Mururoa studies

[andrew_mcewan@nrl.moh.govt.nz]

Sandy Perle posted the following:

"Critics of French nuclear test vindicated by lastest study

WELLINGTON, Feb 21 (AFP) - A French study reporting serious
radioactive leakage at the former French nuclear test sites of
Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls in the South Pacific vindicates
Greenpeace's opposition to the tests, Greenpeace New Zealand
said Sunday. The new report by the French Independent Research
and  Information Commission on Radioactivity (CRII-RAD) said
radiation was leaking into underground water, lagoons and the
ocean. It also highlighted flaws in a study last year which said
radiation levels were nearly undetectable, Greenpeace spokesman
Michael Szabo said in a statement. The 1998 study was by the
International Atomic Energy Agency  (IAEA), which Szabo said
"played a significant role in the cover-up of the 1986 Chernobyl
nuclear disaster''. The 2000-page IAEA report said the tests had
had "no  radiological health effects" and little significant
environmental impact on the Fangataufa and Mururoa atolls. ... "

I have not seen the CRII-RAD report but apparently it is based on no new
sampling or measurement - merely an armchair re-analysis of the 'IAEA'
study.  The IAEA study was co-ordinated by the IAEA but overseen and
officially a report of an international advisory committee of some 14
members many of whom are well established health physicists.  Several were
ICRP main commission members (e.g. Clarke, Kaul, Beninson) and the
chairperson was Gail de Planque.  The work was undertaken by Task Groups
and Working Parties which were truly international.  The study over two
years was the most comprehensive independent examination of the
radiological situation at a former test site that has been conducted.

The CRII-RAD report appears to be using the Greanpeace strategy of dreaming
up unbelievable scenarios and then claiming a hazard exists.  The comment
about children being at risk from ingesting plutonium in soil is about as
likely as me dying of heat stroke in Antarctica.  It may be theoretically
possible if I were to run around in full thermal gear to the point of
exhaustion.  On the other hand I have never been to Antarctica and am not
likely to ever go.   So the probability is the nearest thing to zero.
Similarly the likelihood of infants given to pica, visiting, let alone
living, at the remote motus where the safety trials were conducted is also
near zero.  It is totally impractical for anyone to live in that area.
However, even if infants were there continuously the 'soil' is actually
very largely solid coral rock and they would have to have unusually sharp
teeth to ingest anything.  The reality is that no-one is going to be living
at that particular location and the scenario is a nonsense.

The Greenpeace statement accompanying the release of the report seems to be
opportunistic shouting.  To my knowledge Szabo has no background in health
physics.  The news media here (New Zealand), however, have given the topic
a lot of attention for two days - they appear now to have moved on.

Andrew
____________________________________________
Andrew C McEwan PhD
National Radiation Laboratory
PO Box 25-099
Christchurch, New Zealand

Ph 64 3 366 5059
Fax 64 3 366 1156
Andrew_McEwan@nrl.moh.govt.nz
________________________


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html