世卫组织官网：切尔诺贝利事故的真实规模 ——20 年后联合国报告给出明确答案及修复方法 世界卫生组织、国际原子能机构、联国合开发计划署联合新闻发布 2005 年 9 月 5 日，日内瓦 一个超过 100 名科学家组成的国际团队得出结论：总共最高可达 4 千人可能最终因受到 20 年前切尔诺贝利核电站事故的辐射而死亡。 不过，到 2005 年中为止，因受到此次灾难的辐射而直接致死的不到 50 人，几乎全部是受到高度辐射的抢险工人。他们当中很多在事故后几个月内死亡，也有的迟至 2004 年才去世。 给出这些最新数字的是一份里程碑式的摘要报告《切尔诺贝利的遗产：健康、环境和社会经济影响》，刚刚由切尔诺贝利论坛公布。摘要基于一份三册、 600 页的报告，包含了几百名科学家、经济学家、健康专家的工作，评估了这次史上最大核事故的 20 年影响。切尔诺贝利论坛由 8 个联合国专门机构组成，包括国际原子能机构、世界卫生组织、联合国开发计划署、粮农组织、联合国环境署、联合国人道主义协调委员会办公室、联合国原子辐射效应科学委员会、世界银行，以及白俄罗斯、俄罗斯联邦、乌克兰政府。 全文如下，参见世界卫生组织官网 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident 20 Years Later a UN Report Provides DefinitiveAnswers and Ways to Repair Lives Joint News Release WHO/IAEA/UNDP 5September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclearpower plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of morethan 100 scientists has concluded. As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had beendirectly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highlyexposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but otherswho died as late as 2004. The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report,“Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” justreleased by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-pagereport and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists andhealth experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident inhistory. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO),United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office forthe Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations ScientificCommittee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, aswell as the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. “This compilation of the latest research can help to settlethe outstanding questions about how much death, disease and economic falloutreally resulted from the Chernobyl accident,” explains Dr. Burton Bennett,chairman of the Chernobyl Forum and an authority on radiation effects. “Thegovernments of the three most-affected countries have realized that they needto find a clear way forward, and that progress must be based on a soundconsensus about environmental, health and economic consequences and some goodadvice and support from the international community.” Bennett continued: “This was a very serious accident withmajor health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in theearly days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands morestricken with thyroid cancer. By and large, however, we have not found profoundnegative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, norhave we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose asubstantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restrictedareas.” The Forum’s report aims to help the affected countriesunderstand the true scale of the accident's consequences and also suggests waysthe governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine might addressmajor economic and social problems stemming from the accident. Members of theForum, including representatives of the three governments, will meet September6 and 7 in Vienna at an unprecedented gathering of the world’s experts onChernobyl, radiation effects and protection, to consider these findings andrecommendations. Major study findings Dozens of important findings are included in the massivereport: Approximately 1000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were heavily exposed to high-level radiation on the first day of the accident; among the more than 200 000 emergency and recovery operation workers exposed during the period from 1986-1987, an estimated 2200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected during their lifetime. An estimated five million people currently live in areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine that are contaminated with radionuclides due to the accident; about 100 000 of them live in areas classified in the past by government authorities as areas of “strict control”. The existing “zoning” definitions need to be revisited and relaxed in light of the new findings. About 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident’s contamination and at least nine children died of thyroid cancer; however the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99%. Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure. Poverty, “lifestyle” diseases now rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure. Relocation proved a “deeply traumatic experience” for some 350,000 people moved out of the affected areas. Although 116 000 were moved from the most heavily impacted area immediately after the accident, later relocations did little to reduce radiation exposure. Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas. Ambitious rehabilitation and social benefit programs started by the former Soviet Union, and continued by Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, need reformulation due to changes in radiation conditions, poor targeting and funding shortages. Structural elements of the sarcophagus built to contain the damaged reactor have degraded, posing a risk of collapse and the release of radioactive dust; A comprehensive plan to dispose of tons of high-level radioactive waste at and around the Chernobyl NPP site, in accordance with current safety standards, has yet to be defined. Alongside radiation-induced deaths and diseases, the reportlabels the mental health impact of Chernobyl as “the largest public healthproblem created by the accident” and partially attributes this damagingpsychological impact to a lack of accurate information. These problems manifestas negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy,lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state. “Two decades after the Chernobyl accident, residents in theaffected areas still lack the information they need to lead the healthy andproductive lives that are possible,” explains Louisa Vinton, Chernobyl focalpoint at the UNDP. “We are advising our partner governments that they mustreach people with accurate information, not only about how to live safely inregions of low-level contamination, but also about leading healthy lifestylesand creating new livelihoods.” But, says Dr Michael Repacholi, Manager of WHO'sRadiation Program, “the sum total of the Chernobyl Forum is a reassuring message.” He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroidcancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them haverecovered. Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidencefor any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affectedresidents. The international experts have estimated that radiationcould cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobylpopulations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of themost contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-inducedcancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates ofthe radiation doses received by these populations. As about quarter of peopledie from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, theradiation-induced increase of only about 3% will be difficult to observe.However, in the most exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operationworkers some increase of particular cancer forms (e.g., leukemia) in particulartime periods has already been observed. The predictions use six decades ofscientific experience with the effects of such doses, explained Repacholi. Repacholi concludes that “the health effects of theaccident were potentially horrific, but when you add them up using validatedconclusions from good science, the public health effects were not nearly assubstantial as had at first been feared.” The report’s estimate for the eventual number of deaths isfar lower than earlier, well-publicized speculations that radiation exposurewould claim tens of thousands of lives. But the 4000 figure is not fardifferent from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists, according to DrMikhail Balonov, a radiation expert with the International Atomic Energy Agencyin Vienna, who was a scientist in the former Soviet Union at the time of theaccident. As for environmental impact, the reports are alsoreassuring, for the scientific assessments show that, except for the stillclosed, highly contaminated 30 kilometer area surrounding the reactor, and someclosed lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels have mostly returned toacceptable levels. “In most areas the problems are economic and psychological,not health or environmental,” reports Balonov, the scientific secretary of theChernobyl Forum effort who has been involved with Chernobyl recovery since thedisaster occurred. Recommendations Recommendations call for focusing assistance efforts onhighly contaminated areas and redesigning government programs to help thosegenuinely in need. Suggested changes would shift programs away from those thatfoster “dependency” and a “victim” mentality, and replacing them withinitiatives that encourage opportunity, support local development, and givepeople confidence in their futures. In the health area, the Forum report calls for continuedclose monitoring of workers who recovered from Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS)and other highly exposed emergency personnel. The Report also calls for focusedscreening of children exposed to radioiodine for thyroid cancer and highlyexposed clean-up workers for non-thyroid cancers. However, existing screeningprograms should be evaluated for cost-effectiveness, since the incidence ofspontaneous thyroid cancers is increasing significantly as the targetpopulation ages. Moreover, high quality cancer registries need continuinggovernment support. In the environmental realm, the Report calls for long termmonitoring of caesium and strontium radionuclides to assess human exposure andfood contamination and to analyse the impacts of remedial actions andradiation-reduction countermeasures. Better information needs to be provided tothe public about the persistence of radioactive contamination in certain foodproducts and about food preparation methods that reduce radionuclide intake.Restrictions on harvesting of some wild food products are still needed in someareas. Also in the realm of protecting the environment, the Reportcalls for an “integrated waste management program for the Shelter, theChernobyl NPP site and the Exclusion Zone” to ensure application of consistentmanagement and capacity for all types of radioactive waste. Waste storage anddisposal must be dealt with in a comprehensive manner across the entireExclusion Zone, according to the Report. In areas where human exposure is not high, no remediationneeds to be done, points out Balonov. “If we do not expect health orenvironmental effects, we should not waste resources and effort on low priority,low contamination areas,” he explains. “We need to focus our efforts andresources on real problems.” One key recommendation addresses the fact that large partsof the population, especially in rural areas, still lack accurate informationand emphasizes the need to find better ways both to inform the public and toovercome the lack of credibility that hampered previous efforts. Even thoughaccurate information has been available for years, either it has not reachedthose who need it or people do not trust and accept the information and do notact upon it, according to the Report. This recommendation calls for targeting information tospecific audiences, including community leaders and health care workers, alongwith a broader strategy that promotes healthy lifestyles as well as informationabout how to reduce internal and external radiation exposures and address themain causes of disease and mortality. In the socioeconomic sphere, the Report recommends a newdevelopment approach that helps individuals to “take control