Amazon.com Widgets

Japanese power company TEPCO admits it lied about meltdown after Fukushima. Should the company be held criminally liable?

  • Yes, TEPCO should be held liable; companies should not be allowed to get away with lying, especially regarding something so serious.

    Nuclear plant meltdowns are a serious issue with devastating consequences; TEPCO should be not allowed to get away with lying about it, as such an action has far-reaching and catastrophic consequences. People died and land was severely irradiated as a result of Fukushima; anyone, whether it be a company or an individual, should be held criminally liable for lying or spreading misinformation about such an event. Not holding them liable sets a dangerous precedent for companies hoping to dodge legal consequences for their actions.

  • Yes, better late than never,

    Lie to the Residents, and the world, about a nuclear disaster, and then give yourself a pay cut for one month as punishment? Prison time. Covering Up environmental disasters seems to be the modus operandi for corporations thees days. Fukushima isn't over and may never, ever cease spewing radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean. In the same way, the Japanese ruling class will continue to lie, cheat and do whatever it can to stay in power to the detriment of ordinary Japanese people.

  • Yes, the company should be held criminally liable.

    The Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown was a major disaster in Japan. TEPCO, the Japanese power company that ran the nuclear reactor has admitted that it lied about the meltdown. TEPCO should be held criminally liable for lying about the disaster. Furthermore, the company should be subject to civil suits from those that were caused harm by the nuclear meltdown.

  • Yes, TEPCO should be held liable for the Fukushima meltdown.

    Yes, if the Japanese power company lied about the meltdown at Fukushima, the government should hold the company criminally liable. The Fukushima disaster caused a significant loss of human life, as well as irreversible damage to the surrounding habitat. Honesty in that type of situation is critical to help repair the situation and to prevent it from happening again in the future. The company was trying to protect its own interests instead of the citizens, and therefore the company deserves punishment.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.