Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) 1/ 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. 2/ 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? 1/ let me make it very simple for you; 5th time; I hope you are better educated than 7 years old, so good luck: - there is no prosecution against TEPCO of wrong doing in relation to the size of the tsunami wall or geometry of the building - there is no civilian prosecution against TEPCO; it is just about the proving of the size of the damage for the pay off; the victims do not need to prove the fault of TEPCO at the first place (as legally it is not actually TEPCO fault) - as there is an international regulation, there is a limited liability for the nuclear damage irrespective of the fault or cause; operator has to always pay, no questions asked; usually limited - Japanese effected by nuclear fall out are lucky as they will get some money; if some farmer land was close to a chemical plant (perhaps even some deaths) they will get a big fat zero and the government will have to pay for all the clean up costs 2/ again it is very simple; in the case of a natural disaster; as in majority of the other industries you are required to prove the fault; and in the case of tsunami hitting nuclear or chemical power plant, there is no fault or responsibility of the operator I hope you can grasp it ... More reading here: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf67.html 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 1/ let me make it very simple for you; 5th time; I hope you are better educated than 7 years old, so good luck: - there is no prosecution against TEPCO of wrong doing in relation to the size of the tsunami wall or geometry of the building - there is no civilian prosecution against TEPCO; it is just about the proving of the size of the damage for the pay off; the victims do not need to prove the fault of TEPCO at the first place (as legally it is not actually TEPCO fault) - as there is an international regulation, there is a limited liability for the nuclear damage irrespective of the fault or cause; operator has to always pay, no questions asked; usually limited - Japanese effected by nuclear fall out are lucky as they will get some money; if some farmer was close to a chemical plant he will get a big fat zero and the government will have to pay for all the clean up costs 2/ again it is very simple; in the case of a natural disaster; as in majority of the other industries you are required to prove the fault; and in the case of tsunami hitting nuclear or chemical power plant, there is no fault or responsibility of the operator I hope you can grasp it ... More reading here: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf67.html Limitations on the insurance required by Nuclear Operators are effectively a state backed limited liability on the Insurers. This doesn't stop aggrieved parties coming after the Operator long after the insurance fund has run out. As for your references to chemical plants you are quite wrong. If said Chemical company is shown to have not adequately addressed the forseeable risks of a flood / tsunami (and we are not talking timing here) or other natural event then it is likely to find itself on the recieving end of a damges claim if said chemicals leak out an damage land / property / health. That will be the basis of the claim against TEPCO which you seem to be denying is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Limitations on the insurance required by Nuclear Operators are effectively a state backed limited liability on the Insurers. This doesn't stop aggrieved parties coming after the Operator long after the insurance fund has run out. As for your references to chemical plants you are quite wrong. If said Chemical company is shown to have not adequately addressed the forseeable risks of a flood / tsunami (and we are not talking timing here) or other natural event then it is likely to find itself on the recieving end of a damges claim if said chemicals leak out an damage land / property / health. That will be the basis of the claim against TEPCO which you seem to be denying is happening. nope; you are wrong again ... there is not a single case in Japan that the chemical plant operator would be responsible for the damage caused by the tsunami if the safety regulations were followed as required; and to remind you: 20000 people killed as in the case of Fukushima; nobody needs to prove the TEPCO's fault as there is not one anyway; TEPCO will pay automatically sorry for the disappointment, but you really should not try to make it up btw; do not you think that it is a quite stupid idea that if you have a 700 years tsunami or earthquake every single human infrastructure would be required to pay for the damages ??? including buildings, transport hubs and vehicles, perhaps even councils ??? also you can spend some quality time reading about some basic insurance principles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God A particularly interesting example is that of "rainmaker" Charles Hatfield who was hired in 1915 by the city of San Diego to fill the Morena reservoir to capacity with rainwater for $10,000. The region was soon flooded by heavy rains, nearly bursting the reservoir's dam, killing nearly 20 people, destroying 110 bridges (leaving 2), knocking out telephone and telegraph lines, and causing an estimated $3.5 million in damage in total. When the city refused to pay him (he had forgotten to sign the contract), he sued the city. The floods were ruled an act of God, excluding him from liability but also from payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 nope; you are wrong again ... there is not a single case in Japan that the chemical plant operator would be responsible for the damage caused by the tsunami if the safety regulations were followed as required; and to remind you: 20000 people killed as in the case of Fukushima; nobody needs to prove the TEPCO's fault as there is not one anyway; TEPCO will pay automatically sorry for the disappointment, but you really should not try to make it up btw; do not you think that it is a quite stupid idea that if you have a 700 years tsunami or earthquake every single human infrastructure would be required to pay for the damages ??? including buildings, transport hubs and vehicles, perhaps even councils ??? also you can spend some quality time reading about some basic insurance principles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God A particularly interesting example is that of "rainmaker" Charles Hatfield who was hired in 1915 by the city of San Diego to fill the Morena reservoir to capacity with rainwater for $10,000. The region was soon flooded by heavy rains, nearly bursting the reservoir's dam, killing nearly 20 people, destroying 110 bridges (leaving 2), knocking out telephone and telegraph lines, and causing an estimated $3.5 million in damage in total. When the city refused to pay him (he had forgotten to sign the contract), he sued the city. The floods were ruled an act of God, excluding him from liability but also from payment. Jeez You still cant differentiate between limitations placed on the insurance policy and the ability of a plantiff to make a claim. The fact the Nuclear Industries insurance excludes acts of god does not indemnify the operator from damages claims. The limitations you describe simply indemify the Insurer from any third party liability. The limited liability clauses are there so that the nuclear industry can actually get any insurance. Claims against Tepco will be on the basis that they didn't take reasonably practicable measures to mitigate against forseeable risks - in this case flooding which subsequently led to the release of radioactive material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 nope; you are wrong again ... there is not a single case in Japan that the chemical plant operator would be responsible for the damage caused by the tsunami if the safety regulations were followed as required; and to remind you: 20000 people killed as in the case of Fukushima; nobody needs to prove the TEPCO's fault as there is not one anyway; TEPCO will pay automatically sorry for the disappointment, but you really should not try to make it up btw; do not you think that it is a quite stupid idea that if you have a 700 years tsunami or earthquake every single human infrastructure would be required to pay for the damages ??? including buildings, transport hubs and vehicles, perhaps even councils ??? also you can spend some quality time reading about some basic insurance principles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God A particularly interesting example is that of "rainmaker" Charles Hatfield who was hired in 1915 by the city of San Diego to fill the Morena reservoir to capacity with rainwater for $10,000. The region was soon flooded by heavy rains, nearly bursting the reservoir's dam, killing nearly 20 people, destroying 110 bridges (leaving 2), knocking out telephone and telegraph lines, and causing an estimated $3.5 million in damage in total. When the city refused to pay him (he had forgotten to sign the contract), he sued the city. The floods were ruled an act of God, excluding him from liability but also from payment. Your not making a very good job of promoting nuclear here when you are basically saying all liabilities are limited to a small fraction of the actual damages caused. Ok now I know reactor melt downs like WIndscale, TMI, Chernobyl, Fukishima are a 1/10,000 year event however when it does happen someone has to pick up the tab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Jeez You still cant differentiate between limitations placed on the insurance policy and the ability of a plantiff to make a claim. The fact the Nuclear Industries insurance excludes acts of god does not indemnify the operator from damages claims. The limitations you describe simply indemify the Insurer from any third party liability. The limited liability clauses are there so that the nuclear industry can actually get any insurance. Claims against Tepco will be on the basis that they didn't take reasonably practicable measures to mitigate against forseeable risks - in this case flooding which subsequently led to the release of radioactive material. nope; you make it up again; because they did took all the reasonable measures; you still do not understand the simple principle of industry regulations ... and again you can not claim against "act of god"; as you need to prove the fault or negligence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Your not making a very good job of promoting nuclear here when you are basically saying all liabilities are limited to a small fraction of the actual damages caused. Ok now I know reactor melt downs like WIndscale, TMI, Chernobyl, Fukishima are a 1/10,000 year event however when it does happen someone has to pick up the tab. again: do your homework please -> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Jeez You still cant differentiate between limitations placed on the insurance policy and the ability of a plantiff to make a claim. The fact the Nuclear Industries insurance excludes acts of god does not indemnify the operator from damages claims. The limitations you describe simply indemify the Insurer from any third party liability. The limited liability clauses are there so that the nuclear industry can actually get any insurance. Claims against Tepco will be on the basis that they didn't take reasonably practicable measures to mitigate against forseeable risks - in this case flooding which subsequently led to the release of radioactive material. nobody took the measures we would all like as the international regulations did not require it and the regulation bodies did not forsee it; for example there is not any protection against 20m tsunami or high scale earthquake in UK however they require it now; again is it TEPCO fault ??? legally no ... http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301290065 January 29, 2013 The nuclear industry watchdog is pitching new safety standards on earthquake and tsunami preparedness, which could substantially delay restarts of some idled nuclear plants. Operators will be required to build levees high enough to defend nuclear plants from a reference tsunami and take measures to prevent damage from possible flooding, such as waterproofing buildings that house key equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 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 ... what do you mean by this. are you saying that tepco are liable for damages or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 1/ let me make it very simple for you; 5th time; I hope you are better educated than 7 years old, so good luck: - there is no prosecution against TEPCO of wrong doing in relation to the size of the tsunami wall or geometry of the building - there is no civilian prosecution against TEPCO; it is just about the proving of the size of the damage for the pay off; the victims do not need to prove the fault of TEPCO at the first place (as legally it is not actually TEPCO fault) - as there is an international regulation, there is a limited liability for the nuclear damage irrespective of the fault or cause; operator has to always pay, no questions asked; usually limited - Japanese effected by nuclear fall out are lucky as they will get some money; if some farmer land was close to a chemical plant (perhaps even some deaths) they will get a big fat zero and the government will have to pay for all the clean up costs 2/ again it is very simple; in the case of a natural disaster; as in majority of the other industries you are required to prove the fault; and in the case of tsunami hitting nuclear or chemical power plant, there is no fault or responsibility of the operator I hope you can grasp it ... More reading here: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf67.html Thank you. You've just admitted to the point I've been arguing all along. That nuclear is the most subsidized form of energy on the planet, because they are not forced to bear the risks via insurance of the potential damage they might cause, and that it is capped at some tiny fraction of the potential damage. Thank you for openly admitting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 nope; you make it up again; because they did took all the reasonable measures; you still do not understand the simple principle of industry regulations ... and again you can not claim against "act of god"; as you need to prove the fault or negligence Acts of God do not automatically indemnify the operator. If the act of god was reasonably forseeable then liability is still likely to apply. In any case it isn't an act of god that caused the radioactive contamination of large tracts of land. The fault lies with the operator of Fukishima. If this were the North Sea it might be a different matter but a coastal strip on the East Coast of Japan periodic Tsunami's are to be expected and there is precedent for Tsunami's of the size experienced in 2011. It is reasonably forseeable that if a 15 metre Tsunami passing over the site this will cause an emergency shut down. It is also forseeable that the flood would damage water intakes / generator rooms therefore those areas should have been flood protected and able to operate for the required period to sufficiently cool the reactor. They were not. Arguing there is automatically no liability due to an Act of God is as riduclous as me claiming in the event a wind turbine fell over in high winds due to poor design, and where people were injured, that there is no liability as the wind is an act of god. Maybe in Damik World but not on Planet Earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) Acts of God do not automatically indemnify the operator. If the act of god was reasonably forseeable then liability is still likely to apply. In any case it isn't an act of god that caused the radioactive contamination of large tracts of land. The fault lies with the operator of Fukishima. If this were the North Sea it might be a different matter but a coastal strip on the East Coast of Japan periodic Tsunami's are to be expected and there is precedent for Tsunami's of the size experienced in 2011. It is reasonably forseeable that if a 15 metre Tsunami passing over the site this will cause an emergency shut down. It is also forseeable that the flood would damage water intakes / generator rooms therefore those areas should have been flood protected and able to operate for the required period to sufficiently cool the reactor. They were not. Arguing there is automatically no liability due to an Act of God is as riduclous as me claiming in the event a wind turbine fell over in high winds due to poor design, and where people were injured, that there is no liability as the wind is an act of god. Maybe in Damik World but not on Planet Earth Kurt, I know you wil ignore this, but TEPCO laweyrs will not; case closed http://ajw.asahi.com.../AJ201301290065 January 29, 2013 The nuclear industry watchdog is pitching new safety standards on earthquake and tsunami preparedness, which could substantially delay restarts of some idled nuclear plants. Operators will be required to build levees high enough to defend nuclear plants from a reference tsunami and take measures to prevent damage from possible flooding, such as waterproofing buildings that house key equipment. Edited February 10, 2013 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Thank you. You've just admitted to the point I've been arguing all along. That nuclear is the most subsidized form of energy on the planet, because they are not forced to bear the risks via insurance of the potential damage they might cause, and that it is capped at some tiny fraction of the potential damage. Thank you for openly admitting it. no; you get it wrong again; it is the complete oposite and the nuclear is the only one insured for the natural disasaters why do not you all show us how the UK wind turbines and chemical plants are insured if they cause demage or death induced by a strong earthquake or some kind of super tornado ??? and you can not prove it to us as it is not the case ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 no; you get it wrong again; it is the complete oposite and the nuclear is the only one insured for the natural disasaters why do not you all show us how the UK wind turbines and chemical plants are insured if they cause demage or death induced by a strong earthquake or some kind of super tornado ??? and you can not prove it to us as it is not the case ... You don't even seem to understand your own post. "there is a limited liability for the nuclear damage irrespective of the fault or cause" Damik, name one other industry that has its liability capped at a tiny fraction of the possible damage it may cause. Even if this is the result of negligence by the operating company (which as we all know is the main cause of nuclear accidents, exceedingly few have had a natural disaster component). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Kurt, I know you wil ignore this, but TEPCO laweyrs will not; case closed http://ajw.asahi.com.../AJ201301290065 January 29, 2013 The nuclear industry watchdog is pitching new safety standards on earthquake and tsunami preparedness, which could substantially delay restarts of some idled nuclear plants. Operators will be required to build levees high enough to defend nuclear plants from a reference tsunami and take measures to prevent damage from possible flooding, such as waterproofing buildings that house key equipment. they can argue all they want, they are lawyers, but tepco have estimated their compensation at around $25-50billion to local people. analysts estimate that they need a minimum of $125 billion to pay for the clean up costs at fukishima. it can possibly go as high as $250 billion. The figure includes 54 billion to buy up all land within 20 kilometers of the plant, 8 billion for compensation payments to local residents, and up to 188 billion to scrap the plant's reactors. thats rather a lot for a company thats not liable for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Damik, name one other industry that has its liability capped at a tiny fraction of the possible damage it may cause. Even if this is the result of negligence by the operating company (which as we all know is the main cause of nuclear accidents, exceedingly few have had a natural disaster component). The insurance industry is not set up for things like Nuclear power. Or healthcare, for that matter.. As far as nuclear accidents go, I am not aware of ANY in a first world western country where there: - There has been a major release of radiation into 'civilian' areas, and - There was no natural disaster involved. Fukushima is basically it. Again I note the one-sidedness of your argument, which seems to be that there is some other energy source that is cheap, dispatchable, abundant and non-polluting, but you won't tell us what it is. Because otherwise it becomes a matter of trade offs. Which is a much more complicated game than scaremongering. All energy sources kill, and a lack of energy kills more than any of them. So.. tell us your plan to minimize deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Again I note the one-sidedness of your argument, which seems to be that there is some other energy source that is cheap, dispatchable, abundant and non-polluting, but you won't tell us what it is. Because otherwise it becomes a matter of trade offs. Which is a much more complicated game than scaremongering. All energy sources kill, and a lack of energy kills more than any of them. So.. tell us your plan to minimize deaths. We all stop using electricity and return to an agrarian society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Again I note the one-sidedness of your argument, which seems to be that there is some other energy source that is cheap, dispatchable, abundant and non-polluting, but you won't tell us what it is. Because otherwise it becomes a matter of trade offs. Which is a much more complicated game than scaremongering. All energy sources kill, and a lack of energy kills more than any of them. So.. tell us your plan to minimize deaths. I don't know how old alexw is, but he/she reminds me on me when I was about fifteen. No pragmatism whatsoever. The good news is you do grow out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's a fantastic business to be in. Radiation is invisible. Dangerous. But invisible. You can only detect it with special machines. Dangerous for years. Invisible forever. And you can keep reminding people how dangerous it is and how expensive it is to make it stay safe. Who's going to stop paying no matter how dear the cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Kurt, I know you wil ignore this, but TEPCO laweyrs will not; case closed http://ajw.asahi.com.../AJ201301290065 January 29, 2013 The nuclear industry watchdog is pitching new safety standards on earthquake and tsunami preparedness, which could substantially delay restarts of some idled nuclear plants. Operators will be required to build levees high enough to defend nuclear plants from a reference tsunami and take measures to prevent damage from possible flooding, such as waterproofing buildings that house key equipment. Thats great looking forward however this does not address the issue of liability regarding Fukushima. Indeed the fact that the risks were known before the event and the practicable control measures (as proposed in your link above) were not in place this opens up a wealth of evidence to be thrown at TEPCO in forthcoming Civil Liability claims! You are doing a great job of disproving yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's a fantastic business to be in. Radiation is invisible. Dangerous. But invisible. You can only detect it with special machines. Dangerous for years. Invisible forever. And you can keep reminding people how dangerous it is and how expensive it is to make it stay safe. Who's going to stop paying no matter how dear the cost? Sounds like carbon dioxide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Thats great looking forward however this does not address the issue of liability regarding Fukushima. Indeed the fact that the risks were known before the event and the practicable control measures (as proposed in your link above) were not in place this opens up a wealth of evidence to be thrown at TEPCO in forthcoming Civil Liability claims! You are doing a great job of disproving yourself you are a lost case; you can ignore published facts for the rest of your days, but it does not make it truth ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 they can argue all they want, they are lawyers, but tepco have estimated their compensation at around $25-50billion to local people. analysts estimate that they need a minimum of $125 billion to pay for the clean up costs at fukishima. it can possibly go as high as $250 billion. The figure includes 54 billion to buy up all land within 20 kilometers of the plant, 8 billion for compensation payments to local residents, and up to 188 billion to scrap the plant's reactors. thats rather a lot for a company thats not liable for anything. the international nuclear regulation requires a pay off with out prooving the fault; they will get the money anyway it is not the case for other industries; such as the chemical one; so the families of the 20 000 dead will not recieve any compensations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) You don't even seem to understand your own post. Damik, name one other industry that has its liability capped at a tiny fraction of the possible damage it may cause. Even if this is the result of negligence by the operating company (which as we all know is the main cause of nuclear accidents, exceedingly few have had a natural disaster component). once again just for you: nuclear is the only industry where the insurance is required and applicable in a case of the natural disaster and terrorism ... Fukushima was caused by the natural disaster - 20000 people killed; the cleaning up costs double the costs of the nuclear cleaning up costs the Japanese government regulations required the lower tsunami wall; apparently to shut up the villagers around, why their village tsunami walls are lower ... Edited February 11, 2013 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) What I don't get is who is liable for compensating people for the 20,000 people who died, or all those houses that were lost? With that much death and destruction, someone must be at fault? Or are people claiming that a 100ft wall of water is something that no-one could mitigate? What about those people that drowned in their cars? Why weren't the cars fitted with propellers, air tight seals and underwater air systems? Edited February 11, 2013 by RufflesTheGuineaPig 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.