核電站安全嗎?

Are nuclear power plants safe?

核電站安全嗎?

評(píng)論：

CStuart Hardwick,Award-Winning Scifi Author, Analog regular
AnsweredAug 25, 2017
Well, they certainly can kill people, but…wait a minute, lots ofthings kill people. You wouldn’t let your kids ride in an unsafe car, but carskill 30,000 Americans a year, even with airbags and anti-lock brakes.
But think of the radiation. Why, at Fukushima alone, radiationhas killed….no one. Zip. Well, okay, there was recently a plant worker whoparticipated in the cleanup who came down with leukemia, and that might be dueto his radiation exposure. And that’s terrible, sad, tragic, but you know,Japan doesn’t have an army, and it’s nuclear industry has been instrumental inkeeping the country clean, safe, and prosperous, and in the US, we give folkswho die in service to that sort of thing a military funeral with honors. It’svery much the same thing.
Even so, nuclear power plants are not anywhere close to thebiggest emitter of radiation—that would be coal, followed by oil. Both releasenaturally occurring radioactive materials on a truly industrial scale, butdon’t get too worried. The idea that there is “no safe dose of radiation,” is amyth.
We know for a fact it’s a myth, because there are people inIran, India, and Brazil (among other places) who are naturally exposed to overten times the normal background radiation—and scientists can see metabolicevidence of their cells reacting to radiation damage—yet they do not have anystatistically significant increase in cancer risk. So clearly, there IS a safedose, and we all need to stop worrying about the tiny radiation emissionsdiluted throughout the whole biosphere.

嗯，它們當(dāng)然能殺人，但是……等一下，很多東西都能殺人。你不會(huì)讓你的孩子乘坐不安全的汽車，但即使有安全氣囊和防抱死剎車，汽車每年也會(huì)造成3萬(wàn)美國(guó)人死亡。
但是想想輻射。為什么,福島,輻射殺死了....一個(gè)人沒(méi)有。好吧，最近有一個(gè)工廠工人參與了清理工作他得了白血病，這可能是由于他暴露在輻射下。這是可怕的，悲哀的，悲慘的，但是你知道，日本沒(méi)有軍隊(duì)，同時(shí)核工業(yè)在保持國(guó)家清潔、安全、繁榮方面發(fā)揮了重要作用，在美國(guó)，我們?yōu)槟切┰趹?zhàn)爭(zhēng)中犧牲的人們舉行了一場(chǎng)充滿榮譽(yù)的軍事葬禮。幾乎是一樣的。
即便如此，核電站離最大的輻射源還差得很遠(yuǎn)，首先就是煤炭，其次是石油。這兩種方法都能以真正的工業(yè)規(guī)模釋放自然產(chǎn)生的放射性物質(zhì)，但不要太擔(dān)心?！皼](méi)有安全劑量的輻射”的想法是一個(gè)神話。
事實(shí)上，我們知道這是一個(gè)神話，因?yàn)樵谝晾?、印度和巴?以及其他地方)，有些人自然地暴露在超過(guò)正常背景輻射十倍的環(huán)境中——科學(xué)家可以看到他們的細(xì)胞對(duì)輻射損傷作出反應(yīng)的代謝證據(jù)，然而，他們?cè)诎┌Y風(fēng)險(xiǎn)上沒(méi)有任何統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上的顯著增加。所以很明顯，有一個(gè)安全劑量，我們都需要停止擔(dān)心在整個(gè)生物圈中稀釋的微小輻射排放。

However, coal fired power plants emit radon, a heavy,radioactive gas that settles to the ground and gives people living downwind anincreased risk of lung cancer. That one, we have no trouble measuring.
But you can’t just look at radiation. You have to look at thebig picture, deaths from all causes, radiation, fire, pollution of variouskinds, etc.
So here are those numbers, as compiled by the NAS
Are nuclear power plant safe? Well, not as safe as they ought tobe. Chernobyl NEVER should have happened (it was built without propercontainment). Fukushima also should never have happened, and an NRC report hadwarned of exactly this sort of tsunami risk just a couple of years earlier.These older second generation plants need to be shored up, closely monitored,and expedited into retirement. But if you replace them with anything other thannuclear, more people will die. Instead, they should be replacedwith third generation, passively safe designs. Then, in a couple of decades, wewill have fourth generation designs, including traveling wave reactors that canconsume the spent fuel waste accumulated over that last fifty years, and whenthey run out of that, run on unenriched, naturally occurring uranium-238 — forthe next few tens of thousands of years.
Meanwhile, we just relax just a bit, knowing that worldwide,poor as things are, nuclear power is over a thousand times safer than coal.

