核废水要我们喂到你嘴里吗？
在China Daily看到的新闻。
使用 有道翻译 翻译了一下。
日本向海洋倾倒污水是前所未有的，也是不合理的
专家说，考虑到日本没有充分听取所有国际利益相关者的意见，日本决定从福岛第一核电站(Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station)排放受核污染的水缺乏理由。
他们还对日本的决定对环境和健康产生的不确定的长期影响表示关切，因为世界上没有先例可以遵循从重大核事故中大量排放受污染的水到海洋中。
生态环境部核与辐射安全中心首席专家兼研究员刘新华表示，判断是否合理是一个非常复杂的问题，需要所有利益相关者的参与，才能达成一个大家都能接受的解决方案。
“如果你的决定会影响到我，那么你必须充分征求我的意见，这需要所有相关各方的参与，”他说。
他指出，日方没有与周边国家进行充分沟通，有关决定没有充分反映周边国家的意见，缺乏正当性。
他指出，日方没有与周边国家进行充分沟通，有关决定没有充分反映周边国家的意见，缺乏正当性。
此外，清华大学核能与新能源技术研究所的王建龙教授对日本的决定表示了极大的担忧，因为这是第一次被重大核事故污染的水排放到大海中，他说这与核电站正常运行时排放的处理过的水完全不同。
他说，受污染的福岛污水被用来冷却熔化的堆芯，堆芯释放出大量放射性核素，包括长寿命的同位素，而核电站的常规污水很少与燃料堆芯接触，因此几乎不含这些有毒元素。
此外，他说，氚是福岛核污染水中的主要放射性核素之一，但它很难去除。他强调，这种物质对环境的长期影响，特别是对生态系统的影响，目前尚不清楚。
这位教授说:“福岛核污染水排放造成的影响在未来三到五年内并不明显，因为有些影响是长期的、慢性的，目前无法评估。”
王说:“氚和水一样，可以通过生物浓度被人体吸收，比如通过食物摄入。”“氚进入人体造成的危害非常大，可能导致DNA受损，导致遗传变化。这种潜在的长期影响尚不确定。”
他认为，在许多问题没有得出结论的情况下，决定将受核污染的水排放入海是不负责任的。
本月早些时候，国际原子能机构发布了《福岛第一核电站alps处理水安全评估综合报告》。
尽管获得了批准，国际原子能机构的报告指出，日本的先进液体处理系统无法去除核污染水中的所有放射性核素。日本公布的数据显示，超过70%的alps处理过的水不符合标准，因此需要进一步处理。
人们还怀疑这份报告的准确性，因为东京电力公司(Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings)近年来多次掩盖或捏造数据。原子能机构的审查和评估是根据日本单方面提供的数据和资料进行的，其实验室间的比较依赖于日本收集的少量样本。
因此，应该对数据的真实性和信息的准确性提出一个合理的问题，首席专家刘说，强调建立一个独立的第三方和多边监督小组的必要性。
原文：
Japan dumping effluent into the sea is unprecedented and unjustified
Japan's decision to discharge nuclear-contaminated water from its Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station lacks justification, given it hasn't fully listened to the opinions of all international stakeholders, experts said.
They also expressed concerns over the uncertain long-term effects Japan's decision has on the environment and health, as the world has no precedent to follow regarding the massive discharge of contaminated water from a major nuclear accident into the sea.
Liu Xinhua, chief expert and researcher at the Nuclear and Radiation Safety Center of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, said the judgment of justification is a very complex issue that requires the participation of all stakeholders in order to reach a solution that is accepted by all.
"If your decision would affect me, then you have to fully seek my opinion, and it requires the participation of all parties involved," he said.
He pointed out that Japan has not conducted sufficient communication with neighboring countries and its decision has not adequately reflected their opinions in this regard, so the decision lacks justification.
In addition, Wang Jianlong, a professor at Tsinghua University's Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology, expressed great concern about Japan's decision, given that it is the first time water polluted by a major nuclear accident would be discharged into the sea, which he said is completely different from the discharge of treated water from the normal operation of a nuclear power plant.
The contaminated Fukushima wastewater was used to cool down the molten core, which released a large amount of radionuclides, including long-lived isotopes, whereas regular effluents from nuclear plants rarely come into contact with the fuel core and thus contain almost none of those toxic elements, he said.
Furthermore, tritium is one of the main radioactive nuclides in the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water, but it is difficult to remove, he said, stressing that the long-term effects of this substance on the environment, particularly on ecosystems, are currently unknown.
"The impacts caused by the discharge of Fukushima's nuclear-contaminated water are not evident in just the next three to five years because some effects are long-term, chronic and cannot be assessed at present," said the professor.
"Tritium, like water, can be absorbed by the human body through biological concentration, such as through food consumption," Wang said. "The harm caused by tritium entering the body is very significant, leading to possible damage to DNA, causing hereditary changes. This potential long-term impact is uncertain."
He believes that it's irresponsible to decide to release nuclear-contaminated water into the sea without reaching a conclusion on many issues.
Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of ALPS-treated Water at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.
Despite rendering approval, the IAEA's report pointed out Japan's Advanced Liquid Processing System cannot remove all the radionuclides in the nuclear-contaminated water. Data released by Japan show over 70 percent of the ALPS-treated water does not meet standards and thus needs further treatment.
Doubts also remain over the accuracy of the data used to draft the report, as Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings has repeatedly covered up or fabricated data in recent years. The IAEA's review and assessment were based on data and information provided unilaterally by Japan, and its inter-laboratory comparison relied on a small number of samples collected by Japan.
Thus, a reasonable question should be posted on the authenticity of data and the accuracy of inform
