誰要負擔處理費用在1945年，美國在日本投下兩顆原子彈結束二次大戰，全球目睹核子武器駭人的威力。戰後數十年，人們運用原子核爆的原理在能源科技上，並發現，在便利之餘，核能可能帶來的災害污染，比任何一種污染還嚴重千百萬倍。由於核廢料含有放射線，世界各國對於核廢料處理，無非希望能把「垃圾」踢得遠遠的。

近年來，「美國能源部」（Department of Energy, DOE）提出了回收核廢料，並且重複使用於民生用品的構想。諸如：假牙、腳踏車、鍋子和建材等，都是發展的項目。這樣瘋狂的想法，不是沒有道理。畢竟，每年核子反應爐剩餘的核廢料，以及汰舊除役的機械設備、金屬和水泥，都含有相當程度的放射線物質。對國家與企業而言，處理這些「垃圾」所花費的經濟成本和社會成本是相當高的，如果真能回收，也能堵住環保人士的嘴巴。

核廢料回收再生計畫的提倡者美國能源部與「核能管理委員會」（Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC）指出，回收含有微量放射線的廢料，除了可以再使用並發揮於其他用途的好處，最主要的優點在於，如此一來，可以分擔大量核廢棄物無處可堆的困難。「輻射金屬回收組織」（Association of Radioactive Metal Recyclers）前任處長路易士（Val Loiselle）表示：「這些碎片都是錢，我們過去一直把錢不斷地埋到土裡。」

事實上，在這個計畫的合法性於2000年被勒令暫停以前，美國能源部與核能管理委員會早就以「個案」的方式，著手進行回收的工作了。儘管這些廢料被當做「有價值的」碎片處理，社會大眾至今還是不知道其回收再生的產品有哪些。美國能源部還沒決定由誰來繼續這個研究，有科學家說：「這類廢料的輻射線含量，還不至於對人體有害！」或是「世界上沒有一個地方是沒有輻射線的。」

縱使有這些說法，「國際科學應用公司」（Science Applications International Corp., SAIC）仍在報告指出：「這些回收再生的產品所含有的放射量，應採取何種標準，還是相當引人爭議的。」多少的輻射量才算OK呢？

儘管在2001年也舉辦了多次的公聽會，美國能源部目前仍然尚未恢復這個計畫的合法性。「回收再生」的處理方式對核廢料而言，未必適當。將再生的發展觸角延伸至民生用品，只是圖利了財團而已。對消費者來說，不光是荷包被人打了主意，還有核廢料污染隨時在身旁的危險。

如果說，核廢料回收再生的計畫太遙不可及、不夠實際，那就好好研究貯存核廢料的政策吧！但就在幾乎所有的國家都和製造核廢料脫不了干係之際，卻沒有 鴘k決定出何為最佳處理方式？

大部分的國家打算把具有高度危險性的核廢料，埋在深達 1,640至3,280英尺的地表下，眼不見為淨。可是有人質疑，就數十年或是數個世紀的角度來看，這麼做也許是安全的，但911恐怖攻擊事件發生後，這些核廢料貯存地點成了攻擊的目標。

國際原子能總署（ IAEA）的負責人穆罕默德˙艾爾巴拉迪日前表示，各國應該要好好考慮共同分攤儲存核廢料的時候到了，儘管沒有任何一個國家應該被迫替他國「擦屁股」，解決核廢料的問題。

就內政的角度而言，沒有辦法決定核廢料的處理政策，將會導致一國的核廢料處理費用不知由誰負擔的難題。由於核廢料可以擺上好幾個世代，究竟要由當代的納稅人負擔，還是要下一代，甚至是下下代的子孫分攤呢？以使用者付費的角度來看，當下的我們哪裡負擔得起呢？ Since the start of the nuclear era, highly radioactive waste has been crossing continents and oceans in search of a secure and final resting place.

Nearly all countries produce nuclear waste, some types of which can remain radioactive for thousands of years, but they cannot agree on the best way to store it.

At present highly radioactive waste is put into interim storage where it has to sit for 30 to 40 years for its radioactivity and heat production to decline. It is still hazardous and should be stored somewhere permanently.

In many countries it is unclear who will pay for the cost divided over hundreds, even hundreds of thousands of years. Utilities could end up with a bigger bill than expected.

Most high-level waste, the most dangerous kind, is spent fuel from the over 400 nuclear power reactors in more than 30 countries. The dismantling of nuclear weapons adds to the pile.

Even nuclear-free states produce waste from industry, hospitals providing radiation therapy and research centers.

Experts say technology exists for secure underground deposits which could last millions of years. Most countries plan to seal the highly hazardous waste in containers and store it 1,640 to 3,280 feet underground.

Skeptics say it could be safe for decades or even centuries, but at some point it would be bound to leak or be attacked by terrorists.

"If there isn't a responsible solution to deal with nuclear waste, it may be better to keep it above ground for a while longer when we are looking for technology that is safer," said Martina Krueger, who works for the environmental organization Greenpeace in Sweden.

TO OPEN OR NOT?

Some politicians have demanded that the repositories are built so that future generations can open them and eliminate the waste with the help of new technology.

Others say that would also leave the deposits vulnerable to potential social chaos thousands of years down the line.

If waste is safe in interim storage, why not keep it there?

"Sure it's safe ... but what we have to communicate are the trade-offs," said Thomas Sanders from Sandia National Laboratories, owned by the U.S. government.

Some nuclear plants are already running into the limits of their storage capacity. And since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States attention has turned to individual plants and whether these can be protected from terrorist attacks.

European Union countries plan to build repositories by around 2020, but some have not even started considering sites. In 2001 Finland became the first and so far only EU state to decide on a site for a final storage.

The United States plans to deposit waste from its 103 nuclear plants beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The site should open in 2010 but faces local protests and legal hurdles.

Critics say big central repositories would again increase the risk of accidents or theft because the nuclear waste has to be transported to them from each plant.

In many cases it is unclear for how long nuclear waste is the liability of the firm causing it, and when the state takes over.

This makes it tough for utilities to calculate the cost, especially if the repositories are built in such a way that they have to be guarded for security reasons.

"It is difficult to give precise costs because France hasn't decided on a strategy on long-term waste management," said Yves le Bars, chairman of ANDRA, the national radioactive waste management agency in France, the EU's biggest nuclear power.

"We say it will take between 15 billion to 25 billion euros ($18.9 billion $31.4 billion) to build a repository, operate it and close it for the existing facilities," he said. This would cover high-level waste from France's 58 nuclear plants, assuming fuel would be reprocessed.

Finding a location for a dump is one of the biggest hurdles.

In South Korea, the state tried for years to find a county willing to host a repository for low and intermediate level waste. Finally this year, Buan county applied for the deposit and suggested Wi-do island as a host.

The island has 1,000 inhabitants, most of them fishermen.

核廢料何去何從？一直以來，核廢料就像是燙手山芋，普世享用核電，卻無法負起妥善處理的責任，眼不見為淨的駝鳥心態，似乎是最常見的處理方式。就技術層面而言，由於缺乏處置核廢料的經驗及方法，迫使各國必須尋求跨國合作。但在全球恐怖攻擊的陰影籠罩下，核廢料的長距離運送，成了「移動的不定時炸彈」，核廢強大的毀滅性，威脅更多人的安全。

國際間對於核廢料的最終處置，仍然採取低放射性燃料的方法，其共識是儲存在「地質埋藏廢置場」，進行所謂的「淺層掩埋」。目前，全球約有 34個國家、75處低放射性廢料的最終處置場在運轉。高放射性核廢料雖然有「再處理」和「直接處置」兩種選擇，但卻因為國際核子保防及政治條件限制，加上冷卻期較長，現今多採用直接處置，將其以水池冷卻、乾式儲存來等待最終處置，不論是直接處置或經再處理後最終處置，都會以「深層地質處置」加以埋藏。然而，現實的情況是，雖然幾乎全球的國家都使用核電，都有核廢料產生的問題，但卻不是所有的國家都有境內處理場，抑或是有技術處理。

核廢料的最終處置場，不僅需要設在人口密度低的地方，還需地質結構和水文條件的配合，才能妥善儲存核廢，但關鍵就在於，沒有人願意讓處置場緊鄰自己的家園，核廢料境內處置困難重重，所以尋求境外合作勢在必行。

於是，在這樣的大環境下，核廢料的跨國運送，也成了處理過程中相當重要的一環。除了確保核廢料在運送途中不會有輻射外洩的問題，近年來，恐怖陰影籠罩全球，核廢料的運送安全引發更多的擔憂。一些臨海的國家，像是愛爾蘭、祕魯及紐西蘭就特別擔心；這些國家認為，美國和英國並未公開該國所有核物資的運送清單，將使他們不能保護自己免於攻擊或意外的發生。雖然，國際原子能總署的放射性廢料跨國境運送施行法規中規定，運送前須事先得到運送、接受或轉送國的通知與同意，才可進行。但就是因為運送國家也認知到核物資運送的安全性風險，才不願公開所有的行程。這種運作上的瑕疵，使得核廢料的風險性不光是侷限在科技層面與技術層面，而必須將之視為國際政治議題處理。

Despite stepped-up security after September 11, 2001, countries remain ill prepared to deal with attacks on nuclear materials in transit, participants at a United Nations conference said.

