前幾個晚上, 我又看了另一個訪問, 是ABC訪問了George Monbiot, 他也跟我一樣因為看到福島事件, 才對核能發生很大的疑問? 首先是日本一個地震地區竟然是世界第3多核電廠. 日本人肯定就非常信任了這種技術, 我從不相信日本仔會給自己國民差的產品的. 事實去遊日本我在2006才是首次. 我從沒改變了這想法.
我跟George Monbiot一樣, 從反核到今天的支持, 不是看了幾個支持核能的專家說就相信了, 事實在這段時間反面報導永比正面的報導多出幾十倍. 我是從認識這科技開始, 然後看看這世界3次(包括福島)大漏輻射意外和那些地球變暖的死亡人數等等資料, 我不能不同意了核能是我們未來發電的方向.
因為看來George 準備的資料不夠充足, 我不如簡單先回答一下TONY所有疑問, 以下是我的補充資料:
1. 有關福島輻射: ARS (acute radiation syndrome 輻射並發症)是人體受超過4000 -8000mSv時就可能引至死亡. 事實在Chernobyl 核電廠, 很多去救援義士都有接收超過5000mSv而仍然生存. 而在福島的工作人員, 則在監督下每人總接收劑量不能超過250mSv. 而在3月23日, 17工作人員受到超過100mSv (=10次 CT scans 電腦斷層掃描Computerized Tomography), 另24日兩位工作人員因穿上錯誤的保護靴而被輻射污染水灼傷腳已立即送院醫治, 他們接收的是 170mSv/小時.
認識輻射真相: 事實, 輻射就跟我們生命息息相關的, 跟飲水, 晒太陽, 呼吸空氣和吸收維他命一樣. 我們每個人每天都是暴露在輻射之中, 其中極小量來自核能發電和核武器, 其他大部份就來自我們生活環境之中(看以下圖 – 1個比較容易懂的輻射劑量表. 備註1) 而我們不可不知的是我們自己身體就是一部小型原子核分裂 nuclear fission 反應堆( 可能是這樣, 跟別人一起睡, 你會接受到0.05 uSv輻射!請看下圖表) 因為我們身體 內有isotope & potassium 40這兩原素, 而很小分量的 isotope & potassium 40 就足夠做成每分鐘有4000核子falling apart (這就是nuclear fission reaction). 而一個英國人每年接受到10%的輻射是來自他們自己身體(因為是來自英國的研究).
牙齒照一次X光是5 uSv. 搭一程由紐約至洛杉磯, 你接受了40 uSv輻射. 照胸部X光一次, 是20uSV. 照一次胸部電腦掃描是5.8mSv(1mSv=1000uSv).
請看下圖: 事實, 我們每個人每天都是暴露在輻射之中, 而很多人不知道的吧了! 就如太陽的紫外線, 睇電視又或手提電話.
而人類每年的公眾活動可產生高達15%輻射. 而這些人類製造的輻射是與天然輻射是無差別, 差別是在於我們可以去控制的, 而85%來自天然的就不可以. 這15%是包括了14%來自醫療的X-Ray(X光), 電腦掃瞄等等, 少於1%輻射暴露於以往的核武測試和核能/煤/地熱發電.
而醫生已証明人類必須暴露於相當的輻射中才會健康(Low levels of radiation, in fact, act like a vaccine – a small dose of the germ and it stimulates your immune system to protect you against larger doses. The very word “hormesis,” like the word “hormone,” comes from Greek, meaning “to stimulate.”), 如以下新聞影片: 老鼠接受小量輻射竟然証實比較長壽. 歐洲有些人竟認為去有輻射水池浸泡是有益健康! 而在美國Montana Uranium mine 鈾礦內, 有些美國人竟喜歡在內看書吸輻射空氣, 認為會睡得更好更健康(不過是沒有醫學根據的)! 另外醫學証明了每人都要晒太陽來吸引太陽的輻射, 身體才能製造維他命D, 而已你是無法從任何食物中吸取維他命D. 而醫療也用輻射來治癌症了.
1. 1979年, 3月 – 美國工哩島核電廠: 沒人因漏輻射而死亡. 而附近居民所接收的輻射劑量遠低於國際建議規限劑量! 雖然仍然在1996年, 有大概2100件有關因此而失去健康的訴訟, 可是到最後都被判為無真實証據支持!
2. 1986年, 4月- 蘇聯 Chernobyl 核電廠 : 在134嚴重暴露輻射的救火員和工作人員中, 28個於3個月來死亡. 在1987-2004, 另有19人死於其他原因. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/health_impacts.html
最近Pripyat 居民2日後才徹離, 他們每人接受了平均450mSv. 在2006年的世衛對事件的研究報告中, 在那些緊急救援工人中(事件中有用over 600,000 liquidators清潔輻射工作者) 取樣61,000人 作跟進, 所得結果是4.6%死於輻射所引起的疾病, 如腫瘤, 白血病之類. 而這些人接受的輻射劑量為107mSv. 而在1152個由0-14歲Chernobyl 小童在1986-2002年間診斷因此患有甲狀腺癌, 卻有98.8%可以醫好. 另外 There has been no increase attributable to Chernobyl in congenital abnormalities, adverse pregnancy outcomes or any other radiation-induced disease in the general population either in the contaminated areas or further afield. 沒有任何顯示會引起畸形兒童, 不良妊娠的結果! 也沒有其他報告是有關輻射引起其他的疾病(無論是在受污染的地區又或更遠一點的地帶) 事件發生後, 建成了石棺, 而有一組15位工程師和科學家幾年來不停進入石棺內做研究工作, 他們每人累計接受了15,000mSv, 每日每人限制接受50mSV, 沒有人患上輻射病症, 只可以說他們有機會患上癌症而未可知而已.
流行病學會, 根據了二次世界大戰, 日本的Hiroshima 廣島市and Nagasaki長崎市, 取76,000人作出達66年的研究所得, 在這群人, 每人暴露超過5,000mSV. 他們是有好幾百人是因此患癌而死亡. 而根據the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP國際輻射防護委員會)資料所得, 在任何人在任何年齡, 依統計20人暴露於1,000mSv輻射, 則會出現1個人將可能會在以後日子裡死於癌症. 所以也即如果你是那20個人其中一個, 你有5%機率患上癌症. 而且在西方國家統計所得, 有四方之一人口是死於吸煙/飲食/遺傳和強烈陽光之下等等的癌症遠比暴露於高劑量輻射而患癌多出很多陪. 而在1990年 US National Cancer Institute (NCI)美國國家癌症研究所研究所得, 在62個主要的核設施附近所居住的居民並有顯示因此而患上癌症. 此項調查不單在美國, 並且在加拿大和歐洲也得出同樣的答案.
不同國家, 每年平均接獲來自天然資源輻射的劑量, 可以看到Finland芬蘭是輻射最高的國家, 可是全球最長壽最健康的人口是在芬蘭! 在澳洲是全球天然資源輻射最低, 可是是全球人中, 最多人患皮膚癌的!
另外, 在美國來自天然資源輻射是平均劑量為每年3.6mSv, 當然來自不同的地區各異. 而在全球, 最高天然資源輻射的有Ramsar, Iran伊朗 (每年260mSv), Guarapari Beach in Brazil 巴西(每年75 mSv), and Kerala, India印度 (每年75 mSv). 又例如美國的丹佛比起New Orleans新奧爾良來說, 丹佛所受的天然資源輻射高於新奧爾良, 可是癌症卻比新奧爾良小很多.
所以我覺得Professor Barry Brook 說得沒錯:
Low levels of radiation are actually good for you, and insufficient levels are harmful to your health 低劑量的輻射是對你有益, 而不足夠的輻射水平將有害人體健康.
