• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is guilty of Criminal Negligence?

Who is guilty of Criminal Negligence?


  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Fukushima residents call for criminal charges against nuclear officials - CNN.com


"The complaint argues that the 33 TEPCO executives and government officials are responsible for causing the nuclear disaster that followed the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and exposing the people of Fukushima to radiation."

The Japanese seem to be taking legal matters into their own hands since their gov't won't.

Can they actually be effective?
 
Although it is not addressed in this article, the most damning article of evidence for Criminal Negligence is the existing stone tsunami markers were ignored by the planners/engineers/designers. These were stone markers indicating where historical tsunamis had caused damage and indicated much higher tsunami tidal waves than the planners accounted for. These were physical, de facto indicators of real past tsunamis and they were ignored. That is my argument for the initial negligence. The response to the tsunami and the TEPCO and Japanese gov't response bring in multiple issues of negligence.
 
Who is guilty of Criminally Negligent Manslaughter? I think Eric Holder is for his role in Fast & Furious.
 
In every design engineering project I've been involved with (there have been many) there is a recurring list of things that are big issues. The root causes are mostly cost reduction and development schedule reduction. High level management is rewarded for reducing cost and schedule. In almost every development project I've discovered a problem in the design, from inadequate specification to inadequate testing. (I have stated many times that a management skill that is necessary to be successful is 'feigning surprise'.) I've never been rewarded for finding a problem that increases development costs or delays delivery, only punished. Fukushima is no different. And who here likes independent regulators that know what they are doing? I have to add that my wife is also a retired engineer and she just noted, again, to me that this has been her experience also.
 
Last edited:
Although it is not addressed in this article, the most damning article of evidence for Criminal Negligence is the existing stone tsunami markers were ignored by the planners/engineers/designers. These were stone markers indicating where historical tsunamis had caused damage and indicated much higher tsunami tidal waves than the planners accounted for. These were physical, de facto indicators of real past tsunamis and they were ignored. That is my argument for the initial negligence. The response to the tsunami and the TEPCO and Japanese gov't response bring in multiple issues of negligence.
That's a good point.

I'm wondering if they built the plant in an already populated area, or did the population move in after the plant was built? I'm thinking of Diablo Canyon in California and it is pretty much out there by itself, so if something similar did happen, the effect on masses of people would be lessened.

I do think you should have included "Nobody" as a poll option, though, as that can be a valid opinion as well.
 
In every design engineering project I've been involved with (there have been many) there is a recurring list of things that are big issues. The root causes are mostly cost reduction and development schedule reduction. High level management is rewarded for reducing cost and schedule. In almost every development project I've discovered a problem in the design, from inadequate specification to inadequate testing. (I have stated many times that a management skill that is necessary to be successful is 'feigning surprise'.) I've never been rewarded for finding a problem that increases development costs or delays delivery, only punished. Fukushima is no different. And who here likes independent regulators that know what they are doing? I have to add that my wife is also a retired engineer and she just noted, again, to me that this has been her experience also.
As an engineer myself, I think this is appropriate for your post. :lol:
Dilbert-Engineer.jpg
 
This plant was inspected by the Japanese gov't and given permission to operate. Just beacuse things did not work out well, is no cause for NOW shifting blame to some corporate boogie man. The boogie man is Japan, as a whole, so go sue yourselves, if that makes you feel better, the lawyers will absolutely love it. ;-)
 
Wow, two votes for "Nuclear Plant design engineers"! What did they do wrong?
 
Although it is not addressed in this article, the most damning article of evidence for Criminal Negligence is the existing stone tsunami markers were ignored by the planners/engineers/designers. These were stone markers indicating where historical tsunamis had caused damage and indicated much higher tsunami tidal waves than the planners accounted for. These were physical, de facto indicators of real past tsunamis and they were ignored. That is my argument for the initial negligence. The response to the tsunami and the TEPCO and Japanese gov't response bring in multiple issues of negligence.


As I remember it the land that included the nuclear power plant was shifted downward several meters so if they also did not build the walls high enough yes that would be a problem.
 
Last edited:
Wow, two votes for "Nuclear Plant design engineers"! What did they do wrong?

They did at least two things wrong. There was no passive uphill cooling water source in case of power failure. The backup generators were located where they could be flooded. Fukushima was populated before the nuke plants arrived. If you would like to see something similar in the USA, take a look at the past year of history at the Fort Calhoun nuke plant. I don't think it is back online yet and hope it never is. If you get the correct photos you will see the nuke plant as a buildings compound as an island in a flood. Ain't that reassuring now? Nobody wants to talk about it. As a side note. Nukes are uninsurable. Nukes cannot be built without taxpayers footing the bill. Nukes are not competitive, especially with current natural gas in a bubble. The Nuclear Industry is like a lampry eel on a shark. It is a parasite Corporate (to avoid legal liability to its profiteers) leech on our Centralized Distribution Network. That Centralized Distribution Network is another sad story. Capsulized, it is the same old line moneymakers tapping the taxpayers main vein.
 
They did at least two things wrong. There was no passive uphill cooling water source in case of power failure. The backup generators were located where they could be flooded. Fukushima was populated before the nuke plants arrived.
Maybe you'll see this. I'm sorry it's so late and no one seems interested. I'm not a nuke engineer, but even I wouldn't make these mistakes. Note that a passive uphill cooling water source would add cost. Any nuke designer would design it in unless they were told to not add that cost by someone in higher authority. Locating the backup generators where they could not be flooded would add significant cost and design complexity, just exactly what engineers like unless told not to do it to reduce cost. My wife and I were both design engineers and we were told many times to reduce development and product cost at the expense of reliability. I designed 5 nines computer equipment, she designed the software that operates in commercial jets.
 
Last edited:
I do not know if anyone did anything wrong.
What happened was "an act of nature"....
We should learn from this and do things better.
Bringing on law suits only enriches the lawyers but improves nothing - actually makes matters worse.
 
I do not know if anyone did anything wrong.
What happened was "an act of nature"....
We should learn from this and do things better.
Bringing on law suits only enriches the lawyers but improves nothing - actually makes matters worse.

It was a predictable act of nature. The tsunami markers are stone monuments placed by residents who survived past earthquake generated tsunamis. It is a known earthquake prone area, so design engineering must make realistic projections for possible earthquake generated tsunamis. Not rocket science. When you install a nuke plant in an earthquake prone area, you are responsible to plan accordingly, responsibly. Nukes are still big Corporate business and control much of the press related to this issue. Another leech on our taxpaying backs.
 
It was a predictable act of nature. The tsunami markers are stone monuments placed by residents who survived past earthquake generated tsunamis. It is a known earthquake prone area, so design engineering must make realistic projections for possible earthquake generated tsunamis. Not rocket science. When you install a nuke plant in an earthquake prone area, you are responsible to plan accordingly, responsibly. Nukes are still big Corporate business and control much of the press related to this issue. Another leech on our taxpaying backs.
Do you know that design engineering DIDN'T make realistic projections for possible earthquake generated tsunamis?
I see that you liked my previous posts on this, but you blamed engineers again. My experience and that of my peers disagrees with your assumption.
 
Last edited:
Do you know that design engineering DIDN'T make realistic projections for possible earthquake generated tsunamis?I see that you liked my previous posts on this, but you blamed engineers again. My experience and that of my peers disagrees with your assumption.
Yes, now I see what you mean. The Design Engineers probably took the correct tsunami information and noted it and then were overridden by a financial review at an upper management level. Someone should chase a paper trail to nail the culprits. Could be either.
 
Yes, now I see what you mean. The Design Engineers probably took the correct tsunami information and noted it and then were overridden by a financial review at an upper management level. Someone should chase a paper trail to nail the culprits. Could be either.

Japan has some serious problems. Apparently someone(s) in their chain of command - perhaps in the very "top", decided to ignore the markers, the common sense, the engineers and it was full steam forward - damn the torpedos....and the people....
We may have the same problems here at home, but I do not think that they are nearly as bad..
Our engineers do walk the tightrope, everyday.
 
Japan has some serious problems. Apparently someone(s) in their chain of command - perhaps in the very "top", decided to ignore the markers, the common sense, the engineers and it was full steam forward - damn the torpedos....and the people....
We may have the same problems here at home, but I do not think that they are nearly as bad..
Our engineers do walk the tightrope, everyday.
When lessons of disasters are only a memory we humans tend to get comfortable in our own knowledge, begin to believe that we have... or, even can... outsmart nature, and push the limits again and again. Especially if the memory is from history book and not our own lifetime. In short, we never learn.
 
When lessons of disasters are only a memory we humans tend to get comfortable in our own knowledge, begin to believe that we have... or, even can... outsmart nature, and push the limits again and again. Especially if the memory is from history book and not our own lifetime. In short, we never learn.
Beyoud ignoring history and engineers there is another group that is ignored, even villified, more often amd thoes people are sciemtists.
 
Back
Top Bottom