54% of cities hosting nuclear plants OK restart: survey

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -2

    tokyo-star

    A necessary evil for the time being, but I agree to restarting a few reactors, at least until greener/cleaner tech comes along.

  • 12

    Penfold

    It's only the mayors who agree, not the people.

  • 0

    Elvensilvan

    Of course the mayors or governors are the ones asked here. Who else could:

    28% refrained from clarifying their position, the Yomiuri said, while two did not give valid answers.

  • 4

    papigiulio

    Guarantee from the government is the last thing id trust, its like britney spears saying you cant get pregnant without using condoms

  • 2

    Tatsuhiko Tokunaga

    Suffered people can not forget the threat . We must remember we were only lucky with such a small disaster.

  • -13

    Debucho

    it was obvious by the 3/11 incident that it was the tsunami that caused the problem, not the earthquake. so...... put them on a mountain. is that really so hard to do?

  • 4

    alliswellinjapan

    Not at all surprising. Even public polls may show similar results. Would imagine majority to prefer abolishment in the long run but in support of restart for the time being. Goes to show Japan's fundamental resistance to proactive drastic reform even after a nuclear disaster of this nature.

  • 0

    FightingViking

    54% of the 135 mayors

    In other words, it is they who will be "profiting" from a restart of the NPPs... I wonder how many millions of yen for each mayor ?

  • 1

    FightingViking

    What a way to start the New Year !

  • 0

    hereforever

    Though against it, the fact is, at present, Japan need nuclear energy. They need to listen more to the scientist and public and stop thinking about feeding their (government and TEPCO) pockets. In addition need to have a better disaster plan. They can't just dump the waste in rivers as stated by Asahi new http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201301040058 I am interested in what happens to the mayors who go against accepting nuclear plants in their town.

  • 0

    marcelito

    Pretty obvious conclusion to this "survey" since those towns get majority of their budget funding from the power companies and govt. subsidies. Too bad about the surrounding towns further out that don,t get the moneatary benefit but share the risk of another " unexpected or unimaginable " disaster. Interesting and totally expected to see the LDP / nuke village pro nuke propaganda seeping into the media in the new year. Lets see how majority of J-public reacts to this. Happy 2013 everyone.

  • 7

    zichi

    These communities have been held to nuclear ransom for decades having been previous fishing and farming ones when the work was seasonal with none during the winter months which meant the men seeking work elsewhere. They have received billions in brides or nuclear energy tax, if you prefer. In addition, many of them also received further brides from the power companies for such projects as shopping malls and sports stadiums.

    These payments represent more than 50% of their budgets, so it comes with little surprise that they should want to continue to support the atomic power plants. In Fukui Prefecture which has the highest numbers of reactors, 25,000 are employed directly and indirectly.

    How many would continue to support the use of nuclear energy if they were informed that they would still receive the payments even if the plants were decommissioned?

    Its unlikely there'll be any further reactor restarts until 2015 and maybe 2016.

  • 2

    Keith Tarrier

    Can the government gurantee no big quakes, tsunami or other natural disasters?

    No!

    But the govt will gurantee more bribes, shoddy inspections and nuclear waste that has nowhere to go.

  • 1

    Speed

    The survey outcome, however, reflects the harsh economic reality in the rural communities hosting nuclear facilities, which are usually major employers in the areas that often have no other industries, the Yomiuri said.

    Slave to the money.

    Critics have said his LDP was ****partly responsible**** for the extent of the Fukushima catastrophe because of a culture of complicity during its more than five-decade rule.

    I'm sorry but I'd have to say ****mostly/totally responsible****.

  • 5

    zenkan

    There is already "greener and cleaner tech" around at the moment. I say, solar panels for ALL buildings and wind farms around the coast. Turn off unneccessary cosmetic lighting in cities etc. Anyway, you've heard it all before...

  • 2

    Elbuda Mexicano

    This is nuclear SUICIDE!!

  • -1

    tokyo-star

    It needs to be $$$ feasible for any positive developments. Geothermal would be massive here, just like Iceland, but stupid obasans would rather enjoy their onsens out in the mountains.

  • 8

    Heda_Madness

    It's only the mayors who agree, not the people.

    That argument no longer holds water. It was the people who voted the LDP back in in a landslide. If the people were against nuclear they wouldn't have voted for the massively pro-nuclear party.

  • 3

    kurisupisu

    And the government has

    1.not released key contamination data 2.sent its people INTO not away from radioactive plumes 3.started a campaign to eat untested potentially contaminated food 4.imprisoned citizens that protest nuclear power 5.stifled open debate of the dangers of nuclear 6.recommended smiling as a defense against radiation 7.misused funds earmarked for disaster victims 8.trucked and burned thousands of tonnes of radioactive debris around the country

    I could go on and on but I am sure that where nuclear power is concerned that the reality is not being made apparent by this government

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    Well, some voted for the LDP. The train (the LDP) has already started the engine and left station. The LDP does not even want to look for possible alternative energy mix is beyond me.

  • 2

    zichi

    @Heda_Madness

    If the people were against nuclear they wouldn't have voted for the massively pro-nuclear party.

    Well, only about 59% of the people voted for the LDP, so I wouldn't call that massive, but we all know how elections work. Happy New Year.

  • 2

    windandsea

    It begs to be asked: If the 'government' fails and there is a nuclear accident, what is the penalty? who pays? who is (will become) responsible? Although Japan's economic hurdles are enormous, another catastrophe notwithstanding, measures to mitigate our troubles and to extend the period of action to overcome them are possible. The question that should be asked in every circle of government, industry, and the constituency is: If Japan experiences another nuclear accident of even a fraction of the scale of Fukushima No 1 plant, could the country survive? Heaven forbid, if it were not another incident in the same region but some other unspoiled area of the country, it would trigger an immediate systemic collapse of agriculture and infrastruture. It is a bit ironic, but the old right-wing who are so adamant about ignoring Japan's past, have managed to drop a third bomb on the country and are not hesitant to drop a fourth in effort to pursue their vested interests. Russian-roulette should end with one dead person on the floor, it is not a game of chance when you continue to reload the gun.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    Happy New Year Zichi. I hope that you have a great one.

    It's probably a lot lower than 59% when you consider how many actually voted. But you know what I mean, if the people were that much against nuclear power then the LDP wouldn't have got anywhere near being elected. Never mind winning with ease. It's a shame because I thought the previous lot did very well in very difficult circumstances and substantially better than the LDP have ever done in times of crisis.

  • 3

    zichi

    @Heda_Madness

    if as you say, the voters massively support nuclear energy, equally they also massively support a host of other ideas like changing Article 9, spending more on defense, spending ¥200 trillion on public works, maybe making atomic weapons, and so on...

  • 2

    zichi

    Currently in Japan, nuclear energy and its reactors are a game of Russian Roulette.

  • 1

    kurisupisu

    An article in The Christian Science Monitor stated "Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have hardened attitudes: More than 80 percent of Japanese now say they are antinuclear and distrust government information on radiation"

    54% of cities ok nuclear power has absolutely no meaning if the polls were only directed at mayors of those cities.

    For example, towns and villages around Fukushima are vociferously (the people) opposed to any restart of nuclear power generation as they were promised clean and safe power and now find that they are screwed

    The voices of the mayors and the people are very different.

    I have yet to see a referendum in Japan on nuclear power but if there were then the matter would be concluded

  • 0

    Christopher Blackwell

    I guess they need another nuclear disaster say in Tokyo. That would permanently sink the Japanese economy, but it that is what it takes it will happen. Perhaps Mt. Fuji this time just to make it interesting.

  • 2

    blendover

    As has been commented on above, there is a certain fudging in this article for reasons that are not immediately clear to me as to what the relationship between the opinions of the mayors and the opinions of the general public in the affected areas might be. When the article states that the survey results reflect economic circumstances, to whose views is the writer referring, the majors' or the people's? When the article states that this result might help Abe, in what way does the writer imagine that it might do so?

    A much more interesting, but also more expensive type of survey would be one aimed at showing in which parts of the country anti nuclear sentiments are stronger and in which they are weaker. I think it would be a safe bet to assume that they would be pretty damned high in Fukushima and in areas immediately affected by the tsunami as well. However, it would be good to know if the percentage of local people against restarting nuclear facilities that are located outside those regions is in fact greater or weaker compared to people living in major centers like Tokyo and Osaka.

    That's not research that I imagine that Mr Abe will be rushing to spend government money on, because the result might go the wrong way for him and in that case it would definitely not be helpful to him. Instead he is likely to push his agenda through reactivating (no pun intended) traditional LDP relationships with local authorities.

  • 3

    alliswellinjapan

    Unfortunate enough that the nation is beginning to consider this a necessary evil. Very similar to the Okinawa US base issue in that the issue even despite the Fukushima incident does not carry enough impact to be considered a national issue as opposed to a regional one and that there does not seem to be an optimal alternative in the near term. I agree with many that Japan faces a fundamental systematic issue which only a drastic educational reform can solve within the time span of so many decades.

  • -1

    yildiray

    while two did not give valid answers

    Not valid as in "Not until my check clears" or as in they simply broke down and sobbed at the very thought?

  • 1

    lwsydney

    Not valid as in "Not until my check clears" or as in they simply broke down and sobbed at the very thought?

    @yildiray or, as in, not until I get close enough to retirement.

  • 0

    Disillusioned

    they would agree to the reactors being restarted if the government guaranteed the safety of the facilities

    If the government guaranteed their safety? This is the LDP they are talking about, right? The same government that let the reactors be built on active faults and let the power companies get away with sub-standard maintenance and lies about the safety standards? Seriously? And, nearly a third of the respondents don't give a shit??? WTF is that about?!?!?! There is no hope for Japan! It is doomed!

    Shakespear said, "Now is the winter of our discontent"

    Japan should say, "Now is the nuclear winter of our ignorance!"

  • 4

    Ranger_Miffy2

    "*** if *** the government 'guaranteed' the safety of the facilities..."

    And just what would be the nature of this "guarantee"? Same one they sold to the farmers and fishermen of Fukushima, who by the way are very sorry they ever signed over their future to the hands of TEPCO, big business and government, and Mother Nature?

    Ridiculous. But, oh, do go ahead. Restart them all. Then what happens when the next big natural disaster hits? Going to replay the same sob story?

  • 1

    Jim Greenidge

    This is a true BizzarroWorld of education. You have a source of energy that in its global worldwide history of over 60 years -- including its rare very worst days --has on checkable record by international authorities, least affected human health and polluted the environment far less than a single year's death and damage tally by just one of fossil rivals in routine operation, and yet it's been reviled, demonized, and stained with death slander that is totally contrary its readily accessible safety and accident mortality record. I wonder if oil or gas were as maligned by Hollywood and Luddites and ignorance and superstition and vaporware doomsday allegations as nuclear energy has whether we'd be literally in the dark ages today. Maybe it's "hip" to be anti-nuclear, but its record -- especially compared other energy producers -- really doesn't deserve scorn and hate once your research gives it a fair shake, like the national green activist of De-carbonize Australia has, and who, for the price of enlightenment, is being hounded and vilified by anti-nukers for going against the fear flow. Why?

    James Greenidge @atomicinsights

  • 2

    gaijintraveller

    This is a fine example of how to conduct a dishonest survey: choose a group which will provide you with the answer you wish to receive for the survey.

    It is fair to assume that nuclear reactors are generally situated in rural areas. The LDP has always been strong in rural areas. What percentage of these mayors belong to the LDP? I suspect more than 54% of them in which case it is surprising that only 54% support what is evidently LDP policy.

  • -2

    Yubaru

    The title is misleading at best, and surveys can be read any way you want to.

    Around 80% of Japanese people openly oppose nuclear power, but they just went and elected the LDP,

    This is just as bad if not worse than the title of this article. It is impossible to make a comment like this seeing as how if one were to do the math they would have to include underage folks who were never asked in the first place their opinion on the matter.

    Dont go tossing around figures if you dont have the facts to back them up.

  • -4

    jerobeam

    well said @Jim Greenidge... people have no clue about nuclear power and radiobiology and apparently it's cool to be anti-nuclear. Well, there is nothing cool about being a moron IMHO.

  • -3

    globalwatcher

    jerobeamJan. 07, 2013 - 12:44PM JST

    well said @Jim Greenidge... people have no clue about nuclear power and radiobiology and apparently it's cool to be anti-nuclear. Well, there is nothing cool about being a moron IMHO.

