Mururoa and Fangataufa

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

This is a comment related to the radiological situation at the Mururoa and
Fangataufa atolls, which I sent to the European radsafe group, but which
applies to the news sent by Sandy yesterday.



>Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:57:31 +0100
>To: Radsafe-eu@fz-juelich.de
>From: Franz Schoenhofer <schoenhofer@baluf.via.at>
>Subject: Re: Independent commission says nuclear sites must be watched
>
>At 15:58 21.02.99 +0100, you wrote:
>>>Independent commission says nuclear sites must be watched
>>>
>>>PARIS, Feb 20 (AFP) - Sites used for French nuclear tests in the  
>>>South Pacific for three decades are contaminated and should be 
>>>watched closely, an independent French commission said in a 
>>>report released Saturday that contradicts IAEA findings. The 
>>>examination by the Independent Research and Information  
>>>Commission on Radioactivity (CRII-RAD) contests results 
>>>published last June by the International Atomic Energy Agency 
>>>(IAEA). The 2,000-page IAEA report said the tests had had "no  
>>>radiological health effects" and little significant environmental 
>>>impact on the Fangataufa and Mururoa atolls. But the CRII-RAD 
>>>report said radioactivity was 94 and 371 times  above the level 
>>>required for the sites to be maintained under surveillance, adding 
>>>that the radioactivity was leaking into the water table, lagoons and 
>>>ocean. The CRII-RAD's experts published scenerios based on 
>>>plutonium  contamination of the atolls' northern zones, warning that 
>>>a danger existed of involuntary ingestion of contaminated soil, by 
>>>children playing in sand for example, or of breathing microscopic 
>>>particles. These threats constituted "unacceptable risks and 
>>>required at  the least a controlled access," CRII-RAD said. Over a 
>>>30-year period, from July 1966 to January 1996, France  carried out 
>>>193 atmospheric and underground tests in the area. They were 
>>>finally halted by President Jacques Chirac afer increasing protests 
>>>by several Pacific and Asian countries, notably New Zealand, 
>>>Australia, Japan and Indonesia. According to the independent 
>>>French laboratory, underground  samples revealed radioactive 
>>>levels of 3,482 Terabecquerels (TBq) on Fangataufa, and 13,729 
>>>TBq on Mururoa -- meaning both sites qualified as nuclear 
>>>installations requiring continued surveillance. French regulations on 
>>>the use and stockage of radioactive  materials identify five 
>>>categories of sites depending on the level of radioactivity, and the 
>>>figures put the two Polynesian atolls in the highest category. But 
>>>the Institute for Nuclear Safety and Protection (IPSN),  which acts 
>>>as an advisor to French nuclear authorities, also issued a 
>>>communique recalling results of a study it published last June. It 
>>>had found levels of radioactive nuclides outside the two  atolls were 
>>>present "at very low levels, often almost undetectable." Artificial 
>>>radiation in 1997 was less than three percent of the  natural 
>>>exposure inhabitants of the region normally face, the IPSN said.  
>>>--------------------------
>>>
>>
>>Does anybody know the "Independant Research and Information Commission on
Radioactivity"? Whenever I read "independent" I easily guess, what kind of
group this is. This group obviously has not bothered to read the report. I
have worked on this project as the leader of the Terrestrial Working Group
and also contributed to the report. So I know all to well, that the authors
of the report and the International Advisory Committee has given careful
attention even to the most unrealistic "worst case" and therefore the
conclusions of the Committee are well founded and have been carefuly
evaluated. 
>>
>>"According to the independent laboratory samples revealed......" All data
available are given in the report, this laboratory (I wonder whether really
a laboratory exists!) has no own measurements. 
>>
>>Another hint, that this "Independent Commission" has not read the report
is the mentioning of the risk of children ingesting contaminated sand and
inhalation of contaminated particles. Careful attention has been given to
such scenarios and the possible risks have been discussed extensively. Both
atolls are uninhabitable and never were inhabited. This is even more true
for Fangataufa than Mururoa. The plutonium contaminated zone is not in the
Northern part of Mururoa. Particles containing enough plutonium to cause
damage are much to heavy to become airborne and to be inhaled. Since the
plutonium is present in insoluble form any ingested plutonium particle
would pass through the GI tract. The only pathway for significant exposure
would be incorporation of particles into wounds. Again big particles
containing enough plutonium to do harm would hardly be incorporated or very
soon fall out from the wound or would be removed. The probability of a
visit to this area (especially for children) is almost zero and the
probability of incorporating particles into wounds is much less. This area
is practically nothing but bare coral rock, little sand on the water side
and a very large part of it is submersed under water at high tide. 
>>
>>Now you can make up your mind about this "Independent Commission".
>>
>>Franz
>>
>>

Private:
Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA

Office:
Hofrat Dr. Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Institute for Food Control and Research
Kinderspitalg. 15
A-1095 Vienna
AUSTRIA
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html