|
Junior Member
|
引用:
|
作者老老濕
日本打算把福島的高濃度核廢水倒入海中
雍核人士
請問該如何處理
這些高濃度核廢水10年之內就會影響台灣
|
「高」濃度有多高？
查了一下「雍核人士」的說法。
福島核廢水的氚濃度是 60,000 Bq/L，
澳大利亞飲用水中氚含量的允許限值是 76,103 Bq/L(好奇怪的數字)。
怎樣算高的認定差異很大。
不過日本是否真的有把氚以外的核種都濾乾淨了？
https://safecast.org/2018/06/part-1...should-be-done/
引用:
Dr. Kanda further explains that biological organisms such as fish have different concentration factors for different radionuclides. When the ambient level of Cs137 in seawater is 1 Bq/L, for instance, some fish species may show values approaching 100 Bq/kg. But for tritium (H3) the ratio is 1:1, and 1 Bq/L in seawater will result in 1Bq/kg in fish. Again, at La Hague, which has had a much higher release of tritium for decades, the concentrations in marine wildlife near the point of release between 1997-2006 has ranged from 4.0 – 19.0 Bq/kg, with a mean of 11.1 Bq/kg. Using this as a guideline, Kanda estimates that even with an ongoing release of 60,000 Bq/L of tritium offshore of Daiichi, the fish a short distance away are unlikely to exceed 1 Bq/kg. This can, and must be, confirmed by conscientious monitoring.
What about health effects to humans? Though the release from Daiichi would be many times smaller than what is ongoing from LaHague or Sellafield, and the levels in the ocean after release seem likely to be close to that in normal rivers and rainwater, it is understandable that people would be concerned about risk. The scientific consensus is that tritium presents a much lower risk than radionuclides such as radioactive cesium, radioactive iodine, or strontium. This is reflected in allowable limits in drinking water which are generally tens or hundreds of times higher for tritium than for these others, ranging from 100 Bq/L in the European Union, 740 Bq/L in the US, 7000 Bq/L in Canada, 30,000 Bq/L in Finland, and 76,103 Bq/L in Australia. The WHO limit for tritium in drinking water is 10,000 Bq/L. Allowable limits in food have in most cases not been established. While these limits reflect a general scientific consensus that tritium presents a very low risk, the wide range of official values suggests scientific uncertainty about how it actually affects the human body.
|
騰訊翻譯
引用:
神田博士進一步解釋說，魚類等生物對不同的放射性核素有不同的濃縮係數。例如，當海水中Cs137的環境水平為1Bq/L時，某些魚類的值可能接近100Bq/kg。而氚(H3)的比例為1：1，海水中氚含量為1Bq/L時，魚體中的氚含量為1Bq/kg。同樣，在幾十年來氚釋放量高得多的拉海牙，1997-2006年間，接近釋放點的海洋生物中的氚濃度從4.0到19.0Bq/kg不等，平均為11.1Bq/kg。以此為指導，神田估計，即使在福島近海持續釋放6萬Bq/L的氚，短距離外的魚也不太可能超過1Bq/kg。這一點可以，也必須通過認真的監督加以證實。
那麼對人類的健康影響呢？雖然第一核電站的排放量將比拉黑格或塞拉菲爾德正在進行的排放量小許多倍，而且釋放後海洋中的水平似乎與正常河流和雨水中的水平接近，但人們擔心風險是可以理解的。科學界的共識是，氚的風險比放射性銫、放射性碘或鍶等放射性核素低得多。這反映在飲用水中的氚允許限量通常比其他標準高出數十倍或數百倍，範圍從歐盟的100Bq/L、美國的740Bq/L、加拿大的7000Bq/L、芬蘭的3萬Bq/L和澳大利亞的76103Bq/L不等。世界衛生組織對飲用水中氚的限量為10000 Bq/L，在大多數情況下，食品中的允許限量尚未確定。雖然這些限制反映了一個普遍的科學共識，即氚的風險非常低，但官方數值的廣泛範圍表明，科學上不確定氚對人體的實際影響。
|
|