点击右上角
微信好友
朋友圈
请使用浏览器分享功能进行分享
中新网评：处理核污水绝不是日本自家私事******
中新网北京1月19日电(蒋鲤)日本政府近日称，将于2023年春夏期间开始向海洋排放经过处理的福岛第一核电站核污水。日本罔顾国内民众及周边国家的屡屡反对，企图将核污水“一倒了之”，把一件关乎全球海洋生态环境和公众健康的事当成了自家私事。
资料图：日本福岛第一核电站。2011年，福岛核电站事故发生后，大量放射性物质泄漏到大气层和太平洋，对周围环境造成了难以逆转的伤害，数十万人被迫撤离该地区。时至今日，作为日本邻国之一的韩国仍未解除福岛海鲜禁令。
日本以核污水存储能力即将达到上限为由，在2021年4月13日，正式决定将福岛第一核电站核污水排入太平洋。过去一年多，日本政府和东京电力公司一直在持续推进核污水排海计划。
日本政府辩称，这些核污水经多核素处理系统(ALPS)处理后很安全，甚至“可以喝”，这样的表态无疑在愚弄大众。
事实上，经过处理的核污水仍含有多种放射性物质，核污水一旦排放入海就无法回收，长期来看，将会给海洋生态带来难以估量的潜在威胁，最终危害人类健康。
因此，核污水排海计划推出后，遭到日本民众强烈反对。日本《朝日新闻》2022年3月公布的问卷调查显示，福岛县、宫城县和岩手县受访的42个市町村长中，约六成反对东京电力公司福岛第一核电站核污水排放入海。日本全国渔业协会联合会也多次申明立场，反对该计划。
日本政府认为，核污水排海是最便宜、最省事的解决方案，但此举却将周边国家乃至全世界置于核污染风险中。太平洋非日本一家之海，核污水会随着洋流流动，其影响势必会跨越国界，危害周边国家乃至整个国际社会的公共福祉和利益。
《韩国经济新闻》发文称，相关研究认为，福岛核污水如果排放入海，约7个月后将到达济州等韩国海域，该国水产业和旅游业将遭受相当大的损失。
德国南极海洋机构也曾发出警告，若日本将所有核污水排入海中，不到半年，整个太平洋都将面临高度辐射威胁，包括远在大洋另一端的美国。太平洋地区人民更是对日本该计划持反对意见。
日本作为《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国，有义务保护海洋环境。然而，在核污水排海方案的正当性、核污水数据的可靠性、净化装置的有效性、环境影响的不确定性等问题上，日本未能作出科学、可信的说明。
国际原子能机构技术工作组虽已三次赴日实地考察评估，但尚未就日排海方案的安全性给出结论，并且对日本提出诸多澄清要求和整改意见。在此情况下，日本仍执意推进核污水排海工程建设，这是极不负责任的行为。
太平洋不是日本的下水道，日本必须正视各方合理关切，在与周边国家等相关利益方和国际原子能机构充分协商后，制定合理的核污水处理方案。日本也要着眼长远，若只顾眼前，执意将核污水排放入海，不仅其自身，周边国家乃至全世界都将为之买单，其后果必将会危害数代人。
Fukushima water disposal by no means Japan’s own business
By John Lee
(ECNS) -- Japan has announced it will release treated wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean this year.
Although Fukushima wastewater disposal affects global marine ecological environment protection and public health, Japan has turned a deaf ear to domestic and international opposition to dumping the contaminated water into the sea, treating the "global" matter as its own business.
The Fukushima accident in 2011 had sent large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding environment, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to evacuate the area. South Korea still maintains its import ban on Japanese seafood from areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On April 13, 2021, Japan announced it had decided to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea due to dwindling storage space, with the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. promoting the release plan over the past year.
The Japanese government argues that the water treated by an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, is safe and drinkable, which is undoubtedly fooling the public.
In fact, the treated wastewater still includes a variety of radioactive substances and can’t be recycled once discharged into the sea, which will pose a great threat to marine ecology and ultimately endanger human health in the long run.
Therefore, the discharge plan has been strongly opposed in Japan. According to a questionnaire conducted by The Asahi Shimbun, nearly 60 percent of mayors of 42 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures oppose the discharge plan. The National Fisheries Cooperative Federation of Japan has also repeatedly stated its opposition in public.
The Japanese government believes that dumping Fukushima wastewater into the sea is the cheapest and most convenient solution, but neighboring countries and even the whole world will be at risk of nuclear pollution.
The Pacific Ocean doesn’t belong to Japan and the wastewater flow along oceanic currents will surely break boundaries and endanger public welfare and the interests of neighboring countries and even the international community.
The Korea Economic Daily reported that related research concluded that if contaminated water from Fukushima is released into the ocean, it would only take seven months for the contaminated water to reach the shores of Jeju Island, with the country's aquaculture and tourism suffering considerable losses.
According to the calculation of a German marine scientific research institute, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within half a year from the date of discharge, and the U.S. and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution. People in the Pacific region also oppose the discharge plan.
As a participant of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation of protecting the marine environment.
However, it hasn’t offered a full and convincing explanation on issues like the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of data on the nuclear-contaminated water, the efficacy of the treatment system or the uncertainty of environmental impact.
Though the IAEA has yet to complete a comprehensive review after three investigations in Japan, the Japanese side has been pushing through the approval process for its discharge plan and even started building facilities for the discharge. It is rather irresponsible for Japan to act against public opinion at home and concerns abroad.
The Pacific Ocean is not a private Japanese sewer. The country must seriously heed the voices of the international community and make a reasonable plan for the Fukushima wastewater disposal after full consultation with stakeholders and international agencies.
If it only seeks instant interest and insists on discharging the contaminated water into the sea, not only itself, but also its neighboring countries and the entire world will pay for the decision and several generations will be forced to bear the consequence.
国际人工智能协会前主席：未来AI或可和人类一起发表论文****** 中新网12月9日电 (中新财经记者 谢艺观)“如果人工智能(AI)系统是个‘黑盒子’，那么它们永远都无法向科学家解释它们的决定。所以我们需要让AI成为生态系统的一部分，让AI从自动复制文章到变成研究助理，这样AI就可以在这个过程中显示它们可以承担新的任务，最后它们甚至可以和人类一起写作、发表论文。” 9日，国际人工智能协会前主席约兰达·吉尔在“2022人工智能合作与治理国际论坛”上如是表示。该论坛由清华大学主办、清华大学人工智能国际治理研究院(I-AIIG)承办，中国新闻网作为战略合作伙伴。  国际人工智能协会前主席约兰达·吉尔在“2022人工智能合作与治理国际论坛”上发言。约兰达·吉尔认为，人类的局限性会阻碍科学的进步。我们进入跨学科研究时，从生理、行为、医学等多个角度看，很难把各个学科的知识融会贯通。但是人工智能在这个方面有它的优势。人工智能系统越能够了解科学的各个门类，就越能更好地进行跨学科的聚合。 在约兰达·吉尔看来，一个值得思考的问题是，我们如何去开发人工智能，使其在未来能够写作论文。这需要我们去获取什么、表现什么，从而使得人工智能系统具有写论文的能力。 “如果说人工智能系统能承担这个任务，论文将会更加准确。”约兰达·吉尔提到，同时，我们也可使论文定制化，例如有的人想浏览，有的人想看原则、方法论和结果，有的人想重现结果，我们可以利用人工智能系统，实现论文定制化。 约兰达·吉尔认为存在开发人工智能科学家的路径。“我们给予它算法、数据，又不止于此，让人工智能够有更大的主动性，有一定的自主性、独立性，以此去研究科学问题，进一步成为研究助理甚至作者。”(完)
|
)