Sortir du nucléaire
A French network of 830 organizations
17.10. Joensuu, osa esityksestä englanniksi
France is the most nuclearised country of the world if we count
the number of reactors per habitant.
With 58 nuclear reactors, which produce 80% of the electricity,
5 reactors are only for the exportation, we are a world exception.
If nuclear energy had known such a developpement in France, it's
because EDF (Electricité de France) was a nationalized company,
up to the opening of its capital in 2005. Nuclear policy has been helped
by the accountancy of industry and government, using people’ taxes to finance
the massive investment.
Since 2005, AREVA, French leader in nuclear technology, has an
international commercial policy, trying to sell reactors all over the world.
Since 2002, AREVA wanted to impose the building up of a new reactor
in France the EPR.
In July 2002, the first Minister declared « For the future
choice in energy, a great debate is going to be opened and will be followed
by a law on the orientation on energy, that will give a large place to
nuclear energy »
The conclusion of the debate being announced before the debate,
consequently, the environnemental organizations refused to be part of this
The big popular debate consisted in 5 meetings, mainly among
specialists from AREVA, EDF and the government.
The 13th of July 2005, Nicolas Sarkozy, financial and industrial
Minister presented a law approving the building up of the EPR and a project
of renew the French nuclear park.
While the construction of the EPR is in debate among the candidates
for presidential elections, the authorization to build up the EPR has been
signed on the 11 Th of April 2007, 11 days before the first day elections.
Why is there debate about EPR in France?
Being so dependent from nuclear for its electricity, it's not
an easy task for French officials to question about the place of nuclear
- Several opinion polls showed a majority of the French, not
agree with the nuclear policy.
One of the last one, in February 2007, Louis Harris's Opinion
poll asked, « Do you want nuclear energy as the main resource for
the electricity? », only 18% of the French said, « Yes ».
- Protest movements are growing up every year:
- In 2004, 10 000 people protested in Paris against EPR.
- In 2006, 30 000 people protested, under heavy raining, in Cherbourg
- In 2007, 60 000 people protested, simultaneously in 5 cities, against
- In 2008, international protest in Paris with delegations from all
over the world.
A large number of candidates admit that decisions have been taken
out of all democratic process.
The opposants denounce a useless, expensive and dangerous project.
- Useless, because France is already over producing, exporting 15%
of its production.
- Expensive, because the money invested can't be used anymore for renewable
energies. An independent study « Aternative electricity » showed
that with the same investment of 3 billions euros, we could create 15 times
more jobs and cover our needs twice better.
- Dangerous, because as all nuclear plants, accidents can happen, EPR
won't resist to a suicidal crash plane, and EPR produces nuclear waste,
dangerous for hundred thousands of years, with no solution to treat them,
anywhere in the world.
Nuclear energy as a solution to climatic changes: global lie.
The main argument to promote nuclear power is the small quantity
of CO2 compared to fuel or coll. Burning up, and the obligation to follow
up the Kyoto protocol.
- From the IAEA sources, nuclear energy represents:
-15% of the world electricity
- 6% of the world energy
- 2,5% of the final energy.
So nuclear energy is a very small % of the world energy consummation
and can’t have an impact on the global problem of climate change.
BUT nuclear energy:
- Damages the land and the water where uranium is mined.
- Produces eternal dangerous radioactive wastes, and no solution have
been found for them.
- Can’t guarantee that no accident would ever happen.
- Centralize the production (and power) so that high voltage lines
have to be built.
Al Gore, who organized a world campaign to alert about climate change
agree also about nuclear being helpless for climate change.
There is no need to remind that renewable energies produce no CO2, but
also no PU, Thorium… and all sort of artificial radioactive elements that
are a threat for everybody ‘s health.
At the contrary, climate changes speed up nuclear risks. Global
warming up climate induces extreme meteorologist phenomena that can't fit
with the fragility of a high risky technology.
