Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Archive 2

This page 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.

Please weigh in

All -- I apologize for the duplication, but Benjamin continues to dump text into this page so I fear that it will be lost.

History

Benjamin, I will -- once more -- in excruciating detail -- delineate why the background section is properly sourced. I will not do this again. When I'm done, I will ask the other editors contributing to this article to view my justifications and tell me whether they think the text is fair or not, so a consensus can be achieved one way or another and we can put this particular section to bed. I have been very patient so far, but I refuse to waste another minute of my time repeating myself and having you ignore me. +

The paragraph: +

Financial backers were unwilling to risk the enormous financial liability that would result from a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant ^{[dubious – discuss]}, so no-one was interested in building a plant. ^{[dubious – discuss]} +

From the GAO report referenced at the bottom of the article: +

Soon [after the Atomic Energy Act], government and industry experts identified a major impediment to accomplishing the act’s objective: the potential for payment of damages resulting from a nuclear accident and the lack of adequate available insurance. Unwilling to risk huge financial liability, private companies viewed even the remote specter of a serious accident as a roadblock to their participating in the development and use of nuclear power. +

The paragraph: +

Price-Anderson was born from those dual concerns; the act established a mechanism for compensating the public for injury or property damage in the event of a nuclear accident (disputed — see talk page) +

From the GAO report referenced at the bottom of the article: +

In addition, congressional concern developed over ensuring adequate financial protection to the public because the public had no assurance that it would receive compensation for personal injury or property damages from the liable party in event of a serious accident. Faced with these concerns, the Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act in September 1957. The Price-Anderson Act has two underlying objectives: (1) to establish a mechanism for compensating the public for personal injury or property damage in the event of a nuclear accident and (2) to encourage the development of nuclear power. +

It's my opinion that the nonpartisan GAO report is a valid and authoritative source that has been faithfully summarized in the current article. I would appreciate the opinions of others beyond Benjamin and myself so we can reach a consensus. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 2, 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Benjamin, don't delete talk page comments made by other users. It is considered vandalism. Please note that Benjamin replied above if you would like to see his reply. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 03:29 (UTC)

I think duplicating your earlier comments without their replies is equally problematic in every respect, and I disagree that anyone other than you considers deleting duplicate entries to be vandalism. It's called refactoring.

OK, I added 2 citations. Both are from the GAO report that Kate cited, so I added citations. I also re-reverted a bunch of POV added tonight but I deleted a Chernobyl sentence that Ben objected to as original research. I don't think it is OR but so be it. Now I am returning to stubsensor where no one argues with me. ;-) --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

I don't get it, Ben. You complain about lack of citations in the first part of the article. I put the citations in there and you call them "opinion". Read the GAO report. It includes exactly what's in the article. If you think it's "opinion", then I'll go ahead and remove every citation you used since they are "opinion" too if the GAO article is "opinion". --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

I believe Benjamin's issue is that he would prefer the paragraph to say "Government documents assert" or "The GAO claims" instead of simply stating, this is the factual history of the act. I say that the GAO is an authoritative enough source that the history of the act and congressional intent with its creation can be stated without those kinds of hedges, as long as we have an in-line link to the source. It isn't as if it's opinion that's being stated, it's historical fact. Benjamin's arguments generally have tended along the lines of -- the government can't be trusted to tell the truth, so government research should be treated like opinions from an outside interest group. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 04:03 (UTC)

Kate - i use and trust government data all the time, and have cited DOE, DEI etc... My complaint aside from the major victory in removing the Original Research that a nuclear incident in the US would have less effect than chernobyl - is the double standard. My criticisms - for example the fact that it is a subsidy - is sources from government documents, but is has been hounded into a corner and presented as the opinion of left-wing fanatical blame america first groups - when i sourced it from the DOE.

The DOE is very different than the GAO. Beyond which, that it's a subsidy is disputed by the industry, lawmakers and other trade groups. You have yet to show how the GAO's summation of historical fact is disputed by anyone but yourself, for the thinnest of reasons. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 04:31 (UTC)

Why should the 'supposed' intent of the government be entitled to ride in a horse and carriage, while critical viewspoint have to sit inthe back of the bus? We're at consensus with substance - but i object to negative facts - equally sourced - being made second class citizens. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 04:22 (UTC) PS. Note that i have offered a proposed resolution - failure to respond to such an offer is a defense in arbitration. Benjamin Gatti

Well that's Ben's personal opinion that the government cannot be trusted. The Wikipedia trend is that government sources are seen as authority. If Ben doesn't like that, that's his opinion and as I said, in this case, our personal opinions mean nothing. It's called consensus. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

"U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a full investigation of the TMI incident. According to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the U.S. would probably have been forced to close. Rickover said the final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter." [1]

It seems to be the consensus of wikipedia that the government cannot be trusted to release the truth on this issue. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Offer of Compromise

I have requested arbitration - however, because the major complaint - that is the assertion that an accident in the US would have less effect than chernobyl has been removed - i think it is quite possible to resolve the lesser isues.

I propose that the other editors "weight in" to Katefan's comment - and list explicitly why and when the government can be used as an authoritative source in the face of expressed doubt. provided of course that the rule applies to everyone equally i have every confidence that it will be acceptable. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)

While I respect your opinions, you are not an expert on nuclear energy insofar as I know and therefore your doubt about the government holds less weight. If you have a source that's critical of the GAO report's summation of historical fact, feel free to cite it. Otherwise, your own doubts are not particularly relevant. I would think that GAO reports would be fine to use authoritatively pretty much on any topic. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

"U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a full investigation of the TMI incident. According to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the U.S. would probably have been forced to close. Rickover said the final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter." [2]

What you have here is a pattern of deception - well documented here and elsewhere - as recently as the failure to release closed door meeting with Dick Cheney. I doubt anyone would suggest that the US or any state has been the picture of openness when it comes to nuclear capability - its an issue which demands stategic ambiguity. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

The GOA expresses the opinions of others - just say that explain it as it is, Say The GAO has asserted thus and so - i will follow with and jimmy carter compelled the incident report to be watered down. - just go easy on the assertion here, and we'll be ok. Benjamin Gatti

Regretfully, the community here has overruled you. The consensus is that such language is unnecessary. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 04:41 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for any third party to assert as fact the "intentions" of another - such third party assetions are not fact because they cannot be fact - intentions can be masked, assimulated, or otherwise falsified. Unless the GOA administered a lie detector test and a truth serum, or took the information as a dying utterance, its really just heresay.

And another point - the simple word "The" implies an unverifyable negative which is the absence of alternatives. Instead of "The intent was" use "An intent was to ..." There - that is easy. That is veryfiable and sources - i'll even give you government source is authoritative on the indefinite predicate. Benjamin Gatti

Ben, what "intent" are you refering to? Heck, make the change yourself if you want to. Make whatever "the" you are referring to into an "an" and then we can see what you are talking about. I don't see it otherwise. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)

OK Ben, I will give you credit. The edit you just put in there actually looks ok to me. Now you need to explain why we need more criticisms in an article where the criticisms section is threatening to dwarf the other sections. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

Part of the reason the criticism section is long, is because every assertion has to be quoted in line and couched in introductory qualifications. The second - and i don't oppose cleaning it up - i think we can once we stop reverting content for pov reasons - definitely less is more.

my list of criticisms

liability immunity encourages safety lapses
subsidizing one energy choice reduces the funds available for safe alternatives
giving taxpayer money to a few ricj investors is anti-democratic
the act indicates that current nuclear ractor design continue to be uninsurably dangerous
And uneconomic in a competative market

Which of those is optional?

Speaking on behalf of the thousands of people whose lives have been reduced to horror and heartbreak by the chernobly accident, i doubt this goes far enough. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn' tmatter to me which one is removed or edited. But don't do anything :) Let's see what the other editors think. This isn't over yet but at least it feels like progress is being made. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Price was intended to overcome - temporary barriors- to comercialization

that is never intended to be a continuing subsidy and that the background section should draw the distinction of intent between - overcoming the barriors, and overcoming the temporary barrios to privatization ... but its a small issue. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Arbitration request withdrawn

(Comment added to RfP) I am withdrawing my request for Arbitration. The Original Research has been pulled with consensus, and unveryfiable assertions have been pulled as well. The article is not longer in violation of POV by my book Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

You shouldn't have. I'll/we'll probably have to file one very shortly. And the fact that people stop arguing with you at 1 am doesn't constitute consensus. Simesa 3 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Benjamin, I know this is because you're fairly new, but what has been requested is that the page be locked from editing. Arbitration is a very, very different and discrete thing and it would probably be best if you stopped referring to a request for page protection as "arbitration." Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Objection - request for consensus

Thank you all for the progress.

Please feel free to mercilessly edit the criticism section.

I am asking for feedback on the second sentence.

"It also makes available a pool (disputed — see talk page) of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. "

If a majority (three) of you agree that this sentence accurately describes the effect of the act - i'll agree to it - but I think is perpetuates the great lie - since the act removes the requirement to get full insurance - the act substantially reduces the pool of funds. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

That sentence seems accurate to me. Then again, I have the time to read this massive Discussion page. Simesa 3 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

It is accurate. The law has the framework for the pool of money if it is needed -- therefore, it makes the pool available. What would you prefer it say, Benjamin? · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 17:22 (UTC)

I think it is clear from the record that Westinghouse GE, and their subcontractors represent large assets relative to the reactor project, and they were quite aware that their asses - er assets were on the line if an accident occured - that was a LARGE pool of funds made available through existing liability legislation.

The Act would have none of that and Voided the LARGE pool of assets - to be replaced with a LIMITED liability plan under which a seperate pool - some 600 Million and growing was to be made available.

So the Act clearly REDUCED the pool of fund available - it should say that.

Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Chernobyl vs. Western Reactors

I've restored the disputed section and added two citations, one PBS and one industry. I agree that the section should have had these citations before.

Frankly, and as one citation says, we wouldn't have built nuclear power plants in the West or Japan if a Chernobyl could happen to us. (DOE reactors for military purposes, OTOH, are sometimes like Chernobyl - the ones at Hanford and Savannah River have all been shut down.) Simesa 3 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)

Added two more citations. Simesa 3 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

"This area of Ukraine is described as Belarussian-type woodland with a low population density. About 3 km away from the reactor, in the new city, Pripyat, there were 49 000 inhabitants. The old town of Chernobyl, which had a population of 12 500, is about 15 km to the South-east of the complex. Within a 30-km radius of the power plant, the total population was between 115 000 and 135 000. " [3]

Perhaps we can find a compromise - if you agree that the population density around almost any reactor in the US has a higher population density - perhaps it would be meaningful to say -

"While the impact area of a nuclear accident in the US would likely be smaller than it was in Chernobyl, the number of people affected could be higher because of higher population densities near reactors in the US."

Here's the logical falacy in the argument as it stands. You're so sure the impact would be less, but the industry continues to be willing to make the same bet - so when it comes to people willing to put their money where their mouth is - they aren't so sure it would be less, they're not sure it would be safe - in short, we still have a situation in which nuclear energy is to risky - dangerous - to merit interest in afree-market. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Our opinions and conclusions are irrelevant, however, if you have a source that contradicts this particular info then it would be appropriate to cite it. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 17:24 (UTC)

The two plants I worked at were Nine Mile Point, in Oswego, New York, which is extremely remote, and Hope Creek, which also is in a remote section of southern New Jersey. The Palo Verde units, for example, are in a desert. Clinton, Illinois, is in the middle of an area of cornfields. Turkey Point is on its own island. I could go on down the list - but you're continuing to ignore an important difference between Chernobyl and non-Soviet reactors.

The graphite fire at Chernobyl lofted radioactive material high into the atmosphere, where it spread over most of Europe. Non-government American reactors don't have graphite cores (not even wooden ladders) - so no lofting. The radioactivity, if any escapes containment, will stay near ground level. All the plants have an Emergency Planning Zone plan for a 10 mile (16 km) radius around the units (including sirens). The AEC selected 10 miles by hypothetically throwing half a reactor core into the air, and using bomb fallout data to predict the downwind effects - they decided they needed 5 miles, so they doubled it to 10 for safety. In modern drills, a "leak rate" is assumed for the containment (so that the whole plan can be exercised) - but that leak rate isn't half a core, like at Chernobyl. So, no, I don't agree that the population density in the EPZ around the majority of plants is necessarily higher, nor the risk unacceptable. Simesa 3 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Protected

Looks like the page has been protected -- and a good thing for it. I was working on the "how the law works" section, so I'll just reproduce it here. Let me know what you think. I think it's pretty faithful and clear.

==How the law works==

Under the law, commercial nuclear reactors licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must carry insurance coverage equal to the maximum amount of liability insurance available from private sources (currently $300 million). If claims resulting from an accident exceeded $300 million, the law requires all commercial reactors to contribute an additional amount of money determined by the NRC into a pool from which those additional claims would be paid — currently, each reactor would have to contribute up to $95.8 million, for a total of about $10 billion. The law indemnifies nuclear reactor operators from claims beyond that amount of money — if claims from an incident exceeded that pooled sum, the NRC would have to petition Congress to make up the rest, either with taxpayer dollars or through additional easements on the industry. [4]

A catastrophic nuclear event — such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident — would arguably deplete and possibly exceed the current pool of money. Though the Soviet Union never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, Greenpeace International estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims. However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [5] [6] [7] [8] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.

Nuclear insurance pools have paid $151 million ($70 million of which was related to the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown) and the Energy Department $65 million since Price-Anderson was enacted 48 years ago. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 14:55 (UTC)

I agree with your last version. I don't understand why we don't state that DOE facilities are covered - however, I'm willing to live with this revised text. P.S. - The DOE will be building a new reactor to make Plutonium-238 for long-life batteries, so it's not a meaningless item. Simesa 3 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

DOE facilites meaning what? Government-owned nuclear reactors? It's nto that I object per se, I just don't understand what the distinction is and why it's important. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 15:10 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes, among other facilities the DOE operated/operates nuclear reactors at Hanford Site and Savannah River Site. The new reactor will be at INEEL which is also DOE [9] [10]. DOE also enriches nuclear fuel via its contractor United States Enrichment Corporation. It also operates Sandia National Laboratories. There are/were a number of other facilities and contractors. Simesa 3 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Taking the sources one by one

1. includes: "Given such uninformed enthusiasm for technology, " Which i would like to use in the authoritative voice - any objections?

2."But if the design of Russian and U.S. reactors is critically different, broad similarities between the two countries' management of nuclear-power development led both national programs into difficulty." Again - design different - politics and attitude same - we agree it was the attitude of the operators and engineers - not the design which was most at fault. Chernobyl was an intentional violation of safety protocols which included disabling systemic safety deivices.

3."the ordinary citizen was made to believe that the peaceful atom was virtually a panacea and the ultimate in genuine safety, ecological cleanliness, and reliability."

Which is what some are trying to do here. disinform the ordinary ciitizen.

4. This whole hide the problem - problem is discussed as well: "Accidents," writes Medvedev, "were hidden not only from the general public and the government but also from the people who worked at Soviet nuclear power stations. This latter fact posed a special danger, as failure to publicize mishaps always has unexpected consequences: it makes people careless and complacent."

5. Even in the US - Peole are the same - Simesas argument that the people are different is specious unsupported by his own authorities and frankly biggoted.

"Authority dominated in the early days of nuclear power in the United States as well. "The AEC and the JCAE," James Jasper notes, "placed themselves outside normal political accountability."

5. introduces a fine point - we agree that the risk is probably on par with many other risks - but we as individuals do have the right to oppose the accumulation of risks - beyond our control.

"The rest of the world didn't choose to be irradiated by a badly designed and criminally misoperated Soviet nuclear power plant."

6. And finally a falshood: "millions of Americans willingly buy the electricity that nuclear utilities generate." - those Americans, by which hopefully is meant the peoples of both North and South America inclusively, don't really have much choice in the power they purchase - choice based energy is new, and opposed by the industry. Benjamin Gatti

The Second - university of pittsburg

"Since the mechanism for dispersing radioactivity over long distances was so efficient in the Chernobyl accident and is so inefficient in U.S. reactors, it is almost impossible to believe that an accident in a U.S. reactor can ever cause nearly as much radiation exposure at large distances from the plant."

First it says "almost impossible" so we should use those words, but more importantly, it is talking about the size of the affected area. I do not contest nor have ever contested that the AREA affected would be greater - only that the EFFECT COULD be greater due to population density differences. Benjamin Gatti

Third reference includes this fact - Russian reactors have been modified to avoid "pos void coeff"- but they are still not safe!. So the only difference is the sarcaphacus. which it say says "Should" prevent release - notably did not prevent release at three mile island. Benjamin Gatti

fourth ref (Texas) "All this reflects important differences between Western and Soviet operators and their training. Unlike the Soviets, U.S. reactor operators take continued training in classroom situations and on reactor simulators. Further, operators in Western countries are strictly bound by what are called "technical specifications" which forbid operation of the reactor outside of preset safety limits."

Directly contradicts the first ref which shows simularities between the attitudes of US and USSR. The operators knew the were leaving technical specs. Surely the rules said they shouldn't - but the chief engineer say they must - how many times do "operators" just accept what their bosses say - look at abu graib - bosses said beat these people up to get to get information, and they did it - despite the law. this happens every day. Nuclear industry is beating up whistlblowers - look at Simesa good engineer, banished from the industry for speaking out on matters of (safety). how many other engineers see that example and say - i'll just be quiet and go along, i've got kids to feed.

So in short - there is new material to add based on these references, and the assertion of comparison is limited to hectars, not people, deaths, cost, or any other measure of impact. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

replies

I'm sorry, your proposed additions in the first section have nothing to do with Price-Anderson, and your points on Chernobyl do not contradict the text as it stands. I oppose all of them. However, if you can find a source that specifically contradicts that info on Chernobyl I'd like to see it -- and by that I mean, "An accident like Chernobyl would exceed PAA's provisions"; or, "An accident like Chernobyl would be equally devastating in the US." · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 17:31 (UTC)

I'll try to work on all your points in a minute, but one point should be made immediately: violation of Technical Specifications is a federal offense. Tech specs are part of the operatintg license, and as such carry the force of law. Every person granted unescorted access to a nuclear power plant is trained on this exact point. Perhaps the AEC was a law unto itself during the Cold war, but those days are gone, it's gone, and that attitude is gone. Simesa 3 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Simesa Replies

(headings to make commenting easier) Benjamin Gatti

I can't see how any of these would be meaningful here - I object to all of them.

The First Reference

1 - Actually, it's been shown that people fear what they aren't familiar with. PCs are great, Nuclear is feared in most places. I can't see how t would be useful anyway.

2 - Pre-TMI, that was true. Post-TMI is a different culture.

3 - Odd, I used nuclear fuel software named PANACEA. Seriously, safety isn't simple or easy. The electricity is the same, and capacity factors are now above 90% so it is reliable.

4 - The nuclear industry has an information network whereby incidents at any plant are broadcast to every other plant with the intent that the same problem not occur twice.

5 - Each American has the option to vote for strongly anti-nuclear candidates.

6 - True, but choice-based is available now.

---

Second Reference

We already say "likely would be less"

---

Third Reference

The sarcophageus only covers the ruined Unit-4. The other units remain without containment buildings.

Containment never sealed off at TMI.

---

Fourth Reference

This reflects the current state of training and operations. Tech specs carry the force of federal law. And the Station Shift Supervisor can throw anyone off-site.

Simesa 3 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Likely is a weasel word - doesn't hold up under strict NPOV verifyability weasel words analysis. I think it just as likely could be more in health and cost effects especially if terrorism were the cause - it would be morally devastating. - and have cited - since deleted.

So we have containment, they just aren't sealed sometimes? and that's the difference?

What you failed to respond to is this - the Graphite moderated reactors, what with POsitive Void Coeffiecient - have been modified in the Russian sites, so they now have NVC. but you continue to say they are less stable? how so - just the containment building? - if all we're depending on here is a different brand of people - then i think the article should state that. perhaps "People in America (sic) are so much better than damn communists, they could never make a mistake?"

Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

6. Is it really consumer choice if the good is subsidized - its like say you can buy anything you want, but i'll pay ninty percent of the cost if you choose what i want. So i would argue that choice really only exists in a free market - and you would have to agree Price Anderson is anything but. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

The following has been inserted into Requestd for Mediation WP:RfM - Please participate by Weighing it there.

Mediation is requested to resolve one question - whether the following sentence can be included in the authoritative voice.

" However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [11] [12] [13] [14] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.] "

In spite of 4 references which posit this opinion - it remains the opinion of the positors, and is not independantly verifyable. The use of weasel the word "likely" does not grant immunity from verifiability requirments. As no one has shown how this assertion could be veryfied, it ought to be properly couched and dressed in counterclaims - which have been deleted.

My sense is the parties (4) are all open to mediation. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the Mediation process - are you just trying to get around being unable to come up with citations? I believe the line is correct, adequate and necessary, and see no need for Mediation. Simesa 3 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Nonetheless are you willing to accept the result if I am?

Yes - its cited, but the text doesn't say "The Academy of Hopeful Nuclear Engineering Candidates promises that accidents in the US would have less impact", it says they "likely would have less" impact. Likely is a weasel word, and the assertion isn't attributed - and therefore doesn't invite criticism, either by the reader, or by other authors. It wouldnot be that hard to follow the NPOV guidlines - just do it.

Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Personally this level of hand-waving and whinging is really not worth the paragraph if you ask me. I'd just as soon see it completely deleted. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Katefan0 is proposing to delete all of:

The pool of money — which as of 2004 stood at about $9.5 billion — is contributed ^{[dubious – discuss]} by the nuclear industry, primarly through power reactor licensees, who are required to have $200 million worth of primary insurance as of 2001. In the event that claims deplete the pool of funds, the Congress of the United States is required to consider covering the excess cost, possibly by establishing additional assessments against the industry. [A catastrophic nuclear event — such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident — would arguably deplete and likely exceed the current pool of money. Though the Soviet Union never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, Greenpeace International estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims. However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [15] [16] [17] [18] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.]

I can live with that if the $200 million of primary insurance is mentioned along with the $88 million assessments in the previous paragraph. Simesa 3 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

I doubt that an intelligent conversation on the Price Anderson could exist without reference to the single largest nuclear event in history. We have to deal with it and deal fairly - All i'm asking is that the assertion that it is less likely be attributed in line. and other opinions countering it be equally included in-line right there and then.

Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

I was referring to only the portion about Chernobyl. I fail to see why it's absolutely necessary, unless you argue for inclusion of criticism about it. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 06:45 (UTC)

You know

I'm trying to keep up with this discussion, but its a bit hard. I woke up today and 6 headers had been added to the talk page. I think we should protect the talk page too. ;-) --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Improper page protection

so long as this protected page is not listed on protected pages - it is not proper procedure. In order to limit the damage of an unveryfied assertion being sanctified by a rule violation, the redirect has been opened for editing. Do drop in.

Citation disputing the existence of the Pool as a real thing.

[19]

This site states that the liability chain is not so rigid that it amounts to the same thing as a "pool of funds" sitting around ready to compensate victims.

"But Price Anderson was originally intended by Congress to be a temporary solution to what they thought was a temporary problem - the refusal of private insurers to underwrite the risks of nuclear power. In a 1957 Senate report, the Senate wrote that Price Anderson would only be needed for ten years because "...the problem of reactor safety will be to a great extent solved and the insurance people will have had an experience on which to base a sound program of their own."

But the historical record debunks this initial optimism. Nuclear reactors continue to experience significant safety problems, and the nuclear industry remains unwilling to assume the risks of its own operations.

Even the industry's claim to the relatively-paltry $9 billion liability is not necessarily accurate. The Price Anderson Act fails to clearly stipulate the industry's exact responsibility - in the text of the law, in terms of the execution of the Act's provisions, or in terms of the actual funding of the insurance coverage.

The text of the Price Anderson has definitions which are very open-ended. As a result, independent government agencies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have wide discretion to fill in the blanks and adjust the insurance requirements on an individual basis. In addition, the Act is vague on what the government's financial obligations are in the event funds are unavailable from the nuclear industry. The total effect is large opportunity to evade responsibility if there is an accident and victims require payment of damages.

Those three points should be included - preferrably with the standard degree of couching. Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

So what text would you propose? Please create a dummy here on the talk page of what you would propose to add. It'll make it easier for other editors to decide whether they agree with it or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 3, 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Probably,

According to X (Or not if that is the standard) "Nuclear reactors continue to experience significant safety problems,

That might be appropriate for Nuclear power, but not here. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 06:52 (UTC)

Since Price Anderson is all about dealing with the risks of nuclear energy - contemporary safety issues - are directly on point. There are existing safety issues - which lead to the need for Price Anderson. I believe people coming to an encyclopedia should leave informed - and if Price exists to address risks, it is relevent to indicate which risks, as best they are known.(declassified) Benjamin Gatti

Anywhere a 9 billion pool is mention ... "So and So states that The industry's claim to the relatively-paltry $9 billion liability is not necessarily accurate.

I have seen some criticisms of the pools; I would hesitantly and in the absolutely most general way say I would be supportive of seeing firmer language put forth in terms of this criticism. I am not in support of using this quote because it has no purpose except to take a cheap shot. How else precisely would you propose to deal with this criticism, given that it's been rejected in this form? Specific text, ready to insert is what I'm asking for. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 06:52 (UTC)

Price Anderson is an ammendment to the Atomic Enery Act, the total effect of which is to evade responsibility if there is an accident and victims require payment of damages.

Absolutely not. Way too authoritative and besides which, the article as it stands already says that some groups think it doesn't require enough payment and that the industry gets off too easy. You can't say it a million times, it's pointless and past a certain point starts to unbalance the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 06:52 (UTC)

And again, because I'm so easy, I would agree to any level of qualification that applies to counter assertions. Ie "One wikipedian sez Chernobyl can't happen in the US because the American people are different." Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

Yes, we all know how NPOV the word "paltry" is. You keep wanting to turn this article into a anti-nuclear article no matter what anyone else comes up with. It needs to be NPOV and what you are proposing is not NPOV in the least. "Neutral" means neither favoring one side or the other. Your definition seems to be different. So I think I'll vote no. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

"Paltry" is a direct quote of the source. NPOV states that controversial statements are NPOV as long as they are attributed - important relevent and factually substantiated are all other reasons to reject a foriegn quote - but the mere fact that the quote has a POV is not - when it is couched. please see NPOV 101. Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

I could see it being NPOV if it was balanced by a statement that said the law was ok. The NPOV article says that "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents." In other words, it takes 2 things to make it NPOV. It needs to be attributable AND it is supposed to present competing views fairly. You seem to use the first part but not the second. What the NPOV article does not say is that if its attributable, anything goes. In other words, just because it's attributable doesn't mean it's automatically NPOV. In addition, look at the NPOV Tutorial article. It says that neutral language should be used at all times. The example given implies that if the statement given is considered ok if the assertion made (in the case of the example, the word "shocked" is used) is universally accepted. That is certainly not the case here. What you consider "paltry" is not what I would necessarily consider paltry.

Mediation

I really think we should do mediation here. Ben is not going to budge and he's probably going to continue to find "loopholes" in the policies of Wikipedia so he can be POV while pretending to be NPOV. Because Ben has an agenda and he's not going to give up on it until one of us gives up and that's not going to happen. Pretending that what you are presenting is NPOV is almost laughable. I think it's telling that you don't have any other supporters on this. I don't see others saying "Ben is right". I am not trying to be condescending but have you read other articles on Wikipedia to see how they are structured and what is considered ok in them? Looking at your contributions, I see nothing but edits on 3-4 articles. Look at other controversial issues and what is accepted. There is no way that a word like "paltry" is considered acceptable in the way you are trying to use it. I get the feeling that your attitude is "Wikipedia policy be damned" unless it matches your point of view. If you stick with that, you are not going to win any arguments here. As I said originally, drop the "us versus them" stuff, ok? We are not the "enemy". You often present competing views as "you say that...". Actually, no. I don't necessarily believe some of the stuff that's presented in the "how the law works" section here. The point is...IT...DOES...NOT...MATTER and the quicker you realize that, the easier this will be. Advocacy gets you nowhere on Wikipedia. And that's all I'm saying on this as I'm tired of repeating the same things to the same person who won't listen because he has an agenda that he's trying to push. It's tiring and rather pointless. --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

(I broke Woohookitty's comment and my response into a new section - I hope you don't mind.) Mediation, perhaps - but in the one-sentence Mediation Ben has proposed he's just trying to get around the fact that I have four citations whereas he (as I) couldn't find ANY to support his view. After some cooling-off perhaps we can mediate the whole article. Simesa 4 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

I just don't get it. His "neutral" isn't neutral at all...it's anti-nuclear. I understand his view but it doesn't belong here. I don't think mediation will help, but frankly, we can't jump to arbitration yet. That's considered a last restort. He will not give up until we all do and that's not going to happen. I just don't see resolution here. What he considers "neutral" is laughable. If you used his version of neutrality, you could quote someome saying "All cats are evil" and it's be considered neutral. Come on. --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Woohoo, I completely understand your frustration (see my earlier comments -- I've been justifying and justifying the historic information from the time I hit the ground on this article. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 06:59 (UTC)

First off - I agree to be bound by mediation, bear in mind that before K and W showed up, the article was FAR MORE tilted towards a "Nuclear good-renewables bad perspective". It is now more neutral - but as long as it stipulates that "An Accident in the US would have less impact than Chernobly in the authoritative voice - I think that violates NPOV. That is opinion - based on hope, and the thrust of the ACT admits the huge risk of nuclear still exists. I only expect the pro and con perspectives (POVs) to be held to the same standard - read NPOV. Benjamin Gatti

Mediation normally isn't binding. Of course parties can agree to hold a mediator's views binding. As for the Chernobyl stuff, let's just deleted it then. Simesa has already said fine. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 16:16 (UTC)

I'll agree to the removal of all mention of chernobyl if someone can find a majority of articles in the top n google listings for Price_Anderson which also do not mention chernobyl. No chance. Look, i'm the obnoxious one - but that isn't the same as POV. I doubt even Simesa believes price can be intelligently discussed outside the framework of chernobyl. Censorship is POV and worse. at least POV is merely sub-neutral. Censorship is a worse violation of the spirit of Wiki by orders of magnitude, and I'll go all the way to the top on that one. Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

P.S. I would suggest that censorship vs. POV is the overarching conflict here. Simesa wants to censor anything to the effect that nuclear is dangerous. I want to see that hse doesn't. In my mind - Price Anderson is the best evidence that nuclear continues to be dangerous - otherwise - why isn't anyone willing to insure it? I don't know what they don't tell us. I know they hide data on nukes - ask Simesa, i'll bet hse is not allowed to talk about everything hse knows. So we have to take what we do know and extrapulate or infer. And the fact that the nuclear industry is begging for free insurance tell me - they're afraid of their own shadow. I say don't censor that. let it shine - let it shine. Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. What language would you prefer, then? Specifically, with citations. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 16:54 (UTC)

Ben, If "censorship" to you is to make this article NPOV, than I am all for it. And by the way, you just admitted that you'd rather have this article POV. And yes, what you said is not relevant here. And stop picking on Simesa. He is trying to make this article NPOV just like "K" and "W" are. --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

I have admitted that POV is orders of magnitude more acceptable than Censorship. Explain to me how the assertion that a nuclear accident in the US would have LESS impact than chernobly is anything other than POV - in your own words - with cites.

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of yours -- or maybe you do understand and just don't care. From WP:NPOV: Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Non-negotiable is pretty clear-cut. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Hopefully they are both non-negotiable. Here's a quote from WP:NPOV, which i not only cite, but also have read: Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." That's the opening of an informative chapter on this debate. p-ist believe and q-ists believe. You've done a good job of herding the q-ists into a corner, but you let the p-ists run free - meaning the assertion that a nuclear accident in the US would be less than cherny had been allowed to be _asserted_ in the unqualified NPOV fassion - which I have been rather non-negotiable on. I assert I have been closer to WP:NPOV than some others, and that's why we're all some passionate here - each thinks they have god in their pocket. - just typical people stuff ;-) Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

You've done a good job of herding the q-ists into a corner, but you let the p-ists run free - I resent this. That's why I've helped you add basically the entire criticism section, right? Of course. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 20:02 (UTC)

Yes, Kate, you've been indispensible in defending the criticism section, may I extend my gratitude and respect. Boy i can see how friends could fall out on this project. But i think you'll have to admit that NPOV guidlines are against herding p-ists into a corner - that is NPOV oppose the creation of seperate points of view under labels Pro / Con and that is what we've got. The labels ought to be NPOV. History, Purpose, Effect, are NPOV. Arguments for and arguments against are segregation and not embraced by NPOV. Neither is the double standard - if some disputed facts are asserted By Wiki but other fact are asserted by their respective owners that is a violation of NPOV. If this were a popularity contest - I lose, but its not.

And you know what, Ben? I think the fact that earlier, you took the quotation part of the NPOV article but not the fair part goes to show that you will do anything to win an argument. You probably don't believe this, but I'm unbiased on this. As I've said several times, I agree with alot of your points- I just don't think they belong here. So I can say without biasness that the only one who has almost completely failed in making this article NPOV is you, so I would appreciate if you stop quoting the NPOV article. You already admitted today that you would rather be POV than to have "censorship" on here. I think that kind of closes the case. So quit quoting from the NPOV article as if you have any intention in following it. Thanks. --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a waste of bandwidth I would suggest. In reality, i have a lot more exposure here than the anon set. I'm in the energy business, i will asking nuclear operators to fund my project in all likelihood - i can play as hard as the next guy, but surely there are limits to good taste and you can expect me to be reasonable. I have no qualms however about promoting the debate throught the arbitration system, i'm involved in federal court, i challenged the outcome of the election in court, and spent time in jail for picking up litter, i'm certainly not going to cut and run for some - online mediation arbitration routine. ordinary people should be exposed to the issues surrounding our energy policy, cheney was wrong to cover up, and censorship would be wrong here as well. I have every intention of seeing this article through to NPOV. Show me place I object which is not supported by NPOV. Benjamin Gatti 5 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

- The Language I would prefer is:

"While the events of chernobly are not likely to be repeated (optional - even in similar reactors due to design retrofitting and lessons learned), nuclear energy continues to have a higher degree of risk than the free market is willing to accept. - and for this reason, Price Anderson Indemnity continues to be necessary 30 years after it was intended to expire."

Now that might be a little rich in places, and unnecessarily pile on - but anything more supportive would in my opinion by just as POV as your concerns the other way.

Any Objection? Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Yes. Please support all your assertions with citations that we can check. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The proposed text makes no mention of the key differences of an unstable reactor and of the lack of a containment building. We have four citations for those differences, and that satisfies NPOV. Simesa 4 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

I propose: "While the accident at Chernobly is not likely to be repeated (even in similar RBMK reactors due to design retrofitting and lessons learned) due to better designs and the presence of containment buildings, nuclear energy continues to have a higher degree of risk than the free market is willing to insure. - and for this reason, Price Anderson Indemnity continues to be necessary 30 years after it was intended to expire." Simesa 4 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

Respectfully, I can't support either version. They both assert disputed views as matters of fact. Wording without some attribution such as "X believes," or "Y says," won't be adequate. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

I should have included the four citations, but you're right - other statements are still unsupported. Let's see what citations Ben comes up with. Simesa 4 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Technically [20], Chernobyl was a "major accident". Simesa 4 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Certainly making progress - I would say I fully agree with this version - containment buildings are important - we get into a problem though in that the Russian designs have been retro-ed but are still not covered - irrelevent here excapt that we have dragged them in. So technically its untrue. I would suggest opening with the simpler text:

"While the accident at Chernobly is unlikely to be repeated, nuclear energy continues to have a higher degree of risk than the free market is willing to insure. Russian designs have been improved, US reactors are more stable AND have CONTAINMENT buildings, but still Price Anderson Indemnity continues to be necessary 30 years after it was intended to expire."

Do we agree the most difficult statement to support here is "Chernobly is unlikely to be repeated"?

And then couch it if necessary. Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

I can go with that text, preferably with wikilink. Simesa 4 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

I suggest the PBS page [21] as the reference for the first parts of the two sentences. I haven't found sources for the other two points yet. Simesa 4 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Mediater is asking who agrees to mediation. It seems we have a paragraph we should be able to agree on (yes we'll source it and link it no problem.) Also I wish _Necessary_ would be explained as in necessary for what - just necessary? or necessary to induce private participation? But its not a sticking point. Benjamin Gatti 4 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Honestly, I'll agree to whatever you 3 agree to. I can see both sides of the issue and I'm just trying to get everyone together. --Woohookitty 4 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

I'll post a note on RfM in a moment. Is this the only paragraph we're working on?

Well, there are two parts to "necessary". Price-Anderson as it currently exists will continue to cover all facilities that were licensed (I think it's licensed) up through 2002 - it won't go away for them. For new facilities to be covered, Price-Anderson would have to be extended. We should re-word the text a little - something like "but for new reactors to be built Price Anderson Indemnity still continues to be necessary 30 years after it was intended to expire." [The new DOE enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio probably also needs it, but that's a minor point.] Simesa 4 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have qualified the requirement. In my book, we can shut them all down tomorrow or buy insurance at market rates - i think necessary is too strong a word. Perhaps "But some 30 years after it was first intended to expire, the situation is much the same, no new nuclear facilities will be built without government Indemnity under Price Anderson." I think it explains the welfare angst, which is that what was intended as a help-up has become a permanent obligation. Benjamin Gatti 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I agree with ya there, Ben. There needs to be something that says that this was something that was created for one reason but is now used as a way to support the industry. You can say that for most subsidies. They started for a reason but then became permanent funds without regard for the original intent. It's not really criticism of the subsidy if it's put the right way. it's just the nature of the beast. How about "Some 30 years after it was intended to expire, the Price-Anderson Indemnity will still be used if a new nuclear facilty is constructed"? Bit better grammar. How does that sound? OK? --Woohookitty 5 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)

First Problem - Price isn't "used" - it's not a commodity. It is a legal framework which "Applies", "Indemnifies" "Insures" "Supports" "Subsidizes" "Favors" . You could say it would still be necessary if a new nuclear facility is constructed - but i oppose the word necessary. The situation is unchanged: No Insurance = No nuclear. Is that good? is it bad? doesn't imply either way. Necessary implies need - we don't need nuclear. We could use the words support and subsidize, as in "but after 45 years of corporate wellfare, the nuclear industry alone still requires the unequal support of a 3 Billion dollar subsidy which was promised would only last 10 years" - but that probably gets us to name calling and mediation. Benjamin Gatti

OK Well the problem with your wording is that it makes it sound like the situation was going to expire. :) How about "No nuclear facilities will be built without government Indemnity under Price Anderson, 30 years after the law was intended to expire". Same words you used. Different order. --Woohookitty 5 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)

$ per reactor under the P-ANIIA

Geoffrey Rothwell and Jeffrey Dubin (Geoffrey and Jeffrey!) argued that liability has been significantly reduced in Nuclear Power through "Price-Anderson Liability Limit and Preparing for the Improbable: Safety Incentives and the Price-Anderson Act. Abstract reads:

Between 1959 and 1982, the Price-Anderson Act placed a limit of $560 million on the liability of nuclear power plant operators for accidental damages. This limit grew to $7 billion due to the 1988 amendments to the act. This paper, using insurance premiums charged for the first $160 million of coverage and the Nuclear Regulatory commission's estimate of the probability of a worst-case loss, models the distribution of damages with a log-logistic density function. The study finds that the value of the Price-Anderson subsidy was $60 million per reactor year before 1982 but then dropped to $22 million per reactor following the 1988 amendments. (Geoffrey Scott Rothwell, "Subsidy to.

On the other hand, Anthony and Catherine Heyes (relation!), in their Subsidy to Nuclear Power through Price-Anderson Liability Limit: Comment, argue that:

Dubin and Rothwell (1990) use details of insurance premiums to develop a methodology for inferring the value to nuclear operators of the Price-Anderson liability limit from but misinterpret the terms of the insurance contracts for which the premiums are paid. This leads them to overstate the subsidy due to the limit by a factor of between four and ten.

How was this debate concluded, I wonder... was it? Have the figures changed in the last 15 years? Sorry if this was mentioned already. El_C 4 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

We had agreed that there was a subsidy but hadn't placed the amount in the text. $22 million times 104 reactors yields $2.3 billion, which is close to a $3 billion cited in one source. So the subsidy is probably between $230 million and $3 billion? Simesa 4 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)

I wonder how they arrived at those numbers. The whole point of Price-Anderson is that no one knew the maximum possible liable amount. Simesa 4 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

I believe we currently have a line in the current article stating that Public Citizen did a study in 1990 that found that the subsidy was worth about $3 billion annually. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 4, 2005 22:09 (UTC)

If I had access to this Oxford University Press' journal, I'd be able to review the methodology. That is close enough though, I suppose. The key point I'm interested is an historical one: did liability decrease to one third in the post-1982 period? Because that'd be noteworthy. El_C 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

The answer seems to be that industry coverage has increased sizeably. The following is from [22].

"The Price-Anderson Act, a 1957 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, limited liability for any single nuclear accident to $500 million in government funds, plus the maximum amount of liability insurance available in the private market—at that time, $60 million—for a $560 million total. Congress passed 10-year extensions of the law in 1967 and 1975, and a 15-year extension in 1988."

"The 1975 Revision. The 1975 revision established the system of coverage now in effect. The first level of coverage consisted of the liability insurance provided by private insurers—then $125 million. The second level provided that a $5 million maximum assessment per reactor could be imposed for each major accident, with a maximum of two accidents per plant per year. The federal government agreed to make up any difference between the amount of protection provided by the first two levels and the $560 million limit."

"Effective May 1, 1979, the first level of coverage reached $160 million. When the nation’s 80th reactor was licensed to operate in 1982, it brought the total of the second level of coverage to $400 million. With the first and second levels of coverage totaling $560 million—the limit stipulated in the Price-Anderson Act—the federal government’s indemnity role was phased out."

"The 1988 Revision. Under the 1988 revision, the secondary level—the maximum assessment per reactor that can be imposed for each major accident—was raised from $5 million to $66.2 million, plus adjustments for inflation at five-year intervals. The primary level of coverage was increased to $200 million shortly thereafter."

"In August 1998, the maximum retrospective assessment was adjusted again for inflation and increased to $88.1 million per reactor. These assessments would be prorated and would not exceed $10 million per reactor per year."

Simesa 5 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

So being fixed at $10 million p.a., does that mean 8 years to pay the full $88 million per reactor? How is this supposed to work? (I'm afraid the prorated bit eludes me). More generally, the figures could be easily skewed depending on the formula. The NEI is, of course, a highly partisan source, do we have any other studies to compare their figures with (or sources for their own findings?). El_C 5 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

I believe, if I'm remembering the GAO report correctly, that each reactor would have to pay $10 million per year until the $95.8 m individual cap is reached. I'll have to check that tomorrow, or you may like to read through the GAO report if you have time. It's linked off the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 5, 2005 02:48 (UTC)

As has been previously cited, the language leaves plenty of wiggle-room for the Nuclear commission to decide who will actually pay if necessary - what it makes absolutely clear is that it won't be the people responsible - the plant owners, the engineers' who design for positive void coefficient etc... Strangely the act systematicaly disables all of the intelligence built into both market system, and insurance systems. There is no incentive to build safer - only to build less safer plants - why - because a bigger reactor can amortize the 88Million over more saleable KWh - is bigger safer? no, the opposite, Yield is a factor of fuel available, which is higher for larger reactors. So in at least three way, the Price Anderson encourages less safe reactors, to say nothing of safe renewale options. The Government Indemnity is phased out - limiting the liability to collect from reactors under the law is a form of indemnity in which the poor victim is twice victimized. The only way to estimate the value it would seem is to let nuclear plants buy insurance on the open market. The fact (as we have asserted) that they cannot suggests that the value is infinite. Benjamin Gatti 5 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Woohoo watches as this subject goes way over its head -- Woohookitty 5 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Yes, I BELIEVE that pro-rated means that IF CLAIMS REQUIRE each reactor will pay $10 million a year up to a total of $95.8 million (unless, as a result of high claims, Congress assesses more) PER ACCIDENT. True, NEI is partisan - I apologize, I didn't think to look for a second source (here is a not-pro-nuclear one [23]). I hope the text above also answers your question about 1982.

BTW, Price-Anderson is about to be amended again. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has passed both houses of Congress and is headed for joint committee for reconciliation. I didn't delve for the details as nothing is firm until the House and Senate reconcile the bill. Simesa 5 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Thanks. On a glance, the figures seem to, more or less, match. I presume that the "$83.9 million per reactor per accident" cited (v. NEI's $88.1 million), are due to the "possible 5 percent surcharge for legal costs"...? So, any word on what's planned for the 2005 ammendment? El_C 5 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

I think, but don't have a source for, that the differing amounts are due to "plus adjustments for inflation at five-year intervals" counting from 1988 (from above).

The only change I've read about is a 15 or 20 year extension [24] - but I'm confident there are more just based on the size of the section in the table of contents ( [25], Title VI). It's a massive bill, and unfinished, so I didn't download it. Simesa 5 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Ah, I see. If I could backtrack though, you were projecting above that liability per reactor (out of 104 reactors) is $~30 million (or so), but then we're looking at ~$80 million (NEI, et al.). Could you explain this discrapency to me (I'm probably missing something really simple). Thanks for all your time. El_C 5 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing two numbers.

As of 1988, the primary insurance was $200 million combined with $66.2 million assessments each in the event of a major accident. That $66.2M was to be adjusted for inflation every 5 years. That has grown to the $95.8 million Katefan0 found in the GAO report.

The (contested) calculated benefit to each reactor was $22 million in 1982. That must have been how much more they estimated the necessary insurance would have cost.

(BTW - the calculated benefit is an "avoided cost" by the reactor. No money actually changes hands, unless there is a major accident where claims exceed the pool.)

Simesa 5 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

Just to point out - an avoided cost is a real competative advantage, and this subsidy has pushed aside investments in alternatives, so it hardly matters whether the benefit is cash out of pocket or liability out of pocket - it has the market overriding effect just the same. Liability is a fungible comodity which is only more difficult to grasp because you can't buy an ice cream cone with it. But look at GM, they built a business by making promises to Unions that they couldn't keep (retirement and health care mostly) now those retirees realize that they were traded high risk compensation in exchange for low risk labour. liability is quite transactable. The liabilities of one energy may not be the same as the liabilities of another, but each prime energy has its risks, and when those risks are removed by fiat, then the competative advantages of each are replaced by the will of the government - that is a form of political economics and it has a name. Benjamin Gatti 5 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it's designed for a major accident. But you said, and I quote,

$22 million times 104 reactors yields $2.3 billion, which is close to a $3 billion cited in one source. So the subsidy is probably between $230 million and $3 billion?

. Which is seen to follow R&D's findings that the

value of the Price-Anderson subsidy was $60 million per reactor year [?] before 1982 but then dropped to $22 million per reactor following the 1988 amendments

. Now, you seem to be implying that R&D got it wrong since the ~$60 million did not drop, and remained adjusted to inflation so as to reach the ~$80 million per reactor today. You are saying this a matter of differing valuations of insurance costs? Could you better clarify the first passage I cited (your first projection) in relation to the ~$60/~$80 million per reactor? Thanks in advance. El_C 5 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

The $66.2 million refers to assessments the reactor would have to pay. The $22 million in 1982, I don't know what that would be today. The Consumer Price Index has almost exactly doubled since 1982 [26] so I suppose the calculated benefit today would be double the $22 million as well? Simesa 5 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

No idea, just trying to follow your train of thought as per 22 million times 104 reactors yields $2.3 billion, which is close to a $3 billion cited in one source. This is all new to me. El_C 5 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help answer some questions. From the GAO report on PAA: In 1975, the Price-Anderson Act was amended to require licensees to pay a pro-rated share of the damages in excess of the primary insurance amount. Under this amendment, each licensee would pay up to $5 million in retrospective premiums per facility it owned per incident if a nuclear accident resulted in damages exceeding the amount of primary insurance coverage. In 1988, the act was further amended to increase the maximum retrospective premium to $63 million per reactor per incident to be adjusted by NRC for inflation. The amendment also limited the maximum annual retrospective premium per reactor to $10 million. Under the act, NRC is to adjust the maximum amount of retrospective premiums every 5 years using the aggregate change in the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers. In August 2003, NRC set the current maximum retrospective payment at $95.8 million per reactor per incident. With 103 operating nuclear power plants, this secondary insurance pool would total about $10 billion.

This also partially helps explain what happens if that $10 billion cap is exceeded, also from GAO:

The Price-Anderson Act also provides a process to deal with incidents in which the damages exceed the primary and secondary insurance coverage. Under the act, NRC shall survey the causes and extent of the damage and submit a report on the results to, among others, the Congress and the courts. The courts must determine whether public liability exceeds the liability limits available in the primary insurance and secondary retrospective premiums. Then the President would submit to the Congress an estimate of the financial extent of damages, recommendations for additional sources of funds, and one or more compensation plans for full and prompt compensation for all valid claims. In addition, NRC can request the Congress to appropriate funds. The most serious incident at a U.S. nuclear power plant took place in 1979 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station in Pennsylvania. That incident has resulted in $70 million in liability claims.

Sorry for all the text, but it's a good explainer and directly bears on what we're talking about. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 5, 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Katefan0. I confess to still being un clear on how R&D arrived at the $22 million figure, though. El_C 5 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

If anyone thought that the highest possible liability was $70M, then nuclear reactors would only need as much insurance as a single block of houses. The undisputed fact is that the industry - based on its own expertise - does not believe the risk is acceptable for its own monied interests - but somehow the same risk is acceptable to impose on the people who live near nuclear plants and the transporation routes that serve them. Personally, I doubt that we can fix even the avoided cost of insurance, because the potential for liabiity - as calculated from the raw fuel present at a single site multiplied by the worst case effect of that fuel on a population is probably so high that insurance of any amount whatsoever, may STILL leave the industry exposed. Even an airplane crash - aside from a malicious one - is somewhat limited in damage to the people on board + people on the ground in a limited crash zone - so the liability exposure of a nuclear plant I believe eclipses all other industries. Benjamin Gatti 5 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)

No one thinks $70M is the max, but I'll dispute your pov statements. As for your worst case, that's why we have containment buildings. You might also check out the Bhopal Disaster, which killed 14,000 and injured up to 600,000. Simesa 5 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Pending Changes to Price-Anderson

It appears (from [27], choose the last Senate version and go to Title VI) that only a few changes are pending for Price-Anderson. First, the Act would be extended to December 31st, 2025. The secondary insurance (the pool assessments) is being changed to $95.8 million. The annual payment is being upped from $10 million to $15 million adjusted every 5 years for inflation. There are some minor wording changes, and some changes for DOE contractors. Note that this bill hasn't completed its journey through Congress yet. Simesa 5 July 2005 21:58 (UTC) - Revised: Simesa 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Simesa. Could you please fix the link? When do you estimate the ammendments to the Act to pass? El_C 5 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

I fixed the link - the webpages aren't too long. I mis-read section 170t - it's every 5 years. I don't know Washington well enough to predict when the bill will be signed, but I think it's a done deal. Simesa 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

It's not, actually. The energy bill is one of many big ticket bills that could slip because of the anticipated fight over replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 02:39 (UTC)

And on this, Kate is the word of God. ;-) --Woohookitty 6 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

Resolution

Discussion has slowed, I think consensus has coalesced regarding the assertion that chernobly isn't likely. It would seem valuable to wrap this up while the issues and their solutions are fresh in the collective mind. I think it is more important that we agree on a formula for going forward than that we agree on a specific sentence however, because other sentences will emerge and we'll end up deadlocked again.

Can we agree that any factual assertion which is disputed by non-original research will not use the unqualified authoritative voice? And that because I have shown evidence of government coverups in the past - again by non-original research - that the government will not be treated as an unassailable trust-worthy source on this national security related topic - provided the objection is WP:NOR? (And that means no more Conspiracy Theory remarks)?

Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

Well, now that we've asked for a Mediator, I'd just as soon go through that process. What's the hurry? However, if you want to post a proposed article we can certainly discuss it. Simesa 6 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)

I think it would seem to a mediator that the parties have reached consensus on the issue posed. If you are asking for a general purpose mediator, then I think we owe to them to at least define the issue to be resolved. I have stated a general position I would like to see supported - perhaps even as policy - that on matters where the government has a history of being cagy we don't accept their citations are authoritative.

How closely do we agree on the view that DOE was under pressure to indemnify GE and Westinghouse in order for them to build power reactors, that the "concern" over public compensation was not tangible since there is no evidence of any real risk, nor of any public pressure to address the risk. I don't know about you, but i rarely see government address problems without a lot of pressure. So it appreas that the compensation angle is mere window dressing in order to "sell" the plant to the public. As a long term plan it wasn't horrible, it assumed rapid growth of nukes, and after the 6th plant it would seem the government would almost be relieved of its burden, and in ten years it hoped private insurance would take over. All of this occured during a cold war, and a nuclear fear, and the conclusion of the SCOTUS that it was more important smacks of wartime mentality, by 1970, conservation hits, all plants are stalled, TMI and Cherny occur, and that's about the end of nuklear, so the Price plan didn't mature on schedule, now - when we're not in a nuclear arms race, we've got a legacy framework which should have expired but didn't and we find that we still need it, but we don't have the same compelling argument - ie now we say "its clean" vs - we can't let the russians beat us to cheap power. Nobody can explain whay we need it - it contradicts the idea that nuclear is safe now, but the market is mature, and so the cost of insurance cannot be built in to the price, so we punt and just keep the temporary solution because without it the industry ceases to exists - as was always the case.

So is that close - or not? Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Possibility of Mediation

I haven't read everything, just took a hasty glance. At the moment I'm basing everything on a single edit, so I may be wildly wrong. Nonetheless, please bear with me for a moment.

Ben made the following edit:

However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.] Truly we are thrilled to hear it - but its your opiion, and even as a lifelong nuclear engineer, this is not the place for your first published research - where is a cite stating AUTHORITATIVELY which is verifyable and undisputed that the damage would be less. The only fact which could satisfy this assertion is that there is substantially LESS fuel loaded in the reactor. - otherwise things can happen, a spaceship crashes into a containment vessel, a terrorist (strikeout markup added by Uncle Ed for this example)

Without prejudice to the issue, I would just venture to say that discussing the article in the text of the article has not been shown to work well at Wikipedia. Nor have "Edit summary" discussions. We made talk pages for this. So, everybody, please TALK about this.

If you all want to choose me as a Mediator, you'd have to agree to let me give advice like the following:

Avoid sarcasm completely ("thrilled to hear it")
Don't bother the reader with dispute notices embedded in the text.
Do point out instances wherein the article asserts a POV.
- All points of view, in controversial articles, need to be sourced. For example, which engineering studies (or political pundits) have predicted that the scale of the disaster likely would be less?
- If something is common sense, it won't be disputed! No one pushes the POV that water runs uphill or that GPS satellites are impractical because there's no way to orbit the flat earth.

So, how about it? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 11:24 (UTC)

I accept Uncle Ed as a Mediator. Simesa 6 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

I agree if the following are upheld / recognized:

The authoritative voice must not assert a POV.
The Government is/has a POV the same as any other source.
The Government(s) has an agenda with nuclear, ie weapons and global competition - from common sense.
Sources which use weasel words are not authoritative.
Common sense is limited with nuclear energy and risk subsidies because so few people understand it or care - They want to trust the government on this one, and it is exactly the purpose of a free press to deny the government the benefit of the doubt. So i would suggest that we agree to source everything rather than get in POV arguments about what is common sense and what is disputable. No-one so far is disputing the plainly obvious.

Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

I have misgivings about Benjamin's caveats. He essentially is couching them such as to, from the outset, cast doubt on nonpartisan, nonideological research done by government-funded research bodies like the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service about fundamental, fact-based information on the historical beginnings of the Price-Anderson Act (see our discussions above). His POV is that the government can't be trusted, so even nonpartisan sources that do nothing but summarize the facts behind the historicity of the PAA can't be cited authoritatively, as the text currently does. I could understand more if he could produce a source that proved the information wrong, but so far he hasn't. Anyway, with these caveats we are already getting into the meat of the discussions that need to be had -- I think they are detrimental to a good result with mediation given that this has been one of the main sticking points. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

I have provided cites showing that the government has engaged in cover-ups on this subject. Without suggesting that the government is evil or always lies, there is strong evidence that all governments are less than frank about their nuclear status including accidents - so add this:

To be NPOV the assertion must be both positive and verifyable - which rules out negative and exclusive assertions, even if cited. For example - any suggestion that the "only reason for Price is to provide a pool to compenate victims" is an exclusive assertion - which is a form of negative assertion because it asserts the absence of alternatives. (an NPOV loophole perhaps).
NPOV is non-negotiable.
Censorship is even worse.

Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

I'll accept Ed Pool as a mediator and to be bound by the decision on the single issue for which mediation was requested - if Kate is now asking for mediation on the boundaries of NPOV and other things - that's fine, and I'll be happy to participate as a respondant. And i concur that this dialogue reflects the conflict. which in short is that no source is above NPOV, not the GOA, not the Pope, not even Jimmy Wales. NPOV is a contract with the reader and with the community of editors and is the basis on which contributions have been accepted. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Look, this is deconstructive. If we all agree to abide by NPOV then we'll be fine. But it's worse than useless to use the terms of mediation to rehash the very debates we already can't agree on. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

I agree to participate and to Uncle Ed. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need to clarify that we're asking Uncle Ed to mediate the entire article. Simesa 6 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

You people get up too early. Anyway. :) Just wanted to say that I also accept Uncle Ed. I've been here mostly to try to keep everyone in check. I'll continue to try to do that. I accept. --Woohookitty 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Statement by Mediator

If you all have accepted me as your Mediator, shall we create a subpage and do this on the wiki? Or by private e-mail?

Also, is the dispute limited to a single passage, or does it encompass the entire article?

Regardless of your answers to the above, I must insist that no one regard anyone else as being bound by the outcome of this Mediation. I am not an agent of the arbitration committee, and this is not binding arbitration. If everyone is satisfied with the results, then Mediation will end with a happy, mutually acceptable and stable outcome.

All my previous mediations have been successful. They have never been a "step" along the path to an arbcom ruling. Anyone who predicts or hopes it will, speak up now. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Simesa's point is noted. I think a wiki is fine. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be the entire article. I'm happy to have you mediate, Uncle Ed. And doing it here on a subpage should be fine (easier, probably, too). Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 18:44 (UTC)

I'm in, for the entire article, and on a subpage is fine. Thank you. Simesa 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Mediation1 Benjamin Gatti

As of this moment, I get red text and a blank page. Simesa 6 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Just git started. I suggest that you start by specify your concerns.

I suggest that we wait for Ed to set up the mediation in standard fashion, whatever that might be. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Glad to see that Ed is here as the official mediator. You're in good hands. Goodluck, everyone! El_C 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

~~Note: A moderated "consensus version" of the article is at Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated.~~

Actually, the "moderated" thing never bore any fruit. But it developed insights, which we shall now all apply. Uncle Ed 13:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have provided cites showing that the government has engaged in cover-ups on this subject. Without suggesting that the government is evil or always lies, there is strong evidence that all governments are less than frank about their nuclear status including accidents - so add this:

To be NPOV the assertion must be both positive and verifyable - which rules out negative and exclusive assertions, even if cited. For example - any suggestion that the "only reason for Price is to provide a pool to compenate victims" is an exclusive assertion - which is a form of negative assertion because it asserts the absence of alternatives. (an NPOV loophole perhaps).
NPOV is non-negotiable.
Censorship is even worse.

Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)

I'll accept Ed Poor as a mediator and to be bound by the decision on the single issue for which mediation was requested - if Kate is now asking for mediation on the boundaries of NPOV and other things - that's fine, and I'll be happy to participate as a respondant. And i concur that this dialogue reflects the conflict. which in short is that no source is above NPOV, not the GOA, not the Pope, not even Jimmy Wales. NPOV is a contract with the reader and with the community of editors and is the basis on which contributions have been accepted. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Look, this is deconstructive. If we all agree to abide by NPOV then we'll be fine. But it's worse than useless to use the terms of mediation to rehash the very debates we already can't agree on. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 16:03 (UTC)

I agree to participate and to Uncle Ed. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we need to clarify that we're asking Uncle Ed to mediate the entire article. Simesa 6 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

You people get up too early. Anyway. :) Just wanted to say that I also accept Uncle Ed. I've been here mostly to try to keep everyone in check. I'll continue to try to do that. I accept. --Woohookitty 6 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Statement by Mediator

If you all have accepted me as your Mediator, shall we create a subpage and do this on the wiki? Or by private e-mail?

Also, is the dispute limited to a single passage, or does it encompass the entire article?

Regardless of your answers to the above, I must insist that no one regard anyone else as being bound by the outcome of this Mediation. I am not an agent of the arbitration committee, and this is not binding arbitration. If everyone is satisfied with the results, then Mediation will end with a happy, mutually acceptable and stable outcome.

All my previous mediations have been successful. They have never been a "step" along the path to an arbcom ruling. Anyone who predicts or hopes it will, speak up now. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Simesa's point is noted. I think a wiki is fine. Benjamin Gatti 6 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be the entire article. I'm happy to have you mediate, Uncle Ed. And doing it here on a subpage should be fine (easier, probably, too). Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 18:44 (UTC)

I'm in, for the entire article, and on a subpage is fine. Thank you. Simesa 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Mediation1 Benjamin Gatti

As of this moment, I get red text and a blank page. Simesa 6 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Just git started. I suggest that you start by specify your concerns.

I suggest that we wait for Ed to set up the mediation in standard fashion, whatever that might be. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 6, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Glad to see that Ed is here as the official mediator. You're in good hands. Goodluck, everyone! El_C 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

The Zero-revert Rule

Those who follow these 2 simple rules will avoid edit wars:

Anyone may take out anything they disagree with - provided they discuss it.
Nobody is allowed to "revert" a text move. (this is the zero-RR)

Dispute over pool

Cut from into:

It also makes available a pool ^{[dubious – discuss]} of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident.

During the Mediation, one or more people said that this sentence was a problem. Uncle Ed 13:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

~~Note: A moderated "consensus version" of the article is at Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated. The rules there are:~~

Anyone may take out anything they disagree with - provided they discuss it.

Nobody is allowed to "revert" a text move. (this is the zero-RR)

~~Discuss this proposal on the Mediation page. Uncle Ed 15:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)~~

Actually, the "moderated" thing never bore any fruit. But it developed insights, which we shall now all apply. Uncle Ed 13:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over pool

Cut from into:

It also makes available a pool ^{[dubious – discuss]} of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident.

During the Mediation, one or more people said that this sentence was a problem. Uncle Ed 13:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ben said so, but it's better than the inaccurate line "The Act promises taxpayer-backed indemnity for extraordinary nuclear incidents while providing for limited compensation to victims". Simesa 00:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Text Move - Chernobyl

However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [28] [29] [30] [31] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.]

We (ie the mediator and i) agreed that this statement is a disputed assertion - which cannot be stated without identifying the source. Benjamin Gatti

Simesa, Since we had already agreed on a paragraph which conveys this info - let's put it here in a final form, and perhaps have Ed move it onto the main page. Benjamin Gatti

I gave you four sources and an NRC source in [32] The line "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less" is correct, as are the reasons " the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them." If you can find better wording for that, I'll look at it. Simesa 19:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"Many nuclear physicists hope and pray that a nuclear accident in the United would have less impact that chernobly, however, the industry remains unwilling to accept the risk." Benjamin Gatti

If that is what you call a serious response, then I insist on the original wording. Simesa 23:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there might be a touch of irreverence in that - i really ony meant the form. Perhaps "Due to differences in design and the presence of containment buildings, many nuclear physicists maintain that the meltdown at chernobly and its widespread aftermath are unlikely to be repeated in the United States; however, the potential for a serious incident remains high enough that the industry is unwilling to accept full liaility. Benjamin Gatti

You are repeating things already said to again push your pov. A more accurate statement is:

"However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believes [33] that a similar event in non-Soviet reactors would likely have smaller consequences due to safer reactor designs and the presence of containment buildings."

09:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well that is certainly better. The phrase "a similar event" is disturbing to me from a factual standpoint. Since US reactors don't use the Graphite Moderator/ water cooled strategy - exactly "What Happened" at chernobyl realistically couldn't happen in a different design. There are however (I presume) events which could involve the conversion of the available fuel into heat in a finite space of time as well as siesmic and malicious incidents. The point that I intend to see represented is that the industry itself is the "lucy goosey" saying the sky is falling etc. That it's not just a bunch of naive schitzos who think nuclear energy is too dangerous to accept the risk/benefit - but that the industry itself, with surely the most informed persons in their employ - concludes that the level of risk is unacceptable and continues to offer a less than market rate return on risk. Benjamin Gatti

As long as that viewpoint is backed up by cites, and noot just your pov. Simesa 09:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed "[A catastrophic nuclear event — such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident — would arguably deplete and likely exceed the current pool of money. Though the Soviet Union never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, Greenpeace International estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims." pending resolution of Chernobyl phrases. Simesa 09:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Text move from intro (DOE subsidy)

The Department of Energy has described it as a subsidy for investors.

This is strictly true, but not fair in the way in which it was presented in the intro. The intro already reads that the law has been criticized as a handout to the industry; we don't need to pile on in the intro. This can be (and I believe is) mentioned elsewhere in the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intro text move: "reduces"

reduces

To say that the law "reduces" the insurance required to be carried by the industry is not strictly correct, because it implies that before the law there were other specific standards for the industry that were greater. I don't think this is correct. I believe the correct verb should be limits. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Shifts ... to the U.S. taxpayer" is also not correct, as it implies that there was a nuclear insurance industry pre-PAA. I have replaced it with "limits." · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:29, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly liability laws existed before Price - under such, corporations would be liable for the harm they caused others - Price shifts this burden from the corp to the taxpayer - its straight up factual. Benjamin Gatti

None that strictly applied to the nuclear industry. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Or that applied stricktly to the haircut and stormdoor industry - or to a hundred other "industries". Industrial Liability is a fairly general concept for a good reason and that is that it treats everyone the same (kind of a tenant of our constitution). "Special rules for special "industries" often have the effect of picking winners - particularly when it applies to sub-industries (Energy is an industry - Fussion is a sub.) Why does that matter? Because fusion competes with others in the energy industry - but with special advantages handed out by a bribed congress. Benjamin Gatti

Regardless, if there were no laws that strictly applied to the nuclear industry, and then Congress enacted one for the first time, it's not accurate to say that law "reduced" liability for that industry since specific statute didn't exist beforehand. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

There were laws. They applied to the nuclear industry. And they were strict. Perhaps you mean "Exclusively"? Very few laws do that. Benjamin Gatti

Other non-industry-specific indemnity laws, you mean? Can you point me to some information on what the differences are? · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think other non-industry-specific liability laws are what you are looking for. Every state has their own, and they say roughly that if you harm someone you have to put them back in the condition they werein before you harmed tham. In addition punative damages cover gross negligence (think McDonalds and Coffee), plus pain and suffering, and treble damages for organized lawbreaking. Benjamin Gatti

Intro text move: "criminally negligent"

even if the reactor operator is crimminally negligent

This information is strictly correct, but I don't think it's entirely fair to include it in the intro. This isn't an enormous part of the law, it's one provision among many, and I dont' think it rises to the level of importance as the liability caps or public idemnification the law created (or the general criticism even). In my opinion, to include it in the intro is basically just a subtle way of asserting a POV. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

And to remove it having admitted to it's being factual is a subtle way of censoring a POV. NPOV is neither an affirmation nor a censoring of a substantial POV. Benjamin Gatti

It's not censorship -- the information is mentioned later in the article. But including it in the intro elevates it to a position that isn't warranted, and tends to make the intro biased. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I really wish we could stop the "buzzwords". Chernobyl, censorship and Holocaust. Just because things are removed that don't belong in the INTRO isn't "censorship". The intro will lack some facts because...it's an intro. it's not the meat of the article. --Woohookitty 00:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Again I would argue that it is an enormously important part of the Act - if you don't "get that" then you're probably not a heavy investor in the business. The risk of bad actors plagues every investment of every size - look at Enron, Worldcom etc - having the government step in an say - ah - this investment shall be freed of that risk - is enormous. Now I want to build a wind turbine, i have to concern myself with not hiring crooks to do the project accounting - but if i operate a nuclear facility - i could hire the Taliban to run the place - and wouldn't be financially accountable for the result. That's pretty freaking enormous if you ask the victims. Benjamin Gatti

Moved: regardless of fault or negligence -- exact same meaning. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is an item of some dispute. There are those who, clearly, would say that having the criminal negligence clause is necessary. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that the industry found it was necessary to include it in the BBill and lobbyied long and hard for the language they felt was necessary. I would suggest that our article ought to faithfully inform both industry and potwntial victims of the unique legal framework which the act imposes. Benjamin Gatti

For Ed -- I object (gaming the system)

I made a text move of Benjamin's earlier addition of information saying "even if the reactor operator is crimminally negligent" [34]. One of your rules for mediation was not to revert a text move. Benjamin didn't revert, but he did re-add information that conveys the same message: "regardless of fault or negligence" [35]. I object to this and would like to bring it to Ed's attention. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest blandly that a sentence which includes the word "criminal" cannot pretend to compare with a sentence which does not. Surely the most objectional word in the phrase you "text moved" has not been reinserted. If you still object (which perhaps you do) By all means move the new phrase and discuss it. I would remind you that "Criminally Negligent" are Ed's words. I support him on his excellent choice. Benjamin Gatti

Archiving

I did a third archive. Everything here is "post moderated" if that makes sense. --Woohookitty 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Note for Ed

Simesa mentioned this on the moderated talk but just so its here too...the article should be reprotected when Ed leaves for a week or else chaos will ensue, I assure you. :) "Inmates running the asylum" is a good term for it. --Woohookitty 00:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New rules

Let's not be hasty and start accusing each other of things like:

over-zealously applying text moves.
gaming the system

It takes a while to get used to the new rules. We might want to adopt a convention which says that when A moves some text which B wrote (or otherwise approves), then B is not allowed to replace it with something similar. Rather, A and B both should agree on a formulation which satisfies them both.

And maybe even C should be the one to replace the mutually acceptable version.

Try to work it out. Aim for unbiased text which does not take sides but which describes both sides. Uncle Ed 01:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I stand by my original statement. Do you disagree that those kinds of edits are counter to the text move rules you established? I ask not to be obstreperous but to have a clear ruling on how exactly we are to interpret your rules. Is it considered a "revert" of a text move if we reword a sentence to use different words that convey the same meaning of a disputed item that was moved prior? · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

My only problem is...as we've said before...this article is already mostly criticism. So we're walking a fine line here. The language that Ben wants is going to have to not sound like criticisms of Price-Anderson. Otherwise, we're going to take a tilted article and make it into a near diatribe. I wish myself that we would ban the buzzwords I mentioned earlier because they don't get us anywhere. They are just derisive and dividing. --Woohookitty 02:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Answering Katefan's question: the guidelines I suggested are intended to get editors to cooperate. Instead of going back and forth in the article until one side gives up from sheer exhaustion - work it out on the talk page. Find a way of discussing the disputed point which both sides can agree on.

This frequently means describing the disagreement. Here are several examples, all non-nuclear:

China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province, while many in the United States regard it as an independent country.
Some Americans think abortion is a woman's right, a decision entirely between her and her doctor. Others think that during its gestation the fetus is already a human being, so that killing it is tantamount to homicide.
Until the 17th century, natural philosophers believed that the Sun revolved around an immobile Earth. Galileo revived the idea that the Earth and other planets each revolve around the Sun.
A doctor in late-nineteenth-century Vienna got the idea that an invisible substance carried on one's hands was lethal to women giving birth. He insisted that physicians wash their hands thoroughly after conducting autopsies - instead of just wiping their hands on a cloth. The other doctors obeyed but resented this. They dismissed the first doctor's claims that the hand-washing practice was saving women's lives. (Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur followed this up with the germ theory of disease - think of Listerine mouthwash and pasteurization of milk.)
Some people think "cults" brainwash recruits. Others think that new members undergo a genuine religious conversion.
Some Americans think that Bush was right to invade Iraq. They believe his description of Iraq as a dictatorship and of Saddam as a cruel tyrant capable of using poison gas or other WMD for aggressive military purposes. Others think that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. They variously regard reducing tyranny in a sovereign as none of America's business; or Saddam as less tyrannical or threatening as Bush thought. In particular, they point to the failure of US forces to discovery enough WMD to justify a pre-emptive invasion.

All of the above is, I believe, perfectly balanced and neutral. You should not even be able to tell which "side" (if any) the writer himself (hi! that would be me ;-) advocates, merely by reading the text. See also Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy.

Now I'm going on vacation till August 1st. Please find a way to cooperate on writing a neutral yet comprehensive article.

Please weigh in

History

Offer of Compromise

Categories

It occurs to me that Price was intended to overcome - temporary barriors- to comercialization

Arbitration request withdrawn

Objection - request for consensus

Chernobyl vs. Western Reactors

Protected

Taking the sources one by one

The Second - university of pittsburg

replies

Simesa Replies

Request for Mediation

You know

Improper page protection

Citation disputing the existence of the Pool as a real thing.

Mediation

Archive

$ per reactor under the P-ANIIA

Pending Changes to Price-Anderson

Resolution

Possibility of Mediation

Statement by Mediator

Statement by Mediator

The Zero-revert Rule

Dispute over pool

Dispute over pool

Text Move - Chernobyl

Text move from intro (DOE subsidy)

Intro text move: "reduces"

Intro text move: "criminally negligent"

For Ed -- I object (gaming the system)

Archiving

Note for Ed

New rules