我不是輻射專家,綜合各方報導,估計原因機場位於西部,有兩個火力發電廠,再加上珠江三角洲大量火力發電廠使用的煤炭,所做成的煤炭粉尘輻射,含有的放射性比核废料高出100倍!
根據天文臺網頁所顯示,香港東部接近大亞灣核電廠的地區,輻射量反而比起香港其他地區更小,
現時香港的輻射分佈圖:
http://www.weather.gov.hk/radiation/ermp/rmn/applet/map/rmn_hourly_c.htm |
根據美國 NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95 兩份報告顯示,煤電做成的輻射比核電做成的輻射最少高出一百倍,而且还没计算开采煤矿,运送煤炭,弃置煤灰等过程中所造成的辐射,當然這是在核電廠正常運作情況下做的比較:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
"Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article. "
"For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown."
我估計是這樣,煤炭含有微量放射性物質,但因為火力發電要使用大量煤炭,而這些放射性物質不能被燒掉,而且非常重(鈾的密度比铅高出约70%),隨著發電廠的廢氣進入空氣,然後下沉,所以累積起來的輻射量比核電廠更厲害,不知道有沒有人測試過這些比鉛還要重的物質,能夠漂浮多遠?
核電廠不需要氧氣,在正常情況下也不會有燃料被使用過後的剩餘物質噴出大氣,所以輻射量比火力發電廠少得多。 核電雖好,但對安全性的要求極高,我寧願政府花多點錢和時間培訓和考核工作人員,好過馬虎趕工。 而且不排除反核勢力利用承建商趕工作進度的心態,派人混進核電站工地搞破壞。
No comments:
Post a Comment