only mentioning things supporting your arguments. Courts work that way, wiki doesn't. Here they have the inquisitorial system. The staus quo is that governments and the people accept that nuclear power is safe, and reasonable measures have been taken to regulate it. That is not reflected in this paragraph. Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to our world, man. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
well, would you be here if it wasn't fun? Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't find any of this or the other major dispute I'm involved in right now (the John Kerry article) fun. I wish I did. Refereeing is not enjoyable for me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I have reinstated the pre-mediation intro, which seems to me to be much more NPOV than any of Benjamin's recent attempts. Simesa and Woohookitty and I had all agreed that it was a fair version. Sandpiper, Ral, what do you think? I would never say it's perfect, but it's a better starting point than the bloated, biased monstrosity Benjamin is working from. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators.

  • For a first sentence, it does little to explain the Price Anderson Act. This sentence makes it sound like fine print on a rental car agreement.

"Price relieves reactor operators from liability for a potential nuclear catastrophy and the resulting damage to the public health.

It also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident.

  • Right - the pool is called the collective backpockets of taxpayers, and the Act doesn't "create" the pool, it merely expresses the intent to take from it.

It grants the nuclear industry no-fault insurance for incidents, and caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of a lawsuit. The act currently covers all nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2002. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs have criticized the act as a handout to the nuclear power industry to the detriment of United States citizens.

  • all acceptable (not stellar).
No ganging up on Ben. Appoint one person to represent the anti-Ben side and let that person speak in opposition. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex, you have no clue what this is even about. We've been at this for 5 months. It's 3 people on one side and 1 on the other. You are just trying to spite me. Good god. If I could just run into a cooperative Wikipedian, I'd be a happy man. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Did no one tell you that the only cooperative wikipedian is a disintereted wikipedian, who never edits anything? Sandpiper 22:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I just did some minor grammatical stuff to the intro. It shouldn't be anything to get into a fuss over. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I think is that Ben does not expect his introduction to be taken seriously. I commented on it just to make a point. As to which version I prefer, I think i prefer the version which I last made edits to, which appeared through the mediation (I think, but I havn't really read them all). I have criticisms of it, but I think it jumps straight in and gets a summary right into the first sentence. But that is not a definitive answer. I do have issues with how it exactly explains what liability is shifted to whom, things I would change but which would not necessarily be regarded as just tidying up. I do not have time just now to think about it. Sandpiper 18:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Ben, could you please do a serious edit? It was mentioned earlier that obviously, Ben puts edits up there that he doesn't think we will take seriously. Fine. So. Why make the edits? At some point, you are basically acting like a vandal and nothing more. I've seen people blocked for less and I'm being serious. Stop it. Post serious edits or don't post at all. I mean, look at this. Just a complete joke. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I quite agree. I'd like to see some constructive edits from everyone, but Benjamin, please don't put edits up there that you know violate NPOV. "Robs from the poor and gives to the rich" is a statement so horribly POV that I doubt even most biased sources wouldn't use. Ral315 (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What else is a subsidy if not a form of "Taking" - why not use the plain english form Rob. Perhaps we should stick with "Takes from the Poor and gives to Rich energy investors. The DOE has said its "a subsidy for investors" - should we call it any less. We know it goes to investors - by definition those with more money than they need - Where does this subsidy come from? It comes from taxpayers, and the potential victims of a nuclear disaster (Who have already been deprived their right to sue the company which has ruined their life) Let's call them the Poor (Taxpayers, and children victimized by a nuclear disaster) Sure - the disaster hasn't happened yet - but this is a distater plan, and the plan calls for children to get the short end of the stick if energy executives commit crimes which affect the public. I take this as a pretty serious breach of decency, and suggest that "robbing from the poor to give to the rich" is not putting it to strongly. So I would counter by demanding that someone tell us why a law which protects criminal behavior against being sued for damages by the people they injure is anything less than a naked grab for wealth and power - enriching those who have - at the expense of those who have less? I'll wait a few days - and when that simple question is not answered - we'll agree to calling a spade a spade. I'll wait for consensus, but I doubt anyone can give a good reason why protecting criminals to enrich investors at the potential expense of children maimed for life is not a grotesque act of theft under natural law. Benjamin Gatti 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that trying to justify your ridiculous edits shows your true colors. You don't care about Wikipedia. One bit. Nothing can justify those edits within the context of this project. Nothing. This is not about content. We are not going to turn this article into an anti-nuclear diatribe. It's just not going to happen. It's like talking to a brick wall that can talk. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I'll agree to is that I'm just about done trying to collaborate with you, Benjamin, when you make edits that so willfully ignore Wikipedia's policies. It's worse than a waste of time, it's also insulting. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Both of you are apparently unwilling to confront the fact that this is an Act - intended to protect criminal behavior from financial liability - which places children (more than adults) at risk of a laundry lists of things to fearsome to list. Hmm. I'm not persuaded that we should make jingoistic conclusion that whatever the US does cannot be wrong. Price Anderson is heinous, and ought to be accurately described. Benjamin Gatti 23:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
And you are apparently unwilling to confront the fact that that's not the issue. And you know that's not the issue. And you've known this since this whole thing started back in June. And you keep waiting for us to fold. Why, I don't know, since it should be obvious by now that it's not going to happen. Mediators are not going to let you get by with POV edits. Simesa, katefan and myself are either going to stop attempting to collaborate with you or you are going to end up in arbitration and you won't be on here anymore. Not a threat because it's the truth.
And if we do decide to stop collaborating with you, then what will happen is that our side will become the consensus side and you won't be able to have much say. #1, 3 to 1 would be considered a consensus by many, especially since if we wanted to, I'm pretty sure we could get support from alot of others on here since most of us believe in NPOV above all else. And #2, who would fight us on it? We've been about as patient as humanly possible with you since this all started. At first, we let you get alot of leeway in terms of adding criticisms to the article. And since the dispute itself started in June, we've been patient in letting you get away with these ridiculous POV edits. We got 2 mediators involved, which was very nice of us considering that...again...many would consider 3 to 1 to be a consensus especially since we ended up giving more than half the article to the criticisms side. I just don't see someone neutral coming in and going "You know, these people are being very harsh on Ben." We've been as helpful as we can be.
And we get repaid by being called child killers or as bad as the Germans in World War II or being censors or whatever else you've concocted. And I won't even mention the constant gaming of the system. I think the last 2 days have shown once and for all that "cooperative Ben" is a complete sham. It's slash-and-burn. You want to be a martyr for the cause, as you probably have been many times before. Fine. But I suggest that if you want anything of yours left in the article, you probably want to try to be seriously cooperative. Because if we stop collaborating with you, I guarentee you that this article will not remain 60% criticism, which is what it is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Mike, you are a tough and worthy opponent in this debate, and I do appreciate the participation - mediation - RfC - included. Obviously threats are not persuasive, nor effective. Bear this in mind - you can't ban people forever - the best you or I can hope for is to persuade - and that is a good thing. The person who abandons the debate for force is admitting defeat on the merits. I understand the frustration, this is an intractable issue - which has spawned world-class protests. I would ope to be mostly rational - and admit to momentary lapses in judgement. Yes - "Robbing the poor" if probably beyond the pail. As was One mediator's action simply blanking the entire article. Its a heated debate, and lively, and I doubt that anyone should apologize for that. In a sense - that is a big part of what wikipedia is. Sure - you'd like to think everyone could just settle down to the business of classifying mushroom's - but there are contentious issues in the world - and the opportunity to define the discussion is part of the interest of wikipedia. All of which said - I'm still going to note that you have refused to confront the fact that Price Anderson is an act intended to financially protect companies which expose the public to nuclear radiation by criminal behaviour. I think that is a very important aspect to the Act - and I feel that we have not done that aspect justice. Benjamin Gatti 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Now we're back to cooperative Ben. I give up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ben, I am thouroughly personally convinced that nuclear power is subsidised, and that without subsidy it would not exist. But that is neither here nor there as far as this specific article is concerned. This particular act is not intended to 'rob the poor', nor unfairly protect companies from damages, nor prevent criminals being punished. It might in some imaginable circumstances have these effects, but so far it has not. It was in fact intended to create a 'fair' platform for companies to enter the market. National argument has convinced both lawmakers and the public that this is the case. So that is what the article should say. Sandpiper 15:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert of 22 Nov evening

I object to the following changes made by Ben:

"financially protects corporations which expose the public to nuclear radiation even by criminal means." -- Doesn't protect corporations from costs of damage to their plant, doesn't protect any utility from the $95.8 million assessment, implies that corporations routinely do this, and "criminal" is speculative.

