Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire/Huge Risks in U.S. According to Unpublicized NRC Study [View all]Altair_IV
(52 posts)16. Reading Comprehension Problem?
The original statement was *not* whether they had enough insurance, which is a debatable topic. The original statement was that there was *no* insurance from a commercial insurers and that is a falsehood. Sorry, you don't get to take the original false statement and then morph it into something else by adding additional conditions so that it becomes true, and then claim that I was wrong.
Altair_IV
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire/Huge Risks in U.S. According to Unpublicized NRC Study [View all]
kristopher
Feb 2014
OP
Yes, they love to hide behind the difficulty in tracking nuclear related cancer related fatalities
kristopher
Feb 2014
#14
A consortium of nuclear companies that self insure doesn't really qualify as "commercial insurer"...
kristopher
Feb 2014
#22
That is exactly what the major accident coverage is - and they don't pay "premiums"
kristopher
Feb 2014
#24
You don't change the rotational speed of an AC generator to regulate the voltage output
madokie
Feb 2014
#53
The filing to the NRC (the PDF) asks them to make changes in how they license reactors
kristopher
Feb 2014
#12