1. For someone who is a *professional* writer and editor, I find Ms. Cooke’s reading comprehension skills to be disturbingly lacking. . .

    Rod: “I am not sure where you were taught that the accidents that have happened at nuclear plants were “never supposed to occur.” We design our plants to survive (remain functional) in the case of natural events up to a certain level. We do not stop there; we then add additional safety margins and layers of protection for the public – just in case our initial analysis was wrong.

    Our beyond design basis accident analysis efforts start with the assumption that everything bad has already happened and then we do the calculations to verify that there is minimal impact on public health.”

    *AFTER* that reply, Ms. Cooke seems to completely ignore those statements, and replies, “Actually I was “taught” that the Fukushima accident was beyond design basis by a former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner”.

    Rod had *already* explained that “Beyond design basis” does NOT equate to “Never supposed to occur”, and that the plants are designed to fail in such a way as to minimize the risk that public health is put to, but Rod essentially has to repeat himself in the next reply because Ms. Cooke chose to ignore what he said.

    This is what I find so aggravating about discussion threads on the Internet, and why at most sites, I just ignore the comments section. I always thought it was mostly just the “under-educated” who fell victim to such reading comprehension problems, but they run rampant on website “comments” discussions. It’s truly disheartening when someone who is a professional writer and editor does the same old crap. I weep for the future.

    1. Jeff – do not weep for the future. Seize the opportunities presented by today’s political, economic and technical situation to CHANGE THE FUTURE.

  2. Good rebuttals, Rod.

    You’re so correct in not eating Miss Stephanie’s “Period” snub/shrug just because she’s smug that her nuclear bigotry will be tapped as a media “nuclear reference” rather than you. We’ve GOT to get you on a MSM nuclear consultants list! I’ve been mentioning you in emails to Stossel and Cavuto at FoxNews since they are more maverick and open-minded about energy policy (other readers and the Carnival membership please back me up!). I also advise emailing copies of your responses and features to what pro-clear or energy fence straddling Congress people there are just to make them aware there’re nuclear blogs backing up them with reason and rationality instead of implaccable philosophical anti-nuke hang-ups which those as Miss Stephanie obviviously possess.

    I suggest you also mention to Miss Stephanine, since she’s on a health effects high horse, that her silence is deafening or ignorant that oil and coal plants emit both measurable radiative and cancerous particulates into the atmosphere AS A DAILY COURSE OF THEIR OPERATION wherein outside a nuke plant such emissions are either nil or none. Millions have long been affected by such but all I gather from Miss Stephanie about this are crickets.

    James Greenidge

  3. Good blog, Rod.

    This highlights some of the points I’ve been trying to make recently.

    When pro-nukes say nuclear power is safe, the general audience “hears” ABSOLUTELY safe. If a pro-nuke means ABSOLUTELY safe, he/she is wrong. The risk isn’t zero. Eventually the risk is manisfested, and the pro-nukes have erred because they never made it clear that safe means RELATIVELY safe.

    Regarding the design basis, Fukushima had a tsunami wall of height X (I can’t recall), though the actual tsunami achieved height >X. In this regard, the natural phenomenon exceeded the design basis.

    The Japanese general public had “heard” that Fukushima (and other plants) was safe. And now they’ve experienced what they feel is either incompetence and/or dishonesty. Anti-nukes around the globe who also “heard” that nuclear power is safe (in the absolute sense), are now also suspicious. But it’s the pro-nukes fault to begin with for not ensuring the general public understands the difference between relative and absolute safety.

    The same is true with radiation risk. Pro-nukes shouldn’t say the risk is zero, but that it is relatively small.

    I posted this link in an earlier blog but it shows how the suspicions grow when authority figures oversimplify and then they’re shown to be wrong:


    1. Bob, I agree with your message, but I question its delivery method.

      Sure pro-nukes can be blamed for speaking in terms of absolute when it is not absolute. I disagree fully that is its pro-nukes fault that people hear the phrasing absolute when a pro-nuke is clearly speaking in relative numbers.

      An auto manufacture can make a t.v. commercial where their car gets a 5 star crash test rating. Does the public believe that it is impossible for them to get injured in such a car? That the car is absolutely safe. No.

      The anti-nuclear FUD campaign pushes the concept that absolute safety is required. Often using the question “Can you say this NPP will be absolutely safe?” as a trump card in ending a debate. This question implies that anything below absolute is unacceptable. When I see anti-nukes debate like this after they fly in an airplane to another country I just laugh at their hypocrisy.

      I don’t agree that it is the responsibility for pro-nukes explain before making a statement that when they say really small chance, they mean really small chance. The listener must take some of the blame themselves for not being a good listener.

      Along the lines of poor comprehension. Is is very easy for someone reading your reply to believe that Rod has made claims of absoluteness in his article and is a suspicious authority figure because of this. I don’t believe this was your intent. However it is very easy to interpret it this way because of your generality. I say this because that is how I initially read it.

  4. Frankly Rod you complicate the argument too much. I do not know how you would kill someone wit radiation from a LWR with a containment building. This was demonstrated in Japan.

    You could bus people to the plant and then withhold food, water, and medical treatment. Or you could just withhold food, water, and medical treatment.

    Rod also fell for the expensive cleanup trap. Pin these dimwits down on safety, Now that no catastrophe occurred, we do know how much it cost to clean up TMI.

  5. Clearly the Fukushima reactor was not operated according to design with corrupt managers and regulators colluding to keep a far below design requirement 7.5 meter tsunami wall and switchgear and backup in harms way. That would never be allowed to happen in a Western regulated reactor.

    7.5 Meter plus high tsunami’s occur every decade in the pacific rim. Over a thousand years the chance a thousand plants on that rim will be hit by one is close to 100%. That reduces the currently NRC approved 1 meltdown incident per AP-1000 reactor per 5 million years to 1 in a thousand max – well out of design spec. The exact equivalent of driving a modern vehicle with a hand but no disk brakes – well out of spec but unlikely to cause an accident most days.

    Tepco management and regulators were well aware of this abysmal state having been warned many times. Unfortunately,in the Japanese culture where media, politicians, regulators, business and voters work in a kind of corrupt consensus, whistleblowers are non existent.

    The Japanese got exactly what they deserved – a very painful lesson that democracy requires citizen participation – voting counts. Unfortunately the rest of the world is paying a price for their complacency.

    Frankly the Tepco and regulatory people responsible for this outrage, should be taken out and shot for treason.

  6. Japan suffered huge loss of life when the tsunami swept over 101 evacuation sites. People stopped running when they thought they were safe. You think they deserved that Seth? Corruption and complacency are just not a factor in things that can not be predicted.

    Japan has more active volcanoes that the US has nuke plants. I would suggest that living in Japan requires you to be more than a little stoic about natural disasters. I suspect that cities in Japan have better emergency plans for volcanoes than say Seattle.

    The point here is that society can deal with very infrequent events by evacuation rather than design for them. The design basis of nuke plants is whatever society want it to be but it has to be somewhat consistent with how other things are designed.

    For example, Columbia Generating Station is built to withstand natural hazards. If you look at the geology of the area of the PNW it is clear that the next period of glaciation will destroy that power plant. Well, sometime in the next 10-20 thousand years that is. If that does not get Columbia Generating Station a massive lava flow from a super volcano near Yellowstone will bury the plant. Well, sometime in the next 600 thousand years that is.

    There is two flaws in Seth’s logic. First, the environment of each site is different. You do not multiply the number of reactors on the Pacific rim by the number of natural disasters to determine core melt frequency. Second what are you going to do and where are you going to go? That is the problem with natural disasters. The place I would want my children if a natural disaster strikes is at a nuke plant. Even if the core melts down. After the natural disaster, you can always leave.

    1. Thank God you aren’t responsible for design of anything safety related. Right? Please no!!!

      No the Japanese didn’t deserve the tidal wave but they did deserve the nuclear spanking they got for allowing corruption to put them in harm’s way.

      Two other newer reactors down the beach had proper tsunami protection and survived the event without issue. Gee dja thunk maybe they knew something that those responsible for Fukushima didn’t. Golly!!

      So you think putting up Tsunami protection that gets exceeded every ten years somewhere on the Pacific Rim and has been exceeded on that site many times over a thousand years is adequate for a nuke plant? Thank God you aren’t promoting a nuke in front of a regulator. You’d scare the hell out of

      The advance of the Columbia ice field is unknown and we’d have plenty of warning to shut down nukes in harms way. There are no nuke plants that are threatened by volcano’s. A Yellowstone lava flow at Columbia. That is just nuts. We also have plenty of warning of volcanic activity Try again.

      1. The Japanese used the best geophysics they had available. Northern Japan sits on the intersection of 4 tectonic plates.

        TEPCO employees did not do the geophysics, they contracted it out to others.

        Looking at the past, there was no evidence of a greater than 8 magnitude earthquake from the Japanese Trench. Larger magnitude earthquakes have resulted from other plates. The tsunami wall reflected what was known about the past.

        However, the Fukushima quake (with epicenter near the town of Sendai) originated at magnitude 9 from the Japanese Trench.

        The Japanese had been focusing on and preparing for magnitude 9’ish earthquakes from other plates.

        1. I just wonder who approved of the idea to vent hydrogen gas into an enclosed building. A building who air handling equipment runs off of electricity.

          I mean, they are venting the hydrogen because they have no electricity to use to dissipate it inside the containment. This was a huge oversight.

        2. gee, why did the two other plants just down the beach put up walls twice the height and kept backup power out of harms way?

          Your posting is nonsense.

        3. Probably because the price of the fossil-fuel competition was much higher when Fukushima Daini was built than it was when Fukushima Dai-ichi was built. Therefore, less incentive to cut corners with the sea walls…

  7. Sadly, arguing from ignorance appears to be a specialty of Ms. Cooke. It is depressing to think that she is considered professionally to be a journalist specializing in the nuclear sector.

    Observe where I had to correct her on several points in her response to Dan Yurman. She clearly exhibited that she doesn’t understand how nuclear liability is handled internationally (particularly concerning recent events in India), so I had to explain it to her.

    Thus, it’s not surprising that she asked, “Do you know that your home insurance policy does not protect you from radiation damage of any kind?” She clearly knows nothing at all about liability for nuclear accidents, either in the US or abroad.

    But her shamelessness, at least, is admirable. After all of this, she still had the balls to claim, “I am well aware of how the insurance system for nuclear energy works in this country.”

    No, sorry Ms. Cooke, you are not.

    Then, there’s this gem that I replied to:

    “Apart from the project at Flamanville (over budget and delayed), there has been no talk of further reactors in France that I m aware of.”

    No, plans for Penly 3 are still ongoing. Less than two weeks ago, the French energy ministry announced, once again, that the project has not been suspended.

    I would have pointed her to the Reuters article that carried this bit of news on Oct. 4, but I figured that, as a journalist, she should be able to do her own research. Perhaps, I expect too much.

    So she doesn’t know about Penly 3, but that doesn’t stop her from trying to lecture us about the state of new nuclear builds worldwide.

    Why is this woman allowed to report on nuclear power at all?!! Does she ever do her homework? You’d think that she would have done some research before writing a book on the subject.

    1. She probably did the same research as Rory O’Connor, one of the authors of “Nukespaek”

    2. Home insurance also does not cover flood damage. This is not done because floods have no risk. It is done so because the government controls the flood insurance market, as they do the radiation damage market.

      That is to say even if you sign up for flood insurance, your insurance company is not supplying the insurance, it is separate and provide for by the federal government. At least in the United States.

      Sure, it is possible for insurance companies to carry flood insurance and possible for the government to exit the market. But, as long as the laws are still in place defining the governments role in this area it will stay that way, for better or for worse. Just because the federal government supplies the insurance does not mean they do so because its so expensive that corporate insurance couldn’t handle it.

      1. Just because the federal government supplies the insurance does not mean they do so because its so expensive that corporate insurance couldn’t handle it.

        Yes, that’s the takeaway message.

        However, in the case of a nuclear accident, the government does not provide the insurance. The owners of the plants provide it. The US government merely sets up the structure by which liability would be covered in the case of an accident, and this is entirely funded by the nuclear plant owners.

        Note that this is “no-fault” coverage, which means that the owners of the plant can’t even argue that the accident wasn’t their fault. All of this scheme is designed to insure that damages are payed as quickly as possible without getting tangled up in courts.

  8. I find it odd that someone who has a link to Amory Lovins and Rocky Mountain Institute on her blog would be an editor of a weekly news publication about nuclear power and uranium issues.

    And she makes a comment on another blog entry that indicates she believes Germany is on the right track to eliminate nuclear power.

