さきほど東京の英國大使館の會見から戻ってきました。日本の原発の現狀についてでした。英國政府主席科學顧問(Chief Scientific Adviser)ジョン・ベディントン （Sir John Beddington）が代弁者をつとめ、數名の原子力発電の専門家も同席しました。日本の現狀について、彼らの狀況判斷は下記の通り：
●比較的悪い場合（１個の原子爐の完全メルトダウンとそれに基づく放射性爆発の場合）、避難エリアの５０キロは人の健康の安全を守るために十分な距離でしょう。もっと最悪な狀況でも、（２個以上の原子爐がメルトダウンする場合）１つの原子爐のメルトダウンのときと比べ、被害にさほど変わりはないでしょう。
●現狀の２０キロ退避指示區は現狀の放射能レベルにたいして適切な範囲でしょう。このまま爐心への海水注入を続くことができれば、大きな事件を防ぐことができるでしょう。これからさらなる地震と津波が起きた場合、海水注入ができなくなる可能があり、その場合上記のメルトダウンが起こる可能性があるでしょう。
●基本的に、専門家は東京住人の健康への悪影響はありませんと予想してる。健康に悪影響を起こすために現狀の放射能の何百倍のレベルが必要。専門家はそのような狀況にはならないと言う。（しかも、専門家は妊婦や子供へ影響するほどの放射能を基準にしていた。健康な大人にとってはさらに放射能のレベルが高くならないと影響はないという。）
●専門家は風向きは関係ないと言う。東京は現場から十分離れてるので、影響はないでしょう。
●海水注入を続けることができれば、原子爐が冷え、１０日間後に狀態は大きく上向くでしょう。
●日本政府からの情報は複數の獨立した団體によりモニタリングされつづけ、放射能のレベルに関しての情報は的確と判斷されてる。
●チェルノブイリとは全く別な狀況です。チェルノブイリの場合、原子爐が完全メルトダウンし、手を付けずに何週間も燃え続けた。チェルノブイリでさえ、５０キロに避難ゾーンがもしできたら、十分に人の健康を守ることはできたでしょう。チェルノブイリの場合、事件から何年も後まで現地の食料や水に含まれた放射能は一切モニタリングされなかったと、危険性についての情報も全く知らせなかったせい、汚された食品、麥、牛乳や水などを食べ続けた現地の人々が病気になった。事実は隠されたチェルノブイリの事件とくらべ、今回の非常に開かれた福島の事件もその意味でも大きく異なるでしょう。
●ブリティシュスクールの學長が、休校をつづけるべきかどうかを尋ねた。専門家の答えは、放射能に関する恐れのためならば休校は必要ない。餘震や建物の狀態などに関する理由はありえるかもしれないですが、科學的に放射能の恐れは 子供にとっても全くありません。
●ヨード剤の補充に関して、専門家はヨード剤は現場で放射能を體內に吸収した場合や汚れた食料を食べた場合だけ必要と説明した。それに、ヨード剤の長期的利用は健康によくないと話した。
會見は驚くほどフランクで正確でした。専門家の判斷によれば、原発からの放射能の恐れよりも、地震と津波からの被害はもっと大きな問題でしょう。
専門家の判斷を信じましょう！
（荒い翻訳を許しください。間違えなどが見つかった場合、連絡ください。トム）
----------
Paul Atkinson on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 6:55pm
I have just returned from a conference call held at the British Embassy in Tokyo. The call was concerning the nuclear issue in Japan. The chief spokesman was Sir. John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, and he was joined by a number of qualified nuclear experts based in the UK. Their assessment of the current situation in Japan is as follows:
* In case of a 'reasonable worst case scenario' (defined as total meltdown of one reactor with subsequent radioactive explosion) an exclusion zone of 30 miles (50km) would be the maximum required to avoid affecting peoples' health. Even in a worse situation (loss of two or more reactors) it is unlikely that the damage would be significantly more than that caused by the loss of a single reactor.
* The current 20km exclusion zone is appropriate for the levels of radiation/risk currently experienced, and if the pouring of sea water can be maintained to cool the reactors, the likelihood of a major incident should be avoided. A further large quake with tsunami could lead to the suspension of the current cooling operations, leading to the above scenario.
* The bottom line is that these experts do not see there being a possibility of a health problem for residents in Tokyo. The radiation levels would need to be hundreds of times higher than current to cause the possibility for health issues, and that, in their opinion, is not going to happen (they were talking minimum levels affecting pregnant women and children - for normal adults the levels would need to be much higher still).
* The experts do not consider the wind direction to be material. They say Tokyo is too far away to be materially affected.
* If the pouring of water can be maintained the situation should be much improved after ten days, as the reactors' cores cool down.
* Information being provided by Japanese authorities is being independently monitored by a number of organizations and is deemed to be accurate, as far as measures of radioactivity levels are concerned.
* This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.
* The Head of the British School asked if the school should remain closed. The answer was there is no need to close the school due to fears of radiation. There may well be other reasons - structural damage or possible new quakes - but the radiation fear is not supported by scientific measures, even for children.
* Regarding Iodine supplementation, the experts said this was only necessary for those who had inhaled quantities of radiation (those in the exclusion zone or workers on the site) or through consumption of contaminated food/water supplies. Long term consumption of iodine is, in any case, not healthy.
The discussion was surprisingly frank and to the point. The conclusion of the experts is that the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, as well as the subsequent aftershocks, was much more of an issue than the fear of radiation sickness from the nuclear plants.
Let's hope the experts are right!
●比較的悪い場合（１個の原子爐の完全メルトダウンとそれに基づく放射性爆発の場合）、避難エリアの５０キロは人の健康の安全を守るために十分な距離でしょう。もっと最悪な狀況でも、（２個以上の原子爐がメルトダウンする場合）１つの原子爐のメルトダウンのときと比べ、被害にさほど変わりはないでしょう。
●現狀の２０キロ退避指示區は現狀の放射能レベルにたいして適切な範囲でしょう。このまま爐心への海水注入を続くことができれば、大きな事件を防ぐことができるでしょう。これからさらなる地震と津波が起きた場合、海水注入ができなくなる可能があり、その場合上記のメルトダウンが起こる可能性があるでしょう。
●基本的に、専門家は東京住人の健康への悪影響はありませんと予想してる。健康に悪影響を起こすために現狀の放射能の何百倍のレベルが必要。専門家はそのような狀況にはならないと言う。（しかも、専門家は妊婦や子供へ影響するほどの放射能を基準にしていた。健康な大人にとってはさらに放射能のレベルが高くならないと影響はないという。）
●専門家は風向きは関係ないと言う。東京は現場から十分離れてるので、影響はないでしょう。
●海水注入を続けることができれば、原子爐が冷え、１０日間後に狀態は大きく上向くでしょう。
●日本政府からの情報は複數の獨立した団體によりモニタリングされつづけ、放射能のレベルに関しての情報は的確と判斷されてる。
●チェルノブイリとは全く別な狀況です。チェルノブイリの場合、原子爐が完全メルトダウンし、手を付けずに何週間も燃え続けた。チェルノブイリでさえ、５０キロに避難ゾーンがもしできたら、十分に人の健康を守ることはできたでしょう。チェルノブイリの場合、事件から何年も後まで現地の食料や水に含まれた放射能は一切モニタリングされなかったと、危険性についての情報も全く知らせなかったせい、汚された食品、麥、牛乳や水などを食べ続けた現地の人々が病気になった。事実は隠されたチェルノブイリの事件とくらべ、今回の非常に開かれた福島の事件もその意味でも大きく異なるでしょう。
●ブリティシュスクールの學長が、休校をつづけるべきかどうかを尋ねた。専門家の答えは、放射能に関する恐れのためならば休校は必要ない。餘震や建物の狀態などに関する理由はありえるかもしれないですが、科學的に放射能の恐れは 子供にとっても全くありません。
●ヨード剤の補充に関して、専門家はヨード剤は現場で放射能を體內に吸収した場合や汚れた食料を食べた場合だけ必要と説明した。それに、ヨード剤の長期的利用は健康によくないと話した。
會見は驚くほどフランクで正確でした。専門家の判斷によれば、原発からの放射能の恐れよりも、地震と津波からの被害はもっと大きな問題でしょう。
専門家の判斷を信じましょう！
（荒い翻訳を許しください。間違えなどが見つかった場合、連絡ください。トム）
----------
Paul Atkinson on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 6:55pm
I have just returned from a conference call held at the British Embassy in Tokyo. The call was concerning the nuclear issue in Japan. The chief spokesman was Sir. John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, and he was joined by a number of qualified nuclear experts based in the UK. Their assessment of the current situation in Japan is as follows:
* In case of a 'reasonable worst case scenario' (defined as total meltdown of one reactor with subsequent radioactive explosion) an exclusion zone of 30 miles (50km) would be the maximum required to avoid affecting peoples' health. Even in a worse situation (loss of two or more reactors) it is unlikely that the damage would be significantly more than that caused by the loss of a single reactor.
* The current 20km exclusion zone is appropriate for the levels of radiation/risk currently experienced, and if the pouring of sea water can be maintained to cool the reactors, the likelihood of a major incident should be avoided. A further large quake with tsunami could lead to the suspension of the current cooling operations, leading to the above scenario.
* The bottom line is that these experts do not see there being a possibility of a health problem for residents in Tokyo. The radiation levels would need to be hundreds of times higher than current to cause the possibility for health issues, and that, in their opinion, is not going to happen (they were talking minimum levels affecting pregnant women and children - for normal adults the levels would need to be much higher still).
* The experts do not consider the wind direction to be material. They say Tokyo is too far away to be materially affected.
* If the pouring of water can be maintained the situation should be much improved after ten days, as the reactors' cores cool down.
* Information being provided by Japanese authorities is being independently monitored by a number of organizations and is deemed to be accurate, as far as measures of radioactivity levels are concerned.
* This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 miles would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.
* The Head of the British School asked if the school should remain closed. The answer was there is no need to close the school due to fears of radiation. There may well be other reasons - structural damage or possible new quakes - but the radiation fear is not supported by scientific measures, even for children.
* Regarding Iodine supplementation, the experts said this was only necessary for those who had inhaled quantities of radiation (those in the exclusion zone or workers on the site) or through consumption of contaminated food/water supplies. Long term consumption of iodine is, in any case, not healthy.
The discussion was surprisingly frank and to the point. The conclusion of the experts is that the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, as well as the subsequent aftershocks, was much more of an issue than the fear of radiation sickness from the nuclear plants.
Let's hope the experts are right!
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
