French Nuclear Tests Contaminated 110,000 in Pacific, Says Study (bbc.com) 65
France concealed the true impact of its nuclear tests in the Pacific from the 1960s to the 1990s, a study has said. From a report: Researchers used declassified French military documents, calculations and testimonies to reconstruct the impact of a number of the tests. They estimated that around 110,000 people in French Polynesia were affected by the radioactive fallout. The number represented "almost the entire" population at the time, the researchers found. French Polynesia, a French territory made up of hundreds of islands and atolls including Tahiti, was the site of dozens of nuclear tests over 30 years. Over the course of two years, researchers analysed around 2,000 documents released by the French military and recreated the impact of "the most contaminating" of France's nuclear tests carried out between 1966 and 1974.
The study was carried out in collaboration between French news website Disclose, researchers from Princeton University and British firm Interprt. The 41st test took place over Mururoa Atoll on 17 July 1974, when the atomic cloud took a different trajectory than planned. Some 42 hours after the test codenamed Centaur, "the inhabitants of Tahiti and the surrounding islands of the Windward group were subjected to significant amounts of ionising radiation", the report says. The area was home to 110,000 people and Tahiti's main city, Papeete, alone had a population of 80,000.
The study was carried out in collaboration between French news website Disclose, researchers from Princeton University and British firm Interprt. The 41st test took place over Mururoa Atoll on 17 July 1974, when the atomic cloud took a different trajectory than planned. Some 42 hours after the test codenamed Centaur, "the inhabitants of Tahiti and the surrounding islands of the Windward group were subjected to significant amounts of ionising radiation", the report says. The area was home to 110,000 people and Tahiti's main city, Papeete, alone had a population of 80,000.
Science Teacher Fails Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grains of sand. It was a really, really tiny nuke. Like a nuke, but for ants.
Already done on Rick and Morty.
Re: (Score:3)
Headlines aren't about communicating information, they are about evoking an emotional response. (in the past the desired response was to buy a paper, in this era it's to click and share)
Re: (Score:2)
So when you read a headline that says, "Eight dead in murder-suicide," you aren't sure whether they're talking people or chipmunks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, "Eight dead in shooting rampage".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seven at one blow
Spoiler Alert
(They were flies)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you!
Actual Details Needed (Score:5, Interesting)
Some 42 hours after the test codenamed Centaur, "the inhabitants of Tahiti and the surrounding islands of the Windward group were subjected to significant amounts of ionising radiation", the report says.
The area was home to 110,000 people and Tahiti's main city, Papeete, alone had a population of 80,000.
According to the investigation, the resulting radiation from the French tests was between two and 10 times higher than estimates given by France's Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in a 2006 report.
How much radiation were people actually exposed to? Telling me that something is between 2 and 10 times higher than estimated doesn't tell me anything if you don't tell me the estimate. There's an article from The Guardian [theguardian.com] covering the story the includes some better information including that one particular test likely resulted in exposure of all 110,000 people to 1 millisieverts of radiation and that a study by the Polynesian government that 11,000 people have been exposed to a dose of at least 5 mSv. However, that's approximately equal to the dose you can get from a CT scan [webmd.com].
Are there better sources for reporting on this story? The BBC article isn't very good and potentially misleading due to a lack of important details.
Re:Actual Details Needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Actual Details Needed (Score:2)
Re:Actual Details Needed (Score:5, Informative)
They also murdered a man who protested about it. [wikipedia.org] They lied about that too.
The exact details of how much fallout fell on which islands and exactly how many people were exposed is not the key detail here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actual Details Needed (Score:5, Informative)
There's an article from The Guardian [theguardian.com] covering the story the includes some better information including that one particular test likely resulted in exposure of all 110,000 people to 1 millisieverts of radiation and that a study by the Polynesian government that 11,000 people have been exposed to a dose of at least 5 mSv. However, that's approximately equal to the dose you can get from a CT scan [webmd.com].
The very good XKCD dose chart [xkcd.com] agrees.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's an article from The Guardian [theguardian.com] covering the story the includes some better information including that one particular test likely resulted in exposure of all 110,000 people to 1 millisieverts of radiation and that a study by the Polynesian government that 11,000 people have been exposed to a dose of at least 5 mSv. However, that's approximately equal to the dose you can get from a CT scan [webmd.com].
The very good XKCD dose chart [xkcd.com] agrees.