Low levels of radiation, in fact, act like a vaccine – a small dose of the germ and it stimulates your immune system to protect you against larger doses. 低劑量的輻射就如疫苗一樣 – 小量細菌可以刺激你免疫系統來防治大量細菌.
Plants and water only become radioactive when they have radioactive atoms deposited on or in them, or soak them up through the soil. Unlike toxic human-made chemicals that last forever, radioactive atoms decrease continually in number, due precisely to their radioactivity, i.e., tendency to emit particles and gamma rays. 人類自製的化學物劑所做成的環境污染是永遠不滅的, 就只有輻射是自己 decay (falling apart) 分崩離析, 慢慢消失於無形(愈high radioactive atoms高放射性原子, 就愈快釋放能量, 亦即falling apart quickly 就愈快分崩脫離, 比喻它的whole life是10個鐘, 可是當原子剩下原來的一半時(half life) 是只用了1個鐘去decay, , 再1個鐘後, 原子decay就加倍減慢, 可能是原本剩下的2分之一的6分之一. 再1個鐘頭後, 就是之前鐘頭剩下的8分之一….直至為零為止) . 請看下圖: Uranium-238 Radioactive Decay Chain放射性衰變鏈: 鈾-238在24.5天內分離成為thorium-234, 又在1.14 分鐘內分崩而成protactinium-234…….直至140日後成為穩定的lead鉛-206. 以下就是各種元素的decay 表, 也即是說, uranium 238 經24.5日的decay 後成為 thorium –234. 當然radon-222就沒有uranium 238 放射性高了. 備註2.
The more radioactive the element, the shorter lived is its radiation. So iodine-131 and cesium-137 found in the Japanese vegetables and water supply are decaying away as we speak. I-131 has a half life of 8 days, meaning that every 8 days the amount of radiation from it decreases by half. In one month it is down by a factor of 16 and in two months by a factor of 256, and so on. Cs-137 is longer lived, with a half life of 30 years, but by the same token, atom for atom, it is far less radioactive, by a factor of almost 1,400. It is not clear yet that any of this radioactive contamination is at all harmful to anyone. It may still be within the beneficial hormetic range and below the threshold for harm. The contamination of truth by fear, however, is most definitely harmful.
所以Professor Barry Brook 說了在日本的蔬菜和海水發現了 iodine-131 & cesium-137 這兩種元素, 將會decay 快到就如我們談話般! 看看以上兩個表就知道了! 我不用多說了吧!
所以, 對輻射是不須要特別的害怕, 而在福島事件中, 給我對核能更有信心了, 因為幾個人受輻射, 竟然全球人類都關注如此! 比起在千葉煉油庫受地震爆炸火燒, 死了那12人, 10日才救熄了, 10日噴出的毒氣在空氣之中, 排出的二氧化煤之高, 那些綠黨反而沒有人去示威??!!
看看墨西哥灣漏油事件, 一年後, 靠那裡海產為生的人, 仍然不能再靠海為生! 又單美國的煤礦意外死亡是10萬人了, 中國因燒煤而引至的肺癌是成千累萬的. 那些人就攪鬼理了.
漏輻射立即疏散, 菜和牛奶立即不準進口, 試問有什麼 power generation industry accident 會嚴格小心如此?? 所以我更信任了核能, 因為一有意外, 很多不同的核能協會去幫手解決問題, 美國, 法國也派專業人員去幫忙! 我覺得沒有什麼技術比此更安全不過了. 而且輕一事, 長一智, 肯定核能愈來愈安全!
究竟害怕輻射的人有多人認識現代核能技術? 有多少人認識了什麼是輻射? 我不是核能專家! 我都是在3-4星期去尋根究底! 我只是無法相信了日本/法國這兩大國為了解決能源而置人民於死地, 也無法相信那麼多科學家那麼努力去發展也無法相信那麼多科學家那麼努力去發展核能科技只是為了一己的榮耀!! 那是為了什麼? 是因為renewable energy is such a trivial small contribution to the energy required to produce our most essential commodities like steel, aluminum, copper cement and a vast array of other metals and maof other metals and materials without which our current lifestyle could not be maintained. Nuclear power would give us the energy we currently need without damaging the atmosphere of this world. 對的, 我是希望更多人去再重新認識這種科技! 才不致地球因才不致地球因暖化而提早毀滅!!
2. 有關decommissiong cost 核能退役成本: 在最近的 world nuclear association 網頁中可找到以下一段:
Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.
亦即說核電廠成本只是 美元0.1-0.2 分/kWh, 不到5%的電力生產成本!
3. 有關將所有用於核電上的補助金用於再生能源(太陽能, 風能, 浪能, 潮能, 地熱…)上: 我在上一篇博文已經提過了：
再看以上成本表, 很明顯核能的建設成本和產量跟煤礦相近的 (當然你會說那不如選自然氣喇, 建設成本跟核能差不多, 但產量最高啊!!! 可是啊, 散放出最多CO2的是棕煤, 隨著是黑煤, 排第3是自然氣. 舉例來說以10層樓來計, 棕煤是在10樓, 黑煤在9樓, 自然氣則在8樓了. 可是核能則會是0樓地下.).
以下是George Monbiot 的訪問:
One of the world’s leading environmental writers, George Monbiot, joins Lateline to discuss why the Fukushima disaster has convinced him to support nuclear power.
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Here is tonight’s guest. George Monbiot is the author of several books on the environment and writes a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper. He has opposed nuclear power in the past. Since 2009, he’s been neutral on the issue, but that all changed after the Fukushima disaster, but not in the way you might expect. George Monbiot says he now supports nuclear power. To explain why, he joins us now from Oxford.
Thanks for being there.
GEORGE MONBIOT, ENVIRONMENTALIST AND AUTHOR: Thank you, Tony.
TONY JONES: Why have you taken this decision to become an advocate for nuclear power in the light of such a disaster?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, it’s a horrible, traumatic, extremely dangerous thing that’s happening in Fukushima and it’s devastating to the lives of many people living around there. But the extraordinary fact is that no-one has yet received what is believed by scientists to be a lethal dose of radiation. And what has happened is that that power station there has been hit by a force nine earthquake, a major tsunami. Those have exposed a horrendous legacy of corner-cutting, poor design and of course appalling siting on an earthquake zone and all sorts of horrible effects in terms of the necessity for evacuation and the spread of low-level radiation and the rest of it. It’s about the worst possible nuclear catastrophe that you could envisage and it rates very high on the scale of nuclear disasters. And yet even so, the extraordinary case remains that so far – touch wood, and let’s hope very much that this remains the case – no-one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.
And that has forced me, really, to challenge myself and to re-examine my preconceptions and to think, well, this is a nasty technology. I don’t like it at all. But if the result of the great switch-off of nuclear power in Japan, in Germany, possibly in China, possibly the US, possibly in the UK, many other countries in response to this disaster is to move more into coal burning, which already seems to be the case, then we’re talking about moving from a bad technology to a much, much worse one. And faced with a choice between those two options, it has to be nuclear.
TONY JONES: Alright. We’ll come to the other possible alternatives shortly. But first of all, the Fukushima nuclear crisis is far from over. I mean, your initial optimism about no-one getting a fatal dose of radiation still may not be held up. So I’m wondering, did you jump too soon on this?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, of course, things might well change and it may be that some people do receive a lethal dose of radiation, and of course, that would be a terrible and a horrible thing. But, please, let’s look at what will happen if we switch to coal. In fact, countries are switching to coal at the moment. In China alone, 2,300 people a year die in coal mining accidents and tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands die as a result of lung diseases contracted in coal mining. And that’s to say nothing of the very great impacts. We’re talking about many, many thousands, tens of thousands perhaps of people dying as a result of lung diseases contracted through air pollution caused by coal burning. And of course it’s to say nothing of the far greater impact still of climate change.
Now while of course I put renewables way at the top of my list and way above nuclear power and that’s what I want to see being deployed, what is being deployed and what will be deployed if there’s this global nuclear shutdown, this is the reality we face, is a switch to coal and that will cause many more fatalities even than the horrible situation we are seeing in Japan at the moment.
TONY JONES: Alright. Let me just be a devil’s advocate for a while and go through some of the other key arguments against nuclear power. One of the strongest arguments is an economic one that the nuclear power industry privatises its profits while socialising its costs, and one obvious example of that is the huge cost of decommissioning plants. And in particular you’ve got the Sellafield nuclear plant in Britain which is going to cost 70 billion pounds to decommission. That’s taxpayers have to pick up the bill there. So, first of all, take up the economic argument. Can there be a serious economic argument for nuclear power when those hidden costs are in every reactor?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Look, it’s an absolute disgrace. I mean, the failure to prepare for decommissioning, either economically or technically, is absolutely shocking, and the nuclear industry, we’ll they’re a bunch of corner-cutting scumbags. I don’t have any sympathy for them at all. All I’m trying to do here is steer a course between a series of bad options, really. But in terms of the full costs of nuclear power, it probably comes out, most estimates suggest somewhere around four pence per kilowatt hour of electricity generated, which is more expensive than fossil fuel, probably comparable, slightly more expensive than large-scale wind, but cheaper than some other renewable technologies. It comes sort of about two thirds of the way up the scale, as far as we can see. It’s not cheap, it’s not wildly expensive either, but it is of course a low-carbon source of electricity.
Now if you were to look at the decommissioning costs of coal burning, for example, you will find because they include climate change and the enormous costs of adaptation to climate change, to the carbon dioxide produced by coal as a by-product of that industry, you will find they dwarf those of nuclear power by many, many times. And I just cannot emphasise this enough: that if we’re switching from nuclear to coal, as many governments, like Germany’s, are doing right now, then that is a disastrous move which will incur far greater costs, environmental, humanitarian and economic, upon the world.
TONY JONES: I’m just going to stick with the costs of nuclear power for a moment, because as we know from the experience in the United States, I mean, tremendous subsidies and loan guarantees, federal loan guarantees have been put in to make sure these nuclear power stations are actually built. They get much higher subsidies, they have in the past, than renewable energies. In Asia, economists estimate that the 110 new nuclear reactors that are going to be built in the next 10 to 20 years are going to be subsidised to the tune of $180 billion. I mean, if those kind of subsidies were put into renewable energies, wouldn’t that create a different playing field?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well I couldn’t agree more, and of course I would love to see that happening. But the situation right now – and I’m sorry to keep coming back to this, but this is a key point and it’s absolutely critical for environmentalists to grasp – is that we’re talking about a switch not from nuclear to renewables. We’re talking about a switch from nuclear to coal. And coal is subsidised by all of us in the form of the costs that we must carry for the climate change and the polluting effects, not to mention the deaths and injuries that it inflicts.
Now, I completely agree: I would love to see that transfer of subsidy from nuclear to renewables, but there’s a limit to how far we can roll out renewables if we’re also going to have to replace nuclear as well as replacing fossil fuels. We’re talking about a steep hill to climb already at the best of times. So, in other words, we’re talking about renewables replacing fossil fuel electricity production, replacing liquid transport fuel and replacing heating fuels, gas and oil, in people’s homes. That’s certainly what we’re calling for right across Europe as an environmental movement.
If they’re also to replace nuclear power and planned nuclear power, well that makes it a very tall order and it makes our task a lot tougher. And I think our priority has got to be to kick fossil fuels out of the picture and only then do we start to look at whether renewables can also remove the need for nuclear power. Because it’s just – it’s all a matter of getting our priorities in the right scale. I don’t like nuclear power. I think it’s a horrible technology, but I recognise that there’s some far more horrible technologies which will and are replacing it as a result of the nuclear shutdown.
TONY JONES: Now, there’s argument in this country that we certainly need a transitional technology to replace coal, particularly dirty, brown coal-fired power stations and deliver baseload power at lower emissions. The best option that’s been come up with here by economists and by the Government is a switch to natural gas-fired power. Now that does deliver electricity at far lower emissions than coal. Why isn’t that the alternative, the transitional alternative the Europeans are looking at?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, it’s definitely lower than coal. It’s far, far higher than either nuclear or renewables, and it is in fact far too high if we’re to achieve anything like the climate change cuts, the carbon cuts required to prevent very dangerous levels indeed of climate change – two, three, four degrees of global warming or more. We cannot afford to switch from coal to gas. We have to switch from coal to a much lower emitting technology and that means either renewables, which come …
TONY JONES: Yes, but George Monbiot, just to – if I could just interrupt you there. I mean, you just made the case that the Europeans are going from – well, you believe they’re going to go from nuclear to coal. I mean, why not go to gas as a transitional measure, because the industry claims 70 per cent lower greenhouse emissions than existing coal-fired power stations, brown coal-fired power stations? That is a big reduction. That’s bigger than many of the targets that are envisaged by most countries.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Sure. Yeah, but it’s still many times the emissions produced by nuclear power. So, to go from nuclear to gas rather than from nuclear to coal does not solve the problem. It means you’re going from – in terms of climate change, from a low-emitting technology to a high-emitting one as opposed to an extremely high-emitting one, going from nuclear to gas rather than nuclear to coal. That’s not solving the problem, that’s going in quite the opposite direction. It’s actually increasing the extent of the climate change problem, but not by as much as it would be if you switched to coal.
TONY JONES: Except now from the Japanese case we see very clearly, although it was a disaster driven by a tsunami which is quite unusual, but we see the dangers of siting nuclear reactors anywhere near earthquake zones. And of course, both in Indonesia and in China, which are planning to build many more nuclear reactors, there are serious earthquake zones and issues like that are going to arise. And I’m wondering, why do you trust the Chinese and the Indonesians, for example, to do a better job than the Japanese, who have a high level of technical expertise?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Hey, look, I don’t trust anyone when it comes to large-scale energy production of any kind, and I think the only safeguard is total transparency, everything to be above board, things to be very rigorously inspected indeed and the precautionary principle to be applied. And, yes, you’re quite right: we should not be building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones.
TONY JONES: But that is the serious problem, because there are nuclear reactors built in earthquake zones in the United States. There are proposals to build them in earthquake zones in China and Indonesia, and yet still, I would imagine, you’re arguing those reactors should go ahead.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, it depends what risk you’re looking at. I mean, if you’re looking at an area of serious seismicity, then that – obviously that’s a very stupid place to put a nuclear reactor. So, no, I would not support that decision. But China and the US for instance are very big places and there are plenty of places on those land masses which aren’t in earthquake zones and where – or certainly not anything resembling a major earthquake which could cause the sort of situation we’ve seen in Japan and I don’t see why they can’t talk about putting them there rather than in the earthquake zones.
TONY JONES: OK, George Monbiot, as usual, you’ve given us plenty to think about. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and join us on Lateline tonight.
備注1: 事實輻射包含兩種不同的特性, 一種是ionizing, 另一種是non-ionizing. 而ionizing輻射是最能影響人類身體的. 再講深入一點, ionizing 輻射又包含了幾種不同的輻射: alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic ratdiation & neutrons等. 而我們一般用的儀器可以測量到的輻射是以sievert(Sv)來計量卻只可以是一種輻射安全指標而已! 因為同量的neutrons 和 gamma 的輻射卻帶給人體不同的影響的.
備註2. 更進一步資料: 我在網上找到 Gia’s Blog (原來她是 Professor Brian Cox 的太太) 所寫的 Half-Term Half-Life 比較易明白好多.
以上是初稿, 因為我要放假了, 百忙之中寫的!!