🚀 go-pugleaf

Carl Dean wrote:
> 
> > > 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"?   

~There has never been a single claim paid under the Price-Anderson Act 
(Federal Insurance Pool) - and with the exception of posthomous award to 
Karen Silkwood's family - there hasn't been a tort lawsuit for 
radioactive exposure --except --- for the NORM suits against oil 
companies --- Three Mile Isand was kicked out of court this year - it 
just won't ever happen -


>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)?

~Don't forget the WORLD'S insurance system.


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

~It sounds like darn good business sense after the beating they took from 
asbestos/chemical exposure side of the aisle.

> Have you ever checked into the number of cases of Black lung caused bymining 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.

~Your right - and this goes back to my "Blueberry Theory" that says 
everyone who ate blueberries in 1789 is dead today - its almost like its 
destined to happen no matter what we do.

 
> 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

Mainly because people rarely die from radiation - its generally 
ionization of the various chemicals in the body - but then we are into 
'MIXED WASTE' - and there's a topic which there are no living or soon to 
be born experts - all the books ever written on mixed waste could fit in 
the glove box a a VW Beatle.

When all is said and done - neither or us can get CGL insurance for all 
things RADIOACTIVE - now that's equality.

Peter