DeepLurker Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 once again, just for you: a/ there is no legal liability for any type of demage or death if it is induced by a disaster such as earthquake, tsunami or some kind of super tornado so if you have an oil tanker, which is hit by a tsunami, you do not need any insurance for this case and you are not liable for any death or demage it is very simple concept as nobody is able to insure against catastrhophic events like these b/ if we follow your twisted logic any human infrastructure would have to be insured against demage induced by e.g. earth quakes. so for example your bus company would have to pay your family if the bus killed you during the earth quake and they would also be required to buy insurance for that how stupid is that, AlexW ???? It's quite fun reading this argument, seeing AlexW give links to company annual reports that back up his claims, and Damik's reply to this is basically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 So lets get this straight then. Japanese Govt regulation said Anti Tsunami Wall had to be at least 6 metres and Tepco would have gone higher but for that regulation stipulating a minimum height requirement? Pull the other one Aside I think the wall height was irrelevant. The key cause of this disaster was the failure to build emergency generators in flood proof compartments which would to me appear to have been a fairly obvious risk and not just from Tsumanis but tidal surges, storms or very heavt rain. Kurt, I am a bit disappointed with your comment ... you should know better 1/ government regulators certify each nuclear plant design and give it a license to operate; same as for the chemical, bio hazard plants, ships or airplanes 2/ government regulators specify and certify the minimal levels of protection required; such as the size of the wall, geometry of the building or protection level of the containment so for example the current regulation says that the containment building has to survive strike of an airliner; nothing more; so all current designs support this requirement and are certified for it; so if 5 airliners hit one by one the containment building and it brakes the private operator will not be liable or prosecuted also after the Fukushima all the nuclear government regulations in EU have been extended based on the lessons learn 3/ yes Kurt, we really do not want the commercial subjects to dictate safety regulations; this would be kind of silly ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 It's quite fun reading this argument, seeing AlexW give links to company annual reports that back up his claims, and Damik's reply to this is basically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg so please show me in this annual report that the insurance covers the natural disasters and terrorism. please show me. your problem is that you can not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Kurt, I am a bit disappointed with your comment ... you should know better I'm all ears as to why, exactly, he should know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I'm all ears as to why, exactly, he should know better. the 3 points mentioned just under ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Kurt, I am a bit disappointed with your comment ... you should know better 1/ government regulators certify each nuclear plant design and give it a license to operate; same as for the chemical, bio hazard plants, ships or airplanes 2/ government regulators specify and certify the minimal levels of protection required; such as the size of the wall, geometry of the building or protection level of the containment so for example the current regulation says that the containment building has to survive strike of an airliner; nothing more; so all current designs support this requirement and are certified for it; so if 5 airliners hit one by one the containment building and it brakes the private operator will not be liable or prosecuted also after the Fukushima all the nuclear government regulations in EU have been extended based on the lessons learn 3/ yes Kurt, we really do not want the commercial subjects to dictate safety regulations; this would be kind of silly ... Regulations generally set a minimum standard. Irrespective of what Jap regulatory standards were Tepco had a duty of care to consider the risks in the locality they built the power station. There would have been nothing stoppingTepco going above and beyond minimum regulatory standards which may have been outdated so in that regard they failed in their duty of care. 15 metres may have been impractical. That would not have stopped them flood proofing the emergency generators. Whilst such a measure may not have prevented the power station being a right off it would have at least prevented the radiation release that subsequently occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Kurt, I am a bit disappointed with your comment ... you should know better 1/ government regulators certify each nuclear plant design and give it a license to operate; same as for the chemical, bio hazard plants, ships or airplanes 2/ government regulators specify and certify the minimal levels of protection required; such as the size of the wall, geometry of the building or protection level of the containment so for example the current regulation says that the containment building has to survive strike of an airliner; nothing more; so all current designs support this requirement and are certified for it; so if 5 airliners hit one by one the containment building and it brakes the private operator will not be liable or prosecuted also after the Fukushima all the nuclear government regulations in EU have been extended based on the lessons learn 3/ yes Kurt, we really do not want the commercial subjects to dictate safety regulations; this would be kind of silly ... You appear to not understand the difference between statutory and civil liabilities. Compliance with a proscriptive regulation will likely get you off the criminal prosecution hook but will not indemnify you against civil liabilities for damages when you fail in your civil duty of care which in most jurisictions goes as follows; Did the plantiff owe a duty of care to the defendant? Were the hazards reasonably forseeable? Did the Plantiff do all that was reasonably practicable to prevent said hazards causing harm / damage? If TEPCO were to argue that the hazards were not forseeable then they shouldn't be allowed to run a a diesel genset let alone a nuclear power station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Kurt, I am a bit disappointed with your comment ... you should know better 1/ government regulators certify each nuclear plant design and give it a license to operate; same as for the chemical, bio hazard plants, ships or airplanes 2/ government regulators specify and certify the minimal levels of protection required; such as the size of the wall, geometry of the building or protection level of the containment so for example the current regulation says that the containment building has to survive strike of an airliner; nothing more; so all current designs support this requirement and are certified for it; so if 5 airliners hit one by one the containment building and it brakes the private operator will not be liable or prosecuted also after the Fukushima all the nuclear government regulations in EU have been extended based on the lessons learn 3/ yes Kurt, we really do not want the commercial subjects to dictate safety regulations; this would be kind of silly ... You appear to not understand the difference between statutory and civil liabilities. Compliance with a proscriptive regulation will likely get you off the criminal prosecution hook but will not indemnify you against civil liabilities for damages when you fail in your civil duty of care which in most jurisictions goes as follows; Did the plantiff owe a duty of care to the defendant? Were the hazards reasonably forseeable? Did the Plantiff do all that was reasonably practicable to prevent said hazards causing harm / damage? If TEPCO were to argue that the hazards were not forseeable then they shouldn't be allowed to run a a diesel genset let alone a nuclear power station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Regulations generally set a minimum standard. Irrespective of what Jap regulatory standards were Tepco had a duty of care to consider the risks in the locality they built the power station. There would have been nothing stoppingTepco going above and beyond minimum regulatory standards which may have been outdated so in that regard they failed in their duty of care. 15 metres may have been impractical. That would not have stopped them flood proofing the emergency generators. Whilst such a measure may not have prevented the power station being a right off it would have at least prevented the radiation release that subsequently occurred. nope, you are plain wrong: there is no legal obligation or liability to TEPCO or the manufacturer in relation to the high of the wall or geometry of the plant simple as that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) You appear to not understand the difference between statutory and civil liabilities. Compliance with a proscriptive regulation will likely get you off the criminal prosecution hook but will not indemnify you against civil liabilities for damages when you fail in your civil duty of care which in most jurisictions goes as follows; Did the plantiff owe a duty of care to the defendant? Were the hazards reasonably forseeable? Did the Plantiff do all that was reasonably practicable to prevent said hazards causing harm / damage? If TEPCO were to argue that the hazards were not forseeable then they shouldn't be allowed to run a a diesel genset let alone a nuclear power station. and based on all of these TEPCO is not liable - they complied with all the regulations and the cause was a natural disaster the regulation says for what kind of risk the plant is designed and certified for; and the plant would comply if the tsunami was smaller; as required by the regulation this is the reason, why now all the nucler plants regulations in EU and USA have been extended for this kind kind of scenario Kurt, you lost your case Edited February 9, 2013 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 and based on all of these TEPCO is not liable - they complied with all the regulations and the cause was a natural disaster the regulatin says for what kind of risk the plant is designed and certified for Which proves my point. You simply do not understand the difference between statutory and civil liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Regulations generally set a minimum standard. Irrespective of what Jap regulatory standards were Tepco had a duty of care to consider the risks in the locality they built the power station. There would have been nothing stoppingTepco going above and beyond minimum regulatory standards which may have been outdated so in that regard they failed in their duty of care. 15 metres may have been impractical. That would not have stopped them flood proofing the emergency generators. Whilst such a measure may not have prevented the power station being a right off it would have at least prevented the radiation release that subsequently occurred. It wouldn't have mattered how high it was. The cooling water intake pumps were wrecked. Moving away from the Tokyo Electric report, and onto a new topic is the issue of what happens if the cooling water for a nuclear plant is unavailable. We call that the loss of the ultimate heat sink. Now, I was on CNN the second week after the accident and I explained that not only were the diesels flooded, but even if they were not flooded, the plant would have had a meltdown anyway because the pumps along the ocean had been destroyed by the tsunami. Arnie Gundersen at More Lessons From the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Containment Failures and the Loss of the Ultimate Heat Sink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 and based on all of these TEPCO is not liable - they complied with all the regulations and the cause was a natural disaster the regulatin says for what kind of risk the plant is designed and certified for The above comment proves my point. You do not understand the difference between statutory and civil liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Which proves my point. You simply do not understand the difference between statutory and civil liability. 1/ Ok, so please prove us, that TEPCO or the manufacturer is now at least under investigation that the tsunami wall was too small or the building geometry was wrong the problem you face is that you can not as the size of the wall was the government requirement; the size was not defined by TEPCO or the manufacturer, but purely by the regulator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 and based on all of these TEPCO is not liable - they complied with all the regulations and the cause was a natural disaster the regulation says for what kind of risk the plant is designed and certified for; and the plant would comply if the tsunami was smaller; as required by the regulation this is the reason, why now all the nucler plants regulations in EU and USA have been extended for this kind kind of scenario Kurt, you lost your case Nope. See my previous post. Regulatory compliance will get you off the criminal cupability hook but isn't an adequate defence for your civil liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Bruno Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 A big problem always overlooked by the pro-nuclear lobby. The budget for decommissioning the few old nuclear power stations in the UK over the next 100 years is just horrendous. If someone thinks wind subsidies are high, just see what decommissioning is planned to cost, and as this article shows, the cost just keeps rising. Whatever people claim - Nuclear power is NOT cheap. They said it was clean as well! Clean? Extremely toxic, indeed deadly, waste is not clean by my understanding of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 1/ Ok, so please prove us, that TEPCO or the manufacturer is now at least under investigation that the tsunami wall was too small or the building geometry was wrong the problem you face is that you can not as the size of the wall was the government requirement; the size was not defined by TEPCO or the manufacturer, but purely by the regulator A 0.1 second google off.......... http://nuclear-news.net/2011/04/05/huge-civil-damages-claims-looming-from-fukushima-disaster/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 It wouldn't have mattered how high it was. The cooling water intake pumps were wrecked. Arnie Gundersen at More Lessons From the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Containment Failures and the Loss of the Ultimate Heat Sink yep, the nuclear regulations have been extended now accross the globe to cover this scenario as well. for some reasons this has been missed by our great leaders: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/japan-info.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 A 0.1 second google off.......... http://nuclear-news....shima-disaster/ yes, nothing about responsibility for the tsunami wall or the geometry of the plant; as this would be the responsibility of the original US manufacturer anyway the limited liability payouts are required by the nuclear regulators across the globe the insurance for these costs and the premiums are again defined by the regulators across the globe. ----------------------- interestingly if it was a chemical plant you would be paid ZERO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Nope. See my previous post. Regulatory compliance will get you off the criminal cupability hook but isn't an adequate defence for your civil liability. the limited liability and the related required insurance are covered by the nuclear regulations as well. for example the French one are limitted. but the nuclear is the special case as the requirements for the nuclear are much higher than for e.g. the chemical you would not get any pay off from a chemical plant owner in a case of a natural disaster [edit] http://www.world-nuc...info/inf67.html The structure of insurance of nuclear installations is different from ordinary industrial risks. Operators of nuclear power plants are liable for any damage caused by them, regardless of fault. Liability is limited by both international conventions and by national legislation, so that beyond the limit (normally covered by insurance) the state can accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as in all other aspects of industrial society. Edited February 9, 2013 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 yes, nothing about responsibility for the tsunami wall or the geometry of the plant; as this would be the responsibility of the original US manufacturer anyway the limited liability payouts are required by the nuclear regulators across the globe the insurance for these costs and the premiums are again defined by the regulators across the globe. ----------------------- interestingly if it was a chemical plant you would be paid ZERO You still don't get it. Regulatory compliance does not buy you immunity from civil prosecution for damages hence the fact TEPCO are likley to face $130bn in civil damages claims. The fact you blatantly ignore this point proves you do not understand the difference between criminal and civil law. That or you are the donkey from Family Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 the limited liability and the related required insurance are covered by the nuclear regulations as well. for example the French one are limitted. but the nuclear is the special case as the requirements for the nuclear are much higher than for e.g. the chemical you would not get any pay off from a chemical plant owner in a case of a natural disaster [edit] http://www.world-nuc...info/inf67.html The structure of insurance of nuclear installations is different from ordinary industrial risks. Operators of nuclear power plants are liable for any damage caused by them, regardless of fault. Liability is limited by both international conventions and by national legislation, so that beyond the limit (normally covered by insurance) the state can accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as in all other aspects of industrial society. Oh look - Residents of Fukishima to sue Tepco. Surely not Damik says this can't happen! http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/national/displaced-fukushima-residents-to-sue-govt-tepco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 You still don't get it. Regulatory compliance does not buy you immunity from civil prosecution for damages hence the fact TEPCO are likley to face $130bn in civil damages claims. The fact you blatantly ignore this point proves you do not understand the difference between criminal and civil law. That or you are the donkey from Family Guy you are wrong again: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf67.html The structure of insurance of nuclear installations is different from ordinary industrial risks. Operators of nuclear power plants are liable for any damage caused by them, regardless of fault. there is no civil prosecution as such against TEPCO or the manufacturer. there is only the pay out specified by the regulation and covered by the mandatory insurance. nothing more or less. and this is specific only for the nuclear. in a case of chemical plant or 20 000 dead in Japan you would recieve a big fat zero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Oh look - Residents of Fukishima to sue Tepco. Surely not Damik says this can't happen! http://www.japantoda...-sue-govt-tepco yes, for the damages only. irrespectively of the fault. as required by the international nuclear standards. and usually limited ... and this is the special case only for the nuclear. if it was a dam or a bio hazard lab you would not receive anything ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 yes, for the damages only. irrespectively of the fault. as required by the international nuclear standards. and usually limited ... and this is the special case only for the nuclear. if it was a dam or a bio hazard lab you would not receive anything ... I see you cannot even conceive the concept of Civil Liability in Tort Law. Your understanding of law is on a par with that of a 7 year old. On what basis could I not sue the operator of a Dam or Bio Hazards Lab for damages in the event I suffered some harm as a result of their activities / failure of some part of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.