Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archive Talk archive2

Contents

[edit] An excellent intro by third party

"The consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. Unfortunately, Congress isn't so cautious. It passed a law in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act, that established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power. This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far, far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. Even nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces. Unless reauthorized by Congress, the Price-Anderson subsidy will not apply to proposed new reactors built after December 31, 2003."

Isn't it a beautiful thing?

How About

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. Even nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces. Unless reauthorized by Congress, the Price-Anderson subsidy will not apply to proposed new reactors built after December 31, 2003.

It's perfect - I'll ask Public Citizen if we can borrow their intro - provided no one objects. Benjamin Gatti

Nyet and nyet. Public Citizen is a fine magazine, but it's about as POV as possible. And the paragraph you quoted is POV, though not as bad as they usually are. As I've said before, to me it's irresponsible to have anything in here saying how much a nuclear accident would cost. I don't care how many citations you use, they have no way of knowing how much a nuclear accident would cost. And again, we're putting criticisms of the law in the opening paragraph. Since this article is already mostly criticism, I don't think we should let any more in. Period. The article is already tilted towards it and if we add any more, it's going to be a position paper against Price-Anderson. --Woohookitty 19:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think WhooHoo that you ought to criticise this opening by pointing out factual assertion which you dispute. Since you have not disputed any of Public Citizens' claims, and they are all right there in the text of Price Anderson, I think we can procede on the assumption that the claims are undisputed - and consequently suitable for an introduction. Benjamin Gatti
Ed, I really don't think this kind of "suggestion" is helpful in any way · Katefan0(scribble) 21:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Saying it's POV - doesn't make it POV - that option is not a part of wiki policy - and that is what we're hammering out here - policy - not opinion, or lifetime friendships - just policy. If it's the policy that one can just cry "POV" and wish away the unpleasant details - that should be a new Policy WK:Whitewash or WK:WW for short - as these links are red, apparently whitewash is not yet an official policy. As for the details, the intro doesn't state how much an incident mmight cost - only that the potential cost has been identified as higher than insurance companies will insure - an absolute 100% undeniable irrefuatable undisputed well-sourced GAO approved fact. Benjamin Gatti
I don't think you care about policy. Also, I can attack most of the paragraph if you'd like. First of all, it is full of POV language. I'm going to explain what POV is. It's one side's point of view...a point of view not shared by the other side nor is it neutral. it's as simple as that.

Let's see. First of all, "cautious" is POV. First of all, where is the evidence that Congress was cautious here? Public Citizen is making an opinion statement. Ed, I don't think you probably saw this in our free form discussion, but Ben basically said at one point that something is NPOV to him if it is cited. He omitted the fact that it also has to be fair. In this case, he is saying that because it is cited, it is fact and POV. I don't see a statement from a Congressperson at the time saying that this is why Price-Anderson was passed. I see no evidence of Congress being cautious. It's an opinionated statement that the editors of Public Citizen made. It's in their view. In other words, it's POV.

Secondly, the following sentence is full of potholes..."This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far, far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred." The main pothole is that yes, it never says how much the accident would be, but it assumes how much an accident would be. I usually trust the GAO, but you know what, Ben? We've had few enough incidents in the US that I'm not sure we can really know how much an accident would cost. I think this whole thing about how much an accident would cost is too slippery for us to even have in here. I mean, what defines an accident? And who defines it? Ben? Nuke industry? What? They can guess how much an accident would cost, but that's ALL it is...a guess. They don't know. It's hard to predict that stuff. Look at Hiroshima and Nagosaki. The # of expected dead was far, far less than the actual number. Even after 60 years, I don't think it's responsible to guess how much damage an accident would cause. That's what amazes me about the pool debate. How the heck do you know how much they will need in case of an emergency? Public Citizen doesn't really know...the GAO doesn't really know...Ben doesn't really know. You can't know. I

It's not like we've had many, many accidents in the US so we can have a guide. Ed, Ben keeps bringing up Chernobyl. You can't compare it to Chernobyl...completely different situation. And something Ben hasn't really mentioned is...we haven't had a major nuclear accident since Three Mile Island. How does he know that we're going to have another one? Like I said, that's why I continually object to any of this language that keeps being put in about accidents and encouraging accidents and everything else. If this really was such a "good deal" for nuclear, then why don't we have yearly accidents? I mean come on. Wouldn't the nuclear industry want to cash in if Ben's correct and Price-Anderson encouraged accidents? Apparently, they don't. All of this crud about causing accidents and costs and such is POV. Heavy heavy POV. It's your opinion. It's the opinion of public watchdog groups like Public Citizen. But it's not facts, Ben.

