Are nuclear power plants safe?

核電站安全嗎?



評論│↟│:

CStuart Hardwick,Award-Winning Scifi Author, Analog regular
AnsweredAug 25, 2017
Well, they certainly can kill people, but…wait a minute, lots ofthings kill people. You wouldn’t let your kids ride in an unsafe car, but carskill 30,000 Americans a year, even with airbags and anti-lock brakes.
But think of the radiation. Why, at Fukushima alone, radiationhas killed….no one. Zip. Well, okay, there was recently a plant worker whoparticipated in the cleanup who came down with leukemia, and that might be dueto his radiation exposure. And that’s terrible, sad, tragic, but you know,Japan doesn’t have an army, and it’s nuclear industry has been instrumental inkeeping the country clean, safe, and prosperous, and in the US, we give folkswho die in service to that sort of thing a military funeral with honors. It’svery much the same thing.
Even so, nuclear power plants are not anywhere close to thebiggest emitter of radiation—that would be coal, followed by oil. Both releasenaturally occurring radioactive materials on a truly industrial scale, butdon’t get too worried. The idea that there is “no safe dose of radiation,” is amyth.
We know for a fact it’s a myth, because there are people inIran, India, and Brazil (among other places) who are naturally exposed to overten times the normal background radiation—and scientists can see metabolicevidence of their cells reacting to radiation damage—yet they do not have anystatistically significant increase in cancer risk. So clearly, there IS a safedose, and we all need to stop worrying about the tiny radiation emissionsdiluted throughout the whole biosphere.

嗯◕│•,它們當然能殺人◕│•,但是……等一下◕│•,很多東西都能殺人◕▩。你不會讓你的孩子乘坐不安全的汽車◕│•,但即使有安全氣囊和防抱死剎車◕│•,汽車每年也會造成3萬美國人死亡◕▩。
但是想想輻射◕▩。為什麼,福島,輻射殺死了....一個人沒有◕▩。好吧◕│•,最近有一個工廠工人參與了清理工作他得了白血病◕│•,這可能是由於他暴露在輻射下◕▩。這是可怕的◕│•,悲哀的◕│•,悲慘的◕│•,但是你知道◕│•,日本沒有軍隊◕│•,同時核工業在保持國家清潔│☁◕、安全│☁◕、繁榮方面發揮了重要作用◕│•,在美國◕│•,我們為那些在戰爭中犧牲的人們舉行了一場充滿榮譽的軍事葬禮◕▩。幾乎是一樣的◕▩。
即便如此◕│•,核電站離最大的輻射源還差得很遠◕│•,首先就是煤炭◕│•,其次是石油◕▩。這兩種方法都能以真正的工業規模釋放自然產生的放射性物質◕│•,但不要太擔心◕▩。“沒有安全劑量的輻射”的想法是一個神話◕▩。
事實上◕│•,我們知道這是一個神話◕│•,因為在伊朗│☁◕、印度和巴西(以及其他地方)◕│•,有些人自然地暴露在超過正常背景輻射十倍的環境中——科學家可以看到他們的細胞對輻射損傷作出反應的代謝證據◕│•,然而◕│•,他們在癌症風險上沒有任何統計學意義上的顯著增加◕▩。所以很明顯◕│•,有一個安全劑量◕│•,我們都需要停止擔心在整個生物圈中稀釋的微小輻射排放◕▩。

However, coal fired power plants emit radon, a heavy,radioactive gas that settles to the ground and gives people living downwind anincreased risk of lung cancer. That one, we have no trouble measuring.
But you can’t just look at radiation. You have to look at thebig picture, deaths from all causes, radiation, fire, pollution of variouskinds, etc.
So here are those numbers, as compiled by the NAS
Are nuclear power plant safe? Well, not as safe as they ought tobe. Chernobyl NEVER should have happened (it was built without propercontainment). Fukushima also should never have happened, and an NRC report hadwarned of exactly this sort of tsunami risk just a couple of years earlier.These older second generation plants need to be shored up, closely monitored,and expedited into retirement. But if you replace them with anything other thannuclear, more people will die. Instead, they should be replacedwith third generation, passively safe designs. Then, in a couple of decades, wewill have fourth generation designs, including traveling wave reactors that canconsume the spent fuel waste accumulated over that last fifty years, and whenthey run out of that, run on unenriched, naturally occurring uranium-238 — forthe next few tens of thousands of years.
Meanwhile, we just relax just a bit, knowing that worldwide,poor as things are, nuclear power is over a thousand times safer than coal.

