Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: A reply to Hall/Taylor on nuclear po - (nf)
Message-ID: <3300014@ea.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Apr-84 17:47:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ea.3300014
Posted: Mon Apr 16 17:47:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Apr-84 01:53:21 EST
References: <2695@azure.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:azure:-269500:ea:3300014:000:1068
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Apr 16 16:47:00 1984

#R:azure:-269500:ea:3300014:000:1068
ea!mwm    Apr 16 16:47:00 1984

/***** ea:net.flame / azure!jonw / 12:14 am  Apr 14, 1984 */
The bottom line is this:  if nuclear power is as safe as government and the
nuclear industry would have us believe, why then does industry continue to
insist on the limited liability provided for in the Price-Anderson Act?  No
other industry has (or needs) this type of taxpayer-provided insurance.  Why
should we pay good tax money so that we can be subjected to a dangerous and
unnecessary technology that couldn't last even one day in the free market?

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
/* ---------- */

Your first few lines imply that Nuclear Power is a hazard being forced on us
by the industry/government (presumably because the industry is greedy and the
government is cooperating with them). You then say that the technology wouldn't
last a day in the free market. In other words, the industry can make more
money with a conventional (or some other) power plant than with a nuclear
plant. If that's the case, why are the forcing us to put up with nuclear
plants?

	<mike