And now we have this passage about even nuclear power executives saying that they are dependent on Price-Anderson? Where's the citation? I don't see that anywhere else in the article, so you know what? It doesn't belong in the intro. I see no citations of where execs say that this is good for them. You ASSUME that it is good for them, but you can't assume that. If this is such a hot deal, you would think someone would say that it was great for them, even privately. So that should not be in the intro.

One more thing before I close (sorry for the length Ed, but Ben wanted examples). POV is a an opinionated statement that is supported by only one side on an issue. NPOV is language that is supported by both sides of an issue or at least is a fair compromise between the 2 sides of the issue. What Ben is proposing for the intro is POV because it is full of opinions. The only real facts I see involve the fact that it is taxpayer backed and also the year the law was passed in. Everything else is a variant of "Nukes bad!", which has been the mantra of the other side of this issue every since this started. --Woohookitty 05:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section

I have something. Ben, if you insist that we say "The government said..." instead of treating it as authoritative, then I suggest that we label the groups you use in the criticism section as "watchdog" or "liberal". If you can label our sources, we can label yours. I just don't see how a neutral group like the GAO can be compared to an advocacy group like Public Citizen. Just because it is in "criticisms" doesn't mean that anything goes. --Woohookitty 05:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Ed seems to (see how the GOA and Public Citizen can both be POV) and you agreed to mediation. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Moved Items to Nuclear Power Talk

(This message will self destruct) two items here were objected too because they related more to nuclear than to Price. They were moved - and irrelevent comments (ie these are irrelevent) were dropped. Revert don't revolt. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Reply to WhooHoo

WhooHoo - this isn't as hard as all that. Say you're in the firecracker business. You have a warehouse, and you want insurance. The insurance guy says sowhatchagotinthere? and you say a couple tons of TNT in pretty boxes. So he says what is the worst case - and you say - well, worst case is an employee is careless with the smokes, and flicks on into the shelf, and then a cracker goes off - and then another, and another, and another and in 30 seconds, the whole building explodes outwards in a ball of fire. and the insurance guy says - so what's the building worth - and you say couple hundred thow, so he does the math, and viola - you've got insurance. Nuclear is the same way - you ask "sowhatchagotinthere" and it turnes out to be a couple hundrend thousand pounds worth of TNT, and you figure the worst case - and it sucks.

The language there is pretty unambiguous and states fairly (I removed some POV words) the factual issues.

  1. ...established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power (Pretty clear - ok on this?)
  2. because the consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. (Again this is why - perhaps "Can't" is a better word?)
  3. This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry (Clearly it does?)
  4. and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack (Again we agree?)
  5. at dollar amounts that fall far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. (This is where the excitement begins not the "could be incurred" not that we are guessing, the possible amount of damages is estimated to be too high for private insurance - we know its too high - that is problem #1.)
  6. nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces. (I think we even have quotes and cites for that one GE Westinghouse, and Cheney)
  7. Unless reauthorized by Congress, the Price-Anderson subsidy will not apply to proposed new reactors built after December 31, 2003. (That just kinda factual )

I think in fairness, this intro should be criticised down to what ever is salvagable and then we work to blend the two - clearly opposite views into a unifiied intro - that's NPOV as I understand it. Benjamin Gatti

[edit] More Reply to WH

The next serious nuclear accident will be in 10,000 reactor years - put another way a 50% chance in the next 50 years (because we have 100 reactors. 50% chance in the next 17 year worldwide. That's how I read it somewhere - Simesa can pipe up if i'm wrong.

As for Industry saying they need it - if you really intend to dispute that - i'll be happy to quote it. It's been quoted here at least three times. look it being extended in the Energy Bill - nuclear plants wouldn't be built (or operated) without it. Benjamin Gatti

[1], also WASH-1400 - from several sources, WASH-1400 says 1 in 20,000 years based on the situation in 1975. Simesa 06:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third Reply

WH - This quote was supplied earlier (see it in archive) I think it proves a third party answer to your very important questions.

[2]

"In the United States, safety-related shortcomings have been identified in the construction quality of some plants, plant operation and maintenance, equipment reliability, emergency planning, and other areas. In addition, mishaps have occurred in which key safety systems have been disabled. NRC's oversight of the nuclear industry is an ongoing issue; nuclear utilities often complain that they are subject to overly rigorous and inflexible regulation, but nuclear critics charge that NRC frequently relaxes safety standards when compliance may prove difficult or costly to the industry."

"The consensus among most safety experts is that a severe nuclear power plant accident in the United States is likely to occur less frequently than once every 10,000 reactor-years of operation. These experts believe that most severe accidents would have small public health impacts, and that accidents causing as many as 100 deaths would be much rarer than once every 10,000 reactor-years. On the other hand, some experts challenge the complex calculations that go into predicting such accident frequencies, contending that accidents with serious public health consequences may be more frequent."

"Nuclear Accident Liability

Liability for damages to the general public from nuclear accidents is controlled by the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210). The act is up for reauthorization on August 1, 2002, but existing nuclear plants will continue to operate under the current Price-Anderson liability system if no extension is enacted.

Under Price-Anderson, the owners of commercial reactors must assume all liability for accident damages to the public. To pay any such damages, each licensed reactor must carry the maximum liability insurance available, currently $200 million. Any damages exceeding that amount are to be assessed equally against all operating commercial reactors, up to $83.9 million per reactor. Those assessments - called "retrospective premiums" - would be paid at an annual rate of no more than $10 million per reactor, to limit the potential financial burden on reactor owners following a major accident. Including three that are not operating, 106 commercial reactors are currently covered by Price-Anderson.

For each accident, therefore, the Price-Anderson liability system currently would provide up to $9.09 billion in public compensation. That total includes the $200 million in insurance coverage carried by the reactor that had the accident, plus the $83.9 million in retrospective premiums from each of the 106 currently covered reactors. On top of those payments, a 5% surcharge may also be imposed. Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear industry's liability for an accident is capped at that amount, which varies depending on the number of licensed reactors, the amount of available insurance, and an inflation adjustment that is made every five years. Payment of any damages above that liability limit would require congressional action. "

[3] Benjamin Gatti

So what's wrong with "Liability for damages to the general public from nuclear accidents is controlled by the Price-Anderson Act (primarily Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2210)." as an opening line? Simesa 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Because its extraordinary insurance, and extraordinary insurance requires extrordinary explaination.

What's wrong with: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so substantial that insurance companies won't fully insure them." as an opening line? Benjamin Gatti

Because it is negative. The first sentence/paragraph should be a summary of the article, not a setup for a position paper, which this isn't. Also, please use spell checker or something. Tired of correcting your spelling. :) If you want specifics, "so substantial" is POV. I don't see why the first paragraph can't be a summary of the first section and then the summary of the criticisms section. Simple as that. I.e. I'm not good at specific arguments (not my strength) but vaguely, something like Price-Anderson developed because of this reason...it is still around for this reason...but criticisms of it say such and such. Simple as that. The first paragraph set the tone of the article and to me, if it starts with criticisms, then it's a negative article about Price-Anderson but that isn't what this is supposed to be. It's NOT A POSITION PAPER. --Woohookitty 23:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I would ask then for our beloved Mediator to offer words of clarity on this - is it necessarily the case than any words which could be construed as negative do not belong in an opening - and as a thought experiment - would it necessarily be improper to open a discussion of Rosa Parks, with words which view her arrest with distain? - If we presuppose the goodness of Price, then I would agree with you, but if we presuppose that it is a bad thing, then it is encumbant on us to open with the presupposition. Given that there are substantial views dedicated to both sides, the opening should be factual and allow the reader from either camp not to feel cheated. Let's say I accept your contention that "SO SUBSTANTIAL" is a bit too 1POV; could you rephrase the fact in language which still conveys that the magnitude of a nuclear accident has been deemed by the indursty itself to be such that the risk is unacceptable - given the potential benefit? Benjamin Gatti
We aren't presupposing the goodness or badness of Price. This article is already more than 50% criticism. Since Kate is the one that help you with the criticisms section already, I don't think it's quite fair to keep adding more and more criticism. We've already given in a ton on this overall. Ben hasn't given in very much at all. I object to piling it on any more here.
And btw, Rosa Parks is a different animal. I don't know of a single human being on Wikipedia who thinks that what was done to her was right. It's apples and oranges, Ben. You're comparing an article without an opposing view, which has one view that 99% of people agree with with an article with 2 equal views. You can't compare the two.
And I don't remember agreeing with you on your view of Price-Anderson. I missed that memo. --Woohookitty 01:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems you're saying that thought experiments are useless. How would you suggest people think new thoughts if "everything" is apples and oranges and nothing can be used to build knowledge - it seems you're locking us in to the facts of the past - you would in theory - condemn Gallileo because his thoughts were novel and "virtualally no-one agrees with him." What a small world that must be. Benjamin Gatti
I'd say that yes, thought experiments are useless inside Wikipedia. For one thing, I can't tell the difference between them and "original research". Simesa 04:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The revert I did

