Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Mediation1/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

First archive, shoveling just about everything prior to insertion of Mediator's summary. it's all here, just not there. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 01:54 (UTC)


Contents

Mediation Requirements

from the Wiki:

   * Two parties to the dispute
1. Benjamin Gatti- who hold that the government should be balanced with other voices on an equal footing.
2. Simesa, Katefan0, Woohookitty- Who hold that the "government" cited here are non-partisan organizations like the GAO. Also, the government is seen as authoritative in general on Wikipedia.
  • Others may join one group or the other - however three party mediation is excluded.
   * Agreeable points of contention
Whether or not the government has a POV and can verify assertions as fact.
Whether or not government documents can be used to assert negatives and unverifiable assertions as unqualified matters of fact.
   * Agreeable mediator selection
Ed Poor

Comments on the Mediation Requirements

On the Agreeable Points of Contention

I don't agree to this at all. Simesa 7 July 2005 08:37 (UTC) Actually Simesa, Ben means that everyone agrees that this is the main point of contention. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)

On the Parties to the Dispute

We've had incessant editwarring over Ben's persistent insertion of pov without citations. We've been generous with the Criticisms section, which is larger than the rest of the article. He also insists on citing Chernobyl without annotating how non-Soviet plants are different. Finally, the "nuclear bad, renewables good" pov has no place in this article. Simesa 7 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

I'm not asking for license within a label-ghetto, I'm asking that government sources not be used to assert unverifyable facts in the authoritative voice. No Weasel words, negative assertions, crystal balls, or unverifiable assertion in the authoritative voice, and if used at all for any purpose, at least balanced - in the next sentence with an equally irresponsible counter claim - which I will be happy to provide. "Renewables-responsible, Nuclear irresponsible" is the thrust of Price Anderson, it isn't a POV - everyone agrees, even the DOW agrees, that Price subsidizes the responsability of deadbeat engineers. - I use deadbeat because it is accurate, not beause it is inflamatory. If you don't Pay your own bills, you're a deadbeat - nuclear want the Taxpayer to pick up the insurance tab. That's Deadbeatism. Benjamin Gatti 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
2 things. First of all. What DO you want in the authoritative voice? Something has to explain the law. It can't be a pro and con argument. And also, do me a favor and look at some other Wikipedia articles (I mentioned some examples on the talk page) and show me ones that do not use the government voice as authoritative. One thing that you don't seem to realize is that we must match the tone of the rest of Wikipedia. It's one of the tenants of NPOV. We're not in a vacuum here. And no, I don't agree that Price-Anderson subsidizes the responsibility of deadbeat engineers. How can you not see how loaded that sentence is? subsidizes in this contest is POV...deadbeat is POV. Also, does this mean that everyone that works in a subsidized industry is a deadbeat? If you believe that, that's also POV...your POV. Again, as I've said several times now, this is not a position paper. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
Creating a criticism is against POV guidelines. If we're going to split the article into camps for and against, then both camps need a subsection - one doesn't get to dominate the main section, while the other is made the caboose. POV can be pushed by formatting as well. I don't object to annotating the difference, i object to novel research as to its meaning. chernobly had less impact than it could have had because the wind happened to blow the cloud north over Belarus, which is less populated than just south into Kiev, down the Dniepr to Odessay and "criem" (The Black Sea resort area). Population density in the affected area is critical and suggests a worse outcome in the US. As for incessant insertion of POV, i think its clear that both sides has inserted POV without citations - everything I have contributed has been factual and if contested, was later well supported by cites (See the Criticisms section generally.) Benjamin Gatti 7 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
Topics are explained, then criticized - you can't do it backwards. The statements on Chernobyl are uncited research - please provide a cite. Currently, everything in the article is cited/referenced. Simesa 7 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
Again this comes down to our main point of contention. Ben sees the government view as POV and he won't back down from that. All I can say is...good luck Uncle Ed. :) I mean, he sees the first paragraph as POV. But still Ben, the criticism section is bigger than the other 2 sections combined, so I don't know what your beef is here when it comes to formatting. You can't put the egg before the chicken. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
I guess what's always confused me is. How do you want it Ben? I mean something here has to explain what the law does. I never have figured out how that is inherently POV. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I altered the mediation requirements

Looks ok to me. If others want to make changes fine. if you want to comment on the requirements, please put it in the comments section. Looks cleaner this way. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

MSNBC Article Today - Has Lots of Up to Date References from Both Sides and I think is balanced on whole

Here's a quandry and a gift: - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/ "Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," Bush added, all "without producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases."

  • The President - surely an expert on all things "nucular." - no seriously - very well advised - not sure that helps in his case, but still he has top clearance, and he believes its the safetest option. So I gues that raises the question - why can't it afford to pay its own insurance - does nuclear just enjoy the beneits of being a deadbeat, or do they know something they're not willing to say? Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

“While we are committed to tackling the challenge of global warming, we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution," the coalition led by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and U.S. PIRG said in a statement. "Instead we can significantly reduce global warming pollution and save consumers money by increasing energy efficiency and shifting to clean renewable sources of energy.”

Lash, the World Resources Institute president who left the nuclear option on the table, emphasized that "subsidizing a mature technology like nuclear power makes about as much sense as subsidizing Mr. Trump to build another tower."

  • All of these are great quotes and I think represent the broad opinions on this subject. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

The 2005 Gallup survey touched a nerve as well when the question became more personal. Asked how they'd feel about construction of a nuclear power plant in their area, only 35 percent were in favor.

That skittishness is also reflected among investors like billionaire Warren Buffett. His holding company already owns utilities, and he told the Wall Street Journal last month that he's keeping an "open mind" about investing in new nuclear power plants.

"The price of making a mistake (by not acting) is such that you should err on the side of the planet," he said. But he also made clear that it would take guidance from Washington for him to commit. "We're here to participate in the dialogue," he said, "but not to set policy."

  • That's a long way from "The Price Anderson creates a pool to compensate Victims. <-- Period Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
Again, the primary reason for Price-Anderson is that no one knows the maximum amount necessary to insure for, so the government set up a limited-liability pool and said in the event of a major accident it would decide how to cover the rest. New reactors, which the government wants to sponsor, therefore require Price-Anderson - and apparently Congress doesn't share in your "broad opinion". The government also wants Price-Anderson because it covers Department of Energy reactors, fuel enrichment contractors, labs, etc. Simesa 7 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
As has been sourced, GE and Westinghouse held the government hostage - saying we are deadbeat engineers - that is literally, we do not choose to participate in nuclear if we have to be responsible for our participation. So the Congress said - ok never mind, we'll make the Taxpayer liable for your engineering skills, or lack thereof. PAA has to do with shielding the assets of GE and Westinghouse from liability - that has been cited from government sources (Testimony before Congress under oath and pains of perjury IIRC). Benjamin Gatti 7 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
"Hostage" is pov, utilities have the option to sue GE, W, etc. for negligence (I've seen it done) but public is covered regardless, utilities hold great liability, PAA does limit liability of reactor vendors but that was government's decision. Simesa 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
And to add to Simesa's comments, the fact that it might be the broad opinion is immaterial for our purposes. We are here to write a NPOV article on Price-Anderson. We are not here to decide which view matches the view of most people or most companies and then use that view. It doesn't work that way. We're here to present the intensions of the law, what the law actually does and criticisms of the law, not which view is the most popular or most supported. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you want that kind of article, this isn't the place for it. We're not a position paper or a reflection of popular views. If you want that, go find a journal on nuclear power. It doesn't belong here. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)
So I want a few things said: First Nuclear is to dangerous and Risky to be insured at market prices. It's electricity is therefore too expensive to compete in a free market. So Congress has interupted free enterprise - ended capitalism in the case of nukes, and emplemented the command economy of the failed soviet states insisting that nuclear energy is the preferred choice, and finally that this government interference in the market has led us to the current energy famine, just as the Stalin "corn" dictum led to famine in those states. That said, what I object to specifically, is allowing the negative assertions - which are inherently unveriifiable to be vooiced in the first person as fact when they are disputed, and unprovable. Benjamin Gatti 7 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
All pov. Simesa 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
This is what I would suggest Ben. I would suggest integrating your concerns into the criticisms section without expanding it by more than a sentence or two. It does not belong in the section that is explaining the bill. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)


Time out

I may have to recuse myself before we even get started. I have to mention this now, lest it come up later and ruin everything.

I have an opinion on global warming, and several prominent Wikipedians feel that I cannot be "neutral" about any topic touching it. (I don't agree with them, but the point is: do all of you?)

I will do my best to keep my personal opinions to myself, but (1) I'm a human being who is fallible and I might slip up; plus (2) there's a chance that I might unconsciously harbor bias.

Given this revelation, are we still on for the Mediation? Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 02:09 (UTC)

I'm still ok with you. I have opinions on this whole issue. In fact, I actually agree with Ben on alot of it, but I've been able to keep that separate and I think you can do the same thing. No problem. --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)
Ironically, i think Global Warming is irrelevent to this discussion, in that both sides (as far as I can tell) accept the scientific consensus that it is happening and that we should take steps to reduce our impact on the environment. Both sides, I would suggest condemn the immediate and verifiable health impacts of Coal and other fossil fuels. Whether GW is a problem or not, coal emissions are quite real, and oil reserves probably can't last for ever. Given all of that (including GW) one side is optimistic with respect to fully renewable energy, while the Simesa appears to concur with a growing minority of the environmentally consciencious willing to settle for nuclear energy. - In short I have no objection. Benjamin Gatti 7 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
Come on Ben, you can't say anything short. *smile* --Woohookitty 7 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
My opinion on Global Warming/Climate Change is stronger than most, as I think our time is very limited. My expectation is that consumption isn't going to go down. However, I also don't foresee 400 new nuclear power plants in the U.S., which is what it would take to generate our electricity that way - and fusion is a long way off. A discussion of renewables isn't relevant to this topic, but I see them as inadequate, politically impossible, or intermittent. So I don't see an answer yet. I have no problem with whatever Uncle Ed's position is. Simesa 7 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)
I don't see how it would particularly bear on this article, but I'm confident that Uncle Ed can be neutral about it if it should somehow arise ancilliarily. · Katefan0(scribble) July 7, 2005 16:24 (UTC)