Let's ignore the sensationalism. focus on only one of France's tests, and downplay even that. But let's not forget that France alone had over 200 nuclear weapon detonations between 1945 and 1996. All told, of the well over 2,000 nuclear explosions detonated worldwide [armscontrol.org], 25% or over 500 bombs were exploded in the atmosphere. There were over 1000 nuclear tests by the United States, over 700 by the Soviet Union, about 45 by Britain, over 45 by China, 5 by Pakistan, 3 by India, and there have now been 6 nucle
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm00... [imdb.com]
- Died of self-inflicted gunshot wound in Los Angeles.
- It's important to note that his self-inflicted gunshot suicide was prompted by his impending slow death from cancer, something he obviously wished to avoid.
- Was one of 91 people, along with John Wayne, Susan Hayward, and Agnes Moorehead, whose cancer was attributed to their exposure to radioactivity while working on the film The Conqueror (1956).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more concerned with exposure to radiotoxic elements like Cesium and such rather than just radiation. We are all exposed to radiation - what we aren't necessarily exposed to is radioactive elements in our air, food supply, and drinking water. That is what causes so many health issues - not the radiation itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it depends on the type of radiation. There are a lot of types of ionizing radiation, from alpha particles (helium nuclei) which are stopped by the skin, through gamma rays, which are stopped by a few inches of lead (depending on energy/frequency) to cosmic rays, some of which are very penetrating.
Eating an alpha emitter is bad, standing beside a gamma ray source is also bad. In between is the banana, which emits beta particles, which need a few millimetres of aluminium to stop them, bad to eat or somewhat b
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not equivalent to a CT scan. A 1mSv from a CT scan is a one time thing and much of it is blocked by your skin and flesh, protecting your organs. A 1mSv source inside your body, potentially for decades, is a totally different risk.
Given that this was fallout it probably did end up inside people.
Re: (Score:2)
A 1mSv from a CT scan is a one time thing and much of it is blocked by your skin and flesh
I assure you that is not the case. You are confusing a rotating irradiation of your body (or a part of it) via high-energy x-rays with a sun tan.
If "much of it" was blocked by your outer layers of flesh, then a CT wouldn't be much good, now would it?
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that it's blocked is why you can see anything on the scan.
It's sad that this myth continues. I wish, given its the 10th anniversary of Fukushima, that Randall would do a new comic explaining this.
Re:Actual Details Needed (Score:4, Informative)
X-rays aren't blocked very much by your soft tissue. They're blocked (a little bit) by your bones. You *can* see soft tissue on x-rays, but only by cranking the contrast way up.
Having said that, the Sievert scale is designed to measure the amount of radiation *absorbed* by your body. Radiation, x-ray or otherwise, that goes right through doesn't do anything. The Sievert scale is specifically to quantify the health effects of that dose, accounting for different types of radiation, different absorption efficiencies, etc. 1 Sievert from one source is as close to comparable to 1 Sievert from another source as we can make it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's not the source that is the issue. It's the exposure time and type of radiation.
A one off x-ray is not the same as a radioactive particle inside your body for years. The latter has a much higher chance of causing DNA damage.
What we need is an XKCD chart of increased risk of health problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Sieverts do not measure particles per second, or energy per second, or anything of the kind. They are a measure of estimated health effects. Standardized dose.
What you're asking for is what the Sievert scale is. It might surprise you to learn that Randall knows a bit more about the topic than you do.
Also, radioactive particles don't stay in your body forever. For example, elimination half times for inhaled cesium are about a month and a half. Half times for cesium from contaminated food range from a week in
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it's blocked is why you can see anything on the scan.
Simply untrue. Just look at it from a logical perspective.
The rays have to penetrate your body to get images of what's inside.
If the front and the back of the slice are the most absorptive, then you have zero contrast of what's in the middle.
All you need to do is look at a thoracic scan.
You will see that where the lungs are is quite transparent. Your abdomen though? Highly absorptive.
This is because the skin and flesh is a small portion of the absorptive mass.
Re: (Score:2)
If it passed all x-rays you would see nothing but a white sheet. The fact that parts of your body absorb the x-rays is what creates contrast. Some parts absorb more than others.
But again, this is missing the fundamental point that getting an x-ray is not the same as having a radioactive particle inside your body for decades. When Fukushima happened the old "banana equivalent dose" myth came up again. It's a myth because your body regulates the amount of potassium in it, and keeps it away from places it can
Re: (Score:2)
If it passed all x-rays you would see nothing but a white sheet.
No shit... You're the one having difficulty grasping how x-ray radiography works, not me.
The fact that parts of your body absorb the x-rays is what creates contrast.
Indeed. And if the majority of that were absorbed by the outer layers of the body, then there would be no contrast. Any interior variation would be entirely washed out.
Some parts absorb more than others.
Yes. Like your bones and organs.
Again, just look at a thoracic radiograph, then try to explain what you see based on the theory that the skin, anterior and posterior connective tissues/flesh are what are absorbing most of the X-rays. If you want to skip
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not, but that simply isn't relevant here; as the Sievert is a biologically pinned unit.
1Sv of effective dose is equivalent to 1Sv of committed dose.
Okay, you have some caesium. It gets inside your thyroid. What is the increase in risk of developing cancer to you?
Hint: the answer isn't measured in Sieverts, and depends on your age and how long the caesium remains inside you.
Re: (Score:2)
A million things influence that probability. A Joule of ionizing radiation per kilogram has a 5.5% chance of causing cancer.
Period.
Pointing out that certain portions of the population distribution suffer much higher than 5.5% is... silly.
In the case of sieverts, we're talking about specific location, so you use a tissue-type weighting table to convert the actual absorption (in gray) into Sieverts (biological effective dose).
And yes, your thyroid is one of the interna
Re: (Score:2)
A 1mSv source inside your body, potentially for decades, is a totally different risk.
The concept of a "1 mSv source" doesn't really make sense without units of time. Is it 1 mSv per hour? Per year? The former would be very concerning. The latter much less so.
The Guardian article does specifically state that it's talking about the "dose". We're talking about total exposure of 1 or 5 mSv, if the reporting is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where the study is, but the BBC article links to what seems to be its publicity website [moruroa-files.org]. It's not presented very objectively, which isn't to say there's not something to the findings but it'd be helpful to have a presentation enshrouded in less marketing.
For me, one of the big things to take from this is that outdated colonialism, in ways that impose on and take advantage of its global territories, is still alive and well with France. Maybe I'm biased because I grew up in New Zealand in the
Re: (Score:2)
> For me, one of the big things to take from this is that outdated colonialism, in ways that impose on and take advantage of its global territories, is still alive and well with France.
1st, The last date of the tests in the article is 1974. That's what? more than 45 years ago. Explain your "Still alive and well" comment.
2nd, Have a look at your Aussies pals matey, and how they slaughtered the aborigenes (considered as animal pests and shot on sight). Need I remind you they totally exterminated them from
Re: (Score:1)
Bad experiment happen. (Score:1)
Uncontrolled experiments (Score:2)
The 41st test took place over Mururoa Atoll on 17 July 1974, when the atomic cloud took a different trajectory than planned.
If you can't control an experiment that can negatively affect an area and the people surrounding it, maybe don't do the experiment?
Or hide the results under the rug for decades?
Re: (Score:2)
Thats what "National Security" is. It means, "Crap that people would never tolerate, if they knew".
If redefined on a personal level, it's clearly illegal. At the national level, like sports, people don't care and "root" for their side.
"Personal Security" would be me doing something I shouldn't, like robbing and stealing, but then making it as if the other side upon noticing *is threatening me*. Now since I have redefined my own actions catching up to me as a threat, I now can justify actually killing the vi
Re: (Score:2)
the government can't afford it
Funny how that's always the excuse (especially from the private sector or PACs), and yet other countries that have implement similar social programs (not necessarily UBI, since that's still a 'new concept' - but something like national healthcare like in the UK or Canada) that cost the same if not more, are still doing just fine decades later.
"Priorities", I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The radiation those people experienced was still negligible. Don't get all hot and lathered about it. Meanwhile the USA has killed and maimed people with its nuclear weapons testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and you've been irradiated without your knowledge too if you're old enough.
Quit whining about something of zero consequence, let's talk about people dead and maimed from U.S. nuclear weapons testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or hide the results under the rug for decades?
Or under a concrete dome [youtube.com] as America did with their nuclear test materials.
T.A.H.I.T.I. (Score:2)
Bikini Atol (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes its amazing how accurate and truthful someone being paid to make a film to "educate" you can be ... did they find the lost gold and or spaceship too? Ya know spongebob lives in bikini bottom, #gobermentcoverup