I did it because it was my understanding that nothing was going to go onto the moderated page unless Ed approved it or did it himself? I didn't think this was a sandbox situation. --Woohookitty 01:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's no one's fault, really. We never really agreed on anything, I merely made a proposal.
Can we all sign up to (1) no one reverts /moderated but the Mediator and (2) anyone can move disputed text to talk?
  1. Uncle Ed 01:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Benjamin Gatti 02:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Does that mean no additions / refactoring as well? just guessing still.

I don't agree unless only the moderator can make changes to the moderated version. --Woohookitty 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Woohoojitty.
I can accept the current proposal of the first line, if (as we discussed) "when" is changed to "if". Simesa 04:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The criticism sentence

(the act) has been criticized by environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs as a handout to the nuclear power industry.

Everyone, including me, thinks it's silly to start with criticism. We all want to know what the act is before listing criticisms of it. Uncle Ed 01:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the best thing to do with this sentence? Leave it for a few days, re-insert it further down, or what? Uncle Ed 01:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I don't have an opinion - I think Kate wrote it, and i think that it accurately summarizes the piece as it was (is). Benjamin Gatti

I suggest we table it until we get past the second sentence. Simesa 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better because it "established an insurance scheme"

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.

Aside from WooHooKitten's objections which have been addressed - is there any objections to this sentence as an opener? Benjamin Gatti

Did I agree to anything? Why do you do that? You assume that everyone has agreed because no one has immediately complained. I still object. We should not have any negative language in the opening sentence because it just sets the wrong tone for an article that is mostly negative already. Again. Explain the law, why its still around and then the criticisms. You can take 4,5 sentences for that. There is no need to cram it all into the first sentence. Absolutely none. I am not going to agree to negative language in the first sentence. I refuse to do it and I hope Simesa and Kate are behind me on it. If not, I still object. Quit assuming that I am agreeing or that "the concerns have been addressed" just because I didn't respond to you in 2.2 seconds after you posted.
And my name is woohookitty, not Whoohoo or Whoohoookitty or WooHooKitten. I'm trying real hard to assume good faith and think that you are just having a hard time remembering my name. If you want to call me Mike, that's fine too. --Woohookitty 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

'Kitty, I'm confused. Which word exactly is negative in the above proposition? Is it "taxpayer-backed" - what's wrong with taxpayers footing the bill to insure the rich using daddy's money to earn a living? Is it "Potential consequences .. are greater than .." That really is the heart of the problem. I suggest the "consensus" version is really whitewash censorship - that is ignoring the subject rather than explaining it. Benjamin Gatti