    It would be similar to me working for a solar or wind firm. Wind and solar will have a place at the table. However because of my own personal opinion on the two technologies it would be difficult for me to put 100% into the effort because I just don’t believe they are the solution to our future energy needs.

    Now whenever I read anything from her it will be like listening to a song being played on a piano that is slightly out of tune. Or like listening to a V8 that is running on 7 good cylinders with one cylinder that is slightly off for some reason.

  9. @seth:

    “gee, why did the two other plants just down the beach put up walls twice the height and kept backup power out of harms way?

    Your posting is nonsense.”

    No, the post isn’t nonsense. It is a factually accurate account of the history.

    Why two other plants or any other number of plants do something else has nothing to do with why TEPCO did what they did when they did it.

    1. But has a lot to do with the actual current assessment of tsunami risk and the corruption that allowed Tepco to save a few million by sticking with 1960’s as-builts.

  10. Rod – I think your idea for a mutual insurance system for the nuclear industry based on a premium of (several) mill(s) per KWh, the pool to be invested in new nuclear construction or other suitable long-term investments that a mutual insurance company would make, is an excellent one and would go a long way towards ending the charge the antis bring up that “Price-Anderson is a massive subsidy”.

    It would also scare the antis tremendously.

  11. Hi Rod,

    I worked on PRA and Individual Plant Evaluations for many years. Did source term analysis and the like.

    I have no idea what Cook is talking about when she says risk models need to be extended beyond design basis. This was done long ago – back in the 80s and 90s. Countless millions of dollars and untold thousands of person-years were expended on these risk models, both on the part of the NRC and the industry.

    NUREG-1150 would be the place to start, although the Staff states quite plainly that it is now obsolete. You might even be able to take a look at some of the IPE submittals.

    Anyway, I can’t think of greater waste of time than doing further risk assessment on commercial LWR. It’s completely unnecessary. As Fukushima shows, the external event that leads to core damage is far worse than anything brought on by core damage.



    1. @perdajz

      Thank you for the information.

      Not surprisingly, I have met a few PRA experts who would disagree with your statement that doing additional risk assessment on LWRs is a waste of time. It is, after all, the way they capture a paycheck – even if there is no real value delivered.

  12. Some one explain this for me. Just where is the government subsidy in Price Anderson?
    As I understand it the utilities first have to have the maximum amount of insurance that is possible to purchase, which they get through ANI, then, if there is an accident at any reactor causing harm to civilians, the rest of the reactor owners are obligated to pay, on a per reactor owned basis ratio, their share of the amount over the maximum that the insurance company (ANI) paid. the federal government no longer pays anything. This sounds like a massive co-op/mutual insurance program to me. the only caveat is that the maximum payout, by the owners, is limited to about $12 billion today after which the federal government would pay. The only time I see a subsidy involved is IF the government pays.
    Are they calling the lack of buying something a subsidy? If I get sued for $10 million dollars and lose and then file for bankruptcy does that mean that the government is giving me a subsidy for the $9 million in insurance I don’t have? Why is that any different?
    Many large corporations are “self insured.” All they need is a “trust account” based upon actuary mumbjumo numbers. That means they are not buying insurance. Does that mean the state/feds are giving them a subsidy also?

  13. A tragedy took place last week in China when five workers were killed in acrane collapse during the installation of a wind turbine. This was completely unnecessary because the 5MW “capacity” from this wind turbine could have been easily provided by nuclear power with far less risk. The event received little media coverage, of course, despite the death toll exceeding Fukushima’s.

    Anyone calling for a moratorium on the construction of wind turbines? Anyone calling for further risk analysis of wind?

    1. The fatality rate is a good point even though crane accidents can occur in most any construction job. The thing about wind power is how it razes the very environment Greens hold near and dear. Knocking down whole square miles of forests and mountain tops and spoiling pristine natural vistas just to be PC and feel good that you’re “saving the planet”? {how ironic!). Don’t even go into how such a sight greeting your horizon every morning poisons property values and your sense of being in tune with nature. The people in Vermont better wisen up that they could be sacrificing the irreplacable just to allay bogeyman fears of a Doomsday that might — and hasn’t (even with Fukushima and Chernobyl) happened.

