24.8 “Management of the Total Amount” of HLW
As clearly stated in the SCJ report, “management of the total amount” has two
connotations: “setting an upper limit for the total amount” and “controlling
increases of the total amount.” “Setting an upper limit for the total amount”
corresponds to the withdrawal from nuclear power, and the level of upper limit
depends on the tempo of that withdrawal. On the other hand, “controlling increases
of the total amount” corresponds to keeping nuclear power in the future with strictly
controlling increases of the total amount, and the amount of disposed waste
per unit of generated power must be controlled to the smallest amount possible.
There are many technical options to control the increase of the total amount of
HLW, for example, increasing burn-up of fuels, transmutation of radioactive
nuclides, and longer temporal storage of HLW, which secure time for radioactivity
to decay.
However, in fact, many readers of the SCJ report mistakenly recognized that
management of the total amount means setting an upper limit for the total amount,
and thus believed that SCJ proposed withdrawal from nuclear power: this is a
complete misunderstanding. At the background of the proposal of management of
the total amount, there is recognition that we should respond to the concerns on the
limitless increase of HLW.
24.9 Awareness of the Limits of Scientific and Technical
Abilities
The Review Committee of SCJ consists of various experts from wide-ranging
academic fields from physical science, engineering, life science, social science,
and humanities. The proposal concerning awareness of the limits of scientific and
technical abilities was formed through interdisciplinary discussions among the
experts. Some readers of the SCJ report seem to have felt uneasiness with this
proposal because this proposal apparently cast a scientific doubt on the feasibility of
the geological disposal of HLW. To the author’s understanding, this proposal is a
rather general statement that there is no perfect scientific evidence to support the
safety of HLW disposal for more than 10,000 years.
Having heard the discussions related to this proposal, the author recognized
there are many different academic approaches depending on the field of science.
For example, natural scientists seek truths in natural phenomena, whereas engineers
try to make things and/or systems that are valuable and acceptable for human
society. HLW issues are related not only to various fields of science, but also to
value systems shared by society. Here again, the author was convinced that we need
to reflect more deeply on the relationship between science and society.
286
K. Yamaji
As clearly stated in the SCJ report, “management of the total amount” has two
connotations: “setting an upper limit for the total amount” and “controlling
increases of the total amount.” “Setting an upper limit for the total amount”
corresponds to the withdrawal from nuclear power, and the level of upper limit
depends on the tempo of that withdrawal. On the other hand, “controlling increases
of the total amount” corresponds to keeping nuclear power in the future with strictly
controlling increases of the total amount, and the amount of disposed waste
per unit of generated power must be controlled to the smallest amount possible.
There are many technical options to control the increase of the total amount of
HLW, for example, increasing burn-up of fuels, transmutation of radioactive
nuclides, and longer temporal storage of HLW, which secure time for radioactivity
to decay.
However, in fact, many readers of the SCJ report mistakenly recognized that
management of the total amount means setting an upper limit for the total amount,
and thus believed that SCJ proposed withdrawal from nuclear power: this is a
complete misunderstanding. At the background of the proposal of management of
the total amount, there is recognition that we should respond to the concerns on the
limitless increase of HLW.
24.9 Awareness of the Limits of Scientific and Technical
Abilities
The Review Committee of SCJ consists of various experts from wide-ranging
academic fields from physical science, engineering, life science, social science,
and humanities. The proposal concerning awareness of the limits of scientific and
technical abilities was formed through interdisciplinary discussions among the
experts. Some readers of the SCJ report seem to have felt uneasiness with this
proposal because this proposal apparently cast a scientific doubt on the feasibility of
the geological disposal of HLW. To the author’s understanding, this proposal is a
rather general statement that there is no perfect scientific evidence to support the
safety of HLW disposal for more than 10,000 years.
Having heard the discussions related to this proposal, the author recognized
there are many different academic approaches depending on the field of science.
For example, natural scientists seek truths in natural phenomena, whereas engineers
try to make things and/or systems that are valuable and acceptable for human
society. HLW issues are related not only to various fields of science, but also to
value systems shared by society. Here again, the author was convinced that we need
to reflect more deeply on the relationship between science and society.
286
K. Yamaji