Reply #24: I'm not sure what your point is? [View All]

It seems to be that
1) since the potential damages of a nuclear accident are so vast, and extend so far beyond the bounds of the plant itself, that
2) forcing them to provide levels of insurance comparable to what other industries and individuals must carry is cost prohibitive and therefore
3) we should shift the liability from the fission industry to the public.

On one hand you say the industry is safe and the perception of high potential external costs are a nothing but a product of irrational fear. Then when confronted with hard-nosed actuarial evaluations of the potential for external harm, you say everyone gets a pass on their liability limits (they do not). Those two position are indirect conflict and are reconciled by acknowledging that the nuclear industry has serious safety problems when it fails and that it does fail sometimes fail. The idea that it must have this exemption from liability for the public good is sheer nonsense since alternatives that are superior to nuclear in every way are sitting on the shelf ready to go.