Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Frankly, for me that's always been the real
sticking point about nuclear power plants. If
operating (and the emphasis here is on "operating" as
opposed to "as designed") nuclear plants have as
little risk as their proponents claim, why is a
liability exemption still necessary? Why are potential
damages caused by these plants for all practical
purposes uninsurable when the insurance industry (I
believe) still writes liability policies for other
generating plants as well as chemical plants. Since
insurance companies don't make money if they don't
write policies, isn't there a "market judgement" here
on the safety of nuclear power? Please point out the
faulty logic here.