TEPCO: Radioactive substances belong to landowners, not us

[kristopher]

Source: Asahi Shimbun Weekly AERA

During court proceedings concerning a radioactive golf course, Tokyo Electric Power Co. stunned lawyers by saying the utility was not responsible for decontamination because it no longer "owned" the radioactive substances.

“Radioactive materials (such as cesium) that scattered and fell from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant belong to individual landowners there, not TEPCO,” the utility said.

That argument did not sit well with the companies that own and operate the Sunfield Nihonmatsu Golf Club, just 45 kilometers west of the stricken TEPCO plant in Fukushima Prefecture.

...in a ruling described as inconsistent by lawyers, the court essentially freed TEPCO from responsibility for decontamination work, saying the cleanup efforts should be done by the central and local governments.

Read more: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201111240030

---

Ok, the court didn't let them get away with it, but nonetheless that is an incredible "WTF".

[Poll_Blind]

1. Does anyone still think TEPCO or the Japanese government is being upfront about...

..the spread of this radioactive material or its inclusion into exported products?

From everything I've seen and read, it looks like they don't give a shit at all.

PB

[msongs]

2. the nuclear industry is a perpetual liar in the name of profit nt

[SpiralHawk]

3. Wow - Republicon Family Values, international style

TEPCO really embraces the Republicons 'we don't do responsibility' bullshit.

Disgutipating.

[freshwest]

19. + a million...

[Muskypundit]

4. Actually it says right there that the courts did let tepco get away with it

By shifting the responsibility of the decontamination work to the government.

Typical socialize the loss, privatize the gain bullshit.

[kristopher]

5. Not really.

The court did not accept the specific claim that TEPCO made, which would have placed the burden exclusively on the landowners. They did as expected, however, and transferred liability to the general public. There is a reason insurance in a sufficient amount cannot be issued to nuclear power plants - the costs of damages in the event of a large scale accident are far too great for any business to cover.

Tepco must certainly be thanking the gods for the divine wind that carried more than half of the fallout out to sea...

[plumbob]

15. The reason nuclear carry no insurance is because no insurance company

will take their money for the liability.

When you have the greediest, grabbiest, most horrible money-grubbers on the planet take a pass, you can bet it's because
nuclear power in the filthiest, most dangerous, and most expensive way to boil water ever invented.

[elleng]

6. Never heard of 'You broke it, You own it,' I guess!

:wtf:

[AndyTiedye]

7. What is Japanese for "Too Big to Fail"?

[Orrex]

8. Honestly, I'm surprised that they didn't accuse the landowners of stealing the radioactive materials

[Poll_Blind]

9. No shit, huh! LOL! That's about par for the course for these snakefuckers. nt

PB

[freshwest]

20. Bwahaha! Thanks, you nailed it.

[quakerboy]

11. That would be in the next wave of lawsuits

You know, settle these ones, then go after all those thieving golf courses, farms, and small children ingesting their radioactive materials to recover at least a little of what the losses cost them.

[Mnemosyne]

22. They must not be aware of the Monsatan technique to sue when their poison spreads. n/t

[Karenina]

24. A reverse Monsanto tactic...

My first thought also!

[Mnemosyne]

25. Makes you wonder if it sop now for most poison producers. n/t

[sakabatou]

10. Bastards

[JDPriestly]

12. The parliament in Japan needs to clarifly this law so that

the clean-up costs are paid by the organization that caused them -- namely here TEPCO.

We also have laws that protect our nuclear industry from bearing the total costs of cleaning up after themselves.

It's the -- They got bailed out; We got sold out -- story all over again.

[kristopher]

13. Here the owner/operator is roughly responsible for enough to cover the actual facilities...

What is left over for property and casualty damage offsite is virtually nothing.

A simple evaluation of coverage per person, should an accident occur at a reactor located close to a population center, helps to illustrate this point. Table 21 uses as an example a reactor at Calvert Cliffs, located near Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD. Available coverage, including pooled premiums from all other reactors (as stipulated under Price-Anderson), barely tops $1,100 per person in the Baltimore/Washington combined statistical area. This small amount would need to cover not only loss of property from an accident but also morbidity or mortality. The portion paid by Calvert Cliffs to cover the off-site accident risk from its own operations (Tier 1 coverage plus its share of Tier 2) would be a mere $60 per person affected. While the extent of the injuries would vary with the specifics of an accident, the weather at the time, and patterns of local settlement and construction, for a metropolitan area of this size
it is clear that the coverage provided by Price- Anderson is not large.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies pg. 81

Doug Kaplow

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

[JDPriestly]

17. Thanks. The externalities of nuclear energy are enormous.

We should not rely on nuclear energy.

Solar energy and changes in lifestyle are the best bet.

[Prometheus Bound]

14. And another corporation - Monsanto - makes exactly the opposite argument about GM seeds.

[freshwest]

21. Whatever they can get away with. Although in practice, the same. 'All ur land belong to us,' that is

They can dump on the entire planet, they don't respect anyone's property rights or right to air or water or food... They see themselves as the rulers of the universe.

[Trillo]

27. While at the same time, the modified genes are apparently being transfered

to other organisms including humans. So, in one sense, Monsanto does seem to make the opposite arguments as TEPCO apparently made as far as surrounding lands and who "owns" the direct physical trespass of pollen blowing in the wind and being deposited somewhere resulting in the indirect production of crops including Monsantos intelluctual property by entities that didn't purchase Monsanto's seed: it also seems there is a "public liability" of the altered genes that is literally being absorbed by the natural world's environment and would seem to affect it in ways that Monsanto probably would wish to deny any financial ownership or liability therefrom, up to and including the possibility of human genetic modification through gene transfer.

So, it appears there are logical analogs to this TEPCO decision, but it is curious (and confusing) that they are not logistically the same.

It seems the basic rule is, to grant HUGE companies ownership when it's financially beneficial to the Big company to do so, and deny that ownership when it is financially beneficial to the Big company to do so. The trespasses onto entities not associated with the Big Corporate firms involved is "too bad" even though it may be severely unjust.

[Prometheus Bound]

28. Interesting analysis. Thank you.

[fascisthunter]

16. maybe it's time for the people to go vigilante on their asses

[unkachuck]

18. K&R....Do you want nuclear power?

....then after a disaster in any advanced democracy or economy, expect this

"...the court went on to say that central or local governments should be responsible for the decontamination work..."

....the nuclear industry will send us the clean-up bill for their fuck-up....

[Sparky 1]

23. That's exactly what happens here in the USA

Nobody in the world will insure a nuclear power plant. The only reason we have nuclear power in the USA is because We the People insure it. WE pay for all cleanup. THEY keep all the profits. Just one more reason to fight against nuclear power.

[NickB79]

26. Can a Japanese farmer haul a load of manure onto the front lawn of TEPCO's president?

Dump it (or better yet spray it across the front of his house), say he no longer "owns" his pigshit because it left his property, and drive away?

[marasinghe]

29. one can see why the practice of seppuku was sometimes warranted. n/t