      James Greenidge

      1. “The thing about wind power is how it razes the very environment Greens hold near and dear. Knocking down whole square miles of forests and mountain tops ….. ”

        So true. And what REALLY irks me (being an animal and wildlife lover) is all the birds that these things chop up. This includes ENDANGERED species of birds and bats… and they are NOT FINED FOR IT.

        If one of us were to be caught shooting and killing an endangered specie of bird, you would get jumped on and and fined for it. Talk about your double standard….

  14. Ms. Cooke’s employment with industry publications does seem very odd given her attitude towards nuclear energy. She clearly doesn’t like it to the extent of advocating against it. After seeing her speech on youtube videos, there’s no question, she is clearly on the anti-nuclear side.

    I haven’t read the particular publications she’s worked for, but these types of publications tend to be pretty dry reading material for someone who isn’t involved in the business. It’s not exactly a journalist’s dream job, though for some it could be the cat’s meow.

    I can only speculate she might have fell into that line of journalism work but never developed a passion for nuclear energy and felt an easier kinship with those who were against it. Everyone likes to have a sense of purpose in the work they do, otherwise a job can get pretty boring and old fast. Being anti-nuclear may have been her way of finding purpose or a way to distinguish herself among her peers and gain recognition elsewhere.

  15. Dang, Rod, you are a patient soul!

    As for Ms. Cooke’s writing on a subject with which she is not extremely familiar for an industry trade journal — it’s not surprising. Many of these publications are, for the most part, populated by journalism majors who have little or no technical background — and often no background in economics either. The hope is that these journalists, many of whom are good writers, will eventually grow into the subject on which they report. These journalists often believe — naively or arrogantly, sometimes both — that they “know” their subject cold. But of course, there is a difference between “knowing about” a subject, which these journalists do, and “knowing” a subject through hands-on experience and tacit knowledge.

    After a stint in journalism, I “know” this phenomenon first-hand. Speaking to people who actually work in the industry I reported on (and later working in a related industry) eventually convinced me of how little I actually knew at the time. Took a while, though.

  16. Regarding the five workers killed in a crane accident – it is irrelevant whether the crane was in use for building a wind tower, or a nuclear power station, or a luxury hotel. Cranes are dangerous in themselves.

    1. @Don

      Just as in radiation or chemicals, the “dose makes the poison” when it comes to the risk associated with large cranes.

      Cranes that reach higher, swing more often or are relocated more often have increased risk profiles. As wind turbine sizes increase, the towers get higher and the nacelles get heavier. As wind developers push to install more capacity, the number of towers required increases dramatically, increasing the overall risk of crane related injury or death.

      An accident that results in killing five people for a system with a maximum output of just 5 MWe is roughly equivalent to killing 1600 people on an EPR job site. Actually, even that comparison is not fair to the 1600 MWe EPR design, since it is likely to produce about 1100 times as much useful energy each year as a 5 MWe wind turbine.

  17. Rod,
    While I share your views on many, many issues, especially saving our old plant in Zion, I think your attack on Stephanie Cooke lacks good judgment. I’ve known Stephanie for 30 years. She is a good person. And she is a highly professional journalist with wide-ranging sources, high and low, both inside the nuclear industry, regulatory community, non-proliferation community, and outside. Stephanie has covered these issues for decades and knows them very well compared to the average journalist. Sure. She has a different view point and different concerns than you & I do. But I think that’s just fine. In the United States, we have freedom of speech and diversity is generally recognized to be our strength not our weakness. Your correspondence with Stephanie was polite and informative. Nothing wrong with that. But what you are inciting in your blog seems to be INTOLERANCE of anyone who questions nuclear energy — and that I can’t agree with. You control what gets posted on your blog. Despite its best intentions, this blog has prompted personal attacks on Ms. Cooke such as this one from BRIAN MAYS:

    “Sadly, arguing from ignorance appears to be a specialty of Ms. Cooke. It is depressing to think that she is considered professionally to be a journalist specializing in the nuclear sector.”

    Well, what’s sad are remarks like that which emanate from anyone’s mouth. I’d stake Ms. Cooke’s knowledge and professionalism against Mr. Mays’s professionalism any day of the week.

    The same stands for the smear remarks by Ed F who didn’t have the courage to list his own name when he said:

    “As for Ms. Cooke’s writing on a subject with which she is not extremely familiar for an industry trade journal — it’s not surprising….These journalists often believe — naively or arrogantly, sometimes both — that they “know” their subject cold. ”

    Well, I am willing to bet that Mr. “F” never met Stephanie, never shared a coffee with her, nor bothered to research her credentials before issuing his smear — but yet he claims to know her weaknesses “cold”.