然而◕│•,燃煤電廠排放的氡是一種擁有巨大放射性的氣體◕│•,它會沉降到地面◕│•,使住在下風的人患肺癌的風險增加◕▩。那個◕│•,我們測量起來沒有問題◕▩。
但你不能只看輻射◕▩。你必須縱觀全域性◕│•,包括各種原因導致的死亡│☁◕、輻射│☁◕、火災│☁◕、各種汙染等等◕▩。
核電站安全嗎?沒有他們該有的那樣安全◕▩。切爾諾貝利本不應該發生(它是在沒有適當控制的情況下建造的)◕▩。福島核事故本不應該發生◕│•,一份核管理委員會的報告在幾年前就警告過這種海嘯風險◕▩。這些較老的第二代核電站需要加固│☁◕、嚴密監控◕│•,並加速淘汰◕▩。但是如果你用除核以外的任何東西來代替它們◕│•,更多的人將會死亡◕▩。
相反◕│•,它們應該被第三代被動安全的設計(passively safe designs)所取代◕▩。然後◕│•,幾十年後我們將進行第四代設計◕│•,包括能夠消耗過去50年積累的廢燃料的行波反應堆◕▩。在接下來的數萬年裡◕│•,當它們用完這些元素後◕│•,就會繼續使用未經濃縮的天然鈾238◕▩。與此同時◕│•,我們只是稍微放鬆一下◕│•,因為我們知道◕│•,在全世界範圍內◕│•,儘管情況很糟糕◕│•,核能比煤炭安全一千多倍◕▩。

Ilya Bulanov
Aug 25, 2017
Whyare people in Iran,Brazil, and India exposed to “Ten times the normalbackground radiation”? Do you have any sources for that?

為什麼伊朗│☁◕、巴西和印度的人們暴露在“十倍於正常背景輻射”的環境中?你有什麼訊息來源嗎?

CStuart Hardwick
Aug 26, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Ineach case, high levels of thorium in the geology.

在以上這些地方◕│•,地質學中釷的含量都很高◕▩。

HaydenSmith
Jul 28 · 1 upvote
Thatis absolutely true.
WhenGreenpeace Geiger counter monitoring teams travelled to Cornwall to measurepossible outfall readings from the Sellafield rad-waste reprocessing plant,they were amazed to find the local environmental radiation levels much higherthan the possible artificial ones.
Oldgranite emitting radon gas.

完全正確◕▩。
當綠色和平組織的蓋革計數器監視團隊前往康沃爾◕│•,測量塞拉菲爾德(Sellafield)核廢料再處理廠可能的排放物讀數◕▩。他們驚奇地發現◕│•,當地環境的輻射水平遠遠高於可能的人工輻射水平◕▩。
舊花崗岩釋放氡氣體◕▩。

Christian Dechery
Aug 25, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Wehave a beach in Brazil, where the sand is radioactive. And it measures withlevels higher than Fukushima.

我們在巴西有一個海灘◕│•,那裡的沙子具有放射性◕▩。它的輻射水平高於福島◕▩。
《Guarapari》——維基

——2——
David McFarland,studied Nuclear Energy at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command
upxedMay 11, 2018
Let me put it this way:
People bicker of the exactness of data suggesting that nuclearpower kills fewer people per terrawatt-hour versus Solar and Wind that itshould be rather telling that if you can even have that argument, it’s gotta bepretty freaking safe when most people’s first question is “How in the world canit be safer than solar or wind?”
The answer is “Regulation.” Politicians don’t think to regulatesolar or wind specifically, so it doesn’t really get regulated beyond what lawswere already in place.
As a result, you experience occasional fires, fall hazards, et cetera. Nothingsuper concerning (except the industries don’t know how much waste they areproducing because no one bothers to record it!). Now, solar and wind are safe!They’re also relatively cheap (due to lessened regulation - not that they needas much regulation as nuclear, but more would be nice in some areas).

我這麼說吧:
人們對資料的準確性爭論不休◕│•,這些資料表明◕│•,與太陽能和風能相比◕│•,核能每兆瓦時(注│↟│:不太清楚)殺死的人更少◕▩。
大多數人的第一個問題是“世界上怎麼可能比太陽能或風能更安全?”
答案是“監管”◕▩。“政客們不認為要專門監管太陽能或風能◕│•,因此◕│•,它們實際上並沒有超出現有法律的監管範圍◕▩。”
因此◕│•,你偶爾會經歷火災│☁◕、墜落等危險◕▩。沒有什麼特別令人擔心的(除了這些方面不知道製造了多少垃圾◕│•,但沒有人會費心去記錄它!) 如今太陽能和風能是安全的◕│•,它們也相對便宜(由於監管力度的減弱——並不是說它們需要像核電那樣多的監管◕│•,而是在某些領域需要更多監管◕▩。)◕▩。

Nuclear power, on the other hand? We’re regulated as hell.That’s where most of the cost comes from once you get past initialconstruction. Just the other day we had OSHA tell divers they couldn't go overthe safety railing into the water without a life jacket and safety line… (thedivers reacted in a great way - they just ignored them, and rightfully so.) Butits that sort of reason why nuclear power plants are safe, and expensive:regulation is followed to the letter until it is proven that the regulationdoes not apply in a specific situation.
We can’t take water from the river to wash off bird poop backinto the river. That’s how regulated we are.
As a result, the slightest sign of potential injury, and majorfreakouts occur. Someone accidentally bumps their head on something? Gottaspend tons of money turning the area into a padded room. (Not literally).
And unlike Chernobyl, American plants are designed to withstanda pressure detonation.
Fukushima had issues, yes, and they didn’t follow proper safetyculture. But Fukushima still has yet to kill anyone. As much as I hate TEPCO,they still did do some things right.

另一方面◕│•,核能呢?我們受到地獄般的監管◕▩。一旦你完成了最初的建設這就是大部分成本的來源◕▩。就在前幾天◕│•,職業安全與健康局告訴潛水員◕│•,如果沒有救生衣和安全繩◕│•,他們就不能越過安全欄杆進入水中(潛水員的反應非常好——他們只是忽視了他們◕│•,這是理所當然的)◕▩。但這就是核電站安全│☁◕、昂貴的原因:監管嚴格◕│•,直到證明該監管不適用於特定情況◕▩。
我們不能從河裡取水把鳥糞洗掉留在河裡◕▩。我們就是這樣被監管的◕▩。
因此◕│•,最輕微的潛在傷害的跡象◕│•,和重大的驚嚇的發生◕▩。有人不小心把頭撞到什麼東西上了?我得花大把的錢把這個地方變成一個有填充物的房間◕▩。(類似這樣的情況)◕▩。
與切爾諾貝利核電站不同的是◕│•,美國核電站的設計能夠承受壓力爆炸◕▩。
是的◕│•,福島有問題◕│•,他們沒有遵循適當的安全文化◕▩。但福島核事故還沒有造成人員傷亡◕▩。儘管我很討厭東京電力公司◕│•,但他們還是做了一些正確的事情◕▩。

That wind turbine fire killed two,compared to Fukushimas zero. I’m not keeping score. I want us to use wind. ButI’m putting things in perspective.
Nuclear power is ridiculously safe.
What’s that, terrorists you say? Whatare they going to hit it with? A plane won’t dent the containment. They don’tknow enough of the layout of the plant to do anything. We’ve tested this. Ifyou question this:
1. Planes areflimsy and made of aluminum.
2. 2 meter thickreinforced concrete walls can withstand just about anything, and that’s noteven the reactor yet; the reactor itself is made of thick steel; it might aswell be a battleship.
And nuclear power security forces aretop-notch - and entrenched. Good luck on that.
“But it’s so much more expensive?” Oh,I thought we wanted to save the environment, not save money. There areplenty of ways we could make it cheaper. Like get rid of the CoalLobbyists. You know, the guys who are promoting a form of energygeneration more than 10,000 times deadlier than nuclear.
I will say this: They are safe for thegeneral populace. Our old plants are hardly killing anyone at all, the ones weare building now are half a century more advanced in some cases. Compare thatto computers, and you’ll see why I consider it ridiculous to use “Chernobyl” asa reason to argue against building new reactors. (Aside from the fact that fewnuclear power plants operate like Chernobyl).
They are not so safe for the operators.One of my supervisors likes to remind us on at least a weekly basis “This placewill kill you if you let it.” Rotating machinery, places to fall, danger ofelectrical shock, et cetera.