of their own livesand communities to take control of their own futures.” The Governments, theReport states, must streamline and refocus Chernobyl programs through moretargeted benefits, elimination of unnecessary benefits to people in lesscontaminated areas, improving primary health care, support for safe foodproduction techniques, and encouragement for investment and private sectordevelopment, including small and medium-size enterprises. Notes Vinton, “The most important need is for accurateinformation on healthy lifestyles, together with better regulations to promotesmall, rural businesses. Poverty is the real danger. We need to take steps toempower people.” Answers to Longstanding Questions How much radiation were people exposed to as a result ofthe accident? With the exception of on-site reactor staff and emergency workers exposedon 26 April, most recovery operation workers and those living in contaminatedterritories received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable tobackground radiation levels and lower than the average doses received byresidents in some parts of the world having high natural background radiationlevels. For the majority of the five million people living in the contaminatedareas, exposures are within the recommended dose limit for the general public,though about 100 000 residents still receive more. Remediation of those areasand application of some agricultural countermeasures continues. Furtherreduction of exposure levels will be slow, but most exposure from the accidenthas already occurred. How many people died and how many more are likely to diein the future? The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expectedin the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in themost contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000. This includes some 50emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and nine children whodied of thyroid cancer, and an estimated total of 3940 deaths fromradiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200 000 emergency workers from1986-1987, 116 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents of the most contaminatedareas (total about 600 000). These three major cohorts were subjected to higherdoses of radiation amongst all the people exposed to Chernobyl radiation. The estimated 4000 casualties may occur during the lifetime of about 600000 people under consideration. As about quarter of them will eventually diefrom spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, theradiation-induced increase of about 3% will be difficult to observe. However,in the most highly exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers,some increase in particular cancers (e.g., leukemia) has already been observed. Confusion about the impact has arisen owing to the fact that thousands ofpeople in the affected areas have died of natural causes. Also, widespreadexpectations of ill health and a tendency to attribute all health problems toradiation exposure have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl relatedfatalities were much higher than they actually were. What diseases have already occurred or might occur in thefuture? Residents who ate food contaminated with radioactive iodine in the daysimmediately after the accident received relatively high doses to the thyroidgland. This was especially true of children who drank milk from cows who hadeaten contaminated grass. Since iodine concentrates in the thyroid gland, thiswas a major cause of the high incidence of thyroid cancer in children. Several recent studies suggest a slight increase in the incidence ofleukemia among emergency workers, but not in children or adult residents ofcontaminated areas. A slight increase in solid cancers and possibly circulatorysystem diseases was noted, but needs to be evaluated further because of thepossible indirect influence of such factors as smoking, alcohol, stress andunhealthy lifestyle. Have there been or will there be any inherited orreproductive effects? Because of the relatively low doses to residents of contaminatedterritories, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility has been seenamong males or females. Also, because the doses were so low, there was noevidence of any effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancyoutcomes, delivery complications or overall health of children. A modest butsteady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated anduncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to better reporting, notradiation. Did the trauma of rapid relocation cause persistentpsychological or mental health problems? Stress symptoms, depression, anxiety and medically unexplained physicalsymptoms have been reported, including self-perceived poor health. Thedesignation of the affected population as “victims” rather than “survivors” hasled them to perceive themselves as helpless, weak and lacking control overtheir future. This, in turn, has led either to over cautious behavior andexaggerated health concerns, or to reckless conduct, such as consumption ofmushrooms, berries and game from areas still designated as highly contaminated,overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and unprotected promiscuous sexual activity. What was the environmental impact? Ecosystems affected by Chernobyl have been studied and monitoredextensively for the past two decades. Major releases of radionuclides continuedfor ten days and contaminated more than 200 000 square kilometers of Europe.The extent of deposition varied depending on whether it was raining whencontaminated air masses passed. Most of the strontium and plutonium isotopes were deposited within 100kilometres of the damaged reactor. Radioactive iodine, of great concern afterthe accident, has a short half-life, and has now decayed away. Strontium andcaesium, with a longer half life of 30 years, persist and will remain a concernfor decades to come. Although plutonium