原文:https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/?fbclid=IwAR0hB-IQgpYLtmELh6XiOty73tg3lbMaybl3PEn_SR9BqzYuijs3-Qdtjsw

由 HONEY CHENG 翻譯 作者背景 請GOOGLE/WIKI MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER  https://www.facebook.com/notes/honey-cheng/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet-%E7%82%BA%E4%BD%95%E5%86%8D%E7%94%9F%E8%83%BD%E6%BA%90%E6%95%91%E4%B8%8D%E4%BA%86%E5%9C%B0%E7%90%83-%E4%B8%8D%E5%B0%88%E6%A5%AD%E7%BF%BB%E8%AD%AF%E7%89%88-%E6%95%AC%E8%AB%8B%E4%B8%8D%E5%90%9D%E6%8C%87%E6%95%99/10205838892769350/

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

當我還是個小男孩的時候,父母有時候帶我跟姊妹一起去沙漠中露營。大多數的人都會以為沙漠是了無生機的地方,但我的父母反倒是認為沙漠是一個可以讓我們接觸野生動物的環境,包含體型較大的隼科鳥類、老鷹與陸龜。

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.

大學畢業後,我搬到加州從事環境保育工作。為了拯救該州最後一個古老的紅木森林,阻止當時在沙漠中放置核反應廢料的提案。

In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

時間來到2002年,也是我剛滿30不久,我決定自己要專注在解決氣候變遷。我擔心氣候暖化將會導致那麼多人辛苦保護的自然環境終將崩壞。

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

我以為阻止氣候暖化的解決方法很簡單: 例如在每個屋頂鋪上滿滿的太陽能發電板、滿街的電動車等等。當時的我認為最大的阻力來自於政治,於是我籌組了美國最大的工會與環境保護團體,目標將3千億美金投資於再生能源,在阻止氣候變遷的同時也在高科技發展下,替人們創造數百個工作機會。

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

在2007年,我們的願景在眾人努力之下,終於獲得當時的總統提名人Barack Obama接受。在2009至2015年間,美國政府滬注了約一千五百億美金在再生能源與相關乾淨能源開發,但很快我們就遇上了麻煩。

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

第一個就是面臨土地使用的窘境。首先使用屋頂太陽能發電板的發電成本是太陽能發電場的兩倍,而且太陽能與風力風電都需要占用大量土地,也表示需要很長的電線做電力傳輸,這造成當地社區與相關保護團體極力抗議以保護當地的野生動物,尤其是鳥類。

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Happily, there were a lot of people working on solutions. One solution was to convert California’s dams into big batteries. The idea was that, when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing, you could pump water uphill, store it for later, and then run it over the turbines to make electricity when you needed it.

另一個挑戰就是太陽能與風力發電的間歇性,當沒有太陽照射與無風發電的狀態下,我們必須快速找到可以填補電力缺口的能源。令人欣慰的是很多人正在想辦法克服這個難題,其中一個解決方案是在加州水壩變成一個巨大蓄電池;在有陽光與風力發電時,用當時的電力將水抽至高處儲存,以便在需要的時候可以透過水的位能發電。

Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house cats kill billions of birds every year it put into perspective the nearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.

經過仔細調查,比如在我知道每年家貓殺死數十億隻鳥之後,對照因為風力發電機而慘死數百萬的鳥,其他的問題也就沒有什麼大不了了。

It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.

在當時的我看來,也許不是全部,但大多數的太陽能與風力發電的問題都可以透過科技創新來解決。

But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.

但經過數年之後,這些問題不僅沒有被解決,有些甚至更惡化了。例如加州即便是全世界再生能源發展的領導者,也基於一些地理限制的原因,未能將大壩轉變成蓄電池,這表示我們需要的是適當的大壩或是水庫,同時也是耗資不斐的改造工程。

A bigger problem is that there are many other uses for the water that accumulates behind dams, namely irrigation and cities. And because the water in our rivers and reservoirs is scarce and unreliable, the water from dams for those other purposes is becoming ever-more precious.

Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.

更大的問題是這些大壩或水庫都是供應著周遭地區灌溉與民生用水等重大用途,而且由於我們的河流與水量稀少且不穩定,因此用於上述目的的水壩或水庫更是非常珍貴。在加州沒有非常大規模的太陽能發電,但這已迫使我們不得不在陽光充足的時候,必須阻斷來自太陽能廠的電或是需要付費給鄰近的州區分擔多餘的電力以免除我們的州區內電網爆炸

Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.

儘管你們都聽過,不論在已知技術或是種種經濟因素下,並沒有所謂的”電池革命”。

As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.

家貓通常無法獵殺到大型、罕見與瀕臨絕種的鳥類,通常都是一般小型常見的鳥,例如麻雀、知更鳥與松鴉。而風力發電機才是真正會殺害大型、罕見與瀕臨絕種的鳥類包含隼科鳥類、老鷹、貓頭鷹與禿鷹的兇手

In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.

Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.

事實上,風力發電機是近數十年來,造成重要鳥種生存的嚴重威脅。風力發電機高速運轉就像一個頂級的掠食者,所有大型的鳥類都來不及演化適應這樣的巨大變遷。太陽能發電廠也有類似的環境影響,當我們要建造一個巨大的太陽能發電廠也同時意味著像一般農場拓荒進程,要把所有土地上的野生動物都清掉。

In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.

為了要在加州建立全世界最大的太陽能發電廠,開發商找來生物學家將沙漠中的陸龜從他們洞穴中拖出,並找來卡車裝籠將他們運走,這也導致許多生命都在這樣的運輸旅程中消逝。

As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.

在了解這些影響之後,這讓我開始意會到,並沒有多少科技革新可以解決再生能源開發過程中的問題。

You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.

你可以讓太陽能板的成本更便宜,或是生產出更大的風力發電機,但你無法控制穩定的光照與風吹的節奏。我開始了解能源物理學對於環境的影響,從微量電流產生巨大的電力,你所要做的只是將電流擴大面積;換句話說,再生能源的問題本質上並非技術,而是一個大自然的問題。

Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.解決大自然的問題本質上就是不可靠的,而且需要消耗大量土地與更高昂的經濟成本。

There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.

關於如何降低太陽能與風力發電機的成本已經有許多的宣傳,但這些一次性消費的產物,從中國製造廠已經得知其生產與廢棄物處理費用已經與成本相當

Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.

以加州的狀況,在2011至2017年間,太陽能發電板生產聲稱已降低75%的成本,但我們的電價跟美國其他州同期間比起來漲了5倍。同時在德國,身為全世界太陽能與風力發電的先驅,隨著可再生能源應用的擴大,在2006至2017年間電價已經漲了50%

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

我原本認為防止氣候變遷的代價高昂,但是因為看見德國與法國各自發展後,我再也不這麼認為。

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

德國自2009年的碳排放量都是持平,儘管他們至2025年共將投資5千8百億美金在再生能源電網,而且電價漲了50%的狀況下

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.同時法國每度電產生的碳排放量僅德國的十分之一,而且電價只有德國的一半,他們怎麼做到的呢? 就是透過核能發電。

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

然而在德國的壓力之下,十年來法國投資三百三十億美金在再生能源發展,結果如何呢? 一樣導致更高的碳排放與更高的電價。

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

那麼關於核能高昂費用與便宜太陽能與風力成本的頭條新聞又是怎樣呢? 事實就是先把核能發電廠70-80%預建的經費跟沒有算到的太陽能與風力發電所需的電力傳輸、新水壩與其他蓄電池的成本直接做比較所造成的錯覺。(反之如果將太陽能與風力發電所需的電力傳輸、新水壩與其他蓄電池建設的成本算上,結果就會翻盤)

It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.

對於考量核能發電的安全與如何處置廢棄物是合理的。

It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.

事實證明,自從1960年代開始就有許多科學家開始研究不同能源對於健康與安全的影響,許多重要的研究包含近期British medical journal Lancet都得到一樣的結論: 核能是最安全而且可靠的電力來源

Strange as it sounds, nuclear power plants are so safe for the same reason nuclear weapons are so dangerous. The uranium used as fuel in power plants and as material for bombs can create one million times more heat per its mass than its fossil fuel and gunpowder equivalents.

這聽起來是有點奇怪,核能發電廠之所以如此安全原因跟核武如此危險是相同的原因。發電用的鈾每單位可產生的熱量是同單位的化石燃料與火藥產熱量的一百萬倍。

It’s not so much about the fuel as the process. We release more energy breaking atoms than breaking chemical bonds. What’s special about uranium atoms is that they are easy to split.

化石燃料產生的能量並不多。破壞(分裂)原子比破壞化學鍵所能釋放的能量多更多,而核能發電所使用的鈾原子就是極易分裂的特性。

Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.

也因為核能發電廠不需要火即可產熱,所以不會形成煙霧造成空氣汙染。相較之下,根據世衛組(WHO)所發布的資料,燃燒化石燃料或生質燃料所產生的濃煙造成每年約七百萬人死亡

Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.

即便是最糟的核廠意外,僅是從核能發電廠裡的微量鈾原子分裂所釋放少量放射性物質產生的劇熱。

Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.

以人類生命週期80歲來看,史上最嚴重的車諾比(Chernobyl)核災因輻射死亡人數低於200人,而日本福島核災則無人因微量輻射物質死亡

As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.

Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.

因此氣候變遷科學家James Hanson與他的同事發現核電廠已經拯救約2百萬人免死於因日趨嚴重的空氣汙染。

幸好有能量密度數據,核能發電廠所需要的土地遠小於再生能源,經計算結果,即便在最陽光普照的加州太陽能發電廠,至少需要450倍以上的土地才能產生與核能發電廠相同的電量

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

與能量密度稀釋的太陽能與風力發電相比,高能量密度的核能發電所使用的材料少很多,而且廢棄物也遠小於太陽能與風力發電

A single Coke can’s worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.一瓶可口可樂罐體積的鈾,可以提供一整個美國或是澳州最揮霍用電所需要的能量。而且在反應過後所產生的高階核廢料依舊是一瓶可口可樂罐。這說明核能是對於環境來說最適合的發電方式,而且產生的廢棄物很少也不會進入環境造成汙染。

All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear program can fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like warehouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.

瑞士經過45年的核計畫所有廢料都儲存在一個類似籃球場的倉庫之中,就像所有用過的核燃料一樣,連蒼蠅都沒有受到傷害。

By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste.

與核能發電廠相較之下,太陽能發電廠所需要的水泥、玻璃、混泥土和鋼材等材料多17倍,而且廢棄物產生多200倍

We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.

我們原本認為太陽能是乾淨的能源,但事實上是我們太陽能發電板在20到25年的生命週期後,沒有任何處理它的計畫。

Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed to the dust from toxic heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and chromium.

專家們擔憂這些太陽能板會像其他一般電子廢棄物運輸到貧窮的非洲與亞洲地區拆解-最常用就是拿錘子砸碎,導致當地居民將會接觸高毒性重金屬粉塵包含鉛,鎘和鉻

Wherever I travel in the world I ask ordinary people what they think about nuclear and renewable energies. After saying they know next to nothing, they admit that nuclear is strong and renewables are weak. Their intuitions are correct. What most of us get wrong—understandably—is that weak energies are safer.

無論我在世界哪裡旅行,我都會詢問當地一般民眾對於核能與再生能源的看法。在他們都不知道其他資訊的狀況下,他們都會承認核能是強勢的,而再生能源是弱的。他們的直覺是正確的,但我們大部分都有錯誤認知,就是弱的能量是比較安全的。

But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.

難道再生能源就沒有比較安全嗎? 答案是肯定的,另人訝異的風力發電造造成的傷亡人數比核能發電還多

In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.換句話說就是燃料的能量密度決定對於環境與健康的影響。在土地上鋪上更多地雷導致對於環境與人的危害更大。

It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.

確實你可以站在太陽能發電板旁邊而不受傷害,但站在核能發電反應器旁邊就會死亡。

But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.

Our intuitive sense that sunlight is dilute sometimes shows up in films. That’s why nobody was shocked when the recent sequel of the dystopian sci-fi flick, “Blade Runner,” opened with a dystopian scene of California’s deserts paved with solar farms identical to the one that decimated desert tortoises.

論及供應數十億人口用電量,核能發電廠相較於太陽能與風力發電所需使用的土地,所造成人類與野生動物的影響可就小多了

Over the last several hundred years, human beings have been moving away from matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. First we move from renewable fuels like wood, dung, and windmills, and towards the fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas, and eventually to uranium.

在過去幾百年間,人類已經從原本物質密集的燃料轉為能量密集燃料。首先我們是從如木材、糞便和風車等再生燃料轉向煤與天然氣,最終轉向鈾。

Energy progress is overwhelmingly positive for people and nature. As we stop using wood for fuel we allow grasslands and forests to grow back, and the wildlife to return.

As we stop burning wood and dung in our homes, we no longer must breathe toxic indoor smoke. And as we move from fossil fuels to uranium we clear the outdoor air of pollution, and reduce how much we’ll heat up the planet.

能源進步對人類於環境都是正向的;我們不再燃燒木材,可以讓草原與森林重新生長,也讓野生動物得以回歸。當我們在家停止燃燒木材與糞便時,我們不需要再吸入有毒的室內濃煙;當我們開始使用鈾為燃料時,我們清除空氣污染也減少地球暖化。

Nuclear plants are thus a revolutionary technology—a grand historical break from fossil fuels as significant as the industrial transition from wood to fossil fuels before it.

因此核能發電是一個自化石燃料的革命性技術-與之前木材轉移到化石燃料一樣重要。

The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-longconcerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.

核能的問題是它不受歡迎,原因是受到化石燃料,可再生能源,反核武器運動者和反人類環境保護主義者長達50年之久以來一直迫害(禁止)的受害者。

In response, the nuclear industry suffers battered wife syndrome, and constantly apologizes for its best attributes, from its waste to its safety.

對此核能工業如同受虐待婦女綜合症(battered wife syndrome)所苦,不斷需要從廢棄物與安全性等優越特性道歉。

Lately, the nuclear industry has promoted the idea that, in order to deal with climate change, “we need a mix of clean energy sources,” including solar, wind and nuclear. It was something I used to believe, and say, in part because it’s what people want to hear. The problem is that it’s not true.

France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

最近核工業提出一個觀點,即為了改善氣候變遷,我們需要混合型的乾淨能源,包含太陽能、風力與核能,而這也是我曾經相信的,也是大多人想聽見的,但事實這並不是這樣。

法國表示核能與再生能源混合發電過程中會提高排碳量,而原因來自於因為太陽能與風力的不穩定性,必須使用更多天然氣,同時提高發電成本

Oil and gas investors know this, which is why they made a political alliance with renewables companies, and why oil and gas companies have been spending millions of dollars on advertisements promoting solar, and funneling millions of dollars to said environmental groups to provide public relations cover.

石油和天然氣投資者知道這一點,這就是為什麼他們與再生能源公司建立政治聯盟,以及為什麼石油和天然氣公司花費數百萬美元購買太陽能廣告,並向環保組織提供數百萬美元以建立良好的公共關係

What is to be done? The most important thing is for scientists and conservationists to start telling the truth about renewables and nuclear, and the relationship between energy density and environmental impact.

那接下來要做什麼呢? 最重要的是科學家和環保主義者開始論述再生能源和核能的真相,以及能源密度和環境影響之間的關係。

Bat scientists recently warned that wind turbines are on the verge of making one species, the Hoary bat, a migratory bat species, go extinct.

蝙蝠科學家最近警告,因為風力發電機即將使一種遷徙蝙蝠物種,Hoary蝙蝠,瀕臨滅絕。

Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California desert told High Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”

另一位曾參與加州沙漠中建造巨大太陽能發電廠的科學家告訴High Country News,”每個人都知道沙漠陸龜的人工遷移是行不通的。當你走在推土機前哭泣還有移動這些動物跟仙人掌的時候,你很難認同這個計畫是個好主意”。

I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from an appeal-to-nature fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

我認為這些想改善氣候變遷的人可能會傾向再生能源。這似乎是人類社會與自然協調的方式。總結來說,人類一直在對自然做自我嘲諷的行為-就跟在超商看到強調全天然產品標語沒有什麼不同。但現在身為地球監護人的一份子,我們需要使用第二種觀點-科學,並開始質疑我們的這些行動對於環境的影響。既然我們已經知道再生能源無法拯救地球,我們是否會繼續袖手旁觀看這些再生能源繼續破壞它呢?

References

1) Anil Markandya. Electricity generation and health. Lancet 2007

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/abstract

2) Tetsuya Tanimoto etc., Safety of workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Lancet 2011 https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(11)60519-9/abstract?code=lancet-site#%20

3) Zosia Kmietowicz Nuclear power plants do not raise risk of leukaemia in children, study finds. BMJ 2013

https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5602.full

arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    Sorg 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()