中新网评：处理核污水绝不是日本自家私事******
中新网北京1月19日电(蒋鲤)日本政府近日称，将于2023年春夏期间开始向海洋排放经过处理的福岛第一核电站核污水。日本罔顾国内民众及周边国家的屡屡反对，企图将核污水“一倒了之”，把一件关乎全球海洋生态环境和公众健康的事当成了自家私事。
资料图：日本福岛第一核电站。2011年，福岛核电站事故发生后，大量放射性物质泄漏到大气层和太平洋，对周围环境造成了难以逆转的伤害，数十万人被迫撤离该地区。时至今日，作为日本邻国之一的韩国仍未解除福岛海鲜禁令。
日本以核污水存储能力即将达到上限为由，在2021年4月13日，正式决定将福岛第一核电站核污水排入太平洋。过去一年多，日本政府和东京电力公司一直在持续推进核污水排海计划。
日本政府辩称，这些核污水经多核素处理系统(ALPS)处理后很安全，甚至“可以喝”，这样的表态无疑在愚弄大众。
事实上，经过处理的核污水仍含有多种放射性物质，核污水一旦排放入海就无法回收，长期来看，将会给海洋生态带来难以估量的潜在威胁，最终危害人类健康。
因此，核污水排海计划推出后，遭到日本民众强烈反对。日本《朝日新闻》2022年3月公布的问卷调查显示，福岛县、宫城县和岩手县受访的42个市町村长中，约六成反对东京电力公司福岛第一核电站核污水排放入海。日本全国渔业协会联合会也多次申明立场，反对该计划。
日本政府认为，核污水排海是最便宜、最省事的解决方案，但此举却将周边国家乃至全世界置于核污染风险中。太平洋非日本一家之海，核污水会随着洋流流动，其影响势必会跨越国界，危害周边国家乃至整个国际社会的公共福祉和利益。
《韩国经济新闻》发文称，相关研究认为，福岛核污水如果排放入海，约7个月后将到达济州等韩国海域，该国水产业和旅游业将遭受相当大的损失。
德国南极海洋机构也曾发出警告，若日本将所有核污水排入海中，不到半年，整个太平洋都将面临高度辐射威胁，包括远在大洋另一端的美国。太平洋地区人民更是对日本该计划持反对意见。
日本作为《联合国海洋法公约》缔约国，有义务保护海洋环境。然而，在核污水排海方案的正当性、核污水数据的可靠性、净化装置的有效性、环境影响的不确定性等问题上，日本未能作出科学、可信的说明。
国际原子能机构技术工作组虽已三次赴日实地考察评估，但尚未就日排海方案的安全性给出结论，并且对日本提出诸多澄清要求和整改意见。在此情况下，日本仍执意推进核污水排海工程建设，这是极不负责任的行为。
太平洋不是日本的下水道，日本必须正视各方合理关切，在与周边国家等相关利益方和国际原子能机构充分协商后，制定合理的核污水处理方案。日本也要着眼长远，若只顾眼前，执意将核污水排放入海，不仅其自身，周边国家乃至全世界都将为之买单，其后果必将会危害数代人。
Fukushima water disposal by no means Japan’s own business
By John Lee
(ECNS) -- Japan has announced it will release treated wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean this year.
Although Fukushima wastewater disposal affects global marine ecological environment protection and public health, Japan has turned a deaf ear to domestic and international opposition to dumping the contaminated water into the sea, treating the "global" matter as its own business.
The Fukushima accident in 2011 had sent large quantities of radiation into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean, causing irreversible damage to the surrounding environment, and hundreds of thousands of people were forced to evacuate the area. South Korea still maintains its import ban on Japanese seafood from areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
On April 13, 2021, Japan announced it had decided to discharge contaminated radioactive wastewater in Fukushima Prefecture into the sea due to dwindling storage space, with the Japanese government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. promoting the release plan over the past year.
The Japanese government argues that the water treated by an advanced liquid processing system, or ALPS, is safe and drinkable, which is undoubtedly fooling the public.
In fact, the treated wastewater still includes a variety of radioactive substances and can’t be recycled once discharged into the sea, which will pose a great threat to marine ecology and ultimately endanger human health in the long run.
Therefore, the discharge plan has been strongly opposed in Japan. According to a questionnaire conducted by The Asahi Shimbun, nearly 60 percent of mayors of 42 municipalities in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures oppose the discharge plan. The National Fisheries Cooperative Federation of Japan has also repeatedly stated its opposition in public.
The Japanese government believes that dumping Fukushima wastewater into the sea is the cheapest and most convenient solution, but neighboring countries and even the whole world will be at risk of nuclear pollution.
The Pacific Ocean doesn’t belong to Japan and the wastewater flow along oceanic currents will surely break boundaries and endanger public welfare and the interests of neighboring countries and even the international community.
The Korea Economic Daily reported that related research concluded that if contaminated water from Fukushima is released into the ocean, it would only take seven months for the contaminated water to reach the shores of Jeju Island, with the country's aquaculture and tourism suffering considerable losses.
According to the calculation of a German marine scientific research institute, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within half a year from the date of discharge, and the U.S. and Canada will be affected by nuclear pollution. People in the Pacific region also oppose the discharge plan.
As a participant of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation of protecting the marine environment.
However, it hasn’t offered a full and convincing explanation on issues like the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of data on the nuclear-contaminated water, the efficacy of the treatment system or the uncertainty of environmental impact.
Though the IAEA has yet to complete a comprehensive review after three investigations in Japan, the Japanese side has been pushing through the approval process for its discharge plan and even started building facilities for the discharge. It is rather irresponsible for Japan to act against public opinion at home and concerns abroad.
The Pacific Ocean is not a private Japanese sewer. The country must seriously heed the voices of the international community and make a reasonable plan for the Fukushima wastewater disposal after full consultation with stakeholders and international agencies.
If it only seeks instant interest and insists on discharging the contaminated water into the sea, not only itself, but also its neighboring countries and the entire world will pay for the decision and several generations will be forced to bear the consequence.
网络募捐不能违背公序良俗****** □ 金泽刚 近日，江秋莲与刘暖曦(曾用名：刘鑫)生命权纠纷案在山东省青岛市中级人民法院迎来终审宣判：驳回上诉，维持原判，刘暖曦需赔偿江秋莲各项经济损失49.6万元及精神损害抚慰金20万元。从法律上讲，该案已画上了句号，但案结事未了。随后刘暖曦通过微博就赔偿款发起网络募捐，引发很多网友愤慨。目前刘暖曦账号已被禁言。这起事件也引发了公众对网络募捐所涉法律问题的关注。 根据我国慈善法相关规定，慈善募捐，包括面向社会公众的公开募捐和面向特定对象的定向募捐。由于慈善的公益特性，决定了自然人主体并不具备慈善募捐的资格，因此个人在微博就赔偿款进行募捐，呼吁网民进行打赏不属于慈善募捐的范畴。此类行为在性质上可定义为通过网络的个人求助行为。 对于他人发起的求助，社会大众或出于同情、怜悯等缘由而给予其物质帮助，这在性质上归属于民事赠与，对此，法律并未禁止。当然，民事法律行为应当遵循诚实信用等基本原则，求助人不得采取欺诈等方式向他人求助，以获得捐款，还应当遵照事先说明的用途使用募捐款项，否则构成民法上的“欺诈”，即诈捐，诈捐是要承担相应法律责任的。 与此同时，我国民法典规定，民事主体从事民事活动，不得违反法律，不得违背公序良俗，违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效。就此案来说，法院的判决已明确了其中的是非曲直，也尊重了人民群众朴素的公平正义观念。司法判决弘扬的是人间正气，呼唤的是社会良知，热心助人者应该得到补偿和认同，自私冷漠者必须得到批评和惩罚。这不只是司法判决的法理所在，也是社会公序良俗的必然要求。 2021年最高人民法院在《关于深入推进社会主义核心价值观融入裁判文书释法说理的指导意见》中指出，各级人民法院应当深入推进社会主义核心价值观融入裁判文书释法说理，将社会主义核心价值观作为理解立法目的和法律原则的重要指引，即司法判决就应彰显公平正义，鞭挞丑恶自私。由此案说开，如果其他案件的当事人也因违背社会主义核心价值观与中华传统美德的行为，对他人造成伤害而被法院判处承担赔偿责任，但又就赔偿款进行网络募捐，那么这一行为其实就是在向社会公序良俗发起挑战，在向社会主流价值观发起挑战，对此，相关网络平台要严格依据《网络信息内容生态治理规定》《关于切实加强网络暴力治理的通知》等相关规定，承担起相应的法律义务和社会责任，对相关当事人的一些偏激言论，乃至后续的网络募捐行为作出必要的限制和监管。 同现实生活中的“讨要”不同，网络属于虚拟空间，在网络上的“求助”不仅求助对象广泛，明显带有社会公共属性，而且便于美化自身角色，从而容易博取同情，进而获利。因此，对网络平台上的求助行为，特别是网络打赏等经济活动的监管亟待加强。对于是否将个人募捐求助纳入慈善法的规制范畴，值得进一步探讨。如果立法条件尚不成熟，亦可考虑在目前的《社会救助暂行办法》中增设关于“网筹型个人求助”的内容，因为完备的社会保障制度和慈善制度在外延上应当包括个人求助制度，个人求助的核心在于个人求助权利得到保障和实现。 无论如何，从目前的法律规定来看，不是什么钱都能在网上“讨要”。网络求助同样应当遵循民事行为的基本准则，而且，网络求助应当留给那些真正需要帮助的人，不能让网络平台为违法担责者博取同情、获取财物提供帮助。 (作者系同济大学法学教授，上海市嘉定区法学会副会长) 一分快3地图 |
