We've moved house.
Please visit Making Waves in it's new home.
This blog is archived. Looking forward to seeing you at the new location.
Navigate:
Search
Burn our feed!
New Blog Postings via email
Greenpeace Blogs:
Louder Than Words Forum
Blogroll
Technorati & Stuff
May 21, 2010
May 10, 2010
May 8, 2010
May 4, 2010
New website - this blog has moved
Nuclear Reaction has moved...
We’ve got a lovely, shiny new home. You can now find us at...
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction
...so change your bookmarks and RSS feeds to follow us.
AREVA in Niger: the human cost of nuclear power
At the heart of Greenpeace’s report ‘Left in the dust: Areva's radioactive legacy in the desert towns of Niger’ is the human cost of nuclear power. If we are going to embrace nuclear power then, every time you flick a switch and nuclear-powered light bulb comes on, you must accept the suffering of the likes of the people who live around Areva’s uranium mines in Niger (and those people are by no means the only people to suffer at the hands of the nuclear industry).
This is what the nuclear industry wants us to forget. According to them, nuclear power is just a matter ‘safe’, ‘clean’ and ‘reliable’ reactors producing ‘low carbon’ electricity. They don’t want to think about where the fuel for those reactors come from, about the contaminated streets of Arlit and Akokan. They don’t want you to think about the people of Niger trapped at the bottom of the United Nation’s Human Development Index.
But, if you’re pro-nuclear power, think about them you must.
Find out more:
- AREVA’S dirty little secret
- From Niger to Geneva
- Left in the Dust - Areva's uranium mining in Niger
From Niger to Geneva
Yesterday Greenpeace launched its brand new report, a little bomb of information in the nuclear world, entitled "Left in the dust: Areva's radioactive legacy in the desert towns of Niger".
The press conference took place in in Geneva, Switzerland, city hosting numerous international organizations, and among them the United Nations' World Health Organization. Jean Ziegler, vice-president of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee was the first to speak. He rang the alarm on the dramatic situation in Niger regarding food and health. He also pointed out how international law could be used to trigger pressure on countries like France and Switzerland, and through them on companies like Areva who do not endorse the full responsibility of the damages they cause in other countries like Niger.
Ziegler's alarming words only proved Greenpeace was right to go to Niger last November to check in which context the population of the mining towns of Arlit and Akokan live, showing one more time that Areva is not a trustworthy company.
Dr Rianne Teule from Greenpeace International and Dr Bruno Chareyron from CRIIRAD (an independent French laboratory that did our analysis) demonstrated Areva does not deserve peoples' trust. That it does not deserve the trust of the Nigerien mining towns' people who are clearly suffering from conditions imposed by the French company for not respecting international norms. And that our fight is the right one.
Media came, the room quickly got quite crowded and it was so motivating to see journalists' interest grow as the press conference unrolled. After asking numerous questions, the journalists were presented a short movie of the Greenpeace expedition in Niger and were then offered the opportunity to have a demonstration of radioactivity measurements of some of the samples brought back from Niger.
Funnily enough, journalists were not so keen on approaching the big cement barrel at the right corner of the room where the samples were safely guarded. Of course there was no danger in doing so as everything was cautiously sealed and manipulated, but nuclear radiations is a serious and even scary topic. Nuclear energy, from the very bottom of the chain with the mining, to the processing and storage of nuclear waste is a danger for human health and the environment.
If you are ready to face the truth and want to learn more about Areva's legacy in Niger follow me.
(This post is by Anne-Laure Meladeck, Climate & Energy Officer for Greenpeace International)
Nuclear News: Protests over re-opening of Japanese nuclear reactor
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:
Protests over re-opening of Japanese nuclear reactor
‘(Buddhika Weerasinghe-Japan) Japanese peace and human right activists together protest against to Japan's Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)has reactive controversial "fast-breeder" Monju nuclear reactor14 years after the plant was shut down following a liquid of sodium leaked and fire in 1995. That fast breeder Monju nuclear reactor suspended four months after start-up in August 1995 and today morning 10.30 restarted to operation. Two organizations of right activists separate time morning and afternoon protest against to restarted "fast-breeder" Monju nuclear reactor. Fukui Kenmin Kagi joint right organization about 30 activists held protest rally and march to entrance of Monju then later hand over the petition and appeal suspend the operation of Monju. Shrasaka Kzyhe, activist of "No more Hiroshima, No more Nagasaki Action" organization said, "Why they use 98% plutonium? We think they try to make nuclear bomb power of their politics. Five of members of their organization come from Tokyo and Toyama protest and strongly condemned of Japan Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and reactive Monju.
Left in the Dust - Areva's uranium mining in Niger
Operations of Nuclear giant AREVA put lives at risk in Niger
Uranium mines in Niger operated by the state-owned French nuclear giant AREVA continue to create a radioactive hazard for the people living nearby. A new report released today by Greenpeace reveals contamination levels in the air, water and soil above internationally accepted limits.
“Radioactivity increases poverty because it creates more victims. With each day passes we are exposed to radiation and continue to be surrounded by poisoned air, polluted water and earth – while AREVA makes hundreds of millions from our natural resources.” said Almoustapha Alhacen, President of the local Nigerian NGO Aghir in’ Man (which means “the shield of the soul” in the Touareg language, is a local environmental and human rights organization).
Last November, Greenpeace carried out soil, water and air tests in Arlit and Akokan, located a few kilometers from the mines. The samples were studied in collaboration with the France-based Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity Commission (CRIIRAD).
“The analysis we have performed show that the uranium contamination in four out of five water samples exceed World Health Organisation safety limits*. We found evidence of radon, a radioactive gas dissolved in water and also chemical elements. Even so, this water is still being distributed to the population and the workers for consumption” said Bruno Chareyron, an engineer in Nuclear Physics from CRIIRAD.
Half of AREVA's uranium comes from two mines in Niger, one of Africa's poorest countries despite being the world's third largest uranium producer for more than 40 years. Areva, has also signed a deal to start tapping a third mine in the desert nation from 2013 or 2014.
“AREVA claims that it is an environmentally friendly company are not borne out in reality, the shocking levels of contamination in Niger reveal the truth. AREVA must take immediate action to end the routine radioactive contamination of villages surrounding their Nigerien mines.” said Rianne Teule, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner.“ AREVA must also put in place long-term health monitoring of the local population.”
Greenpeace is calling for an independent study around the mines and mining towns in Niger followed by a thorough clean up and decontamination. AREVA must take responsibility for its actions not only in Niger, but worldwide.
* Guidelines for drinking water quality, first addendum to third edition. Vol. 1: Recommendations. WHO, 2006. This version of the guidelines integrates the third edition, which was published in 2004.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review: The IAEA fail to listen to its own warning
As we said yesterday, as he was leaving his post as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last year, Mohamed ElBaradei warned the world about ‘virtual nuclear weapons states’, countries that will develop weapons technology but stop just short of producing an actual bomb [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/elbaradei-nuclear-weapons-states-un]. This would, ElBaradei said, allow countries to ‘remain technically compliant with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while being within a couple of months of deploying and using a nuclear weapon’
It was clear from ElBaradei’s successor Yukiya Amano, in his opening speech to the nuclear Non_proliferation Treaty review at the United Nations, that ElBaradei’s warning is not being heeded…
"Nuclear power is enjoying growing acceptance as a stable and clean source of energy that can help to mitigate the impact of climate change," Amano told the meeting at U.N. headquarters in New York. "Nuclear power must be accessible not only for developed countries but also for developing countries."
We’ll leave for the moment Amano’s deceitful propaganda about nuclear power being ‘stable’ and ‘clean’ and able to ‘mitigate the impact of climate change’. He says more than 60 countries are considering adopting nuclear power. Could the IAEA monitor them all? Some of the countries on the Amano’s list are barely stable let alone functional, accountable democracies.
Couple that with the news about the global shortage of Helium-3 – a crucial ingredient in devices and technology used to detect and help stop nuclear smuggling – and its easy to see there could be some serious trouble ahead. You don’t have to worry about wind turbine smuggling or fear that the country next door is working on an energy efficiency programme.
Nuclear News: Bulgaria ‘has no money for an atomic power plant’
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:
Bulgaria halts nuclear plant project
‘Prime Minister Boyko Borisov says Bulgaria has put on hold construction of its second nuclear power plant until it finds a new investor and funds to complete the project. "The country has no money for an atomic power plant," the DPA news agency cited Borisov as saying in Tuesday's edition of the 24Casa newspaper. "We will build it when investors come." The Russian company Atomstroiexport had originally been commissioned to build the planned 2,000-megawatt Belene nuclear power plant on the Danube River - 180 kilometers (about 112 miles) northeast of the capital Sofia - for 4 billion euros. The contract had been signed between the Russian firm and previous Socialist-led Bulgarian government. When new center-right government swept power in July elections, Borisov's conservative GERB party put the Belene under review due to rising costs. It recently announced a tender for a new consultant after German utility RWE walked out of the project due to funding problems and Sofia decided to redesign it to attract new investors.’
Atoms for Peace bring anything but
What’s undeniable about nuclear power is that that it walks hand in hand with nuclear weapons. The first nuclear reactors were built in the early days of the atomic arms race to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons. This led to the nuclear deceit that we still see to this day. As Stephanie Cooke puts it in her excellent book ‘In Mortal Hands: A cautionary history of the nuclear age’…
Governments saw that there could be a positive side to nuclear and began to promote it as a way of producing electricity. In the United States this “peaceful uses” aspect not only provided a welcome antidote to the government’s determination to rapidly escalate nuclear weapons production but was part of a program designed to win public approval of the expensive new arsenal. In other countries, like Britain and France, the primary purpose of so-called duel-use reactors was to produce plutonium for bombs. Yet the public was sold on the idea that the reactors were meant for electricity.
Fast forward 60 years and we have a new twist on this deception via a loophole in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which is having it’s five-yearly review this month at the United Nations.
What likely will not happen is a revision of the treaty’s Article IV, which states: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. . .” In effect, Article IV offers a nuclear reward to non-nuclear weapons countries who sign the treaty; promise never to make the bomb and you can build and operate nuclear reactors. Since the materials, and to a certain degree, the processing involved in arriving at fuel for a civilian reactor or to create an atomic bomb are basically the same, a civilian program can lead to – and has led to – the covert development of nuclear weapons.
Not only that but you also get what Mohamed ElBaradei, former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calls…
…"virtual nuclear weapons states", who can produce plutonium or highly enriched uranium and possess the knowhow to make warheads, but who stop just short of assembling a weapon. They would therefore remain technically compliant with the NPT while being within a couple of months of deploying and using a nuclear weapon.
Former US vice president Al Gore said in 2006…
For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.
So why aren’t the likes of Gore and ElBaradei, men who’ve seen the dangers of nuclear proliferation first hand, being listened to?
Nuclear News: The misguided nuclear revival
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:
The misguided nuclear revival
‘RALEIGH - Fifty years ago, it was widely believed that nuclear power might provide the answer to all of the world's energy needs by providing a clean, safe, and virtually endless supply of affordable electricity. Two decades or so later, of course, the bloom on the nuclear rose had quickly wilted under the weight of the spiraling costs, worries about weapons proliferation and the storage of waste byproducts, and, of course, the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. As a result, there has not been a new nuclear power plant ordered in the United States since 1977. Recently, Dr. Hugh Haskell, a Senior Science Fellow at the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Instructor of Physics, emeritus, at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics prepared a detailed paper on the subject. Haskell's paper was a thoughtful reply to a passionately pro-nuclear speech delivered last fall by U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. "If it should turn out that nuclear power is indeed that solution, then I would advocate for nuclear power ardently. But the facts as I see them are that nuclear power, due to its environmental footprint, its contribution to weapons proliferation, its cost, its excessive use of water, and the time it will take to build up what we would need to meet the needs of the planet, is simply not the best way to go, and will end up replacing one intractable problem with another, perhaps even more intractable. Other more environmentally friendly means are available to us now that can do what we need to do in a timely manner without excessive costs, and are consistent with the need to work toward a sustainable society-one not built on growth forever."
 |  |
