NO criminal charges for Fukushima disaster.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I would think that building a coastal nuclear power plant in a country that routinely has strong earthquakes would be the most obvious example of negligence. The minute they built that plant this disaster was going to happen. It was a matter of time.

People are idiots. Details at eleven.

[Shiranu]

The majority of the world's population live in area's prone to natural disaster. Are we also going to sue the government of Italy when Pompei erupts again, when LA falls down a crack during an unprecedented earthquake, when Oklahoma City is completely demolished in a freak storm that has 99 tornadoes bearing down on the city at once or when New York is flooded by a tidal wave?

The nuclear power plants were built to withstand some serious shit, and for the most part they have and did. Now, if this was a 2.0 earthquake with a 1 foot wave crashing into it, then yeah you have a point that it was built poorly and people need to be held responsible. But this was not some light earthquake with a low wave... this was a very strong earthquake followed immediately by a huge mass of water and debris.

The Fukushima Daiichi Plant has been open since 1971... would you rather Japan had used "safer" energy sources like coal and dirty energy to power their cities in a less effective and much more destructive matter? Because mass-scale green energy has not been around that long... at the time they had the option of nuclear or dirty, and they went with nuclear. And for 40 years it worked more-or-less perfectly fine until a freak of nature event hits it and you cry, "See! This was such a bad idea, how could they build a nuclear plant in Japan?!?".

Shit, you can argue that pretty much all the major cities in Japan are a disaster waiting to happen, so why not get to it? Propose to the UN or Japan or whoever that it is negligence to let such a dangerous area become so densely populated.

That isn't being dense, that's being a realist.

[DunkleSeele]

The majority of the world's population live in area's prone to natural disaster. Are we also going to sue the government of Italy when Pompei erupts again, when LA falls down a crack during an unprecedented earthquake, when Oklahoma City is completely demolished in a freak storm that has 99 tornadoes bearing down on the city at once or when New York is flooded by a tidal wave?

The nuclear power plants were built to withstand some serious shit, and for the most part they have and did. Now, if this was a 2.0 earthquake with a 1 foot wave crashing into it, then yeah you have a point that it was built poorly and people need to be held responsible. But this was not some light earthquake with a low wave... this was a very strong earthquake followed immediately by a huge mass of water and debris.

The Fukushima Daiichi Plant has been open since 1971... would you rather Japan had used "safer" energy sources like coal and dirty energy to power their cities in a less effective and much more destructive matter? Because mass-scale green energy has not been around that long... at the time they had the option of nuclear or dirty, and they went with nuclear. And for 40 years it worked more-or-less perfectly fine until a freak of nature event hits it and you cry, "See! This was such a bad idea, how could they build a nuclear plant in Japan?!?".

Shit, you can argue that pretty much all the major cities in Japan are a disaster waiting to happen, so why not get to it? Propose to the UN or Japan or whoever that it is negligence to let such a dangerous area become so densely populated.

That isn't being dense, that's being a realist.

Now, now... will you stop making sense, now? :)

By the way: mount Vesuvius erupted, Pompeii was the town destroyed as a result (OK, I'll stop being pedantic...)

[Shiranu]

Derp... I don't know why I said Pompeii (and then proceeded to misspell it...).

[SilentFutility]

The nuclear power plants were built to withstand some serious shit, and for the most part they have and did. Now, if this was a 2.0 earthquake with a 1 foot wave crashing into it, then yeah you have a point that it was built poorly and people need to be held responsible. But this was not some light earthquake with a low wave... this was a very strong earthquake followed immediately by a huge mass of water and debris.

Which, in one of the most seismically active regions in the whole wide world, was bound to happen at some point.

The Fukushima Daiichi Plant has been open since 1971... would you rather Japan had used "safer" energy sources like coal and dirty energy to power their cities in a less effective and much more destructive matter? Because mass-scale green energy has not been around that long... at the time they had the option of nuclear or dirty, and they went with nuclear. And for 40 years it worked more-or-less perfectly fine until a freak of nature event hits it and you cry, "See! This was such a bad idea, how could they build a nuclear plant in Japan?!?".

40 odd years in the grand scheme of seismic movements and geological events is NOTHING. There will be another huge surge of water or earthquake on the coast of Japan within this century, just as this isn't the first large disaster to happen in the pacific in human history.

Shit, you can argue that pretty much all the major cities in Japan are a disaster waiting to happen, so why not get to it? Propose to the UN or Japan or whoever that it is negligence to let such a dangerous area become so densely populated.

It will have been built right on the coast as sea water can then be easily used as a coolant. It would have been more expensive to construct away from the coast on higher ground, but far, far safer. The entirety of Japan was not destroyed by the tsunami, areas which are near the sea were. The argument is that building something like this right near the coast was a stupid idea, or even, if it would be near the coast, on the western side of Japan away from the huge, unsheltered, open Pacific.

WITHIN Japan this location was relatively unsafe. The argument is not that Japan doesn't need to meet its energy demand, it is that they were reckless in placing a nuclear power station in a location that was GOING to get hit by a natural disaster within the next century or two and gambled that it wouldn't happen.