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.

輻射可由人類活動(human activities) 和天然來源(natural sources)所引起. 而大部份的輻射是來自天然的來源, 包括了地殼上岩石和土壤的輻射; 氡(氡它是一種 放射性，無色，無嗅，無味的惰性氣體. 具放射性，被認為是致癌物質.), 一種放射性氣體由火山岩和鈾礦石; 和宇宙來的輻射. 食物和水. 人類環境是經常受到輻射並且佔高達85%的每年人體輻射劑量.

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.  

土豆:  http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/Iq0syz7zDTA/

過往核能意外事件薄:

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.

日本長崎和廣島原子彈爆炸(備註3):

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.

好了, 我們來看看以下圖表: 

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.

土豆:  http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/6kGM5cIVuWE/

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!!  

5/4/2011修改版

地球變暖,  氣候的極端轉變, 水浸愈來愈厲害, 颱風愈來愈颳得勁. 林區山火愈燒愈廣, 太平洋小島不見了.  海產愈來愈小, 食物又愈種愈小了.  地球變暖,  已經死了多少人了???  除了非洲有每天成千上萬人死於飢荒, 還有那些颳颱風, 水浸和林區大火又死了多少人? 

另外煤礦石油工業每年又死傷多少人呢???

以下是我找到的死亡數字:

Climate-change disasters kill around 300,000 people a year and cause about $125 billion in economic losses, mainly from agriculture, a think-tank led by former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan reported Friday.

1. The Global Humanitarian Forum also estimated that 325 million people are seriously affected by climate change — a number it says will double by 2030, as more people are hit by natural disasters or suffer environmental degradation caused by climate change. 地球變暖, 每年死30萬人, 1千2百50億元經濟損失!  3億2千5百萬人口將受自然災害所影響, 而會在2030年,數字甚至會升倍.

2. Hurricane Katrina 2005 USA, At least 1,836 people died in the actual hurricane and in the subsequent floods,  total property damage was estimated at $81 billion (2005 USD). 美國2005 颱風Katrina 最少死1836人, $810億美元的財物損失.

2010 Pakistan floods affected about 20 million people, mostly by destruction of property, livelihood and infrastructure, with a death toll of close to 2,000. 巴基斯坦水浸 2010: 2000死亡, 2千萬人無家可歸.

more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century. 以往因煤礦意外而死的有10萬人了.

As many as 20000 miners die in accidents each year. 死於煤礦工業意外每年有2萬人.

There are approximately 753 deaths in oil spill accidents  死於石油工業意外有7百5十3人.

(備註: 石油工業不單死人, 看: the oil spill history, the deepwater horizon oil spill and the Oil spill disaster. 它是做成世界最大污染又極難清理的人禍!)

about 200 Liquefied Natural Gass workers were killed in accidents over the past century 以往因液化天然氣工業意外而死亡的有200人了.

Victorian Bushfires 2009 -173 people died and 414 were injured as a result of the fires. The Bushfires Royal Commission gave a "conservative" estimate of the total cost of the Black Saturday bushfires of A$4.4 billion. 澳洲維多利亞省黑色星期6林區大火, 173人死亡, 414人傷,  經濟損失為澳幣 4.4 billion.

然而:

以美國的three mile island 5級漏輻射 無人死亡, 蘇聯的chernobyl 7級漏輻射31死亡, 到現在的福島5級漏輻射無人死亡(至昨31日號為止).  備註1.  

Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources

依上表看來, 煤礦/石油/天然氣等工業意外死亡的人每年是數以千萬計的.  

我之前也提出過(上表)的電力成本表, 依以上看, 緑色(construction建設成本), 橙色(production產量) 黃色(decommissioning退役).  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.).  這是為什麼美國, 法國和日本都專註在核能發展上.  其他如風力, 太陽能和水力, 我覺得他們受較多的限制(比喻, 雲多下雨便沒太陽了, 風不颳就沒有風. 而不下雨又沒有水力)真的不是理想的電力可以供應全球使用!  

在上星期一的3月21日的ABC Four Cornres 節目中, 主持Kerry O'Brien為了福島核電廠因地震和海嘯而爆炸漏輻射的意外而訪問了John Carlson.  這段訪問非常尖銳和精彩, 問題和答案都值得一看:  

土豆: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/vhBDVHtqXtA/

(以下是我很簡單隨意的翻譯, 大家如果英文好的, 最好看影片和以下的英文transcript)

KERRY O'BRIEN: There are huge stakes in play for the world's most powerful governments and for the nuclear power industry, not to mention the public at large, as the full implications of the Fukushima nuclear crisis are becoming clearer.

Resource-poor Japan itself now relies on the nuclear option for one third of its power, a vital part of its economic lifeblood, and South Korea is even more reliant. China has a medium term goal of 15 per cent nuclear power, India is also on the nuclear road, and emerging countries like Vietnam and Indonesia are planning a partly-nuclear future.

America has more than 100 nuclear reactors, most three decades or more old, but after a long hiatus America is now talking about more nuclear power, not less. Europe is heavily committed with 30 per cent on average coming from nuclear - in France it's nearly 80 percent. Meanwhile the environmental movement remains largely anti-nuclear, despite the argument that nuclear has to be part of an effective solution to global warming.

So there have been a lot of vitally interested spectators around the world watching the drama unfold. John Carlson is one of them. For 21 years he headed the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation office and chaired the International Atomic Energy Agency's advisory group on safeguards for five years. He's now a counsellor with the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative and a visiting fellow with the Lowy Institute. I spoke with him from our Washington studio earlier today.

John Carlson, what is your worst fear scenario related to civilian run, or nuclear power plants run for civilian purposes?  民用的核電廠, 什麼情形下會使你最擔心的呢?

JOHN CARLSON, AUST. NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS OFFICE 1989-2010: I think we've just about seen it, Kerry. I can't imagine anything worse happening. People think back to the Chernobyl accident and a number of commentators were predicting that this would be like Chernobyl. The technologies are just so different and the driver for releasing large amounts of radiation simply isn't there with a light water reactors.  我想我們剛看到了, 人們回想起chernobyl 核電廠意外了, 連評論家都認為這跟chernobyl 意外相似, 然而兩者的技術根本是不同, 很明顯日本核電廠用的light water reactors輕水反應堆的驅動器driver 釋放大量輻射是不會存在的.

So I think, basically, we've seen the worst scenario and it's turned out to be not the nightmare that many people thought it could be. That's certainly not to be complacent and clearly there's going to be a lot of work analysing what happened and learning and improving safety systems but I think basically the technology has shown itself to be very robust. 最壞的情況已看到了, 而且並不如很多人想像中的夢魘般.  這當然是不能滿足大家的, 肯定還有更多分析工作的需求, 學習和改變安全系統.  不過, 基本上, 技術上已証明它很堅固的.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Really? You can say that, robust, given the pictures we've seen, the explosions that took place?  可是我們看到它爆炸啊, 什麼可以說成堅固?

JOHN CARLSON: Well, you have to look at in terms of two things - first of all, what was the actual impact on public safety? And secondly, I think in any kind of analysis we do of nuclear energy we have to compare it with other energy sources and the risks and benefits and limitations of other energy sources.  兩事項你要看的 – 1. 什麼是實際地影響了公眾的安全.  2.  我們在做核能任何種類分析時, 都應與其他能源在風險, 優勢和來源限制等去比較的.

I think if you look at nuclear energy purely in isolation you'd probably conclude maybe it's best not to use it, but the fact is there's no perfect way of generating electricity and we have to take an objective look at pros and cons on a comparative basis.  如果你純粹單一只看核能(而不比較其他能源也帶給你災害時), 你很可能認為最好不用它. 可是事實是沒有完美方式去發電的, 而在比較的基礎上, 我們更加應該客觀去看正反兩面.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Even if the environmental exposure to radiation turns out not to be serious in this case, Fukushima does still throw up significant questions, doesn't it? Not least the policing of standards that nuclear power stations around the world, most of them run for profit. 雖輻射仍未做成極大的環境污染, 可是福島事件確實顯露了重要的問題, 不是嗎?  不僅是核電廠有嚴格監察標準在全世界, 但也不可否認這些核電廠也大多數是盈利運作的.

JOHN CARLSON: Any government with a nuclear industry will be looking very closely at the lessons and one of the issues is, is regulation good enough and is there a case for having more international involvements. One of the characteristics of nuclear safety is that it's very much regarded as a national responsibility.  任何政府有核能工業的將會非常關注這些教訓, 一個重要問題是, 是否監察足夠了, 有沒有一個案例是可以讓國際參與?  而一個特點是核能安全是較被視為國家責任.

There's an international convention, there are international standards, so that's quite a number of mechanisms, there's cooperation and experience sharing and peer review and so forth, but at the end of the day, it's a national responsibility. I think maybe it's time to think a bit more about that. 對的, 是有國際會議, 是有國際標準, 是有頗多機制的了, 也有合作經驗分享, 和同行評審等等, 但最終, 這仍是國家的責任.  我想也許是時候我們要考慮更多了.

KERRY O'BRIEN: We've just recently witnessed the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster where an independent presidential inquiry found that BP had put money before safety. Why would you expect the nuclear industry to be any different where the profit motive is at stake? It's true isn't it that the bad practice of one company or of even a government could potentially lead to a nuclear calamity? 在最近墨西哥灣BP事件中, 已証明了他們為了錢而莫視人命安全了, 難道你可以期望核能工業在謀利動機下會與他們不一樣嗎?  事實証明, 在這歪風之下, 很難保一間公司, 甚至一政府不會引至核災難?

JOHN CARLSON: I think that's very true and I wouldn't pin that on the profit motive. I'd agree with you that where there is a profit motive there may be a temptation by some to cut corners. I think what really matters is, who are the people who are actually operating the industry? What kind of training have they had? And particularly what kind of oversight do they get? I think you need a very strong regulatory system, whether it's a company that's running a facility or whether it's the government that's running a facility.    是的, 我想你所說是對的, 但我不會只釘著謀利動機上.  我讚同你說在謀利動機上, 將會有被誘惑而走捷徑挺而走險.  我想最重要的問題是什麼呢? 是什麼人在運作這工業, 他們受的是什麼訓練, 特別是他們受什麼樣的監管.  我想你需要一個非常強的監管系統, 不論你是一公司在運作設備還是一個政府!

KERRY O'BRIEN: Can you understand why public trust might be shaky when even a friend of Japan's like the United States was questioning whether we were being told the whole truth of what was going on at Fukushima? Where even the Japanese Prime Minister seemed to be less in the loop than one might have expected?  你可明白到公眾的信任已經動搖了, 連日本的朋友美國也發出疑問, 究竟日本是否講出福島核漏事實的真相?  就連日本首相也像被蒙在鼓裡似的.  

JOHN CARLSON: I think in fairness to the Japanese, they were overwhelmed by a series of catastrophes, and this was an unprecedented event, the impact on a nuclear plant. A number of areas of the plant would have been off limits to staff because of high radiation levels. I think for quite a period nobody had any way of knowing what was going on.  我認為要對日本公平一點好吧, 他們受到一連串災難的打擊, 而且這是一個史無前例的事件, 沖擊了核電廠, 而肯定很大部份核電廠區域因核漏有高輻射而不準許員工進入,  這肯定做成一段長時間沒有人可以從任何途徑中知道究竟發生了什麼事!

It wasn't so much that information was being withheld but the information simply wasn't there. Clearly we have to develop better ways of knowing what is happening if we ever have a repeat of this kind of accident situation.  應沒什麼訊息可以被隱瞞, 因為根本也沒什麼訊息.  明顯, 我們必須尋找更好的途徑去知識究竟發生什麼事了, 如果我們日後會有同類的意外發生.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There is an irony I guess, isn't there, that as the rest of the world now reviews its nuclear future in the wake of Fukushima, Japan is now so dependent on nuclear power it will keep expanding its reliance on nuclear. With its whole economic future at stake, can Japan be trusted to be objective about what happened at Fukushima? 現在全世界又被福島核漏所驚醒了, 日本現在全依賴了核能發電, 肯定他們會持續並發展依賴在核能.  日本已經整個經濟都受到了威脅了, 日本會以福島危害的客觀上而應被信任嗎???

JOHN CARLSON: Kerry, I think nuclear energy will have to be a part of the energy mix in a wide range of countries, for a number of reasons that have not gone away post-Fukushima. We have to do better at protecting against the potential harmful effects but it's something that if we want to address issues like climate change effectively, we can't exclude it.

As to whether the Japanese can be trusted, I think that's a harsh question, although I could understand that a lot of people-  我認為核能是大部份國家的能源提供結構中的一環, 有很多原素支持它不會因福島意外而消失的.   我們必須做得更好, 以防止所有潛在災害影響, 可是如果我們要提到地球變暖, 那我們就無法將核能拒於門外了.

至於日本人是否可信, 在這時候, 那真是個冷酷不快的問題, 但我明白很多人會這樣問-

KERRY O'BRIEN: A lot at stake.

JOHN CARLSON: A lot of people might be asking it and I think that really points towards, is there a way that we should have more international involvement in national programs so that there's a better way of building confidence and building transparency in decisions that are taken and the way things are done.   我覺得重點應該轉向: 是否有途徑使得更多國際參與國家核能方案, 以使有更好的建立信任和更有透明度在決策上,  才是正確做事情的方法.   

KERRY O'BRIEN: John Carlson thank you very much for talking with us.

JOHN CARLSON: It's a pleasure Kerry.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And that's the program for tonight.

Professor John Carlson 正正講出我所想的. 

福島核電意外已經使到很多國家的綠黨或反核人士出來示威了!  我真懷疑他們對環保有多大的認識?  是否每年2萬平價煤礦工死士是沒關係的, 自己受癌威脅才是最重要的(甚至核電廠遠你住處很遠, 核電意外20年才一次)!  是否地球變暖的自然災害未殺到來自己身邊, 就可以不理? 人的自私行為莫過於此了.  

再看, Professor Barry Brook 在  Our World Today 的訪問:

土豆:  http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/vwXskjQf5RQ/

另外 Professor Barry Brook 也在以上的影片說了幾個重點:

1. 十年20年後, 我們根本再不能燒煤 (因為環境已經嚴重污染, 天氣變得更異常了, 全世界政府將不再容許再燒煤), 天然氣資源有限, 到那時電力價格一定上升厲害了.  請問如果依賴那些太陽能/風能和水力來供應幾百或幾千間屋的電力!  除了核能, 我們還可以什麼辦??

2. 日本3種電力資源(1. 煤, 2. 天然氣和核能源) 全是靠進口的,  而現時核能源 uranium是差不多日本1/3的電力來源(日本正計劃在2022年, 核能將要提供全島50%的電力), 這幾種電力資源在運輸上的比例是, 如果要運一船的煤或一船的天然氣, 那麼uranium就只是一小可隨身携帶的旅行箱!

3. 傳媒對核能意外未死1人卻誇大佈道, 日本天然氣庫爆炸死了快千人, 火燒氣體, 做成多少毒害在大氣之中散播, 卻沒有任何報導.

4.  中國電力能源75%來自煤, 可是為了地球變暖, 中國也開始大力發展核能, 而現時中國/印度的核電廠都是最新的科技. 日本也是建了最新科技的核電廠(1971年的科技, 與chernobyl 相比, 是先進得多了), 就是不幸被4公尺海嘯襲擊的那核電廠. 而看來如此大的災害, 而能夠做成的禍害不很大, 証明這技術是很堅固的. 而中國的核電廠, 技術更先進安全了. 

備註1.當然很多人會提醒我但很多人得了癌症, 短壽, 畸形兒啊!  大家可去看一下世衛對chernobyl 意外20年後的研究報告. 詳細我不在此寫了. 

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%2006.pdf

備註2:

bushfires:

http://clearlyexplained.com/nature/earth/disasters/bushfires.html

http://candobetter.net/node/1355

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/climate-change-stoking-bushfires/2006/12/15/1166162320231.html

oil drilling rig and spill accident:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=53189336462&topic=14748

特別備註: 文章純屬個人筆記.

對於某網上傳媒在節目中講述有關核電廠運作的問題,  他們說當核電廠的牌照完結後, 必須用100-150年來清理核廠內一切輻射物.  這使我非常懷疑!   我立即去他微博詢問, 而他在第二日節目中, 仍堅持了這個答案!

我問他哪一個政府如此愚昧, 要用100-150年去清理核廠?  因為我心信這是很不cost effective(可知道你仍要付100-150年的牌照費的), 也不是一件friendly to envirioment 的事.  再講, 沒有一個民主政府可以獨裁如此的; 如果這個是事實,  104 nuclear power plants are operating in America ( number 1 in the world),  59 nuclear power plants are operating in France ( world number 2), 54 nuclear power plants are operating now in Japan ( number 3 in the world in the number of nuclear power plants, and one of the most earthquake prone places in the world!  這些數據會不會叫你心寒??

在wikipedia

Generally speaking, nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60-year operating life.  即核電廠的壽命有限, 舊式設計的去到30年, 新式設計的就去到40至60年!  就要退休並且清拆 (當然, 所有power plant 包括coal & gas都一樣是有限年期的). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

而退休計畫有3個Options選擇的:

• Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the US): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Usually, the final dismantling or decontamination activities begin within a few months or years, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use.
• Safe Enclosure (or 'Safestor'): This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur.
• Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without the requirement of ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.

簡單的說:

1.  "Decon”  立即清拆:  當核電廠關閉後, 一切設備必須跟據政府控制的規定下於最快幾個月甚至幾年後移除, 使得該地域可重新再用.

2. "Safestor”  安全屏蔽/覆蓋: 此選項為, 可以延期在一段較長時間才清拆, 通常可長達40至60年,   而核電廠內的設備(包括一切有輻射的事物)必須放置在安全儲存的結構之內直至最終的拆除和清污的行動發生(當然, 牌照費要照收, 收到此地清理好為止).

3.  “Entomb” 埋葬:  此選項, 是你可以將所有輻射性材料和設備留在原地(可能是有特別原因是不能移除甚至永不能時).  此選項你可以將全部的反應爐(通常核能廠會有3或6個反應爐)的輻射材料和設備齊集一區(即將所有這些輻射材料設備的佔用地區縮小).   然後用混凝土結構來長封, 並且肯定這些輻射性長期下都不會毒害環境和人類的.  (此選項也可用於當你有多個 reactors 時, 其中一個要退休了, 此時便可將它埋葬, 比喻建成停車場, 那樣其他的 reactors 便可繼續使用了.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=472&terms=nuclear%20power%20plant%20decommissioning

所以依以上3項來說, 如果我要將全個地區(即可能有兩至4個reactors 反應爐) 的核電廠清除!  最省又最快的方法, 是沒有理由不選 Decon 的.  除非你錢多, 又或核電廠有新的發展, 比喻你有更新的技術可改建核電廠為其他更高科技的發電廠, 那你便可以選 safestor 了,  延長牌照了.  當然這項選擇也要看監管的批准與否了.   最後的entomb 在上面已經說了, 除了建停車場的例子, 最好的例子就是切爾諾貝爾chernobyl 核電廠那副石棺了.

好了,  究竟核電廠退休後要用多少年清拆那些富輻射性的建築物?

我找到鐵般事實的兩個好例子:

1.  Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company

此核電廠由1972-1996, 共24年的運作.  關閉後, 只用了8年(由1997-2005時間)便全部清理, 且清理地而面3呎以下並合付嚴格清理的標準.

The nuclear power plant underwent a successful decommissioning from 1997-2005 with all plant structures removed to three feet below grade and the site restored to stringent clean-up standards.

用的是爆破技術,  在每 200,000工作小時下,   0人受傷 .

完成退休, 不到一半的政府規定的遺留輻射劑量限值

放射的清理顯著低於 10 millirem的目標

• Zero lost time injuries from May 2002 through the end of decommissioning in October 2005. For every 200,000 hours worked, the decommissioning project had a Lost Time Incident Rate of .26 compared with a demolition industry rate of 3.6.

• Completed decommissioning for less than half the NRC radiological dose limit;
• Radiological cleanup of the site was significantly lower than the 10 millirem target;

2.  Connecticut Yankee (CY) nuclear power plant

此核電廠由1968-1996運作了28年, 關閉後, 只用了9年(由1998-2007時間)便全部清理, 且清理地而面3呎以下並合付嚴格清理的標準.

From 1968 until permanent shutdown in 1996, Connecticut Yankee operated a 619 megawatt pressurized water reactor at the Haddam Neck site. The nuclear power plant underwent a successful decommissioning from 1998-2007 with all plant structures removed to three feet below grade and the site restored to stringent clean-up standards.

CY chose immediate dismantlement (the DECON method) because it was the most practical and environmentally responsible option for the plant. Other considerations included the use of current plant employees who were trained and knowledgeable about the facility, prevention of long-term maintenance costs, and the availability of low-level waste disposal facilities. Significant decommissioning activities began at CY in May 1998, and were completed in November 2007 with NRC approval of the termination of the operating license on the plant area.

More than 40 U.S. research reactors have been safely and securely decommissioned as well as 10 U.S. commercial nuclear plants that have been or are being decommissioned.

http://www.connyankee.com/html/decommissioning.html

http://www.connyankee.com/html/methods.html

再講:

We should not be scared of something just because we don't understand it!  當你愈疑惑, 就更加要找出真相. 

這幾天因為日本大地震11032011後, 又來了世紀大海嘯. 隨著還未夠, 核電廠受到地震和海嘯的影響, 做成停電, 聽說連後備供電系統也失靈.  故此中斷了制冷系統, 引發了核能廠洩輻射事故. 

於3月19日早上, 上網讀報:

烏克蘭60萬人埋切廠:一九八六年烏克蘭切爾諾貝爾核電廠爆炸後，六十萬名「義勇軍」協助前蘇聯政府清理善後。部分義勇軍只穿著一件二十公斤重的鉛衣，就走近充滿高濃度輻射環境，將核反應爐封閉起來，蓋上「石棺」，許多人因此受輻射污染死亡. 本港核專家教授胡仲豪表示，今次日本可能要動用過萬人去封四個反應堆，死傷難以估計。

同日, 上網讀明報:

曾任職加拿大原子能研究所20多年的核子專家、理大電子及資訊工程學系固體電子學講座教授胡仲豪指出蘇聯封核廠人員200死---他以當年切爾諾貝爾核電廠的「蓋棺」所動用的3000人推算，指日本今次需堵塞4個反應堆，動員或超1萬人。他又指出，「蓋棺」當年直接造成約200人死亡。

於是我想:

當然60萬人, 不被輻射殺死, 都被踩死喇!!!!

60萬人埋切廠 還是死了200人? 星島日報究竟知不知道這兩次世紀大海嘯和最近中/日/海地的地震遇難人數加上來都未及60萬一半的數字!!! 明報的死了200人, 又是從那來的根據呢??? 那個專家說的3000人又是哪來的???? 我最終上了一整天的網找出了答案! 所以盡信報紙/專家, 不如自己英文學好點算了!

我參考了 World Nuclear Assoication 在2011年3月的最新更新資料如下:

在

Immediate impact of the Chernobyl accident下:

The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that the remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged reactor shielded more permanently. About 200,000 people ('liquidators') from all over the Soviet Union were involved in the recovery and clean-up during 1986 and 1987. They received high doses of radiation, averaging around 100 millisieverts. Some 20,000 of them received about 250 mSv and a few received 500 mSv. Later, the number of liquidators swelled to over 600,000 but most of these received only low radiation doses. The highest doses were received by about 1000 emergency workers and on-site personnel during the first day of the accident.

ref: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

很明顯, 星島日報所指的60萬人就是這班 liquidators (清潔工)了.

在事故發生後, 在10天內仍未受控制並且釋放大量radioactive輻射能於空氣之中, 並且由風擴散並吹至去歐洲.   核能專家決定首要任務是要將火救熄, 當然首當其衝的是在渦輪屋頂上的6名救火員全部殉職,無一幸免.  

再下來的任務就是清理4號核反應爐建築物的所有輻射, 以使其他3個核反應爐可以繼續運作外, 也可使損壞的4號反應爐屏蔽得更長久. 1986-1987年間, 由蘇聯各地派來的清潔工多達20萬人,   他們平均每人接受到100 millisieverts (mSv) 的輻射(備註1), 當中2萬人受到250mSv, 也有些受到500mSv.  之後清潔工人數要由20萬增至60萬人, 可是這些人受到輻射量很低.  而受到最高輻射傷害的是第一日進入災場拯救的1000位緊急工作和現場工作的人員. (備註2)

為什麼需要那麼多人去參與, 那是為了使每個人暴露於輻射的現場愈短愈好, 為了保障生命, 所以每次每個人進入現場工作都有時限, 可能是5-10分鐘, 或久一點, 要視乎他們工作環境而定.  另外就是每個人都不容許在此工作日期太長, 所以要不停有新人來換替的.   這是為什麼出現60萬清潔工.  大家可從以下

幾部紀錄片中找到証據:

1. Liquidators of Chernobyl

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/vuxfMMqMMAk/

2. chernobyl disaster incident

事實, 60萬人不是小數目, 我什麼想 那個石棺都無法埋60萬人!!  另外我會期望一核能專家, 告知我chernobyl disaster 與今次福島核漏的異同(比如反應爐的設計, 地理環境, 事故應急設施等等)如果根本兩事故不能相比的, 你拿人家用3000人來建石棺來舉例, 又說今次福島4個反應爐要用1萬人了.   這個我要問你嗎? 如果這麼簡單, 萬2人我都計得準過你喇!!!! 

We should not be scared of something just because we don't understand it!  我們絕對不能因無知而去懼怕事情又或是先進的科技, 我們對今天新聞媒體的誇張和誤導, 我們更加要去追查一個可以解釋的真正答案.

備註1: 1 – 3 Sv (1000 – 3000 mSv): Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.

備註2: 

• Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.
• UNSCEAR says that apart from increased thyroid cancers, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."