Hi Sachiko

>at the time of the chernobly accident, i was
>living in sweden.  when the news broke (which
>was not as immediate as the fukushima) we were
>warned not to ingest certain things:

Not in France !!!!! There has been NO official
warnings. All contaminated vegetables and goods
were in the market and have been eaten. (
chronology following)

>if the french government knows so much about
>nuclear reactors and have strict rules, why
>didn't france take the same precautions?

because they didnot admit that the situation was
bad.  French ministers of health and agriculture
in 1986 "there is no danger, there is no
dangerous radioactive cloud". So why changing
normal habits ?

-----------------------------


Docs:

a google translation of the chronology of the governemental lying in 1986:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sortirdunucleaire.org%2Findex.php%3Fmenu%3Dsinformer%26sousmenu%3Dthemas%26soussousmenu%3Dtchernobyl%26page%3Dindex&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

if you don't have time to read all this
chronology, just go to the May 2 1986, then May
16, 1986, then february 26, 2002.... it's
incredible.

[ an good video documentary about the french
lying ( in french, sorry )
http://ma-tvideo.france2.fr/video/iLyROoaft6yg.html
]

-------------------------------

>  or did they change their regulations after the
>chernobyl accident? can you clarify?

yes, they partialy did, in the nineties, and few
years ago ! Thanks to the constant actions of the
French NGO CRIIRAD, an independant observation
laboratory/network on radioactivity who  was
created the may 16, 1986 (few days after
explosion) !!!!! this NGO was founded by
researchers disgusted by the authorities lies.
http://www.criirad.org/

>for the record, i'd like to mention that i have
>always been against nuclear power and after this
>i will remain against nuclear energy.  but i
>would like the climate of major news network to
>change, from emotionally based reporting which
>leads to fear mongering and panic.  sweden seems
>to have the same regulation as japan, i.e.
>international standard, though i will have to
>check into this to be 100% sure.  in any case
>they have not made any claim that is not the
>case. the swedish public channel recently showed
>a documentary which was in line with the
>so-called "scientific community's consensus."
>that is there is no or little evidence to
>suggest there is abnormal increase in cancer
>rate except for those unfortunate who were
>exposed to immediate high radiation and outside
>the exclusion zone except for those who
>continuously ingested highly contaminated
>radioactive food and water (the worst long term
>effect).  (here again, let me also state i am
>personally for making a larger exclusion zone to
>be on the safe side, especially for the infants
>and those under 40 years old).  so far i have
>not heard a case in sweden that resembles those
>claims in france.

During the last decades, epidemiologic studies
about thyroid problems in France, or studies
about nuclear measures from tchernobyl in france,
have been masked by a lot of medical and
statistical manipulations, and are still modified
and masked by the governement because they are
afraid of lawsuits that could affect the actual
politicians and health Institute directors (still
in power...). Sarkozy himself was in 1987 "
Chargé de mission pour la lutte contre les
risques chimiques et radiologiques" and has some
responsabilities in the lies. France wants also
to deal its nuclear plants to the world. ( and
french uranium rods are in most of the japanese
plants)

Like in Japan, the french nuclear industry is
deeply included into the medical and political
decidors network. Until now, it's very difficult
to have good epidemiologic studies, it's very
difficult to have good statistics and precise
maps on Tchernobyl effects in France.

About the world-wide strengh of the nuclear
lobbies, it very important to understand that the
military use of nuclear could NOT exist without
the education programms, the money and the
infrastructures for "civil" uses of nuclear.

The nuclear lobby is very very strongly implanted
in every sector of the society, because nuclear
technologies are one of the best opaque
juicy-business and because nuclear is deeply
strategic, especially for certain countries.

JN

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein...