核电站安全吗（二）? [美国媒体]

Are nuclear power plants safe?

核电站安全吗（二）?



——3——

Robert Gauthier,Nuclear energy is one of the great scientific discoveries of the past century
Thereis no such thing as "safe energy." You’d be asking for gasolinethat doesn’t burn. Just as a reminder: seven workers were injured — one withthird-degree burns over 90% of his body — in Myrna, Georgia, in an explosion ina coal-fired power plant. A cleaning chemical interacted with coal dustand caused ignition. The press made no big deal of the coal-dustaccident, nor does anybody normally write blaring headlines about hundreds ofcoal-mine accidents, refinery accidents, oil-well accidents, and natural gasexplosions that regularly kill or maim the people who work to deliver energy tous.
Nothing that involves a high concentration of energy and a low concentrationcan ever be completely safe. Energy is the ability to do work, and it may end updoing work you don't want it to do. Now here's the real problem: You feel youhave been lied to, that somebody promised you breeder reactors are completelysafe, or that other kinds of reactors are completely safe or something. Well,somebody lied to you all right, when they told you that any powergeneration could ever be completely safe.
Read up on 'loss of blade' accidents for windmills, dam failures for hydro, andhow coal releases radiation (lots of it) and other toxins (lots of them). Readup on what chemical compounds are used in solar cells, or just how hot a commercialsterling solar engine is at the mirror's focal point. Look at the politicalconsequences of breeders, but also at the political consequences of theexisting fuel oil demand. Look at the environmental consequences of nuclear,but also at the environmental consequences of big oil. Find out how even waveand tide, if scaled up to produce tens or hundreds of gigawatts, meansthousands of small boat accidents a year, and probably many aquatic specieswill inevitably become extinct and whole ecologies will likely follow. For anypower source, read up on where it is to be located, and the human costs ofsending the power to where it is to be used.

没有所谓的“安全能源”。只有不会燃烧的汽油才符合你的答案。。
提醒一下:乔治亚州麦那市一家燃煤发电厂发生爆炸，造成7名工人受伤，其中一人全身90%以上被三级烧伤。一种清洁化学品与煤尘相互作用而引起着火。媒体对煤尘事故不以为然，也没有人会对数百起煤矿事故、炼油厂事故、油井事故和天然气爆炸等经常造成向我们输送能源的工作人员伤亡或致残的新闻头条进行大肆报道。

任何涉及高浓度和低浓度的能量都不可能是完全安全的。能量是做功的能力，它最终可能会做你不希望它做的工作。现在真正的问题是:你觉得你被骗了，有人向你保证增殖反应堆是完全安全的，或者其他类型的反应堆是完全安全的。
阅读有关风车“叶片脱落”事故、水电大坝故障以及煤炭如何释放辐射(大量)和其他毒素(大量)的文章。了解一下太阳能电池中使用的化学成分，或者了解一下商用的斯特林太阳能发动机在镜子的焦点处有多热。看看增殖反应堆的政治后果，也看看现有燃料油需求的政治后果。

看看核能对环境的影响，也看看石油巨头对环境的影响。如果海浪和潮汐的规模扩大到几千万或几亿瓦，这意味着每年有成千上万的小船发生事故，可能许多水生物种将不可避免地灭绝，整个生态系统也可能随之灭绝。
对于任何电源，请仔细了解它的位置，以及将电力发送到要使用的地方的人力成本。

Martin Roberts, worked atThomson Reuters
UpdatedApr 22, 2014
We needto consider the risks over time and whether they are worth taking.
For me, the most important point is that nuclear power produces waste whichremains toxic for an unimaginably long time. When I studied engineering, thetime deemed long enough for storing waste was 10 half-lives. Plutonium-239,which is a common by-product of nuclear reactors, has a half-life of 24,000years and thus needs to be contained for 240,000.
Even if -- and it's the biggest of "ifs" -- it can be contained forsuch a time, then I submit that it is a terrible legacy to bequeath tocountless future generations. Think about it: it needs to be kept almost 100times longer than the Great Pyramid of Giza has been around.
One of the problems entailed in hazardous waste is the"decommisioning" of nuclear plants at the end of their working lives.In the case of the UK Sellafield plant, the government's audit office does notknow how long this will eventually take or cost, but they currently estimate 67billion pounds ($112 billion) over the next hundred years. This, bythe way, needs to be factored in to calculations of how much nuclear powercosts and, yes, the taxpayer will bear the burden.
One answer here says we should not talk of "waste". Semantics aside,this brings me to my second point because I do of course realise that Pu-239can be re-used -- in nuclear warheads, and that does not make me feel safe. Letus not forget that this is why many nuclear reactors were built in the firstplace.
I take the point that we would all be better off not mining or burning coal --although the statistics are questionable -- but two wrongs don't make a rightand this brings me to my third point: we don't need coal or nuclear, becausethere are alternatives to generating electricity by boiling water.
Even if I concede the point -- purely for argument's sake -- that plutonium andother radioactive materials can be handled carefully, then I will say: why botherusing materials which need such careful handling and to be stored for 240,000years? Why bother building plants which take a century or more to decommissionand cost humungous amounts of money? Why run the risk of nuclear weaponsproliferation?
I was taught that engineering solutions need to be simple, and renewables posenothing like any of these problems. In Spain (where I live), renewablesprovided 42% of electricity needs last year, or twice as much as nuclear power.Of course, technical hurdles remain before we can get that up to 100%, but wehave made huge strides.
(Appendix to original posting)
One great advantage to renewables is that they do not require fuel in theconventional sense, so neither do we have to worry about mining, processing,handling or waste, let alone decommissioning or WMD proliferation.
As an example of what I mean, it is relatively simple and quite safe to installsolar panels on rooftops in many parts of the world, where sunlight offers avast and -- as yet -- largely untapped resources. The same cannot be said fornuclear reactors.
This, incidentally, is another advantage to many renewables; the generation isdecentralised and is suitable for poor countries without power grids and adispersed rural population.
Apologies for skipping over many issues for the sake of brevity, and pleaseanyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



(原帖附录)

可再生能源的一个巨大优势是，它们不需要传统意义上的燃料，因此我们也不必担心采矿、加工、处理或浪费，更不必担心退役或大规模杀伤性武器的扩散。举个例子，在世界上许多地方，在屋顶上安装太阳能电池板相对简单，也相当安全。在这些地方，阳光提供了大量的——迄今为止——尚未开发的资源。核反应堆的情况就不一样了。
顺便说一句，这是许多可再生能源的另一个优势：这种发电方式是分散式的，适用于没有电网和农村人口分散的贫穷国家。
为了简洁起见，对于（我）跳过了许多问题表示歉意，如果我错了，请大家随时纠正我。

Joseph Boyle
Apr 21, 2014 · 1 upvote
Longer-lived means lower radiation as the same energy is spread outover a longer period. The long-lived products have less radioactivity than theoriginal uranium ore.

更长的寿命意味着更低的辐射，因为相同的能量分布在更长的时间内。这些长寿产品的放射性比原来的铀矿要小。

Martin Roberts
Apr 21, 2014
Thanks. As to your first point, I am familiar with the mathematicsof exponential decay. As to your second, you are not comparing like with like.
Neither point, however, detracts from anythingI have said.

谢谢。关于你的第一点，我对指数衰减的数学很熟悉。至于你的第二点，你不是在拿同类进行比较。然而，这两点都没有反驳我所说的一切。



Jonathan Swain
Jun6, 2014
No, you have larger scale immediate issues with the pollutionassociated with mining the materials needed to produce relatively low amountsof energy, which would be environmentally devastating if we globally shifted tocurrent wind and solar technologies for a majority of power generation. Current"green" energy is only green at its end stage.
Nuclear does require longer-term storage ofwaste, but in very small quantities for the amount of power produced, and whileit may remain prudent to handle the "waste" carefully for a very longtime, the seriousness of the threat is greatly diminished in a much shorterperiod of time. Will the landscapes devastated by mining the materials neededfor wind and solar be healed in a short period of time?

不，如果我们全球都转移到风能和太阳能科技来作为主要的能源的话，所谓的绿色能源这种开采资源相对较少的能源恰恰对环境是灾难性的。当前的“绿色”能源其绿色仅仅局限于末端（其他如太阳能板的生产都是高污染的）。
核能确实需要较长时间的废料储存，但就发电量而言，需要的废料数量非常少，而且在很长一段时间内，谨慎处理“废料”可能仍是审慎的做法。威胁的严重性在短得多的时间内就大大降低了。开采风能和太阳能所需要的材料所破坏的土地会在短时间内得到修复吗?

