核电站安全吗?
正文翻译
评论：
Are nuclear power plants safe?
核电站安全吗?
核电站安全吗?
评论：
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，它们当然能杀人，但是……等一下，很多东西都能杀人。你不会让你的孩子乘坐不安全的汽车，但即使有安全气囊和防抱死刹车，汽车每年也会造成3万美国人死亡。
但是想想辐射。为什么,福岛,辐射杀死了....一个人没有。好吧，最近有一个工厂工人参与了清理工作他得了白血病，这可能是由于他暴露在辐射下。这是可怕的，悲哀的，悲惨的，但是你知道，日本没有军队，同时核工业在保持国家清洁、安全、繁荣方面发挥了重要作用，在美国，我们为那些在战争中牺牲的人们举行了一场充满荣誉的军事葬礼。几乎是一样的。
即便如此，核电站离最大的辐射源还差得很远，首先就是煤炭，其次是石油。这两种方法都能以真正的工业规模释放自然产生的放射性物质，但不要太担心。“没有安全剂量的辐射”的想法是一个神话。
事实上，我们知道这是一个神话，因为在伊朗、印度和巴西(以及其他地方)，有些人自然地暴露在超过正常背景辐射十倍的环境中——科学家可以看到他们的细胞对辐射损伤作出反应的代谢证据，然而，他们在癌症风险上没有任何统计学意义上的显著增加。所以很明显，有一个安全剂量，我们都需要停止担心在整个生物圈中稀释的微小辐射排放。
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，它们当然能杀人，但是……等一下，很多东西都能杀人。你不会让你的孩子乘坐不安全的汽车，但即使有安全气囊和防抱死刹车，汽车每年也会造成3万美国人死亡。
但是想想辐射。为什么,福岛,辐射杀死了....一个人没有。好吧，最近有一个工厂工人参与了清理工作他得了白血病，这可能是由于他暴露在辐射下。这是可怕的，悲哀的，悲惨的，但是你知道，日本没有军队，同时核工业在保持国家清洁、安全、繁荣方面发挥了重要作用，在美国，我们为那些在战争中牺牲的人们举行了一场充满荣誉的军事葬礼。几乎是一样的。
即便如此，核电站离最大的辐射源还差得很远，首先就是煤炭，其次是石油。这两种方法都能以真正的工业规模释放自然产生的放射性物质，但不要太担心。“没有安全剂量的辐射”的想法是一个神话。
事实上，我们知道这是一个神话，因为在伊朗、印度和巴西(以及其他地方)，有些人自然地暴露在超过正常背景辐射十倍的环境中——科学家可以看到他们的细胞对辐射损伤作出反应的代谢证据，然而，他们在癌症风险上没有任何统计学意义上的显著增加。所以很明显，有一个安全剂量，我们都需要停止担心在整个生物圈中稀释的微小辐射排放。
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，燃煤电厂排放的氡是一种拥有巨大放射性的气体，它会沉降到地面，使住在下风的人患肺癌的风险增加。那个，我们测量起来没有问题。
但你不能只看辐射。你必须纵观全局，包括各种原因导致的死亡、辐射、火灾、各种污染等等。
核电站安全吗?没有他们该有的那样安全。切尔诺贝利本不应该发生(它是在没有适当控制的情况下建造的)。福岛核事故本不应该发生，一份核管理委员会的报告在几年前就警告过这种海啸风险。这些较老的第二代核电站需要加固、严密监控，并加速淘汰。但是如果你用除核以外的任何东西来代替它们，更多的人将会死亡。
相反，它们应该被第三代被动安全的设计（passively safe designs）所取代。然后，几十年后我们将进行第四代设计，包括能够消耗过去50年积累的废燃料的行波反应堆。在接下来的数万年里，当它们用完这些元素后，就会继续使用未经浓缩的天然铀238。与此同时，我们只是稍微放松一下，因为我们知道，在全世界范围内，尽管情况很糟糕，核能比煤炭安全一千多倍。
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，燃煤电厂排放的氡是一种拥有巨大放射性的气体，它会沉降到地面，使住在下风的人患肺癌的风险增加。那个，我们测量起来没有问题。
但你不能只看辐射。你必须纵观全局，包括各种原因导致的死亡、辐射、火灾、各种污染等等。
核电站安全吗?没有他们该有的那样安全。切尔诺贝利本不应该发生(它是在没有适当控制的情况下建造的)。福岛核事故本不应该发生，一份核管理委员会的报告在几年前就警告过这种海啸风险。这些较老的第二代核电站需要加固、严密监控，并加速淘汰。但是如果你用除核以外的任何东西来代替它们，更多的人将会死亡。
相反，它们应该被第三代被动安全的设计（passively safe designs）所取代。然后，几十年后我们将进行第四代设计，包括能够消耗过去50年积累的废燃料的行波反应堆。在接下来的数万年里，当它们用完这些元素后，就会继续使用未经浓缩的天然铀238。与此同时，我们只是稍微放松一下，因为我们知道，在全世界范围内，尽管情况很糟糕，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?
为什么伊朗、巴西和印度的人们暴露在“十倍于正常背景辐射”的环境中?你有什么消息来源吗?
Aug 25, 2017
Whyare people in Iran,Brazil, and India exposed to “Ten times the normalbackground radiation”? Do you have any sources for that?
为什么伊朗、巴西和印度的人们暴露在“十倍于正常背景辐射”的环境中?你有什么消息来源吗?
CStuart Hardwick
Aug 26, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Ineach case, high levels of thorium in the geology.
在以上这些地方，地质学中钍的含量都很高。
Aug 26, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Ineach case, high levels of thorium in the geology.
在以上这些地方，地质学中钍的含量都很高。
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.
完全正确。
当绿色和平组织的盖革计数器监视团队前往康沃尔，测量塞拉菲尔德(Sellafield)核废料再处理厂可能的排放物读数。他们惊奇地发现，当地环境的辐射水平远远高于可能的人工辐射水平。
旧花岗岩释放氡气体。
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.
完全正确。
当绿色和平组织的盖革计数器监视团队前往康沃尔，测量塞拉菲尔德(Sellafield)核废料再处理厂可能的排放物读数。他们惊奇地发现，当地环境的辐射水平远远高于可能的人工辐射水平。
旧花岗岩释放氡气体。
Christian Dechery
Aug 25, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Wehave a beach in Brazil, where the sand is radioactive. And it measures withlevels higher than Fukushima.
我们在巴西有一个海滩，那里的沙子具有放射性。它的辐射水平高于福岛。
《Guarapari》——维基
Aug 25, 2017 · 5 upvotes
Wehave a beach in Brazil, where the sand is radioactive. And it measures withlevels higher than Fukushima.
我们在巴西有一个海滩，那里的沙子具有放射性。它的辐射水平高于福岛。
《Guarapari》——维基
——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).
我这么说吧:
人们对数据的准确性争论不休，这些数据表明，与太阳能和风能相比，核能每兆瓦时（注：不太清楚）杀死的人更少。
大多数人的第一个问题是“世界上怎么可能比太阳能或风能更安全?”
答案是“监管”。“政客们不认为要专门监管太阳能或风能，因此，它们实际上并没有超出现有法律的监管范围。”
因此，你偶尔会经历火灾、坠落等危险。没有什么特别令人担心的(除了这些方面不知道制造了多少垃圾，但没有人会费心去记录它!) 如今太阳能和风能是安全的，它们也相对便宜(由于监管力度的减弱——并不是说它们需要像核电那样多的监管，而是在某些领域需要更多监管。)。
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).
我这么说吧:
人们对数据的准确性争论不休，这些数据表明，与太阳能和风能相比，核能每兆瓦时（注：不太清楚）杀死的人更少。
大多数人的第一个问题是“世界上怎么可能比太阳能或风能更安全?”
答案是“监管”。“政客们不认为要专门监管太阳能或风能，因此，它们实际上并没有超出现有法律的监管范围。”
因此，你偶尔会经历火灾、坠落等危险。没有什么特别令人担心的(除了这些方面不知道制造了多少垃圾，但没有人会费心去记录它!) 如今太阳能和风能是安全的，它们也相对便宜(由于监管力度的减弱——并不是说它们需要像核电那样多的监管，而是在某些领域需要更多监管。)。
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?我们受到地狱般的监管。一旦你完成了最初的建设这就是大部分成本的来源。就在前几天，职业安全与健康局告诉潜水员，如果没有救生衣和安全绳，他们就不能越过安全栏杆进入水中(潜水员的反应非常好——他们只是忽视了他们，这是理所当然的)。但这就是核电站安全、昂贵的原因:监管严格，直到证明该监管不适用于特定情况。
我们不能从河里取水把鸟粪洗掉留在河里。我们就是这样被监管的。
因此，最轻微的潜在伤害的迹象，和重大的惊吓的发生。有人不小心把头撞到什么东西上了?我得花大把的钱把这个地方变成一个有填充物的房间。(类似这样的情况)。
与切尔诺贝利核电站不同的是，美国核电站的设计能够承受压力爆炸。
是的，福岛有问题，他们没有遵循适当的安全文化。但福岛核事故还没有造成人员伤亡。尽管我很讨厌东京电力公司，但他们还是做了一些正确的事情。
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?我们受到地狱般的监管。一旦你完成了最初的建设这就是大部分成本的来源。就在前几天，职业安全与健康局告诉潜水员，如果没有救生衣和安全绳，他们就不能越过安全栏杆进入水中(潜水员的反应非常好——他们只是忽视了他们，这是理所当然的)。但这就是核电站安全、昂贵的原因:监管严格，直到证明该监管不适用于特定情况。
我们不能从河里取水把鸟粪洗掉留在河里。我们就是这样被监管的。
因此，最轻微的潜在伤害的迹象，和重大的惊吓的发生。有人不小心把头撞到什么东西上了?我得花大把的钱把这个地方变成一个有填充物的房间。(类似这样的情况)。
与切尔诺贝利核电站不同的是，美国核电站的设计能够承受压力爆炸。
是的，福岛有问题，他们没有遵循适当的安全文化。但福岛核事故还没有造成人员伤亡。尽管我很讨厌东京电力公司，但他们还是做了一些正确的事情。
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.
而某次风力涡轮机的火灾造成两人死亡，但福岛的火灾为零。我不专门记这些。我想让我们利用风能。但我是客观地看待问题。
核能极其安全。
你说什么，恐怖分子?他们要用什么来打击它?飞机不会撞坏安全壳。他们对工厂的布局没有足够的了解。我们已经测试了这个。如果你有疑问:
1. 飞机很脆弱，是铝制的。
2. 2米厚的钢筋混凝土墙可以承受任何东西，这还不是反应堆;反应堆本身是由厚钢制成的;它就像一艘战舰。
核电安全部队是一流的，而且根深蒂固。祝你好运。
“但是它太贵了。”“哦，我以为我们想要保护环境，而不是省钱。”我们有很多方法可以使它更便宜。比如摆脱煤炭说客。你知道，那些提倡一种比核能致命一万倍的能源生产方式的人。
我要说的是:它们对普通民众是安全的。我们的老工厂几乎没有杀死任何人，我们现在建造的工厂在某些方面比过去先进半个世纪。与计算机相比，你就会明白为什么我认为用“切尔诺贝利”作为反对建造新反应堆的理由是荒谬的。(除了有少量的核电站像切尔诺贝利核电站那样运行)。
对操作人员来说不太安全。我的一位上司喜欢每周至少提醒我们一次:“如果你放任自流，这个地方会杀了你的。”“旋转机械、坠落地点、触电危险等。
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.
而某次风力涡轮机的火灾造成两人死亡，但福岛的火灾为零。我不专门记这些。我想让我们利用风能。但我是客观地看待问题。
核能极其安全。
你说什么，恐怖分子?他们要用什么来打击它?飞机不会撞坏安全壳。他们对工厂的布局没有足够的了解。我们已经测试了这个。如果你有疑问:
1. 飞机很脆弱，是铝制的。
2. 2米厚的钢筋混凝土墙可以承受任何东西，这还不是反应堆;反应堆本身是由厚钢制成的;它就像一艘战舰。
核电安全部队是一流的，而且根深蒂固。祝你好运。
“但是它太贵了。”“哦，我以为我们想要保护环境，而不是省钱。”我们有很多方法可以使它更便宜。比如摆脱煤炭说客。你知道，那些提倡一种比核能致命一万倍的能源生产方式的人。
我要说的是:它们对普通民众是安全的。我们的老工厂几乎没有杀死任何人，我们现在建造的工厂在某些方面比过去先进半个世纪。与计算机相比，你就会明白为什么我认为用“切尔诺贝利”作为反对建造新反应堆的理由是荒谬的。(除了有少量的核电站像切尔诺贝利核电站那样运行)。
对操作人员来说不太安全。我的一位上司喜欢每周至少提醒我们一次:“如果你放任自流，这个地方会杀了你的。”“旋转机械、坠落地点、触电危险等。
“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.
“那核废料呢?”“嗯，我们需要解决这个问题，我们有计划，但我怀疑是煤炭行业的游说者让高温反应堆流产的。(因此，更高的效率、更高的能源和更低的成本——这要感谢“反应堆成本高”这一论点在一定程度上的正确性，即煤炭)。这些人还关闭了行波反应堆和其他反应堆的设计，这些设计将使核能成为第一种、也是唯一一种可以重复利用自身核废料的能源。
就目前情况而言，这种浪费不会流向任何地方——这是好事。我们可以控制它，调节它，监控它，直到我们可以储存它。我们已经运行它一段时间了，现在如果反环境的恐怖分子能让我们做点什么就好了。
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.
“那核废料呢?”“嗯，我们需要解决这个问题，我们有计划，但我怀疑是煤炭行业的游说者让高温反应堆流产的。(因此，更高的效率、更高的能源和更低的成本——这要感谢“反应堆成本高”这一论点在一定程度上的正确性，即煤炭)。这些人还关闭了行波反应堆和其他反应堆的设计，这些设计将使核能成为第一种、也是唯一一种可以重复利用自身核废料的能源。
就目前情况而言，这种浪费不会流向任何地方——这是好事。我们可以控制它，调节它，监控它，直到我们可以储存它。我们已经运行它一段时间了，现在如果反环境的恐怖分子能让我们做点什么就好了。
AndrewMcKenzie
Sep 4, 2017 · 48 upvotes
Nuclearwill kill us if something goes horribly wrong. Coal will kill us if it worksperfectly as designed.
如果出了什么可怕的问题，核能会杀死我们。
Sep 4, 2017 · 48 upvotes
Nuclearwill kill us if something goes horribly wrong. Coal will kill us if it worksperfectly as designed.
如果出了什么可怕的问题，核能会杀死我们。
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.
虽然我支持核能，但我对此持谨慎态度。事实上，监管几乎总是在某个时候失败。在一个理想的世界里，钻井、采矿、裂变等方面的规章制度会一直保护我们的安全。
事实上，意外总是会发生的。更糟糕的是，对能源公司来说，违反法律并在最终被发现时支付罚款往往更便宜。
所以问题就变成了，“事故发生的后果是什么?”就像钻探和其他开采一样，核能的后果可能是极端的。
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.
虽然我支持核能，但我对此持谨慎态度。事实上，监管几乎总是在某个时候失败。在一个理想的世界里，钻井、采矿、裂变等方面的规章制度会一直保护我们的安全。
事实上，意外总是会发生的。更糟糕的是，对能源公司来说，违反法律并在最终被发现时支付罚款往往更便宜。
所以问题就变成了，“事故发生的后果是什么?”就像钻探和其他开采一样，核能的后果可能是极端的。
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.
随着福岛核事故变得越来越明显，其后果……其实并没有那么严重。
那是一栋非常古老到可笑的核电站。一旦我们用新的核电站取代它们，就成了。意外并不总是会发生。
千年一遇的海啸和地震才暴露出福岛安全文化的不足，即缺乏防护堤，以及柴油发电机放置不当。没有人谈论的是，这也暴露了另一家电力公司，东北电力公司（Tohoku Electric），知道如何正确行事。
女川核电站（The Onagawa Plant）受到的冲击比福岛核电站更严重。但是没有人谈论它，因为它很好。
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.
随着福岛核事故变得越来越明显，其后果……其实并没有那么严重。
那是一栋非常古老到可笑的核电站。一旦我们用新的核电站取代它们，就成了。意外并不总是会发生。
千年一遇的海啸和地震才暴露出福岛安全文化的不足，即缺乏防护堤，以及柴油发电机放置不当。没有人谈论的是，这也暴露了另一家电力公司，东北电力公司（Tohoku Electric），知道如何正确行事。
女川核电站（The Onagawa Plant）受到的冲击比福岛核电站更严重。但是没有人谈论它，因为它很好。
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.
别误会，我确实认为核能更安全。我也认为这是目前唯一可行的选择。但我也不排除固有的风险。
我的表弟是一名核工程师。他曾在奥克里奇和南卡罗来纳州哥伦比亚的反应堆工作过。他显然是核能的坚定支持者。他对美国核能的资金和技术状况也非常诚实。
我们的工厂已经非常非常过时了。它们已经远远超出了预期的用途。大规模的新建筑甚至更新目前设备的希望都不大。事实是，我们暂时被旧的、过度使用的技术所困，看不到尽头。
这是可怕的。在一个理想的环境下，你描绘了一幅安全的核能图景。我们的环境远非如此理想。实现上述理想环境是不现实的。你对监管的有效性也过于乐观。事故，无论是可预防的还是不可预防的，都将继续发生。
这能阻止我们吗?不。
但这应该会吓到我们。它应该激励我们改进我们的技术，包括核能和替代能源。
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.
别误会，我确实认为核能更安全。我也认为这是目前唯一可行的选择。但我也不排除固有的风险。
我的表弟是一名核工程师。他曾在奥克里奇和南卡罗来纳州哥伦比亚的反应堆工作过。他显然是核能的坚定支持者。他对美国核能的资金和技术状况也非常诚实。
我们的工厂已经非常非常过时了。它们已经远远超出了预期的用途。大规模的新建筑甚至更新目前设备的希望都不大。事实是，我们暂时被旧的、过度使用的技术所困，看不到尽头。
这是可怕的。在一个理想的环境下，你描绘了一幅安全的核能图景。我们的环境远非如此理想。实现上述理想环境是不现实的。你对监管的有效性也过于乐观。事故，无论是可预防的还是不可预防的，都将继续发生。
这能阻止我们吗?不。
但这应该会吓到我们。它应该激励我们改进我们的技术，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.
我们的发电厂之所以这么老，就是因为这个监管。建一座新核电厂(在财政上/在政治上)太困难了。
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.
我们的发电厂之所以这么老，就是因为这个监管。建一座新核电厂(在财政上/在政治上)太困难了。
评论翻译
很赞 0
收藏