national

Gov't says 70% of land suitable for nuclear waste disposal

32 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

There is no land “suitable for nuclear waste disposal”.

29 ( +30 / -1 )

Does that include the land in close proximity to the report's authors' houses? I suspect not.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

Senkaku Islands? That's keep the Chinese away.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

They'll probably dump it all in Okinawa.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Why not dump it around Fukushima Dai Ichi nuclear power plant?

That spot has already been messed up by this industry.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

Molten Salt Reactors burn the waste from water-cooled fission reactors, reducing the waste 90% while also reducing the half-life to about 70 years at the longest for the remaining by-product waste.

USA is building test reactors. They allowed a MSR to "melt down" in the 1950s to prove the safety.

China is building full-scale MSR.

These reactors do not explode if all power is removed.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx

5 ( +7 / -2 )

20 years from now, where are they going to bury all those spent solar panels people have been installing??

oh, wait...

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Yes, let's dump all the nulear waste in the Kuril Islands like the map suggests. I'm sure Russia won't mind.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"It must be stored 300m underground as to not affect the environment".

People, last I checked the ground is part of earth.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Tell me again how nuclear power is safe and cheap! Bury it all under Kasumigaseki. Then, if there is an accident the ones responsible will be the first to go.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

The whole country is an active seismic zone. How can underground burial possibly be safe for the 10,000 years or more necessary for storage?

11 ( +12 / -1 )

After looking at that map, I'd have to conclude the writer of this proposal lives in Chiba.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So far, the vitrification plant at Rokkasho has not produced one canister of vitrified radioactive material. The nozzle of the machinery keeps getting blocked. Solve that first!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Right, poison the underground water, destroy the dna of all crops right from the roots. Make the life of Japanese generation in the future bleak and make the japanese generation living today famous in history forever for greed and selfishness.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I thought the middle of Australia was for nuclear waste disposal.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Why not dump it at the Japanese parliament building?

pretty sure the toxic politicians are capable of handling it

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Abe is a big fan of nuclear power so I'd suggest that the waste is buried in his constituency and the constituencies of other politicians who support nuclear power. That seems to be the only fair solution.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

it is strange all the preferred sites are next to the sea. that means, throw it in the sea. ever been to a japanese beach? full of rubbish. i know, i do beach cleaning.

just concrete it all in 30km fukushima zone, bar humans for 1000years. burying will enter the water table and next generations will die.

probably as shipping is the easiest way, and okinawa won't bow down to the tokyo masters, it will be dumped there as some kind of revenge, and ships can easily cruise down there.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"scientific fact" in Japan had been often distorted to defend profit of industries historically.

in Fukushima,

"Radiation Health Risk Advisors" have repeated contradicted talk with their past research to spread false relief among people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

it is strange all the preferred sites are next to the sea.

Is it? I'm no expert on this, but at 300 meters deep, it is well below sea level. Not so if done at a higher altitude. So if water should become contaminated, is it not less likely to enter the ground water used for land-based activities?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"In 2015, the government decided to choose candidate sites suitable on scientific grounds for building a permanent storage facility, rather than waiting for municipalities to offer to host such a site."

As usual, the government doesn't care one iota about the people it says it will respect and obey, and just side-step them to do what they want. And when a major quake shifts the land and, if in the mountains, the canisters break and seep into the ground water?

Idiots. "Safe and cheap", eh?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There is no land “suitable for nuclear waste disposal”.

Except the entire planet IS nuclear waste.

20 years from now, where are they going to bury all those spent solar panels people have been installing??

More importantly, where are they currently burying all the waste from manufacturing the solar panels and wind turbines (some of which IS radioactive)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Taking the map as an opportunity, "we hope to have communications (with municipalities) nationwide and earn the understanding of the public," he said."

LOL !!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Communications with the public? Might as well make a dump a venue at the Olympics

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I thought the middle of Australia was for nuclear waste disposal.

Actually not long ago the state government of South Australia was pushing a proposal to build a nuclear waste dump since a study has found that it can generate $100 billion in income. It was abandoned due to lack of support from the state opposition party. Also ABC Australia reported that "a citizens' jury deliberating the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission does not want South Australia to store high-level nuclear waste "under any circumstances".

The jury of more than 300 randomly selected people delivered its 50-page report to Pr jurors believe we don't have the right to make a decision that will have such long term and irreversible consequences for future generations," the report stated."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan should consider recycling nuclear waste until it is less harmful.  Perhaps, some nuclear waste may be recycled for future fuel, and subsequently recycled into smaller energy producing items.  There may then be options for creating storage for recycled least harmful radioactive waste.

http://inhabitat.com/new-man-made-diamonds-turn-nuclear-waste-into-long-lasting-batteries/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'The government will store the waste in vitrified canisters for up to some 100,000 years until the waste's radioactivity decreases.'

There won't be a Japan that long-what tragic hubris......

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why bury it? Don't use this material, there are other sources for power!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nuclear power is an incredibly complex and dangerous method to boil some water.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So share holders make lots of money from these power plants then the good tax paying citizens foot the bill for disposal of nuclear waste and disaster clean up. Does that about sum it up?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The #1 place upon any list should be the location of the Japanese Parliament Building in Tokyo.

Simply drill a hole, and Dump it there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So share holders make lots of money from these power plants then the good tax paying citizens foot the bill for disposal of nuclear waste and disaster clean up.

I don't know the situation in Japan, but in the US the companies (and hence the shareholders) pay a tax on all electricity generated taht the government is 'suppose' to use to construct and run a high level waste site.

0 ( +0 / -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