future generations was due, yet others openly stated that they thought this
unnecessary.
Overall, it can be said that once people started thinking about the high level
radioactive waste, most did not opt for trying to have as little to do with it as
possible, instead coming up with ideas about how the problematic could be
reduced, what the generation could actually do in face of the waste.
At least 10 of the arguments held implications to the present policy in that they
raised questions which had not been adequately investigated in Japan’s context.
These initiatives can be directly translated into ‘homework’ for the experts, or
discussed further with citizens by giving more information about the general
concerns for the ideas that the experts hold. For example, informing citizens about
the technical difficulties of separating radioisotopes, or the technology level of
transmutation may yield different feelings for the idea of decreasing radioactivity,
or call for extra conditions on the desirability of waste re-use.
From the results of the interview, it can be said that a general background
understanding of high level radioactive waste seemed to have been conveyed to
most of the participants, although a more detailed explanation of the nature of
radiation may have been necessary. There may also be room for improvement in the
explanations to some of the technical questions raised during the interview, which
could have affected the range of ideas the participant could voice, however, this
point requires more trials to confirm. The setting of the issue itself can also be
considered appropriate (neither too technical, nor too abstract) if we note that a
certain number of opinions concerning values were obtained through this interview.
3 Citizen Input When Engineering Resilience
3.1 Defining “Resilience” in Relation with Engineering
and “Values”
It seems important to clarify: What does it mean to “engineer resilience”? As
described above, this study is based on the belief that engineering is the act of
realizing values in society by integrating fields of expertise, including social,
political or economic know-how. Where does resilience fit in this picture? Is it
another tool, or is it a value? Is it something whose usefulness engineers can master
and take for granted, or is it something which can only arrive into the engineering
realm from outside? Yet another way of asking this question: Is resilience something which realizes (for example) “health”, or is it something which competes
with, requires a striking of balance with “health”?
As the last interrogative suggests, resilience is neither a societal value nor
entirely a tool. Rather, it can be considered as an “added value” to the engineered
societal value in question. If we tentatively phrase the definition of resilience as the
(hopefully long-term and society-wide) enduring effectiveness of an engineering act
330
R. Watanabe
unnecessary.
Overall, it can be said that once people started thinking about the high level
radioactive waste, most did not opt for trying to have as little to do with it as
possible, instead coming up with ideas about how the problematic could be
reduced, what the generation could actually do in face of the waste.
At least 10 of the arguments held implications to the present policy in that they
raised questions which had not been adequately investigated in Japan’s context.
These initiatives can be directly translated into ‘homework’ for the experts, or
discussed further with citizens by giving more information about the general
concerns for the ideas that the experts hold. For example, informing citizens about
the technical difficulties of separating radioisotopes, or the technology level of
transmutation may yield different feelings for the idea of decreasing radioactivity,
or call for extra conditions on the desirability of waste re-use.
From the results of the interview, it can be said that a general background
understanding of high level radioactive waste seemed to have been conveyed to
most of the participants, although a more detailed explanation of the nature of
radiation may have been necessary. There may also be room for improvement in the
explanations to some of the technical questions raised during the interview, which
could have affected the range of ideas the participant could voice, however, this
point requires more trials to confirm. The setting of the issue itself can also be
considered appropriate (neither too technical, nor too abstract) if we note that a
certain number of opinions concerning values were obtained through this interview.
3 Citizen Input When Engineering Resilience
3.1 Defining “Resilience” in Relation with Engineering
and “Values”
It seems important to clarify: What does it mean to “engineer resilience”? As
described above, this study is based on the belief that engineering is the act of
realizing values in society by integrating fields of expertise, including social,
political or economic know-how. Where does resilience fit in this picture? Is it
another tool, or is it a value? Is it something whose usefulness engineers can master
and take for granted, or is it something which can only arrive into the engineering
realm from outside? Yet another way of asking this question: Is resilience something which realizes (for example) “health”, or is it something which competes
with, requires a striking of balance with “health”?
As the last interrogative suggests, resilience is neither a societal value nor
entirely a tool. Rather, it can be considered as an “added value” to the engineered
societal value in question. If we tentatively phrase the definition of resilience as the
(hopefully long-term and society-wide) enduring effectiveness of an engineering act
330
R. Watanabe