Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I archived today

message: ::::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)
thread_title: Act III Enter Sandpiper, Simesa exit stage far right 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tripe and Trivia

message: I will be on the road and away from internet access until Monday nght. Simesa 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I was as well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sandpiper 

message: "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)
thread_title:  text move = banks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page unprotected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Revert of 7 Nov evening 

message: *"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)
thread_title: suspends protection

message: *"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)
thread_title: risk sufficiently great

message: *"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 " -- 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)
thread_title: medical risks

message: *"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)
thread_title: no reimbursement for loss

message: *"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)
thread_title: criminal activity

message: *"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)
thread_title: unfair competition

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: discussion

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  burden of those who would potentially be harmed. 

message: 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)
thread_title: No Fault Liability

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification  

message: 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)
thread_title: And do me a favor Ben

message: 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)
replies: text: Welcome to our world, man. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well, would you be here if it wasn't fun? Sandpiper 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Ben's 3 day exercise. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro