Dieser Abschnitt entlarvt die bewusste Verzerrung der Tatsachen in der Berichterstattung über Kernenergie, GE und das japanische Haftungsrecht.

At present, the U.S. side is suing Mitsubishi under product liability law, claiming that the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant was forced into decommissioning due to the failure of steam generators supplied by Mitsubishi.

As in the Lexus lawsuit against Toyota, this is little more than a frivolous lawsuit based on unfounded accusations.

Even if Mitsubishi were to have had some defect, it would be incomparable to the seriousness of GE’s defective nuclear reactors.

Then why did TEPCO not seek compensation from GE?

Because Article 4 of the Nuclear Damage Compensation Act stipulates that “no party other than the operator, such as TEPCO, shall bear liability,” thereby prohibiting the application of product liability law.

At the time, Japan’s nuclear power projects depended on loans from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and from GE itself.

It is said that this clause was inserted at the direction of the United States, under the notion that “since we are taking care of you, do not even think about applying product liability law.”

The reason GE entrusted Fukushima to a former sailor as its local supervisor likely lies in this background.

Thanks to—or rather, because of—GE’s negligence, Japan became capable of building high-quality nuclear power plants.

Exports are also performing well.

The interview touches upon the fact that these Japanese-made nuclear power plants are now being exported one after another, and the Asahi Shimbun makes him say, “Is that really alright?”

An article in which not a single fragment of truth can be found.

It is we who should be asking them, “Is that really alright?”

(August 1, 2013 issue)