Uraanitietoa Pohjois-Karjalasta
 
Veronique Marchandier
Réseau Sortir du nucléaire
A French network of 830 organizations
17.10. Joensuu, osa esityksestä englanniksi

French particularism

  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 parody.
 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 energy.
 Whatever:
 - 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 against EPR
- In 2007, 60 000 people protested, simultaneously in 5 cities, against EPR.
- 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 waste

  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.

Uranium mining

 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.

Chernobyl

 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.

Social peace

 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.

To conclude

 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 either.
-  They are the energies of the future, they symbolise a culture of peace.
-  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.

 

Etusivulle
Päivitetty 17.10.2008