#nuclearwasteburial — Public Fediverse posts

November 18, 2020

.> NUMO in 2002 began asking municipalities around Japan to apply for consideration as final nuclear waste storage sites. The town of Toyo in Kochi Prefecture in 2007 became the first local government to apply. However, the town mayor made the decision without first consulting the Toyo assembly.

.> Local opposition in the town on the island of Shikoku was so fierce that a candidate opposed to the idea defeated the incumbent in the next election, and the application was withdrawn.

.> No other municipality expressed interest in NUMO’s proposal. So in 2017, the central government released a map of areas that were considered scientifically and geologically appropriate as sites for the final storage of nuclear waste.

.> As an enticement, the central government offered up to 2 billion yen ($19 million) in grants to applicant municipalities in the first stage.

.> we make these waste-siting decisions. Our structure for determining and executing the most well-designed deep geological storage facilities for our spent nuclear fuel is based explicitly on the current delineation of our political boundaries. In other words, Finland must dispose of Finnish nuclear waste in Finland; America must dispose of American nuclear waste in America; Japan must dispose of Japanese nuclear waste in Japan. This seems natural since the waste was generated within the boundaries of these political systems. The electricity or weaponry was manufactured for the benefit of the citizens of those states, and the responsibility for the disposal of that waste is the burden of the benefited citizens of those nations. While that makes sense to us, it makes less sense in terms of disposing the waste. When we look at Japan, there is no suitable place to establish a deep geological storage site inside of Japan....

.> ... One may say that Japan should have considered such a dilemma before it chose to generate nuclear waste, much as one may ask that question about the endeavor globally, but such questions are beside the point: the waste is here, the waste will also be there—in the future. What is the best strategy to mitigate risk to ourselves and future generations?

.> The Japanese government has determined the “best” locations for its proposed deep geological storage site.73 The designated sites are considered “better” than other sites. That does not make them good, it just makes them (by some measure) the best of a bad lot...

.> we make these waste-siting decisions. Our structure for determining and executing the most well-designed deep geological storage facilities for our spent nuclear fuel is based explicitly on the current delineation of our political boundaries. In other words, Finland must dispose of Finnish nuclear waste in Finland; America must dispose of American nuclear waste in America; Japan must dispose of Japanese nuclear waste in Japan. This seems natural since the waste was generated within the boundaries of these political systems. The electricity or weaponry was manufactured for the benefit of the citizens of those states, and the responsibility for the disposal of that waste is the burden of the benefited citizens of those nations. While that makes sense to us, it makes less sense in terms of disposing the waste. When we look at Japan, there is no suitable place to establish a deep geological storage site inside of Japan....

.> ... One may say that Japan should have considered such a dilemma before it chose to generate nuclear waste, much as one may ask that question about the endeavor globally, but such questions are beside the point: the waste is here, the waste will also be there—in the future. What is the best strategy to mitigate risk to ourselves and future generations?

.> The Japanese government has determined the “best” locations for its proposed deep geological storage site.73 The designated sites are considered “better” than other sites. That does not make them good, it just makes them (by some measure) the best of a bad lot...

.> we make these waste-siting decisions. Our structure for determining and executing the most well-designed deep geological storage facilities for our spent nuclear fuel is based explicitly on the current delineation of our political boundaries. In other words, Finland must dispose of Finnish nuclear waste in Finland; America must dispose of American nuclear waste in America; Japan must dispose of Japanese nuclear waste in Japan. This seems natural since the waste was generated within the boundaries of these political systems. The electricity or weaponry was manufactured for the benefit of the citizens of those states, and the responsibility for the disposal of that waste is the burden of the benefited citizens of those nations. While that makes sense to us, it makes less sense in terms of disposing the waste. When we look at Japan, there is no suitable place to establish a deep geological storage site inside of Japan....

.> ... One may say that Japan should have considered such a dilemma before it chose to generate nuclear waste, much as one may ask that question about the endeavor globally, but such questions are beside the point: the waste is here, the waste will also be there—in the future. What is the best strategy to mitigate risk to ourselves and future generations?

.> The Japanese government has determined the “best” locations for its proposed deep geological storage site.73 The designated sites are considered “better” than other sites. That does not make them good, it just makes them (by some measure) the best of a bad lot...

.> we make these waste-siting decisions. Our structure for determining and executing the most well-designed deep geological storage facilities for our spent nuclear fuel is based explicitly on the current delineation of our political boundaries. In other words, Finland must dispose of Finnish nuclear waste in Finland; America must dispose of American nuclear waste in America; Japan must dispose of Japanese nuclear waste in Japan. This seems natural since the waste was generated within the boundaries of these political systems. The electricity or weaponry was manufactured for the benefit of the citizens of those states, and the responsibility for the disposal of that waste is the burden of the benefited citizens of those nations. While that makes sense to us, it makes less sense in terms of disposing the waste. When we look at Japan, there is no suitable place to establish a deep geological storage site inside of Japan....

.> ... One may say that Japan should have considered such a dilemma before it chose to generate nuclear waste, much as one may ask that question about the endeavor globally, but such questions are beside the point: the waste is here, the waste will also be there—in the future. What is the best strategy to mitigate risk to ourselves and future generations?

.> The Japanese government has determined the “best” locations for its proposed deep geological storage site.73 The designated sites are considered “better” than other sites. That does not make them good, it just makes them (by some measure) the best of a bad lot...

.> we make these waste-siting decisions. Our structure for determining and executing the most well-designed deep geological storage facilities for our spent nuclear fuel is based explicitly on the current delineation of our political boundaries. In other words, Finland must dispose of Finnish nuclear waste in Finland; America must dispose of American nuclear waste in America; Japan must dispose of Japanese nuclear waste in Japan. This seems natural since the waste was generated within the boundaries of these political systems. The electricity or weaponry was manufactured for the benefit of the citizens of those states, and the responsibility for the disposal of that waste is the burden of the benefited citizens of those nations. While that makes sense to us, it makes less sense in terms of disposing the waste. When we look at Japan, there is no suitable place to establish a deep geological storage site inside of Japan....

.> ... One may say that Japan should have considered such a dilemma before it chose to generate nuclear waste, much as one may ask that question about the endeavor globally, but such questions are beside the point: the waste is here, the waste will also be there—in the future. What is the best strategy to mitigate risk to ourselves and future generations?

.> The Japanese government has determined the “best” locations for its proposed deep geological storage site.73 The designated sites are considered “better” than other sites. That does not make them good, it just makes them (by some measure) the best of a bad lot...