媽媽監督聯盟:陳靄玲關心核能安全

小柚子

為何我想要邀請楊醫生來演講，因為我感受到他的用心與熱情關懷這一塊土地。

沒有酬勞，不上媒體，全省走透透，沒有政黨色彩，竭力喚起公民意識。

我不認識他，但他的文字，卻讓我深深感動，就讓我回想起當初聯盟夥伴一起反空污反殯葬的初衷。

他反核理由，相信跟很多不支持核能者立場相同，但他同時也提出替代方法與節能方案，這些資訊是我更想了解的。

不管核四公投結果如何，我們還是得走下去，如何確保核廢料與核電廠安全，如何積極發展再生能源，力行節能，隨手做環保，這應該是我們一直要努力的方向。

歡迎有興趣了解核能議題者，在7樓按讚，只要累積到20個有興趣聽演講，我就會幫忙安排楊醫生來北大開講。

大頭

魯西恩 發表於 2013-4-2 08:54
誠然在核電廠工作的媽媽不表示他就不愛小孩。
同樣的核四廠的安全與否，也不是一兩個人的努力就可以確保 ...

我也十分認同不是靠一、兩個人就可以保證核電安全，從核電廠開發設計乃至於建材，都被報出有問題，這不是你認真工作就不會出問題的，還有一旦發生核安，政府連疏導能力都沒有(看那些官員答不出來就可以知道)，我們看不到具體的措施，當然有很大疑慮‧

rainbow

看看nature的原文吧~
連結http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110421/full/472400a.html
在人口這一段提到台灣部分原文如下
"Population

Population density is one critical lens through which other risks have to be assessed, says Laurent Stricker, a nuclear engineer who is chairman of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), created as an international forum on nuclear safety in the aftermath of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. "We need to look at the safety of reactors taking into account where they are," he says (see Nature 472, 274; 2011).

To carry out the population analysis, Nature teamed up with the NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center based at Columbia University (see 'How population sizes were estimated' for an explanation of how the analysis was carried out). The KANUPP plant in Karachi, Pakistan, has the most people — 8.2 million — living within 30 kilometres, although it has just one relatively small reactor with an output of 125 megawatts (see 'Nuclear neighbours'). Next in the league, however, are much larger plants — Taiwan's 1,933-megawatt Kuosheng plant with 5.5 million people within a 30-kilometre radius and the 1,208-megawatt Chin Shan plant with 4.7 million; both zones include the capital city of Taipei. The findings of Nature 's population analysis are "scary", says Ed Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC.
"
前面有提到  要對核電廠的危險程度排名是不可能的"
Nuclear experts say that an objective 'danger' ranking is almost impossible because each reactor has its own unique risk profile, and some risks are simply unknowable."
後面則陸續指出 External threats,Design and age ,Culture等等也都是評估時會考慮的風險因子

這場面談裡  讓我印象深刻的是的是清大核工系所長喻冀平先生的這段話"建廠是考慮地震、海嘯，歷裡史紀錄做選擇。關於人口密度高，這是普遍的現象，以75公里為範圍，有152座核電廠都距離人口密度高；如果考慮150公里，只有5座電廠不在那裡；核電廠旁人口高密度，代表國際專家對核電廠有信心；人口密度高，電視需求也高；以安全來說，也不能只看人口密度。 "
(新聞連結 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E8%AB% ... 5%B7-112030798.html)

因為江院長才剛說完"我也非常關心到底核一、核二是不是全球最危險的第二、第三名」；讀了之後發現，該文也提到「人口」不是唯一擔心的，還包括內在設計、組織文化、外在威脅，只是「破題」吸引大家關注，真是關鍵的是「安全文化」，最忌諱的是「過度自信」。 "

難怪 所長會被吐槽 "張雅麗吐槽說，「我也忍不住，我也看了，為何把人口當作考量因素，因為發生危險時，疏散速度、影響程度，20跟75公里是不一樣的，20公里內的影響性、輻射性跟75公里不相同的，所以不應再擴大到75，「那你已可以算到100啊」。

她還回應喻冀平說，「我不是學工的人，但我相信，電廠跟人口，不見得有必然的關係，因為電廠可輸電，不會只為當地做設計。「學文科的人，可能腦袋比較簡單，但我們重視是人。」"

rainbow

nature報導說  依照核電廠附近30公里內人口數  
台灣核電廠附近人口數之多讓人scary

另一篇華爾街日報則是從地震帶來檢查各國核電廠
(全文請見以下連結
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB ... 08872161503008.html)

華爾街日報使用的資料來源
The Wall Street Journal looked at the location of more than 400 nuclear reactors across the world—as well as another 100 that are either planned or being built—using data provided by the World Nuclear Association, a London-based industry group. The Journal then used data from the Global Seismic Hazard Program, a 1999 study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Swiss Seismological Service, to determine the earthquake risk at each plant.

