在China Daily看到的新聞。

使用 有道翻譯 翻譯了一下。

日本向海洋傾倒污水是前所未有的，也是不合理的

專家說，考慮到日本沒有充分聽取所有國際利益相關(guān)者的意見，日本決定從福島第一核電站(Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station)排放受核污染的水缺乏理由。

他們還對(duì)日本的決定對(duì)環(huán)境和健康產(chǎn)生的不確定的長期影響表示關(guān)切，因?yàn)槭澜缟蠜]有先例可以遵循從重大核事故中大量排放受污染的水到海洋中。

生態(tài)環(huán)境部核與輻射安全中心首席專家兼研究員劉新華表示，判斷是否合理是一個(gè)非常復(fù)雜的問題，需要所有利益相關(guān)者的參與，才能達(dá)成一個(gè)大家都能接受的解決方案。

“如果你的決定會(huì)影響到我，那么你必須充分征求我的意見，這需要所有相關(guān)各方的參與，”他說。

他指出，日方?jīng)]有與周邊國家進(jìn)行充分溝通，有關(guān)決定沒有充分反映周邊國家的意見，缺乏正當(dāng)性。

他指出，日方?jīng)]有與周邊國家進(jìn)行充分溝通，有關(guān)決定沒有充分反映周邊國家的意見，缺乏正當(dāng)性。

此外，清華大學(xué)核能與新能源技術(shù)研究所的王建龍教授對(duì)日本的決定表示了極大的擔(dān)憂，因?yàn)檫@是第一次被重大核事故污染的水排放到大海中，他說這與核電站正常運(yùn)行時(shí)排放的處理過的水完全不同。

他說，受污染的福島污水被用來冷卻熔化的堆芯，堆芯釋放出大量放射性核素，包括長壽命的同位素，而核電站的常規(guī)污水很少與燃料堆芯接觸，因此幾乎不含這些有毒元素。

此外，他說，氚是福島核污染水中的主要放射性核素之一，但它很難去除。他強(qiáng)調(diào)，這種物質(zhì)對(duì)環(huán)境的長期影響，特別是對(duì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的影響，目前尚不清楚。

這位教授說:“福島核污染水排放造成的影響在未來三到五年內(nèi)并不明顯，因?yàn)橛行┯绊懯情L期的、慢性的，目前無法評(píng)估。”

王說:“氚和水一樣，可以通過生物濃度被人體吸收，比如通過食物攝入。”“氚進(jìn)入人體造成的危害非常大，可能導(dǎo)致DNA受損，導(dǎo)致遺傳變化。這種潛在的長期影響尚不確定?！?/p>

他認(rèn)為，在許多問題沒有得出結(jié)論的情況下，決定將受核污染的水排放入海是不負(fù)責(zé)任的。

本月早些時(shí)候，國際原子能機(jī)構(gòu)發(fā)布了《福島第一核電站alps處理水安全評(píng)估綜合報(bào)告》。

盡管獲得了批準(zhǔn)，國際原子能機(jī)構(gòu)的報(bào)告指出，日本的先進(jìn)液體處理系統(tǒng)無法去除核污染水中的所有放射性核素。日本公布的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，超過70%的alps處理過的水不符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，因此需要進(jìn)一步處理。

人們還懷疑這份報(bào)告的準(zhǔn)確性，因?yàn)闁|京電力公司(Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings)近年來多次掩蓋或捏造數(shù)據(jù)。原子能機(jī)構(gòu)的審查和評(píng)估是根據(jù)日本單方面提供的數(shù)據(jù)和資料進(jìn)行的，其實(shí)驗(yàn)室間的比較依賴于日本收集的少量樣本。

因此，應(yīng)該對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)的真實(shí)性和信息的準(zhǔn)確性提出一個(gè)合理的問題，首席專家劉說，強(qiáng)調(diào)建立一個(gè)獨(dú)立的第三方和多邊監(jiān)督小組的必要性。

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