Letters To The Editor
pp. 5-6 · Read in the full issue
Nuclear reactions
Dear Sir, In your March issue, Michel Jolivet, ambassador of France to Fiji, asked ques tions like; “How could widespread cancer [in French Polynesia] have remained unno ticed for decades in a population so easy to
identify?” and “How does one hide this epidemic in an open and democratic coun try like French Polynesia?”
My reply: May I suggest it has some thing to do with what is called “secret of defence”? I won’t bother with the rest of the letter from someone who still uses arguments like: The head of the lAEA (International Atomic Agency) swam in the lagoon [of Mururoa] and declared it was wonderful...
It’s an insult to the intelligence of the people of French Polynesia, of the South Pacific and to everybody concerned with the health effects of the French nuclear tests.
Pierre Riant,
Melbourne, Australia Dear Sir, In your March edition, Bernadette Hussein wrongly alleges that one our ships, the Pacific Teal, “suffered a serious engine failure on one of its previous voyages.”
She then speculates about the conse quences “if this happened during the voy age” carrying solid vitrified radioactive waste from Europe to Japan.
You give the credit for your claim to “records obtained by Greenpeace” (as if to imply that was the only way to obtain such information). Far from being kept from the public, this information was provided
though regular public meetings which are
held at the ship’s home port of Barrow in Cumbria.
The facts are that during a voyage from Japan to Europe (completed in 1990), there was a small loss of coolant in one of the ship’s two engines. The voyage was com pleted safely and without interruption. As hairline cracks in the cylinder blocks were identified by the post-voyage inspection, new cylinder blocks were immediately fitted.
All of the PNTI fleet undergo thorough maintenance work after each voyage. This involves stripping, inspecting and servic ing key parts of both engines. Prior to the ship’s departure on its current voyage, both
engines, together with all other key sys tems, were carefully inspected. Genuine experts also do not share Greenpeace’s view that the special flasks in which the material is transported have had “inade quate design and testing”. The joint expert working group of the three United Nations bodies - the International Atomic Energy Agency (lAEA), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) - careful ly analysed these claims in 1993 and con cluded that: “The papers submitted by Greenpeace International provided no evi dence to justify their allegation that lAEA regulatory test standards are inadequate.”
The working group also concluded that.
“All of the available information demon strates very low levels of radiological and environmental consequences from the maritime transport of radioactive material.”
All of the ships operated by PNTL have a safety record second to none, having cov ered more than five million kilometres without a single incident resulting in the release of radioactivity. The purpose-built ships have a range of safety features far in excess of those found on conventional cargo vessels many of which are duplicat
ed (including two independent engines),
meet the highest safety rating of the IMO and comply with all relevant international safety regulations.
I hope this information - based on fact sets the record straight
Gavin Carter,
International Transport Co-ordinator,