主题：《自然》发表社论敦促日本公布高质量核事故数据 -- 黑暗的骑士

14日出版的英国《自然》杂志发表社论说，自日本福岛第一核电站发生事故以来，日本当局虽然公布了大量相关数据，但这些数据的内容和公布方式还有待进一步改善，尤其应该更好地公布当前大气中放射性物质扩散情况的数据。社论指出，公布高质量且易于使用的核事故数据，对于建立公众信任至关重要。

社论说，自地震和海啸引起福岛核电站事故以来，日本有关机构在需要处理地震和海啸后果的同时，仍然公布了大量与核事故有关的数据，如每天发布环境中辐射剂量监测数据等，这些工作值得肯定。

但是，日本当局在公布核事故数据方面仍有许多有待改进的地方。比如日本当局根据所掌握情况，应该能够提前推测出核泄漏会对海洋、食物和自来水造成污染，甚至有可能提前推测出核事故会被调至最高级别7级，但日本当局没有把这些情况提前告知公众，损害了公众对日本当局的信任度。

此外，东京电力公司至少4次收回了之前公布的不正确的核泄漏数据，这也造成公众不信任情绪滋长。尽管可以为此辩护说，事故导致福岛第一核电站里一些监测设备失灵或读数不准确，但这难以解释另一个问题，即为什么现在有关核电站情况的最为完整、可靠和公开的数据居然不是来自日本国内，而是来自外部一些专家、核设备制造商和相关管理机构？

尤其值得一问的是，对于大气中放射性物质的浓度和可能扩散的方向，现在仅有的详细的公开预测为什么同样来自日本以外的机构？几乎可以肯定，日本拥有相关数据，能够制作出福岛及其周边地区大气中放射性物质扩散情况的高清晰预测图。但日本当局目前对相关数据的发布是分散的、不成体系的，难以从中获得对事故的完整了解，这在事故初期还可以理解，但现在明显需要改善。

社论呼吁，日本政府和东京电力公司应该更好地公布与核事故有关的数据，不仅应该增强内容，在公布方式上也应该让这些数据能够更容易地被外部研究者使用。对这些数据的分析不应该只被视为政府的事，一些民间专家和研究者往往在某些方面更有优势，能够对这些数据做出更好的分析，并及时公布结果。

http://news.ifeng.com/world/special/ribendizhen/content-2/detail_2011_04/15/5764988_0.shtml

贴个方言的原文

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/full/472135a.html

A little knowledge

Nature

472,

135

(14 April 2011)

doi:10.1038/472135a

Published online

13 April 2011

The Japanese authorities have done well in releasing copious amounts of crude data on the nuclear crisis. But it is imperative for the data to be provided in more meaningful and user-friendly ways.

One month after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, there is still no clear picture of the further hazard posed by the wrecked nuclear reactors and spent fuel ponds at the Fukushima nuclear power plant (see page 146), and monitoring of fallout remains patchy. To improve the situation, better data, in more user-friendly forms, and more sophisticated analyses are essential. Compared with the 1979 Three Mile Island accident or the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, there is certainly much more information available about this latest nuclear accident — largely thanks to the Internet and online media. Japan's science ministry, and other bodies, have issued reams of data, including daily environmental radiation measurements — an admirable feat, given that the Japanese authorities are also having to deal with the huge aftermath of the quake and tsunami.

But as Peter Sandman, a risk consultant based in Princeton, New Jersey (http://www.psandman.com/whatsnew.htm), points out, the authorities have failed badly to forewarn the public of a series of events that they must have known were likely to happen. This has resulted in nasty surprises such as radioactive pollution of the sea (see page 145), foods and tap water — as well as this week's upgrading of the accident to level 7, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale and matched only by Chernobyl. As a result, many people now do not trust the authorities to tell them if the situation is likely to worsen, sapping public confidence.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which runs the Fukushima plant, has also on at least four occasions had to retract as incorrect its findings on the amount and composition of radionuclides in areas in and around the plant, or on reactor parameters. This has created uncertainty and public mistrust in the company's monitoring abilities. In its defence, damaged plant instrumentation means that key data on events inside the reactors are sometimes missing or unreliable. Even so, the most complete and credible publicly available analyses of possible reactor-event scenarios have come not from Japan, but from outside scientists, nuclear-reactor makers and regulatory authorities.

Similarly, it is pertinent to ask why, so far, the only detailed publicly available forecasts of the direction and concentration of atmospheric radionuclide plumes have come from overseas agencies. The Japanese almost certainly have data that would allow much higher-resolution forecast maps of Fukushima and the surrounding areas. Although the Japanese authorities are releasing data daily on radiation levels in the air, soil and water, these are scattered across multiple, individual web pages. This uncoordinated approach was excusable in the early days, but data collection and presentation urgently need to improve. The authorities have also failed to provide vital context on how these exposure rates translate (or not) into what matters to people, such as health effects, and where they make farming impossible. The recurring narrative that this or that radiation dose is as much as would be given by an X-ray or a CT scan doesn't cut it, as health effects, for example, depend most on accumulated doses over long times.

Information on fallout distribution made public by the government and TEPCO also lacks basic metadata, such as the latitude and longitude of sampling points or the sampling protocols used, and results are presented as static PDFs from which researchers cannot easily extract the data. As a result, it is next to impossible for academic researchers and others to compile and map the daily reports and gain a better picture of the situation and of changes over time and space. The Japanese authorities, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other bodies with relevant information must present it as dynamic data and high-resolution maps that also show day-to-day variation, total net cumulative soil deposition and where hotspots are, and as models of what's happening overall rather than just spot counts.

Data analysis should also not be left to governments alone. Researchers are rightly calling for an independent group to process the data and publish evidence-based risk assessments. They also want data in machine-readable formats, such as spreadsheets, databases and spatial data formats. This would unleash the diverse creativity of academic researchers, journalists, software geeks and mappers, who are often better equipped, and more agile than governments and international agencies, to present data online in timely, informative and compelling ways. To convert raw data into high-quality, user-friendly forms is not a luxury, but essential for helping to build public trust.

笑死了，这脸打的~~~~~~

说明专业人士根本不相信日本政府公布的数据！

而且还是代表了西方的观点的自然杂志。