- In France, in December 1999, there 's been a huge tempest and
the sea passed above the walls and flood nuclear reactor, stopping the
cooling down systems, we passed near the main catastrophe
In 2003, over hot weather, perturbed nuclear reactors. Some has
to be stopped; some has to be watered, while that was water restrictions.
We had to import a large quantity of non-nuclear electricity from our neighbours.
- Clean water becomes more precious “ the blue gold” is the challenge
for tomorrow. Uranium mining used huge quantity of water, and also radioactivity
travels with water.
Nuclear energy can't pretend to be a clean energy respectfully
on the environment, because its exploitation produces nuclear waste, whose
dangerous radioactivity only goes down with time and this time is counted
in millions of years! Nowhere in the world, has been found solutions for
these toxic, artificial elements. A heavy charge to let in heritage to
the future generations...
After dropping nuclear wastes into the sea, nuclear industry
pretends now having a solution, to bury them deeply in the earth. Highly
risky «solution” that they would like to make effective in 2025.
Finnish responsible politicians said it’s a moral and ethical
responsibility to mine uranium in their own country.
Are you so sure that technology can really protect you?
-In Eastern India, mining of uranium has for consequences a toll
of 35% of genetic diseases on children, no more births in the villages
closed to water mining and 50% of the population infirmed.
- In France in Limousin, uranium mining stopped in 2001, leaving behind
a radioactive pollution in local rivers. COGEMA has been put in justice
by a local organization « Eaux ET Rivières ».
- It's now in Niger that AREVA mines uranium. Several workers died
from cancers, being exposed to radon and uranium. They are creating organizations
to denounce it. The radioactive dust is polluting up to the South of Algeria.
- Australian aboriginal people are getting sick from uranium mining,
and fight to defend their land. An international grou, FootPrints
for Peace, (2008
walk) organised peace walks trough all over the world to alert about
the deadly nuclear industry, and the conditions of indigenous people
in Australia, USA and Canada where uranium mining destroys the land.
The only moral and ethical choice we can do is to let a clean
earth to the children, wherever they are born.
22 years ago, Chernobyl catastrophe showed us that nuclear technology,
this particular technology issued from the bomb, could make as many, or
even more, victims than a conflict. The huge disaster makes all the trying
to stop or to contain radioactivity pitiable, useless, and irrational.
Nuclear accident is by nature above human capacity.
Actually, 9 millions persons live in contaminated territory,
in Belarus, 80% of the children suffer from all types of pathologies.
We don't speak of war; we speak of accident, but what the difference
for the victims?
The World Health Organization (WHO) is submitted, by an agreement dated
of 1959, to IAEA. The mission of the IAEA is to promote civilian nuclear
energy, and to fight against nuclear arms.
Consequently, all the negative effects of Chernobyl disaster are minimised.
Since the 26th of April 2007, one or two people stand up in front
of WHO building in Geneva, to ask the agreement to be review in the next
world meeting. This is an international action, where everyone can help
with petition or action. www.independentwho.info.The
truth about Chernobyl’s consequences will be a first step to recognize
that nuclear energy can’t be seen as a clean energy for the future.
All the countries that choose nuclear energy, have to face protest
and resistance from the people.
Simultaneously, they have to reinforce interior security, to
protect them against terrorism;
Everybody has to learn to live, or to forget they are living,
in the shadow of threat.
Contrary, countries that develop renewable energies get support
from the population. Why?
Because they are creating security, work, richness and carry
the promises of a better future.
For us, members of « Réseau Sortir du nucléaire
» good choices for tomorrow electricity are:
- Savings, economy. Overconsumming and general wasting of today can’t
be used to calculate the needs for tomorrow. We have to work on the research
of the energy we can save, by good isolation in the houses; we have to
develop passive housing, which gives off more energy that they use.
- Renewable energies, because they produce no CO2 and no nuclear waste
- They are the energies of the future, they symbolise a culture
- They are the sign of a responsible attitude towards the future
generations, towards the environnement. They will permit to propose energy
to the poor countries that need clean energy to emerge.