    No moeon at all. I was there for the rescue mission after the 3/11, and I have seen enough.

    When are you coming out here (USA) to clean up these radioactive debries from Fukushima? Fukushima is still leaking some radioactive materials into the ocean we share.

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    When are you coming out here (USA) to clean up these radioactive debries from Fukushima?

    Which debris would that be? Was there a second tsunami that I missed that happened a few days later? Or are you suggesting that the debris washed out to sea after March 11 was radioactive?

    Because if you are, then you would be wrong.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    Geez, the MAYORS said they would okay restarts. That's not much of a step higher than if the survey people had called the power company execs to ask their opinion on restarting. The people need to tell the mayors they can be replaced.

  • 1

    Jim Poushinsky

    Go geothermal! I'm all for nuclear power in geologically stable areas which are not prone to catastrophic earthquakes, especially thorium reactors which can't be used to make nuclear weapons. On fault zones such as Japan and California where the earth's mantle is close to the surface, geothermal plants are the obvious and common sense solution for free energy to heat cities and generate electricity. The entire Pacific Rim of Asia and the Americas could benefit from geothermal plants, and Japan could become the world leader in this safe non-polluting Green technology. Why is the government not considering this?

  • -1

    basroil

    Jim GreenidgeJan. 07, 2013 - 12:11PM JST

    This is a true BizzarroWorld of education. You have a source of energy that in its global worldwide history of over 60 years -- including its rare very worst days --has on checkable record by international authorities, least affected human health and polluted the environment far less than a single year's death and damage tally by just one of fossil rivals in routine operation, and yet it's been reviled, demonized, and stained with death slander that is totally contrary its readily accessible safety and accident mortality record.

    Yup, even including Fukushima and Chernobyl, as well as effects from uranium mining, nuclear waste disposal, etc, it's still a whopping 300 times better than the stuff they replaced it with, and that's only counting the effects of burning!

    I wonder if oil or gas were as maligned by Hollywood and Luddites and ignorance and superstition and vaporware doomsday allegations as nuclear energy has whether we'd be literally in the dark ages today.

    At one point kerosine use was viewed as the carrier of death, a potential inferno in a bottle. The media was all over it because some accidents lead to big, but hardly significant incidents and people considered it a technology far too dangerous to use. But smart people didn't let that get in their way, put money into solving the issues (better product refining, equivalent to Gen 3+ reactor safety systems), and changed the way we live. In fact, while those initial problems still continued occasionally, the number of lives improved and even saved far outnumbered those which were negatively affected (and in fact, most of the negative effects were lost jobs in more dangerous places, like coal mining.... exactly like what happened in Japan with nuclear)

    Maybe it's "hip" to be anti-nuclear, but its record -- especially compared other energy producers -- really doesn't deserve scorn and hate once your research gives it a fair shake, like the national green activist of De-carbonize Australia has, and who, for the price of enlightenment, is being hounded and vilified by anti-nukers for going against the fear flow. Why?

    Why? There is none. At least none that can't be explained by analyzing people's irrational reactions to something they don't want to understand. Sadly, we live in a world where it is no longer possible for anyone to fully understand anything, but people always forget that they know as little about common objects as they do about nuclear. A nuclear plant is not much more difficult to construct than a car or a mechanical pencil from a technological standpoint (far more complex than a mechanical pencil engineering wise, and a bit more than a car too due to the addition of radiation effects, but to explain them from the mining of ores to final use isn't too different). The issue is that people simply haven't been around these plants like they have their cars or pencils, so they simply assume it's a horrible thing simply because they neither know the technology nor care to know.

  • 0

    linro

    Chernobyl nuclear power plant was the worst nuclear disaster in history, Fukushima has by far surpassed that but everything has been played down and suppressed by the government and the powers to be. RIP

  • 0

    basroil

    Jim PoushinskyJan. 07, 2013 - 02:55PM JST

    Go geothermal! I'm all for nuclear power in geologically stable areas which are not prone to catastrophic earthquakes, especially thorium reactors which can't be used to make nuclear weapons. On fault zones such as Japan and California where the earth's mantle is close to the surface, geothermal plants are the obvious and common sense solution for free energy to heat cities and generate electricity.

    How about no, because that's not how it works. While there are faults and the area is seismically active, you need volcanic areas for surface heat. Kind of like Iceland's geology or some parts of southern Japan (kyushu). While you don't need to dig as deep to get to the energy in seismically active areas, it's still very deep holes you need, and more than that, massive amounts of water you need to pump. Earthquake frequency increases due to the excess water (and drawing of water), which is one of the reasons why the Cali geo farms have been shutting down. You really want to cause more earthquakes? Just landslides and tunnel collapses alone would kill more people than you could ever hope to save.

  • -3

    globalwatcher

    Heda_MadnessJan. 07, 2013 - 02:10PM JST

    When are you coming out here (USA) to clean up these radioactive debries from Fukushima?

    Which debris would that be? Was there a second tsunami that I missed that happened a few days later? Or are you suggesting that the debris washed out to sea after March 11 was radioactive?

    Because if you are, then you would be wrong.

    @Heda, I would not be so sure about that. I hope you are correct and I am wrong on this issue.

    I do not know what you have been told by J. Govt, so I am posting what US side is reporting on Fukushima debries. Again, there has been contradicting stories between US and Japan. Which story should we believe? Japan or US?

    Some of the debris to hit the West Coast may be radioactive following the devastation at Japanese nuclear power plants, according to James Hevezi, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Medical Physics.

    http://enenews.com/radioactive-debris-from-japan-tsunami-may-wash-ashore-on-us-west-coast-by-early-next-year-map

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/04/fukushima-to-burn-highly-radioactive-debris/

  • 2

    basroil

    globalwatcherJan. 07, 2013 - 03:38PM JST

    http://enenews.com/radioactive-debris-from-japan-tsunami-may-wash-ashore-on-us-west-coast-by-early-next-year-map

    You do realize enenews is a propaganda blog and not a reputable source right? The debris that are floating to the US are from the Sendai area (well, the 200km around it), which was nowhere near the nuclear plants. While it may contain radioactive parts, it's got nothing to do with energy generation waste and everything to do with medical radioisotopes.

  • 1

    Heda_Madness

    That link takes you to an article from the Mail Online. I'm assuming you're not British otherwise you wouldn't have posted that. The tsunami happened after 3 pm on March 11, the nuclear meltdown happened days later. The material that was washed out to sea happened days before the meltdown and even if Zichi is correct when he says there was some damage to the reactor in the initial earthquake there's not a cat in hells chance of that debris being effected by the subsequent incident at Fukushima.

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    Chernobyl nuclear power plant was the worst nuclear disaster in history, Fukushima has by far surpassed that but everything has been played down and suppressed by the government and the powers to be. RIP

    Complete and utter rubbish. ANYONE with a basic understanding of Chernobyl will tell you that's wrong. It's not just a little wrong, it's very, very wrong.

  • 0

    Dennis Bauer

    the was survey made by the guys with the black busses?

  • 2

    Rick Kisa

    @Heda_Madness

    If the people were against nuclear they wouldn't have voted for the massively pro-nuclear party.

    This is where people go wrong. It was more of a vote against the regime in power than endorsing nuclear energy. It was a vote to improve the economy and peoples lives, and this does not necessarily mean turning back to nuclear power. We have examples of powerful countries that are closing nuke plants but doing very well on electricity and economy; even exporting electricity from renewables. .You will be the only one surprised if the current party is voted out of power soon, its pro-nuclear stance not-withstanding..

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    So in a Japanese Idiomatic dictionary does the phrase 'cut your nose off to spite your face equate to voting the LDP back in?

    Of course not.

    No matter how p!ssed off the electorate was with the previous government you do not vote in the opposition if they have such polar views to your own.

  • 2

    edojin

    Can we trust the Yomiuri survey? The top Yomiuri people and the LDP old timers are close friends ... and thus the newspaper could be influenced in the way it carried out its survey. And we all know Abe is pushing for the restart of nuclear power plants around Japan.

  • 1

    Homeschooler

    If they go ahead with the restarts, and there is ever another nuclear incident in Japan, then I do not want to hear one complaint from the people. Not one sob story, request for aid, or hour long tv show about a family missing their dog/farm/house. Not one. It's their choice, and if they make a deal with the devil, they had been be prepared to stand by it.

  • 2

    Rick Kisa

    54% of cities hosting nuclear plants OK restart: survey

    May be they are not yet aware that Japan can replace all these dangerous nuke plants by only one of the several sources of clean, safe, sustainable and secure geothermal energy. What is only needed is know-how, leadership and collaboration. Read on: <http://www.icenews.is/2013/01/01/iceland-ambassador-japan-should-opt-for-geothermal-energy/ >

  • 2

    Fadamor

    The majority of Japanese towns and cities hosting nuclear plants said they would agree to the reactors being restarted if the government guaranteed the safety of the facilities, a survey said Sunday.

    So the headline left out an important fact: the cities and towns would OK the restart only if the impossible happened. After 3/11, there's no way the government could ever "guarantee" the safety of the reactors. Just because there was a 9.0 earthquake doesn't mean there won't be a 10.0 earthquake next week.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Around 80% of Japanese people openly oppose nuclear power, but they just went and elected the LDP, which was the only major party that did not stand on an anti-nuclear platform. 54% of mayors have just seen a way of receiveing a huge brown envelope full of cash, and have decided that the LDP government's guarantees of safety are now enough for them. I guess this is business as usual.

    Of the 13 votings districts that house NPP, 11 LDP members were voted in. Tommorow's Party (de facto Ozawa party during the election) campaign was strictly "No Nuclear" and yet they went from 62 seats to 9 seats which pretty much will become non existent after the upcoming summer election as well as killing any hopes of Ozawa ever being "significant" in the future. So, I question "around 80% of Japanese people openly oppose nuclear power".

  • -3

    basroil

    FadamorJan. 07, 2013 - 11:38PM JST

    Just because there was a 9.0 earthquake doesn't mean there won't be a 10.0 earthquake next week.

    But the fact that no M10.0 has ever been recorded in over 100 years does mean just that statistically (usually M9 is a magnitude less common than M8, M8 to M7, etc). In fact, geologists haven't even figured out if M10.0+ is possible without side effects that would make nuclear meltdowns look like a papercut.

    Rick KisaJan. 07, 2013 - 11:17PM JST

    May be they are not yet aware that Japan can replace all these dangerous nuke plants by only one of the several sources of clean, safe, sustainable and secure geothermal energy.

    Japan has one useful plant, in Hokkaido next to a volcanic area). Most of Japan simply doesn't have geothermal pools suitable for power generation (fine for heating though) that can supply economic levels of thermal energy without drilling. Drilling will pollute the waterways with carcinogens that last forever, not just a few decades like radioisotopes. Iceland uses fumaroles and other dry vents, and they are dangerous at best, but in the case of Iceland they have to deal with them anyway so might as well get power. Hell, volcanic areas where you would build these plants in Japan claimed half a dozen lives in 1997 alone, and that's without thousands of workers in the area.

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    I do not know what you have been told by J. Govt, so I am posting what US side is reporting on Fukushima debries. Again, there has been contradicting stories between US and Japan. Which story should we believe? Japan or US?

    Japan and the US are saying the same thing.

    http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/tsunamidebris/

    Radiation experts believe it is highly unlikely any debris is radioactive

  • -3

    basroil

    Heda_MadnessJan. 08, 2013 - 04:56AM JST

    Japan and the US are saying the same thing.

    http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/tsunamidebris/

    Radiation experts believe it is highly unlikely any debris is radioactive

    Even independent researchers showed the area was perfectly clean: http://map.safecast.org/map/142.47080669127547,39.40054457849822,8

    Interestingly, most of the tsunami areas are showing less than normal levels of radiation!

    • Moderator

      Back on topic please.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 営業/建設機械  

    営業/建設機械  
    MB Japan 株式会社、埼玉県
    給与:給与要相談 歩合制 給与参考例・・・2013年度営業職月給平均 45万円  
  • TOEICインストラクター

    TOEICインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,000円 相談可
  • TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター

    TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,500円 相談可
  • 海外留学担当者

    海外留学担当者
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:月給 25万円 ~ 35万円 相談可
  • PR and Communication Specialist

    PR and Communication Specialist
    Italian Chamber of Commerce in Japan、東京都
    給与:給与についての記載なし

More in National

View all

View all