![]() | Nuclear energy policy of the United States was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 10, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the
nuclear policy of the United States regulates the
nuclear energy industry more strictly than most others, there have been 52 incidents (Three Mile Island cleanup pictured) costing an estimated $8.56 billion? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great topic and also a very controversial one at that. I really liked how you moved chronologically with the changes in policy. I also liked how you included public opinion because that usually has a big effect on how the policy is made. Keep up the good work. -Joe from class Jjwiki14 ( talk) 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Overall your article appears to be well researched and balanced. One shortcoming is well documents cost in dollars without documenting benefits in dollars. For example a single modern light water reactor rated at ~1200MWe will produce >21 trillion gross retail dollars ($21,000 billion) of electricity during a projected 40 year life span. This amount assumes $0.07/KW-h of power produced and sold. If the plant has a license extention to 60 years this amount goes to >32 trillion dollars. This puts some of the other dollar amounts into better perspective. Great work. Thank you for your great effort. Whpowell ( talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is quite strong on nuclear power policy but a lot more could be said about nuclear weapons policy, see here. Thanks for work done so far! Johnfos ( talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice job guys, this has a potential for a Good Article if you keep developing it! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Article states - "South Korean environmental activists staged an anti-nuclear rally on Monday, marking the 32nd anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in the United States." "On Monday" needs a date. 138.87.147.133 ( talk) 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Please cite what you think information is outdated below. I am assuming, it is on the fundings given (which none have been distributed as far as I've heard). NOTE, since I started this article in March, the NRC has not updated any information on new reactor plans. Aside from the updated sources on the page (which includes expected future proposed plans), see: New Reactors & NRC - New Reactors locations, The last updates were in March of 2011. If no one can provide what information is outdated in this section, I will have to remove the tag... Kayz911 ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deactivated request of US nuclear energy policy
Nuclear policy of the United States → US nuclear energy policy — Frankly, the topic is energy policy and it is usually called nuclear energy policy. People think you're talking about bombs and that is very POV and WP should not tolerate POV of that nature. Bard गीता 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
* Power and policy are different. Nuclear power and Nuclear policy are different.
{Requested move/dated|Nuclear energy policy in the United States} Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy in the United States Note that Nuclear energy policy of the United States is national policy. Nuclear policy in the United States includes state policies. But the NRC does have Federal pre-emption so I lean to eventually having two articles, but that can be dealt with later in a split proposal. Any thoughts??
Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy in the United States
This is what everybody seems to be leaning toward. Any questions? This should not be controversial. Note: I originally tried to suggest two alternative titles but it seems that the template and the bots only showed one suggested title. I don't remember maybe this was one of the two original proposed names. At any rate, it seems the important thing is to disambiguate the page name. Bard गीता 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear policy of the United States → US nuclear energy policy AGREED: WITHDRAWN IN FAVOR OF
Nuclear energy policy in the United States — Alternatively
Nuclear energy policy of the United States Frankly, the topic is energy policy and it is usually called nuclear energy policy. People think you're talking about bombs and that is very POV and WP should not tolerate POV of that nature.
