LATIMES: "WHO'S TO BLAME FOR FUKUSHIMA?"
source: http://latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chander-ge-liability-20110401,0,2228225.story
-
-
- PoliticalAmazon
- added this
However, as Dr. Chande states, there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether the contract for the construction specified a certain theater of law to prevail should problems arise.
Regarding Dr. Chande's statement, "Three GE scientists resigned 35 years ago in protest of the design of the Mark I containment system...." I wonder if those scientists are still alive today?
I wonder which publication comes out first with the follow-up to this, including, who were these scientists and where are they today?
Does anybody reading this know?
-------
latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chander-ge-liability-20110401,0,2228225.story
latimes.com
Op-Ed
"WHO'S TO BLAME FOR FUKUSHIMA?"
In a legal sense it is too early to know, but General Electric, the designer of the stricken plant, might not entirely escape liability for the nuclear disaster.
By Anupam Chande ( Professor of Law at UC Davi.)
April 1, 2011
Since the nuclear plant disaster in Fukushima in Japan, the stock of the company that designed the reactors, General Electric, has fluctuated less than $1 a share. Meanwhile, the operator of the facility, Tokyo Electric Power Co., has seen its share price plunge more than 70%. The explanation: Japanese law reportedly limits liability to the operator, not the designer, of a nuclear power plant.
A year ago, we heard similar arguments about the limited exposure of BP in the wake of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Reports suggested that BP's liability for damages might be capped at $75 million because of the 1990 Oil Pollution Act, which imposes limited liability in the event of an environmental disaster at an offshore facility — "removal costs plus $75,000,000." In court, Transocean, the company that owned and operated the doomed oil rig, argued that another statute, the Limitation of Liability Act, limited its liability to the value of the sunken vessel — the rig — which it said was worth only $26.7 million. The Justice Department called Transocean's effort to limit its liability "simply unconscionable."
The pronouncements of BP's limited liability proved premature. After discussions with the Obama administration, BP voluntarily agreed to set up a $20-billion fund to help those whose livelihoods were destroyed by the disaster.
GE's initial confidence that it may bear little liability for any design defect because of Japanese law may be premature too. The New York Times recently reported that experts have long criticized GE's design, the Mark I, because it offered a relatively weak containment vessel. The containment vessel functions as the "last line of defense," preventing radiation leaks in case of a cooling system failure in the nuclear reactor. Three GE scientists resigned 35 years ago in protest of the design of the Mark I containment system.
I say this not on the basis of any specialized knowledge of this particular situation, or even on knowledge of nuclear industry contracts or regulation, but only on the basis of legal principles of international business and liability.
First, it is not entirely clear what law applies. Although the accident is occurring on Japanese soil, the contracts for design and construction of the plants could have specified another law to govern disputes between the parties. GE might, for example, have preferred the familiarity of U.S. law. These were, after all, contracts negotiated in the 1960s, when Japan was hardly thought to be a world economic power, and thus may have lacked the leverage to insist on local law.
Second, as in the case of BP, GE could eventually agree to a voluntary arrangement. For its part, BP set up a significant fund to handle losses, but did so under enormous pressure from Washington, the American public and the media. GE's involvement in the nuclear power plant was about four decades ago when it was built, quite different from BP's day-to-day control. But if GE was responsible for a weak design, it would seem to share responsibility for the current disaster.
Third, we do not know how Japanese courts will interpret any local limits on liability. Will those limits apply even if gross negligence or willful misconduct can somehow be shown? What if GE failed to disclose design defects? The principle of operator liability would seem attractive to anyone facing a products liability claim — Toyota, for example, comes to mind. Will courts uphold a principle of exclusive operator liability even when reports suggest that there were GE and U.S. government scientists who questioned the safety of GE's Mark I design for containment?
Modern disasters are, in an important sense, man-made. Because of this fact, the need to assign legal liability will arise. It is too early yet to know who bears the blame, and it is accordingly too early to be assured that GE is well-insulated from liability. The regulators, the operator and perhaps others may well have failed the public. It is the role of the legal process to ensure that the economic burden of the disaster falls on the party or parties responsible for it.
Anupam Chander is a professor of law at UC Davis.
------------------------
-
-
SlowDownWould
-
I'm pretty sure it's the earthquakes fault. Maybe we should figure out what to do now and not so much where to point our fingers. This event is a "WORLD CRIPPLER". We only see Japan so far, but economies are about to go out the window. So even if we do find a whipping boy to blame, incarcerating them or even killing them or fining some faceless corporation a dollar amount none of us can successfully imagine, will satisfy a need for a solution. And fuck the LA Times for planting the blame game seed. So stupid.
- 1 year ago
-
SlowDownWould
-
-
ejasun
-
-
JAPAN: New Unbelievable amateur footage of The Moment tsunami hit Miyako City
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW5wF5Qu8uc&feature=related - 1 year ago
-
ejasun
-
-
COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
-
The Japanese government is to blame, in the same way that our government is to blame for our NUMEROUS; albeit hushed, nuclear disasters, gulf oil spill, collapsing bridges, and much more. Why? Because the people elected government, and have paid government, to inspect such issues and make sure that those are safe by meeting public safety standards, and government habitually neglects, or is paid to ignore, those safety standards. Those in Government who were individually responsible for malfeasance should be held accountable for manslaughter, involuntary or other wise. Only when we begin to hold individual government workers accountable for their actions, or lack of them, will these workers; ( which include politicians first and foremost ), take their jobs and responsibilities serious.
It is suggested that the people are responsible, for not taking action to prevent such tragedies from occurring. But, is not going to the ballot box taking action? However, now that it has become glaringly apparent; ( once again ), that individual government employees are either not doing their jobs, or are doing their jobs badly; (as defined by whether they acted in the public interest or not; such as George Bush did not when he rendered the EPA impotent), then the public must do what every responsible employer must do. We must discharge errant employees, hold those accountable for illegal activities; president or not, hire new employees, and most important, establish safe guards, policies, procedures, practices, laws, regulations, review and inspection processes and penalties for non compliance or malfeasance. As this is the safety and the welfare of the United States and the People of the United States that we are dealing with here, willful malfeasance must be construed as treason against the people, judged and punished accordingly.
- 1 year ago
-
COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
-
-
Retsnom
-
COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM:
Wish that would apply to everyone that got bailout money....
- 1 year ago
-
Retsnom
-
-
zeropiate
-
Systemically, everyone on Earth. Ultimately, everyone who is not doing anything about it.
- 1 year ago
-
zeropiate
-
-
dudefromtherock
-
We are blindly driving our planet over a cliff... what is it about mankind that we have to destroy all that we cherish?
- 1 year ago
-
dudefromtherock
-
-
KSirys
-
dudefromtherock:
money and power... if it's not that, than it's power and money... either way, the people that have destroyed this world think about today and not tomorrow... wonder why most of the billionaires don't have kids? and even if they do, most of the times they are junkies..
- 1 year ago
-
KSirys
-
-
Retsnom
-
"Modern disasters are, in an important sense, man-made. " WTF? really? A massive earthquake plus tsunami = man made? And all this time I thought it was Bush's fault. Maybe it was racism to blame as many are so willing to throw that card.
I should be interesting to see how this plays out since the CEO of GE in one of Obama's Czars for employment yet doesn't like to pay taxes and who's networks at the time got him elected. Did I think that out loud?
- 1 year ago
-
Retsnom
-
-
PoliticalAmazon
-
Retsnom:
I wonder what Keith Olbermann will be discussing the first week he's operating from Current?
Interestingly, Jon Stewart brought up GE (and MSNBC) just a few nights ago:
---------------
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/jon-stewart-slams-ge-for-not-...
"JON STEWART BLAMES GE FOR NOT PAYING TAXES, MSNBC FOR NOT COVERING IT.""The most recent example of a big corporation paying nothing in taxes came from GE. Last year GE made $14.2 billion in profits, but paid $0 in taxes. In fact, taking advantage of tax credits GE actually received a $3.2 billion tax benefit from the federal government....Stewart also took on MSNBC, who is partially owned by the parent company GE. Stewart claimed that MSNBC did not cover the GE tax issue, despite devoting air time to other trivial stories...."
----------------
Here's the video of Jon Stewart's bit about it:
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/jon-stewart-slams-ge-for-not-...
- 1 year ago
-
PoliticalAmazon
-
-
KB723
-
"Who's to Blame???" Maybe the Japanese???? I didn't build their rediculous reactors. And what a Lame idea to begin with, right off the ocean shore.
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
All I can say about this is that the big corporations with their legions of lawyers usually escape the full brunt of financial responsiblity for their negligence. I like what Keith Olbermann had to say some weeks back. Here's his full post.
"Wikileaks: Japan Was Warned About Fukushima"
Posted on March 16, 2011
We are now at this stage in the life of our country and our world: WikiLeaks revealed that the Japanese Government was warned three years ago that earthquake preparedness at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant was dangerously insufficient.Naturally, the leaders of the world are – or wish to start – prosecuting WikiLeaks, and not the Japanese Government.
The IAEA was saying in 2008 that Japan’s nuclear safety guidelines were dangerously out of date. A government whistleblower in that country was quoted in a cable to Washington the same year that a Japanese ministry was “covering up nuclear accidents, and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry.”
And our government, in our name, continues both to seek ways to prosecute WikiLeaks, and to stick by the President’s ludicrous 2009 suggestion that we accelerate our national Nuclear Power program. The uncensored real oversight, and the truth about Japan’s irresponsibility, are both buried because the illusion of Japan as a successful safe nuclear nation is necessary to President Obama’s pitch, and President Obama’s pitch is necessary to some labyrinthine political calculation, and to the bottom lines of sundry international corporations.
We could say that the worsening news from Japan is coming by drips, except that the latest information from our own Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggests that there’s nothing to drip; that the water in the cooling system for Dai-Ichi Reactor 4 has evaporated and NHK broadcasts, late night our time, were filled with images of helicopters trying to douse the facility with seawater, as if it were a forest fire.
Most ominously are reports that read like the worst days of the dark, sick humor of the Bush Administration, when Americans were told to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting to protect their homes from radiation (and memorably one poor soul in Connecticut put it up on the wrong side of his windows). Why, truly, do you think people around Fukushima are being told to stay in their homes and offices? Because going outside somehow significantly reduces the chances they will be exposed to radiation? Because they’re safer indoors in the event the worst-case scenario develops and the thing spews out a kind of nuclear holocaust? Or is it because it’ll be easier to keep track of the victims of a best-case scenario if they stay where they are and don’t try to flee the area, and thus no effort will be required to see where they go and if they have taken radiation with them?
And the saddest story of them all: Gregory Jaczko, the head of our NRA stating this, bluntly, matter-of-factly, and even blandly:
We believe that around the reactor site there are high levels of radiation. It would be very difficult for emergency workers to get near the reactors. The doses they could experience would potentially be lethal doses in a very short period of time. This is a situation where people may be called in to sacrifice their lives. It’s very difficult for me to contemplate that, but it may have reached that point.
As you think of Japan, and you think of the aging nuclear plants in this country, and their nearness to our major metropolitan areas, remember that there are 180 human beings – our brothers and sisters – working around this Doomsday Machine that their government was warned about at least three years ago, about which it did nothing!
180 men and women, the same as any Americans, and very possibly the forerunners of any Americans, who are facing this reality: “This is a situation where people may be called in to sacrifice their lives.”
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
-
-
KB723
-
Leen61:
Thanks, You posted my thoughts. It wasn't til after I posted my comment that I read yours..... =) JINX?????
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
KB723:
I can't take full credit because I borrowed Keith Olbermann's blog post but I was in full agreement with him. No Jinx. :)
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
-
-
KB723
-
Leen61:
Well.... That was close to a JINX... I am gonna keep my eyes on you... LOL... =)
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
KB723:
LOL! :)
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
-
-
KB723
-
Leen61:
=) KO Kixs Ass!!!
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
KB723:
Yes he does! Check out his speech from Cornell University at his web site. It rocks!
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
-
-
KB723
-
Leen61:
Leen61 You Rock!!!! Thanxs for the link.
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
KB723:
Thanks for saying I rock and you're welcome for Keith's link. I comment there also. Same screen name. I split my time between Current and Keith's site.
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
-
-
KB723
-
Leen61:
That's even better, Can we go for a Hat Trick here??? I did not know keiths page allowed blogging... Sheeeesh I didn't even know he had a page. Is the moderation as bad as AichPee???
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
KB723:
It's not like Current. I haven't had any problems with the moderation but you will run into some trolls and you can't really have a back and forth conversation. Replies to posts are not directly linked to them like here on Current. I just leave my thoughts for Keith at his site. Personally, I hope Keith brings everything over here once his TV show starts on Current.
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
-
-
KB723
-
Leen61:
Yeah, I went and checked it out... I wasn't digging the way the comments were set up... You would have to state the posters name you were replying to for the other poster to know you were talking to them.
- 1 year ago
-
KB723
-
-
Leen61
-
KB723:
Exactly.
- 1 year ago
-
Leen61
