Nuclear Radiation: Unsafe at Any Dose (切尔诺贝利事故25年后当地食物仍有高辐射)

2 views

Skip to first unread message

sustain...@gmail.com

unread,

May 1, 2011, 2:25:19 PM5/1/11

to Sustainable Solutions Community

By HELEN CALDICOTT (April 30, 2011)

SIX weeks ago, when I first heard about the reactor damage at the
Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, I knew the prognosis: If any of the
containment vessels or fuel pools exploded, it would mean millions of
new cases of cancer in the Northern Hemisphere.

Many advocates of nuclear power would deny this. During the 25th
anniversary last week of the Chernobyl disaster, some commentators
asserted that few people died in the aftermath, and that there have
been relatively few genetic abnormalities in survivors’ offspring.
It’s an easy leap from there to arguments about the safety of nuclear
energy compared to alternatives like coal, and optimistic predictions
about the health of the people living near Fukushima.

But this is dangerously ill informed and short-sighted; if anyone
knows better, it’s doctors like me. There’s great debate about the
number of fatalities following Chernobyl; the International Atomic
Energy Agency has predicted that there will be only about 4,000 deaths
from cancer, but a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of
Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished
from cancer and other diseases. The high doses of radiation caused so
many miscarriages that we will never know the number of genetically
damaged fetuses that did not come to term. (And both Belarus and
Ukraine have group homes full of deformed children.)

Nuclear accidents never cease. We’re decades if not generations away
from seeing the full effects of the radioactive emissions from
Chernobyl.

As we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it takes years to get cancer.
Leukemia takes only 5 to 10 years to emerge, but solid cancers take 15
to 60. Furthermore, most radiation-induced mutations are recessive; it
can take many generations for two recessive genes to combine to form a
child with a particular disease, like my specialty, cystic fibrosis.
We can’t possibly imagine how many cancers and other diseases will be
caused in the far future by the radioactive isotopes emitted by
Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Doctors understand these dangers. We work hard to try to save the life
of a child dying of leukemia. We work hard to try to save the life of
a woman dying of metastatic breast cancer. And yet the medical dictum
says that for incurable diseases, the only recourse is prevention.
There’s no group better prepared than doctors to stand up to the
physicists of the nuclear industry.

Still, physicists talk convincingly about “permissible doses” of
radiation. They consistently ignore internal emitters — radioactive
elements from nuclear power plants or weapons tests that are ingested
or inhaled into the body, giving very high doses to small volumes of
cells. They focus instead on generally less harmful external radiation
from sources outside the body, whether from isotopes emitted from
nuclear power plants, medical X-rays, cosmic radiation or background
radiation that is naturally present in our environment.

However, doctors know that there is no such thing as a safe dose of
radiation, and that radiation is cumulative. The mutations caused in
cells by this radiation are generally deleterious. We all carry
several hundred genes for disease: cystic fibrosis, diabetes,
phenylketonuria, muscular dystrophy. There are now more than 2,600
genetic diseases on record, any one of which may be caused by a
radiation-induced mutation, and many of which we’re bound to see more
of, because we are artificially increasing background levels of
radiation.

For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have
been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media.
Since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, physicists have had easy
access to Congress. They had harnessed the energy inside the center of
the sun, and later physicists, whether lobbying for nuclear weapons or
nuclear energy, had the same power. They walk into Congress and
Congress virtually prostrates itself. Their technological advancements
are there for all to see; the harm will become apparent only decades
later.

Doctors, by contrast, have fewer dates with Congress, and much less
access on nuclear issues. We don’t typically go around discussing the
latent period of carcinogenesis and the amazing advances made in
understanding radiobiology. But as a result, we do an inadequate job
of explaining the long-term dangers of radiation to policymakers and
the public.

When patients come to us with cancer, we deem it rude to inquire if
they lived downwind of Three Mile Island in the 1980s or might have
eaten Hershey’s chocolate made with milk from cows that grazed in
irradiated pastures nearby. We tend to treat the disaster after the
fact, instead of fighting to stop it from happening in the first
place. Doctors need to confront the nuclear industry.

Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to
fossil fuels — in fact, it adds substantially to global warming.
Solar, wind and geothermal energy, along with conservation, can meet
our energy needs.

At the beginning, we had no sense that radiation induced cancer. Marie
Curie and her daughter didn’t know that the radioactive materials they
handled would kill them. But it didn’t take long for the early nuclear
physicists in the Manhattan Project to recognize the toxicity of
radioactive elements. I knew many of them quite well. They had hoped
that peaceful nuclear energy would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have
the knowledge, credibility and legitimacy to end it.

Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is
the author of “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html?_r=1&ref=atomicenergy

---

切尔诺贝利事故25年后当地食物仍有高辐射 (2011-04-26)

星岛环球网消息：绿色和平组织的辐射探测小组，在切尔诺贝利核电厂爆炸后25年，仍然在乌克兰的食物样本发现高辐射水平。在一个于Rivnenska村
庄检测的牛奶样本中，发现93%的样本的铯-137含量超过乌克兰儿童可接受水平1.2至16.3倍。

香港《星岛日报》报道，绿色和平的高级科学家Iryna Labunska说：“我们在日常食物中发现高水平辐射，这在当地人民的主粮如牛奶、野莓和蘑
菇等的情况尤为严重，很多样本的水平都超过乌克兰可接受程度。”她呼吁尽快彻底和科学化地评估当地农产品的辐射水平。

切尔诺贝利核电厂爆炸对周边国家影响深远。单单在乌克兰，1.8万平方公里的农地受污染，而3.5万平方公里、相当于乌克兰40%的林木也受污染。虽
然乌克兰政府在意外发生后定时检测在受污染地区出产的食物辐射水平含量，当局也有公开有关数据，但检测却在过去两年停止了。国际绿色和平的能源项目主
任Aslihan Tumer要求乌克兰重新检测食物辐射水平，并说：“在日本福岛，我们已留意到与切尔诺贝利差不多的情况正在发生，发现辐射已污染牛
奶和蔬菜。我们必须避免相类似的情况再次发生，拒绝污染的核能，改以提升能源效益及发展清洁的可再生能源。”绿色和平香港分部项目主任古伟牧正在乌克
兰参与切尔诺贝利核爆25 周年考察活动。

---
东京电力发出警告福岛一号反应堆可能爆炸 (2011-04-30)

星岛环球网消息：东京电力公司29日发出警告说，福岛第一核电站的第一号反应堆“有可能发生氢气爆炸”，原因是由于原子炉压力容器内的温度和压力出现下
降。

日本新闻网报道，东京电力公司发表的消息说，第一核反应堆中有55%左右的燃料棒发生了溶解。由于冷却系统破坏，原子炉内温度升高，每天需要注入大量的
水来降低原子炉内的温度，防止造成大量的核泄漏。但是，由于燃料棒溶解太多，正常处理已经十分的困难，因此最终采取了“水棺”式解决方案，每天给原子炉
注入10吨水。但是，这导致原子炉内温度和压力过低，压力过低的话，就有可能发生氢气爆炸。

东京电力公司昨日表示，为了防止发生氢气爆炸，决定减少注水量，至每天6吨。这也意味着，第一号反应堆暂时中止了“水棺”计划。

---
东京辐射上升日本宣布停建核电站 (2011-04-20)

日本警察厅说，截至当地时间19日18时，3月11日发生的日本大地震及其引发的海啸已确认造成14001人死亡、13660人失踪。日本东北及关东地
区18日下午5点至19日上午9点的最大辐射量监测结果显示：东京的资料均比17、18日略有上升，再次高于震前最大数值。不过，日本外务副大臣高桥千
秋当日强调，东京的辐射量现已基本回復正常水平。

综合法新社、路透社、共同社、日本新闻网、新华社报道，日本首相菅直人在议会会议上说：「在政府完成对当前核事故的全面检查、确保日本全国核电站都处于
安全状态前，我们不会继续实行新核电站建造计划。」日本政府过去设定核电站目标，即在2030年前，增建最少14座核电站，以对抗全球变暖。他称，政府
将努力让福岛核电站周围撤离的民众，尽可能在9个月后回到家园。根据福岛县政府的数据，该县共有29833人离家避难，而且还未包括投奔亲友的灾民。

大地震地壳变动达30米

日本最新研究显示，宫城县牡鹿半岛以外约175公里的海床，在「311」大地震后向东南移动了约30米，刷新海上保安厅之前宣布海床移动24米的「最大
地壳变动」数值。研究人员指出，「海底(地壳)的移动幅度超乎想像，正是由于断层的滑动如此之大才导致了巨大的海啸。」

2号机组燃料棒或损

福岛第一核电站19日开始将2号机组涡轮机房的高放射性污水转移到废物处理设施，纾缓每天注水带来的约168吨污水。东电18日承认2号机组燃料棒可能
受损。枝野幸男19日回应说，核专家正在调查，不清楚2号机组燃料棒损坏范围。至于是否可能出现反应堆堆芯全部熔化的情况时，枝野幸男回答：「眼下已
实现一定程度的(反应堆)冷却，如果能继续这样冷却，不太可能出现那种情况。」

---