Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Talk5

message: It appears that Ed Poor has quit Wikipedia (see his talk page).  I recommend that we seek another mediator at RFM. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There seemingly being no way to continue with Uncle Ed, I have applied for a new Mediator.  We should all read wp:rfm. Simesa 00:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll be taking over the mediation.  See below.  Ral315 WS 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, he will be missed - flaws and all. Benjamin Gatti
I didn't really quit: I was just having a bad day. In any case, there's a new Mediator on duty now. Anything I say from this point on is in my private capacity as an ordinary contributor. Uncle Ed 18:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: That we're getting right back into bickering. Mr. Mediator, what would you like for us to do? Uncle Ed had us try using a separate mediation page. Not alot of came of it, but I think it'd be more useful than just continually bickering here. I still think we should just go to arbcom and finish this, but that's just my opinion. --Woohookitty 04:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just afraid that I'll be 45 years old and we'll still be discussing whether or not the GAO is an authoritative resource. It just never ends. --Woohookitty 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not responding in a while...I've been watching what you've been suggesting with interest.  To be perfectly frank, I don't think that ArbCom will take your case; ArbCom usually doesn't deal with content disputes, and you've all been very civil about the article.  Ral315 WS 18:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you came aboard, yes. :-D It's actually been more civil than it was initially. --Woohookitty 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm afraid

message: The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) protects investors in nuclear power plants from liability, even for criminal neglect, for the death and destruction caused by nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl. The act currently provides indemnity to all nuclear facilities (except Navy aircraft carriers and submarines) constructed in the United States before 2026.  The Act as been recognized by the United States Supreme Court as a requirement for the private generation of nuclear energy in the United States. In addition, the Supreme Court found  that the risk of a major nuclear accident has not been eliminated by 40 years of research and testing. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs as well as the Department of Energy have described the act as a transfer of wealth from those who earn it (taxpayers) to those who own it (investors). Benjamin Gatti
:I'd say you are trying to cram your entire POV, unbalanced, into the first paragraph.  I strongly prefer the current Intro over the above.  "Private generation" isn't all the Act is necessary for.  Criminal neglect is still speculative (it wasn't, for example, a factor at TMI), and if "wholesale irradiation" were possible in U.S. plants the NRC wouldn't have mandated only a 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone.  One agency (the EIA) of the DOE described it as a subsidy - but there has been no "transfer of wealth" as the government has never paid a dime for commercial plants' incidents, and it's very unlikely it will ever have to. Simesa 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is easy, read the first line of the Supreme Court's decision: "The Price-Anderson Act (Act), having the dual purpose of protecting the public [including from incidents at DOE facilities] and encouraging the development of the nuclear energy industry..." (my text in brackets).  If we were to list one thing that the Act would cover, then we should list all the incidents it would cover: a very long laundry list.  I disagree with your somewhat twisted reasoning - no costs have been added to anyone, no other energy producer has paid anything for Price-Anderson.  Market fairness is a subsidiary issue to be dealt with in Criticisms.  "Unsafe" is stil your POV not borne out by the IPE examinations, "dirty" is relative (ever worked around coal?).  And are you really claiming that wealth was transferred away from you specifically?  So now you believe you do have a fiduciary interest in this?  Simesa 02:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Intro