Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GE Not Exposed to Nuclear Liability in Japan (Despite known flawed design)
Fox News ^ | 3/16/2011 | By Matt Egan

Posted on 03/16/2011 3:36:49 AM PDT by tobyhill

Thanks to a nuclear-industry practice known as channeling law, General Electric (GE: 19.59, 0.00, 0.00%) doesn’t appear to be on the hook for liabilities related to the nuclear crisis at Japanese reactors designed 40 years ago by the blue-chip conglomerate.

Since the magnitude 9.0 earthquake that has paralyzed Japan, GE’s stock has slumped as much as 7.4%, in part due to worries about its legal exposure to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, which is said to be teetering near a nuclear catastrophe.

However, analysts believe GE has little to worry about from a legal perspective and its bottom line may actually get padded by a potential increase in demand for sources of energy it specializes in.

,,,,,,,,

It is worth noting there has been criticism about GE’s design of the boiling water reactor and containment system. Regulators in the 1960s and 1970s expressed concern the containment vessel would probably burst, spewing dangerous radiation, if the cooling systems ever failed.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Japan; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ge; gecoverup; generalelectric; japaneathquake; japannuclearplants; nbc; nbccoverup; nuclearpower; radiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 03/16/2011 3:36:51 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

A caller to Limbaugh yesterday, who claimed some familiarity with the original design and sale, said that the reactors were built to Japanese specifications and thus the responsibility lies with them. The reactors had originally been scheduled for decommissioning this year — but that had been put off.


2 posted on 03/16/2011 3:44:54 AM PDT by BfloGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; BfloGuy
Something else the caller to Rush yesterday pointed out was that the reactors took a hit by a much more powerful earthquake than the specs called for them to be able to withstand and didn't fail until the tsunami, which was also much bigger than the Japanese civil authorities planned for. As far as the safety of nuclear power and earthquakes goes, the reactors operated just fine.

So, Joe Lieberman, Barry O, and related anti-nuke freaks, just bite it.
3 posted on 03/16/2011 3:49:29 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Regulators in the 1960s and 1970s expressed concern the containment vessel would probably burst, spewing dangerous radiation, if the cooling systems ever failed.

Stay classy Fox.

4 posted on 03/16/2011 3:49:36 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama, dribbling ditherer-in-chief until Fri, Jan. 20, 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Gotta get the lawsuits ready


5 posted on 03/16/2011 3:49:56 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

GE has been the biggest corporate pusher of “Green Energy” so it’s worth noting that just like oil and coal there are risk in everything.


6 posted on 03/16/2011 3:55:08 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
It won't break my heart to see GE take a healthy hit of frivolous lawsuit reality.
7 posted on 03/16/2011 3:56:21 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Thank God Immelt and Obummer will still be able to be rich and play golf without any ethical questions hanging over their communist heads. Gee, I’m relieved! They are both such nice guys.


8 posted on 03/16/2011 3:56:21 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

I assume then that you are ok with them burying the nuclear waste next door to you?


9 posted on 03/16/2011 3:58:02 AM PDT by Doc Savage ("I've shot people I like a lot more,...for a lot less!" Raylan Givins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
but the Libs sure were targeting Haliburton for things they had nothing to do with.
10 posted on 03/16/2011 3:58:54 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Exactly, there was a certain level of risk the Japanese authority assumed at the time in directing the engineering of the reactor.

Reiterate one more time...does one plan for a 100 year event, 1000 year event, or a million year event? Most plans I’ve ever seen require the 100 year event included as the speck of the design. This event was bigger than a 100 year event.

You get anything that exceeds the designed specs. it becomes an act of God...sh*t hit the fan....

The reality is if the tsunami had been the planned 7 meter event, none of this would be happening. The reactor would be performing beyond design specifications.


11 posted on 03/16/2011 4:07:06 AM PDT by EBH ( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

At what point will Obama throw GE under the bus?


12 posted on 03/16/2011 4:08:22 AM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

I’m no Immelt fan, but surely you’re not holding him responsible for reactors GE designed 40+ years ago. Right?


13 posted on 03/16/2011 4:17:59 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
It is unfair to hold liable an entity whose product failed after an earthquake, a tsunami, and a systemic power failure. The utilities whose grid failed have vastly more responsibility for failure to require on site generation capability for those facilities than GE.

We call them diesel generators. I worked in a facility that had one system with three units that was bigger than a a box car. It had capacity to run the buildings necessary operations for a week without external power.

14 posted on 03/16/2011 4:20:59 AM PDT by mmercier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

*


15 posted on 03/16/2011 4:22:18 AM PDT by fightinJAG (I am sick of ppl adding comments to titles in the title box. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; BfloGuy

A nuclear expert guest on Hannity yesterday (I think it was yesterday) said the reactors had been fine through the earthquake, that it was the tsunami — the size and scope of which was remarkable — that had caused the cracks and the backup power (cooling capacity) failures.


16 posted on 03/16/2011 4:24:22 AM PDT by fightinJAG (I am sick of ppl adding comments to titles in the title box. Thank you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
Conservatives won't be the ones with the frivolous lawsuits against GE. Libtards are pros at throwing their own under the bus but sometimes they just need good info to get started.
17 posted on 03/16/2011 4:25:51 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mmercier
I'm not holding all GE responsible for their 40 year old design flaw, I'm just pointing out what the article reads.
18 posted on 03/16/2011 4:28:52 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EBH
Be advised, GE's whole game plan is to use Government regulations against competition knowing they themselves are exempt from most regulations since they are a “Green Company” and Obama’s buddies.
19 posted on 03/16/2011 4:33:27 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
I am a 47 year old design flaw, yet here I be.
20 posted on 03/16/2011 4:39:08 AM PDT by mmercier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Only if (a) they stop funding him, or (b) it looks advantageous to the “O” [the big catch-all “if”].


21 posted on 03/16/2011 4:40:20 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Regulators in the 1960s and 1970s expressed concern the containment vessel would probably burst, spewing dangerous radiation

Assuming this is true, regulators had the power to stop the design and implementation in the country they were located. They did not. That makes the regulators negligent and derilect in carrying out their duty.

Assuming this is true, then it is govt's fault.

22 posted on 03/16/2011 4:42:02 AM PDT by mlocher (Who is going to watch the hoops bracket show tonight?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Seeing the GE designed and admittedly “flawed” reactors melt down on live TV will not be good for business. Sell your GE shares now.

The GE shills, and corporate goons are all over the place this week deflecting criticism. That caller was a PR guy from GE no doubt.


23 posted on 03/16/2011 4:47:59 AM PDT by o2bfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Nothing to be advised about. 0bama wasn’t even on the radar when these plants were built or designed.

People are going to want to get all up into not only GE, but all the design specifications. Germany has already shut down reactors of this age for ‘inspections and evaluations.’

So the question remains for over-reacting folks...what level do you regulate too? What risk level do you accept?

It is a double edged sword right now. Forty years ago this natural disaster event in Japan would have likely resulted in the loss of life far beyond what they are today. Building designs etc. have vastly improved since then and that makes this that much more heartbreaking.

What had not been upgraded to keep up with modern expectations? Again, the risk managers would have only been considering the 100 year event horizon, even though more lives would be saved through modern building design. The risk levels changed and actually increased from a 1 in 100 years to a 40 in 100 years and more lives are in play. Japan had just authorized a 12 year extension on these designs. They were taking on over a 52% risk level or higher.

But...if the ‘event’ occurs...it is an act of God. At what point though is it no longer an act of God? GE wasn’t and isn’t responsible for the Japanese assumed risk.

Many of these plants were built knowing there were disposal issues too. Scientists and designers at the time figured we would have resolved that issue by now. We have not.

Many plants around the world reprocess or send their fuel for reprocessing keeping the cooling ponds at lower spent fuel storage levels lower. The United States banned reprocessing. Many of our spent fuel pools are near or are at capacity.

At what risk?


24 posted on 03/16/2011 4:57:24 AM PDT by EBH ( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mmercier
The diesel generators ran for about an hour at the Japanese nuclear plants before water damage from the tsunami finally shut them down.
25 posted on 03/16/2011 5:03:11 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
As far as the safety of nuclear power and earthquakes goes, the reactors operated just fine.

Exactly right. The fission process shutdown as designed. It's the fossil fuel, global-warming causing diesel backup generators that *all* failed. Had that not been the case, the nuclear fuel would've been cooled normally. The engineers are doing a magnificent job in a very very difficult situation.

There are newer designs that effectively eliminate the need for power to water cool.

One time Rush fill-in Roger Hedgecock had one of Sandia National Laboratories nuclear power failure/accident experts on yesterday for his national show.

The guy had two important points: One, even worst case (fuel melts through containment) this is a local problem for Japan and not a threat to the U.S.

Two, even Sandia's simulations never considered multiple, simultaneous cooling failures like this. In other words: the scope of the quake/tsunami disasters have placed the Japanese in uncharted, unconsidered, unstudied territory and anyone who claims this was foreseen or foreseeable is a liar.

This will be a major learning experience but I think i tells us even the first generation reactors are very safe in the face of history making cataclysm.

I was surprised to hear of Germany's panicked decision to shut-down 7 of its pre-1980 nuclear reactors. However, I see the Greens there pushed through an agreement to end nuclear power in Germany by 2020 in the early 2000s, Merkel had attempted to delay that into the 2030s but public pressure is moving those 7 oldest ahead to the scrap heap. For a engineering and tech savvy country, it's disappointing Germany will abandon nuclear power. Reports suggest relative proximity to Chernobyl (under 800 mi) plays a part in their home-grown anti-nuke hysteria.

26 posted on 03/16/2011 5:03:55 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Obama, recreating-in-chief until Fri, Jan. 20, 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

They already did that.
Hanford Atomic Works, Richland, WA.

Storing nuclear waste is NOT a technical problem, it’s a political problem.


27 posted on 03/16/2011 5:04:36 AM PDT by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mmercier
"I am a 47 year old design flaw, yet here I be. "

Design flaw or user error?

I suspect I'm the latter.

28 posted on 03/16/2011 5:05:15 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mmercier
"I am a 47 year old design flaw, yet here I be. "

Design flaw or user error?

I suspect I'm the latter.

29 posted on 03/16/2011 5:05:28 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
No reason to bury so much nuclear spent fuel when we could reprocess it like France, Japan and Russia do.

But Jimmy Carter didn't want that, nuclear weapons “could” be made with the reprocessing.

30 posted on 03/16/2011 5:06:06 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer (biblein90days.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

Looking for info on the Fermi 3 reactor near my place and the first thing I find is the “Stop Fermi 3 homepage”. They basically equate Fermi 3 to Fermi 1 which suffered a partial meltdown in 1966 during testing.

Fermi 1 was a fast breeder reactor. Fermi 2 is a boiling water reactor. Fermi 3 will be an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (If its ever built)

“Nuclear” accidents in the USA. 7 total death (3 from an explosion and 4 more electrocutions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accidents_in_the_United_States


31 posted on 03/16/2011 5:07:33 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

>User error<

HAHA. Got me on that one.

Not so much user error as... How to say this...? Poor lifestyle decisions...

Thanks for that anyhow, I needed another slap this morning.

Godspeed


32 posted on 03/16/2011 5:20:39 AM PDT by mmercier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

This is silly, the design has worked marvelously.


33 posted on 03/16/2011 5:24:44 AM PDT by Paradox (Matthews has the emotional equilibrium of a pregnant, gambling chihuahua on meth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

The parenthetical editorial comment in the title is wrong, and is inflammatory.

The specification for the plant did not include an earthquake of this magnitude. Further, I have seen no credible allegation that the plant did not meet its specification.

We need to deal in facts, not emotion and innuendo.


34 posted on 03/16/2011 5:28:59 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“GE has been the biggest corporate pusher of “Green Energy””

Just trying to be a fair and balanced, good corporate citizen politically and culturally.


35 posted on 03/16/2011 5:32:21 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mmercier
It is unfair to hold liable an entity whose product failed after an earthquake, a tsunami, and a systemic power failure.

That's not entirely true. Many such events are included in the design specification for the plant. If the catastrophes are within the specification design limits, expect the plant to withstand the catastrophe.

In this instance, the earthquake was an order of magnitude larger than specified. The tsunami may have been over-spec as well.

36 posted on 03/16/2011 5:34:57 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The death total is higher, but not by much. There are deaths among the “gypsies” — men and women, many from poor rural areas who make big money following the plant refueling and maintenance shutdowns and getting very high hourly labor rates for doing a few days, or some cases hours, of work in “hot” areas. Some would get a whole years dose in one month, and then move onto another plant where they would lie about their exposure history. That’s what I remember from my various experiences in the nuke power business from 1976 through 1986 or so.

At the time there was no national registry for rad workers, nor do I know if there is one today. I was camping out in Parvin (NJ) State Park while I was working at the Salem nuke park on various systems. The Park Rangers there would stop by at night for a few beers and the campfire. They told me of a friend of theirs who had been a “rad pool diver” — he died in his early thirties of a rare liver cancer. I never checked the story out, but I suspect that story would be typical, as I got to talk with a number of the Rad Worker gypsies and learned their “scam”. Money meant their lives.


37 posted on 03/16/2011 5:36:03 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
The “parenthetical editorial comment” is from the article so don't blame me for the “emotion and innuendo”. If you see no credible evidence then write foxnews.com.
38 posted on 03/16/2011 5:56:32 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I’m apologize for offending you, since you were not the headline writer. My comment was aimed at the writer of the parenthetical comment.

What I have seen thus far is a lot of angst over the plant not being able to withstand what hit it - without any acknowledgement that what hit was well above the design limits specified by the Japanese government.

The news business, Fox News included, seems to have forsaken all focus on fact, and wallows in emotional appeal. That is just my opinion, of course.


39 posted on 03/16/2011 6:02:31 AM PDT by MortMan (What disease did cured ham used to have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: EBH
Of course GE had nothing to do with this but that's what makes for even more of an interesting scenario because now that we know they actually helped build part of the plant, will Obama and the other Libtards hold GE responsible the same way they kept blaming Haliburton?
40 posted on 03/16/2011 6:03:35 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy every minute that someone can find anything to hit GE over the head with, regardless of truth.
GE is just another faux “Green Company” that makes a lot of taxpayer's money with their fraud.
41 posted on 03/16/2011 6:09:33 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Related link....

GE offers help to Japan, defends nuclear power industry

42 posted on 03/16/2011 6:11:56 AM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“It won’t break my heart to see GE take a healthy hit of frivolous lawsuit reality.”

And the US taxpayers will foot the bill for it. No thanks.


43 posted on 03/16/2011 6:15:31 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
It seems GE is getting a bit nervous that Obama and the other Libtards may just throw them under the bus with the other corporations.
I'm still not crying for frauds though.
44 posted on 03/16/2011 6:20:09 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: caver

I would hope taxpayer’s wouldn’t be required to bail them out but if that is the case then I’m with you, no thanks.


45 posted on 03/16/2011 6:23:07 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Well, check this out. From 1999, relating to a Fukushima reactor and a cooling system....

Tepco investors lose lawsuit over atomic reactor

46 posted on 03/16/2011 6:23:45 AM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
And I'll just throw this in for the heckuvit....

GE’s Immelt to receive first bonus since 2007

Isn't crony capitalism wonderful?

47 posted on 03/16/2011 6:26:05 AM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Japan earthquake: Japan warned over nuclear plants, WikiLeaks cables show

And, as usual, I'm left wondering what info the leakers are sitting on.

48 posted on 03/16/2011 6:28:58 AM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Look for Inmelt to step down when the pressure gets too high.
49 posted on 03/16/2011 6:31:41 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
From 2002, and GE is mentioned....

Top TEPCO official allegedly ordered cover-ups

50 posted on 03/16/2011 6:31:41 AM PDT by mewzilla (Were members of both political parties in on the Lockerbie bomber deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson