Scientists mixed on tests...<\/p>\n
By Sujatmiko<\/p>\n
Jakarta (JP): France's decision to resume its nuclear testing
\nin South Pacific is a symbol of continued French arrogance and
\ndisregard on the life of other peoples. France is also neglecting
\nthe international community's protest on the nuclear test
\nscheduled to resume next month. Demonstrations staged worldwide
\nsuggest that the decision goes against the recently concluded
\nNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.<\/p>\n
The French nuclear testing in Mururoa atoll, French
\nPolynesia, started in 1966. By the end of 1990, it was recorded
\nthat France had exploded 167 atomic bombs, 44 atmospheric
\n(including five over Fangataufa) and 123 underground tests
\nconducted between 1975-1990 (including five at Fangataufa).<\/p>\n
Due to the opposition of the Pacific Islanders, atmospheric
\ntesting ended in 1974 and was replaced with underground testing
\nin 1975 and this continues with no sign of complete and permanent
\ntermination.<\/p>\n
Three main reasons underlie French military policy.<\/p>\n
First, France perceives itself as an independent middle power,
\ntherefore, the development of an effective nuclear deterrent is a
\ncentral element in the French defense policy.<\/p>\n
Secondly, French Polynesia is termed by France as an overseas
\nterritory and according to French law, overseas territories are
\ntreated as part of France and not as colonies or dependencies.
\nThat is why the French government always argues that the tests
\nare being undertaken on French soil and should not be the
\nbusiness of other states. Objections to the tests by some
\ncountries were seen as interfering in French internal affairs.<\/p>\n
For Pacific independent states, however, French Polynesia is
\nseen as a colony, especially after mid-1960 when France started
\nto conduct its nuclear tests. To conduct the tests in a colony,
\nas many islanders argue, means a violation of the important
\ninternational principle stipulated in the UN Charter: the right
\nof colonized peoples to self-determination. France has also
\nfailed to respond to a request by the local Territorial Assembly
\nthat tests not be carried out in French Polynesia.<\/p>\n
And thirdly, the French government contends that the tests are
\nsafe. It claims that the level of radiation released into the
\nocean or the atmosphere is harmless.<\/p>\n
There are certainly other grounds for objecting to the tests.
\nThe Pacific Islanders believed that the tests pose a threat to
\nthe health and livelihood of the people in the whole South
\nPacific region. Since the first summit of the South Pacific Forum
\nin 1971, the heads of government were very concerned on the
\npotential hazards that atmospheric tests pose to health and
\nsafety and to marine life which is a vital element in the
\nislands' subsistence and economy.<\/p>\n
The tests conducted underground from 1975 were in common sense
\nless risky than atmospheric tests conducted previously. The
\nobviousness of radioactive fall-out has been replaced by the far
\nless visible and seemingly more remote risk of radioactive
\nleakage through cracks in the underwater base of the atoll into
\nthe surrounding ocean. And if such leaks were to occur, these
\ncould contaminate the fish and other animate and inanimate
\nmaterial which would then be dispersed by ocean currents and
\nmigration patterns to islands thousand of kilometers away.<\/p>\n
France has stated on many occasions that the tests do not
\nendanger the area, although several accidents have, in fact,
\nalready happened.<\/p>\n
For example, in 1979 two French workers were killed in an
\nexplosion in an underground laboratory. Less than three weeks
\nlater, part of Mururoa atoll collapsed in the wake of a nuclear
\ntest explosion, causing a tidal wave.<\/p>\n
In March 1983 a hurricane was reported to have swept nuclear
\nwaste stored on Mururoa into the lagoon of the atoll and then out
\ninto the Pacific Ocean. France has denied reports in the
\ninternational press that there has been an increased incidence of
\ncancer in the local population.<\/p>\n
French Defense Minister Charles Hernu in July 1984, based on a
\nreport by five scientists from New Zealand, Australia and Papua
\nNew Guinea who visited the atoll in 1983, claimed that \"the main
\nfindings of distinguished foreign scientists, who had made a
\nthorough, independent investigation at Mururoa, were that the
\ntests are totally harmless for health of the Polynesians and the
\nother peoples living in the Pacific.\"<\/p>\n
In fact, the only way to determine whether cracks existed in
\nthe underwater base of Mururoa atoll would be to send deep-sea
\ndivers and scientists to the island, and allow them to inspect
\nthe whole contour of the underwater island at considerable
\ndepths. But such independent research has always been refuse by
\nFrance.<\/p>\n
There have been some researches conducted by several
\nscientific teams. The first was in 1982 led by Haroun Tazieff, a
\nFrench volcanologist. His team comprised six people, all French,
\nand concluded that there was little risk of radioactive
\ncontamination from the underground tests at Mururoa.<\/p>\n
When the team's findings were questioned, one of its members,
\nProf. Lambert, replied, \"I regret that no researches have been
\nundertaken in view of tracing the existence in the ground-water
\nand the subsoil of radioactive\".<\/p>\n
The second group of scientists to visit the atoll in 1983 were
\nfrom Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Again, their
\nfinding suggests that radiation levels both in the Mururoa base
\naccommodation area and in the inhabited areas of French Polynesia
\nwere lower than the world's average.<\/p>\n
Their report, published in 1985 and later known as the
\nAtkinson Report, also found that \"cancer statistics for the
\nregion did not reveal high rates of types of cancer that might be
\nassociated with excessive exposure to radioactive fallout\". But,
\nthe report stated further that as a result of underground testing
\nthe structural integrity of the upper section of the atoll was
\nimpaired and although there was no evidence of short term
\nleakage, it could occur within a period of a thousand years.<\/p>\n
The results of the above missions have four weaknesses. First,
\ntheir findings concerning the incidence of fallout-related cancer
\nwere based on statistics supplied by the French military.<\/p>\n
Second, the team was not allowed to take samples of the
\nsediments from the lagoon itself. Third, no diving was done. And
\nfourth, only surface samples of ocean water were taken.<\/p>\n
Dissatisfied with the two findings, a third team led by
\nJacques Cousteau conducted further research in 1987. Cousteau and
\nhis team visited Mururoa for a five-day scientific and
\ncinematographic mission. The team observed a nuclear test and
\ntook samples of sediment and plankton from the lagoon.<\/p>\n
They made dives with aqualungs and in a small submarine they
\nfilmed underwater to a depth of 230 meters around the base of the
\natoll. Again, the report was severely criticized for not
\ninvestigating at the depths where the tests occur.<\/p>\n
Cousteau stated in his report that there was no evidence at
\npresent of dangerous radioactivity in the area. He went on to
\nsay, however, that \"the atoll had been deeply cracked\" and warned
\nthat the long-term was difficult to evaluate.<\/p>\n
Following this research, various computer models were
\ndeveloped. Two New Zealand scientists, Dr. Mike O'Sullivan and
\nDr. Manfred Hochstein, have made extensive studies since 1985 to
\nshow that radioactive contamination of the environment would take
\nplace within ten to one hundred years.<\/p>\n
The most recent study was in September 1990. Cousteau's report
\nwas further re-evaluated by American scientist Norm Buske, who
\nconfirmed that \"water in Mururoa is contaminated with Cesium 134
\nand Cesium 137 leaking from the underground tests\".<\/p>\n
Challenging the claims that the tests are not harmful, Barak
\nSope, the former secretary-general of the Vanua' aku Pati
\n(Vanuatu) and the then leader of the Melanesian Progressive
\nParty, said, \"I will only believe the French scientists that
\ntheir bomb testing is safe if they decide to move their test site
\nat Mururoa to Paris\". Recently, Fiji's Minister of Education
\nTaufa Vakatale led a demonstration in Fiji's capital, Suva, and
\none of the banners read \"if the test is safe, conduct the test in
\nChirac's nose\".<\/p>\n
Nuclear tests have also some connection with French
\ncolonialism in the Pacific. France certainly does not want to
\nleave French Polynesia and grant independence to it quickly.<\/p>\n
This is, of course, a very complex problem and its solution
\nwould need time. A number of questions about French colonialism
\nin French Polynesia and the testing issue in Mururoa will remain
\nunanswered.<\/p>\n
A long-term, independent, and thorough examination of the
\nenvironmental impact of the testing program is needed. The
\ninternational community should work harder to convince France
\nthat the test is seriously dangerous for the people near the
\nsites, not today but in the future.<\/p>\n
The writer is a graduate of Australia National University,
\nCanberra. He has conducted research in Tahiti, French Polynesia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/scientists-mixed-on-tests-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}