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says radioactive materials ranging from harmless medical supplies to weapons-grade plutonium account for less than two percent of all goods transported by land, 10 percent by air and one percent by sea.

But the volumes are still huge. The cargo carrier DHL boasts on a company brochure that it transports five tons of radioactive material per week on 113 aircraft to 40 destinations around the globe.

While acknowledging there was reason for some concern about the security risks of transporting nuclear materials, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told a week-long conference on the issue that international regulations and industry practice have "an excellent safety record."

"Over several decades of transporting radioactive material, there has not been an in-transit accident with serious human health, economic or environmental consequences," he said.

But John H. Large, a consultant on nuclear issues hired by the environmental group Greenpeace, said current emergency plans would only work for "unintelligent accidents."

"What they haven't prepared for is an intelligent terrorist attack where they know the vulnerabilities of your emergency plan," Large told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.

An IAEA official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the September 11 attacks on the United States made clear there was "room for improvement" in tackling the threat of an attack or hijacking of nuclear material in transit.

Despite the wake-up call on September 11, governments and the shipping industry have done little to improve the situation.

"There've been a lot of nice words, but not much has been done," said Large.

Coastal states such as Ireland, Peru and New Zealand are especially worried that countries like the United States and Britain do not inform them of all their nuclear shipments.

The coastal countries complain they cannot protect themselves against attacks or prepare for accidents involving ships carrying nuclear materials at sea.

But Peter Brazel of the Nuclear Safety Section of Ireland's Department of the Environment told Reuters that the United States and other shipping countries did not want to disclose all nuclear shipments because they see that as a security risk.

Story by Louis Charbonneau

該如何處理核廢料，絕對是人類無法逃避的課題，因為，只要稍微處理不當，將會對整個生態環境造成污染，直接或間接地影響人類的身體健康。

核廢料的處理過程中，除了土地會有被污染的風險性，水資源污染也是可能發生的情況，連帶地，將造成海底生物發生突變的演化。台灣海洋生態出現的「秘雕魚」或是「珊瑚白化」情形，正屬此類，而核廢料內含的輻射性物質鎝 99（technetium-99），正是禍首。這種可溶於水中的化學品，半衰期長達20萬年以上，深海魚類若長期生存在這種受污染的環境下，化學物質將會殘留在身上，引發疾病或死亡。

人類無法輕忽深海生物遭受核廢料污染所帶來的威脅，因為，這些內含毒素的魚類如果被漁夫捕獲，成為我們桌上的佳餚，毒素將以食物鏈的型態，進入到人類的身體，進而造成慢性疾病或癌症。因此，以深海魚類所製造出來的加工食品，例如我們熟悉的 DHA營養品，其保健效果受到科學家的質疑。傳統的DHA多半抽取自深海魚油，而對象通常是一些大型的肉食魚，這種魚類身處在海洋食物鏈的最頂端，長時間下來，不斷累積更多的海洋污染物。透過這種保健食品的攝取，毒素也輾轉進入人類的身體內，程度嚴重的話，可能會有神經系統麻痺、癌症併發症等疾病。屆時將演變成「保健不成，反受其害」的負面效果。

鮭魚和鱈魚是我們日常生活中常吃到的深海魚類，根據路透社報導， 2003年6月底，英國曾發現，超市所販售的鮭魚中含有輻射物質「鎝99」，而這條新聞引起北歐各國相當程度的關切。對嗜吃海鮮的人而言，從前掛在嘴邊「吃魚讓頭腦更聰明」的說法，已失去說服力。

全球核廢料污染嚴重，想要吃到無污染魚類的機會更是渺茫。所以有醫師建議，吃魚時，盡量避免吃魚的內臟，因為魚的內臟通常是污染物殘留最多的部分。以前「深海魚類卡營養」的觀念，也必須修正，改採「適量攝取」的態度，尤以孕婦更需要注意，避免有毒物質累積太多甚至太快，對胎兒的發育帶來負面影響。