The entire act is speculative - it is a disaster plan. We ought to analyse the plan - not by marching around saying "it will never happen" - but by recognizing that corporations have insisted we have a plan in the event of a disaster - now, in that case - what is the nature of this plan? Benjamin Gatti
Again you go off on a meaningless tangent. WE don't analyze here, we summarize in an encyclopedic fashion. Your wording is both incorrect and slanted. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I did change it to address your concern. It certainly is intended to protect corps from the financial liabilities which could results from nuclear radiation - even by criminal means. That is honesty - what do you propose? Benjamin Gatti

"replaces common liability laws with a fixed pool of funds which could be rationed out to victims, mostly children" -- ignores requirement that Congress act, ignores Tucker Act, and no source indicates that American injured would be mostly children.

Do you agree or not agree that compensation would most likely be rationed in the event of a disaster (of the scope contemplated by the act). FEMA is rationing compensation for Hurricane victims. Rationing care is how government handle the cost of healthcare - show me where that isn't the case. According to army manual, the younger the organism, the more profound the effect. fetuses are the most vulnerable, I believe most of the secondary victims in belarus are young children. Benjamin Gatti
No, I do not. Only in a wildly extreme case, such a Soviet RBMK reactor with no containment, where the pool and Congress's action were exceeded would there be limitation - and even then the government could be sued. We had a partial meltdown with virtually no Price-Anderson impact. And I don't believe you can show me a reference that says more children would be victims in America. The children in Belarus were victims because their mothers fed them contaminated milk, something my brother in Germany at the time was ordered not to do - that wouldn't happen here. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You're back to arguing it will never happen - let's hope, but the purpose of the Act - just like an evacuation plan for New Orleans is to address the effects IF IT SHOULD HAPPEN. Ignoreing it doesn't make it go away. Benjamin Gatti

"could suffer mental retardation, profound malformation and pass on genetic deformations to their child and their children." -- while possible, this is both extremely unlikely in America and hasn't happened in America.

This is how the US Army describes the consequences of nuclear radiation - if you have a better source then put up (or don't) This is a sourced assertion v. an editors opinion. editor opinion loses. thank you for playing. Benjamin Gatti
These are extreme results not seen here or expected, so it doesn't belong in the Intro. Your sarcasm is ignored. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Again - you can't be effective in the insurance business by saying simply - it will never happen. Insurance hopes it won't happen, but it provides a framework - for how to handle thing IF IT DOES HAPPEN. So any assertion that a nuclear disaster WON"T happen in a nonsequitor. Benjamin Gatti

"takes security from children" -- scaremongering.

This is a transfer of a certain kind of wealth. That kind of wealth is security. You can't subsidize without taking. Governments don't create wealth - their redistribute it. Here, they are "creating" security for investors - principly by taking - in equal porportions - the same security from children. Benjamin Gatti
Again, you're putting your weird POV in. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Riskk is zero sum - who, in your opinion, is taling the risk that nuclear corporation are avoiding? If not the victims - then the taxpayers - but only in a limited sense - ergo rationing, children, etc ... Benjamin Gatti

"by providing limited and rationed health care and other compensation for victims" -- see second objection.

