[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Mururoa
Being heavily involved in the International Mururoa Study (I am head of the
Terrestrial Working Group) I have some comments on the following message.
At 19:51 29.06.1998 -0700, you wrote:
>Experts discuss fallout on french nuclear atolls
> VIENNA, June 29 (AFP) - Some 200 international experts gather in
>Vienna from Tuesday to study the conclusions of a huge study into the
>environmental fallout of 30 years of French nuclear tests in the South
>Pacific.
> The experts will question the authors of the report into the
>Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls in French Polynesia, who concluded
>that there would be "no radiological health effects" from the 193
>tests carried out from 1966-1996.
> France commissioned the 2,000-page report by the Vienna-based
>International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in April 1996, after
>completing its last series of controversial tests in the region.
> Those tests, carried out after President Jacques Chirac came to
>power the previous year, drew international condemnation.
> The IAEA hired 55 independent scientists from some 20 countries,
>including experts from countries like New Zealand and Austria fiercely
>opposed to the tests.
This is not true. The IAEA did not "hire" any scientist, because the
scientists did not receive any salary or honorarium. All contributions of
the scientists were therefore free of charge and concerning myself I have
performed all work for this project in my spare time, during countless
evenings and nights and weekends. The experts were asked for cooperation p
e r s o n a l l y and they were not representatives of their respective
country. Therefore mentioning countries as being "fiercly opposed to the
tests" is not understandable, because no scientist has been "nominated" by
his or her country. This I can confirm, because I am obviously addressed,
because I am the only scientist from Austria participating in the Study.
All scientists were truly independent of the IAEA, of their country and of
France. We have done our job without any political pressure and we have
collected facts - nothing else. The reports reflect the findings of the
scientists, the opinion of the International Advisory Committee and neither
any (non existing) IAEA nor French pressure. It was our job to assess the
present and future radiological situation on the atolls of Mururoa and
Fangataufa. This we did and we present the facts at the conference mentioned.
They also used 18 laboratories in 12 countries plus
>two IAEA labs to study their findings.
The laboratories were chosen according to their results in a proficiency
test and they were not even informed about the locations from where the
samples had been taken. So their results are absolut reliable and no bias
would be even theoretically possible.
> The report is the biggest such study to be carried out yet into
>the environmental consequences of nuclear tests.
> A summary of the study released in May concluded that there
>would be "no radiological health effects which could be either
>medically diagnosed in an individual or epidemiologically discerned
>in a group of people and which could be attributable to radiation
>doses from the residual radioactive material remaining at the
>atolls."
> The IAEA also registered several kilograms (pounds) of residual
>plutonium in the lagoon sediment of both atolls, particles
>containing plutonium and small doses of americium were found on
>three small Mururoa islets, and higher-than-usual levels of Caesium
>137 were recorded on some parts of Fangataufa.
> But the IAEA-commissioned experts said that overall "the
>radiological significance of these findings was limited,"
>concluding: "neither remedial action nor continuing environmental
>monitoring at Mururoa and Fangataufa are needed on radiological
>protections grounds."
It is clearly stated "on radiological protection grounds". It is not our
task to comment on political or psychological grounds.
The report has been criticised for being biased and under French
>control.
The report has not been published yet, so I wonder, how it can be
criticised. It states moreover facts and can therefore not be biased and it
is ridiculous to accuse it of being under French control. The French
reports have been carefully checked and the data provided by the French
have been found to agree well with the data from the sampling campaigns of
the IAEA.
> Only last weekend a lawmaker from the US Samoan Islands,
>Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin, said said it was difficult to believe that
>30 years of tests had left no danger for human beings, animals or
>plantlife.
This reaction is understandable, but it should be considered that the
yields of the French nuclear tests were very low compared to the yield of
US tests in the Marshall islands. Moreover both atolls of Mururoa and
Fangataufa were always uninhabited, no relocation of a population occurred
and they will be uninhabitable also in the future - this is in sharp
contrast to the Marshall islands.
> But a leading New Zealand scientist, Andrew McEwan who chaired
>one of the IAEA task forces, strongly defended the credibility of
>the report.
> "What we have found is that doses now and in the future would be very
>small in relation to natural radiation sources," McEwan said. "There is
>very little radiological significance on both the atolls," he said.
This is the outcome of the Study, whether some groups like it or not. To
neglect this would mean "Do not bother me with facts, I have made my mind up!"
> A Vienna-based diplomat familiar with the IAEA report said the
>conference, which continues until Friday, was being taken very
>seriously by the agency. "For the IAEA it's a question of
>credibility," he said.
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at
Office:
Federal Institute for Food Control and Research
Department of Radiochemistry
Kinderspitalg. 15
A-1095 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-40 491 520
Fax.: +43-1-40 491 540
e-mail: schoenhofer@baluf.via.at