isotopes and americium 241 will persistperhaps for thousands of years, their contribution to human exposure is low. What is the scope of urban contamination? Open surfaces, such as roads, lawns and roofs, were most heavilycontaminated. Residents of Pripyat, the city nearest to Chernobyl, were quicklyevacuated, reducing their potential exposure to radioactive materials. Wind,rain and human activity has reduced surface contamination, but led to secondarycontamination of sewage and sludge systems. Radiation in air above settledareas returned to background levels, though levels remain higher where soilshave remained undisturbed. How contaminated are agricultural areas? Weathering, physical decay, migration of radionuclides down the soil andreductions in bioavailability have led to a significant reduction in thetransfer of radionuclides to plants and animals. Radioactive iodine, rapidlyabsorbed from grasses and animal feed into milk, was an early concern andelevated levels were seen in some parts of the former Soviet Union and SouthernEurope, but, given the nuclide’s short half life, this concern abated quickly.Currently and for the long term, radiocaesium, present in milk, meat and someplant foods, remains the most significant concern for internal human exposure,but, with the exception of a few areas, concentrations fall within safe levels. What is the extent of forest contamination? Following the accident, animals and vegetation in forest and mountainareas had high absorption of radiocaesium, with persistent high levels inmushrooms, berries and game. Because exposure from agricultural products hasdeclined, the relative importance of exposure from forest products hasincreased and will only decline as radioactive materials migrate downward intothe soil and slowly decay. The high transfer of radiocaesium from lichen toreindeer meat to humans was seen in the Artic and sub-Arctic areas, with highcontamination of reindeer meat in Finland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. Theconcerned governments imposed some restrictions on hunting, includingscheduling hunting season when animals have lower meat contamination. How contaminated are the aquatic systems? Contamination of surface waters throughout much of Europe declined quicklythrough dilution, physical decay, and absorption of radionuclides in bedsediments and catchment soils. Because of bioaccumulation in the aquatic foodchain, though, elevated concentrations of radiocaesium were found in fish fromlakes as far away as Germany and Scandinavia. Comparable levels ofradiostrontium, which concentrates in fish bone, not in muscle, were notsignificant for humans. Levels in fish and waters are currently low, except inareas with “closed” lakes with no outflowing streams. In those lakes, levels ofradiocaesium in fish will remain high for decades and, therefore, restrictionson fishing there should be maintained. What environmental countermeasures and remediation havebeen taken? The most effective early agricultural countermeasure was removingcontaminated pasture grasses from animal diets and monitoring milk forradiation levels. Treatment of land for fodder crops, clean feeding and use ofCs-binders (that prevented the transfer of radiocaesium from fodder to milk)led to large reductions in contamination and permitted agriculture to continue,though some increase in radionuclide content of plant and animal products hasbeen measured since the mid-1990s when economic problems forced a cutback intreatments. Some agricultural lands in the three countries have been taken outof use until remediation is undertaken. A number of measures applied to forests in affected countries and inScandinavia have reduced human exposure, including restrictions on access toforest areas, on harvesting of food products such as game, berries andmushrooms, and on the public collection of firewood, along with changes inhunting to avoid consumption of game meat where seasonal levels of radiocaesiummay be high. Low income levels in some areas cause local residents to disregardthese rules. What were radiation-induced effects on plants andanimals? Increased mortality of coniferous plants, soil invertebrates and mammalsand reproductive losses in plants and animals were seen in high exposure areasup to a distance of 20-30 kilometers. Outside that zone, no acuteradiation-induced effects have been reported. With reductions of exposurelevels, biological populations have been recovering, though the genetic effectsof radiation were seen in both somatic and germ cells of plants and animals.Prohibiting agricultural and industrial activities in the exclusion zonepermitted many plant and animal populations to expand and created,paradoxically, “a unique sanctuary for biodiversity.” Does dismantlement of the Shelter and management ofradioactive waste pose further environmental problems? The protective shelter was erected quickly, which led to someimperfections in the shelter itself and did not permit gathering complete dataon the stability of the damaged unit. Also, some structural parts of theshelter have corroded in the past two decades. The main potential hazard posedby the shelter is the possible collapse of its top structures and the releaseof radioactive dust. Strengthening those unstable structures has been performed recently, and constructionof a New Safe Confinement covering the existing shelter that should serve formore than 100 years, starts in near future. The new cover will allowdismantlement of the current shelter, removal of the radioactive fuel mass fromthe damaged unit and, eventually, decommissioning of the damaged reactor. A comprehensive strategy still has to be developed for dealing with thehigh level and long-lived radioactive waste from past remediation activities.Much of this waste was placed in temporary storage in trenches and landfillsthat do not meet current waste safety requirements. What was the economic cost? Because of policies in place