[crdoconnor]

>I'm sorry, but you're still missing the point. Yes, the nuclear industry could say to the government, "Please take away this policy that protects our industry."

Right, because if it's as safe as they and you say it is then it is absolutely not needed.

This would be a very clear signal of the faith that they have in the safety of their own investments.

> the nuclear industry is made up of modern twenty-first century human beings who will happily rake in whatever government benefits

According to you it is not a benefit, so they really shouldn't be all that concerned about keeping it.

But they are.

>May I suggest if you want to convince a group of grounded, knowledgeable, and technically minded people

In other words you think I should believe you, random internet stranger, over the nuclear industry's own self assessments of the danger posed by their plants.

[peteretep]

    > Right, because if it's as safe as they and you say it 
    > is then it is absolutely not needed.

Their shareholders will sue the shit out of them if they give up free money. I can't work out if you're being disingenuous or if you genuinely can't understand why companies don't give up free money.

[13thLetter]

"According to you it is not a benefit, so they really shouldn't be all that concerned about keeping it."

What are you talking about? Of course it's a benefit. I just said that in the exact line you quoted.

"In other words you think I should believe you, random internet stranger, over the nuclear industry's own self assessments of the danger posed by their plants."

No, I think that if you're going to assert that nuclear power is not safe you should back it up directly with information about... oh, say... how many fatalities it causes in comparison to other generation methods, instead of convoluted backwards arguments about liability caps. Since you seem disinclined to do that, I think we're done here.