————4————

Scott Carleton, Mechanical/Nuclear Engineer inthe industry since 2008
Answered Jun 8, 2010
Originally Answered: Is nuclear power safe?
Nuclear power is extremely safe. According to the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics it's actually safer then the real estateindustry.
Here's the deal with waste. First off,it isn't waste. 96% of the energy is still left in Spent Nuclear Fuel tobe used at a future time. Here's the other key: Nuclear PowerPlants are the only power plants that sequester ALL of their waste and containit in large steel casks. Contrast this with a coal or natural gas plantwhich dumps its waste into the atmosphere during the course of normal operations.

核能是极其安全的。根据美国劳工统计局的数据，这实际上比房地产行业更安全。
以下是处理肥料的办法。
首先，它不是肥料。百分之九十六的能量仍然留在乏核燃料中，以备将来使用。另一个关键是:核电站是唯一一个将所有垃圾封存在大型钢桶里的发电厂。与此形成对比的是，煤或天然气工厂在正常运行过程中向大气中排放废物。

TracyChou
Jun 8, 2010
What does it mean to be safer than the real estateindustry?

比房地产行业更安全是什么意思?



Scott Carleton
Jan 14, 2013 · 3 upvotes
Thanks for your comment Bob.
Yes, my comment was intended to besuccinct. I apologize if it appeared dismissive but it's intent was toadd perspective.
As Robert Gauthier eloquently put it inanother answer. All forms of power have risks and it's a matter ofcomparing these risks on a level playing field. Commercial nuclearpower's injury per terrawatt produced is still the lowest across the board.
Now as far as your rattlesnakecomparison. Most believe that nuclear power has much more dangerous catastrophicscenarios than it actually does. For instance, most believe that anuclear power plant can explode like an atomic bomb - but this isscientifically/physically impossible.
The worst possible scenario for a nuclearpower plant has already occurred. That would be the Chernobyl accident.However, Chernobyl was of a design that was dismissed immediately at the outsetby every other reactor designer because of it's positive void coefficient andlack of containment which is exactly what led to the disaster. A muchmore likely scenario is what we saw in Fukushima and Three mile island(TMI). Both are financial disasters, but both are what we can andshould expect as far as danger scenarios. They had complete meltdowns,and it was contained as designed and no one in either case died of radiationleakage or directly.

谢谢你的评论，鲍勃。是的，我的评论很简洁。如果这看起来很轻蔑，我道歉，但它的目的是补充观点。
正如罗伯特•高捷在另一个答案中雄辩地指出的那样。所有形式的权力都有风险，这是在一个公平的竞争环境中比较这些风险的问题。商业核能的每瓦发电量的伤害仍然是最低的。
现在来比较一下响尾蛇。大多数人认为，核电的灾难性后果比实际情况严重得多。例如，大多数人认为核电站可以像原子弹一样爆炸，但这在科学上/物理上是不可能的。

核电站最糟糕的情况已经发生了。那就是切尔诺贝利事故。然而，切尔诺贝利的设计一开始就被其他的反应堆设计者所摒弃，因为它是正空泡系数（positive void coefficient ），而且没有安全壳，这正是导致灾难的原因。
更有可能的情况是我们在福岛和三里岛(TMI)看到的情况。这两种情况都是金融灾难，但就危险情况而言，这两种情况都是我们能够也应该预料到的。它们完全熔毁了，并且按照设计被控制住了，在这两种情况下都没有人死于辐射泄漏或直接死亡。



Scott Carleton
Jan 15, 2013 · 2 upvotes
You're right that myresponse is setting up someone to fail in any debate. My view is thatonce you're debating such a complicated point, as we are now, then you'vealready lost because there are too many facets to argue on and few know enoughto counter on every one of them.
Even if one is trying to make a concertedeffort to learn the truth about nuclear power and it's risks, there is so muchmisinformation and FUD on the internet that it's an extraordinary task. Therefore, I view answering a question such as this as more of a publicrelations standpoint. There are those that will dismiss me immediately ofcourse, but those are not the people who's view point I wish to change. Instead, I hope to give a simple sound byte to the folks googling thisquestion. If they choose to go deeper, fantastic.
I'm honestly glad you care enough to call meout on it.

你说得对，我的反应就是要让某人在任何辩论中失败。
我的观点是一旦你在争论一个如此复杂的问题，就像我们现在这样，那么你已经输了，因为有太多的方面需要争论，很少有人知道足够的知识来反驳每一个方面。
即使一个人试图齐心协力去了解核能及其风险的真相，但互联网上有太多的错误信息和落后守旧的人（等于fuddy-duddy），这是一项非同寻常的任务。因此，我认为回答这样一个问题更像是一个公共关系的立场。当然，有些人会立刻否定我，但我并没打算要改变这些人的观点。
我真的很高兴你这么关心我，把我叫出来。

————5————

Negan-Nagant Kimber-G, BA Life Sciences, PennsylvaniaState University (2016)
Upated Dec 23
Nuclear poweris a pivotal debate. Many opponents believe that the use of nuclear power wouldput the global environment at risk. However, proponents argue that nuclearpower is safer and cleaner than other available alternative sources of energy.Contrary to the popular globalist belief that nuclear power-plants arehazardous to the environment and a danger to entire populations, newdevelopments suggest that these issues are no longer a threatening as previoussuggested. There are other movements that favor alternative sources of power,but there are many factors that show that nuclear power may be one of the bestforms of clean energy by comparison. Nations around the globe are activelypursuing alternatives for fossil fuels, but out of any source, nuclear seems tobe the best solution.
There is a global concern of thebuild up of nuclear waste. However, rather than storing this waste forthousands of years, it can also be used as a recyclable fuel source for thenuclear power plants. This is a process commonly referred to as “nuclearrecycling”. This would resolve the growing problem of nuclear waste; as morewaste is recycled, the less radioactive it becomes, and the less time it takesto decay.
Another global concern regardingthe safety of nuclear power is the possibility of a meltdown that couldendanger many lives. However, nuclear technology has progressed tremendouslyover the years to make things much safer for society. Chernobyl, for example,was an obsolete nuclear power plant in today’s era. But today’s nucleartechnology has resolved many of the issues in regards to the possibility offallout. Even as the last nuclear power plants were completed in the latetwentieth century, newer generations of nuclear technology continued indevelopment. If new power plants were created today, these new engineeringimprovements would render current operational nuclear power plants obsolete indesign.
There are also other globalarguments to use other forms of energy; such as solar and wind energy. Unlikenuclear technology, wind is not continuous, and solar power also requires theuse of large quantities of gold and silver. Mining for these elements wouldin-turn can lead to water pollution, habitat loss, and deforestation. Nuclearpower does not have these setbacks; it is continuous and potentially causesless land or water pollution than many other forms of alternative energysources to replace fuel.
Nuclear power has great potentialto be one of the most efficient and clean forms of energy the world has tooffer. The setback is that there has been no major nuclear energy developmentssince the end of the twentieth century. Many improvements have been found bynuclear scientists since that time, but were never used. If more investmentscould be made on the development of new nuclear power plants with these newtechnological breakthroughs, than it can be presumed that more people will seenuclear power as a safe alternative energy to replace fossil fuels.

核能是一场关键的辩论。许多反对者认为核能的使用将使全球环境处于危险之中。然而，支持者认为核能比其他可用的替代能源更安全、更清洁。与普遍的全球主义者认为核电厂对环境有害，对全体人民构成危险的看法相反，新的事态发展表明，这些问题不再象以前所说的那样是一种威胁。还有其他一些倾向于使用替代能源的动向，但有许多因素表明，相比之下，核能可能是最好的清洁能源形式之一。世界各国都在积极寻求化石燃料的替代品，但从任何来源看，核能似乎都是最好的解决方案。

核废料的增加引起了全球的关注。然而，与其将这些废料储存数千年，它还可以作为核电站的可回收燃料来源。这一过程通常被称为“核回收”。这将解决日益严重的核废料问题;随着更多的垃圾被回收，放射性越低，腐烂的时间也就越短。

全球对核电安全的另一个担忧是，可能发生熔毁，危及许多人的生命。然而，多年来核技术取得了巨大进步，使社会更加安全。例如，切尔诺贝利在今天是一个废弃的核电站。但是今天的核技术已经解决了许多关于放射性尘埃可能性的问题。即使最后一批核电站是在20世纪末建成的，新一代的核技术仍在继续发展。如果今天建造新的核电站，这些新的工程改进将使目前运行的核电站在设计上过时。

还有其他一些关于使用其他形式能源的全球争论;比如太阳能和风能。与核技术不同，风能不是连续的，太阳能也需要大量的黄金和白银。开采这些元素反过来会导致水污染、栖息地丧失和森林砍伐。核能没有这些挫折;它是连续的，与许多其他形式的替代能源相比，它潜在地造成的土地或水污染更少。

核能极有可能成为世界上最高效、最清洁的能源之一。挫折在于，自20世纪末以来，没有任何重大的核能发展。从那时起，核科学家发现了许多改进，但从未使用过。如果随着这些新技术的突破，能够在开发新的核电站上投入更多的资金，那么可以想见，将会有更多的人将核能视为一种安全的替代能源来替代化石燃料。

————6————



————7————

ilan Natanzon, Internet Intellectualizer
Answered Jun 7, 2010
Originally Answered: Is nuclear power safe?
No, because technologies and people that use them are notseparate entities.
With every technology there are economic andsocial difficulties. To ensure that nuclear tech is properly handled, properlyengineered, you need to have a concerned citizenry that's capable of enforcingsafety measures.
Chernobyl did not have the right socialorganization around it, so it was engineered and handled poorly. Uranium minescan be in any country and developing countries aren't capable of enforcingsafety measures on them. Even in developed countries like Australia, France andGermany there are noticeable problems with uranium mining, mostly caused byeconomic forces.
An interesting documentary on that is"Uranium Is A Country" http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/u...
Current nuclear technology requires too manythings to go right. A safe technology should be stupid simple to setup safelyand require little or no government oversight to maintain safety. Oversightslowly crumbles against financial motivations.
There are new nuclear technologies indevelopment that are simpler and recycle waste from current nuclear plants. Thecurrent waste has a ~10,000 year half life and after use in new plants it willhave a ~500 year half life. We'll probably be building such powerplants if onlyto ease the nuclear waste problem.
Safety problems can crop up in any industrythat depends on complex engineering, perfect maintenance and economics for it.The airline industry has worn down regulation on regional flights in the USAand safety has suffered as a result. With energy technology few people ever seethe environmental damage, (power-plants and mines are in sparsely populatedareas) which makes it that much easier to get away with it.
Nuclear can be compared with coal and oil init's safety record and engineering and management complexity required tomaintain safety. But compared to solar and wind the old technologies are asafety headache.

不，因为技术和使用它们的人不是独立的实体。
每一项技术都有经济和社会困难。为了确保核技术得到妥善处理，妥善设计，你需要有一个有能力执行安全措施的真正上心的人。
切尔诺贝利周围没有合适的社会组织，所以它的设计和处理都很糟糕。铀矿可能在任何国家，而发展中国家没有能力对它们实施安全措施。即使在澳大利亚、法国和德国等发达国家，铀矿开采也存在明显的问题，主要是由经济力量造成的。
当前的核技术需要太多的东西才能顺利进行。一项安全的技术应该是愚蠢的、简单的、安全的，并且几乎不需要或根本不需要政府的监督来维护安全。
正在开发的新核技术更简单，而且可以回收现有核电站的废料。目前的废弃物有~ 10000年的半衰期，在新厂使用后将有~500年的半衰期。如果只是为了缓解核废料问题，我们可能会建造这样的发电厂。
任何一个依赖复杂工程、完善维护和经济效益的行业都可能出现安全问题。美国航空业已经放松了对地区航班的管制，结果安全受到了影响。随着能源技术的发展，很少有人注意到环境的破坏(发电厂和矿井都在人口稀少的地区)，这使得它更容易逃脱惩罚。

核能在其安全记录、维护安全所需的工程和管理复杂性方面可以与煤和石油相比。但与太阳能和风能这种旧技术相比依然是一个安全难题。

————8————

AntoinePierret,Doctor (Medicine and healthcare), French.
Updated Feb 3, 2018
Nuclear power is really problematic.
However we do not have better alternatives. Fossilfuels are really harmful for the environment and renewable energy doesn’tprovide enough energy to support all our consumption and is way too expensive(For now. But with research maybe it will change in the future). Damned if youdo and damned if you don't.
We don’t have any idea how we’re gonnadeal with all our nuclear trash.
Long story short: For now what we do isbury it and cross our finger that our descendant will find a solution (some ofthat trash will be radioactive for millions of years).
We produce several types of radioactivetrash:
- low radioactive ones: in 300 hundred years they won’t be radioactive anymore.
- Highly radioactive ones: The others. Some have a half life (time necessaryfor half of their radioactivity to vanish) of 2.5 millions years like forneptunium 237. They are the one problematic.
So we keep producing trash that willstay radioactive for millions of years. Since weproduce it faster than it disintegrate, the stock of trash increase each year.Meaningthat keep going on like that would lead to the whole planet covered byradioactive trash at some point. So the plan is to hope ourdescendant will find a solution to deal with our trash + find a better sourceof energy for them.
Plan A: Stock iton the surface. Our descendant will have to rebuild protecting structuresaround them again and again because concrete deteriorates after 120 years.
Plan B:
- t0 : bury those under the ground, mixed up with glass, if possible between 2layers of clay to reduce its contamination of the ground.
- t0 + 300 years: The galleries are too deteriorated, the trash is stuck downthere forever, our descendant can no longer take it back.
- t0 + 4000 years: the steel of their containers will be completely oxidized.Water enters in contact with the glass, dissolving it. The radioactive elementare released in the ground and start to diffuse.
- t0 + 200 000 years: the elements are done crossing the clay layer.
- t0 + 250 000 years: elements arrive at the surface, mixing with our ground,plants that we eat (and that cattle then eaten by us, eat). Bon apétit!
- t0 + 10 000 000 years all the radioactivity has vanished! Party now! Ifthere’s still someone alive on Earth !
Other problem: nuclearcatastrophes: Just look at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Other problem nuclear weaponproliferation: Many countries who develop nuclear energy, developnuclear weapons in the meantime. What a nice perspective, a world full ofcountries who can launch atomic bombs in a word! Especially given all theinstability we find in many countries, and lunatic or dangerous dictators readyto do anything to maintain their regimes!

核能确实是个问题。
然而，我们没有更好的选择。化石燃料真的对环境有害，可再生能源不能提供足够的能源来支持我们所有的消费，而且太贵了(现在。但随着研究的深入，未来可能会有所改变)。做也不是不做也不是。
我们不知道如何处理我们所有的核垃圾。

长话短说:现在我们要做的就是把它埋起来，然后祈祷我们的后代能找到解决办法(其中一些垃圾会有数百万年的放射性)。
我们生产的几种放射性垃圾有:
-低放射性物质:三百年后它们将不再具有放射性。
-高放射性的:其他的。有些有250万年的半衰期(使其一半的放射性消失所必需的时间)，就像镎237的半衰期一样。它们是个麻烦。

所以我们不断地制造垃圾，这些垃圾的放射性会持续几百万年。因为我们生产垃圾的速度比它分解的速度快，所以垃圾的存量每年都在增加。也就是说，如果继续这样下去，整个地球在某个时候就会被放射性垃圾覆盖。所以我们的计划是希望我们的后代能找到一个解决我们的垃圾的方法，为他们找到更好的能源。
方案一:把它放在（地球）表面。我们的后代将不得不一次又一次地重建他们周围的保护结构，因为混凝土在120年后会变质。
方案二：
零年——把它们埋在地下，和玻璃混合，如果可能的话，在两层粘土之间，减少对地面的污染。
零-300年——垃圾永远被埋在那里，我们的后代再也不能把它收回来了。

零-4000年——容器中的钢会被完全氧化。水与玻璃接触，使其溶解。放射性元素被释放到地下并开始扩散。
到20万年：元素穿过粘土层。
到25万年：元素到达地表，与我们的土地混合，我们吃的植物(然后牛被我们吃)。
到1000万年：所有的放射性物质都消失了!现在狂欢吧!如果地球上还有人活着!

-其他问题:核灾难:看看切尔诺贝利或福岛。
-还有核武器扩散的问题：许多发展核能的国家同时也在发展核武器。这是一个多么美好的前景啊，世界上到处都是可以发射原子弹的国家! 尤其考虑到现在这个世界是如此的不稳定！

————9————



————10————

Anonymous
Answered Aug 1, 2017
Originally Answered: How safe are nuclear power plants?
Notsafe at all. Nuclear power plants are ready to melt down if they lose gridpower and the emergency backups fail as 1/3 of them did in tests. NPP areterrorist targets. and far more vulnerable than advertized. You don’t have topenetrate the containment vessels to break the grid connection.
Evey year, every nuclear powerplant requires 2 million tons of toxic mining for fuel. Not just the 27 tons ofuranium. It takes 100,000 times as much as that in mined material. Uranium isrunning short in 2025 according to IAEA data. As it does, more toxic mining isrequired till at about .01%, which mines are getting near to, it takes moreenergy to mine and refine than it will ever produce. Meanwhile the environmentis being destroyed by the toxic mining and many deaths and poisonings happenfrom the mining.
Nuclear power plants constantlyleak tritium and other radioactive isotopes. Several studies have foundelevated cancer rates around nuclear power plants.
We have had several majoritydisasters that have sent radiation around the globe and are calculated to becaused million of deaths using LNT.
But the Nuclear power pr agency:the IAEA, says it’s all safe, and you can’t prove the cancers came from nuclearpower. You can’t prove it. The cancers might have come from something else. TheIAEA is in charge of vetting UN research on radiation deaths and cancers, onfirst responding to nuclear disasters, but they are chartered to promotenuclear power and get industry money as well.
It’s as if the tobaccoInstitute's was in charge of all tobacco related research on health effects.
The AP1000 name is a deception.It meant Advanced passively safe reactor. Well it’s not passive, it’s a rubegoldberg pneumatic system that a flood or earthquakes will demolish.
Anonymous's answer to Why do we need nuclear energy?
The nuclear wastes will be deadlyfor a million years, yet the nuclear pr folks claim it will be kept safely awayfrom people the environment for longer than Homo Sapiens have existed.
If Indian point were to melt downand have a typical hydrogen oxygen explosion like Fukushima, and the windcarried that over NYC, it would kill millions eventually with cancers and otherhealth effects, it would render NYC uninhabitable, it would crash the worldeconomy. All for an expensive old dirty power plant we don’t need anymore.

一点也不安全。如果核电站失去电网电力，应急措施失败，就像其中三分之一的核电站在测试中所做的那样，它们随时可能熔毁。另外核电站是恐怖分子的目标。你不必穿过安全壳（容器）来切断电网连接。
每年，每个核电站都需要200万吨有毒矿物作为燃料。不仅仅是27吨的铀。它消耗的能量是开采的10万倍。与此同时，环境正在被有毒采矿破坏，采矿发生了大量死亡和中毒问题。
核电站经常泄漏氚和其他放射性同位素。几项研究发现，核电站周围的癌症发病率有所上升。我们已经经历了几次主要的灾难，这些灾难已经将辐射发送到世界各地，据估计，使用LNT将导致数百万人死亡。
但是核能公关机构:国际原子能机构称这是安全的，你不能证明癌症来自核能。你无法证明。癌症可能来自其他原因。国际原子能机构负责审查联合国关于辐射死亡和癌症的研究，以及首次应对核灾难的研究，但它们被授权推广核能，并获得行业资金。
核废料将致命100万年，但核公关人员声称，它将安全地远离人类的环境，直至比人类存在的时间都长。
如果印第安角核电站（Indian point ）融化，像福岛那样发生典型的氢氧爆炸，风把它吹过纽约，最终会导致数百万人死于癌症和其他健康问题，它会让纽约变得不适合居住，会让世界经济崩溃。这一切都是为了一个昂贵而又肮脏的发电厂，我们不再需要它了。

————11————



JohnDeever
Jan 12, 2013 · 1 upvote
The PBMR is what we call"old wine in a new bottle."
"In 1985, the experimental THTR-300 PBMRon the Ruhr in Hamm-Uentrop, Germany was also offered as accident proof--withthe same promise of an indestructible carbon fuel cladding capable of retainingall generated radioactivity. Following the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclearreactor accident and graphite fire in Ukraine, the West German governmentrevealed that on May 4, the 300-megawatt PBMR at Hamm released radiation afterone of its spherical fuel pebbles became lodged in the pipe feeding the fuel tothe reactor. Operator actions during the event caused damage to the fuelcladding."

球床反应堆不过是新瓶装旧酒。
——
“1985年，在德国汉姆-乌特洛普的鲁尔河上进行的实验THTR-300 球床反应堆也被作为事故证据——它也做出了相同的承诺，一种坚不可摧的碳燃料包层，能够保留所有产生的放射性。1986年4月26日乌克兰切尔诺贝利核反应堆事故和石墨火灾之后，西德政府透露，5月4日，在哈姆的300兆瓦的球床反应堆的一个球形燃料卵石卡在输送燃料到反应堆的管道中，释放出辐射。原因是操作人员在事故期间的操作对燃料包层造成了损坏。”
另外，在一个40年的运行周期中，一个110兆瓦的球床反应堆将产生250万个辐照燃料元素，这些燃料元素的毒性会持续很长时间。所以你似乎没有回答这个问题。

SteveDenton
Jan 12, 2013
No nuclear reactor will everbe *perfectly* safe - especially when human factors, such as the 'Operatoractions' referred to in your comment, are involved.. But the PBMR is probablythe safest design there is. And I refer you to the other excellent answers onthis thread for a comparison of the toxic byproducts of a nuclear reactorcompared with other forms of energy generation.
Furthermore, I don't know how many nuclearreactors are online in the US, but many countries in Europe (and especiallyFrance) have been operating reactors safely for decades, and supplying asubstantial percentage of their national energy needs from nuclear power. Ifreactors were as unsafe as the anti-nuclear lobby would have us believe, thenthere would have been far more accidents, and of a more serious nature, thanthere in fact have been in that time. As the saying goes, the proof of thepudding is in the eating, and one's perspective on things like nuclear owershould always be based on real-world *facts*, and not fear-drivenhypothesizing..
Oh, and I wouldn't base your perception ofnuclear power on stories coming out of Germany, because the Germans have alwayshad a very vociferous, politically radicalized (read: 'left-wing hippy activismthat is still stuck in the 1970s' :o) ) and somewhat hysterical anti-nuclearlobby that exercises a disproportionate amount of influence on the Gemangovernment's policy-making surrounding energy production.

任何核反应堆都不可能是“完全”安全的——尤其是当涉及到人为因素时，比如你的评论中提到的“操作者行为”。 但是球床反应堆可能是最安全的设计。关于核反应堆的有毒副产品与其他形式的能源生产的比较，我建议你们参考这方面的其他优秀答案。
此外，我不知道美国有多少核反应堆在运行，但欧洲许多国家(尤其是法国)几十年来一直在安全运营核反应堆，它们的国家能源需求很大一部分来自核能。如果反应堆像反核游说团体让我们相信的那样不安全，那么就会发生比当时实际发生的事故多得多、性质更严重的事故。俗话说得好，事实胜于雄辩，一个人对核能等事物的看法应该永远建立在现实世界的“事实”基础上，而不是基于恐惧驱动的假设。
哦，另外，我不会把你对核能的看法建立在来自德国的故事上，因为德国人一直都有一个非常吵闹的，政治上激进的一群人。有些歇斯底里的反核游说团体对德国政府围绕能源生产的决策施加了不成比例的影响。

————

译者注：
译者看多了这类留言，发现无论是支持核电还是反对核电的人都有一些共同特点，那就是以偏概全和有意无意地忽略对方所关注的核心问题。
-支持核电的认为当前的核电机制经过几十年的发展早已今非昔比，非常非常的安全，比煤炭和绿色能源都要安全得多。
-反对核电得的认为核电无论是其副产品还是运作问题，还是人为操作的问题，搞不好都会都会给人类的生存环境造成严重的灾难性的破坏。
其中支持核电的直接无视了反核电中的运作/核废料/人为的问题，单纯只从技术角度谈问题。
然而某种意义上来说之所以发生争论，争议焦点恰恰在于核废料的处理、核电站日常运作、人员操作以及问题解决机制这样的问题上。
反核电的潜台词其实是：我不是不相信技术角度的安全，我是完全不信任以现有人类的管理，人的容错率，以及政客们的坦诚，能让我们正常运营核电站，并在核电站在天灾人祸出现问题的时候也能第一时间告知并拿出完善万无一失的解决方案以平民众的恐慌。
简而言之，我们不相信的是我们当前的社会制度能完美运作核电站。而这是支持核电的人根本无法回答也无法解决的问题。然而，这正是反核电的根源所在。