Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Talk3

Note: A moderated "consensus version" of the article is at Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated. The rules there are: Discuss this proposal on the Mediation page. Uncle Ed 15:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Anyone may take out anything they disagree with - provided they discuss it.
 * 2) Nobody is allowed to "revert" a text move. (this is the zero-RR)


 * 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 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     &mdash; 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  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 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 &mdash; such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident &mdash; 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. &middot; 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. &middot; 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." &middot; 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. &middot; 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. &middot; 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? &middot; 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. &middot; 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. &middot; 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. &middot; 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. &middot; 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". 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". I object to this and would like to bring it to Ed's attention. &middot; 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? &middot; 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 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.