(en) France, Coordination of Anarchist Groups - IAL #98 - Nuclear: the industry of the future belongs to the past, Ecology (fr, pt)

While EDF and AREVA announced on October 21, the construction of two new third-generation 
reactors EPR1 England, two other EPR under construction in China since 2007 and is the 
Flamanville site is silence deafening hovering over the consequences of the world's 
largest nuclear disaster Fukushima. Major campaign promises of "energy transition" will be 
very difficult to meet with the only dismantling the Fessenheim. Here is an overview of 
what is involved both in health, environmental, and political nuclear energy. ---- 
Radioactive risk: what exactly do we? ---- For several years, many independent scientific 
studies on the effects of radioactivity in the Chernobyl region converge to the worst 
health scenarios that could fear. Indeed, the particularity of radioactive danger is now 
clearly demonstrated: the consequences of a nuclear accident are still being felt many 
years after the accident.

In other words, people born in the region decades after the 1986 accident still pay the 
consequences. No need to be a nuclear physicist to understand that abnormally high rates 
of heart disease, birth and other cancers that affect children in the region still today 
in 2014 are due to the explosion of the plant. Yet it is true that this is a very 
difficult relationship to establish scientifically other than developing complex 
mathematical models, and therefore inevitably controversial. And it is on this 
methodological difficulty relies WHO or the AIEA2 to refuse to consider today's patients 
as victims of the nuclear disaster yesterday ...

Nuclear accidents therefore continue to claim victims long after their occurrence, remains 
why. The answer to this crucial question is now scientifically established: in fact, 
research on wildlife in the Chernobyl region have shown that since 1986, rodents and fish 
were sicker from generation to generation. We know that this degeneration is the 
intergenerational effect of cumulative degradation of genetic heritage. Thus, the 
geneticist Rosa Goncharova, Institute of Genetics and Cytology, National Academy of 
Sciences of Belarus, already wrote in a 1996 report about rodents that "the frequency of 
mutations [genetic] continues to grow in the generations successive beyond the 10th 
generation although the burden incorporated has declined since 1991. " In other words, the 
genetic heritage of the species has been inherently damaged, so that genetic conditions 
are empowered with respect to radiation exposure.

Geneticist so then "tracings" work on humans to show, like many other studies of human 
genetics made since the origins of genetic diseases are growing and also that "the 
increased morbidity of people living in areas contaminated by radionuclides is the 
consequence of chronic irradiation by low doses of radiation. "

Today in Japan, research update genetic mutations in the fauna and flora multiply and 
researchers were able to demonstrate that defects butterflies were directly attributable 
to the explosion of the Fukushima plant.

In short, today's question is no longer allowed: nuclear energy exposes the entire 
ecosystem and therefore humanity such serious health risks that are unimaginable even just 
in the medium term. Vertiginous!

Philosophy crash risk among pro-nuclear: a religious approach

"Fukushima is a tsunami, I did not realize before coming here that the Loire was in 
immediate danger of tsunami on the center of Saint-Laurent-des-Eaux, unless Fessenheim in 
Alsace is under threat a tsunami coming from the Rhine. "Here's how Sarkozy picked up his 
position on nuclear power in 2012. This quote is quite symptomatic of blindness and 
naivety (real or feigned) of partisan ? e ? s nuclear. The main trick of this kind of talk 
is to evacuate a number of arguments against the challenge by reducing the climate and 
environmental issues, and again, by reducing itself to a single risk effectively 
impossible Alsace: the tsunami. However, the reasoning to keep is simple: Fukushima region 
where the risk of tsunami is important, the design of the plant was specifically addressed 
this risk. Off, the accident shows that even in areas subject to some well-known climate 
risk areas, uncertainty remains mistress of human projects.

During the great storm that crossed France in 1999, a tidal wave hit the central mini 
Blaye Gironde. The height of the levees have been fixed according to the known and 
anticipated weather records in the region, proved insufficient to prevent water from 
invading the plant, flood the reactor room, stop the cooling system, and put down the 
first cooling system safety before the second backup system recovery not cooling. That 
day, the prefecture learning situation by telephone stood ready to evacuate the city of 
Bordeaux. The largest French nuclear disaster was narrowly averted in 1999, and hardly 
anyone knows ...

In addition, hundreds of kilograms of pure plutonium that pass each week on highways 
illustrates quite irrational faith in the atom and the denial of his dangerousness.
But this is nothing compared to the risk of geopolitical instability. Nobody can say what 
will be the political and military world in a given region 30 situation. And it also 
applies to the Alsace.
Nuclear disasters never end ...

The Chernobyl disaster is not over by any means. The first sarcophagus hastily constructed 
in 1986 by some 600,000 (!) Liquidators and that was supposed to hold a century already 
had large cracks after 25 years. Today, a new sarcophagus even more impressive is under 
construction ... Then, in a few decades, it will still build another over and so on for 
centuries!

