![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What bothers me is that your homeowner's insurance won't cover you, the
plant operator won't cover you, the plant insurance won't cover you, the state won't cover you, and the federal government won't cover you. However, should there be a significant release of radioactivity, you WILL be prevented from going back to your property indefinitely, and you WILL be obligated to continue paying your mortgage AND even insurance premiums! It is not right that homeowners take the risk while the plant operators make the profit. They have their plant insured so they will come out of an accident ok, while thousands of families will be ruined. When the plant owners cover the homeowners for the loss resulting from a major accident I will begin to feel like they will take some care to make sure everything can be done to assure safety. "Neil Gould" wrote in message ink.net... Recently, Bruce Bockius posted: "Neil Gould" wrote in message Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have been in deep trouble. That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset when people who don't know anything about general aviation irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact same about something they don't know about. I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention. So. Given that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by the investigators. So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me, please. Neil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net...
It is not right that homeowners take the risk while the plant operators make the profit. They have their plant insured so they will come out of an accident ok, while thousands of families will be ruined. When the plant owners cover the homeowners for the loss resulting from a major accident I will begin to feel like they will take some care to make sure everything can be done to assure safety. Is there some kind of law that I don't know about that would make the plant operators not responsible for damage to others property? Why do you assume that they will come out OK because their plant is insured. In real life, I would imagine that the homeowners would sue them right out of business and everyone would be equally screwed. There are no winners in a nuclear accident. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: N.A.S.A. Astronauts "Autographed" 8x10 Photos | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | December 14th 04 04:37 PM |
Black is black ! | Dummy | Owning | 0 | September 1st 04 05:19 PM |
Black is black | Dummy | General Aviation | 0 | September 1st 04 05:19 PM |
FS: N.A.S.A. Astronauts "Autographed" 8x10 Photos | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 5th 04 05:44 AM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |