2011年4月26日 星期二

Alain SERVAIS

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

Interview : Alain SERVAIS


Alain Servais, self-portrait (with Nathalie Fournier), in front of a work by Anish Kapoor

Alain Servais, self-portrait (with Nathalie Fournier), in front of a work by Anish Kapoor.

The young Belgian collector, Alain Servais, started collecting art in the late 1990s. In 2000, he moved into a 900-square meter old factory which he transformed into a three-storey loft, located in a working-class neighborhood of northern Brussels. This is where he lives and works, as well as showing his contemporary art collection. “There are two lighting systems, the artwork lighting system and the living lighting system. This is my way of living”, he said. The freedom he enjoys as an independent financial consultant allows him to travel at his own rhythm. Art is taking up most of his personal and leisure time. He visits more than 10 art fairs, festivals and biennales around the world every year. Other than collector and Financial Consultant, Alain is a happy father of two lovely daughters, Alexia (14) and Marie (12).

In the interview, we talked about how a collection betrays its master, the collector. Alain is very open and sincere in sharing his experiences and philosophy. I am very grateful for his generosity, and I really admire his courage to confront himself. “This is really the most revealing and personal interview I ever did and probably will ever do”, he wrote me a week after the interview.

AS - Alain Servais
ST – Selina Ting for InititArt Magazine

Click for Editor's Note on Meeting Alain Servais

What is Collecting Art?

ST: You are young, and a very active and “hard-working” collector. What are your basic ideas about collecting art?

AS: There are different things about collecting. The very first aspect concerns what you think of art. It’s almost the first question I am asking to everyone I meet to know in which artworld category to find them. It’s a tough question to answer, “What is art for you?”, and I ask myself this question regularly.

ST: Throughout the years you must have very different answers to your own question.

AS: Yes, of course.

ST: Perhaps it’s interesting for us to start with the question.

AS: I don’t know but let me finish your question first. So, you have the art then you have the collecting. Why is it? You said earlier that I am fascinated by collectors, and it’s very true. I am very interested in them across history, not just today, but in general about the phenomenon of collecting. There are many different ways of collecting, but I like the following definition that I read somewhere: The difference between a museum and a private collection is that, a museum is trying to illustrate an evolution of time, while a collector is encapsulating a point in time. A collector is very often active in a certain time span, usually they are good for 10 to 12 years, then they often become bad or they stop. Why? It’s because things are changing so much that you can’t adapt many times in succession. That’s why it’s so amazing to see some collectors changing and re-focusing their collection. It’s an amazing personal effort to do that. That’s also why you would see so often the same artists in different collections active in the same period.

ST: How can you try not to become a victim of this?

AS: That’s the second level about collecting, which means you have to try to give a message through your collection. I tend to explain it in this way: an artist is creating a sign, and the collector at a certain point is taking these signs and putting them together to give another message. He’s making a sentence, if you will. He’s creating something new. He’s expressing himself also. I think it’s important. I am trying to express something. Sometimes I have the impression that I am not being listened to… [Smiles] I ask the work of art to speak for me, on my behalf. I am hiding behind what they are saying, or in fact, I am saying what they are saying.

ST: Because you are the one who’s organizing the sentence.

AS: Yes, or sometimes, I can go to another level than what the artist really intended to say. I like the idea an artist told me, that once you sent the work of art to the world, you are losing control of its meaning. Some artists want to fight against this; some are just fine with it. Also, with the passing of time, you can never really see the work with the same eye as at its time of creation. That’s why I like to visit museums. I try to put myself in the mindset of times during which the work was created to understand how people in that time looked at those pieces. I don’t want to see the works only with my eyes of today because when one makes the effort to imagining oneself back in the artist’s own time you realize how those works could be really revolutionary and radical, and it feels even better to understand that. [Smiles]

Alain Servais creating the composition and anaylsing the dog, in the game installation of MIND-GAMES (2009) by Madelon Vriesendorp, in Arsenale, 53rd Venice Biennale 2009. Photographed by Selina Ting.

Alain Servais creating the composition and anaylsing the dog, in the game installation of MIND-GAMES (2009) by Madelon Vriesendorp, in Arsenale, 53rd Venice Biennale 2009. Photographed by Selina Ting.

ST: Can we say that what we get from your comparison of a collector commanding the sentence is the subjectivity of the collector?

AS: That’s what I like: the subjectivity, but not the “command” in your question. [Smiles] I don’t feel myself as the “boss”. For example, I never commissioned a work. I don’t want to give instructions to an artist on what he has to do. At the same time, I don’t feel myself as the owner of the work. I am just a custodian of the work. Ok, I am given the work in exchange of a payment, I integrated the piece into my sentence, but it’s not my work. Because anybody coming here to see them can own them, appropriate them in their own way. That’s why I lend works to museums or others as often as I can.

ST: But then, we come back to the question, you can also go to the museums to look at them, to appropriate them in your own way. You don’t need to possess them.

AS: But the immense joy is that I don’t need to go to the museum every time, I can be here, look around, and say, oh, how lucky I am to live in a “museum”.

ST: Is there an obsession to own it?

AS: Yes and no. I have the obsession of putting them in evidence. Yes, I love the impact they have on me and others. It’s a nice feeling to see how the art work sometimes can influence people, can change certain things inside me and others, and can be useful to everyone. That’s why the works are not my property. They are the artists’ property, the world’s property, and I am happy to share them. I am just the lucky guy who’s living with them at the moment. [Smiles]

ST: Is it also your reflection from history that a collection can never stay in the same hand in view of changes of time and circumstances?

AS: Yes. That’s why conservation is very important for me. Because I hope someone will have them in 50 years, in 100 years. And if I don’t take correct care of them, they would be dead.

ST: When you have a huge collection, can your sentence still be coherent? Is there a limit?

AS: The sky is the limit! No, I should say the budget is the limit! So, why so many? At one point, I could say that you may realize what the core of the collection is (I don’t believe in collections consciously built from the beginning). Then you would have to have the courage to tidy it up. The big problem of many collectors, and sometimes myself, is the excessive drive of looking forward. You always look for the next piece and you forget a little bit about the past pieces. Then you have challenges concerning the storage, conservation, exhibiting, documentation, etc. This is the impulse and the weakness of a collector: What’s the next one I want to have?

ST: What about the coherence? When a collection expands to several hundred or several thousand pieces, can it still be coherent?

AS: More and more! There is more and more consistency as it gets bigger and more mature. But let me be careful about this word “consistency”. You can build collections in different ways. The hottest talk today, particularly in “courses” about collecting, [Winks] is to focus. But as I said, the collection is the sentence of the collector. It can be concerned by sports, sex, politics, death, love, etc. If you just want to talk about one of the chosen issues, then you are creating a much focused collection. But for me, there is diversity in each personality. There are people who are much more focused or disciplined, but I want to cultivate my diversity. There are many different elements in life that are interesting to me, and I don’t want to limit myself to one subject only. I know people who only collect black and white work. It’s a joke! [Laughs]

Left: Alain Servais. Right: Alain Servais and Cristina Savini. Images provided by Alain Servais. ©Alain Servais.

Left: Alain Servais. Right: Alain Servais and Cristina Savini. Images provided by Alain Servais. ©Alain Servais.

What you are looking at is inside you

ST: So your collection is more based on the subject-matter rather than a certain artistic movement?

AS: Yes, but someone’s history is where one is coming from and what one is. In my case, there are two sources of influence: first of all, I have been raised by Jesuits. The caricature of Jesuits is that they always answer questions with another question, and that they are always questioning perceived reality or conventions. They are a little bit manipulative [Winks] but they are attempting to examine things from different points of views and they teach you to look at your surroundings, physical and mental, from different perspectives. So, you come out of a Jesuit school either as a strong believer or as a strong disbeliever, and I came out as a very strong disbeliever in religion. They offer you a model of thinking about the world, but they give you the tools to destroy the model. So their views are very critical but very open-minded. They influenced my way of thinking in that if something looks to be white, I am going to ask myself where is the black of this white? [Smiles] So when you said my collection is very strong on messages, and you are not the only one saying so, then I will purposely add a work that speaks about the opposite, which is not at all about the message or the intellectual but perhaps the poetry. There is a very deep and obvious contradiction in the collection in that there are things that don’t seem to bear being together except that it is my intention – that they are contrary to one another.

ST: When you decided to destroy, when you become a disbeliever, I imagine you found yourself in the bewilderment with nothing to hold on to…

AS: Yes, I find it a difficult but exciting challenge to manage living with uncertainty. And that’s the other side in my history – Socrates. Socrates said, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”. [Smiles] This is the basis of philosophy and the basis of my philosophy and my life. It’s true that human beings usually do whatever they can to avoid uncertainty but I try to live with this uncertainty, this permanent questioning. And it is not easy, particularly also for the ones living with me. [Winks] Sometimes we want to hold on to something solid but in reality everything is moving around. It definitely translates into the collection.

What’s interesting is that despite this impulse to keep changing, there are only very few works that I “reject” even though I bought them 10 years ago or more. Because each of them is a part of my history and very often their meaning is still alive. I can still feel the life coming out of them. [Smiles]

But this very intellectual and philosophical aspect is only one side of my philosophy, my personality and my collecting. Then there is another part which is the animal instinct and which is just as important. You think that we, humans, are superior, the creatures at the top of the evolution, but no, we are just another animal among other animals, the smartest animal, nothing else. Sometimes I like to cut off from all the rubbish, the illusion about human “intelligence”. Just look at what’s going on in the world. That’s just animals fighting each other. The way we behave when we want to have power, love, sex or drugs, is the same as for other animals most of the time. So let’s try not to make the human being what he’s not. So this other major theme express itself through the collection is, “Watch out for your animal instinct”. That’s why there are some very “crude” elements in the collection which disturb a lot of people. There is animal instinct behind the higher level of consciousness, and at one point the animal instinct would take over, be it for love, sex, politics, religions, races, power, etc., and that can be very violent and terrible.

Living Room of Alain Servais, Brussels. Photograph by Selina Ting, 2009. Courtesy of Alain Servais. ©initiArt Magazine.

Living Room of Alain Servais, Brussels. Photograph by Selina Ting, 2009. Courtesy of Alain Servais. ©initiArt Magazine.

ST: When you use the word “Watch out”, it’s also about intellectual control on the animal instinct.

AS: Yes, I try to control it and again I try to say: this violence that you don’t like to see in art is also inside you, so, don’t reject it! Because sometimes when you are conscious of that violence, you can control it; if you are not conscious of it, it can explode and then you don’t know how to react to it or control it.

ST: What about the artists who created them? How do they get there?

AS: If you look at sociology… Where do you see the inner workings of a society? It’s at the edges. It’s where the problems, the dark sides, the failures of a society lay. When you see what the problems are and the “solutions” applied to them, then you understand the way the society is. It’s fascinating to me the way our society treats minorities. This is another very central in the collection. What codes, perceptions, treatment a society has for the homosexual, the immigrant, the prostitute, the lower-class, etc.? What are these telling us about our so-called “smart”, “wealthy”, “democratic” society? That’s why it’s very interesting to see and understand how things are working together, not just at the individual level of an artist or an individual, but the society as a whole.

ST: If we believe that art has the power to speak for the subaltern or revealing the messages to us, then, are we really giving voices to them or just another interpretation / manipulation? As a white, wealthy, upper-class male, are you not patronizing them? Where is your position in all these?

AS: One of my “model collector” is Herman Daled .He once wrote that “art should disturb me”. Art should ask me questions if it cannot provide me withanswers. It should teach me something that I don’t know about myself or my environment. This is what art is for me. As I can stand the questioning, as I accept to be put into question, I can live with those voices of the art which are raising very difficult questions. A lot of my friends say, “oh, I like your art but I could never live with it”. It’s just because I am “different” in some ways that I can cope with that questioning. And let us be clear this difference is not a source of glory or pride. It is more often a burden. [Smiles]

The second part of your question: if I am patronizing? … It’s a very good question because it touches something in my core. The answer is: maybe I am a “minority” myself. Despite being a member of the so-defined “dominating elite class”, maybe I am still in my own way a minority. [Smiles]

ST: Because you don’t conform to the values of your own social class?

AS: You know the answer. [Winks]

ST: Do you identify with the labels of white, male, wealthy, social status, etc. etc.?

AS: It’s objective. It’s a fact. I can’t go against that.

Corners of the living room in Alain's house. On the right, Claude Closky's collage of 1001 "things to do" cut out from magazines. Photograph by Selina Ting, 2009. Courtesy of Alain Servais. ©initiArt Magazine.

Corners of the living room in Alain's house. On the right, Claude Closky's collage of 1001 "things to do" cut out from magazines. Photograph by Selina Ting, 2009. Courtesy of Alain Servais. ©initiArt Magazine.

What else…?

ST: Now you have many pieces in your collection and you change the hanging once a year.

AS: Yes, about 80% of the work is changed out. It’s a lot of effort, but if you don’t want to change the hanging, what’s the point of buying more? It’s a pleasure because it transforms the house completely. It’s also paying respect to the artists, and it’s a worthy effort for my guests as well. [Smiles]

ST: What is it like to live with the same work for 365 days? Do you still see them on the 300th day?

AS: A year is not long. [Smiles] Do I still see them? Yes, and I am doing the necessary to look at them again and again such as having group visits two to three times a month, and I guide the tour myself. Yes, I love art, it’s more than a passion; it’s a way of living, as I tried to explain. But outside this “intellectual” environment of art, I am as happy to live with my animal side [Winks] by watching football games and playing with my kids. There are two lighting systems in the house, the artwork lighting system and the living lighting system. This is my way of living. I love things with two or more sides. [Smiles]

ST: How do you decide and design the hanging?

AS: I make a list of works that I want to take out of storage. Then I see how they “work” with the physical environment of the house. The interesting thing is that, once they are there, suddenly you see the intrinsic link between them. I don’t work like a curator who starts with a theme, a theory then research into the work.

Alain Servais, in the game installation of MIND-GAMES (2009) by Madelon Vriesendorp, in Arsenale, 53rd Venice Biennale 2009.

Alain Servais with an unknown audience, in the game installation of MIND-GAMES (2009) by Madelon Vriesendorp, in Arsenale, 53rd Venice Biennale 2009. Photographed by Selina Ting.

ST: What do you look at and what do you look for when you visit a private collection?

AS: I want to know who the hosts are. I want to meet the person, whether they are physically present or not. Visiting the private house of a person is to get to know that person for real. There is little he or she can hide. [Smiles]

ST: What about your own feelings of opening your own private, intimate living space for visitors, some of them are strangers?

AS: I am probably an exhibitionist. [Laughs] I don’t care. I have nothing to hide. You like me or you don’t like me, you judge me or you don’t judge me, good for you. There is nothing I can do about it.

ST: And when you visit a private collection, do you feel yourself a voyeur?

AS: A little bit. I am a voyeur as well. I am an exhibitionist and I am voyeur. [Laughs] So, there’s no problem…

ST: According to you, what’s the role of a collector in the making of art history?

AS: They realize that the very good artists cannot be understood today, that’s a bit caricature though…

ST: …Because the artists are ahead of their time.

AS: Most of the time for the good ones. A very good artist is a very good artist by nature; a very good collector is a also good collector by nature. Again, let me give you another metaphor: the artist is the “broken” or “twisted” transmitter, he’s gathering information from the world, good feelings and bad feelings about the world, and he’s expressing them in the work of art, he’s creating a sign. Most of the normal people can’t decipher it, can’t pick up the message immediately. But the collectors understand it because they are the receptors, often as “broken” or “twisted” as the transmitter is. [Winks] Look at Gertrude Stein, Peggy Guggenheim and many other collectors. They are very important because they support new movements and they are the ones taking the risks. Today, the galleries are promoting the living artists but how many galleries are still buying from their own artists? Who’s putting up their own money, taking risks and supporting the artists today? Collectors! Again, that’s simplifying the scenario, but the way to make a complex idea clearer is often to simplify it and exaggerate the point. [Winks] Of course, in reality and nuances there are different categories of artists, galleries, collectors, etc.

ST: Thank you very much.

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

Interview : Paul CHAN


Paul Chan Sade for Sade's Sake, 2009

©Paul Chan, Sade for Sade's Sake, three-channel animation projection, 5hr45mins. Courtesy of the artist

Sade for Sade’s Sake (2009), a three-channel animation projection that Paul Chan (b. 1973) presented for the 53rd Biennale di Venezia this year, depicts shadow-like human bodies in physical movement. These figures talk, argue, and plea with one another, walk and crawl, and beaten and whipped, and engaged in sexual activities and religious rituals. Interspersed among them are shadows of rectangles, squares, and other shapes and forms.

In the interview, Paul Chan talks about Sade, Freedom, Sexuality and Morality.

PC – Paul Chan
ST – Selina Ting for initiArt Magazine

ST: In your opinion, how many people have watched the video, Sade for Sade’s Sake (hereafter “SSS”) in its full-length of 5hours 45mins?

PC: None, let’s hope.

ST: We know that the video has a basic structure of 45 second per scene interspersed by some geometrical forms of objects. You once said it’s like a ballad. Does it bear any resemblance to the structure of Sade’s 120 days of Sodom, i.e. from Part 1 to Part 4 and the repetitive structure of Day 1 to Day 120?

PC: The whole piece is structured like a ballad. Each of the 45 second scenes I consider a line in the ballad. Four lines make up a stanza in a ballad, and so each stanza has a particular rhyming scheme. Visually this means that the lines that are suppose to rhyme have recurring visual elements in their scene, but in a different composition or way of moving.

ST: I’ve only seen a little part of it, but I am very curious to know how it develops within the 5hours 45mins. Is there "development" in it?

PC: Yes, SSS changes radically over the course of the 5+ hours. Things fall apart, bodies become disembodied, rhyme becomes reason, and colors change, and so on.

ST: What do these geometrical objects stand for?

PC: I don’t know. You know?

ST: Well, perhaps they are windows for escape…or they can be residues of visual spots in the mind, objects for worship, or a black hole where humanity falls. I am so often told by artists that once the work is done, they gained autonomy and have their own life in the world. Art is for everyone’s interpretation.

PC: Just the interesting observation that when something becomes free, or what you describe as something gaining autonomy, it tends to emanate an essential formlessness, whatever it looks like, which could be interpreted as something everyone can interpret. But for me this formlessness shouldn’t be seen as a kind of willful ambiguity. It is more like the stubbornness of someone not willing to belong to anyone or anything.

ST: Someone humorously commented that to attempt Sade’s 120 days of Sodom is a challenge. Because if you can’t persist till the end, you are a loser; if you successfully make it to the end, you made yourself a fool. Can this be applied to your work as well?

PC: No, because the only holy fool is me, for making it. It’s also a good question whether Sade wrote 120 days to be read. He wrote it during his imprisonment in the Bastille. And like any prisoner he wanted to escape. And how he escaped was by writing, by making literature. So in the end what is most vital is the time spent making it, not in having it received.

On Freedom

ST: You’ve also mentioned the idea of escape in Venice. You said that "the most intimate form of engagement is escape. Escape creates a sense of inner and outer integrity and gives a picture of what freedom looks like". Can you further elaborate the relationship between confinement, escape and freedom?

PC: Sure. Confinement is the condition that makes us desire escape most, and in escaping we achieve freedom. In freedom we find the truth of confinement, which is not something oppose to freedom, but in fact its grounding. I think this is what they call a Hegelian triad. But I’m most likely wrong.

ST: SSS has been largely regarded as a critique of the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison for its sexual violence, imprisonment and torture. However, from your previous work, it seems that your interest in Sade is less on sex or sexual violence itself, but on the idea of supreme freedom or the so call “Sadeian Freedom” where individual sovereignty becomes the supremacy without limit. How do you interpret Sade’s notion of freedom?

PC: I have written before on this project that, does it make Sade’s work more bearable to remember that his thinking around sex, pleasure, and freedom are inextricably tied to a ruthless critique of institutional power, whether it was governments, churches, or philosophies? Probably not. The blue and purple prose is what sticks in the craw of the mind, a seemingly endless accounting of perversities, debaucheries, and tortures. The law of reason compels sex to greater and greater extremes. In Sade, the Kantian notion of freedom as the power to follow the path paved by the series of causes and effects from one’s own reason for being fulfills Kant’s image of human autonomy and at the same time makes a mockery of its humanist potential.
Pleasure has its own reason and freedom its own law. Call it Sade’s law. And yet to follow Sade’s law to the letter is to pledge an allegiance to an imaginary power as rigid, cruel, and paradoxical as the one he was fighting against. The irony of this is on full view today. Since 2001, the US has waged a campaign to spread freedom and democracy around the world. But ironically, the more this freedom spreads, the more rigid, cruel and sexually inhuman the campaign becomes.

ST: In Must We Burn Sade ? (1955), Simone de Beauvoir accuses Sade for his solipsistic worldview, his denial of the reality of the Other and his oppression on the others. According to de Beauvoir, freedom and satisfactions for Sade can only be obtained in an imaginary or literary world where the others as embodied consciousness did not exist for him. In this sense, writing is a form of escape for Sade and his freedom lacks the possibility of action. How would you comment on de Beauvoir’s critique of Sade?

PC: You have reduced de Beauvoir’s essay to being merely a critique of Sade, when it is rather a more full bodied assessment of his work and its relevance then and now. One of the points de Beauvoir was trying to make was that Literature is a kind of action, and that the act of artistic creation has as much reality embedded in it than, say, digging a hole, or making love. That is why people wanted to burn Sade, they sensed in his work the gravity that comes from having made a concrete existence out of mere words.

ST: What about the critique on the oppression of the Other? What differs de Beauvoir’s notion of freedom from that of Sade is also her recognition of the inter-subjective lives and relationships of reciprocity.

PC: Yes, you’re right. The fundamental blindspot in Sade is that the people who populate his imaginative world are not really people at all, but things that can be used and dominated to their core. But isn’t this the mind simply wielding its power over the entire domain of artistic creation? Doesn’t Sade have a fundamental right as a thinking-and-making being to reflect and express whatever comes to him? This difference between Sade and de Beauvoir is not really a difference between different notions of freedom, but the irreconciliability between ethics and art.

ST: How relevant is Sade’s form of freedom to our society today?

PC: Sade is very relevant: he is the court philosopher for any country spreading democracy and freedom today.

On Sexuality and Morality

ST: Religion / Christianity is a point of attack for the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment thinkers. Sex as the origin of human evil and slavery becomes the primal site of transgression and individual liberty, especially for Sade. Today, the role of religion as a regulator is largely replaced by law. Law and Order become the social architects that construct a framework within which individual sovereignty is delimited and constantly kept in check. In your project, My Laws are my Whores (2008), where you presented 9 charcoal drawings of America's Supreme Court justices vis-à-vis 14 large, textualized drawings based on the characters from Sade’s work. Can you share with us your dea under this provocative title and the juxtaposition of Law and Sade?

PC: Well, the first thing is that the title of that show is a parody of Diderot’s famous quip, 'My thoughts are my whores'. But the spirit is the same. And for me it exemplifies what Sade was trying to achieve. A law of pleasure unto himself. I’ve written on the idea that the world Sade portrays is as representative of reality as pornography is to actual sex. But they are not mere fantasies. They posses the prodding movements of a mind that imagines sex not merely as a pleasure, a job, or a weapon, but as a form of reason. Here is where the spirit of Sade resides. If human freedom is expressed in the sovereignty of sex, then Sade is pushing to create a form of expression that can free the reason of sex from both nomos (human law) and physics (law of nature).

Paul Chan, My laws are my whores, 2008

©Paul Chan, My laws are my whores, 2008, Charcoal and paper, Courtesy of the artist.

ST: Sade has turned his subversive, sadist sexuality into an ethic of erotic or mode of living and expressed that ethic of erotic through writing. There is also an attempt to synthesize the violent and arbitrary justice of the aristocracy with bourgeois rationalism of his epoch. Do you see any transgression, in terms of sexuality, politics, social justice, in this strategy?

PC: This is the second hardest question I’ve ever been asked. The first was by a 9-year-old who asked me how big God was. Yes, it was a transgression then, and in many ways it still is transgressive. There remains in Sade an unbearable quality. And this is what renders him relevant.

ST: What does this transgression imply in the relationship between the individual and the world?

PC: The poet Wallace Stevens once wrote that a poem, among other things, is 'a violence within that protects us from a violence without'. In a way, the world trangresses upon us more than we will ever transgress it. The work of art, if it is art, gives us ways to abide in or resist the world.

ST: I read the mechanical sexual scenes in the video as numbing rather than shocking, like "violence for violence’s sake" or "torture for torture’s sake". Under what conditions would morality / humanity completely surrendered to cruelty and violence? Is this question naïve?

PC: Not a naïve question. There are many conditions that would render humanity into perpetual cruelty and violence. Poverty is one such condition. Inequality would be another one. Lack of civil rights another. Your read of the "sexual" scenes from SSS is not off the mark. Although there is tenderness in there somewhere, but like real tenderness, it is fleeting and not readily apparent.

ST: How far can one say that your work takes the same line as Sade that Sexuality is not a biological imperative but a social fact?

PC: I don’t know. One can almost say anything these days. The question is whether what is said has the force of material reality or not.

ST: You said in Venice that "a person is a world more than the world itself, and that a shift in a mind means more than a change in gravity itself." To what degree do you place your faith in humanity?

PC: I have no faith to place anywhere. Besides, humanity doesn’t need faith as much as a new reason to be itself.

About the artist

Paul Chan was born in 1973 in Hong Kong and currently lives in New York City. He received his BFA in video and digital arts from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and his MFA in film, video, and new media from Bard College. His most recent solo shows include My Laws are My Whores in the University of Chicago in 2009, The 7 Lights in New Museum of Contemporary Art in NYC in 2008, The Western Front in Vancouver, Paul Chan in Serpentine Gallery in London, Lights and Drawings in Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, all in 2007. His work was included in the Rotating Views #2 in Astrup Fearnley Museet for Moderne Kunst, Oslo, in 2009; Medium Religion in ZKM Karlsruhe, T2 Torino Triennale, Turin, 16th Biennale of Sydney, Betwixt in Magasin 3 Stockholm Konsthall, Stockholm, Traces du Sacré in Centre Pompidou, Paris, Shadow Cabinet in Extra City, Antwerp, all in 2008.

2011年4月22日 星期五

Unsafe at Any Exposure - OtherWords

Unsafe at Any Exposure - OtherWords

Unsafe at Any Exposure

There's no safe level of radiation exposure.

Dr. Ira Helfand By Dr. Ira Helfand

As the radioactive contamination of food, water, and soil in Fukushima, Japan worsens, the media is continuously reassuring us that these levels are "safe." But there is no safe level of radiation.

Yes, at lower levels the risk is smaller, but the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science has concluded that any exposure to radiation makes it more likely that an individual will get cancer.

The press is reporting that 100 millisieverts (mSv) is the lowest dose that increases cancer risks. This simply isn't true. According to the NAS, if you are exposed to a dose of 100 mSv, you have a one in 100 chance of getting cancer, but a dose of 10 mSv still gives you a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv gives you a one in 10,000 risk.

Those odds sound fairly low for one individual, but if you expose 10,000 people to a one in 10,000 risk, one of them will get cancer. If you expose 10 million people to that dose, 1,000 will get cancer. There are more than 30 million people in the Tokyo metropolitan area.

To understand the danger of low levels of radiation exposure, consider several factors.

First, the total dose is the most important factor, not the dose per hour. When you get an X-ray, you're exposed to a one-time burst of radiation. If you work for 10 hours in a spot where the radiation level is 1 millisievert per hour, your dose is 10 millisieverts, and the dose goes up the longer you stand there.

Second, there's a big difference between external and internal radiation. If you're standing in a spot where you're exposed to external radiation, that exposure ends as soon as you move away. But if you ingest or inhale a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate your body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in your body.

Further, if you ingest radioactive particles, the dose isn't spread evenly over your entire body. It concentrates where the particles lodge. The average total body dose may be relatively low, but the dose at the site may be large enough to damage that tissue and cause cancer.

That's why the radiation being found in Japan in spinach, milk, and other food--as well as water--is so worrisome. If consumed, it will create ongoing radiation exposure and increase the risk of cancer.

A large majority of the hundreds of thousands of cancer cases that have occurred in the former Soviet Union because of the Chernobyl catastrophe were caused by people eating radioactively contaminated food.

Finally, it makes a big difference who gets irradiated. Children are much more vulnerable than adults. If a fetus is exposed to only 10 mSv in utero, his or her risk of getting cancer by age 15 doubles. So it's particularly dangerous when children or pregnant women consume radioactive food or water.

Reports indicate that the total radioactive releases in Fukushima have been relatively small so far. If this is the case, then the health effects will be correspondingly small. But it's not "safe" to release this much radiation. Some people will get cancer as a result. Most importantly, we don't know at this point how much more radiation there will be.

That’s why the U.S. government has said that people shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of the plant.

If a comparable accident were to occur at the Indian Point nuclear reactors 24 miles north of New York City, 17 million people would need to evacuate. That's something to think about when we're told everything is OK at our nuclear plants.

Dr. Ira Helfand is an internist and a member of the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. ww.psr.org

2011年4月17日 星期日

The battle of chenobyl

The battle of chernobyl shows that the Fukushima catastrophe could take years to clean up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o

800,000 people could contract cancer if not moved out of Fukushima

Dr. Chris Busby, a British scientist, predicts some 800,000 people out of about 8 million who live within 200 kilomters of the Fukushima nuclear plants will contract cancer if they are not moved out. http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-exposure-levels-going-up-everywhere/

2011年4月8日 星期五

Japan crisis forces rethink of the nuclear option

The Telegraph April 8, 2011

The reactor meltdown at Fukushima has forced the energy industry to reconsider its investment priorities.

Anti-nuclear activists in Bulgaria protest in Sofia in reaction to the dramatic situation at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. They want the government to scrap plans to build second nuclear plant near Belene.
Anti-nuclear activists in Bulgaria protest in Sofia in reaction to the dramatic situation at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. They want the government to scrap plans to build second nuclear plant near Belene. Photo: AFP

With the eyes of the world watching, Japanese soldiers and workers continue to battle to keep the six nuclear reactors at Fukushima from meltdown.

The most technologically advanced nation in the world has been forced to resort to using police water cannons and buckets of water hurled from helicopters to cool exposed fuel rods. Authorities admit they may have to bury the plant in sand and concrete to prevent a catastrophic release of radiation.

The frightening situation is far from resolved, but the crisis has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.

The dangers of nuclear power have been thrown into the spotlight – halting building projects all over the world; while the third largest economy in the world is desperately importing fossil fuels just to turn the lights back on after the earthquake ripped through the power supply, leaving 1.3 million people without electricity.

In the short term, the need for energy has dropped as factories sit idle and there is little movement around the country.

But that will change rapidly as the reconstruction effort begins. Leo Drollas, chief economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, says: “Imagine all the girders needed to rebuild houses, cement for the flyways that have been destroyed, shipping fleets rebuilt, steel going into the trawlers.”

Japan has shut down 11 nuclear reactors in four different power plants. With talk of burying the Fukushima plant, it seems likely that at least six of those are lost for good. The question then is, what will replace them?

The country has more than 50 nuclear reactors – one in ten of the world’s total – squeezed on to its geologically unstable, densely populated land mass. Drollas says: “Obviously in Japan, there will be a major rethink.”

But it is not just Japan. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already said she will close seven of the country’s 17 nuclear plants; while China has put its plans to build 110 new reactors on hold.

Mark Lewis, head of energy research at Deutsche Bank, says: “The obvious beneficiary of all of this is gas. If you want to build new power stations with relatively low emissions, the advantage of gas is that it’s much cleaner than coal, you can build it within three years, and it is ideal to build in conjunction with renewable capacity.”

Gas works well as a back-up for alternative fuels such as wind or solar, because its output can be altered quickly as levels of renewable output change.

Liquefied natural gas prices shot up 15pc to peak on Wednesday, dropping back slightly by the end of the week.

Coal will also enjoy a renaissance if nuclear’s future is defined by the ongoing Japanese situation, even though this could have disastrous effects for the environment as coal emits one tonne of CO2 for every megawatt of power that it generates, compared with nuclear, which emits no CO2.

Subsequently the cost of carbon surged this week to its highest level since 2008.

These prevailing forces will boost the market for renewable power. As fossil fuels get more expensive, alternative energy needs less subsidies.

But, argue nuclear advocates, the world cannot build renewable capacity fast enough. Kevin McCullough, chief operating officer of RWE npower, the German-owned company seeking to develop two nuclear power stations in the UK, said: “We mustn’t forget about climate change, the impending UK energy gap and the need to keep bills affordable. None of those challenges has gone away.

“No one source of energy can deliver all that, even if you take the most optimistic view of energy efficiency gains. The country needs new nuclear as part of its mix and we must focus on delivering that with safety as the priority.”

Safety is, of course, the sticking point. Nuclear power was only just emerging from the shadow cast by the catastrophic explosion in Chernobyl in 1986. Now Fukushima has given critics the ammunition they need to urge governments to halt their nuclear ambitions. Although this crisis has been much less severe than Chernobyl, commentators say it is worse for the industry as it happened at a modern reactor in a first world country.

Barclays commodity analysts said the Japanese nuclear plants were constructed with an extremely high level of technological sophistication to withstand earthquakes, with safety mechanisms including a tsunami wall.

In response to these safety concerns, the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) came out fighting. NIA spokesman John Mcnamara said: “Effectively that power station shut down safely. When the earthquake struck, the station shut down and the safety systems kicked in. Obviously there are going to be learning points about the strength of the tsunami .”

Around the world, governments have ordered reviews of nuclear programmes, to “learn the lessons” from the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

In the UK, Liberal Democrat Energy Minister Chris Huhne commissioned a report from chief nuclear officer Mike Weightman.

The UK has 10 existing power stations, nine of which are scheduled to close by 2023. The previous Labour-led Government committed in 2006 to building a new generation of plants and eight sites have so far been shortlisted for replacement. But final investment decisions have not yet been made. As Deutsche’s Lewis points out: “No-one is close to the stage where they can start pouring concrete into the ground . This is going to push the timeframe back further still.”

He says it is inevitable that the cost of nuclear power will go up. “The amount of capital investment required to build a nuclear power station to the level needed for public confidence will be greater. And the perceived risk will go up, so the cost of financing [it] will go up. On an economic level it makes nuclear less competitive.”

Funding a nuclear power station is particularly risky in the UK, where the energy market has been liberalised.

“All the nuclear power stations in the UK were built before electricity markets were liberalised,” says Lewis. “You would expect to recover your cost because [of] the price of electricity . Liberalisation changes the game completely.”

Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, has admitted there is an “ongoing potential risk” that investors will lose appetite for nuclear power in the UK following the crisis.

Anecdotal evidence suggests his fears may be realised. Gerard Reid, cleantech research analyst at investment bank Jefferies, says: “From the investor community, the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s’ on this and were pro-nuclear, they have gone anti-nuclear.”

The Japanese crisis will also buffet Huhne’s planned electricity market reform, which he has called the biggest shake-up of the industry since the 1980s.

The energy White Paper due in late spring is expected to drive towards a much more open market. Drollas says: “This might make people reconsider whether market solutions have to be pursued at all costs.”

In Germany, which receives 23pc of its electricity from nuclear, the situation is even more acute. The German nuclear power industry has been at the centre of a raging political debate for decades. Last year,

Chancellor Merkel’s government took the controversial decision to extend the life of Germany’s nuclear power plants by 12 years. So it was a major shock when she announced the closure of the oldest reactors this week, ordering a three-month review of the other 10 remaining plants.

Further afield, President Barack Obama has ordered a comprehensive review of domestic nuclear plants.

In Asia, the picture is mixed. China is currently the world’s biggest builder of nuclear reactors, driving government plans forward without the lengthy consultation required in democratic countries.

It, however, appears cowed by the events in Japan, with the Chinese State Council decreeing: “We will temporarily suspend approval for nuclear power projects, including those that have already begun preliminary work, before nuclear safety regulations are approved.”

India, on the other hand, remained firm in its nuclear ambitions. The country of one billion people aims to generate 63GW of nuclear power by 2032, compared with the less than 5GW it generates today.

Until the situation in Fukushima stabilises, the global reaction will keep changing. But already the face of energy markets has changed, possibly for good.

2011年3月16日 星期三

前核電廠技師的瀝血控訴

設施配管1級技士平井憲夫(1997年1月因癌症逝世)

生前的最後吶喊。

我 不是反核運動家。這20年來,我一直在核電廠工作。社會上有聽不完的擁核反核理論,但我只想在這裡告訴大家:「所謂的核電廠是這樣一回事。」大部份的人都 不知道核電內部的實際情形。希望大家有耐心把這篇文章讀完。所謂核電,跟各位所想的或許有點出入。在那裡,每天都有遭受放射線污染的工人,以及嚴重的岐視 產生。

我的專長,是負責大型化學工場的內部配管施工與維修。快30歲時,日本掀起了一陣核電建設的風潮。核電內部有錯綜複雜的配管,正好是我發揮專長的大好舞台。因此我被核電製造商挖角,長期擔任工程現場的監督人員,一晃眼就過了20年。

「安全」是紙上談兵

1995 年1月發生阪神大地震。地震隔天我到了神戶,看到傾倒的新幹線與斷裂的高速公路。不禁發起一陣省思。因為這些公共建設實在與核電廠有太多相似點。大家或許 認為,核電、新幹線、高速公路這些攸關人命的建設,平日應該受到政府嚴格控管。但是看到倒下的高架支柱,不是混凝土裡夾雜著施工初期的定型木片,不然就是 焊接處焊的亂七八糟。為什麼會發生這些事呢?這不僅僅是施工單位的不用心,其實問題的本質,是我們都太過於注重「理論上的安全」了。

「素人造核電」

核電廠裡面,鐵絲掉進原子爐、工具掉進配管裡卡住的人為疏失可說是層出不窮。為什麼會這樣?因為工程現場裡「有真功夫的師父」實在是太少了。不管核電設計有多完美,實際施工卻無法做到與原設計一模一樣。核電的藍圖,總是以技術頂尖的工人為絕對前提,做出不容一絲差錯的完美設計。但卻從來沒有人討論過,我們的現場人員到底有沒有這種能耐。

早 期的工地,總是會叫經驗老道的老師父來做「班長」。他們比那些年輕的監督人員有經驗,並注重名譽,不允許錯誤發生在自己手上。但現在,老師父已幾近凋零。 建設公司在徵人廣告上以「經驗不拘」做為求才條件。這些沒經驗的素人,不知道核能事故的可怕,也不知道自己負責的部位有多重要。東京電力的福島核電,曾因鐵絲掉進原子爐,差點發生席捲世界的重大事故。把鐵絲弄掉的工人知道自己犯了錯,卻完全無法想像這個錯會造成如此可怕的事故。這就是現在核電現場的實際狀況。

老師父一個接一個退休了。建商也查覺到這件事。因此把工程圖盡量分割簡化,做出連菜鳥也看的懂的製造手冊。菜鳥們在現場有如堆積木般地組裝各種零件。他們不知道現在到底在作什麼,也不能理解這個部份有什麼重要性。這就是核電廠事故頻傳的原因之一。

核電廠因為有幅射的危險性,很難在現場培育人材。電廠的作業現場既暗又熱,又必須穿戴防護衣罩,作業員彼此無法直接做語言溝通,這該怎麼把技術傳給新人呢?更何況技術越好的師父,就代表他進入高汙染區的頻率越高。他們很快就會超過規定的放射能曝晒量,無法再進核電廠作業。所以菜鳥工才會越來越多。

再舉配管的焊接師父來說吧!專業的焊接工,通常年過三十後眼睛就會不堪使用,無法完成一些細膩的工作。所以需要許多細膩作業的石油廠就不會再雇用這些工人。這些人為了生計,只好去願意雇用他們的核電廠工作。

大家或許都會錯意了。以為核電廠是多麼高科技的先端產物。核電不像各位想的這麼高級。這些菜鳥做的核電廠,日後必會為我們帶來無窮的災難。

「徒有虛名的檢查官」

好, 或許有人會說就算核電真的都是素人蓋的,那好好監督它總行了吧。我想跟各位說明,監督系統才是核電更大的問題。真正的檢查,是檢查官指出有問題的部分說: 「你這裡焊接黏的不好,來,我來教你怎麼黏。」這樣才叫檢查。但檢查官通常都沒有真功夫。他們只會讀著整理完善的報告書,聽著建商的精彩報告,看著漂漂亮 亮的場地,表面沒什麼大問題就判定合格。這就是核電監督的真相。

以前在外演講時,曾經有一位技術官員在場告白: 「說來很慚愧。我們的部門害怕去核電檢查會遭幅射污染,所以從不派自己人去現場檢查。總是找些農業部的職員去監督。昨天在教人養蠶、養魚的人,隔天就被派 去當核電檢查官了。福井縣美濱核電廠的檢查總長,在上任之前是個負責檢查稻米的。」這些由素人發出運轉許可的核電,真的能信賴嗎?

東京 電力的福島核電廠發生緊急爐心冷卻系統(ECCS)的重大事故時,負責監督該座核電的檢查總長竟然透過隔天的報紙才知道這件事。這件事還被媒體以「核電重 大事故,檢查官被矇在鼓裡」為標題大肆報導。其實也不能怪電力公司。在十萬火急的事故現場,排除事故都來不及了,誰還有空去向一個什麼都不懂的三歲小孩說 明現在的狀況呢?所以他們不會把檢查官放進現場,所以官員永遠是狀況外。

檢查官不說OK,工程就無法進行。他們什 麼都不懂,只懂的看表面,卻又擁有太大權限。我還在職的時候,就一直呼籲政府必須組織一個完全獨立的第三者機關,找些有真功夫的配管或機械組裝的老師父來 當檢查官,他們一眼就能看穿哪裡有焊接不良或偷工減料。但是講了再講,政府的政策卻依然沒有改變。

「定期保養也是素人」

核能機組每運轉一年,就必須停機做定期保養。因為原子爐會產生高達150的氣壓,攝氏300度的蒸氣及熱水,這些熱水氣會使配管的管壁或汽門嚴重磨耗。因此必須定期更換。但這些作業卻使工人遭受幅射污染。

核電廠插入燃料棒後,只消運轉一次,內部就會充滿放射性物質。進入現場時,工人必須脫掉所有的衣物,換上防護衣才能進場。防護衣的作用並不是保護工人,而是確保放射線不被帶出核電廠。因為測量工人身體幅射劑量的儀器竟是佩戴在防護衣裡面,而不是外面!

包 圍在重重護具底下的工人們,必須在畏懼輻射污染的高度心理壓力下工作。在這種環境下絕對無法維持好的作業品質。就拿最最基本的鎖螺絲來講;我在作業前一定 會告誡工人:「鎖對角才會緊,輻射才不會外洩。」但是他們的工作場域是布滿輻射的高度危險區,進去以後不消幾分鐘,佩帶在身上的輻射測量儀就會發出高分貝 的響鈴,警告工人必須立刻退場。在進入現場前,我們雖會告知工人今天這個區域能待幾分鐘。但是現場並沒有時鐘,工人也因為輻射污染問題,無法自行攜帶手錶 進去。大家都想在警鈴響起前趕快離開。整個心就掛念著現在到底過了幾分鐘?警鈴是不是要響了?管他什麼螺絲要鎖對角,反正有鎖上去就好了。人在這種環境下絕對無法精確工作,但你想這會帶來什麼後果呢?

「放射能被直接排入大海」

核電的定期保養大都在冬季。保養結束後,幾十噸的放射性廢水會被直接排入大海。而在平常運轉時,也會有每分鐘數十噸單位的大量廢熱水被排進海洋。但政府或電力公司卻總是滿口保證核電絕對安全,久而久之國民也對核電造成的環境影響變的莫不關心。

工人穿過的防護衣必須用水清洗,這些廢水皆全數排入大海。排水口的放射線值高的不像話,而漁民卻在那附近養魚。如果我們不正視這個問題,放任核電廠越蓋越多的話,後果實在不堪設想。

「體內的幅射污染最可怕」

核島區內的所有東西都是放射性物質。每個物質都會釋放傷害人體的放射能,當然連灰塵也不例外。如果是身體表面沾上放射性物質,沖洗乾淨就沒事。但如果是經由口鼻吸入體內的話,將對人體帶來數倍的危險性。負責打掃核島區的清潔工,通常是最高危險群。

進入體內的放射性物質,通常在3至5天內會隨著汗水或小便排出身體。但這些物質在體內循環的過程會對人體帶來打擊;更何況它們並不會百分之百排出體外。長年累積下來的放射能將會帶來疾病。

有去參觀過核能設施的人,應該都看過核電內部打掃的一塵不染的情形。電力公司的職員總是得意的說:「核電廠既漂亮又乾淨!」這是理所當然的事情。放任灰塵飛散的話可是會擴大幅射污染呀!

我遭受了100次以上的體內幅射污染,最後得了癌症。我曾經畏懼即將到來的死亡。但我的母親鼓勵我,沒有比死更可怕的事情。因此我決定在死前站出來,把我知道的真相全部公諸於世。

「截然不同的作業環境」

放 射能無論有多微量,都會長期累積在人體。但所謂的放射線健康管理,卻規定一年的曝晒量不超過50mSv就好。這是一件相當可怕的事情。因為我們依據這個量 除以365天,算出一天可被曝晒的劑量。按照這個算法,核島區內的一些高污染區,一天只能進去5到7分鐘。但這麼短的時間根本無法完成工作。所以我們會要 求工人一口氣曝晒三個禮拜到一個月的量,以順利完成工作。我們根本沒料到這短短的十幾二十分,會為我們帶來白血病或癌症等疾病。電力公司完全不告訴我們這 些事情。

還記得有一次,運轉中的核電機組裡有一根螺絲鬆了。核電運轉中排出的輻射量相當驚人。為了鎖這根螺絲,我 們準備了三十個人。這三十人在離螺絲七公尺遠的地方一字排開,聽到「預備,跑!」的號令後輪番衝上去鎖,一到那裡只要數三下,計量器的警鈴就會嗶嗶響起。 時間實在太過緊迫,甚至有人衝上去後找不到扳手警鈴就響了。這個螺絲才鎖三轉,就已經花費了160人次的人力,400萬日幣的費用。或許有人會覺得奇怪,為什麼不把核電廠停起來修理?因為核電只要停一天就會帶來上億元的損失。電力公司才不會做這種虧本的事。在企業眼中,金錢比人命重要。

長達五小時的「絕對安全」教育

第 一次在核電廠上班的工人,必須接受約五小時的放射線管理課程。這個課程最大的目的就是解除內心的不安。他們絕不會說核電廠到底有多危險,只會一再強調有政 府嚴格管理,一切安心這些話。「社會上有一些反核份子很愛說輻射會帶來白血病或癌症等疾病,但那全部都是謊言,那些人都是騙子。你只要遵守政府的規定就不 會有問題。」諸如此類的洗腦教育將持續約五小時。

當然不只限於核電內部,電力公司也常在社區內推廣這種「核電絕對安全」的教育。他們有時邀請有名人來演講,有時透過料理教室等等的文化活動宣傳,有時是把圖文並茂的精美文宣夾報。久而久之人們慢慢就會被洗腦,變成只會擔心「沒了核電,我們將無電可用」。

這二十年來,我以現場負責人的身分,為新進員工執行這個更勝於奧姆真理教的洗腦教育。自己都不知道自己殺了多少人。核電工人總是對核電安全自信滿滿,就算身體狀況變差,也不認為與核電有關。因為他們從不知道放射能的真正恐怖。每個工人,每一天都持續遭受輻射污染。而負責人的任務就是隱瞞這些事情,不讓本人或外界知道這些資訊。

我長年從事這種工作,壓力日積月累,只能依賴酒精慰藉,而且每晚越喝越兇。我也常捫心自問,自己到底為了誰,為了什麼,每天要過這種充滿謊言的日子?一晃眼過了20年,終於連自己的身體也被輻射侵蝕的破碎不堪。

「核電廠出事時,誰要去救?」

有 一次,東京電力的福島核電廠內,有一名工人不慎割破額頭大量失血。因為情況危急,非馬上送醫不可。慌忙的電力公司職員立刻叫來救護車,卻忘記他剛從高污染 區出來,全身上下都是放射能,連防護衣都沒脫。趕來急救的醫護人員也缺乏知識,不做任何清洗就把病人直接送往醫院。結果所有接觸到他的醫生、護士都受到輻 射污染,連救護車、病床等東西也不例外。整個村落差點陷入大恐慌。

大家看到重傷病患時會下意識地去搶救,無色無臭無味的放射能容易被人忽略。光是一個人就搞的天翻地覆了。如果核電廠發生大事故,大批居民遭到輻射污染時,誰要去救他們?這絕不是別人家的事,而是全國國民必須共同思考的問題。

「令人震驚的美濱核電廠事故」

核 電事故往往被有意無意的忽略。大家都知道三浬島跟車諾比事件,卻不知道日本一直持續發生重大核安事故。其中我印象最深刻的,是1991年發生在關西電力美 濱核電廠的細管破碎事故。原子爐中含有放射性的冷卻水,因為細小的配管破碎而外洩到海裡,只差0.7秒,失去冷卻的原子爐就要像車諾比一樣暴衝了。幸好值 班的是個老經驗的職員,他當機立斷,手動開啟ECCS(緊急爐心冷卻裝置),避免了一場大慘劇。要知道,ECCS是核電廠的最後一道防線。使用ECCS系 統阻擋下來的美濱核電廠事故,可說是一台載著日本一億人口的大巴士,在高速公路以一百公里以上的速度狂奔,踩煞車也不靈,拉手煞車也擋不住,最後撞上懸崖 才總算把車子停下來的一場大事故。我只能說日本人,喔不,是世界上的人們太幸運了。

最後調查時才發現,原來是一組 零件在事故發生時未能及時插入機組,導致原子爐在高溫攀升的情形下沒有自動停機。這是施工上的失誤。但卻從來沒有人發現,這座已運轉二十年以上的機組擁有 這個致命缺失。這也代表當初建設時根本沒按照原設計施工。太長的就切掉,太短的就硬拉,這些設計師意料不到的事情,卻在工程現場理所當然的發生,也導致核 電事故層出不窮。

「文殊試驗爐的大事故」

使用全鈽的高速增 殖試驗爐─文殊(Monjyu),在1995年發生液態鈉外洩火災的重大事故。(譯註:高速增殖爐使用鈽做為核燃料。鈽為核分裂時產生之放射性物質,不存 在於自然界,具猛毒致癌性。其原子分裂時能產生巨大能量,故適用於製作核子彈。普通的核電廠已純水做冷卻液,但高速增殖爐卻必須使用危險性極高的液態鈉才 能達到冷卻效果。文殊爐在該事故發生後停擺了約15年。雖於2010年成功重啟試運轉。卻在稍後發生原子爐內上方的巨大零件脫落,直擊爐心的事故。因為爐 內已受高度輻射污染,取出該脫落零件可說是難上加難。爐心內部的損傷情形也無法掌握,該爐至今前途未卜。)

這不是該爐第一次發生事故。其實從施工期開始,就一直事故頻傳。因為所長跟現場監工、裡面的師父都是我以前的手下,發生什麼事情都會找我商量。我雖然已經辭職了,卻又害怕核電出事會造成無法彌補的慘劇,結果在施工時期前後跑了六趟文殊爐。

有 一次他們打電話來說:「有一根配管無論如何就是裝不下去,可不可以請你來看看。」一去後發現該配管完全符合原設計尺寸,周圍的零件也都安裝的好好的,卻怎 麼也裝不進去。後來想了一陣子才恍然大悟。文殊爐由日立、東芝、三菱、富士電機等廠商共同設計,而每家廠商的規格不同。打開設計圖後可以發現,日立的設計 圖把0.5mm以下的單位無條件捨去,而東芝和三菱卻是無條件進入,雖說是小小的0.5mm,幾百個地方加起來卻會變成相當大的誤差。這就是為什麼明明照 著圖面施工,卻怎麼也做不好的道理。最後沒辦法,只好叫他們全部重做。畢竟這座原子爐背負著日本國的威名,花點錢是必要的對吧?

這座拼裝式的原子爐,會發生事故可說是理所當然。反倒是沒出事的話還比較不可思議。但是政府卻一再淡化事故的嚴重性。甚至把一些事故稱為「現象」。有一次發生事故,電力公司在縣議會報告時,又不改陋習地說:「關於這次的現象…」,我氣的在台下對著縣議員大喊:「什麼現象?這個叫事故!事故!」在這種政府的領導之下,也難怪國民對核電的危機感越來越低。

「日本的鈽變成法國核武?」

尚無能力做核燃料再處理的日本把用畢核燃料送到法國處理,提煉出具高度危險性的鈽。預計在文殊爐使用的鈽為1.4噸,而長崎核爆的那顆原子彈卻僅含鈽8公斤。請各位想想,文殊的鈽能做多少顆原子彈?

大 部分的日本人都不知道,1995年,法國把這些來自日本的鈽挪用去南太平洋做核爆試驗。也有更多人不知道,再處理費用是法日兩國交易額的第二大項目。日本 身為世界上唯一一個遭受核爆侵襲的國家,口口聲聲高喊反對核武,卻允許自國的核廢料變成核武,為大溪地的人民帶來輻射災難。

美、英、德各國都早已因安全考量及經濟問題,中止所有的高速增殖爐研究計畫。其中德國更是把已經建設好的原子爐改建成遊樂園,為當地帶來新氣象。世界各國都認為鈽不能拿來發電,卻只有日本仍堅持繼續開發文殊爐。

為什麼日本要這麼固執?因為這個國家的政府缺乏中止一項錯誤政策的勇氣。就拿核能政策全體來說,日本在剛開始發展核電時就一直沒有前瞻性的計畫,到現在過了幾十年,連廢棄物要丟哪都還不知道。而年輕人也漸漸地不再願意學者核工技術,造成人材嚴重斷層。

曾 任原子力局長的島村武久,在退休後寫了一本名為「原子力講義」的書說:「日本政府的核能政策只不過是在自圓其說。其實根本沒有電力不足的問題。不敢明言拒 絕美國的日本一口氣蓋了太多核電廠,搞的自己手上屯積了一堆鈾跟鈽,不知該如何是好。世界各國都在懷疑日本是不是想搞核武。政府為了證明自己的清白,只有 不得不蓋更多核電廠來消費這些燙手山芋。」這就是日本這個國家真正的面孔。

「無法廢爐也無法拆除的核電廠」

日 本國內有許多老舊的核電廠,政府卻不知道處理方式,只能任由它們繼續運轉下去。原來充滿放射能的核電不是想關就能關,想拆就能拆。位於神奈川縣的武藏工業 大學裡面有一座100瓦的原子試驗爐。因為老舊不堪,造成輻射外漏而被停用。結果計算出來的修理費用是20億日幣,廢爐則要花上60億日幣,超過大學一整 年的預算。現在校方也只好把它放在那裡,等放射能衰退後才能著手整理了。

普通的商業原子爐大都高達100萬瓦。真是令人莫可奈何。

「『關閉』,監視、管理」

為 什麼原子爐無法輕易廢爐或拆除?因為核電機組內充滿大量的水蒸氣及冷卻水,如果停機後放著不管,水氣馬上會使機件生鏽,接著使金屬產生破洞,排放出放射 能。核電廠只要插入核燃料棒運轉過一次,整座核電廠就會變成一個大型放射性物體。廢爐、拆除,談何容易?就算是放機器人進去作業,它也會馬上因為放射能而 短路。

世界上有許多先進國家「關閉」國內核電廠。因為他們無法廢爐、拆除。只能「關閉」。所謂關閉核電廠,就是把發電機關掉,取出核燃料棒。但真正的重頭戲從這裡開始。

為了不讓機組內部的機件生鏽,造成輻射外洩。就算不再發電,也必須把水導入系統,維持機械運轉。當水壓造成配管磨損,或者零件毀損時也必須補修,以免輻射外漏。這些作業必須持續到核電內部的放射能完全衰退為止。

電力公司真的會完善管理這些毫無經濟效益的廢核電廠嗎?他們重來不思考老舊核電廠的處理方式,只會一昧計畫增設新的核電廠。我不得不說這個國家真是瘋狂。日本國內即將到達年限的核電機組有幾十座。會為這些核電的去向感到恐懼的,難道只有我嗎?

「無去無從的放射性廢棄物」

核 電廠運轉後,每天都會不斷地產生放射性廢棄物。這其中有所謂的低階核廢料,名稱雖為低階,但其中也有待在核廢桶旁五小時就有生命危險的劇毒物質。一開始電 力公司還把低階核廢料丟進海底。我在茨城縣東海核電廠上班時,那裡的業者就是把核廢料桶載上卡車,運到船上,最後丟進千葉外海。我常常想,這些鐵桶丟入海 裡後應該不到一年就會鏽蝕。裡面的核廢料不知道變怎樣了?附近的魚不知道會變怎樣?

現在,日本把低階核廢全部拿去青森縣的六所村核燃基地存放。政府預計在那裡埋300萬桶核廢料,管理300年。但是誰能預料300年後這些鐵桶會變怎樣?300年後管理這些廢棄物的業者還存在嗎?

另 外一種是高階核廢料,也就是用過的核燃料棒,經過再處理過程抽取出鈽之後剩餘的放射性廢棄物。這些高階核廢料(液態)必須與玻璃一起固化,並封閉在堅固的 金屬容器裡。人類只要站在容器旁兩分鐘就會死亡。接著必須冷卻這些持續散發高熱的核廢料30至50年。等溫度降低後再把它埋入幾百公尺深的地底,存放1萬 年以上!也難怪世界各國都找不到高階核廢的最終存放場。

至於核電廠本身,在停機後也將變為一龐大的放射性廢棄物。如果想把核電拆除,就等於將出現高達數萬噸的放射性廢材。我們連一般的產業廢棄物都不知道要丟哪裡了,這些核廢料到底該怎麼辦?

我在北海道演講時,曾提到核廢料必須管理50年,300年等等。那時有一個國中的小女生舉手發言:「你說什麼50年,300年這些話。結果做這些事的不是你們這些大人,全部都要我們,或是我們的孩子、孫子去做!我討厭這樣!」在場的大人,頓時啞口無言。

「身受輻射污染恐懼與歧視的居民」

「核電廠不會造成任何輻射污染」。這個謊言已經重複了幾十年。而如今,越來越多的證據讓核電集團無法再說謊下去。

核電廠的高聳排氣管,一天24個小時持續排出放射能氣體。周圍的居民每天都遭到輻射污染。

我 曾經收過一名23歲女性的來信。她說:「我離開鄉下去東京就職。後來遇到好對象,連婚都訂了。他卻忽然提說要分手。他說他很喜歡我,也很想跟我在一起。但 是他的父母告訴他,我是在福井縣敦賀那邊長大,那裡有很多核電廠,聽說住核電廠附近的人生小孩容易得白血病,他們怕自己的孫子也這樣,所以不准我們結婚。 我到底是做了什麼壞事,要受到這樣對待呢?

請你想想,如果有一天,你自己的孩子跟核電廠附近的居民談戀愛,你能衷心地祝福他們嗎?核電廠衍生出來的歧視就在我們週遭。擔心核電發生事故是一回事,就算不出事,這種歧視也會隨時蔓延在人們的意識裡。所以我厭惡核電,核能破壞的不只是環境,它連人的心也一起粉碎。」

最後我想說一件令我震驚許久的事情。這是我在北海道的泊核電廠附近的共和町演講時發生的事。今天講的話大家可以通通忘記,但請千萬記住接下來我要說的。

那一天的演講是在晚上舉辦,會場來了約三百人。有為人父母的,也有學校老師,連國中、高中生也來了。演講結束後我請聽眾發問,這時,有一個國二的女生邊流淚邊把手舉了起來:

「今天晚上聚集在這裡的大人們,全部都是裝著好人面孔的偽善者!我今天會來,就是要來看看你們這些大人到底長什麼嘴臉。特別是會來這種聚會的大人,你們平常最愛討論一些農藥問題、高爾夫球場問題、核電問題。說什麼一切都是為了孩子,說什麼你們努力在搞運動。

我住在核電廠附近的共和町,24小時都受到輻射污染。我看過書上寫,核電廠及英國的核燃料再處理工廠附近的小孩罹患白血病的機率很高。我是個女孩子,長大後想要結婚生小孩,你們說說,我以後生小孩沒問題嗎?」她邊哭邊說,在場的大人卻誰也答不出話。

「你們都說核電廠很可怕,那為什麼要等到核電廠都蓋好運轉了才在這邊告訴我們這些事?為什麼當初施工時不去拼命把它擋下來?現在泊電廠的二號機都已經開始運轉了,你們這些大人到底在幹什麼?就算沒電可用,我也討厭核能發電!」

「我真的不知道你們今天在這裡辦活動有什麼意義?如果我是大人,自己有小孩的話,我一定拼上這條命也要去把核電廠擋下來。」

「現在二號機也開始運轉了,我將遭到雙倍的輻射污染,但我不打算逃離自己的故鄉。」

這時我問:「妳有跟媽媽或老師講過妳的煩惱嗎?」她說:「我媽媽跟老師今天都在現場,但我沒跟她們講過。班上的女生都在談這個話題,我們都害怕自己將來結不了婚,生不了小孩。」

這個問題,絕不僅只發生在政府規定的核災應變範圍五公里、十公里內。離核電廠50公里、100公里遠的地方,有數不清的國高中生們都抱持著類似煩惱。希望各位能意識到這件事情。

「有核電就無法安心生活」

話說到這裡,各位應該對核電廠有了一個新的體認了是吧?

車諾比事故已經是過去的事情。「想要維持都會生活機能,保障能源穩定,雖然有點危險,但我們需要核電廠。」尤其是住在大城市的人,更容易接受這種想法。

但這種想法是國家及電力公司砸下大筆預算,努力推行「核電是核能的和平利用」「我們嚴格控管核電,絕對不會出事情!」「海島型國家缺乏資源,核能有絕對的必要性」等等洗腦教育的結果。事情的真相,永遠被隱瞞在檯面下。

在座的各位都知道,核電廠出事不得了。那是不是不出事就沒問題了呢?什麼是核能的和平利用?只要有像我這樣罹患癌症的核電工人存在;只要有遭到歧視的周邊居民存在,核電就永遠稱不上是和平利用。

再請各位想想那些需要看管上萬年的核廢料。管理核廢料也需要電力跟石油。到時能源的總使用量絕對超出核電所產生的能量。而且負責管理這些東西的不是我們,而是往後世世代代的子孫。這到底算哪門子的和平利用?

我想請求各位,每天一早起來,仔仔細細地端看自己的孩子或孫子的臉龐。再想想國家積極發展核電的政策到底有沒有問題?特別是位於地震帶的日本,不只核電廠事故,還必須提防大地震帶來的影響。再這樣下去,早晚會發生無可彌補的悲劇。

因此我堅決反對繼續蓋新的核電廠。而運轉中的核電廠,也必須確實地逐一關閉。

只要有核電存在,真正的和平就不可能降臨於世界。請把美麗的地球留給孩子們吧!

關於平井憲夫:

1997 年1月逝世。設施配管1級技士,核電事故調查國民會議顧問,核電勞工救濟中心代表,北陸電力志賀核電廠停止訴訟原告特別輔佐人,東北電力女川核電停止訴訟 原告特別輔佐人,福島二號核電廠三號機運轉停止訴訟原告證人。「核電勞工救濟中心代表」在他仙逝後,因後繼無人關閉。