At Fukushima, nothing is settled and there never will either. Not only the worst threat 
yet (if the pool # 4 filled with highly radioactive fuel already in ruins collapses, we 
should expect a dangerous emission of radiation throughout the northern hemisphere), but 
it is clear that Japan and ultimately all humanity, will manage all the consequences of 
the accident for centuries.

With current reactors (and even more with the latest models), one explosion may have 
serious consequences for all forms of life of an entire continent! And today we have 58 
nuclear bombs "civilian" potential of this type in France alone.

Waste or dust (radioactive) under the carpet

Take a step back: If ancient Egypt had used nuclear energy for lighting and heating, we 
should still manage nuclear waste. What about in 2010? The National Agency for Radioactive 
Waste Management (ANDRA) already accounted for 1.32 million cubic meters of radioactive 
waste, while recognizing that this figure does not take into account a number of waste it 
considered "old", c that is to say products between 1930 and 1969 (one may wonder about 
the word "old" in view of the life of products). It subtracted 14,200 m? of waste dumped 
in the Atlantic Ocean to 69 and 3,200 m? related to nuclear testing in the Pacific between 
67 and 82, and 50 million tons of waste from uranium mines on the French soil. This figure 
of 1.3 million represents only production 45 years of nuclear industry. Finally, the 
agency recognizes that for 3600 m? of waste, there is still no reprocessing industry, so 
they are stored on production sites. Accept generate radioactive waste in a life of 
thousands of years to produce electricity for 1 year is the madness. No geologist can not 
say with certainty that landfill never present any risk of exposure to radionuclides to 
the environment. Those who say otherwise almost always work for the nuclear industry!

Nuclear and state lies

The nuclear industry, whether civilian or military, is an exceptional catalyst lies 
States. First, the authorities persist in underestimating the human assets of all 
disasters as and when they occur. To date, for example, WHO attributed 59 deaths to the 
Chernobyl disaster as the organization "Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War" 
(IPPNW) speaks of 67,000 deaths between 1990 and 2004.

Lies still, the reasons for the war in Mali this year. Oppressed peoples are not lacking 
across the planet. Why the French State has he suddenly took a liking to the people of 
Mali? The presence of numerous uranium deposits operated by Areva in Mali leaves no doubts 
about the neocolonial maneuver.

Lie still on the price of nuclear power that does not take into account the cost of waste 
management multisecular or dismantling old reactors (we even know dismantle matter!). We 
must admit that estimating management costs across several millennia is not obvious ...
Lies on the actual number of incidents and nuclear accidents. There exists a grading scale 
established by the IAEA INES scale, but it applies only to events calendar! It does not 
apply to nuclear weapons or to acts of war and terrorism. Add to that some states do not 
communicate about nuclear accidents, and others are classified defense secrets.
Lie regarding the existence of a public debate. In France, the government decides first 
and then pretended to read! The nuclear debate has always held afterwards, the Grenelle 
environment even managed the feat to dodge completely. And yet, since the 60s, hundreds of 
researchers have mobilized against nuclear-es! Certain es in doing so have subsequently 
been slyly put-away or are "used" to believe that a debate exists at national level.

Nuclear and capitalism impose the exit!

Despite all that, internationally, central multiply. Particularly in states particularly 
unstable politically ... Is that each national bourgeoisie wants to ensure access to 
electricity a little cheaper to satisfy his appetite for short-term profits. This 
realization of profit is only possible by charging people the price of dismantling and 
disaster management. In parallel, for each state develop a civil nuclear industry is to 
provide the technological means to acquire nuclear weapons, because technically, the first 
is a necessary second base.

All considerations completely foreign to the interests of the people. We need to build 
popular movements to force our respective states to abandon nuclear energy any form. 
Otherwise, the industry will continue to grow (there is plenty of room outside Japan, 
Germany and Italy) and sow it everywhere bombs retardants whatsoever as reactors or sites 
storage ...


Group Clermont-Ferrand


1. EPR: European Pressurised Reactor
2. IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency


Sources:

o Genetic Mutations:

http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/conseq_en_belarus.htm

http://www.france24.com/fr/20120815-japon-Fukushima-papillons-mutants-dangers-radioactivite-inquietudes-homme-radiation-nucleaire

o Evacuation of Bordeaux envisaged in 1999:

http://www.lejdc.fr/nievre/actualite/departement/nievre-local/2011/07/02/nucleaire-en-1999-l-evacuation-de-bordeaux-avait-ete-envisagee-raconte-yann-arthus-bertrand-video_1101240.html

o Waste Management:

http://www.andra.fr/pages/fr/menu1/les-dechets-radioactifs/les-volumes-de-dechets-11.html

o Nuclear: this is where the output? Records "duck", No. 121 - October 2011.