at the time of the explosion and theinflation and economic disruptions that followed the break-up of the SovietUnion, precise costs have been impossible to calculate. A variety of estimatesfrom the 1990s placed the costs over two decades at hundreds of billions ofdollars. These costs included direct damage, expenditures related to recoveryand mitigation, resettlement of people, social protection and health care forthe affected population, research on environment, health and the production ofclean food, radiation monitoring, as well as indirect losses due to removingagricultural lands and forests from use and the closing of agriculture andindustrial facilities, and such additional costs as cancellation of the nuclearpower program in Belarus and the additional costs of energy from the loss ofpower from Chernobyl. The costs have created a huge drain on the budgets of thethree countries involved. What were the main consequences for the local economy? Agriculture was hardest hit, with 784 320 hectares taken from production.Timber production was halted in 694,200 hectares of forest. Remediation made“clean food” production possible in many areas but led to higher costs in theform of fertilizers, additives and special cultivation processes. Even wherefarming is safe, the stigma associated with Chernobyl caused marketing problemsand led to falling revenues, declining production and the closure of somefacilities. Combined with disruptions due to the collapse of the Soviet Union,recession, and new market mechanisms, the region’s economy suffered, resultingin lower living standards, unemployment and increased poverty. All agriculturalareas, whether affected by radiation or not, proved vulnerable. Poverty is especially acute in affected areas. Wages for agriculturalworkers tend to be low and employment outside of agriculture is limited. Manyskilled and educated workers, especially younger workers, left the region.Also, the business environment discourages entrepreneurial ventures and privateinvestment is low. What impact did Chernobyl and the aftermath have on localcommunities? More than 350 000 people have been relocated away from the most severelycontaminated areas, 116 000 of them immediately after the accident. Even whenpeople were compensated for losses, given free houses and a choice ofresettlement location, the experience was traumatic and left many with no employmentand a belief that they have no place in society. Surveys show that those whoremained or returned to their homes coped better with the aftermath than thosewho were resettled. Tensions between new and old residents of resettlementvillages also contributed to the ostracism felt by the newcomers. Thedemographic structure of the affected areas became skewed since many skilled,educated and entrepreneurial workers, often younger, left the areas leavingbehind an older population with few of the skills needed for economic recovery. The older population has meant that deaths exceed births, which reinforcesthe perception that these areas are dangerous places to live. Even when pay ishigh, schools, hospitals and other essential public services are short ofqualified specialists. What has been the impact on individuals? According to the Forum’s report on health, “the mental health impact ofChernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed by the accident todate.” People in the affected areas report negative assessments of their healthand well-being, coupled with an exaggerated sense of the danger to their healthfrom radiation exposure and a belief in a shorter life expectancy. Anxiety overthe health effects of radiation shows no signs of diminishing and may even bespreading. Life expectancy has been declining across the former Soviet Union,due to cardiovascular disease, injuries and poisoning, and notradiation-related illness. How have governments responded? The resettlement and rehabilitation programs launched in Soviet conditionsproved unsustainable after 1991 and funding for projects declined, leaving manyprojects unfinished and abandoned and many of the promised benefits underfunded. Also, benefits were offered to broad categories of “Chernobyl victims”that expanded to seven million now receiving or eligible for pensions, specialallowances and health benefits, including free holidays and guaranteedallowances. Chernobyl benefits deprive other areas of public spending ofresources, but scaling down benefits or targeting only high-risk groups isunpopular and presents political problems. Given significant reduction of radiation levels during past twenty years,governments need to revisit the classification of contaminated zones. Many areaspreviously considered to be at risk are in fact safe for habitation andcultivation. Current delineations are far more restrictive than demonstratedradiation levels can justify. The report identifies the need to sharpen priorities and streamline the programsto target the most needy, noting that reallocating resources is likely to face“strong resistance from vested interests. One suggestion calls for a “buyout” of the entitlement to benefits in return for lump sum start-up financingfor small businesses.
日本总算官方承认了大家这一个月来都知道的事实，这次核灾难是和Chernobyl同级的七级核事故。顿时全球股市大受冲击，日本经济的迅速复苏受到极大质疑。 其实从美国太平洋沿岸的放射同位素监测结果来看，日本政府从一开始就没有完全的对公众公布实况： 这里 是西雅图的华盛顿大学从物理楼的通风口收集的数据。 这里 是伯克利的空气测量值。 一致的观察是辐射值高峰开始是3/19或者3/20那几天，也就是对应着日本3/12开始的氢气爆炸。 据纽约时报4/6 报道 的美国NRC3/26报告 "The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown “up to one mile from the units,” and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be “bulldozed over,” presumably to protect workers at the site. The ejection of nuclear material, which may have occurred during one of the earlier hydrogen explosions, may indicate more extensive damage to the extremely radioactive pools than previously disclosed." 这也就解释了为什么东京电力现在仍然难以控制情况。那里现在是一片核地雷呀。 另一篇日本读卖新闻4/12的 报道 则解密了东京电力在地震过后在最初24小时的灾难避免过程中的失误：供电车到了却没有电缆，总理亲至核电站要求开阀门东京电力却迟迟不予反应，终于灾难无法避免。
标签: 核事故
