点击右上角
微信好友
朋友圈
请使用浏览器分享功能进行分享
春运首日掠影：让温暖和健康“一路同行”******
中新网杭州1月7日电(张煜欢)春运首日，杭州地区首趟加开列车G4835次载着600多位旅客从杭州东站出发，向着终点站贵阳北疾驰而去，2023年浙江的春运大幕正式开启。
“医生，我咳嗽七八天了，要不要去医院检查一下？”“医生，我经常咳痰咳不出来，有没有什么办法？”1月6日，在宁波开往广州的k212/K209次列车上，一场特别的健康科普在车厢中开展。浙江大学医学院附属第一医院呼吸内科主任医师陈水芳为旅客现场普及新冠病毒个人防护知识和感染后的应对方法，解答旅客们的现场咨询。
几年前，全国劳动模范、杭州客运段甬广车队党总支书记陈美芳发起了一个“劳模智囊团”，陈水芳正是70位成员中的一员。自2017年起，智囊团就每年为春运平安路助力，他们是浙江省各行各业的劳模专家，旅客有需要的时候能求助智囊团成员来帮助解决实际困难，多年来他们为无数旅客的春运之路保驾护航。
“今年春运，旅客们关心的莫过于个人防护问题。所以我们请医生专家来给旅客进行健康讲座和现场咨询，让旅客过个舒心年。”陈美芳介绍。
医生向旅客科普健康知识。 周围 摄“乘上这趟火车，我感觉年味回来了，很温暖，健康知识也很贴心。可能这就是久违的春运氛围吧。”来自广东的邓先生说。
在春运路上，杭州客运段的多趟列车贴起了窗花，挂上了串串灯笼，为旅客送去春联和福字。在杭州西开往武汉的G594次列车上，杭州客运段的乘务员们为前来乘车的旅客送上了健康、平安、福字的三个“大礼包”，车厢中不仅有知名律师团队为旅客讲解防诈骗的法律知识咨询讲座，还有急救志愿者开展海姆立克急救法等急救知识的科普。
“平时最怕的就是小孩子吃东西噎到了，今天在高铁上学到了海姆立克急救法，老师还给我们做了示范，我认真地学习了，觉得还是很需要的。”带着孩子出行的旅客夏女士说。
在上海虹桥开往长沙南的G586次列车上，乘务员给乘车的小旅客们送上了一份小礼物——秋梨膏棒棒糖。
“前两年我们没回家过年，今年赶着春运第一天回家，本以为一个人带娃会很慌乱，没想到乘务员还挺有招。孩子为了拥有棒棒糖，一路上都很听话，让我特别省心，这个‘哄娃神器’太甜太暖心了。”带孩子回武汉过年的张女士说。
“每逢春运，车厢里面小朋友很多，如何让小旅客在长途旅行中不无聊又不吵闹是一大问题。我们想到冬季是容易感冒咳嗽的季节，于是我们为小朋友们特意准备了带有卡通图案的秋梨膏棒棒糖，一方面有益身体健康，另一方面可以让‘小调皮’变成乖宝宝。”杭州客运段列车长姜妹影说。(完)
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. 
|
)