Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Uranium Leaks Rattle France's Nuclear Support, Anger Villagers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:46 PM
Original message
Uranium Leaks Rattle France's Nuclear Support, Anger Villagers
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arf...

uly 23 (Bloomberg) -- For years, Sophie Delmas took her horse and her four dogs for a swim in the Trop-Long lake, a stone's throw away from the Tricastin nuclear site in southeast France. Not anymore.

About 74 kilograms (163 pounds) of uranium leaked two weeks ago from a nuclear waste plant owned by Areva SA at the site behind her mother's home in Bollene. Tests showed that the ground water was contaminated even before the leak. On July 18, Paris-based Areva announced a second case, saying uranium may have seeped out of a broken pipe for years at a plant in Roman- sur-Isere, 100 kilometers (62 miles) north of Bollene.

``Who knows, there may be nuclear waste under the house,'' said Delmas, 23, who says she's concerned that she and her animals may be susceptible to cancer.

The leaks are shaking French people's long-held faith in nuclear safety in their country, which gets more than 80 percent of its electricity from atomic power -- the highest in the world. The incidents come just days after President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the construction of the country's 60th reactor to show that France is leading a global revival in nuclear usage.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. OOPs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. France needs to get behind the proposed North African super
solar array that would power the European electric grid. Nuclear is too dangerous. Their countryman, Jacques Cousteau warned them of that years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. What, Nno Nnewcuelur Defenders????
I'm thinking we're going to begin seeing Republicon tactics from the Nnewcuelur apologists - "It was only this one time", "It's run by the French government, what do you expect", "They weren't doing proper maintenance", "Couldn't happen here". Was this one of France's famous "SAFE" reactors?

Justify, testify, sell your souls to your Nnewcuelur overlords. You know you want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. These post hardly ever see any of the usual suspects
pretty much that is but there is always the possibility of exceptions though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. They'll pounce if anyone gets off topic, then derail the conversation.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. get the popcorn ready
and let the games begin :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I doubt this thread will get out of hand
The OP basically said, "There was a small accident in France. It made some people nervous."
To which most of the pro-nukes (and even the neutrals like me) will say, "Yeah, so?"

There's no denying there was an accident. There's no denying people are nervous. Both facts are understandable, and no agenda is being promoted by reporting them.

Expecting that people should be more upset by this than some other non-nuclear industrial accident would bring an agenda to the table, but neither the pro-nukes or the neutrals will bite that hook unless bait is offered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. FYI
Edited on Thu Jul-24-08 05:40 AM by Nihil
> Was this one of France's famous "SAFE" reactors?

No. It was a nuclear waste plant.

Nice to see that you read the OP before starting up the hyperbole & insults.

:eyes:

And also FYI: No, of course it is not supposed to leak from a waste plant
either but I will wait to see what actually happened here before commenting
further.

(ETA remember that not everyone is in your time zone ...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. And it makes a difference that it was only a waste plant,
just how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Another person who can't read the post he is responding to.
I corrected the previous poster's "mistake":

>> Was this one of France's famous "SAFE" reactors?
> No. It was a nuclear waste plant.

If you'd read the rest of my post, it would have saved you posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. all I was saying is what difference does it make that it came from a waste plant
Isn't the issue that there was a radioactive leak, no matter the size, who or what leaked it. Am I missing something? :shrug:

Why so nitpicky anyway, is it because one would rather not even have read that news at all or what?

I'm not here to be obtuse I'm only here to learn and share ideas, mind you I'm about to decide this is not a good place for either.

Lets talk about solutions not little piddly shit that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I worry about nuclear anything, ok. You don't and thats fine with me, it matters not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
7. Every large scale power source has associated risks
Edited on Thu Jul-24-08 06:53 AM by GliderGuider
Everyone seems to be more frightened of this one, for some reason.

This was classified as a a Level 1 incident, the lowest on the 7 point scale. They'll investigate why the outer containment wasn't watertight and why the liquid spilled in the first place, fix the facilities and procedures, tighten monitoring and reporting requirements, wait until the uranium has dissipated back into the environment and life will go on.

It's not unlike many other aspects of this industrial civilization we have created -- if we want the benefits, we have to deal with the risks. As risks go this isn't (IMO) a big one. For instance, I think 20 gigatonnes of CO2 per year is a much bigger problem than 74 kilograms of uranium, and much more deserving of our outrage and opprobrium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-24-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Minimize the impact much?
20 gigatonnes of C02, planet wide, does not have quite the same impact as 74 Kg. of URANIUM locally - especially when it's YOUR back yard.

You're fighting a losing battle. People are terrified of Nnewcuelur, and I don't care how many apologists the industry hires, they're not going to calm the "unreasonable" masses.

BTW, a "Level 1 incident"? Are you series? What's a "Level 7"? Yellowcake at the church social? Puts me in mind of "the air in Manhattan is perfectly safe" in the weeks following 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You probably didn't want to know but anyway ...
I'm still waiting to see more information on this (i.e., not just
reprints of the original complaints) but, personally, I'd rather
have 74kg of Uranium in my backyard as then I could do things with
it (e.g., sell it to the power stations who are apparently about
to run out of fuel, set up a stall at the nearest anti-nuclear-power
rally to scare the shit out of people, irradiate my strawberries or
use it to produce hydrogen for an ACME Baby-Glo home CHP fuel-cell unit).

On the other hand, 20GT of CO2 is not only without a buyer (gosh,
no CO2 sequestering projects near me? Quelle surprise) but also
affects the climate of a lot more people (and creatures) than live in
my backyard.

In this case, the selfish thing to do (entertain myself, make money)
is also the best thing to do (save the rest of the planet). Win-win.

> You're fighting a losing battle. People are terrified of Nnewcuelur,
> and I don't care how many apologists the industry hires, they're not
> going to calm the "unreasonable" masses.

Yep. I agree with you. I feel like I am fighting a losing battle
in yet another arena. It gets depressing when the list of opponents
is constantly growing:

- over-funded fossil fuel lobbyists,

- self-serving gutless politicians,

- neanderthal seal-clubbers,

- inhuman whale-slaughterers,

- anti-green libertarians,

- cornucopian ethanol supporters,

- carbon trading scam promoters,

- gung-ho petrol heads,

- hypocritical "God will SAVE us" believers,

- starry-eyed & clueless "Technology will SAVE us" believers,

- thick as pig-shit "way of life is non-negotiable" morons,

- scientifically-illiterate & perspective-challenged trolls,

- ...

(And no, that last comment wasn't aimed at anyone here.)

That's why I'm looking forward to the next few hours of work as, after
that, I will have a fortnight's holiday from having to either put effort
into trying to lead someone to the light or simply ignoring the issue
(and tacitly giving them support by failing to give them opposition).

I am looking forward to the break, to spending time with my family,
to sitting on the hills & shores of Scotland and leaving the rest of
the world behind. With a bit of luck, a small asteroid will land in
the middle of the Pacific on 09-Aug and sort out the world before
I need to return.

The majority of people are just too fucking stupid to be worth
bothering with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. "The majority of people are just..."
While I tend to agree, you'll be surprised at how much a fortnight's vacation will improve your outlook. I just got back from one myself, and I am infused with a new sense of tolerance and forbearance. With any luck it will last me until next year...

Enjoy your time off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Ok, whats changed about the nuclear waste generated since back in the '60s?
Let me ask you, What big breakthroughs have the nuclear industry, both military and/or civilian, made in all these years that I'm missing? Is radioactive waste something I should be worried about? Or would you rather I shut up about it? Is is safe to go strolling at the plant that is fixing to be entombed in Chernobyl yet again, as it seems the concrete and steel from the first time is failing?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum...

Your last statement there is starting to sound like the big guys rhetoric and I'm sure you know who I'm making reference to there. As I've gone through life I've found that people who have to tell me that they are anything, as that statement is suggesting to me, usually aren't what they are saying so where does that put you? I'll tell you who it is in my eyes, just another person who I will not pay much attention to what they say except to goad them along.


http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6087546/description.h...

This invention relates to a nuclear reactor disposal package and to a
method of decommissioning a commercial nuclear reactor by enclosing the
reactor vessel in a container.

If this is all safe and nothing to worry about then why is this necessary?

Maybe you think I'm too stupid to understand, I don't know. When its all said and done I actually don't give a flying fuck what you think about me. I'm sure that like in the case with big guy what you will say to me via the keyboard is nothing you would chance saying to me in person, just my guess. :shrug:

Oh I do get it, what you are saying is if I don't toe the line as you draw it then I am simply too stupid to do that, is that correct? I thought so :evilgrin:

I do hope you enjoy your vacation though, I would say you deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC