4 ms·

Sorry but we just have to agree to disagree here. Insurance is a fringe discussion compared to general opposition to nuclear. Lack of insurance against catastr

Sorry but we just have to agree to disagree here. Insurance is a fringe discussion compared to general opposition to nuclear. Lack of insurance against catastrophic events is an even more fringe discussion and simply isn't a normal argument against nuclear. The normal argument against it is that it's dangerous, waste issues, expensive and so on. I already stated my position on insurance of catastrophic events and someone isn't able to participate in good faith on that it wouldn't matter what I said anyway and my credibility would be tainted simply because of my position. And to be frank, I've debated this enough and convinced enough people that nuclear is better than it's rumor. This is actually the first time anyone even mentioned insurance against force majure or communist regimes. Anyway thanks for the discussion. I don't agree with you but but I appreciate the good faith argument.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Insurance is a fringe discussion compared to general opposition to nuclear. Lack of insurance against catastrophic events is an even more fringe discussion and simply isn't a normal argument against nuclear. Dissatisfaction with the way that insurance for catastrophic events is handled is in fact the main argument against expanding nuclear from the faction whose opposition is decisive in the US: the nuclear industry. All other issues surrounding nuclear in the US are peripheral pieces of the debate over liability and insurance and whether or not the industry’s desired changes on that front should be met.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  For every discussion you can find about that i can find a hundred not about that. Again in the US the one accident we had wasn’t catastrophic and was handled by the insurance they had. So a lot can be handled simply by not putting it at high risk areas which in the Us is a lot. And never nuclear powerplant will be even safer.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Insurance is a fringe discussion compared to general opposition to nuclear. Lack of insurance against catastrophic events is an even more fringe discussion and simply isn't a normal argument against nuclear. Dissatisfaction with the way that insurance for catastrophic events is handled is in fact the main argument against expanding nuclear from the faction whose opposition is decisive in the US: the nuclear industry. All other issues surrounding nuclear in the US are peripheral pieces of the debate over liability and insurance and whether or not the industry’s desired changes on that front should be met.

ThomPete 7y ago
For every discussion you can find about that i can find a hundred not about that. Again in the US the one accident we had wasn’t catastrophic and was handled by the insurance they had. So a lot can be handled simply by not putting it at high risk areas which in the Us is a lot. And never nuclear powerplant will be even safer.