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.
都是4000元,飞三亚还是飞普吉岛****** 距离春节假期还有不到一周时间,国内游和出境游的热度持续升温。其中,三亚和泰国这两大旅游热门地的性价比和出行便利性被网友们拿来比较。 跨境游,泰国成断层第一 1月15日,红星资本局发现,多个在线旅游平台已上架泰国旅游相关产品。在去哪儿平台上,泰国6日自由行往返机票在4000元左右。其中,最低的是上海到清迈3818元起,最高的是南京到普吉岛4129元起。 飞泰国往返机票约4000元,与成渝、东北等地到海南的往返机票均价相差无几。选择到泰国出境游还是在三亚国内游,引起众多网友热议。 携程数据显示,2022年12月27日至2023年1月11日,在平台预订春节假期跨境旅行的订单中,泰国已成为断层第一(断层第一指第一名与第二名差距很大,形成断层)。尤其在亚洲国家中,泰国订单量超越日韩逾2-3倍。同期,泰国赴中国的旅行预订量同比增长101%。 中国游客是疫情前泰国旅游市场最大的客源群体,泰国对中国旅客期待已久。泰国国家旅游局此前预估,2023年泰国接待国际游客的目标数量为2000万。而自中国宣布放开入境政策之后,泰国方面迅速将该目标上调至2500万。 会否冲击三亚旅游市场? 从出行便利度来看,红星资本局在旅游平台上搜索机票时发现,目前,国内飞泰国的直飞航线较少。以成都飞曼谷、清迈为例,目前暂未开放直飞航班,均要中转。 “从目前看来,去海南的航班数量比泰国多,以成都飞三亚的航班为例,一天就有15班次。差不多等于飞泰国的航班一周的数量。”飞猪相关负责人告诉红星资本局。 泰国民航局此前透露,已有多家航空公司的中泰航班获准在第一季度内从原来每周的15班次增加至每日20班次。外交部发言人汪文斌1月11日也在例行记者会上表示,中方将增加往返泰国等国直航航班,为中国游客前往旅游提供更多便利。 对于出境游回温是否会挤占三亚旅游市场一事,北京第二外国语学院中国文化和旅游大数据研究院执行院长钟栎娜接受红星资本局采访时认为,“出境游的回温,对三亚旅游市场的影响不大。” 钟栎娜补充说明,每逢冬季,到南方避寒的旅客基数大。无论是三亚还是整个海南岛,都难以完全吸纳所有旅客,肯定会有外溢现象出现;其次,出国旅游和国内旅游所对应的人群不同。到三亚旅游相对便利,且以旅居人群较多,“两者并不冲突。” 成都商报-红星新闻记者 俞瑶 实习记者 卢月佳 (文图:赵筱尘 巫邓炎) [责编:天天中] 阅读剩余全文() |