核能發電不是解決氣候變遷問題的答案，而是開啟潘朵拉災難的盒子！
Pandora’s False Promises Busting The Pro-Nuclear Propaganda
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2013/08/pandoras-false-promises-busting-pro.html
（翻譯： Ada Chou）
❒ Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil-fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition.
核能電廠，無論是何種反應爐設計，無法即時阻止氣候變遷的問題。要有效大量減少排碳能源的使用，至少要在全球現有的核電廠之外，再新建1,000 ~ 1,500座發電量10億瓦以上的核反應爐，並且要在2050年之前全部上線發電、供電。這是完全做不到的主張。
❒ So-called “Generation IV” reactor designs, including “fast” or “small modular reactors,” are the last gasp of a failing industry. Earlier versions of the fast breeder reactor were commercial failures and safety disasters. The ever soaring costs make nuclear power a financial quagmire for investors, and expensive new prototypes commercially unattractive.
所謂的「第四代」核反應爐設計，包括「快」與「小」的模塊化反應爐機組，是失敗中的核電產業最後喘的一口氣。先前的「快中子增殖反應爐」是商業失敗案例與安全災難。不斷飆漲的成本是核電產業投資人的爛泥沼；新款反應爐原型的研發昂貴，而且不具商業化誘因。
❒ Proponents of the Integral Fast Reactor, such as those in Pandora’s Promise, overlook the exorbitant costs; proliferation risks; that it is decades away from deployment; that it would not so much consume radioactive waste as theoretically transmute it; and that its use of sodium as a coolant can lead to fires and explosions.
「整合式快中子增殖反應爐」的支持者，就如那些「潘朵拉的承諾」者，忽視核電高昂的成本、核武擴散、必須花幾十年的時間才能達到減碳的目的、無法如理論性預期的使核廢料蛻變成不具輻射能和使用鈉為冷媒會導致起火與爆炸等問題。
❒ The continued daily use of nuclear energy means continued risk of radiation exposure to surrounding populations. Ionizing radiation released by nuclear power plants, either routinely or in large amounts after an accident, causes cellular damage and mutations in DNA, which in turn can lead to cancers and other illnesses. Children are particularly vulnerable and their leukemia rates have been shown to rise the closer they live to an operating nuclear power reactor.
繼續使用核能發電代表繼續使核電廠周圍的人口曝露在輻射的風險中。核電廠例行釋放或是意外事件大釋放出的電離輻射導致細胞損傷與基因突變，進而導致癌症與其他相關疾病。特別是兒童所受的傷害更大。研究資料顯示居住越靠近運轉的核電廠的兒童，白血病例越高。
❒ Low-ball health predictions after nuclear accidents are not reliable. The 2005 IAEA/WHO Chernobyl report has been discredited for suppressing key data to justify low death predictions that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. IAEA has a conflict of interest with a mandate to promote nuclear technology. Given the latency period of cancers caused by radiation exposure, it is too soon to predict the long-term health impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, although some health effects are already being observed.
核災後的健康影響低估預測是不可靠的。2005年國際原子能機構IAEA與世界衛生組織WHO所發表的車諾比核災報告被指控是特意隱藏重要數據，以支持該報告所稱的低死亡率，是經不起科學檢視的報告。國際原子能機構IAEA的成立目的是為了促進核能的使用，在任何健康影響報告上有利益衝突的問題。考慮到輻射致癌，而癌症病發有潛伏期的因素，現在要對福島核災導致的長期健康影響做預測是過早的，雖然現在已經觀察到若干健康影響的症狀。
❒ The alleged “failure” of renewable energy sources to supplant coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas in the US is less a technological defect than a result of the enormous lobbying power of the traditional energy industries. In 2008, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) spent $2,360,000 lobbying Congress, their highest tally to date. This political barrier flies in the face of numerous studies that show wind and solar energy alone could produce orders of magnitude more electricity than currently used by US consumers and industry.
一般聲稱的輔助燃煤、石油、核能與天燃氣發電的再生能源發展失敗，在美國並非技術問題，而是傳統能源產業強大的游說力量限制了再生能源的發展。2008年，核能研究所NEI花了236萬美元游說美國國會，是核能研究所有史以來花費最高紀錄。這樣的政治障礙是活生生的發生在各研究數據都顯示光是結合風力和太陽能發電就能發出足以供應全美國一般消費者與產業用電量的好幾倍。
❒ The example of Germany — and numerous studies — demonstrate that both coal and nuclear can be phased out in favor of renewable energy. The German renewable energy sector already employs 380,000 people compared to 30,000 in the nuclear energy sector.
德國的例子與其他無數的研究顯示燃煤與核電能夠同時被廢止停用，而以再生能源取代之。德國的再生能源產業提供了38萬個就業機會，相對於核電產業僅提供了3萬個就業機會。
❒ The argument that only nuclear provides “carbon-free,” base load energy is out of date. Geothermal and offshore wind energy are capable of delivering reliable base load power with a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear energy. Energy efficiency is also an essential component in displacing nuclear and coal.
「核電提供零碳基礎負載能源」的論述是過時的說法。地熱與離岸風力發電足以提供比核電更少碳足跡的基礎負載能源。能源效率也是替換燃煤與核能發電不可少的考量因素。
❒ Myths about the French nuclear program abound. Only 4% of the country’s high-level radioactive waste has been vitrified and stored. Given its 80% dependency on nuclear power, when droughts and heat waves force reactors to power down or close, France has no other options and is forced to import electricity. France has an enormous, unsolved waste problem with no repository; a huge extra expense due to its misadventure with fast breeder reactors; and a radiological legacy from its 210 abandoned uranium mines which continue to pollute the environment today.
有關法國核電的迷思有很多。法國的高階核廢料只有4%被玻璃化儲存。法國80%仰賴核能發電，當乾旱與熱浪襲擊時，核反應爐被迫關機停擺，法國只有靠進口電力維生。法國有超級大量、未解決的核廢料問題，包括找不到永久儲存址、因為實驗「快中子增殖反應爐」而累積的巨額費用、以及法國境內210個廢棄鈾礦區「輻射遺產」持續污染環境的問題。
❒ There is no such thing as a “pro-nuclear environmentalist.” Environmentalists do not support extractive, non-sustainable industries like nuclear energy, which poisons the environment; releases cancer-causing radioactive elements; creates radioactive waste deadly for thousands of years and, if there is an accident, can render vast areas permanent sacrifice zones.
「支持核能的環保份子」這種東西是不存在的。環保份子不支持使用抽出物、無法永續的產業，例如核電產業。核電產業毒害環境、釋放致癌的輻射物質、製造遺害萬年的輻射廢料，而且如果發生意外事件將會導致廣大地區成為核電的永久犧牲區。
A publication of:
Beyond Nuclear, 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400,Takoma Park, MD 20912. Tel: 301.270.2209. Info@BeyondNuclear.org. www.BeyondNuclear.org May 2013.
Pandora’s False Promises Busting The Pro-Nuclear Propaganda
http://nuke6.blogspot.com/2013/08/pandoras-false-promises-busting-pro.html
（翻譯： Ada Chou）
❒ Nuclear power, no matter the reactor design, cannot address climate change in time. In order to displace a significant amount of carbon-emitting fossil-fuel generation, another 1,000 to 1,500 new 1,000+ Megawatt reactors would need to come on line worldwide by 2050, a completely prohibitive proposition.
核能電廠，無論是何種反應爐設計，無法即時阻止氣候變遷的問題。要有效大量減少排碳能源的使用，至少要在全球現有的核電廠之外，再新建1,000 ~ 1,500座發電量10億瓦以上的核反應爐，並且要在2050年之前全部上線發電、供電。這是完全做不到的主張。
❒ So-called “Generation IV” reactor designs, including “fast” or “small modular reactors,” are the last gasp of a failing industry. Earlier versions of the fast breeder reactor were commercial failures and safety disasters. The ever soaring costs make nuclear power a financial quagmire for investors, and expensive new prototypes commercially unattractive.
所謂的「第四代」核反應爐設計，包括「快」與「小」的模塊化反應爐機組，是失敗中的核電產業最後喘的一口氣。先前的「快中子增殖反應爐」是商業失敗案例與安全災難。不斷飆漲的成本是核電產業投資人的爛泥沼；新款反應爐原型的研發昂貴，而且不具商業化誘因。
❒ Proponents of the Integral Fast Reactor, such as those in Pandora’s Promise, overlook the exorbitant costs; proliferation risks; that it is decades away from deployment; that it would not so much consume radioactive waste as theoretically transmute it; and that its use of sodium as a coolant can lead to fires and explosions.
「整合式快中子增殖反應爐」的支持者，就如那些「潘朵拉的承諾」者，忽視核電高昂的成本、核武擴散、必須花幾十年的時間才能達到減碳的目的、無法如理論性預期的使核廢料蛻變成不具輻射能和使用鈉為冷媒會導致起火與爆炸等問題。
❒ The continued daily use of nuclear energy means continued risk of radiation exposure to surrounding populations. Ionizing radiation released by nuclear power plants, either routinely or in large amounts after an accident, causes cellular damage and mutations in DNA, which in turn can lead to cancers and other illnesses. Children are particularly vulnerable and their leukemia rates have been shown to rise the closer they live to an operating nuclear power reactor.
繼續使用核能發電代表繼續使核電廠周圍的人口曝露在輻射的風險中。核電廠例行釋放或是意外事件大釋放出的電離輻射導致細胞損傷與基因突變，進而導致癌症與其他相關疾病。特別是兒童所受的傷害更大。研究資料顯示居住越靠近運轉的核電廠的兒童，白血病例越高。
❒ Low-ball health predictions after nuclear accidents are not reliable. The 2005 IAEA/WHO Chernobyl report has been discredited for suppressing key data to justify low death predictions that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. IAEA has a conflict of interest with a mandate to promote nuclear technology. Given the latency period of cancers caused by radiation exposure, it is too soon to predict the long-term health impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, although some health effects are already being observed.
核災後的健康影響低估預測是不可靠的。2005年國際原子能機構IAEA與世界衛生組織WHO所發表的車諾比核災報告被指控是特意隱藏重要數據，以支持該報告所稱的低死亡率，是經不起科學檢視的報告。國際原子能機構IAEA的成立目的是為了促進核能的使用，在任何健康影響報告上有利益衝突的問題。考慮到輻射致癌，而癌症病發有潛伏期的因素，現在要對福島核災導致的長期健康影響做預測是過早的，雖然現在已經觀察到若干健康影響的症狀。
❒ The alleged “failure” of renewable energy sources to supplant coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas in the US is less a technological defect than a result of the enormous lobbying power of the traditional energy industries. In 2008, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) spent $2,360,000 lobbying Congress, their highest tally to date. This political barrier flies in the face of numerous studies that show wind and solar energy alone could produce orders of magnitude more electricity than currently used by US consumers and industry.
一般聲稱的輔助燃煤、石油、核能與天燃氣發電的再生能源發展失敗，在美國並非技術問題，而是傳統能源產業強大的游說力量限制了再生能源的發展。2008年，核能研究所NEI花了236萬美元游說美國國會，是核能研究所有史以來花費最高紀錄。這樣的政治障礙是活生生的發生在各研究數據都顯示光是結合風力和太陽能發電就能發出足以供應全美國一般消費者與產業用電量的好幾倍。
❒ The example of Germany — and numerous studies — demonstrate that both coal and nuclear can be phased out in favor of renewable energy. The German renewable energy sector already employs 380,000 people compared to 30,000 in the nuclear energy sector.
德國的例子與其他無數的研究顯示燃煤與核電能夠同時被廢止停用，而以再生能源取代之。德國的再生能源產業提供了38萬個就業機會，相對於核電產業僅提供了3萬個就業機會。
❒ The argument that only nuclear provides “carbon-free,” base load energy is out of date. Geothermal and offshore wind energy are capable of delivering reliable base load power with a smaller carbon footprint than nuclear energy. Energy efficiency is also an essential component in displacing nuclear and coal.
「核電提供零碳基礎負載能源」的論述是過時的說法。地熱與離岸風力發電足以提供比核電更少碳足跡的基礎負載能源。能源效率也是替換燃煤與核能發電不可少的考量因素。
❒ Myths about the French nuclear program abound. Only 4% of the country’s high-level radioactive waste has been vitrified and stored. Given its 80% dependency on nuclear power, when droughts and heat waves force reactors to power down or close, France has no other options and is forced to import electricity. France has an enormous, unsolved waste problem with no repository; a huge extra expense due to its misadventure with fast breeder reactors; and a radiological legacy from its 210 abandoned uranium mines which continue to pollute the environment today.
有關法國核電的迷思有很多。法國的高階核廢料只有4%被玻璃化儲存。法國80%仰賴核能發電，當乾旱與熱浪襲擊時，核反應爐被迫關機停擺，法國只有靠進口電力維生。法國有超級大量、未解決的核廢料問題，包括找不到永久儲存址、因為實驗「快中子增殖反應爐」而累積的巨額費用、以及法國境內210個廢棄鈾礦區「輻射遺產」持續污染環境的問題。
❒ There is no such thing as a “pro-nuclear environmentalist.” Environmentalists do not support extractive, non-sustainable industries like nuclear energy, which poisons the environment; releases cancer-causing radioactive elements; creates radioactive waste deadly for thousands of years and, if there is an accident, can render vast areas permanent sacrifice zones.
「支持核能的環保份子」這種東西是不存在的。環保份子不支持使用抽出物、無法永續的產業，例如核電產業。核電產業毒害環境、釋放致癌的輻射物質、製造遺害萬年的輻射廢料，而且如果發生意外事件將會導致廣大地區成為核電的永久犧牲區。
A publication of:
Beyond Nuclear, 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400,Takoma Park, MD 20912. Tel: 301.270.2209. Info@BeyondNuclear.org. www.BeyondNuclear.org May 2013.
Comments