比對後發現 台灣和日本的核電廠佔了多數
"Japan and Taiwan together account for 30 of the 34 high-activity reactors. But the U.S. has two reactors in such areas and Slovenia and Armenia have one each. Armenia has another planned."

rainbow

kwbaseball2002 發表於 2013-4-1 14:29
這場大戲演得真好,.....
早就在懷疑那群富媽媽...之前不敢講...
現在可以好好討論討論囉....

噗~  我是寧願相信大家都是善意啦
只是可能心中還存在一些茫然
不過  應該有人可以跟你一起討論
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/blogs/s ... D%89-065810193.html

小柚子

rainbow 發表於 2013-4-2 10:16
看看nature的原文吧~
連結http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110421/full/472400a.html
在人口這一段提到台 ...

Nature尚有提到

External threats:
地震.海嘯.火災.洪水.颶風或恐怖攻擊，都是導致嚴重核災原因。核電廠規劃設計已超越工程師當初預期風險所能承擔範圍。
As Fukushima showed, external threats — such as earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, flooding, tornadoes or even terrorist attacks — are some of the greatest risk factors for a serious nuclear accident.

This means that nuclear plants situated outside known geological danger zones could pose greater accident threats in the event of an earthquake than those inside, as the former could have weaker protection built in.
The Fukushima Daiichi plant, for example, was located in an area designated, on Japan's seismic risk map, as having a relatively low chance of a large earthquake and tsunami; when the 2011 tsunami arrived, it was in excess of anything its engineers had planned for.


Deasign and Age
舊電廠不必然比新電廠危險，核電廠規模越大越危險。
Older reactors are not necessarily more dangerous than newer ones.
Some reactors and plants are inherently more dangerous than others. One factor is sheer size. A larger plant can generate more fallout, and when simultaneous crises develop at multiple reactors


Culture
提到過度自信.缺乏良善監督與貪污，都可能是淺在危險因子。
Operators must guard against complacency."One flaw that I worry about is that of overconfidence." Experts say that the largest single internal factor determining the safety of a plant is the culture of security among regulators, operators and the workforce — and creating such a culture is not easy.
Experts worry about lack of regulatory oversight and corruption in some regions.

小柚子

Nature閱讀心得:

假如國際專家針對核四廠提出意見，個人推估外在威脅評估應該跟日本差不多，但差異最大應該是，台灣在首都圈設置核電廠，地狹人稠，若嚴重核災發生，恐有亡國之虞。

應該沒有任何國際專家敢為任何核電廠背書，相信會列舉各樣危險因素，風險請自行評估。

工程安全只是其中因素之一，但不保證不發生嚴重核災。

光是核一核二廠，就被專家形容Scary，加上核四(姑且不論核四拼裝設計及施工品質，就坐落位置與規模來說)，應該是"Extremely" scary。

嚴重核災發生的因子很多，不可否認的是核電廠與核廢料數量越多，風險越大。

evalee

幫推，直達7樓按讚，集滿20個讚，小柚子將邀請楊醫師來演講。
透過楊醫師互動式演說，從醫業專業視角，闡明核能對人體影響，開啟參與者與核安問題對話視窗!

小柚子

evalee 發表於 2013-4-2 23:25
幫推，直達7樓按讚，集滿20個讚，小柚子將邀請楊醫師來演講。
透過楊醫師互動式演說，從醫業專業視角，闡明 ...

不幸核災發生，未雨綢繆，如何降低核輻射對孩子影響，值得聽聽醫生專業建議。

德哥

說實在話~~
我不反核也不擁核....
只是...
我很好奇...
我們對節能努力了多少??