🚀 go-pugleaf

> > But to support that this contention sounds "pretty silly" to you - in
> > ***1983*** the insurance and re-insurance industry adopted the
"Radioactive
> > Matter Exclusion Endorsement" for all Comprehensive General Liability
> > (CGL) policies.  The endorsement states, and I quote -
> > 
> >         This policy does not apply to:
> > 
> >         "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" arising out of the actual,
> >         alledged or threatened exposure of person(s) or property to any
> >         radioactive matter.
> > 
> > That is not paranoia, that is one hundred percent risk avoidance - Your
> > basis for what constitutes a sound argument on this topic was made moot
> > some 4 years ago when the insurance industry - utilizing as a basis of
> > the exclusion caveat a natural law of science (given that 95% of all
> > matter in the universe is radioactive)- sorry about that but this is
the
> > reality of economic assessment.

So if 95% of everything is radioactive anyway - what is the basis for
rewarding trivial lawsuits with large settlements?  I can go outside, dig
up a shovel full of soil and most likely it will be ever so slightly
radioactive.  So does that mean I can sue the state / federal government,
previous owners, etc. because its "contaminated"?   Why should I work when
I can sue someone and live on easy street for the rest of my life (This is
what's wrong with the US justice system)?

It still sounds like paranoia and hysteria to me.  What does it sound like
to you?

Have you ever checked into the number of cases of Black lung caused by
mining coal?  Where is the public outcry?  What's the difference whether
you die from one contaminant or another?  While your at it, what about
smoking?  This is a truly massive problem.  Why hasn't it been defined as a
drug?  It is the nicotine that keeps people addicted while it slowly kills
them and costs the insurance companies many millions of dollars each year. 
They can remove (or at least reduce) the nicotine if they wanted to - but
why should they.  It would just make it easier for people to quit smoking.

Why not compare the number of deaths from radiation to the number of deaths
caused by smoking.  I think you will be in for a big surprise, even if you
count bomb activities and Chernobyl

Carl