Voices
in
Japan

poll

Should prefectures outside the Tohoku area accept tsunami rubble for incineration or disposal?

41 Comments
© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

If you spill a bucket of dog poop on your living room carpet should you try to clean it up where it is or spread it all over your house??

There is no logic to this. Sure Japan has limited land space but none of this should be incinerated to begin with. Dig, dig, dig and BURY it in the area it is.

But alas, Japan wants everyone to "share the pain". Yeah, there is some logic for you. Truly insane.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

Agree with ssway - it makes no sense to spread the contamination further then the areas that have already been affected. The land around the Fukushima plant will be uninhabitable for MANY years, despite what the J-government would have us believe about being able to clean it up. The logical solution is to keep the contaminated rubble in this area instead of spreading it around the country. However, a bit of logic is going to be too much to expect, I know.

9 ( +8 / -0 )

Completely agree with ssway. Why spread this disaster even further than it already has. The way this whole situation has been handled there is no assurances the incompetents in government and authority would be able to handle this situation properly and we would see more spreading of contamination than there is now. Isolate the contamination in one area and handle it there rather than spread it. That is common sense but unfortunately common sense is in short supply in this country

6 ( +6 / -1 )

Of course you're all incorrectly assuming that the all of the waste in Tohoku has been contaminated with radiation. Despite this being nearly 11 months after the disaster.

-13 ( +0 / -12 )

If I understand the situation correctly, there is not enough land to store the tens of millions of tons of debris in Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima.

My view is that as long as debris can be proven to have been decontaminated, I don't see any reason why other prefectures shouldn't help with incineration or disposal. The disaster and its aftermath is not just the Tohoku's problem. We all have to help.

-10 ( +1 / -10 )

Why don't they use an existing incinerator site in the uninhabited or near the uninhabited area? Set it up to specifically deal with potentially contaminated waste. Makes more sense than increasing the risk to children all over the country.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I do not think it is necessary for every prefecture to have tsunami waste. What would the purpose be?? To increase trucking jobs in delivering garbage?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Spread the workload out across the country would surely mean that it gets finished quicker?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The problem is that they have no way nor resources to monitor how much radiation is actually in the debris.

They're building new homes now that are tainted with cesium due to them getting building materials from quarries in Fukushima and perhaps in surrounding prefectures. They aren't being detected until the buildings have already been built.

People are not going to want to hear an "oops" from the government afterwards concerning this disposal problem either.

9 ( +8 / -0 )

Wherever the incineration is taking place, there will be an increase in toxic emissions, and corresponding health problems. This has been the case in the past, at least. Toxic emissions will not necessarily be radioactive, as a lot of the debris is sufficiently far from Fukushima, but that does not mean that it will be healthy to breathe this stuff, or to have residue settling into the ground water.

Plus, there is the cost of transportation of the debris. This will be higher according to the distance travelled, so minimizing distances between the debris site and the incinerator makes sense.

Certainly, any prefectures receiving debris will no doubt also be receiving a great deal of money, so saying "yes" to debris might be tempting, especially to key officials in the loop, but it also might be tempting because it could answer some of the financial needs of the prefecture.

I would say the best plan would be to build or expand incinerators closest to the biggest part of the debris.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Why would you vote yes to this? Why spread radiation all over Japan?

7 ( +7 / -1 )

I don't think Washington, Oregon, and California are going to ship the tsunami debris back to Tohoku. They'll probably test it for radiation and burn it onsite. Much like Japan should.

3 ( +4 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

Of course you're all incorrectly assuming that the all of the waste in Tohoku has been contaminated with radiation. Despite this being nearly 11 months after the disaster.

Thats a good one Heda considering past waste that has been taken from this area HAS been found to be contaminated with radiation. So what has it being 11 months after the fact have to do with anything especially considering there is still radiation being emitted by the plant?

I think its you who is incorrectly assuming that some of this waste isnt contaminated and given the governments bungling and lying l for one dont want it shipped to my area to be burnt. More so when l live a mere couple of km's from a waste incinerator myself and drive past it several times a day. I will be saying no thanks deal with it elsewhere preferably in a zone already contaminated.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Cletus,

Perhaps you could tell me what the current radiation levels are in Miyako in Iwate? or Rikuzentakata in Iwate etc, etc, etc.

Too many people try and tar this disaster with the same brush.

Tohoku = Radiation.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Heda_Madness

Perhaps you could tell me what the current radiation levels are in Miyako in Iwate? or Rikuzentakata in Iwate etc, etc, etc. Too many people try and tar this disaster with the same brush. Tohoku = Radiation.

Actually l can the current radiation levels in Miyako are 50 nSv/h and your point is exactly? Does that mean it has constantly been this reading are you insinuating it has never been higher or lower?

The fact is rubbish has been taken from this area and it has had traces of radiation. The fact is how would you like this to be brought from this area to your area especially if your area had not been exposed greatly to the risks previously and burnt in your area? Would you like that? Because l think most sane people would say no deal with it on site. Deal with it in an already contaminated area. Especially given the inept way the Japanese seem to be handling this why risk further spread of possible contamination.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The fact is rubbish has been taken from this area and it has had traces of radiation.

Where is this area? Miyako? Rikuzentakata? or Tohoku?

Tar... brush... same old

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Didn't vote on this because they didn't include a "Depends" answer. Whether or not a prefecture decides to accept rubble is something only that prefecture can decide. They are also the only ones that should be able to set what conditions must be met in order to accept the rubble. JT, the readers of JT, or anyone else outside of their prefecture shouldn't have any say in the matter.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Smartacus, from what I have seen, all the debris is now being stored on land. I myself have seen no debris stored underground, on or in water or in the sky, but I will grant you that I have not seen all the debris. However, I have read no accounts of underground, water or airborne storage. I must assume it is all being stored on land. Therefore, there is enough land on which to store it.

There should be no rush to rebuild in low coastal areas that face tsunamis several times a century. This material emits at least as much radioactivity as the municipal rubbish and sludge in Tokyo. Bringing it to Tokyo will increase the amount of radioactive substances in Tokyo's air and water, to say nothing of toxic metals, dioxin and asbestos. While rebuilding in the highlands, construct local facilities that can more safely incinerate radioactive waste. Even the Soviet Union, foolish though it was in countless ways, was not sufficiently foolish to bring contaminated materials to dispose of in Moscow.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I say jump dump it all well within the 30 kilometer exclusion zone. It's not like anyone is going to be living there for the next few generations at least...

I cannot understand why you would transport and incinerate potentially dangerous materials within highly populated areas?

Oh wait, this is Japan. Probably some large brown envelopes going to those selfish money hungry bureaucrats who are supposed to represent us locally....

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yes, just not mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I understand the situation correctly, there is not enough land to store the tens of millions of tons of debris in Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima.

Smartacus, you need to dig out a map buddy. These are some of the most rural, mountainous and sparsely populated places in Japan. The villiage idiot could toss a dart at a map of these places, and find a decent spot in 2 out of 5 throws. Several perfect spots could be found with one hour of research.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

warnerbro,

Bringing it to Tokyo will increase

Who said anything about Tokyo? You know that's where most government bureaucrats, their political cronies, and TEPCO officers live, right? So 'outside of Tohoku' to the government means "not Tokyo."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

borscht, the Baron Harkonnens of this planet will do anything for money. If they are invested monetarily or politically in incinerators in Tokyo, that is where the stuff will go. They probably don't actually live so close to that incinerator. Remember what we heard about radioactivity in Kashiwa that seems to be from an incinerator? Not Tokyo, but damned close.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

King Basil

I recall a story in JT that said the amount of contaminated topsoil would fill 23 Tokyo Domes or something like that. You cannot store that much soil in mountainous areas because the first time there is a typhoon or heavy rain, there will be a landslide. It is because those prefectures are so mountainous that I believe there is a shortage of land.

And metal and wood has to be incinerated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You cannot store that much soil in mountainous areas because the first time there is a typhoon or heavy rain, there will be a landslide.

Top soil does not need to be moved. It can pretty much all stay where its at. Its the people that need to be moved out of contaminated areas. And its easier too, as most of them have legs while top soil doesn't. And I doubt they would fill 23 Tokyo Domes even if piled up.

But I am sure an engineer worth his weight in water could figure out a way to store soil in mountains without having a landslide...if they still choose to move the soil. I am sure his plan might call for some reinforced concrete...a rare material in Japan...I know.

It is because those prefectures are so mountainous that I believe there is a shortage of land.

That would be a shortage of arable land. I am not talking about farming mountains. I am talking about storing rubble there!

And metal and wood has to be incinerated.

Metal has a nasty tendency to melt rather than burn unless its magnesium or some others. But nothing "has to be" incinerated. There is no law, rhyme, or reason why it must be burned. The wood will decay before the Caesium 137 does. Let it, right next to the metal...in the mountains...away from people.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Again we're back to "contaminated" discussions when most of the tsunami debris has nothing to do with Fukushima. Unfortunately, people seem to have adopted the mentality that if it's debris from the earthquake/tsunami, then it's radioactive. This is a FALSE assumption. Certainly SOME of the debris has radioactive contamination (especially the debris in and around Fukushima Daiichi), but most of the tsunami debris is outside the contaminated areas.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Are we referring to debris from Tohoku including contaminated debris from near the power plant?

Or just debris from other parts of Tohoku?

If they can confirm that the debris is not radioactive debris from around Fukushima Dai Ichi then there's no problem, but after hearing stories about contaminated tea, baby formula and other products, hundreds of kilometers away from Fukushima...no. At some point some company would get careless. Tohoku does not equal radiation, we mustn't forget that. However we cannot forget how careless the people in charge have been so far in the handling of this disaster.

I voted no, but really like Fadamor, said there should have been a "It depends" option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fallout from Daiichi is contaminating where ever it lands right now as we live debris is being contaminated as with everything else because 72 million bq an hour are kicking it live out of Daiichi so which way is the wind blowing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would agree that most of the debris are not radioactive.

But the problem is, there have been so many reports of contamination. From food, firewood, gravel and pollen. If these items got radiation problems, how can the people be assured of other items?

The government has been very tight on information dessimination, and thus created public distrust and uncertainty on many aspects.

The government agencies have been very busy with "below radiation safety limits" speeches and punchlines for months now. But the people do not know exactly what constitutes safe and unsafe levels mean to one's health, the children's health and the future.

Lately, the government even denied free health care for children within the affected areas.

The government just won't accept the challenges to the reassurances of being safe.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If one part of us suffers, we must all suffer; we are one, we are the borg...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's the radioactive contamination stupid!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Maybe the debris from Iwate and Miyagi are not contaminated by radiation leak, but the government has not been completely honest about radiation leak from day 1 and it's difficult to trust what they say now. The whole problem has started from TEPCO to begin with.

How about moving the debris inside the Fukushima Daiichi area, first.Total site area is quite large; 3,500,000square meter which is the size of 74 Tokyo domes. There are lots of empty spaces with field and forests. Also more debris can be moved to Fukushima Daini area, too. 1,500,000square meter which is the size of 31 Tokyo domes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm against spreading it, since I've no doubt it would be for a quick money grab from local governments who accept it, and I also don't like the, "We should support the people of Fukushima by sharing the rubble" kind of 'logic'. However, if they build some very safe shelters, and everyone in the area gets full disclosure on what's to be housed there and they agree, I don't see why not. They just shouldn't be FORCED to accept it, or not told that the local government has accepted it (as when Hashimoto accepted a bunch on behalf of Osaka -- without telling anyone first).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The state of the votes in no way match the comments or the thumbs. Notice that?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

they should be ashamed of themselves for not.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A disgrace that for no valid reason the recovery is hindered because of political pandering’s to the local mum and people that are not intelligent enough to know better. Let be clear there is ZERO reason to not accept materials from tohoku that do not pose any threat as has been the case already.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Burn it and IF there is radioactivity in the debris then any escape will lead to its dispersal and subsequent precipitation to a larger area.

Not to worry though as the government will legally raise the yearly exposure limits to make us feel safer......

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is ILLEGAL:

http://vimeo.com/34349565

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I vote NO. Crazy to further spread contamination. I do not wish to be downwind of an incinerator that can malfunction and then get the stadard 'oops, that's regrettable!'

Funny thing is in Kanagawa-ken, Yokosuka-shi, they announced this week that they will begin accepting for storage and burning by the end of March. This is the same area that houses the US nuclear powered carrier that so many locals are always protesting! They are so worried about it leaking and causing the very same kind of issues we may see from this disposal, storage and burning of this tsunami waste. Where are the protests?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bear the load, share the load.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Government thought here is to dilute the radiation by spreading it around and around. As opposed to the idea of keeping the radiation in as small of an area as possible.

2 ( +2 / -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