而某次風力渦輪機的火災造成兩人死亡◕│•,但福島的火災為零◕▩。我不專門記這些◕▩。我想讓我們利用風能◕▩。但我是客觀地看待問題◕▩。
核能極其安全◕▩。
你說什麼◕│•,恐怖分子?他們要用什麼來打擊它?飛機不會撞壞安全殼◕▩。他們對工廠的佈局沒有足夠的瞭解◕▩。我們已經測試了這個◕▩。如果你有疑問:
1. 飛機很脆弱◕│•,是鋁製的◕▩。
2. 2米厚的鋼筋混凝土牆可以承受任何東西◕│•,這還不是反應堆;反應堆本身是由厚鋼製成的;它就像一艘戰艦◕▩。
核電安全部隊是一流的◕│•,而且根深蒂固◕▩。祝你好運◕▩。
“但是它太貴了◕▩。”“哦◕│•,我以為我們想要保護環境◕│•,而不是省錢◕▩。”我們有很多方法可以使它更便宜◕▩。比如擺脫煤炭說客◕▩。你知道◕│•,那些提倡一種比核能致命一萬倍的能源生產方式的人◕▩。
我要說的是:它們對普通民眾是安全的◕▩。我們的老工廠幾乎沒有殺死任何人◕│•,我們現在建造的工廠在某些方面比過去先進半個世紀◕▩。與計算機相比◕│•,你就會明白為什麼我認為用“切爾諾貝利”作為反對建造新反應堆的理由是荒謬的◕▩。(除了有少量的核電站像切爾諾貝利核電站那樣執行)◕▩。
對操作人員來說不太安全◕▩。我的一位上司喜歡每週至少提醒我們一次:“如果你放任自流◕│•,這個地方會殺了你的◕▩。”“旋轉機械│☁◕、墜落地點│☁◕、觸電危險等◕▩。

“But what about waste?” Well, we need totake care of that, but we have plans, but I suspect the Coal-lobbyists thatshot down high-temperature (therefore higher efficiency, therefore higherenergy and lower cost - thanks for forcing some validity to that “reactors costa lot” argument, Coal) reactors are also shutting down things like the TWR andother reactor designs that would makenuclear power the first and only form ofenergy generation to reuse it’s own spent waste.
As it stands, that waste isn’t goinganywhere - which is good. We can contain it, regulate it, and monitor it untilwe can store it. We’ve got a while… now if onlyanti-environment fearmongers would let us do something with it.

“那核廢料呢?”“嗯◕│•,我們需要解決這個問題◕│•,我們有計劃◕│•,但我懷疑是煤炭行業的遊說者讓高溫反應堆流產的◕▩。(因此◕│•,更高的效率│☁◕、更高的能源和更低的成本——這要感謝“反應堆成本高”這一論點在一定程度上的正確性◕│•,即煤炭)◕▩。這些人還關閉了行波反應堆和其他反應堆的設計◕│•,這些設計將使核能成為第一種│☁◕、也是唯一一種可以重複利用自身核廢料的能源◕▩。
就目前情況而言◕│•,這種浪費不會流向任何地方——這是好事◕▩。我們可以控制它◕│•,調節它◕│•,監控它◕│•,直到我們可以儲存它◕▩。我們已經執行它一段時間了◕│•,現在如果反環境的恐怖分子能讓我們做點什麼就好了◕▩。

AndrewMcKenzie
Sep 4, 2017 · 48 upvotes
Nuclearwill kill us if something goes horribly wrong. Coal will kill us if it worksperfectly as designed.

如果出了什麼可怕的問題◕│•,核能會殺死我們◕▩。

JamesProctor
Aug 24, 2017 · 7 upvotes
WhileI'm in favor of nuclear, I'm cautiously so. The fact is, regulation almostalways fails at some point. In an ideal world, the regulations in place fordrilling, mining, fission, etc., would keep us safe all the time.
Thereality is that accidents will always happen. Even worse, it is often cheaperfor energy companies to break the law and to pay the fines when eventuallycaught.
Sothe question becomes, “What are the consequences when anaccident occurs?” With nuclear, as with drilling and other extraction, theconsequences can be extreme.

雖然我支援核能◕│•,但我對此持謹慎態度◕▩。事實上◕│•,監管幾乎總是在某個時候失敗◕▩。在一個理想的世界裡◕│•,鑽井│☁◕、採礦│☁◕、裂變等方面的規章制度會一直保護我們的安全◕▩。
事實上◕│•,意外總是會發生的◕▩。更糟糕的是◕│•,對能源公司來說◕│•,違反法律並在最終被發現時支付罰款往往更便宜◕▩。
所以問題就變成了◕│•,“事故發生的後果是什麼?”就像鑽探和其他開採一樣◕│•,核能的後果可能是極端的◕▩。

David McFarland
Aug 24, 2017 · 52 upvotes
As itbecomes clear now with Fukushima, the consequences… aren’t really that severeat all.
Andthat’s with a ridiculously old plant. Once we replace them with new plants,we’re golden. Accidents do not always have to happen. There are multiple layersof regulation, both internal and external, there are operators in the way, andmultiple layers of redundant systems.
Ittook a once-in-a-thousand-year tsunami and Earthquake toexpose Fukushima’s insufficient safety culture, namely in regards to their lackof sea-wall and improper placement of diesel generators. What no one talksabout is that it also exposed that another power company, TohokuElectric, knew how to do it right.
TheOnagawa Plant was hit harder than Fukushima. Yet no one talksabout it, because it was fine.

隨著福島核事故變得越來越明顯◕│•,其後果……其實並沒有那麼嚴重◕▩。
那是一棟非常古老到可笑的核電站◕▩。一旦我們用新的核電站取代它們◕│•,就成了◕▩。意外並不總是會發生◕▩。
千年一遇的海嘯和地震才暴露出福島安全文化的不足◕│•,即缺乏防護堤◕│•,以及柴油發電機放置不當◕▩。沒有人談論的是◕│•,這也暴露了另一家電力公司◕│•,東北電力公司(Tohoku Electric)◕│•,知道如何正確行事◕▩。
女川核電站(The Onagawa Plant)受到的衝擊比福島核電站更嚴重◕▩。但是沒有人談論它◕│•,因為它很好◕▩。

JamesProctor
Aug 24, 2017 · 10 upvotes
Don'tget me wrong, I think nuclear is safer than extraction. I also think it's theonly viable alternative right now.
But Ialso don't dismiss the inherent risk.
Mycousin is a nuclear engineer. He's worked at both Oakridge and the reactor inColumbia, SC. He's obviously a strong proponent of nuclear. He's also veryhonest about the state of funding and technology for nuclear in the US.
Ourplants are badly, badly outdated. They have already been stretched far pasttheir intended usage. And there isn't much hope for massive new construction oreven updating. The fact is, we’re stuck with old, overused technology for thetime being, with no end in sight.
That'sscary. You paint a picture of safe nuclear given an ideal context. Our contextis far from ideal. Achieving said ideal context isn't realistic. You're alsooverly optimistic about the efficacy of regulation. Accidents, both preventableand not, will continue to happen.
Shouldthat stop us? No.
Butit should scare us. It should motivate us to improve our technology, bothnuclear and alternative.

別誤會◕│•,我確實認為核能更安全◕▩。我也認為這是目前唯一可行的選擇◕▩。但我也不排除固有的風險◕▩。
我的表弟是一名核工程師◕▩。他曾在奧克里奇和南卡羅來納州哥倫比亞的反應堆工作過◕▩。他顯然是核能的堅定支持者◕▩。他對美國核能的資金和技術狀況也非常誠實◕▩。
我們的工廠已經非常非常過時了◕▩。它們已經遠遠超出了預期的用途◕▩。大規模的新建築甚至更新目前裝置的希望都不大◕▩。事實是◕│•,我們暫時被舊的│☁◕、過度使用的技術所困◕│•,看不到盡頭◕▩。
這是可怕的◕▩。在一個理想的環境下◕│•,你描繪了一幅安全的核能圖景◕▩。我們的環境遠非如此理想◕▩。實現上述理想環境是不現實的◕▩。你對監管的有效性也過於樂觀◕▩。事故◕│•,無論是可預防的還是不可預防的◕│•,都將繼續發生◕▩。
這能阻止我們嗎?不◕▩。
但這應該會嚇到我們◕▩。它應該激勵我們改進我們的技術◕│•,包括核能和替代能源◕▩。

James Henry
Aug 25, 2017 · 7 upvotes
Thereason our power plants are so old is because of that regulation. It’s toodifficult (financially/politically) to build a new nuclear power plant.

我們的發電廠之所以這麼老◕│•,就是因為這個監管◕▩。建一座新核電廠(在財政上/在政治上)太困難了◕▩。