2.2 Results and Discussion
Some of the frequently observed opinions obtained through the group interviews
are listed above (Table 1). Many of the participants from varying groups raised
questions about reducing and re-using the waste, and some mentioned that such
efforts to fundamentally ameliorate the situation should be continued after the waste
has been stored in a repository. There were mixed feelings about putting hopes in
future technology development, but not many were in favor of giving it up altogether. Questions about what sort of place would seem fit for the storage of waste
drew answers that places isolated from the human environment and places which
humans have little relation to even into the future were considered better, revealing
that the general idea of a geologic repository (for storage/final disposal) may not be
far off. The seabed and outer space, though controversial within the groups, was
also raised as a possibility. Many of the participants viewed the unfairness of siting
a repository as a problem, and suggested that the sites be dispersed into <10 sites,
or 47 sites—one for each prefecture. It would follow that the idea of dispersed
repositories should be given a (perhaps qualitative) technical evaluation. When
asked what sort of message might be left to future generations, many of the participants said a warning would be necessary, of the fact that high level radioactive
waste is present, and of its storage place. Some offered to say that an apology to the
Table 1 Primary results of the group interviews
Opinions
a
General implication
“It is better for the waste to be re-used”
Means to minimize the fundamental problems
should be reconsidered
“It is better for the production of waste be
reduced”
“Can’t the radiation be reduced?”
“Can’t the radioactivity to be shortened?”
“Somewhere isolated from the human
environment would be better for a
repository”
The general idea of a geologic repository may
not be far off, but other possibilities should
also be evaluated in these terms
“Somewhere that has little to do with
humans for years to come”
“The waste should be stored so that the
unfairness of siting is minimized”
Means to minimize “unfairness” should be
reconsidered
“Monitoring of the waste should be
continued for as long as possible”
Even for a repository with passive safety
designs, maintaining active safety measures
should be considered
“Effort should be made to be able to do
something if anything happens”
“Effort to pass on messages of the presence
of the waste and of apology should be
taken”
Means to pass on warnings and apologies
should be reconsidered
a Revised and translated
Incorporating Value Discussions into High Level …
329
Some of the frequently observed opinions obtained through the group interviews
are listed above (Table 1). Many of the participants from varying groups raised
questions about reducing and re-using the waste, and some mentioned that such
efforts to fundamentally ameliorate the situation should be continued after the waste
has been stored in a repository. There were mixed feelings about putting hopes in
future technology development, but not many were in favor of giving it up altogether. Questions about what sort of place would seem fit for the storage of waste
drew answers that places isolated from the human environment and places which
humans have little relation to even into the future were considered better, revealing
that the general idea of a geologic repository (for storage/final disposal) may not be
far off. The seabed and outer space, though controversial within the groups, was
also raised as a possibility. Many of the participants viewed the unfairness of siting
a repository as a problem, and suggested that the sites be dispersed into <10 sites,
or 47 sites—one for each prefecture. It would follow that the idea of dispersed
repositories should be given a (perhaps qualitative) technical evaluation. When
asked what sort of message might be left to future generations, many of the participants said a warning would be necessary, of the fact that high level radioactive
waste is present, and of its storage place. Some offered to say that an apology to the
Table 1 Primary results of the group interviews
Opinions
a
General implication
“It is better for the waste to be re-used”
Means to minimize the fundamental problems
should be reconsidered
“It is better for the production of waste be
reduced”
“Can’t the radiation be reduced?”
“Can’t the radioactivity to be shortened?”
“Somewhere isolated from the human
environment would be better for a
repository”
The general idea of a geologic repository may
not be far off, but other possibilities should
also be evaluated in these terms
“Somewhere that has little to do with
humans for years to come”
“The waste should be stored so that the
unfairness of siting is minimized”
Means to minimize “unfairness” should be
reconsidered
“Monitoring of the waste should be
continued for as long as possible”
Even for a repository with passive safety
designs, maintaining active safety measures
should be considered
“Effort should be made to be able to do
something if anything happens”
“Effort to pass on messages of the presence
of the waste and of apology should be
taken”
Means to pass on warnings and apologies
should be reconsidered
a Revised and translated
Incorporating Value Discussions into High Level …
329