Bard गीता 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Nuclear power in the United States. Oppose "US" or putting the context first. Powers T 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"oppose' per Night w2's thoughts, Sadads (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Bard गीता
00:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The remarks seem to pretty much concur that the word Nuclear should go first and there seems to be either support for or ambiguity/neutrality regarding the point of distinguishing nuclear energy policy from nuclear weapons policy, and that a"nuclear policy" is ambig. Hence, I will close this confusing discussion and re-open, if that is cool with all concerned. Bard गीता 00:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I find this conversation very hard to follow. Perhaps this should just be restarted fresh? 65.94.44.141 ( talk) 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Geffery I appreciate your interest and contributions here, but there seems to be some problems with your citation of your information you put on the article. Excluding the youtube link (which are hard to cite as a source for potential readers), you are not archiving your sources (try | WebCitation.org), not providing author names, dates etc (see the other sources as a template and copy paste your information in there). Also "ibid" is NOT a source, do a Ref tag (like the other sources), simply cut and past an earlier one of mine and put use a tag for each additional usage in the body of the article. There is a "how to" pasted by VisionHolder in my ref section as well, I'll be happy to work with you if you need help on that, hit up my talk page. I know were running an advanced citation style here, but i find it's helpful for users to quickly learn more about a topic. Also at the end of every paragraph and after every quote, you need to cite your source. There are at least 6+ places where citations are needed, I will mark them with a cite need note. I have to hold this article at a far higher standard than normal, because this article is very important to the public policy page and is soon being featured at a Wikipedia sponsored conference in Boston in a few months. Therefore, your going to need to update these changes in the next week or so, because uncited sources will kill any chance at a passing the Good Article application which I will be submit this article for in a week or so after I finish a longer lead (which I am working now). I would hate to have to remove the uncited information because it is interesting and relevant to policy (it shouldn't take too long, just needs a little leg work). Cheers Kayz911 ( talk) 09:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Well-reasoned proposal. -- Hadal ( talk) 09:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy of the United States
Alternative options: move to Federal nuclear energy policy in the United States
This discussion shall not discuss nor prejudice to new article proposal: Federal nuclear energy policy in the United States
Nuclear energy policy is quite complex.
Nuclear energy policy is a different topic from nuclear weapons policy.
Nuclear energy policy of the United States means the policy of the United States government.
Nuclear energy policy of the United States means the policy of the United States government and also the policies of the various states such as state utility commissions, state energy commissions, etc.
Wikipedia article titles are generally expected to reflect the content of the article.
The complained-of title is over-broad (overly general) in that its content is a subcategory of the named topic.
Nuclear energy policy of the United States also includes policies for mining, transportation, waste storage, establishment of oversight agencies, funding etc. which relate directly or indirectly to nuclear energy (*addition*) Kayz911 ( talk) 05:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In the foregoing discussion, it seems that the trend of consensus was to support the Rename ("Move") but some persons continued to discuss an earlier rename proposal which was not any longer in issue. Other users complained thereafter of the confusion and one user requested starting from scratch which does seem to be consistent with consensus. Thus, this new section.
Comment: Fine, you make a fair argument, just add single word "energy" to the title and let's move on to important things such as expanding the article's contents. As long as no sections in the article will be removed because someone believes the policy does not fall under "Nuclear energy policy" then I have no issues. I'll add a bullet above to cover this idea. But just to be clear, I am only supporting the single word "Energy" to be added, nothing else. Kayz911 ( talk) 05:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I created a cubdivided disambiguation page at Nuclear policy of the United States. Please add other links as appropriate. Note that nuclear policy includes a large number of Federal agencies which need to be added and that policy is under constant revision. Thus the links may need updating. Bard गीता 23:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The page will look better with one See also in addition to the link to the disambiguation page.
whoever wants to please choose I really prefer collaboration and consensus. I left two on the page take your pick whatever looks good to you : Just take out the < and the ! etcetera.
CHOOSE AS YOU WISH: see also | Nuclear power in the United States}}---> OR WHATEVER: about|nuclear energy|nuclear weapons|Nuclear weapons of the United States}}--->
Bard गीता 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is being featured as a model of students success Wikipedia's pilot program started at their conference in Boston from 07-11 of July. I am making important changes and removing missing information in this article to get it ready for tomorrow's presentation. So be mindful to any thing you might want to add that you do not feel 100% confident about the coming few days. I just want to say, GREAT WORK FOLKS! You know who you are, and keep up the good work. Feel free to check any copy changes I make in the coming hours! Cheers everyone! Kayz911 ( talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Great article, Casey. We really enjoyed this. Floraindiana ( talk) 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is now being submitted to GA article standards under suggestions from Wikipedia staff at a campus ambassador training session. Please hold off of edits until the article's feedback is provided. Kayz911 ( talk) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
A large heading in the middle of the article is "Second nuclear age". What actual evidence is there for a second nuclear age? Which sources are using this term? Or is it just WP:OR and wishful thinking? I appreciate there was the Energy Policy Act in 2005 and some industry talk of a nuclear renaissance, but very little has actually materialized in terms of new construction and many proposals have been cancelled. Maybe a better heading would be "Stalled nuclear expansion". Johnfos ( talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance
I have tried to gently bring in suggestions on this Talk page in the usual way, but have not got very far. I have been repeatedly stymied by Kayz who acts as if she is the owner of this article. Recently she has told editors to “hold off of edits until the article's GA feedback is provided” and she has told me to go to the Nuclear renaissance page to discuss things. I have never heard such rubbish. This is not the way we do things on Wikipedia! We need to encourage editors to make suggestions on the Talk page, listen to what they say, and use a collaborative approach.
Per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles no one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. Johnfos ( talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nuclear energy policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I am returning to fix a critique from a GA article status about two periods (that I originally wrote) to be not considered dubious and more focused towards the content vs a personal subjective timeframe in the introduction as no one has fix this over the years. I also fixed a few small grammatical things throughout the article. I've also updated the 2017 law to note the final version signed into law on 2018 by Trump as this bill died in congress and is no longer applicable for a summary article. Expansions to this section are encouraged! Kayz911 ( talk) 22:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the most recent information, including the last section, were written around 2012, shortly after the Fukushima disaster. At that time there was great uncertainty because the lessons of Fukushima were still being evaluated and the long term effect on public opinion was unknown. The article needs to be updated for what happened in the last 10 years. Ttulinsky ( talk) 20:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at
Winona State University and
Western Carolina University supported by
WikiProject United States Public Policy and the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Nuclear energy policy of the United States was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 10, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the
nuclear policy of the United States regulates the
nuclear energy industry more strictly than most others, there have been 52 incidents (Three Mile Island cleanup pictured) costing an estimated $8.56 billion? |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Great topic and also a very controversial one at that. I really liked how you moved chronologically with the changes in policy. I also liked how you included public opinion because that usually has a big effect on how the policy is made. Keep up the good work. -Joe from class Jjwiki14 ( talk) 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Overall your article appears to be well researched and balanced. One shortcoming is well documents cost in dollars without documenting benefits in dollars. For example a single modern light water reactor rated at ~1200MWe will produce >21 trillion gross retail dollars ($21,000 billion) of electricity during a projected 40 year life span. This amount assumes $0.07/KW-h of power produced and sold. If the plant has a license extention to 60 years this amount goes to >32 trillion dollars. This puts some of the other dollar amounts into better perspective. Great work. Thank you for your great effort. Whpowell ( talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is quite strong on nuclear power policy but a lot more could be said about nuclear weapons policy, see here. Thanks for work done so far! Johnfos ( talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice job guys, this has a potential for a Good Article if you keep developing it! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Article states - "South Korean environmental activists staged an anti-nuclear rally on Monday, marking the 32nd anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in the United States." "On Monday" needs a date. 138.87.147.133 ( talk) 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Please cite what you think information is outdated below. I am assuming, it is on the fundings given (which none have been distributed as far as I've heard). NOTE, since I started this article in March, the NRC has not updated any information on new reactor plans. Aside from the updated sources on the page (which includes expected future proposed plans), see: New Reactors & NRC - New Reactors locations, The last updates were in March of 2011. If no one can provide what information is outdated in this section, I will have to remove the tag... Kayz911 ( talk) 18:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Deactivated request of US nuclear energy policy
Nuclear policy of the United States → US nuclear energy policy — Frankly, the topic is energy policy and it is usually called nuclear energy policy. People think you're talking about bombs and that is very POV and WP should not tolerate POV of that nature. Bard गीता 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
* Power and policy are different. Nuclear power and Nuclear policy are different.
{Requested move/dated|Nuclear energy policy in the United States} Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy in the United States Note that Nuclear energy policy of the United States is national policy. Nuclear policy in the United States includes state policies. But the NRC does have Federal pre-emption so I lean to eventually having two articles, but that can be dealt with later in a split proposal. Any thoughts??
Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy in the United States
This is what everybody seems to be leaning toward. Any questions? This should not be controversial. Note: I originally tried to suggest two alternative titles but it seems that the template and the bots only showed one suggested title. I don't remember maybe this was one of the two original proposed names. At any rate, it seems the important thing is to disambiguate the page name. Bard गीता 00:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear policy of the United States → US nuclear energy policy AGREED: WITHDRAWN IN FAVOR OF
Nuclear energy policy in the United States — Alternatively
Nuclear energy policy of the United States Frankly, the topic is energy policy and it is usually called nuclear energy policy. People think you're talking about bombs and that is very POV and WP should not tolerate POV of that nature.
Bard गीता 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support Nuclear power in the United States. Oppose "US" or putting the context first. Powers T 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"oppose' per Night w2's thoughts, Sadads (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Bard गीता
00:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The remarks seem to pretty much concur that the word Nuclear should go first and there seems to be either support for or ambiguity/neutrality regarding the point of distinguishing nuclear energy policy from nuclear weapons policy, and that a"nuclear policy" is ambig. Hence, I will close this confusing discussion and re-open, if that is cool with all concerned. Bard गीता 00:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I find this conversation very hard to follow. Perhaps this should just be restarted fresh? 65.94.44.141 ( talk) 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Geffery I appreciate your interest and contributions here, but there seems to be some problems with your citation of your information you put on the article. Excluding the youtube link (which are hard to cite as a source for potential readers), you are not archiving your sources (try | WebCitation.org), not providing author names, dates etc (see the other sources as a template and copy paste your information in there). Also "ibid" is NOT a source, do a Ref tag (like the other sources), simply cut and past an earlier one of mine and put use a tag for each additional usage in the body of the article. There is a "how to" pasted by VisionHolder in my ref section as well, I'll be happy to work with you if you need help on that, hit up my talk page. I know were running an advanced citation style here, but i find it's helpful for users to quickly learn more about a topic. Also at the end of every paragraph and after every quote, you need to cite your source. There are at least 6+ places where citations are needed, I will mark them with a cite need note. I have to hold this article at a far higher standard than normal, because this article is very important to the public policy page and is soon being featured at a Wikipedia sponsored conference in Boston in a few months. Therefore, your going to need to update these changes in the next week or so, because uncited sources will kill any chance at a passing the Good Article application which I will be submit this article for in a week or so after I finish a longer lead (which I am working now). I would hate to have to remove the uncited information because it is interesting and relevant to policy (it shouldn't take too long, just needs a little leg work). Cheers Kayz911 ( talk) 09:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Well-reasoned proposal. -- Hadal ( talk) 09:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposed move to Nuclear energy policy of the United States
Alternative options: move to Federal nuclear energy policy in the United States
This discussion shall not discuss nor prejudice to new article proposal: Federal nuclear energy policy in the United States
Nuclear energy policy is quite complex.
Nuclear energy policy is a different topic from nuclear weapons policy.
Nuclear energy policy of the United States means the policy of the United States government.
Nuclear energy policy of the United States means the policy of the United States government and also the policies of the various states such as state utility commissions, state energy commissions, etc.
Wikipedia article titles are generally expected to reflect the content of the article.
The complained-of title is over-broad (overly general) in that its content is a subcategory of the named topic.
Nuclear energy policy of the United States also includes policies for mining, transportation, waste storage, establishment of oversight agencies, funding etc. which relate directly or indirectly to nuclear energy (*addition*) Kayz911 ( talk) 05:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In the foregoing discussion, it seems that the trend of consensus was to support the Rename ("Move") but some persons continued to discuss an earlier rename proposal which was not any longer in issue. Other users complained thereafter of the confusion and one user requested starting from scratch which does seem to be consistent with consensus. Thus, this new section.
Comment: Fine, you make a fair argument, just add single word "energy" to the title and let's move on to important things such as expanding the article's contents. As long as no sections in the article will be removed because someone believes the policy does not fall under "Nuclear energy policy" then I have no issues. I'll add a bullet above to cover this idea. But just to be clear, I am only supporting the single word "Energy" to be added, nothing else. Kayz911 ( talk) 05:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I created a cubdivided disambiguation page at Nuclear policy of the United States. Please add other links as appropriate. Note that nuclear policy includes a large number of Federal agencies which need to be added and that policy is under constant revision. Thus the links may need updating. Bard गीता 23:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The page will look better with one See also in addition to the link to the disambiguation page.
whoever wants to please choose I really prefer collaboration and consensus. I left two on the page take your pick whatever looks good to you : Just take out the < and the ! etcetera.
CHOOSE AS YOU WISH: see also | Nuclear power in the United States}}---> OR WHATEVER: about|nuclear energy|nuclear weapons|Nuclear weapons of the United States}}--->
Bard गीता 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is being featured as a model of students success Wikipedia's pilot program started at their conference in Boston from 07-11 of July. I am making important changes and removing missing information in this article to get it ready for tomorrow's presentation. So be mindful to any thing you might want to add that you do not feel 100% confident about the coming few days. I just want to say, GREAT WORK FOLKS! You know who you are, and keep up the good work. Feel free to check any copy changes I make in the coming hours! Cheers everyone! Kayz911 ( talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Great article, Casey. We really enjoyed this. Floraindiana ( talk) 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is now being submitted to GA article standards under suggestions from Wikipedia staff at a campus ambassador training session. Please hold off of edits until the article's feedback is provided. Kayz911 ( talk) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
A large heading in the middle of the article is "Second nuclear age". What actual evidence is there for a second nuclear age? Which sources are using this term? Or is it just WP:OR and wishful thinking? I appreciate there was the Energy Policy Act in 2005 and some industry talk of a nuclear renaissance, but very little has actually materialized in terms of new construction and many proposals have been cancelled. Maybe a better heading would be "Stalled nuclear expansion". Johnfos ( talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance
I have tried to gently bring in suggestions on this Talk page in the usual way, but have not got very far. I have been repeatedly stymied by Kayz who acts as if she is the owner of this article. Recently she has told editors to “hold off of edits until the article's GA feedback is provided” and she has told me to go to the Nuclear renaissance page to discuss things. I have never heard such rubbish. This is not the way we do things on Wikipedia! We need to encourage editors to make suggestions on the Talk page, listen to what they say, and use a collaborative approach.
Per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles no one owns an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others will make changes, and, within reason, you should not prevent them from doing so. Any disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page. Johnfos ( talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nuclear energy policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I am returning to fix a critique from a GA article status about two periods (that I originally wrote) to be not considered dubious and more focused towards the content vs a personal subjective timeframe in the introduction as no one has fix this over the years. I also fixed a few small grammatical things throughout the article. I've also updated the 2017 law to note the final version signed into law on 2018 by Trump as this bill died in congress and is no longer applicable for a summary article. Expansions to this section are encouraged! Kayz911 ( talk) 22:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the most recent information, including the last section, were written around 2012, shortly after the Fukushima disaster. At that time there was great uncertainty because the lessons of Fukushima were still being evaluated and the long term effect on public opinion was unknown. The article needs to be updated for what happened in the last 10 years. Ttulinsky ( talk) 20:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at
Winona State University and
Western Carolina University supported by
WikiProject United States Public Policy and the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)