Japan has a nuke event - in one of the quake areas

[ensho]

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?smp=&lang=eng




Steam leaked from part of a pump carrying water to the No. 7 nuclear reactor in the quake-hit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in northern Japan on Saturday, but the leak was soon fixed, Kyodo news agency said. Though the steam contained a minuscule amount of radioactive material, there was no impact on the outside environment, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) (9501.T), which runs the plant -- the world's biggest -- was quoted by Kyodo as saying. TEPCO officials were not available for comment. TEPCO restarted the 1,356 megawatt No. 7 unit on May 9 for the first time since the plant was forced to shut nearly two years ago following a magnitude 6.8 quake.
------------------

[konnichi wa]

1. I really appreciate all your reports on how safe nuclear power actually is.

:toast:

[barbtries]

2. i just watched the china syndrome

again last weekend. what i find scary is my certainty that the bureaucrats and corporate tools will lie if it serves their purposes even if people will fall sick and die.

[Pavulon]

3. That dumb movie is why we puke green house gas

continually using coal fired plants to generate power. Basically froze us development of clean energy. NO one died at tmi, the only deaths in the industry are from industrial accidents. Those happen in all industries to a much greater than in the land of nuclear engineering.

[ensho]

5. people and animals did die from TMI

nt

[Pavulon]

6. Link? Please no wack sites. NRC..here

"even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community." .. it did lead to much hysteria to be used by people for their own political reasoning.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

[barbtries]

8. i just googled it:

Some effects from the Three Mile Island accident have been documented and others are still to come. Human infant deaths in the forms of miscarriages, stillbirths, and crib deaths soared for the period of April through September. Statistically, this is the time of year when infant deaths decrease in the United States. It is difficult to estimate the deaths that are occurring now and in the future due to radiation from the accident. In Poisoned Power, by Dr. Gofman and Dr. Tamplin, a mathematical equation is used to estimate the number of deaths caused by cancer from the radiation. Even using low estimates of the amount of radiation and hours of exposure, they come up with 333 deaths from cancer and leukemia. This is due to the large population in the area of the reactor. Farmers in the area started seeing symptoms in their cattle. They reported muscle and bone deficiencies never experienced before in the animals. Young steers could not stand up and dragged their hinds about. There were also increases in breeding problems and respiratory failures.

http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/3mile.htm



i don't think it's a wack site though you may disagree.

edited to repair code

[Pavulon]

10. wack..This does not document deaths, it is some kids college project..

This web site was conceived as part of an undergraduate introduction to history course. It is the capstone class for lower division course work. Students were assigned to research a disaster that they deemed historically important."
http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/

This is a 20 year study...
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/20_years_laters_no_significant_cancer_increase_in_three_mile_island_residents

[barbtries]

15. i'm sure this is wack too

http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman04012009.html

[Pavulon]

16. Way wack...

counterpunch and wasserman both provide NO PROOF. You should stop now.

Idiot source..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Wasserman

[bananas]

31. Not wack...

President Jimmy Carter/Admiral Hyman Rickover/3 Mile Island Cover-Up

"In May, 1983, my father-in-law, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, told me that at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, a full report was commissioned by President Jimmy Carter. He said that the report, if published in its entirety, would have destroyed the civilian nuclear power industry because the accident at Three Mile Island was infinitely more dangerous than was ever made public. He told me that he had used his enormous personal influence with President Carter to persuade him to publish the report only in a highly "diluted" form. The President himself had originally wished the full report to be made public.
In November, 1985, my father-in-law told me that he had come to deeply regret his action in persuading President Carter to suppress the most alarming aspects of that report."

Investigation: Revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety
A special Facing South investigation by Sue Sturgis

It was April Fool's Day, 1979 -- 30 years ago this week -- when Randall Thompson first set foot inside the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Just four days earlier, in the early morning hours of March 28, a relatively minor problem in the plant's Unit 2 reactor sparked a series of mishaps that led to the meltdown of almost half the uranium fuel and uncontrolled releases of radiation into the air and surrounding Susquehanna River.



It was the single worst disaster ever to befall the U.S. nuclear power industry, and Thompson was hired as a health physics technician to go inside the plant and find out how dangerous the situation was. He spent 28 days monitoring radiation releases.

Today, his story about what he witnessed at Three Mile Island is being brought to the public in detail for the first time -- and his version of what happened during that time, supported by a growing body of other scientific evidence, contradicts the official U.S. government story that the Three Mile Island accident posed no threat to the public.

"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson told Facing South. "Hundreds of times worse."

Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also warn that the government's failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants.

<snip>

30 Years Later: Have We Learned Anything?
by Joy Busey
Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 05:34:47 PM PDT

Lies, Damned Lies & Zombies

From WGAL Susquehanna Valley news:

30th Anniversary of TMI Accident This Month -

"On March 28, 1979, a water pump in the non-nuclear part of the plant failed. Cooling water contaminated with radiation drained into other buildings in the facility. The reactor's core overheated to more than 4,000 degrees -- just 1,000 degrees short of a meltdown."

Well, there you have it. After 30 years, numerous official and unofficial investigations, scores of lawsuits, a stack of criminal convictions, hundreds of quiet settlements and a class action lawsuit with more than 2,000 plaintiffs that went on for years, we get three innocuous little sound-byte sentences. A failed water pump, some contaminated cooling water and not even close to a meltdown. Wow.

We're all familiar with 'the usual' pros and cons of nuclear, most of us know where we stand. What I'd like to highlight here are the falsehoods contained in that first little three-sentence bolded paragraph above, which is how the accident at TMI-2 is described for a generation to whom it's just a historical curiosity.

I was at the time a "local" within the 50-mile radius of concern. I was also a recovery worker during the month following the accident - and have investigated the details from internal documents, work reports, decommissioning projects and other investigation reports. I do know a few things about it, so here you go...

<snip>

Accident Dose Assessments

Nuclear engineer and long-time industry executive, Arnie Gundersen gives a talk on his calculations of the amount of radiation released during the accident at Three Mile Island. Mr. Gundersen's calculations differ from those of the NRC's and official industry estimates.

[kenfrequed]

35. Amazing.

So he did not respond to your post at all?

Im shocked.

Seriously though who actually expected the NRC to tell the truth on a nuclear accident when it is stocked and jammed full of the nuclear energy industry?

[barbtries]

37. thank you

for weighing in with this information.

[Pavulon]

38. Not ONE FUCKING NAME, of a dead man. Just vomit.

you guys post push pieces, i posted 20 year university studies.

Not a SINGLE FUCKING lawsuit. Just bullshit.

[bananas]

42. That's what the cigarette companies used to say.

You can't prove a particular individuals cancer was due to smoking or TMI.
You're making a nonsense argument.

I took a quick look at that paper you mentioned:

Long-Term Follow-Up of the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1998

<snip>

A total of 2,778 white male deaths were observed, which resulted in statistically significant elevated mortality when compared with the three-county area (SMR = 108.0). There were also significant elevations in deaths from cancer of the respiratory system (SMR = 114.8), cancer of the BTL (SMR = 117.3), all heart disease (SMR = 110.9), and nonmalignant respiratory disease (SMR = 114.6). Other elevations included all MN (SMR = 103.7), breast cancer (SMR = 236.3), leukemia (SMR = 127.4), and all external causes (SMR = 103.4), but none were statistically significant. One new death due to thyroid disease was observed in this update, resulting in an SMR of 48.6.

A total of 2,738 white females deaths led to an all-cause SMR of 116.7, which was statistically significant (Table 2). Mortality due to all heart disease (SMR = 126.7) and nonmalignant respiratory disease (SMR = 132.8) was statistically significantly elevated when compared with the local county comparison. Non-statistically significant elevations were noted for deaths due to cancer of the CNS (SMR = 107.1), breast cancer (SMR = 105.8), leukemia (SMR = 110.8), all LHT (SMR = 122.2), other lymphopoietic cancer (SMR = 123.0), and all external causes (SMR = 106.0). Mortality due to all MN was essentially the same as observed in the three-county area (SMR = 99.8). There were no deaths from thyroid cancer.

<snip>

Uh-oh - "significant elevations in deaths from cancer"!

In addition, standardized incidence ratios for the TMI population could be not be examined because the completeness of the registry with regard to individuals who may have chosen to leave the area is in question. As there is no national cancer registry, those from the cohort who may have left Pennsylvania would be lost to follow-up, resulting in incomplete ascertainment of cancers.

But people did leave the area - this study undercounts the number of cancers!

I don't have time to spend on this, but it's not hard to find critiques of the study:

Science for sale: TMI and the University of Pittsburgh
published by WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor on November 8, 2002

Science for sale: TMI and the University of Pittsburgh

Some recent press reports have suggested that cancer rates around Three Mile Island in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania are unchanged since the 1979 accident. Eric Epstein, chairman of Three Mile Island Alert and coordinator of the EFMR Monitoring Group, describes how this latest study - which did in fact acknowledge an increase in some types of cancer - fails to tell the full story.

(576.5457) Eric Epstein - The University of Pittsburgh's most recent health study is essentially a recitation of discredited protocol and disputed data. Released on 31 October 2002, the Study actually acknowledged an increase in lymphatic and blood cancers among men. However, as in previous of University Pittsburgh Studies conducted by the same group of researchers, e.g., (Evelynn Talbott et al; 2000) (1), this survey relied on government and nuclear industry sponsored "health studies" that were completed in the early 1980s. These studies were based on inaccurate dose projections, did not factor data only available in 1985 regarding the severity and conditions of the partial-core meltdown at Three Mile Island 2 (2), and did not factor the prevailing weather conditions and wind patters in March-April 1979.

Nor did any of these studies evaluate the health impact to members of our community who defueled Three Mile Island. In fact, General Public Utilities (GPU) chose not to maintain a health or cancer registry, despite the fact that, from 1979-1989, 5,000 clean-up workers received "measurable doses" of radiation exposure (3).

Moreover, the University of Pittsburgh's Study relied heavily on the much maligned Pennsylvania Department of Health's seventeen year-old survey released in September 1985. That study's protocol was ridiculed and criticized by epidemiologists at Harvard (Dr. George Hutchison), and Penn State (Dr. Robert A Hultquist) for "diluting" increases in cancer by "expanding" the population base to include people living outside of the ten-mile study-zone (October 1985) (4).

A great deal of radiation was indeed released by the partial core melt at TMI. The President's commission estimated about 15 million curies of radioactivity were released into the atmosphere. A review of dose assessments, conducted by Dr. Jan Beyea, (National Audubon Society; 1984) (5) estimated that from 276 to 63,000 person-rem were received by the general population within 50 miles of TMI. More recently, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, estimated between 40 million curies and 100 million curies escaped during the accident.

For 11 days, in June-July, 1980, Metropolitan Edison (Met Ed) illegally vented 43,000 curies of radioactive Krypton-85 (beta and gamma; 10 year half life) and other radioactive gases into the environment without having scrubbers in place (6).

And by 1993, TMI-2 evaporated 2.3 million gallons (8,700 cubic meters) of accident generated radioactive water, including tritium (a radioactive form of hydrogen), into the atmosphere despite legal objections from community-based organizations (7).

The plant's owners, co-defendants and insurers have paid over US$80 million in health, economic and evacuation claims, including a US$1.1 million settlement for a baby born with Down's Syndrome (8). In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court remanded 1,990 unsettled health suits from the TMI-accident back to Federal Court (GPU v. Abrams; Dolan v. GPU) (9).

In August 1996, a study by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, authored by Dr. Steven Wing, reviewed the Susser-Hatch study (Columbia University; 1991). Dr. Wing reported that "...there were reports of erythema, hair loss, vomiting, and pet death near TMI at the time of the accident...Accident doses were positively associated with cancer incidence. Associations were largest for leukemia, intermediate for lung cancer, and smallest for all cancers combined...Inhaled radionuclide contamination could differentially impact lung cancers, which show a clear dose-related increase." (10)

Today, TMI-2 remains a high level radioactive waste in the middle of the Susquehanna River. There was no decommissioning fund established for TMI at the time of the accident. The site of the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident has not been decontaminated or decommissioned. There has not been a human entry in the basement of the reactor building since March 1979... (11)

Notes:

1. Environment Health Perspectives, June 2000.
2. On 6 November 1984, research conducted by the Department of Energy on reactor damage during the accident, indicates temperatures may have reached in excess of 4,800 degrees Fahrenheit (2480 degrees Celsius). In October 1985, removal of damaged fuel from TMI-2 began.
3. On 11 April 1984, William Pennsyl settled out-of-court two days before an administrative law judge was scheduled to hear his case relating to GPU¹s refusal to allow Pennsyl to wear a respirator during cleanup activities. By 1986, TMI-2 defueling work force peaks at 2,000, but by 1989, after ten years of defueling activities, 5,000 TMI workers have received "measurable doses" of radiation exposure.
4. State's TMI study clouded by survey method doubts, Frank Lynch, Sunday Patriot-News, Front Page, Harrisburg, PA, 6 October 1985.
5. Study available from the TMI Public Health Fund, 16223 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, [phone].
6. In November 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the krypton venting (June-July 1980) was illegal.
7. In 1980, the Susquehanna Valley Alliance, based in Lancaster, successfully prevented GPU/Met Ed from dumping 700,000 gallons (2,700 cubic meters) of radioactive water into the Susquehanna River. Ten years later, in December 1990, despite legal objections by TMI-Alert and the Susquehanna Valley Alliance, GPU began evaporating 2.3 million gallons (8,700 cubic meters) of accident-generated radioactive water (AGW). By August 1993, evaporation of 2.3 million gallons of AGW was completed over six months behind schedule. The evaporator was disassembled and removed from the site. And on 28 October 1993, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the total activity during evaporation was 658 curies of tritium.
8. By 1985, TMI had paid at least US$14 million for out-of-court settlements of personal injury lawsuits. The largest settlement was for a child born with Down's Syndrome. Most of the cases were sealed, and only those cases involving minors are published as prescribed by the rules and regulations of Pennsylvania's Orphan's Court.
9. On 12 June 2000, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, rejected an appeal by GPU to throw out 1,990 health suits. On 2 May 2001, the Third Circuit Court ruled that "new theories" to support medical claims against Three Mile Island will not be allowed.
10. New Study Shows Higher Cancer Rate near Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Reactor Meltdown. Researchers at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have published, in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (24 February 1997), a reevaluation of the health effects near Three Mile Island. They have found chromosomal damage and higher cancer rates than previously reported, suggesting radiation levels were higher than official estimates. Copies of the study may be requested at: [phone].
11. In December 1993, GPU placed TMI-2 in Post-Defueling Monitored Storage. On 17 October 2001, due to a "credible threat" against Three Mile Island, the Harrisburg and Lancaster airports were closed for four hours, air travel was restricted in a 20-mile radius, and fighter jets were scrambled around TMI.

Source and contact: Eric Epstein, Three Mile Island Alert, 315 Peffer St., Harrisburg, PA 17102, USA Tel: [phone]. Fax: [phone].
e-mail: [e-mail]
Web: www.tmia.com

[Pavulon]

43. 10 antenna? word? I am asking for real fact..

Lots of studies document Chernobyl damage. Real stuff from journal nature, oncology, etc. Real scientists with real proof. you guys publish SHIT from agenda groups. NIRS, really.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armyowalgreens]

23. Definitely not true.

The amount of radioactivity released from TMI was tiny. The area that it spread over made it so dilluted that it would not have affected anyone.

[barbtries]

7. and chernobyl?

[Pavulon]

11. Are we in Ukraine, in ussr threadjacking is punished..

[Dead_Parrot]

17. On Soviet Underground, threads hijack you... nt

[votingupstart]

19. i understand your reference to chernobyl however

Japanese and US reactor types are significantly different and safer - in my view its apples and oranges (more appropriately apples, oranges and pears)

[Codeine]

40. Indeed.

The reactors being used there were horrible, horrible designs that are not used here.

Nice to see somebody gets it. :hi:

[northernlights]

9. many many people died

as a result of TMI. The real data was buried.

[spoony]

13. Then how do you know about it?

Why did/do you have access to data the rest of us don't?

[armyowalgreens]

25. You got it all wrong man...It's a CONSPIRACY...

They don't need the "buried evidence". They did their OWN research man. By like looking around an stuff.


You're just blind man...



:crazy:

[Pavulon]

14. in a pile of bullshit...he is a 20 year study, refute it or sit down

this may be the internet but you can only carry bullshit so far..

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/20_years_laters_no_significant_cancer_increase_in_three_mile_island_residents

[Gabi Hayes]

18. what? a report by a bunch of college kids?

sounds wack to me

[votingupstart]

21. i am curious also about the "real data"

are you suggesting there is data buried? if so i would love to see it, i can arrange for you to meet with some VERY credible news sources if true. If you are just saying something that you think is true but have no facts for... i am not certain i can take you post/information/assertions to be factual/relevant/truthful

[Garbo 2004]

28. TMI happened after "industry experts" assured a meltdown couldn't happen.

Such assurances seemed somewhat suspect after the event.

Add the overall misinformation, miscommunication & company officials appearing to not know what was going on and/or prevaricating during the event did not add to the public's trust. Yeah, it was just that "dumb movie." TMI happening shortly after the film's release had nothing to do with it. :eyes:

[populistdriven]

30. coal emits more radiation than nuke

[bananas]

32. nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3592611&mesg_id=3592910

[Poll_Blind]

4. My god that is a, really good- no, GREAT movie. Jack Lemmon is...

...incredible in his role. I found it so unnervingly convincing, right down to his rambling speech once they get the video feed working from the control room. Everyone in that movie is...just authentic.

By the time Lemmon whispers "I can feel it", I swear to Christ I was about ready to jump out of my own skin. I've seen few horror movies where the tension gets that high.

PB

[tblue37]

24. An 18-year-old girl I knew at the time went to that movie with me

back when it first came out. The next day Sheri, who lived out in the country, told me she had been very scared to drive home alone that night.

I had to laugh. "What?" I asked her. "Were you afraid that a melting down nuclear reactor would jump out at your car from behind a bush at the side of the road?"

I could udnerstand being made nervous by the movie, in the sense of worrying about major disasters allowed by government and corporate coverups. But I couldn't udnerstand being afraid to drive home alone after the movie, because the scary stuff in it was not the sort of thing that went bump in the night or that targeted women driving alone in the dark.

[Poll_Blind]

41. Man, glad she didn't see Silkwood!

:o

PB

[Occam Bandage]

20. I'm glad that modern nuclear-plant workers are so well-trained and on-the-ball.

Thanks for keeping us updated on the great job they do providing us with safe, cheap, carbon-neutral power.

[Gabi Hayes]

22. is joke, yes?

Accident at Japan nuclear plant | Greenpeace International Aug 9, 2004 ... BBC - Analysis of Japanese nuclear scandals and video from the scene on growing public opposition to nuclear power in Japan (real media) ...
www.greenpeace.org/international/news/accident-at-japan-nuclear-plan - Cached - Similar pages

Japanese nuclear safety scandal | Greenpeace International Tokyo, Japan — Japan's largest nuclear utility has announced that there has been a safety cover-up for decades at its nuclear power plants. ...
www.greenpeace.org/international/news/japanese-nuclear-safety-scanda - Cached - Similar pages

WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor; JAPAN: NUCLEAR SCANDAL WIDENS AND DEEPENS WISE/NIRS NM 574.5441; The scandal affecting the Japanese nuclear ... of its nuclear power plants for years (see WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor 573.5436, "Japan: ...
www10.antenna.nl/wise/574/5441.html - Cached - Similar pages

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan's shaky nuclear record Mar 24, 2006 ... Japan imported its first commercial nuclear power plant from the UK in 1966, ... Public confidence was not improved by the Tepco scandal, ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm - Cached - Similar pages

Reuters AlertNet - ANALYSIS-Japan nuclear power plant on long road ... Jan 16, 2008 ... ANALYSIS-Japan nuclear power plant on long road to recovery ... of safety scandals in Japan's nuclear sector over the past five years, ...
www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP343324.htm - Cached - Similar pages

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free ... By Japanese law (and other countries have similar reporting), utilities operating nuclear plants must report certain kinds of events (power excursions, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant - Cached - Similar pages

Re: : Nuclear power plant scandals in Japan In Japan the past is a foreign country, and people have no roots. It is sad. - Jed. Re: : Nuclear power plant scandals in Japan Jed Rothwell ...
www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg19226.html - Cached - Similar pages

Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Scandals Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Scandals. Citizens' Nuclear Information Center cnic at nifty.com. Mon Apr 2 04:36:19 EDT 2007 ...
energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/2007-April/001934.html - Cached - Similar pages

Japanese nuclear plant accident kills four - Asia, World - The ... Aug 10, 2004 ... Japan's nuclear power industry, already reeling from a string of scandals, is again coming under criticism following a plant accident ...
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japanese-nuclear-plant-accident-kills-four-556081.html - Cached - Similar pages

MOX use opposed by Genkai's leery residents | The Japan Times Online May 24, 2009 ... 3 nuclear power plant on Saturday after a second shipment of MOX fuel ... In 1999, a scandal erupted when falsified data on MOX made by ...
search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090524a4.html - Similar pages

[ensho]

34. thank you for taking the time to add this info

much appreciated

[SidDithers]

26. Thank you for your continuing series of posts...

highlighting how effective safety procedures are at the world's nuclear facilities.

Keep up the great work.

Sid

[rhett o rick]

27. Nuclear power plants are dangerous. But then so are all power plants.

Nuclear power can be operated in a safe manner. The US government has operated many, many nuclear power plants without significant problems. It can be done. Having said that, I must add that it is very, very expensive. And we have not come up with a method of disposing of the extremely deadly waste products. Currently, these waste products for commercial plants is not very well protected. The US should work for better alternatives to oil than nuclear.

[bananas]

29. Nuclear plants are so dangerous, they can't get insurance

without the Price-Anderson Act limiting liability.

[rhett o rick]

33. You mean the private sector won't step forward? nm

[Gabi Hayes]

36. here's a starting point.....along the lines of socialized risk/privatized reward:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

The Act has been criticized by a number of groups, including many consumer protection groups. In 1978, the Act survived a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (see below). The Act was last renewed in 2005 for a 20-year period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

key word being INDEMNITY

[NeedleCast]

39. I bet coal plant wokers wish their industry was as well regulated