You can't "Cap damages" without imposing the effects of capped damages. Sure, the Feds could contribute - but Federal funds are already stretched pretty thin - so the reality is that care and compensation would have to be limited and rationed. Benjamin Gatti
Your presumption that the federal government wouldn't contribute is both speculative and counter to the requirement that it must - and there's still the Tucker Act if it doesn't. My objection stands. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
You seem to speculating that Congress would have funds to cover the disaster - let's say they might have some funds. like Katrina, some coverage, but rationed, like medicare - certainly I would expect it to be rationed - where would they get the money for endless medical benefits. In which case - it becomes a shift of risk to taxpayers, and still to victims, because the Act prevents victims from recovering punative damages. In a very backward sense, punative damages are how we prevent damges in the first place. Benjamin Gatti

"scheme" -- the word has a negative and POV connotation.

scheme, schematic, is a plan laid out in actionable detail. It is neutral in its connotation except in your mind - but that seems to be what counts. Benjamin Gatti
That's only one of the connotations, another is "A secret or devious plan; a plot." You pick just the interpretations you want. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Republican-controlled Congress and President George W. Bush in an act which gave huge tax-breaks to oil companies" -- The Act passed with bi-partisan support.

If you had said irrelevent - that would be understandable, but to say it was bi-partisan is stretching the truth. The oil tax breaks were inserted by the right and used to hold the energy policy hostage. Thank Delay. Benjamin Gatti
The vote is recorded in the article Energy Policy Act of 2005 and there was strong bi-partisan support. And you're right, it is mostly irrelevant. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The vote doesn't reflect the degree too which the right held up the act until it included oil subsidies and nuclear subsidies. I should think the demmocracts fielded an alternative sans the subsidies for oil and nukes - and I feel that you are papering over the nuances of a Republican dominated congress (thanks to Delays' criminal gerrymandering).

"the Act subsidizes the danger" -- POV wording. The Act's intent is to insure the public, establish the industry and cover the DOE.

It subsidizes risk of disaster. Those are words from the act and/or the Supreme Court. Disaster is the word used in the act. I would say that is danger. Benjamin Gatti
It's a conclusion, as neither the Act nor the Supreme Court used the word "subsidize". If you can provide a cite, the statement belongs under Criticisms. Simesa 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The DOE has called it a "Subsidy for nuclear investors" it's there and cited. Benjamin Gatti

"agencies of the Department of Energy" -- incorrect - we have a cite from only one agency, the EIA.

Ok - we'll singularize it - my mistake. Benjamin Gatti

Simesa 03:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks. Benjamin Gatti 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


And the Award for Hardest to read section goes to! ;-) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is really the best way to hammer out differences in real text. Benjamin Gatti 23:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

New Edits

I feel that the points put forward in the intro have been supported by citations, and paint a balanced picture of an act which does in fact protect corporations which harm the public by criminal means from being held fully responsible. In the last two weeks I haven't seen any new facts which would persuade me that the act does not provide substantial protection in the event of criminal behavior, nor that children are not the most vulnerable, nor that a disaster is not fully contemplated as a possible events which CANNOT be ruled out. If everyone else is satisfied with a daily swing between the truthiness version, and the head-in-the-sands version, then that is the best we can do. We have reached the end of the facts, and the end of persuasion. Simesa is a talented advocate for one view, but has failed to convince me that Price Anderson is anything more than pandering to corporate interest who want a get-out-of-jail-free card in the event they cause a nuclear disaster. I'm not going to file for Arbcom, but neither am I likely to uy the "We are the consensus party" line either. The facts are on my side, so I will be content to promote the facts on a regular basis. I am more than open to being convinced, but not so open to being mobbed. Benjamin Gatti 00:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

In short you have no interest in the consensus process, and it's your way or the highway. Simesa 01:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the limits of democracy (I believe it is De Tocqueville). The illustration being that a democracy could, by consensus, establish that the mood was made of Gruyere, and it would simply be wrong. Three editors v One sounds convincing, but in the end, the truth lies in the facts, and not the number of bobble-heads one lines up to agree to pleasant falsehoods.
You have a choice Ben. Work within the consensus or have your edits reverted. Like I said, we've given you EVERY chance to play ball. I can't even count how many chances you've had. We could've said we're a consensus months ago. But we didn't, because we're reasonable people and we're tried to keep your concerns in the article. But if you buck consensus, that's all going to go away. I'm tired of the condescending attitude here. Please stop quoting people as if they'd be on your side. Please. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I am of the view that we should all start working on consensus paragraphs. All are welcome to work on those paragraphs. Ideally we would all agree on those paragraphs, but sometimes that's not possible. I propose we start with the introduction. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrice-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act_Talk7_266a.html"