THE Hanford nuclear complex in Washington state contained radioactive alligator carcasses. Nuns used their blood to daub crosses on a missile silo in Colorado. In Cumbria, northern England, 1,500 contaminated birds were killed and buried with some radioactive garden gnomes.

在华盛顿州汉福德核研究中心内，藏着具放射性的短吻鳄尸体。在科罗拉多州，修女们用自己的血在导弹发射井上涂画十字架。在英国北部的坎布里亚郡，1500只受核污染的鸟儿遭到屠杀，并与一些有放射性的花园精灵合埋一处。

These lurid tales from the nuclear world are all real. But the industry also generates myths that are widely accepted as true. For example, Chernobyl is not a dead zone: its wildlife thrives (see picture), and many returnees have lived into ruddy old age, eating produce from the radioactive soil. The evidence suggests those who die early are the evacuees who, Fred Pearce writes, “languish unhappily in distant towns—free of radiation but often consumed by angst, junk food and fear.” Likewise, no one seems to have died as a direct result of the meltdown at Fukushima. The deaths related to the accident were mainly suicides prompted by the chaotic evacuation and loss of home, jobs and family. “Psychological fallout” can be lethal.

以上这些来自核领域的骇人故事都是货真价实的。不过，这个行业同样还产出了某些被广泛认可为真的错误观念。比如，切尔诺贝利并非死区：那里野生生命活得欣欣向荣（如图），许多反乡的人都吃着从具放射性土壤中长出的作物，气色很好地活到了老年。Fred Pearce写到，许多证据表明，死的早的都是那些撤离者，“他们在异乡远镇里痛苦地承受折磨——虽无辐射之扰却往往因焦虑、垃圾食品与恐惧而耗尽生命。”同样的，似乎并无一人直接死于福岛核反应堆融毁。与该事故相关的死亡主要都是因混乱的疏散与流离失所、失业家破所引发的自杀。“心理性后果”亦具有致死性。

When the truth seems ludicrous, and falsehoods are widely believed, facts can be elusive. In “Fallout” Mr Pearce, a veteran science journalist, travels the world to pin down what he calls “the radioactive legacies of the nuclear age”. He moves between weaponry and energy, cataloguing mistakes, dishonesty and irrational fears. The result is a panorama of atomic grotesquerie that is at once troubling, surprising and ruthlessly entertaining.

当事实荒诞不经，谎言广受认可的时候，真相就变得难以捉摸了。在《余波》一书中，经验丰富的科学记者Pearce先生周游世界以求证他称之为“核纪元的放射性传说”的事件。他在核武器与核能源间交替游览，记录下失误、不实及莫名的恐惧。此番游历所得的那副怪诞的核能全景图，即令人忧虑吃惊，又残酷地惹人发笑。

His nuclear odyssey yields some hideous examples of the industry’s secrecy, particularly a visit to the Russian village of Metlino, on the Techa river in the Urals. In the 1950s this was the world’s most radioactive river; Mr Pearce reckons it may have been responsible for more sickness than all of the other nuclear incidents in history combined. Upstream sat the Mayak power plant, which “poured into it an average of one Olympic swimming pool’s worth of highly radioactive liquids every two hours.” Villagers received “staggering” doses of radiation; scientists quietly monitored the rates of illness and death.

他的核能苦旅令他得到了有关这一行业之密辛的不少丑陋事例，尤其是那场到乌拉尔捷恰河旁俄国小镇Metlino的探访。在20世纪50年代，这条河是世界上放射性最强的河流；Pearce先生认为，它所导致的患病人数超过了历史上所有的核事故的总和。河的上游坐落着Mayak核电站，该厂“每两个小时向河中倾倒的高辐射废水的平均量可达一座奥林匹克游泳池”。镇民受到的辐射剂量“令人震惊”；科学家暗中监控着患病率与死亡率。

Such callous episodes, and better-known calamities such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, dominate the nuclear debate. As Mr Pearce observes, similar attention is rarely given to various studies demonstrating that no link exists between nuclear plants and local cancer rates, nor the painstaking schemes, such as those in Germany, to safely dispose of nuclear waste. His deepest worry is about Britain’s Sellafield plant, home to a massive stockpile of plutonium. In 1995 its fence was easily scaled by Greenpeace activists, who sprayed “bollocks” on the walls. A bomb sent across the fence could result in “a terrorist Chernobyl”, yet Mr Pearce saw little being done to reinforce the site.

类似这种残酷的事件，以及更广为人知的切尔诺贝利与福岛等灾祸事件，在核能辩论中占据着首要地位。而据Pearce先生观察，人们却很少把类似的关注度投入到那些各式各样的证明核电站与当地患癌几率并无关联的研究上，人们亦不关心那些为了安全倾倒核废料而悉心制定的计划，比如德国定的那些方案。他最深的忧虑莫过于英国Sellafield核电站，该站中贮藏着极大量的钚。1995年，“绿色和平组织”的活动分子轻而易举地就攀上了该站的围栏，在墙上喷下了“胡言乱语”。要是把一颗炸弹扔过围墙，那就能导致一场“恐怖袭击性质的切尔诺贝利事件”，然而Pearce先生却几乎没看到任何对此地加强防范的措施。

He asks how long the beleaguered nuclear-power industry can survive—hobbled as it is by the association with nuclear weapons (“the Achilles’ heel of civil nuclear power”), a litany of disasters and the doomsday hyperbole of anti-nuclear activists. Mr Pearce recognises that “most civilian nuclear activities are safe”, but notes that in democracies, at least, the public has the power of veto, however sensibly they wield it.

他不禁想问，究竟备受争议的核电站行业还能存活多久呢——该行业因为与核武器（国家核电站的阿基里斯之腱）及针对灾难的陈词滥调与反核分子有关末日的夸述扯上关系而走的步履蹒跚。Pearce先生认为“大部分国家核能活动都是安全的”，但也指出在民主体制下，无论公民是否能够理智的行使权力，他们至少还是有否决权的。

英语网址大全

本文固定链接: https://www.yywz123.com/blog/6851.html | 英语学习网站大全的博客