26 April 2007 - Flamanville,
France — On this day 21 years ago a nuclear
reactor near the Ukraine city of Chernobyl
suffered a steam explosion and a nuclear
meltdown. Winds spread the radioactive fallout
over thousands of square kilometres. Now,
risky new nuclear reactors are under construction
in Europe, but not on this day. Not if we
can help it. Activists are occupying cranes
and using trucks to block the entrance at
the construction site of a dangerous new
type of reactor in France.
"The proposed construction of such
new reactors, which are likely to be the
most dangerous in the world, is an insult
to the memory of those who died in the immediate
aftermath of Chernobyl, and the hundreds
of thousands of people whose lives continue
to be blighted by the disaster," said
Frederic Marillier of Greenpeace France.
"We're occupying the construction
site to highlight the risk to all of Europe,"
said Marillier, "and we call upon the
two candidates for France's presidential
election to cancel the EPR project at Flamanville."
Not safe, not sensible
Both the Flamanville reactor under construction
in France and the Olkiluto reactor being
built in Finland are European Pressurized
Water Reactor (EPR) types. A recent independent
study, produced by John Large Associates
for Greenpeace, shows that the new generation
of EPR reactors have an inherently higher
risk of serious radioactive contamination
in the event of any accident.
The study, found that for the Flamanville
reactor the number of people affected and
requiring evacuation following the 'most
likely' of nuclear incidents would be about
660,000. In a worst-case scenario, the number
of people requiring evacuation would increase
to more than 3 million. 135,000 people were
evacuated following the Chernobyl disaster.
A nuclear industry document leaked last
year also raised concerns that EPR plants
are vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Chernobyl's legacy
Not only a part of history, Chernobyl continues
to be a nightmare for many. There is controversy
surrounding how many have died, and how
many will die, from its nuclear fallout.
Attempts have even been made to whitewash
over the true cost in lives.
A report we released last year used new
data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics,
to predict approximately 270,000 cancers
and 93,000 fatal cancer cases due to the
disaster. The report also concluded that
on the basis of demographic data, during
the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally
died in Russia because of the Chernobyl
accident, and estimates of the total death
toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach
another 140,000.
But statistics never tell the full human
story. For that, we need to remember the
victims as individuals.
Nuclear not the answer
There are solutions to climate change,
but nuclear power is not one of them. We
have published an energy revolution blueprint
showing how the world can have economic
growth while reducing our dependence on
fossil fuels - all without nuclear power.
"Every euro spent on futile and dangerous
nuclear technology in a misguided attempt
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taking
us a step away from the real solution to
climate change," concluded Marillier.
+ More
South Pacific fisheries - getting hot in
Chile
27 April 2007 - International — When it
comes to stopping the strip-mining of the
sea, it's time for governments to walk the
walk so deep-sea critters can swim the swim.
Commitments were made at the UN General
Assembly in 2006 to protect the bio-diversity
of the deep-sea from bottom trawling. Next
week in Chile we'll see if the politicians
can actually deliver what they promised.
Will the South Pacific fisheries agreement
deliver protection for the high seas?
We certainly hope so. The governments of
the South Pacific, plus those of countries
wanting to take advantage of one of the
last high seas fisheries frontiers, are
meeting to form a new fisheries management
organization.
Given the perilous state of global fish
stocks, this agreement has special significance.
It can't be solely about dividing up the
ocean wealth: it needs to protect the ocean's
health.
Populations of top predators, a key indicator
of an ecosystem's stability, are disappearing
at a frightening rate, and 90 percent of
the large fish that many of us love to eat,
such as tuna, swordfish, marlin, cod, halibut,
skate, and flounder - have been fished out
since large scale industrial fishing began
in the 1950s.
The depletion of these top predator species
can cause a shift in entire oceans ecosystems
where commercially valuable fish are replaced
by smaller, plankton-feeding fish. This
century may even see bumper crops of jellyfish
replacing the fish consumed by humans.
Politicians and officials agree that they
need to do better to ensure not only the
protection of the fish stocks but also the
diverse marine ecosystem on which they depend.
Time for action
For three years Greenpeace has worked with
the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and
its 60 member organizations to get a global
moratorium on the destructive fishing practice
of bottom trawling in the high seas. Rather
than agreeing to the moratorium, in October
2006 all governments agreed to a United
Nations General Assembly resolution.
It is clear from current scientific information
that we don't know enough about deep-sea
ecosystems to protect them. It is estimated
that between half a million and five million
deep-sea species are as yet undiscovered.
We know more about Mars than we do our own
deep-sea environment.
The only genuinely precautionary approach
is to close areas where these vulnerable
ecosystems are occur, or are likely to occur,
until adequate scientific assessments have
been carried out, and effective conservation
and management measures implemented.
For fisheries agreements under development
- like the one in the South Pacific - the
deadline to implement these measures to
protect deep sea ecosystems is December
2007. Here and now is the time for these
Governments to put in place the commitments
they made in December 2006.
This meeting must not just be about countries
carving up the pie, each making sure they
get a big enough slice. The agreement must
include measures that will ensure not only
the sustainability of the fish stocks, but
also protection of our deep sea marine environment.