然而，燃煤電廠排放的氡是一種擁有巨大放射性的氣體，它會(huì)沉降到地面，使住在下風(fēng)的人患肺癌的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)增加。那個(gè)，我們測(cè)量起來(lái)沒(méi)有問(wèn)題。
但你不能只看輻射。你必須縱觀全局，包括各種原因?qū)е碌乃劳?、輻射、火?zāi)、各種污染等等。
核電站安全嗎?沒(méi)有他們?cè)撚械哪菢影踩?。切爾諾貝利本不應(yīng)該發(fā)生(它是在沒(méi)有適當(dāng)控制的情況下建造的)。福島核事故本不應(yīng)該發(fā)生，一份核管理委員會(huì)的報(bào)告在幾年前就警告過(guò)這種海嘯風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這些較老的第二代核電站需要加固、嚴(yán)密監(jiān)控，并加速淘汰。但是如果你用除核以外的任何東西來(lái)代替它們，更多的人將會(huì)死亡。
相反，它們應(yīng)該被第三代被動(dòng)安全的設(shè)計(jì)（passively safe designs）所取代。然后，幾十年后我們將進(jìn)行第四代設(shè)計(jì)，包括能夠消耗過(guò)去50年積累的廢燃料的行波反應(yīng)堆。在接下來(lái)的數(shù)萬(wàn)年里，當(dāng)它們用完這些元素后，就會(huì)繼續(xù)使用未經(jīng)濃縮的天然鈾238。與此同時(shí)，我們只是稍微放松一下，因?yàn)槲覀冎?，在全世界范圍?nèi)，盡管情況很糟糕，核能比煤炭安全一千多倍。

Ilya Bulanov
Aug 25, 2017
Whyare people in Iran,Brazil, and India exposed to “Ten times the normalbackground radiation”? Do you have any sources for that?

為什么伊朗、巴西和印度的人們暴露在“十倍于正常背景輻射”的環(huán)境中?你有什么消息來(lái)源嗎?
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

CStuart Hardwick
Aug 26, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Ineach case, high levels of thorium in the geology.

在以上這些地方，地質(zhì)學(xué)中釷的含量都很高。

HaydenSmith
Jul 28 · 1 upvote
Thatis absolutely true.
WhenGreenpeace Geiger counter monitoring teams travelled to Cornwall to measurepossible outfall readings from the Sellafield rad-waste reprocessing plant,they were amazed to find the local environmental radiation levels much higherthan the possible artificial ones.
Oldgranite emitting radon gas.

完全正確。
當(dāng)綠色和平組織的蓋革計(jì)數(shù)器監(jiān)視團(tuán)隊(duì)前往康沃爾，測(cè)量塞拉菲爾德(Sellafield)核廢料再處理廠可能的排放物讀數(shù)。他們驚奇地發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境的輻射水平遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于可能的人工輻射水平。
舊花崗巖釋放氡氣體。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Christian Dechery
Aug 25, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Wehave a beach in Brazil, where the sand is radioactive. And it measures withlevels higher than Fukushima.

我們?cè)诎臀饔幸粋€(gè)海灘，那里的沙子具有放射性。它的輻射水平高于福島。
《Guarapari》——維基

——2——
David McFarland,studied Nuclear Energy at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command
upxedMay 11, 2018
Let me put it this way:
People bicker of the exactness of data suggesting that nuclearpower kills fewer people per terrawatt-hour versus Solar and Wind that itshould be rather telling that if you can even have that argument, it’s gotta bepretty freaking safe when most people’s first question is “How in the world canit be safer than solar or wind?”
The answer is “Regulation.” Politicians don’t think to regulatesolar or wind specifically, so it doesn’t really get regulated beyond what lawswere already in place.
As a result, you experience occasional fires, fall hazards, et cetera. Nothingsuper concerning (except the industries don’t know how much waste they areproducing because no one bothers to record it!). Now, solar and wind are safe!They’re also relatively cheap (due to lessened regulation - not that they needas much regulation as nuclear, but more would be nice in some areas).

我這么說(shuō)吧:
人們對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)的準(zhǔn)確性爭(zhēng)論不休，這些數(shù)據(jù)表明，與太陽(yáng)能和風(fēng)能相比，核能每兆瓦時(shí)（注：不太清楚）殺死的人更少。
大多數(shù)人的第一個(gè)問(wèn)題是“世界上怎么可能比太陽(yáng)能或風(fēng)能更安全?”
答案是“監(jiān)管”?！罢蛡儾徽J(rèn)為要專門監(jiān)管太陽(yáng)能或風(fēng)能，因此，它們實(shí)際上并沒(méi)有超出現(xiàn)有法律的監(jiān)管范圍?！?br /> 因此，你偶爾會(huì)經(jīng)歷火災(zāi)、墜落等危險(xiǎn)。沒(méi)有什么特別令人擔(dān)心的(除了這些方面不知道制造了多少垃圾，但沒(méi)有人會(huì)費(fèi)心去記錄它!) 如今太陽(yáng)能和風(fēng)能是安全的，它們也相對(duì)便宜(由于監(jiān)管力度的減弱——并不是說(shuō)它們需要像核電那樣多的監(jiān)管，而是在某些領(lǐng)域需要更多監(jiān)管。)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Nuclear power, on the other hand? We’re regulated as hell.That’s where most of the cost comes from once you get past initialconstruction. Just the other day we had OSHA tell divers they couldn't go overthe safety railing into the water without a life jacket and safety line… (thedivers reacted in a great way - they just ignored them, and rightfully so.) Butits that sort of reason why nuclear power plants are safe, and expensive:regulation is followed to the letter until it is proven that the regulationdoes not apply in a specific situation.
We can’t take water from the river to wash off bird poop backinto the river. That’s how regulated we are.
As a result, the slightest sign of potential injury, and majorfreakouts occur. Someone accidentally bumps their head on something? Gottaspend tons of money turning the area into a padded room. (Not literally).
And unlike Chernobyl, American plants are designed to withstanda pressure detonation.
Fukushima had issues, yes, and they didn’t follow proper safetyculture. But Fukushima still has yet to kill anyone. As much as I hate TEPCO,they still did do some things right.

另一方面，核能呢?我們受到地獄般的監(jiān)管。一旦你完成了最初的建設(shè)這就是大部分成本的來(lái)源。就在前幾天，職業(yè)安全與健康局告訴潛水員，如果沒(méi)有救生衣和安全繩，他們就不能越過(guò)安全欄桿進(jìn)入水中(潛水員的反應(yīng)非常好——他們只是忽視了他們，這是理所當(dāng)然的)。但這就是核電站安全、昂貴的原因:監(jiān)管嚴(yán)格，直到證明該監(jiān)管不適用于特定情況。
我們不能從河里取水把鳥(niǎo)糞洗掉留在河里。我們就是這樣被監(jiān)管的。
因此，最輕微的潛在傷害的跡象，和重大的驚嚇的發(fā)生。有人不小心把頭撞到什么東西上了?我得花大把的錢把這個(gè)地方變成一個(gè)有填充物的房間。(類似這樣的情況)。
與切爾諾貝利核電站不同的是，美國(guó)核電站的設(shè)計(jì)能夠承受壓力爆炸。
是的，福島有問(wèn)題，他們沒(méi)有遵循適當(dāng)?shù)陌踩幕５u核事故還沒(méi)有造成人員傷亡。盡管我很討厭東京電力公司，但他們還是做了一些正確的事情。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

That wind turbine fire killed two,compared to Fukushimas zero. I’m not keeping score. I want us to use wind. ButI’m putting things in perspective.
Nuclear power is ridiculously safe.
What’s that, terrorists you say? Whatare they going to hit it with? A plane won’t dent the containment. They don’tknow enough of the layout of the plant to do anything. We’ve tested this. Ifyou question this:
1. Planes areflimsy and made of aluminum.
2. 2 meter thickreinforced concrete walls can withstand just about anything, and that’s noteven the reactor yet; the reactor itself is made of thick steel; it might aswell be a battleship.
And nuclear power security forces aretop-notch - and entrenched. Good luck on that.
“But it’s so much more expensive?” Oh,I thought we wanted to save the environment, not save money. There areplenty of ways we could make it cheaper. Like get rid of the CoalLobbyists. You know, the guys who are promoting a form of energygeneration more than 10,000 times deadlier than nuclear.
I will say this: They are safe for thegeneral populace. Our old plants are hardly killing anyone at all, the ones weare building now are half a century more advanced in some cases. Compare thatto computers, and you’ll see why I consider it ridiculous to use “Chernobyl” asa reason to argue against building new reactors. (Aside from the fact that fewnuclear power plants operate like Chernobyl).
They are not so safe for the operators.One of my supervisors likes to remind us on at least a weekly basis “This placewill kill you if you let it.” Rotating machinery, places to fall, danger ofelectrical shock, et cetera.

而某次風(fēng)力渦輪機(jī)的火災(zāi)造成兩人死亡，但福島的火災(zāi)為零。我不專門記這些。我想讓我們利用風(fēng)能。但我是客觀地看待問(wèn)題。
核能極其安全。
你說(shuō)什么，恐怖分子?他們要用什么來(lái)打擊它?飛機(jī)不會(huì)撞壞安全殼。他們對(duì)工廠的布局沒(méi)有足夠的了解。我們已經(jīng)測(cè)試了這個(gè)。如果你有疑問(wèn):
1. 飛機(jī)很脆弱，是鋁制的。
2. 2米厚的鋼筋混凝土墻可以承受任何東西，這還不是反應(yīng)堆;反應(yīng)堆本身是由厚鋼制成的;它就像一艘戰(zhàn)艦。
核電安全部隊(duì)是一流的，而且根深蒂固。祝你好運(yùn)。
“但是它太貴了?！薄芭?，我以為我們想要保護(hù)環(huán)境，而不是省錢?！蔽覀冇泻芏喾椒梢允顾阋?。比如擺脫煤炭說(shuō)客。你知道，那些提倡一種比核能致命一萬(wàn)倍的能源生產(chǎn)方式的人。
我要說(shuō)的是:它們對(duì)普通民眾是安全的。我們的老工廠幾乎沒(méi)有殺死任何人，我們現(xiàn)在建造的工廠在某些方面比過(guò)去先進(jìn)半個(gè)世紀(jì)。與計(jì)算機(jī)相比，你就會(huì)明白為什么我認(rèn)為用“切爾諾貝利”作為反對(duì)建造新反應(yīng)堆的理由是荒謬的。(除了有少量的核電站像切爾諾貝利核電站那樣運(yùn)行)。
對(duì)操作人員來(lái)說(shuō)不太安全。我的一位上司喜歡每周至少提醒我們一次:“如果你放任自流，這個(gè)地方會(huì)殺了你的?！薄靶D(zhuǎn)機(jī)械、墜落地點(diǎn)、觸電危險(xiǎn)等。

“But what about waste?” Well, we need totake care of that, but we have plans, but I suspect the Coal-lobbyists thatshot down high-temperature (therefore higher efficiency, therefore higherenergy and lower cost - thanks for forcing some validity to that “reactors costa lot” argument, Coal) reactors are also shutting down things like the TWR andother reactor designs that would makenuclear power the first and only form ofenergy generation to reuse it’s own spent waste.
As it stands, that waste isn’t goinganywhere - which is good. We can contain it, regulate it, and monitor it untilwe can store it. We’ve got a while… now if onlyanti-environment fearmongers would let us do something with it.

“那核廢料呢?”“嗯，我們需要解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題，我們有計(jì)劃，但我懷疑是煤炭行業(yè)的游說(shuō)者讓高溫反應(yīng)堆流產(chǎn)的。(因此，更高的效率、更高的能源和更低的成本——這要感謝“反應(yīng)堆成本高”這一論點(diǎn)在一定程度上的正確性，即煤炭)。這些人還關(guān)閉了行波反應(yīng)堆和其他反應(yīng)堆的設(shè)計(jì)，這些設(shè)計(jì)將使核能成為第一種、也是唯一一種可以重復(fù)利用自身核廢料的能源。
就目前情況而言，這種浪費(fèi)不會(huì)流向任何地方——這是好事。我們可以控制它，調(diào)節(jié)它，監(jiān)控它，直到我們可以儲(chǔ)存它。我們已經(jīng)運(yùn)行它一段時(shí)間了，現(xiàn)在如果反環(huán)境的恐怖分子能讓我們做點(diǎn)什么就好了。

AndrewMcKenzie
Sep 4, 2017 · 48 upvotes
Nuclearwill kill us if something goes horribly wrong. Coal will kill us if it worksperfectly as designed.

如果出了什么可怕的問(wèn)題，核能會(huì)殺死我們。

JamesProctor
Aug 24, 2017 · 7 upvotes
WhileI'm in favor of nuclear, I'm cautiously so. The fact is, regulation almostalways fails at some point. In an ideal world, the regulations in place fordrilling, mining, fission, etc., would keep us safe all the time.
Thereality is that accidents will always happen. Even worse, it is often cheaperfor energy companies to break the law and to pay the fines when eventuallycaught.
Sothe question becomes, “What are the consequences when anaccident occurs?” With nuclear, as with drilling and other extraction, theconsequences can be extreme.

雖然我支持核能，但我對(duì)此持謹(jǐn)慎態(tài)度。事實(shí)上，監(jiān)管幾乎總是在某個(gè)時(shí)候失敗。在一個(gè)理想的世界里，鉆井、采礦、裂變等方面的規(guī)章制度會(huì)一直保護(hù)我們的安全。
事實(shí)上，意外總是會(huì)發(fā)生的。更糟糕的是，對(duì)能源公司來(lái)說(shuō)，違反法律并在最終被發(fā)現(xiàn)時(shí)支付罰款往往更便宜。
所以問(wèn)題就變成了，“事故發(fā)生的后果是什么?”就像鉆探和其他開(kāi)采一樣，核能的后果可能是極端的。

David McFarland
Aug 24, 2017 · 52 upvotes
As itbecomes clear now with Fukushima, the consequences… aren’t really that severeat all.
Andthat’s with a ridiculously old plant. Once we replace them with new plants,we’re golden. Accidents do not always have to happen. There are multiple layersof regulation, both internal and external, there are operators in the way, andmultiple layers of redundant systems.
Ittook a once-in-a-thousand-year tsunami and Earthquake toexpose Fukushima’s insufficient safety culture, namely in regards to their lackof sea-wall and improper placement of diesel generators. What no one talksabout is that it also exposed that another power company, TohokuElectric, knew how to do it right.
TheOnagawa Plant was hit harder than Fukushima. Yet no one talksabout it, because it was fine.

隨著福島核事故變得越來(lái)越明顯，其后果……其實(shí)并沒(méi)有那么嚴(yán)重。
那是一棟非常古老到可笑的核電站。一旦我們用新的核電站取代它們，就成了。意外并不總是會(huì)發(fā)生。
千年一遇的海嘯和地震才暴露出福島安全文化的不足，即缺乏防護(hù)堤，以及柴油發(fā)電機(jī)放置不當(dāng)。沒(méi)有人談?wù)摰氖?，這也暴露了另一家電力公司，東北電力公司（Tohoku Electric），知道如何正確行事。
女川核電站（The Onagawa Plant）受到的沖擊比福島核電站更嚴(yán)重。但是沒(méi)有人談?wù)撍驗(yàn)樗芎谩?/b>

0