Japan Today
national

City in Nagasaki Pref decides against applying for gov't survey on nuclear waste site

29 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

J Govt thinking that city still need more radiation after what happened in the end of WW2?

-18 ( +5 / -23 )

sakurasukiToday 04:50 pm JST

J Govt thinking that city still need more radiation after what happened in the end of WW2?

You do realize that Nagasaki wasn't even radioactive within a day or two after the blast, right?

https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/9809.html

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

@TaiwanIsNotChina

You know about half-life decay, right? After some time it will be half of it's full intensity and another half after that. However it's never truly zero like before.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

a request filed by local construction groups urging the city to accept the survey.

Any excuse to pour concrete and overcharge the taxpayer.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

Many sites will be needed to store the highly radioactive waste from decommissioning more than 20 reactors plus the Fukushima nuclear disaster site and also the 4 reactor second Fukushima plant.

More the 500 million tons just from the nuclear disaster site which will need storage for tens of thousands of years.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

There are 20,000 tons of spent fuel.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

What’s up with dumping it in some far away island?

Why not fence off some random part of Tokyo and dig a big hole and then fill it with concrete?

It would be a permanent reminder as a tourist attraction to future generations that nuclear power is especially unsuitable for Japan

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

kurisupisu

What’s up with dumping it in some far away island?

Many points wrong with that. The radioactive waste needs to be stored in safe containers. Not dumped. Probably several hundred meters underground. Island needs to safe from earthquakes and tsunami.

Why not fence off some random part of Tokyo and dig a big hole and then fill it with concrete?

It would be a permanent reminder as a tourist attraction to future generations that nuclear power is especially unsuitable for Japan

Sorry it’s a serious situation.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

If Tsushima is impossible, then the government may try to find other possibilities: Sado Island.in Niigata Prefecture or Rebun Island in Hokkaido, both in the Japan Sea,

Building a nuclear power plant is like building a house without a sewage system. How do other countries deal with this problem?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

*The radioactive waste needs to be stored in safe containers. Not dumped. Probably several hundred meters underground. Island needs to *safe from earthquakes and tsunami

So, nowhere in Japan, then?

I cannot get my head around the fact that some folk think it's in any way a good idea to build nuclear power plants anywhere in the Ring of Fire.

Sheer lunacy.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

A very rare case of a mayor listening to local consensus and not bowing to pressure from utilities/ government and also not succumbing to the inevitable financial incentives.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

It is possible to build earthquake and tsunami-safe underground storages but it will be expensive. So who pays?

To date, Finland has built the best nuclear waste storage but it does not have earthquakes or tsunamis and does not have the number of reactors Japan has.

There will have to be several sites.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@wallace

My previous highly facetious post makes it sort of plain that nowhere in Japan is suitable

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

No-brainer really. The Mayor has seen the international reaction to Fukushima’s water release, even on the far side of Japan.

Tsushima is in a vulnerable position, and needs the goodwill of everyone, especially South Korea. Real shame about the money offered though.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

kurisupisu

@wallace

My previous highly facetious post makes it sort of plain that nowhere in Japan is suitable

The country will have millions of tons of highly radioactive waste so a solution is a requirement.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That's the problem with Nuclear energy, is that it creates nuclear waste which needs to be stored . . . . Perhaps Japan should consider the ability to recycle nuclear waste (e.g. low energy batteries), and also look for uninhabited land far away from Japan, (e.g. cold artic regions) to store nuclear waste; and also consider the possibilities of storing nuclear waste in large sealed containers which can be sent into deep space far away from Earth's orbit . . . .

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Jtsnose

Deep space..,.. hilarious comment.

Imagine if the nuclear ladden rocket exploded midair or crashed back down to earth.

An absolutely thoughtless comment .

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

sakurasukiSep. 27 05:11 pm JST

@TaiwanIsNotChina

You know about half-life decay, right? After some time it will be half of it's full intensity and another half after that. However it's never truly zero like before.

You know no new radioactive material was created and the radioactive material in the bomb was distributed extremely widely because of, you know, the explosion, right? Not all radiological problems are the same.

https://higgsino.medium.com/why-can-you-live-in-hiroshima-but-not-chernobyl-ab7dac7a34d3

1 ( +1 / -0 )

To date, Finland has built the best nuclear waste storage but it does not have earthquakes or tsunamis and does not have the number of reactors Japan has. 

Tens of Finnish earthquakes are registered each year. 

https://www.helsinki.fi/en/institute-seismology/earthquakes/earthquakes-finland-and-adjacent-areas

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

wallace

Many sites will be needed to store the highly radioactive waste from decommissioning more than 20 reactors plus the Fukushima nuclear disaster site and also the 4 reactor second Fukushima plant.

More the 500 million tons just from the nuclear disaster site which will need storage for tens of thousands of years.

You are mixing two completely different issues. "Highly radioactive" waste occurs in very small amounts. By "more than 500 million tons" you must be referring to low-level waste, such as rubble from reactor buildings, which does not require particularly careful storage. Lumping those together creates a false argument.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No, the reactor containers are made from concrete and steel, the reactors are made from steel. All the materials inside the Fukushima reactor buildings are contaminated. In 2017, the radiation level inside the No2 reactor was 530 Sieverts/hr. The inside of the No2 and No3 reactor caps are covered with corium.

The power companies have applied to decommission 20 reactors. Later the remaining 30 will also be decommissioned.

Zaphod

how much waste will a decommissioned reactor create?

All the waste produced will need to be stored somewhere in this country.

"A significant amount of material that is contaminated with radioactivity will result from decommissioning a nuclear facility. These wastes must be converted to a stable solid form, packaged into suitable containers and transported off-site to an authorized repository in accordance with the regulations of the country concerned."

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull20-6/20604642428.pdf

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This article probably has a better idea of the nuclear waste from decommissioning a reactor.

Estimated Mass of Waste from Decommissioning

As an evaluation in the case without taking into account the decontamination, it is estimated approximately 50,000 tons required to be processed and disposed of as the radioactive waste in the total weight of approximately 360,000 tons.

https://www.jaea.go.jp/04/fugen/en/haishi/plan/generate/

There will be millions of tons of nuclear waste but not 500 million.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

More the 500 million tons just from the nuclear disaster site which will need storage for tens of thousands of years.

Wrong. Also.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

yipyip

More the 500 million tons just from the nuclear disaster site which will need storage for tens of thousands of years.

> Wrong. Also.

I posted an updated comment.

Can you give your estimate of the nuclear waste from 20 reactors plus the nuclear disaster site?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

You are the one trying to correct the posts of so many others. I posted a quote, did you miss that? Anyway you said 500 million tons.

Cheers.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

yipyip

and your estimate for the nuclear waste?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

500 million tons sounds suspiciously precise to me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

500 million tons sounds suspiciously precise to me.

Sounds suspiciously made up.

Just like the below:

To date, Finland has built the best nuclear waste storage but it does not have earthquakes or tsunamis

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I corrected my comment about the amount of nuclear waste from the Fukushima disaster and the decommissioning of more than 20 reactors.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites