http://www.asyura2.com/19/genpatu52/msg/143.html
| Tweet |
[画像引用元]
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1058044563103854593
（Greta Thunberg）
True hero of mine! Thanks for your leadership
@GeorgeMonbiot #ExtinctionRebellion #ClimateBreakdown
10:14 - 2018年11月1日
グレタが尊敬し、一緒にビデオを製作したジョージ・モンビットという英国のライター・
環境活動家とのツーショットである。
そのビデオはこちらで見られる。
Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot make short film on the climate crisis
(Guadian News 2019/9/19)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q0xUXo2zEY&feature=youtu.be
このモンビットという男は環境活動家のふりをしているが、バリバリの原子力推進派で、
次のような記事を福島原発直後にガーディアン誌に寄稿している。
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
「福島の事故により私は如何にして心配するのを止めて原子力を愛するようになったか」
(George Monbiot The Guardian 2019/3/21)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
映画ファンの方は気づいていると思うが、表題はスタンリー・キューブリック、不朽の名作のもじりである。
「博士の異常な愛情 または私は如何にして水爆を愛するようになったか」
（Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb）
重要な部分を和訳する。（全文は下に添付）
「
（中略）
福島原発事故の結果として、私は原子力に対して中立的な立場を捨て、
この技術を支持するようになった。
（中略）
安全対策の不十分なオンボロの原発が大地震と大津波に襲われた。
電源が喪失し冷却システムが止まった。原子炉は爆発しメルトダウンし始めた。
この事故は、お粗末な設計と手抜きというおなじみの遺産をさらけだした。
だが、私の知る限り、この事故で致死量の被ばくをした人はいない。
（中略）
スリーマイル島原発事故で10マイル圏の住人の平均総被ばく量は、
米原子力作業員の年間最大許容量の625分の1であった。
これは、明らかにがんのリスクが増加する最低年間被ばく量の半分であり、
確定致死被ばく量の80分の1である。
（中略）
私は原子力業界の連中の嘘は大嫌いだ。害のない代替手段があれば
原子力はないほうがよろしい。しかし、理想的な解決方法はない。
どのエネルギーもコストはかかるし、エネルギー技術の不在も同様だ。
原子力は最も過酷なテストに耐えてきており、人類と地球への影響は小さくて済んだ。
福島の危機により、私は原子力推進へと改心した。
」
福島第一原発事故直後、大混乱の中、多くの人が亡くなり、行方不明になり、避難民も
放射能汚染に怯え苦しんでいたのに、こんな記事を投稿するのは非常識の極みだが、
御用ライターに常識は通じない。
グレタが尊敬するヒーローとはこういう人物なのだ。
彼女が原子力推進派であることはバレバレではないか。
-----(原文引用ここから)--------------------------
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
(George Monbiot The Guardian 2019/3/21)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix
You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.
A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.
Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.
If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.
Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.
The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration 50% or 70%, perhaps? renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.
Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.
But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.
At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.
And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.
Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the industrial revolution.
The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural spectacles and which fed much of Britain wiping out sturgeon, lampreys and shad, as well as most sea trout and salmon.
Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that was set aside for feeding draft animals for industry and transport, the less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-century equivalent of today's biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel. As EA Wrigley points out in his book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11m tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11m acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated.
Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we could have made 1.25m tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production decentralised, based on the products of the land is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.
But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.
Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
-----(引用ここまで)--------------------------
（関連情報）
「500名の科学者が緊急な気候問題はないと国連に書簡を送る （BREITBART）」 （拙稿 2019/9/29）
http://www.asyura2.com/19/genpatu52/msg/141.html
「グレタさん演説全文 「裏切るなら絶対に許さない」涙の訴え （NHK）」 （拙稿 2019/9/25）
http://www.asyura2.com/19/genpatu52/msg/127.html
「ウラン利権を支配するロスチャイルド家 原子力推進のため、アル・ゴアの次は
グレタ・トゥーンベリを利用して煽動」 （拙稿 2019/9/28）
http://www.asyura2.com/19/genpatu52/msg/138.html
▲上へ ★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素52掲示板 次へ 前へ
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
▲上へ ★阿修羅♪ > 原発・フッ素52掲示板 次へ 前へ
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。
