national

4,000 sue GE, Toshiba, Hitachi over Fukushima disaster

15 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

GE went ahead and provided reactors and assistance knowing full well the back up generators were in dangerous positions. Also the sea wall was too low. and last but not least the entire plant was located lower on the coast to save money, against initial suggestions that it be located much higher. Cheap nuclear power? Clean nuclear power? No such thing. firms like GE are pork projects in a make-work guise, nothing more.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Yes, Joe is right. GE designed the backup power to be underground anticipating a disaster like a tornado throwing cars against the emergency power generator building. Toshiba and Hitachi asked GE to change the design, but GE refused citing "safety considerations".

0 ( +4 / -4 )

There are many serious design problems with the reactors at the Fukushima No 1 plant.

Its unlikely, that 30 out of the current fleet of 48 reactors can meet the new safety standards set by the NRA. 13 are too old to retrofit and therefore more likely will be decommissioned. The four reactors from the Fukushima No2 plant won't operate again, that leaves 14 possible reactors. The inspection work of the reactors by the NRA is behind on schedule.

The power utilities have spent more than ¥14 trillion on updating the safety of their atomic power plants. On the anniversary of 3/11, the speaker of the lower house called for an end to nuclear energy.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

OUTSTANDING, since TEPCO and Abe will not do anything to help those affected by Fukushima's meltdowns it is great that these people are taking on those who built it then let them sue TEPCO for messing it up.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

In 1991 and 2008 there were incidents where TEPCO was told of flooding and Tsunami risk to the backup generator. It was well know that flooding could knock out the backup generator before 311. TEPCO gambled and the people lost. Considering how much I paid a month for electricity for a small apartment in Japan... these companies must have been raking in the cash.... but the money went to vacations and not preventive safety measures.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The devil is in the details. The question is what design criteria was given to GE? What requirements did the governmental authorities impose on the project? What did TEPCO specify? In the end it may be what the insurance companie(s) are willing to pay rather than the truth. And us little ones continue to suffer. :(

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yeah, it performed reliably for more than forty years, which is not bad considering regular maintenance was ignored and fudged and the fact that it was only designed to run for 20 years. I cannot believe they are defending this disaster by stating the plant was operating well. If they had kept the maintenance up and initiated the proposals of getting the generators off the ground and waterproofing the electrics there would have been no meltdown. It still bugs the heck out of me why nobody has faced criminal negligence charges.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

After 3 years it seems to be already time to sue against whoever has respensiblities of the disaster. I hope that poor victims can get as much compensations as possible from them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The plaintiffs have no chance of winning the case. "The law on compensation of nuclear damages", genshiryokusongaino baishounikannsuru houritsu, article 4 says that only the nuclear plant operator, that is TEPCO in Fukushima case, is liable for compensation payment of any nuclear damage whether the damage is caused by the operator or a third party. If damage is inflicted upon someone due to some act of a third party, nuclear plant operator may demand reimbursement from the third party, only after paying the compensation to the victims.

The lawsuit is only for PR purpose.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But doesn't the industry have a watch dog to insure compliance with random checks? Didn't they do their job? Wasn't there a Japanese Government department overseeing the industry!, an international body checking! Seems none of these bodies were doing anything but taking tax payer money! Guess building a reactor on the sea side on lowered ground with back up generators below ground and without water proofing the electrics, combined with no staff training or even an emergency manual...who would have guessed a disaster. And who would have checked not the departments it seems. Yep N-energy is soooo cheep.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Under Japanese law, nuclear plant suppliers are usually exempt from damage claims in the event of an accident

And this why nuclear power plants cannot be considered as a source of acceptable energy.

As people start to contract chronic diseases the muzzled medical profession here will kowtow to political pressure and FAIL to find a causal link between radiation poisoning and chronic disease-people dying in their leaking bodily fluids will be left wondering just what they did to deserve such a loathsome fate .....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You'd think there would be a statute of limitations to kick this suit out, at least in terms of those companies that designed and constructed the plant 40 years ago. I know that for residential structures you can't sue if a defect is discovered some 40-50 years after the thing was built... But even assuming there is no statute of limitations on design/construction defects here, the question to ask is, was the plant designed and built according to industry standards that were in place 40 years ago, given the technology and information available at that time (about quakes, radiation and the like)? I don't see how these companies can be liable to the extent the suit accuses them of negligence for how the thing was originally designed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This smells very close too the Western way of trying to make $$$$, rather than the true people that are responsible being persecuted.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

this opens the door for lawsuits from Alaska to Hawaii as the radiation drifts across the Pacific in the currents and are affecting everything in the ocean from krill to the Tuna ... we are seeing affects in our fish in Hawaii and even native fishermen are using geiger counters to check their catch... when California lawyers get ahold of this class action idea it will bring down GE, and GE does not want its stock to dive. It is three years and still people try to ignore what happened let alone what can be done to fix it. Fukushima people should have option to move to somewhere else in Japan where the air and ground water is not radiated, let people move back to small farm towns that need new blood, from every disaster comes some good but I have yet to see anything good.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The reactors were planned by, ordered by and maintained by TEPCO. They worked as designed and TEPCO is clearly responsible for not addressing any concerns pointed out in 1990, 2004. At $3 million per plaintiff, why not go after GE's deep pockets? Morons.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites