Reply #25: Nope... you're not sure how you can get your straw man to allign with what I said. [View All]

"Comparable to what other industries and individuals must carry" was the error I was correcting originally. The amount you want it NOT in any way comparable.

we should shift the liability from the fission industry to the public.

That's where the liability is for ALL power generation (etc). If an accident occurs that exceeds their assets and/or ability to finance the damages... they're bankrupt.

On one hand you say the industry is safe

It is. It's just that "safe" doesn't mean anything different for nuclear than for anything else. It does NOT mean "zero chance of anything bad ever happening". Bridges ARE safe. That doesn't mean that even a well-designed/constructed one will never fall down.

the perception of high potential external costs are a nothing but a product of irrational fear.

Nope. I haven't said that. High potential costs are a reality... and the irrational fear is of personal danger from sources that present no such danger... not a fear that something bad could someday happen.

you say everyone gets a pass on their liability limits

No I don't. I point out that society bears the burden when catastrophy strikes. Katrina was not fully insured. The large bulk of the damage from the earthquake/tsunami is ALSO not insured.

The idea that it must have this exemption from liability for the public good

Once again. It isn't an exemption from liability. It's an EXTENSION of liability.