Radioactive waste/water/your state government

BI,

It's a horrible deal for the state. Furthermore, the insurance isn't going to matter that much. In fact, that issue is somewhat of a charade. The Texas Supreme Court is owned by guys like Simmons and is extremely hostile to toxic tort cases. As a practical matter, if this stuff leaks into your water supply and you get sick, most likely you're just going to be f*cked. Your case might trigger insurance coverage, and the jury might give you money. However, the Supreme Court will find some reason to throw your case out.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
All good questions. But my big question is why is there concern that the waster will leak out of containment? Was there a design problem? Are the containers being shot with high powered rifles? There must be a bigger story here.

I have a friend who works for the nuclear power group in DC. He described to me how the waste is stored. It sounded very reliable. So why is it unreliable in this case?

I don't know enough to say it is good or bad that the insurance is backed by stock. It doesn't seem reliable enough to be called insurance. And the rules that were set up should be followed though, not manipulated as it sounds though.
 
Well risk is remote. I agree. Of all the waste facilities in the US, how many have leaked over what period of a time? I really don't know.

Now, that doesn't change the fact that if a leak does occur it is a huge problem for anyone in the area.

Bottom line for me, if the group who owns and runs the facility has done their due diligence in design, execution and contingency planning, I can't fault them. Now if he has cut corners on any of it, then the national nuclear group, don't know their acronym, needs to find them in violation, fine him, and require the necessary improvements.
 
Just another example of Rick Perry's incredible integrity. I promise you, you buy that man and he stays bought, come hell or a radioactive storm.
 
Your first and second response contradict each other. First you state that causation must be proven. Then you state that decisions are most often based on unsupported evidence (at least with anti-trust law).

As far as causation is concerned, your answer just as well backs up my assertion as your retort. The truth is somewhere between causation needing to be proved with absolute certainty and a wild *** guess. With a jury that probably doesn't understand probability, science, or logic theory, causation becomes a moving target.

For example, foreign materials in the body often cause harm. People were harmed. Testing of the material cannot take into account all possible scenarios. Thus, it is possible that people were harmed by breast implants. And causation is proven with rudimentary logic and limited evidence.




With regard to my proposal:
1. I think a different system is needed to try science-based tort cases. I think excluding people with science backgrounds circumvents the purpose of law - seeking the truth. I am confident that a jury of peers would do much better than a jury of wandering gypsies. Difficulties in getting knowledgeable people on juries are numerous - prosecutors (and guilty defendants) don't want them, knowledgeable jurors don't want to serve.... So a change in the system, IMO, is necessary.

2. With regard to criminal cases if a person is injured by a celebrity (ie OJ, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Jerry Sandusky) they get millions. Yet, if a person is injured by a common criminal, he/she gets nothing. Yes I realize that trying a celebrity case is much, much more difficult. However, I still don't like the award differences between the two. A common fund would help, but I realize new problems might emerge.
 
^^^ Yeah, I think that kind of stuff is pretty common. A friend of mine was parked behind me in the grass off of I10 (probably 10 yards from the nearest lane) and we both had our hazards on as we waited for a tow truck: A big king cab followed the lights and rear ended my friend's car and he went through the windshield. The guy had the minimum amount of insurance and no money, so my friend collected very little. It could have been much, much worse, but it still sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top