    Rod, this industry needs people like you. And, whether you believe it or not, this industry also needs individuals like Stephanie who challenge traditional thinking and who force the industry and regulators to constantly re-examine their positions and policies. Its healthy. So, intended or not, this blog has started to smear good people and anyone with a different point of view. It fosters intolerance. As such, I think its a disservice to the nuclear industry and to Americans in general. I think you owe Ms. Cooke an apology and I think Mr. Mays and Mr. “F” inappropriate remarks should be removed.

    1. Ed F. and Mr. Mays are entitled to their opinions just like you and Stephanie. Ed F and a number of others are also entitled to whatever handle they wish.

      That Stephanie is a good person and probably knows more about nuclear energy than the average person or average journalist is irrelevant. They have just as much right to question her opinion as Stephanie has the right to espouse hers. That shouldn’t be confused with intolerance.

      That said, Stephanie should be perfectly capable of defending herself on this matter. I think the comment participants would be more than willing to converse with her on any point about nuclear energy. Stephanie wasn’t “attacked”, her views and opinions were challenged.

      The sentiment of many of the comments is that of puzzlement as Ms. Cooke, who by all accounts ought to have an extensive knowledge of nuclear technology, apparently does not and/or at least sees it as a dire threat. Again, she’s perfectly capable of defending herself if she wishes and is welcome to do so.

      1. Well said Jason,

        And to just add several points Mr. Joosten.

        As Jason indicated, I am one of those that is puzzled by Ms. Cooke’s work as my previous comment discusses. Honestly as one who has been in and out of nuclear work for more than a decade, this is the first time I have heard of Ms. Cooke. There are many writers who focus on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. So it should not be surprising to anyone that many of us ardent supporters of nuclear power do not have Ms. Cooke on our to-read list. It was only the NYT editorial that brought her to my attention.

        However, after reviewing the information she has made publically available due to her profession and the book she wrote, I would classify her nuclear focus as one who follows the decades old meme that nuclear power automatically leads to nuclear weapon proliferation. That puts Ms Cooke in the Frank Von Hippel/Bulletin of Atomic Scientists camp and indicates her journalistic bias.

        A casual glance of her website and the links she has provided, by those of us who are knowledgeable in the various anti-nuclear power groups that have national and international followings, confirms that bias. It is a who’s who of anti-nuclear power: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies. There are only a few anti-nuclear groups missing such as Helen Caldicott’s group, Physicians for Social Responsibility which is a question I would like to ask Ms. Cooke. Does she support the PSR or similar groups?

        Based on that bias alone, her reporting is open to review and critical critique especially by those who are knowledgeable of the technology and the business of nuclear power. However any reporter or author is open to critique just by the very nature of their business. Gwyneth Cravens has endured similar style of criticisms due to her transformation from an anti-nuclear advocate to a nuclear power supporter. Critique and criticism is part of the business when one decides to become a journalist and author.
        And as Jason states above, Ms. Cooke appears to be very capable of defending herself considering those decades of experience and those sources she has worked to maintain such as yourself. Many of us would welcome that opportunity to have a back and forth discussion with her considering her views of nuclear power.

  18. Charles Barton (at the Nuclear Green Revolution) has today posted a devastating refutation of Stephanie Cook’s biased piece in the NYT. His critique concludes “The claim that nuclear power continues to die of an incurable attack of market forces appears to be at best very inaccurate, and at worst downright dishonest. The evidence points to the opposite. The number of nuclear power plants under construction has more than doubled during the last 5 years. The number of nuclear power plants on order or being planned has more than doubled, while the generation capacity of new nuclear plants under consideration has more than tripled. These numbers suggest that far from dying, the global nuclear industry is flourishing, and those who suggest otherwise are either poorly informed, deluded, or deliberately lying.” I think Ms. Cooke should explain which of these three descriptions is most apt.

  19. Jason is correct that we’re all entitled to our opinions. And in most democracies we’re also entitled to freedom of speech. That means we can freely express those views … Right up to the point of injuring others with our speech. At that point society imposes laws called slander and libel to protect society from self-centered malevolent individuals.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts