.

Good on ya Silvia !

.

“Many industries operate under a set of strict rules designed to ensure that they are safe. They are monitored, and get fined if they break the rules. In more serious cases they can lose their right to operate, with serious profit implications.

There is no reason to think that the profit motive would cause nuclear power generation companies to skimp on security if the rules require that that security be in place.”

Come off it Sylvia, pull the other one.

A few examples of private companies/industries which wilfully put the profit motive before the wellbeing of the public/employees/customers:

Tobacco
Oil
Mining
Chemical/Pharmaceutical
James Hardie – asbestos
HIH
Enron
AWB

These are just off the top of my head.

Some of these industries (i.e. oil and mining) actually kill people who live on the land they want to explore/exploit (not officially or publicised of course).

What “reason” do you have to think that nuclear power companies are going to be any different? Maybe they are just good guys and want to help out.

What makes you think regulations are going to make any difference?

Are you unaware of the ways in which those with vested interests lobby (i.e. pull strings and bribe) governments in order to make conditions as favourable to them (i.e. profitable) as possible which includes relaxing as far as possible any laws or regulations that may restrict their ability to make profit? Do you think the nuclear power people are just going to be one out of the box?

Have you ever thought that the politicians who get in power (or even a whiff) only do so because they have proven they can/will play the corporate game?

And have you actually factored in the possible cost of a breakdown of this foolproof system, and the contamination of various regions, populated, unpopulated, high environmental value, high economic value etc.?

It is a pity Christina hasn’t replied with a reference, however (supposing it is true) I will deal with your comment:

“ChristinaMac it's hard for me to comment without some reference. Can you cite documentation that describes the stated unwillingness?

However, I can well understand that companies are reluctant to have largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities sitting on their books for 50 years. So if they can twist the arm of Government to take over the liability, no doubt in exchange for a levy to fund the future decomissioning, then they would no doubt take that course.”

So you can understand that companies wouldn’t want large and uncertain liabilities, yet the implication is that the public should accept those same liabilities.

And doesn’t the fact of “largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities” fly in the face of your DCF by which you can supposedly calculate to the very last cent the “real” value, costs and savings of things. How do you factor in “largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities”?

Tao,

I'm just going to ignore your posts until you can make them without comments like "Come off it Sylvia, pull the other one.".

Confine your comments to the subject matter, or you'll be talking into a black hole as far as I'm concerned.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

“Many industries operate under a set of strict rules designed to ensure that they are safe. They are monitored, and get fined if they break the rules. In more serious cases they can lose their right to operate, with serious profit implications.

There is no reason to think that the profit motive would cause nuclear power generation companies to skimp on security if the rules require that that security be in place.”

A few examples of private companies/industries which wilfully put the profit motive before the wellbeing of the public/employees/customers:

Tobacco
Oil
Mining
Chemical/Pharmaceutical
James Hardie – asbestos
HIH
Enron
AWB

These are just off the top of my head.

Some of these industries (i.e. oil and mining) actually kill people who live on the land they want to explore/exploit (not officially or publicised of course).

What “reason” do you have to think that nuclear power companies are going to be any different? Maybe they are just good guys and want to help out.

What makes you think regulations are going to make any difference?

Are you unaware of the ways in which those with vested interests lobby (i.e. pull strings and bribe) governments in order to make conditions as favourable to them (i.e. profitable) as possible which includes relaxing as far as possible any laws or regulations that may restrict their ability to make profit? Do you think the nuclear power people are just going to be one out of the box?

Have you ever thought that the politicians who get in power (or even a whiff) only do so because they have proven they can/will play the corporate game?

And have you actually factored in the possible cost of a breakdown of this foolproof system, and the contamination of various regions, populated, unpopulated, high environmental value, high economic value etc.?

It is a pity Christina hasn’t replied with a reference, however (supposing it is true) I will deal with your comment:

“ChristinaMac it's hard for me to comment without some reference. Can you cite documentation that describes the stated unwillingness?

However, I can well understand that companies are reluctant to have largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities sitting on their books for 50 years. So if they can twist the arm of Government to take over the liability, no doubt in exchange for a levy to fund the future decomissioning, then they would no doubt take that course.”

So you can understand that companies wouldn’t want large and uncertain liabilities, yet the implication is that the public should accept those same liabilities.

And doesn’t the fact of “largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities” fly in the face of your DCF by which you can supposedly calculate to the very last cent the “real” value, costs and savings of things. How do you factor in “largish and somewhat uncertain liabilities”?

I hope this is OK