The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOCity in Nagasaki Pref decides against applying for gov't survey on nuclear waste site
TSUSHIMA, Nagasaki©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
29 Comments
Login to comment
sakurasuki
J Govt thinking that city still need more radiation after what happened in the end of WW2?
TaiwanIsNotChina
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
sakurasuki
@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.
David Brent
Any excuse to pour concrete and overcharge the taxpayer.
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.
wallace
There are 20,000 tons of spent fuel.
kurisupisu
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
wallace
kurisupisu
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.
Sorry it’s a serious situation.
voiceofokinawa
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?
cleo
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.
wanderlust
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.
wallace
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.
kurisupisu
@wallace
My previous highly facetious post makes it sort of plain that nowhere in Japan is suitable
nandakandamanda
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.
wallace
kurisupisu
@wallace
The country will have millions of tons of highly radioactive waste so a solution is a requirement.
Jtsnose
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 . . . .
dan
@Jtsnose
Deep space..,.. hilarious comment.
Imagine if the nuclear ladden rocket exploded midair or crashed back down to earth.
An absolutely thoughtless comment .
TaiwanIsNotChina
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
gcFd1
Tens of Finnish earthquakes are registered each year.
https://www.helsinki.fi/en/institute-seismology/earthquakes/earthquakes-finland-and-adjacent-areas
Zaphod
wallace
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.
wallace
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
wallace
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.
yipyip
Wrong. Also.
wallace
yipyip
I posted an updated comment.
Can you give your estimate of the nuclear waste from 20 reactors plus the nuclear disaster site?
yipyip
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.
wallace
yipyip
and your estimate for the nuclear waste?
Elvis is here
500 million tons sounds suspiciously precise to me.
yipyip
Sounds suspiciously made up.
Just like the below:
wallace
I corrected my comment about the amount of nuclear waste from the Fukushima disaster and the decommissioning of more than 20 reactors.