Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Mediation1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Katefan0 -- a quick thumbnail

I came here as a result of an RFC listed by Simesa asking for some NPOV eyes on Benjamin Gatti's edits (and his own, too, of course). I have no particular axe to grind or bone to pick except making sure the article is NPOV. My involvement has mainly been trying to help Benjamin understand NPOV and trying to help him properly insert the criticsm he thought was necessary, while attempting to rein in some of his anti-nuke POV. I anticipate that, similarly, my involvement in this mediation will come in the form of answering the things Benjamin thinks needs to be changed, although I will try to keep an open mind.

Primarily, the change he has sought that I have fought against most recently is that Benjamin thinks the GAO information on the historicity of the Price-Anderson Act (the "history" or "background" section, can't remember now what it's called) should not be stated authoritatively. That, rather, it should say "According to government documents," or "According to the GAO," which tends to cast doubt on the information in much the same fashion as with an interest group's opinion. My own feeling -- backed up by standard Wikipedia practices, I think -- is that the GAO is a nonpartisan, nonideological research organization and that its information is quite accurate. As such it's fine to use it as a source for this type of information without attribution, as long as an in-line link is cited, which it is. The specifics of the information being summarized is factual on its base -- it isn't describing a debate or characterizing an opinion, it's simply the facts behind the creation of the Price-Anderson Act, which make Benjamin's objections even more confusing to me.

I also tend to feel that the criticsm section is a bit overstuffed as it stands now, though it would be fairly easy to consolidate when the bulk of the issues are resolved.

In a nutshell. I'll have more to say, I'm sure, as Benjamin airs his side. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 01:37 (UTC)

Ed, I don't mean to be contrary out of the starting blocks, but I have a minor quibble with your summarization of my main point -- I never said it was insulting or demeaning, I said it was improper/wrong. But I have no emotional involvement in whether the GAO information is characterized in the way in which Benjamin desires. Also, isn't "pronouncements" a bit loaded? · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 02:03 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. One of the functions of rewording something is to see whether it's been made clear. Obviously, I didn't get it - and I'm not blaming YOU for that. Lemme try again, please. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 02:50 (UTC)

Historical catalysts for the PAA

Ed, I'd like to try to deconstruct Benjamin's problem with the "background" information.

Benjamin asked below: Ed, What is the policy on articles expressing "assertions" made in government documents? The information he primarily is referencing is the sentence in the article that begins: "No one was interested in building a nuclear power plant."

The pertinent portion of the GAO report reads: 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.

There was an earlier version where I had added "Government and industry experts said no one was interested ...", but somehow that got removed along the way. I wouldn't oppose re-inserting that wording (I never intended for it to be taken out anyway).

That also helps deal with Benjamin's "verifiability" issues -- I can provide ample source evidence that backs up this sentence, even though I personally feel the GAO report's summation of the historical reasoning behind PAA is enough.

Supporting evidence

From the Congressional Record, pp 10712-10719, House floor speeches made July 1, 1957, about the bill that would become the PAA:

Mr. Price, one of the original sponsors: "The extremely small possibility of these very large damages has concerned those who would participate in the field to the point where this kind of protection [i.e. the PAA] is necessary for them, in order to have the field go forward."

Mr. Cole of NY: "All of the sponsors, private utility companies, private corporations, of a reactor program have insisted that without this assurance of some limitation on their liability they would not start in motion the reactors which they have in process of construction. During the hearings on this bill recently all the reactor sponsors without exception insisted that they would not push the initial button to start the reactor going until they knew just where they stood with respect to public liability." [...] "We bring it [the bill] to you now for your consideration with the recommendation that it be adopted because without it private participation in the atomic program will grind to a dead but certain halt."

There are others who expressed these same sentiments, but I think these are fine as an example of the speeches given.

During Joint Atomic Energy hearings on atomic development held Feb. 7 - March 5, 1956, Francis K. McCune, General Electric Co. VP, said "The gravest problem now facing the atomic energy business is that of liability for the consequences of an atomic incident." Philip Sporn of Nuclear Power Group Inc. said "within a very short time, nearly all non-federal activities will be badly delayed and some even stopped completely, unless the third party liability program is faced immediately." Ambrose B. Kelly, general counsel of Associated Factory Mutual Fire Insurance Company, said "despite the efforts of the insurance industry, which has organized three ... syndicates for atomic energy risks with a capacity beyond that ever offered industry ... the lack of complete protection against crushing financial loss is a brake on our entire atomic power program." H. R. Searing, chairman of the board of ConEdison of NY, said the insurance problem "should be resolved in order to encourage interested companies to go forward." Once the hearings were concluded, the committee itself said it was apparent that "the problem of liability in connection with the operation of reactors is a deterrent to further industrial participation in the program." (1956 Congressional Quarterly Almanac Vol. XII, pp 542-554)

It is clear to me from this primary and secondary source information that the GAO's summation is correct. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin's response

(Guessing where best to respond) I would like to note the emphasis right out of the box is on the need for indemnity - I maintain that was the chief intent and purpose - and to suggest that the authors primary goal was to "create a pool to compensate victims" when clearly - the intent was to REDUCE the pool - that is to remove the assets of GE and Westinghouse from the available pool of resources for compensating victims is playing along with the government's POV.

I provided very similar quotes from GE and Westinghouse voices - these support my contention that the weight of the evidence supports the assertion as fact that the "intent" of Price was to protect the industry financially - at the expense of the victims in the event of a nuclear mishap. I therefore object to asserting the effect or the intent is otherwise. What this says in laymen's terms is that nuclear energy is too expensive for the free market. Benjamin Gatti

• "But financial backers were unwilling to risk the enormous financial liability that would result from a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant, so no-one was interested in building a plant."

Too unverifiable facts: "Backers were unwilling" - we know some were, but the statement goes beyond what we know - into what we presume the data we have suggests. Can I take the same liberty? doubt it - so this is out. "no-one was interested " Again - unverifiable projection of facts, or the unveryfiable assertions (opinions) of third parties. Its a waste of toilet paper to accude me of inserting improperly sourced opinions, if others are permitted to insert this - one standard for all is appropriate. Benjamin Gatti

Response

I would like to note the emphasis right out of the box is on the need for indemnity - I maintain that was the chief intent and purpose - and to suggest that the authors primary goal was to "create a pool to compensate victims" when clearly - the intent was to REDUCE the pool - that is to remove the assets of GE and Westinghouse from the available pool of resources for compensating victims is playing along with the government's POV. (Benjamin's text)

First, this gets to a fundamental misunderstanding I fear we will have through the balance of this discussion: Benjamin's words "I maintain." Respectfully, his opinions are irrelevant. As are mine. It's clear to me, and Benjamin has pretty much admitted this already, that he is on a quest for the truth. But even in the best of times, that's a subjective thing. Accordingly, Wikipedia's policies state that we are not here to write an article that asserts the absolute truth of a matter. rather, we are here to summarize pertinent and valid information that reflects multiple sides of an issue, if there are more than one. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: 'One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, and opinions that have been published by a reputable publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia entries is verifiability, not truth.

As to the rest, if you have a source that suggests that indemnity and not "creating a pool to compensate victims" was behind the original intent then feel free to cite it, perhaps as part of the criticsm section. But a line saying "Government and industry experts identified as a major impediment" lack of indemnity to building private nuke plants is entirely appropriate and properly sourced, as you can see from the information I've included above.

Additionally, I will re-post my information from the talk page earlier, from floor speeches where lawmakers were clearly discussing the need for public protection: using the original Congressional Record from 1957, the 85th and 86th congress (sneeze -- dusty). Here is a direct quote from Rep. Melvin Price, one of the original sponsors, speaking on the floor of the House on July 1, 1957, about the bill that became Price-Anderson: "I want to assure you that the main purpose of this proposed legislation is to see that the public is protected in the unlikely event of a runaway reactor." And from Rep. Cole of New York: "In 1953 and 1954 when the Joint Committee began deliberations and consideration of the possibility of revising the law so as to make it possible for private participation in the atomic program, this question of protecting the public against any unforeseen accident was in our mind. We were completely aware of it 3 or 4 years ago. It was a problem of such great magnitude, and the solution appeared so far in the distance that we at that time felt it would be undesirable to suspend changing the act in order to arrive at some solution to this question of indemnity of the public. I want to repeat again that this bill is not for the purpose of indemnifying the reactor operator; it is for the purpose of protecting the public." Obviously, politicians are given to rhetoric when it is convenient, but the public was definitely at least on their lips during this debate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I provided very similar quotes from GE and Westinghouse voices - these support my contention that the weight of the evidence supports the assertion as fact that the "intent" of Price was to protect the industry financially - at the expense of the victims in the event of a nuclear mishap. I therefore object to asserting the effect or the intent is otherwise. What this says in laymen's terms is that nuclear energy is too expensive for the free market. Benjamin Gatti

• "But financial backers were unwilling to risk the enormous financial liability that would result from a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant, so no-one was interested in building a plant."

Too unverifiable facts: "Backers were unwilling" - we know some were, but the statement goes beyond what we know - into what we presume the data we have suggests. Can I take the same liberty? doubt it - so this is out. "no-one was interested " Again - unverifiable projection of facts, or the unveryfiable assertions (opinions) of third parties. Its a waste of toilet paper to accude me of inserting improperly sourced opinions, if others are permitted to insert this - one standard for all is appropriate. Benjamin Gatti

The same information that backs up the above point also takes care of this. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Words "I Maintain" are meant to denote that it is my position, and one which i have chosen to mediate rather than abandon that the facts on the ground indicate actual concerns for indemnity - and nothing more substantial than rhetoric for "Protecting the public." This is not my opinion, but rather is well cited and supported by your own quotes. The question really ought to be how we express that fact. Benjamin Gatti

Woohookitty -- a quick thumbnail

I came here as a result of Katefan0 asking me for some help in trying to keep this article NPOV. Like Kate, I've tried to stay as neutral as possible. I've tried to keep people in line more than anything else...in line with trying to keep this article NPOV. That's really all I am interested in...keeping this article NPOV. I don't have the breadth of knowledge that Simesa, Ben and Kate have on this specific issue, so I haven't really tried to add arguments to the discussion. I've tried to be more of a watchdog. In the end, I see Ben's arguments as much as see Simesa's, but my point has always been that Wikipedia is not a position paper....it is not the place for articles of the sort that Ben is proposing.

I came into this discussion about halfway through. Since I got involved, the main issue has been whether or not government agencies should be quoted in the authoritative voice. My take on this has been Wikipedia in general sees the government voice as the authoritative voice. Despite some prodding, Ben has yet to come up with other examples on Wikipedia of where the government voice is seen as one POV and is treated as such.

To me, this article should follow all others of this type on Wikipedia. The first section should be about the law, i.e. the origins of it, the reasons for it and what the law does. And then we should have a section for support for the law (which we don't really have here) and then one for criticisms. The government voice should be treated as the authoritative voice. Ben has argued since day 1 that treating the government voice like that is being POV. I would argue that if that's the case, then most of Wikipedia is POV. ALL encyclopedias treat government voices as authoritative. Besides, I'm not sure the GAO can even be considered the government given how non-partisan it is. To me, it's not any more "governmental" than PBS or many other government funded agencies. It has no official viewpoint. It favors neither side. Its purpose is to provide unbiased information. Just because its funding comes from the government doesn't mean that it's "biased" towards the government view. Republicans and Democrats both trust the information from the GAO. It's essentially an unbiased knowledge base. Their purpose is to be thorough and NOT POV, not favor either side.

The main thing that disturbs me about Ben's argument is his propensity to quote the NPOV article as a way to get around NPOV. He misquotes the policy or he quotes the parts that help him but no other parts. To me, the goal of Wikipedia is to be NPOV. What he proposes is not NPOV. It is POV. Towards the end of our discussion, he was trying to add to the criticism section, which is already bigger than the other 2 sections combined.

So what do I want? I want this to become a truly NPOV article. It needs the following format. It needs to open with a discussion of the law and what it does. And then it needs to have a section talking about support of the law. And then criticisms. That's the format of 99% of the articles of this type. And it needs to be NPOV. It should not be skewed to either viewpoint. --Woohookitty 8 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Simesa -- initial comments

I am a former nuclear engineer who has not had contact with the industry for over a decade - partly, I think, because I contacted the NRC on one or more issues. I was in grad school at the time of TMI, and reviewed Chernobyl for my utility when the event happened.

When I posted the initial stub for Price-Anderson, it was meant to be a minor sidebar. Since then I've seen an effort to turn this into a anti-nuclear article. I've had to file RfC and RfP. I am encouraged that RfM was asked for so quickly. Like Katefan0, I desire the contents of entire article to be resolved.

Katefan0, being an admin and a reporter, is more versed in what is proper to enter into Wikipedia. Certainly I would assume the government view to be authoritative, and balance it with cites if a differing viewpoint existed. (BTW - Katefan0 deserves a barnstar for her huge work here!)

The industry and DOE disagree on whether Price-Anderson is a subsidy, since no money changes hands unless a major accident occurs and the pool is depleted. I am content to state it as a necessary subsidy.

A major point of debate seems to be whether or not the nuclear industry could even afford to pay its own insurance, with the goal of saying that it couldn't and therefore is cost non-competitive with renewables. This is nonsense. First, there has been essentially no insurance experience with nuclear - TMI cost $70 muillion, while Chernobyl isn't comparable due to being a graphite pile (unlike any American plant) and not having a containment building around it - so the maximum insured amount for US reactors is still unknown. Second, two sources estimated the benefit to US reactors in 1982 to be at most $22 million each - an amount the industry could easily afford IF full insurance were to be had.

Another point seems to be whether an accident exactly like Chernobyl can happen in non-Soviet plants. I found four cites (one PBS, one expert, one industry, one college) explaining why it was highly unlikely and why the consequences would be less, and chose to mention only the reasons that the reactors were of an unstable type (as stated in RBMK) and had no containment buildings. (I thought the other reasons were too complicated for the average reader.) Ben's last proposal before we began Mediation started to address this adequately.

Note: A government source on Chernobyl is [1].

There is controversy over stating that DOE facilities and contractors are covered but not the nuclear Navy. Department of Energy facilities include at least three working reactors and around 70 closed ones, Yucca Mountain, several National Labs, etc. Contractors include USEC which enriches uranium for all American reactors. The DOE paragraph needs to be expanded, not eliminated.

Finally, there is the view that nuclear alone is this dangerous. To that I submit the Bhopal disaster, where again there was no containment building.

My goal is, first, an article that explains Price-Anderson, and second, an NPOV article or at least one that is balanced in presentation. I feel that the article we have very marginally accomplishes both. Simesa 8 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

Actually, Kate is not an admin. She has no desire to be an admin as far as I know. I, on the other hand, became an admin a couple of days ago. It's moot here since it'd be a major conflict of interest if I used any admin powers here. And yes, Kate deserves a barnstar. --Woohookitty 8 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not, though I appreciate the promotion! =) · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Note: The Price-Anderson Act is up for extension as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which has passed both houses of Congress but hasn't been finished and sent to the President. Even if not extended, Price-Anderson would continue to cover facilities already built and licensed. Funding for Ocean Renewable Energy is included in the Senate version of the Energy Bill. Simesa 8 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti -- a quick thumbnail - condensed

Open about personal POV. Pro-environment - maintains that nuclear energy is not necessarily a better alternative, and the choice of renewables vs. nuclear should be a market choice, rather than a subsidy choice.

I don't expect the Wikipedia to promote my POV - but neither do I expect it to blatently promote an opposite POV.

To be neutral POV - assertions must be verifyable - which in my opinion rules out negative and exclusive assertions - regardless of the source, because no source is above POV - must be verifyable.

Particuarly objects to:

• "Nuclear accident would be less than chernobyl"
• "No one wanted to build a nuclear plant"

If either nuclear article criticises renewable energy, then i think it is fair to point out that utility scale windmills do not need price anderson insurance in spite of being more recent, and having less insurance experience than nuclear plants.

Comments on the Summary

1. Actually the assertion per the quote is "[Nuclear energy] can't ... afford to pay its own insurance " - I think that is a fact which is largely undisputed. IIRC "Cheney has said without Price - there will be no future investment in Nuclear" or word to that effect. Benjamin Gatti
2. "The Industry should pay its own insurance" - is not a fact(and therefore no one is suggesting it be included as such, That CATO has expressed that view is a fact.Benjamin Gatti
3. Likewise, "The industry and DOE still need Price-Anderson ..." is not a fact, it is but the opinion of the current administration. - without it they would close their nuclear program, which a majority of citizens support (only 37% want a nuclear plant in their backyard)Benjamin Gatti
4. That "the industry is dependant on Price " IS a fact, which is stated by several prominent voices (incl. Vice President Cheney) and is uncontested. Benjamin Gatti

The direct consumption of cold water

I believe the Nuclear article should indicate that nuclear plants consume cold water as a prime fuel, and that the production of nuclear energy is limited to and directly reduces the cold-water resource - a finite resource which sompetes with the habitat of fish and other biology in rivers - because such has been removed from the main paragraph, i think it ought to be mediated.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is a mediation on Price-Anderson Act only. It's certainly all I've been involved with. That's not to say that one couldn't be set up separately, but I think it would only seek to confuse the current efforts on PAA to include the nuclear article on this page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The Articles are interlinked, and Simesa has requested page blocking on both in a single request - which was granted and led us here - separating them now is a fiction. Benjamin Gatti

It is not "a fiction." Please refrain from inflammatory language. Ed, what's the call? · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than respond directly to a directed statement, I agree that directing comments to the mediator is the proper format here, and for good reason. You see what trouble it is to be brief. Simesa requested page blocks on both articles at the same time, for the same reason, the goal of mediation is stabilitiy and that is best served, I suggest, by addressing the issues related to nuclear energy upon which Simesa and myself most strongly disagree. Obviously I yield to the mediator on this, but I suggest that Simesa be heard on this before Uncle Ed comments. Benjamin Gatti

I don't want to add nuclear power into this. We'd have to start the RfM process over from scratch, there'd be a lot more issues, there'd probably be more participants. This is the first time through RfM for most of us - I'd like to keep it manageable. Simesa 10:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Ben. Do you really want us to be going at this for the rest of our natural lives? I think we'll handle this now and then we can do mediation on the other article later. Let's not add to our issues, k? --Woohookitty 18:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, Simesa requested a dual block - then mediation, Price Anderson began as a section (Subsidies) of nuclear - but I agree to let Uncle Ed decide. Benjamin Gatti

Although overheating of water has been a problem in a few cases, in no way is water a prime fuel. Use of water can be extended many times by using wet cooling towers, and dry cooling towers use no water at all. pstudier 20:43, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

That would settle the matter provided such technologies are consistent with the article - for example, where the UK study of camparitive cost is concerned - does that include renewable cooling technology - or the same cooling approach that led France to kill fish temperatures during its heatwave? Benjamin Gatti

You really have to ask for mediation separately on the nuclear article. 2 different disputes. 2 different sets of editors. It's not to fair to us to wedge us all together. Won't exactly expedite the process, either. Honestly Ben, it feels like a tactic on your part to make this even harder to mediate. --Woohookitty 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Government Source on Chernobyl

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission source on Chernobyl is [2]. We should use this one. Simesa 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Question on Policy for Mediator

Ed, What is the policy on articles expressing "assertions" made in government documents?

Certainly if couched, anything becomes a fact - so "The Man Sez - Nukes is good" is unquestionably a fact (provided its a direct quote)

But what of the assertions in this case: the statement "No one was interested in building a nuclear power plant." is nearly word for word. But it isn't veryfiable. It appears at best to be the educated opinion of the GAO. As an opinion, is it subject to NPOV guidelines, or should the opinions of the GAO carry more weight in wikipedia, than they carry for the GOA (Where it is clear by the context, that the information is based on certain research, or the expressed opinions of important people - or in short couched according to the policies of the GAO)?

I would argue that government sources ought to be held to the same rule. That names should be used if possible for sourcing quotes - IE not "THE GAO SAID:", but instead - Commissioner Thomas of the GAO expressed his personal opinion that "No one would want to build a nuclear plant." As governments are not monoliths with a singular Point of view, but rather pliable and diverse collections of individuals who may each change their mind from time to time and often disagree. Benjamin Gatti

I am fairly sure that the policy on articles expressing "assertions" made in government documents is to say that government agency X said Y about Z. In this case, it would amount to, "The GAO said that the American nuclear industry could never have gotten if the ground if Price-Anderson guarentees hadn't given it a kick start." (or words to this effect) But we'd have to balance this POV with other parts of the government, like Senator Schmuzzle who said, "We must not risk our future on dangerous, environmentally unsound technologies like nuclear power when windmills and solar panels can provide all the power we need." Or Senator Swizzle who said, "Our superior technology and construction standards make accidents like Chernobyl and Bhopal utterl impossible, so the reserve subsidy provided by Price-Anderson is no longer necessary."

It should go without saying that all three "quotes" were entirely made up! They are for illustrative purposes only. Uncle Ed 18:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If the GAO were asserting an opinion based on research (or making a finding based on research), I would agree that it should be attributed to the GAO; but the paragraph in question is summarizing historical fact. Government and industry officials did indeed say (which I have shown independent of the GAO report's summation) that noone wanted to build without indemnification. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps in that case, we can use stonger language. Instead of saying The GAO claimed that or Some policy wonk at GAO thinks that maybe ... we could say, "According to the GAO, blah blah blah happened. [3]" (web link for example only) Uncle Ed 20:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be contrary (seriously), but that's really functionally no different. I maintain that it needs no attribution, as long as we use language like "Government and industry officials felt that ..." Actually, I've cited primary source material that makes even using the GAO summation of this particular point as a source irrelevant (see above). · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe some of the confusion that I have anyway with this particular point comes in that I have more than adequately sourced the statement and shown it to be historically accurate. What I haven't seen is Benjamin provide any source that shows it's not. But I'd even even be open to including criticism of that position -- something saying, "But Public Citizen said that the original intent was really to XXXX." · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Government" is an unverifyable source. it is a weasel word, we have three branches, each of which have some degree of autonomy and discord. Speeches from the debate floor, in no way whatsoever are binding upon "the Government" they are merely the rhetoric of voting parties. Therefore, we cannot with a straightface say that the government said or did anything other than what is written in a fully passed bill with the signature of the President. Benjamin Gatti 20:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Atomic Energy Commission, members of Congress and the president can be described as "government," or how about "government officials?" · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

They are government only when they appear as a quorum and agree. I would take government agency X said Y about Z as direct support for my position in this process as that is exactly what I have insisted upon. Government is not authoritative - certainly gov sources can be included when properly couched. Note the word Agency - I should point out that if you want a document from the government you will need to know from which office or agency you intend to get the document. Assertions should be veryfiable - assuming the linked citation goes offline - is there enough data in the assertion to relocate the data? - an Agancy, a name, a company is generall suffieicnt "Government Officials" is not sufficient. Benjamin Gatti

1. The Atomic Energy Act, enacted in 1954, three years before Price-Anderson, was intended to spur the development of America's private nuclear power industry by allowing private industry to use atomic power for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity. ... ,But
2. financial backers were unwilling to risk the enormous financial liability that would result from a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant, so
3. no-one was interested in building a plant. [1] At the same time,
4. lawmakers in the United States Congress began to worry that there was not adequate financial protection for the public in the event of an accident.
5. Price-Anderson was born from those dual concerns;
6. the act established a mechanism for compensating the public for injury or property damage in the event of a nuclear accident [2], #and encouraged the development of nuclear power by indemnifying the industry from fault.

I think we're talking about this section.

1. Intentions are unverifyable - the intent could have been to create a legacy for a sitting president which included peaceful uses for horribly destructive technology. "Government agency official X said the intentions were - is fine."
2. what financial backers were unwilling to do is speculative. "GE official said this" is fine
3. "No one interests" are a matter for psychics - if we knew what people everyone is thinking - why the hell are we wasting our time writing an encyclopedia?
4. "Some Lawmakers said they were worrying" is fine. I proposed that "some expressed concern" - but i object to taking them at their rhetoric.
5. Price was born because GE said they wouldn't play ball without it.
6. Exactly what the act did was to destroy the mechanism for compensating victims (known as tort law) and replaced it with a FEMA-medicare version.
7. No contest. - like to add - even in the case of criminal and willful misconduct.

Benjamin Gatti

Suggestion on Nuclear Power

I suggest that protection be lifted on that article - it appears there a number of editors interested in making substantial contributions - i'll agree to leave it alone - as long as 1. everyone else who has signed onto this mediation also leaves it alone and 2. this mediation is active and productive. Benjamin Gatti 04:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

When there's no way of knowing what a new editor might put in, who could make such a promise? What about reverting vandalism? And who does the promise extend to? (Dalf is not a part of this Mediation.) I think it better to keep protection on at least until our Mediator thinks we're making solid progress.

Protection was inadvertently lifted yesterday - we had it reinstated as fast as we could. I have no idea who Firebug is. Simesa 09:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As you like, it just seems wrong to lock out other editors when the group seeking lockout refuses to mediate the issues related to the lockout. Protected pages considered harmful Benjamin Gatti

If you could point to where I have refused mediation on nuclear power I'd appreciate it. Otherwise you may like to rescind your comments. I'd be glad to see mediation begin -- separately -- on nuclear power, although I likely won't be a participant since I was never involved in that article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The statement "group seeking lockout refuses to mediate the issues" is accurate. The issues were introduced here and mediation on them refused - or objected. The Protection was handled under the same request - why not the mediation therefore - simple refusal, it's in the record. Statement stands Benjamin Gatti

I need clarification on this, Ben. Are you saying that someone specific, i.e., a party to this Mediation, has refused to discuss a particular issue? If so, please mention either the issue or the person - preferably both. Uncle Ed 18:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

In the section "Nuclear Consumed Cold Water" i introduced an issue which is related to the initial action by Simesa requesting page protection on this article and its parent (nuclear energy). There was a flurry of objections - which are part of the record. I don't see the point of pushing the issue - but certainly it is fair to say that the party asking for page protection has rejected a mediated opportunity to resolve issues directly related to the page block action which precipitated this process. Benjamin Gatti 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to mention one or two of these issues here? Uncle Ed 20:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty similar really - which is why it made sense to me to has them out together - and mostly the same contributers by and large.

As a metter of fact - the pro-nuclear editors have been asserting nonsuch - for example:

• a government sourced table showing spending on nuclear research compared to anything else was removed - when it really showed the history of spending bias which brings us to where we are today - we've spent to much on nuclear not to make it work - even if it is too expensive and dangerous.
• An irrelevent image of the sun was inserted suggesting that the power of the sun is equivelent to a nuclear energy plant - when of course the difference between fission and fusion is the difference between Mary Poppins and Neal Armstrong (only one has actually flown). (removed by someone? during the brief unprotected stint)
• This section on Capital Costs [4] fails to list the capital cost which is high - and instead rambles on with POV excuses as to why it's so high. "~(Its the process and those people concerned about safety that make it so expensive - without them we could build chernobyl in every backyard)"
• And using the article to criticise renewable energy - when the appropriate place to criticise RES would be in their respective articles, where people who care would be watching.
• "Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower [47]." The use of the word "Better" is POV. "More" might be accurate, but what authority is it that says improving your EROI at the cost of 30,000 Belarussian children is "Better"?
• The opening paragraph has bounced around - from a Pro/Con - which I object to an the basis that it pigeon hole's p-ists in a negative connotation - to saying nothing at all - which is simply uneducating - to version which i wrote (The current opening sequence is my contribution). Benjamin Gatti

nuclear is an expensive way to heat water. it is subsidized because it is also a great way to kill people - both on purpose and accidentally.

I'll be happy to mediate Nuclear Power - separate from this mediation. If someone wants to do that, all they have to do is, as Ben did here, initiate the RFM process - at which point Uncle Ed, as chairman pro tem, will decide who mediates and when. My recommendation is still that since neither Ben nor I have been through a mediation before, that some progress be made here first.

I'm not aware of some of the "transgressions" cited above, but a few I am. The picture of the sun was placed by the paragraph on fusion energy resources - someone modified the caption to read "The sun is a natural fusion reactor which provides power for windmills with an estimated remaining life of 5 billion years". The section on capital costs BEGINS "In the U.S, a single nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than a single steam-based coal-fired plant." The only "criticism" of renewables comes in the sections where subsidies, risks, pollution and economies are compared - on the other hand, I twice removed a paragraph that was nothing less than a commercial for renewables. Higher efficiency is generally agreed to be "better". The current intro paragraph is half anti-nuclear statements, no wonder Ben likes it - and the first sentence isn't as good as "Nuclear power currently involves converting the nuclear energy of fissable uranium into thermal energy by fission, from thermal to kinetic energy by means of a steam turbine and finally to electric energy by a generator." Finally, yes, nuclear is dangerous - that's why we treat it that way, that's why, among many other things, we build less-efficient but safer plant designs and place containment buildings around them.

I hope this clears up some mis-representations. Simesa 22:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Simesa- the section you quote is the part i contributed - and i agree with respect to the first sentence - a bit silly since it makes "energy" a "method" but better than the previous which made "energy" the same as "power". Benjamin Gatti

For Ed Poor

Ed, I must protest Benjamin's recent actions. I posted detailed information on a position I have taken and he took it upon himself to "summarize" my comments. Primarily I find this stunningly inappropriate, but it also makes it that much more difficult for me to assume good faith.

As I understand the way mediation works, the mediator summarizes positions held. Not an editor's main antagonist. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Post was inserted in the midst of my reply (not at the end) and had the effect - i felt - of decimating my reply paragraph with nearly personal attacks and text dumps from past lives as well as from the policy pages - i tried to preserve the salient points - but i don't object to the edit being reverted - it was a gentle suggestion in the name of focus - note that i have mercilessly compressed my own paragraph. Benjamin Gatti

In general, refactoring of others' comments is permitted. But when they object, it might be better to revert. I had this experience myself just this month (!) with Guettarda, but we worked it out fairly well. (I think the mess is still on my talk page; it involved the use of strikeout markup to his comments on William Connolley.)

I'm happy to use myself as an example, both of what to do and what not to do. You can learn from my successes and failures. Uncle Ed 18:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have minded if Benjamin had started in another section and summarized my comments there for the purpose of responding to them rather than altering them in the permanent record, but not like this. I'd like to state at the outset that I would prefer my comments to be left intact, and I'll extend the same courtesy. I didn't mean to alter the structure of your comments in any kind of negative way, so I apologize if you had that perception. I'd be glad to instead just move my comments into another section so your original comments aren't broken up. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I did just that; hope it's satisfactory. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would ask that Kate not extend the curtesy and instead participate in the refactoring - the four of us are each subject to bloat and if we're to accomplish the goal here - we'll need to reduce this conversation to the most salient details - but let's move on. (As a general rule - replying AFTER a signature is appropriate - a new section is not necessary - replying within a signed paragraph however is problematic at best) Benjamin Gatti

Regretfully, I can't agree to allowing editors to change other users' comments. I will, however, try to keep my comments concise. I also disagree with removing the information; however if you want to place it toward the top of the page so it's archived first I wouldn't be opposed. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I Move that this section be struck as it has served its purpose and is not related to any issue listed in the mediation summary. Benjamin Gatti 19:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearing this up for Ed

Hello there Ed. Basically, we're talking about two distinct articles. One is on price-Anderson. the other is on nuclear power. They were protected at the same time. However, mediation was only asked for on Price-Anderson, NOT on nuclear power, but now we have Ben trying to insert the nuclear power discussion into this mediation. I know nothing about that discussion. He's trying to divide and conquer. He's trying to muddy the issues, so then it's harder to resolve. Since Kate and Simesa object to this as well, to me that means that we should just be doing Price-Anderson here and not nuclear power. Does that sound reasonable, Ed? --Woohookitty 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

And I object to others ascribing intentions to my actions. WooHoo is encouraged to speak for WhoHoo. Simesa requested simultaneous page protection - Its not clear that resolving the issues on this page alone would be adequate to lift the page protections pending. Since he felt that the issue extended into the other article (its parent) - it is reasonable for this process to resolve the page protection issues fully - without needing to rehash the same issues (and they are the same issues). Benjamin Gatti 00:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No Ben, Ed responded to a mediation request on Price-Anderson. JUST Price-Anderson. I don't see a request for nuclear power. Mediation is not here to lift the protection. It's here to resolve issues. In this case, the issues on Price-Anderson. Not nuclear power. If you want to have mediation on nuclear power, great. Then submit it. I know nothing about that article. I haven't even looked at that article. Please back me up here, Simesa and Kate. I'm not speaking for you but I bet you 2 probably agree with me that these are separate issues. If you don't, that's fine. Just say so and I'll shut up. You know, Ben, I don't see the words "nuclear power" in the title of this mediation. You can't just grandfather it in. Like I said, if you want mediation on that article, great. Then submit it. What's the verdict, Ed? Btw Ben, if you didn't see it, Simesa would rather mediate these 2 issues separately. --Woohookitty 00:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

May I refer the reader to rule 3. Above "No mind-reading. Don't speculate on what others may be thinking, or what motivates them to say what they do." I absolutely understand the reservations WhooHoo has - and without diminishing them in any way - i believe that the interest of the wiki is to quickly resolve the common issues currently preventing the wiki to do what the wiki does - encourage participation. Ed has already given a verdict - He instructed me to list the issues. I think that you will find the resolution in both cases is the same - we agree to a definition of neutral, and to couching requirements for government sources - they were protected together - they ought to be resolved together, and sooner is better - those not wanting to participate on the sub-issues, are welcome to watch on those issues, but Simesa requested protection on both, and the purpose here is to address his concerns and return the wiki to operation Benjamin Gatti 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I think that you saying that I will find the resolution the same is trying to read MY mind. They are 2 different articles. They don't share the exact same issues. So they need to be handled *separately*. And by the way, the mediation is not here to unprotect the pages. They are here to resolve issues. And actually Ben, I think the mediation is here to determine whether or not the government view is NPOV. I wish you'd quit trying to isolate Simesa. This isn't him against you. Simesa, Kate and I share the same general viewpoints on this, as you can see from our comments throughout this ordeal. And frankly I wish you'd apologize to Simesa for continually treating him as "the bad guy" here when actually, his views and your views are not far apart. The point is to make this a fair, NPOV article, not to determine which opinion of Price-Anderson is going to "win". If you'd drop the adversarial stance, I think we'd all be much better off. --Woohookitty 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think mediating nuclear power is a good idea, but not thrown in with this mediation. I oppose such a suggestion, but would support initiating mediation on a separate page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I Think we're in therapy here because between the four of us, none are willing to concede a point. Here's to spirited debate on the scope of the debate - touche. Just for the record - mediation as I requested it - was on a single issue - go read the RfM - which Simesa and I have already resolved. Then Simesa demanded to increase the scope to the entire article - and I think it includes the parent article because of the dual page block, but you guys are wearing me out - Whatever on this really - I'm ok. As for singling out Simesa, I respect his experience and his perspective, but he and I have very different POV - Kate and WhoHoo agree with him on style, but you're both in my camp on substance - so we really don't have much to argue IMHO. Benjamin Gatti

Talk about mind-reading. I'm not in anybody's camp. My interest in this subject is marginal; I came here to try to help resolve the disputes between you and Simesa. That I have access to a congressional wonk's dream is nice, but I wouldn't have cared enough to look if I hadn't been trying to help move things along. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

A Practical Proposition

Well, it is somewhat problematic, since that article is broader than just the Act, of course, as in the science itself (many countries), and it being protected prevents editors from wroking on it in ways totally unrelated to the dispute over the Act. I'll reprotect it, but I'm going to give Ed a pointer, and am inclined to follow his opinion on this. I should have done that to begin with. My apologies. El_C 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the Protecting Editor has in effect turned over the responsability for the Nuclear protection to Uncle Ed.

El C, we aren't actively working on mediating the nuclear power article, but some of the same disputes have occurred in both that article and Price-Anderson Act, which is being mediated. One of the main disputants has already tried to introduce disputes over the nuclear power article into the Price-Anderson Act mediation, and I have to believe that unprotecting either right now could be disruptive to progress. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Further Kate is asking for the Page Protection - in reference to this mediation. "Tried to introduce etc ..." is POV - Trying to seperate the two seems to me an act beyond mystery. The end result: Simesa Asked for the Block - Kate Asked for the block (On nuclear) - the Block has been turned over to Ed Poor Because he is the mediator here. Now we can pretend to know nothing about the dual block, or we can take responsibility for the issues, pull up our sleeves and get them resolved. Benjamin Gatti

Poetry

If I could endulge in a brief soliloquy, i can't help but notice that we have nearly all sides covered. Simesa speaks for the nuclear industry as an engineer, while I am the radical tree-hugger, change the world even if you step on a few toes, Kate is the historian trying to dig up the "truth", and WooHoo is like Rodney-can't-we-all-jest=get-along-King trying to make world "peace". - God bless each of you (and Ed - basically god - quite, mysterious, and deeply biased about preserving the earth.) Benjamin Gatti

Simesa does not speak for the nuclear industry. Would you please stop judging him like that. At least 3 times, he's told you that he was a whistleblower. Do you now know what a whistleblower is. To use a tactic you've often used, look at whistleblower and it will tell you what it is. It means that he had an issue with the nuclear industry, told someone in authority or a journalist or whatever about it and then was probably blackballed from working in the nuclear industry ever again. Also, this discussion has gotten insanely long, so I'm not going to try to find the reference, but I thought that Simesa had said long ago that he was for renewable resources to a degree. He just believes that it's not a one or the other kind of situation, i.e. we can have renewable energy and nuclear power at the same time. Here's a question. Do you speak for all renewable resource supporters because you believe in renewable resources? Simesa isn't speaking for anyone but Simesa. Please get that through your head. --Woohookitty 05:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that the "Industry" would take issue with anything Simesa has contributed. Yes - his assertion of whistleblower status is remarkable and respectable, but handsome is as handsome does. And I'm fine with that perspective - it just needs to be balanced fairly without obvious or worse - inobvious bias. Benjamin Gatti

Believe it or not, Ben, sometimes people write articles on Wikipedia that they don't believe in. Really. It's true. I couldn't stand Ronald Reagan but I am working on a funeral article for Reagan. It doesn't mean I endorse him or anything else. I think this is the main idea you don't seem to understand or don't want to. Just because Simesa has contributed stuff that seems pro-nuclear doesn't mean he's pro-nuclear. This is NOT a blog. It is not a place where you put your opinions in. It's not a position paper. It's not a forum for views. It's an encyclopedia. What we type in here isn't necessarily what we believe in. Why this is a difficult concept to comprehend, I don't know. I'd say look at different articles on here to see what I mean, but you've refused to do that in the past. We're here for the greater good. We're not here to push a particular view. If you want something like that, go start a blog. It doesn't belong here. I'm not saying this again.

And my other point would be. I have no idea what you do for a living, but just because you work for someone doesn't mean you are a "mouthpiece" for them. --Woohookitty 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

More mindreading. I'm not a historian and I'm not "looking for the truth" -- I'm looking for a balanced and fair article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Article

Perhaps we should each state which parts of the article we feel need changing.
I'm happy with paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Paragraph 9 is a repeat of paragraph 7. Paragraphs 12 and 13 repeat the current paragraph 4. So add in 5 the NRC reference I found, merge 9 with 7, and trim 4 to say simply: "The Act makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages (but see Criticisms). In the Act, each power reactor must pay up to $88 million in the event any of them has an accident."
Not perfect, but close enough. Simesa 10:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What this encyclopedia is

Kitty wrote:

It is not a place where you put your opinions in. It's not a position paper. It's not a forum for views. It's an encyclopedia. What we type in here isn't necessarily what we believe in. Why this is a difficult concept to comprehend, I don't know.

I believe that you have struck at the root of the problem here, my feline friend. Is there a policy page on writing for the enemy? If not, there should be.

Nothing is more common in NPOV disputes than for contributors to fail to grasp this point: that our goal here is not to make the article say the "right" things about controversial topics, but to describe the controversy accurately. And each contributor varies in their ability to do this, depending on the topic.

For example, I can write neutrally on the naming dispute over Macedonia with great ease, comfort, relaxation, poise, etc. Why? Because I'm not emotionally involved. I have no relatives from the region, no financial ties, political involvment. And it's actually reaching closure. I give it maybe one more month.

But I have difficulty with global warming. I don't really know why, but I get really worked up when I approach this topic. I start making errors and having to backtrack - and even apologize!

It's like playing piano, I guess. Some passages are just difficult for me, even though (in retrospect) after I master them, I wonder why - because they don't look any "harder" than other passages. Yet I've found that if I ignore the difficulty, it just takes longer to master the passage.

Maybe this will help us, here, in this Mediation. Maybe writing neutrally is something like learning the piano. (If not, I'm sorry to waste your time.)

But writing neutrally is very difficult. It does not come naturally - to anyone. We all want to express our own point of view. I really suggest we all read Wikipedia:point of view before continuing this discussion. I made some changes to it in recent weeks, and I think it will help.

Sorry to ramble, but maybe sometimes the Mediator has to explain something at length. Anyway, I want this Mediation to succeed. I feel you are all good contributors, and that if we can get past whatever the sticking points are, three benefits will accrue:

1. Wikipedia will get a good article on nuclear power insurance.
2. Wikipedia will gain several top notch, seasoned, cooperative editors.
3. You will all be proud of yourselves and happy to be here.

Please read Wikipedia:POV and give me your comments. Thank you. Uncle Ed 11:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Read, along with NPOV dispute, and agreed to. Simesa 13:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Uncle Ed 13:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've read them and think they're both good treatments. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

An humble (but time-consuming) suggestion

We aren't getting very far at "crossing off" things we can all agree with, or making progress where we disagree. Benjamin, as the main objector, has listed a number of things he disagrees with that I quite frankly am not sure how to answer, one because I don't have a firm grasp of his objections and two because it's too much to wrap your head around all at once. I think we may 1) make more progress and 2) have a more structured discussion if we start taking the article line by line. It's time consuming but I think may eventually be good for the mediation, because it would help us see some concrete progress and also help us deal with issues as they arise, one at a time. I propose we discuss each sentence and either approve it or talk about how each member would like to see it modified. I would also propose that we not introduce new concepts at this time. Let's work on what the article says now before we deal with issues that anyone thinks should be added. That can be done later. What do you think? · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let's create an alternate version, to consist only of portions from the main article which each mediant (is that a word?) can agree on. We could start with The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act provides insurance guarantees for the US nuclear power industry. Uncle Ed 15:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Simesa 16:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)