If those voters were so very wrong on their risk assessment then we can presumably also get rid of the extremely low catastrophe liability cap: https://en.wiki

If those voters were so very wrong on their risk assessment then we can presumably also get rid of the extremely low catastrophe liability cap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... If it's extremely safe we can let private insurers decide whether to shoulder the financial burden of a Fukushima style event and taxpayers no longer have to be on the hook for those pesky $1 trillion clean up events. I'm all in favor of eliminating the act and adopting a wait and see approach to "will sophisticated insurers have an appetite for this risk?" but for some reason a lot of pro nuclear activists who are adamant that it is 110% safe aren't so sure about slashing this subsidy. Why do you think that is?