Not including your opinions does not amount to "censorship". Quit accusing me/us of that please. It's a cheap shot. An encyclopedia is not an opinion journal. I've explained my position time and time again. This article is already mostly criticism. Adding any more would tilt it towards being anti Price-Anderson. What you are proposing is negative. It's tilted towards "nukes bad". If you want verbage fine...we have "attack", "accident", "scheme". All are negative words in the context in which you use them. As we have said, let's take what we have and then you tell us what you want to change, line by line. We're fine with the article as it already appears. I'm not going to sit here and have you come up with more and more POV versions of the article, because you don't really write for the enemy. What you propose is still POV tilted towards your size. I'm not attacking you Ben, but I'm not sure you can write for the enemy. Some people can't. Not a criticism of you, but some people just can't put themselves in the other side's shoes and from you what have shown, you can't do it. So, if it's ok with Ed, just take the article as it stands and go line by line and tell us what you object to. It'll be alot easier that way. --Woohookitty 23:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. The article isn't "already mostly criticism" - the moderated version isn't anything yet.
  2. I wasn't aware that the word Scheme has a negative definition - have you read the definition? Since Price is very much a complex series of interdependant relationships, plans, and contracts, I think Scheme might be the shortest and most accurate word. Others have used frameword.
  3. As for attack and Accident (Technically any incident) that is what insurance is for - would you discuss car insurance without discussing accidents? why is the goal of neutrality to discuss insuring against a known risk, without discussing the risk - elephant in the corner sounds like to me, and not discussing the elephant in the room - is censorship - particularly when you revert people who do wish to discuss the elephant. So the accusation stands quite firm.
  4. I didn't write this intro - i lifted it from Public Citizen - and then I removed the bias words - ie writing for the enemy. where it said "far far less, i wrote just less. Its quite neutral AND complete - and that cannot be said about the alternative offering.

Benjamin Gatti

[edit] A question for Ed

I find this situation increasingly untenable. The opening paragraph as it stands has the consensus of three people (myself, WHK and Simesa). May I ask why, then, we're rewriting it from scratch? Why can't Benjamin, as the person who wants a change, simply propose a change? Not a wholesale rewrite, just proposed changes to the text. Or at the very least say what he's dissatisfied with. I feel like all we're doing now is having Benjamin propose various versions that noone is going to agree with. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. As I've said, this article is already mostly criticism. I mean, the three of us basically want the opening paragraph to be as it is. We don't want more criticisms added unless it's something we can agree to. --Woohookitty 03:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Katefan0 and Woohookitty - we (and we believe Wikipedia) can barely live with the current article. Establishing a trend of having every sentence dripping with criticism isn't a solution here. Simesa 04:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And the Drippingest word is ? - I don't get it - its a very honest portrayal of the problem and the "solution" such as it is. And I have cleaned it up by writing for the enemy. Benjamin Gatti

One definition of "scheme" is "A secret or devious plan; a plot." Taxpayer-backed doesn't acknowledge the industry's responsibility. "Consequences ... are greater" should be "... could be greater", or "potential" should be "possible" (as "potential" is defined as "Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent:"). "Dripping" means "to be saturated with", and that certainly describes your proposals. Simesa 00:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ed? I'd like to hear your answer to my original question up top. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Ed

Rather than put this in the moderater article mydelf - I would ask Ed to do so.


The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme initiative for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.

I believe it is accurate and thorough, and i have removed words which are subjective, or perusasive in nature. While WH has voiced objections, i think they are merely of a personal nature, as they have not been supported except in the vaguest of generalities, and amount to criticisms far below the standard of NPOV. To suggest for example that the words "Accident" and "Scheme" have an unacceptable negative connotation seems to be objecting for the sake of objecting. I therefore suggest that mediation ought not to be used as a stalling tactic, and that some progress should be made or else the articles unlocked. Benjamin Gatti

The Why belongs in a later paragraph, as it is now. Then the line "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act arranges financial compensation for victims of nuclear power-related incidents" is both better and more accurate. Simesa 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Since you ask: the word scheme is loaded with negative connotations. Please consider initiative instead.
And if we can't agree on a couple of opening sentences, we may have to try something very different. Maybe I'll just start editing myself, following my own "zero-revert-rule", for a couple of days. Uncle Ed 01:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

From Googles Dictionary (Answers.com)

scheme (skēm) pronunciation n.

  1. A systematic plan of action: “Did you ever carry out your scheme of writing a series of sonnets embodying all the great epochs of art?” (Edith Wharton).
  2. A secret or devious plan; a plot. See synonyms at plan.
  3. An orderly combination of related parts: an irrigation scheme with dams, reservoirs, and channels.
  4. A chart, diagram, or outline of a system or object.


in·i·tia·tive (ĭ-nĭsh'ə-tĭv) pronunciation n.

  1. The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task; enterprise and determination.
  2. A beginning or introductory step; an opening move: took the initiative in trying to solve the problem.
  3.
        1. The power or right to introduce a new legislative measure.
        2. The right and procedure by which citizens can propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate.



I would suggest that the Act satisfies definitions 1, 3, & 4. of Scheme while it is neither the right to introduce legislature, not the procedure to do so. Neither is it the right to follow through with a plan - it IS the plan. - Its seems not to be a beginning, opening move or attempt at relieving liability - it just simply does.


The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme initiative program for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.

Program Perhaps? Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Scheme Challenge

I want to invite those whoo find "Scheme" to be a biased word to provide an example of a promient and related source using the word for its clearly negative meaning without any additional modifiers.

Here's one which is clearly postive:

"In 2005, we are offering up to £250,000 in prizes to renewable energy and energy efficiency schemes in both the developing world and the UK." [4] Benjamin Gatti

I didn't say "a biased word" - rather, one with negative connotations. It implies a secret or crafty plan, perhaps even an ulterior motive.
I lifted this from Merriam-Webster:
synonyms PLAN, DESIGN, PLOT, SCHEME, PROJECT mean a method devised for making or doing something or achieving an end. PLAN always implies mental formulation and sometimes graphic representation <plans for a house>. DESIGN often suggests a particular pattern and some degree of achieved order or harmony <a design for a new dress>. PLOT implies a laying out in clearly distinguished sections with attention to their relations and proportions <the plot of the play>. SCHEME stresses calculation of the end in view and may apply to a plan motivated by craftiness and self-interest <a scheme to defraud the government>. PROJECT often stresses imaginative scope and vision <a project to develop the waterfront>.
We know it can be used in a neutral or positive sense as well (my personal favorite is "access scheme", used in Internet security). Uncle Ed 03:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. By a Prominent and related source - I meant related to the energy or insurance business. My contention is that the word is used - by and large for the reasons Webster implies - in that energy schemes are often complex - we're looking at one now to drill for natural gas, burn it for heat, the push the exhaust back into the earth where it will push out more oil which we pump so the one scheme sells NG, OIL and Electricity whilst sinking carbon from the NG> combustion. That's a scheme. It has the complication of a scheme, its probably not even a plan yet - meaning the blueprints aren't drawn. It's a conceptual - "this will go there and do this" And I suggest from all those words - the closest is scheme - surely noone will contest that it stresses scope and vision? pattern? Project is a means with an identified end> is it that? There is clearly self-interest (even nationalism is a form of self-interest.)

Aside from my other views that price should be adequately described - i object to perfectly good words being rotated out of the english language simply because they have been adopted by the illiterati as a means of avoiding the monotony of their own nano-vocabulary. Benjamin Gatti

If there is any question about whether certain phraseology is considered loaded language or not, then another word should be chosen. You're not really helping your cause by arguing for a word that some people object to when another word that means precisely the same thing can be substituted. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unless I missed something...

Katefan0, Simesa and myself all said that we like the article as it appears right now and that Ben should start at the top and raise objections to the text as it is line by line. Right now, what we are getting is proposal after proposal from Ben...none of which will get the approval of us. So Ed, us 3 have agreed that Ben should look at the text...start at the top...and go sentence by sentence with changes he wants. Because right now, us 3 are happy with the article as it is. Not the moderated article. The protected one. --Woohookitty 03:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you speak for the rest and will unlock Price-Anderson Act. I suggest that you all follow my proposed editing scheme (grin), outlined at Wikipedia:text move (or maybe at Wikipedia:zero revert rule, I forget which page it was).
Please note that I'm taking an 8-day wikibreak beginning Friday 8 A.M. EST. Uncle Ed 13:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Um Ed. I meant to copy the article over here and go from there. NOT to unprotect the article. --Woohookitty 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm a bit apprehensive as well, but things seem to be progressing ok for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I too suggest we unlock once you return - editwarring during your time away would be counter-productive, and who knows who will drop in. Simesa 21:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ben, how about you? Keep it locked till August 1st? Is it unanimous? Uncle Ed 01:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that the decision to protect should be made for a reason, and I haven't heard a reason yet. There is no editwar. Its been unlocked for (24hours?) and not been reverted once. If the standard for protecting a page is zero reverts in 24 hours then we would have to lock up half the wiki. If i were you, i would wait until a problem develops. Benjamin Gatti
I find the above comment to be wholly disingenuous. Clearly, there is and has been a problem or we wouldn't be in mediation. Nothing has been solved yet. · Katefan0(scribble) 02:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to mention Chernobyl, then I insist on having the lines: "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [dubious – discuss] — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.]" And we certainly did have an editwar. Simesa 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)