Can we please agree that in the real world corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to make as much money as possible, which means cutting costs as much as possible?
The New York Times reports that GE marketed the Mark 1 boiling water reactors, used in TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi plant, as cheaper to build than other reactors because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
Yet American safety officials have long thought the smaller design more vulnerable to explosion and rupture in emergencies than competing designs. (By the way, the same design is used in 23 American nuclear reactors at 16 plants.)
In the mid-1980s, Harold Denton, then an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident. A follow-up report from a study group convened by the Commission concluded that "Mark 1 failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely."
Sound familiar?
The National Commission appointed to investigate the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last April recently concluded that BP failed to adequately supervise Halliburton Company's work on installing the well.
This was the case even though BP knew Halliburton lacked experience testing cement to prevent blowouts and hadn't performed adequately before on a similar job. In short: Neither company bothered to spend the money to ensure adequate testing of the cement.
Nor did Massey Energy spend the money needed to ensure its mines were safe.
And so on.
Don't get me wrong. No company can be expected to build a nuclear reactor, an oil well, a coal mine, or anything else that's one hundred percent safe under all circumstances. The costs would be prohibitive. It's unreasonable to expect corporations to totally guard against small chances of every potential accident.
Inevitably there's a tradeoff. Reasonable precaution means spending as much on safety as the probability of a particular disaster occurring, multiplied by its likely harm to human beings and the environment if it does occur.
Here's the problem. Profit-making corporations have every incentive to underestimate these probabilities and lowball the likely harms.
This is why it's necessary to have such things as government regulators, why regulators must be independent of the industries they regulate, and why regulators need enough resources to enforce the regulations.
It's also why the public in every nation is endangered if the political clout of its biggest corporations -- BP, Halliburton, Massey, G.E., or TEPCO -- grows too large.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
And nukes are an economic boondoggle, too. They set us back in the struggle against climate change (no nuclear power plant can be built fast enough to have any impact on climate change -- renewables can, and are), and divert money that could otherwise create safe, clean energy, and lots of well-paid, long-term jobs. Nuclear power is snow job of the first order. Do we want more rich executives, or more jobs and a safe future?
more on nuclear power: http://completelybaked.blogspot.com/2011/03/everything-is-not-fine-nukes-are-not.html
Oh, that Japanese company wants to take over the Diablo nuclear plant in California -- well every one deserves a second chance.
After all, radiation like evolution is only a theory. Have you every seen radiation?
KnowNothings of the World Unite -- You Have Only Your Lives to Lose
Companies sell to governments or other companies.
The competing selling companies must offer a lower priced option to get government business.
Government procurement policies guarantee a race to the bottom of price, functionality, safety, etc.
In my business we can prove, that's right prove, higher ROI. But the solution is more expensive. Companies buy it. Governments don't.
It is this nonsense that makes government still use old systems, old computers, old everything.
This is a government management problem. A lack of knowledge problem. A study in poor management problem. Not a company problem.
Companies are part of this process too, especially the very large ones who usually get the contracts like GE; but they smell the money. GE has a unique opportunity to shape policy by their size and reputation: they could themselves promote better systems, processes, safety features, etc. To place the entire blame on government management is unrealistic;
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process..."
I'm 66 and don't have any children in school.
Where do we sign the check???
Japan will spend the large sums of public money to lean up this mess. They will probably sue GE and some others, but elections move faster than litigation and corporations survive very much longer than governments, so GE only has to fight until they have a government in power that is favourable to their interests to avoid paying any real consequences.
Their Japanese execs, if any, may face some very dire consequences, but the directors and shareholders and such? highly unlikely.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment
"A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University
Welcome to the Stanford Prison Experiment web site, which features an extensive slide show and information about this classic psychology experiment, including parallels with the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? These are some of the questions we posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University.
How we went about testing these questions and what we found may astound you. Our planned two-week investigation into the psychology of prison life had to be ended prematurely after only six days because of what the situation was doing to the college students who participated. In only a few days, our guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress. Please join me on a slide tour describing this experiment and uncovering what it tells us about the nature of human nature.
--Philip G. Zimbardo"
The parallels to unregulated corporations and the citizens is obvious.
the funniest part about this comment is that i wrote it before even reading one word of the article above, its so obvious and predictable the arguments when it comes to giant corporation agenda. the only way to change anything people is to get on the phone, call your congressman, local and state, write the white house, numbers is what we need. america used to care about law and we used to make corps take their blows. we need some serious regulatory legislation implemented in this country, serious....
I've been trying to point this out to teabaglicans for YEARS!!!