Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Talk6

message: Some stats to consider (commenting on size, not substance)
Introduction: 77 words
: A pretty good length, I think.  Ral315 (talk)
Background: 367 words
: It could be longer, but doesn't need to be if it explains the act fully.  Ral315 (talk)
How the law works: 178 words
: Good length.  Ral315 (talk)
Criticisms: 553 words
: Obviously, this is a problem for many (all?) of you.  If we could boil this down to about 300 words, that would be great.  Ral315 (talk)
I've set up a temp page for editing:  Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Temp.  As this is a page invisible to the public, feel free to make sweeping changes.  But note that the ONE-REVERT RULE is still in effect there.  The main article will be unprotected when I feel that we've hit a consensus, or everyone involved wants it unprotected.  Ral315 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected. 

message: Okay, I made a first proposed change. Simesa 11:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the law works 

message: "Protecting" a page on account of 1 to 2 edits a week amounts to censorship. Regardless of the subject or any other thing - it is antithetical to the spirit of wikipedia, and not supported by any published policy. I must therefore object. For comparison, the GWBush page is vandalized about twice a second, but remains open for business nonetheless. A double standard here can only be explained by bias or elitism, and the use of censorship to effect either of those is inconsistent with cooperative nature of wikipedia.. Benjamin Gatti
: Simple vandalism can be reverted easily.  This is a content dispute, and I'm using the protection not to censor anyone, but rather to encourage open discussion and editing on the temp page.  Ral315 (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for what it's worth, I had never heard of the Price-Anderson Act prior to this mediation, and my knowledge of nuclear energy was virtually zero.  Ral315 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ral, I'm with ya. I had no idea what it was either. And yes, protection in this case is because people (and it wasn't just you Ben) were making edits without consensus, which defeats the purpose of mediation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to Censorship 

message: I rewrote Criticisms - for the first two paragraphs the changes were minor.
But I'm amazed - no one else objected to the line "Like all subsidies, Price Anderson raises the price of its target commodity by forcing the market to make poor decisions."???  Subsidies immediately lower the price of commodities. If we want to discuss long-term effects of subsidies, we'd need a fairly comprehensive study to cite, as it's not always true that subsidies raise prices in the long-term (windmills, for example).
"Strong financial incentive"?  A reload is $150 million.  Plants should cost about $1.5 billion.  Even the top number, $33 million, if the U.S. government were to charge it, is hardly a deciding factor.
The next line, "The costs of Nuclear energy were grossly underexagerated, and have in fact turned out to be more expensive and dangerous than clean, safe alternatives, such as wind power" is just a commercial for renewables with no impact on Price-Anderson, so I cut it.  (As an aside, nuclear did become far more expensive due to huge building delays when the post-Three Mile Island modifications had to be incorporated, but those modifications - and more - are incorporated up-front now.)
I get the feeling that we are missing some valid criticisms, but I'll have to go back and compare to the current article. Mediation isn't a negotiation as to "what I can get in", it's a decision process as to what should be in.Simesa 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: I'm reverting because of the following objections to the following lines:
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) eliminates public safety laws in all fifty states 
:Nonsense, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations covers nuclear safety.
and protects criminally negligent nuclear operators from being held financially responsible for criminal acts 
:The Supreme Court said "the utility itself would probably suffer the largest damages", and criminal law is enhanced, not reduced.
The Act makes it a crime for private persons to protect themselves against a nuclear event by insuring their own property against an explosion at a nuclear energy plant. 
:No it doesn't - the situation there is that the industry has already bought up all the insurance available, as required by the Act.
In the event that a corporation commits a criminal act which leads to wide-spread devastation similar to Chernobl, taxpayers and victims, rather than  the corporation will be held financially responsible for the damage. 
:The reactors will be liable for at least $10 billion, but this statement is partially correct - but since Chernobyl was vastly unlike any U.S. power plant, it doesn't belong in the intro.
The Act is part of the Energy Policy of President George W. Bush.
:So what?  Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with bi-partisan support, why mention Bush but not that?
Simesa 04:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Again, the problem is that some of edits go so far into POV land that they are unrecoverable. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of 10/31/05 3 am UTC