4 ms·

The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil. It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the lev

The sensors removed were outside the facility. The suppression campaign was about Iodine in the soil. It is trivial to provide hard evidence about what the levels of radioactive Iodine, Krypton, Caesium, etc. are. Suppressing it just makes you look guilty. Their behavior is exactly like in Kakadu where the response is "you can't prove people don't smoke and drink more here", or what the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have done for decades.

Manuel_D 4y ago
If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste? If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined. Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive. If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't. 1. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukus...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades. And that even a single reprocessing plant will release a Fukushima worth of radiation every few decades if they are operating without a group like Greenpeace to hold them to account. As usual, lies and attempted misdirection. Turns out the output in the English channel is measurable and has been measured. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X16302053 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02659... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ From just two facilities reprocessing a tiny fraction of spent fuel the amounts are measurable and have historically been high enough to cause major problems at neigible fuel output. Stellafield alone released more Cs137 into the ocean than Fukushima. They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. The decreased output rate per kg of MOX is still not low enough for it to be safe with mass expansion. You are proposing the amount of nuclear derived electricity increase 20-fold. Including MOX in this would cause reprocessing to increase by several orders of magnitude. If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        The studies you link do not find any dangerous levels of radioisotopes. They also actually found higher radioisotope concentrations in the Baltic than in the north sea and English channel, because Chernobyl released more radiation than this reprocessing plant contrary to your assertion otherwise. You say that a reprocessing facility releases more radiation than Fukushima every few decades, but La Hague had been in operation for 50 years. Fukushima levels of radiation would have been released by now, and mysteriously nobody can seem to detect it. > They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. What measures? No source seems to mention any sort of changes or improvements following Greenpeace's stunts. What is far more likely for reductions in radioisotopes? Is the stopping of oceanic dumping of nuclear waste, that I explained later. > If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs. This is already happening! You just linked to two public studies on the concentration of radioisotopes in the waters around Europe. How can you simultaneously post studies measuring radiation density, while also claiming that it's not possible to measure the radiation in the vicinity of these facilities? And again, it's mysteriously only Greenpeace that cares. Belgium, Netherland, the UK, Spain - all of France's neighbors are apparently okay with their waters being polluted? To be blunt, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radioactive contamination works. The UK and USSR dumped huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean, and there was no observed ill effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... Whatever emissions this French reprocessing site is producing is negligible compared to the background concentrations of radioisotopes.

Manuel_D 4y ago

If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? The only readings these activists have taken show average levels of radioisotopes that they turn around and claim are contamination. Why aren't France's neighbors complaining about these spills? Surely neighboring countries would object to their waters being polluted, and they have the resources to detect it. Or does this conspiracy spread beyond France, an international conspiracy of countries colluding to cover up waste? If I stick a voltmeter on a power distribution center, and the plant workers remove it is it evidence of some sort of nefarious activity? No, because unknown devices being placed in critical infrastructure should be removed and examined. Greenpeace France have stopped trying to argue waste is being spilled. If nothing else I have to laud your commitment to this theory that waste is being released.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> If evidence is so trivial to provide, then why hasn't it been found? Yeah you're right, conclusive evidence that it's safe and isn't producing an amount of radiation that would become dangerous over decades if it were to expand is trivial to provide. Why hasn't it been found?
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  I know right? It has been in operation for more than half a century. If there was a noticeable buildup of radioisotopes in the areas we'd be seeing a growing concentration in that areas. We have incredibly precise ways to measure radiation, sensitive to deviations if a fraction of a percent above average. The blueish area on this chart [1] is a trillionth (10^-12) above the initial radiation value. We can detect the radiation this far away not because it's dangerous, but because our instruments are so sensitive. If there was contamination then countries all across Europe would be detecting along their waters. But they aren't. 1. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukushima-radiation-us-west-coast-tuna https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/fukus...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades. And that even a single reprocessing plant will release a Fukushima worth of radiation every few decades if they are operating without a group like Greenpeace to hold them to account. As usual, lies and attempted misdirection. Turns out the output in the English channel is measurable and has been measured. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X16302053 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02659... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ From just two facilities reprocessing a tiny fraction of spent fuel the amounts are measurable and have historically been high enough to cause major problems at neigible fuel output. Stellafield alone released more Cs137 into the ocean than Fukushima. They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. The decreased output rate per kg of MOX is still not low enough for it to be safe with mass expansion. You are proposing the amount of nuclear derived electricity increase 20-fold. Including MOX in this would cause reprocessing to increase by several orders of magnitude. If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      The studies you link do not find any dangerous levels of radioisotopes. They also actually found higher radioisotope concentrations in the Baltic than in the north sea and English channel, because Chernobyl released more radiation than this reprocessing plant contrary to your assertion otherwise. You say that a reprocessing facility releases more radiation than Fukushima every few decades, but La Hague had been in operation for 50 years. Fukushima levels of radiation would have been released by now, and mysteriously nobody can seem to detect it. > They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. What measures? No source seems to mention any sort of changes or improvements following Greenpeace's stunts. What is far more likely for reductions in radioisotopes? Is the stopping of oceanic dumping of nuclear waste, that I explained later. > If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs. This is already happening! You just linked to two public studies on the concentration of radioisotopes in the waters around Europe. How can you simultaneously post studies measuring radiation density, while also claiming that it's not possible to measure the radiation in the vicinity of these facilities? And again, it's mysteriously only Greenpeace that cares. Belgium, Netherland, the UK, Spain - all of France's neighbors are apparently okay with their waters being polluted? To be blunt, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radioactive contamination works. The UK and USSR dumped huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean, and there was no observed ill effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... Whatever emissions this French reprocessing site is producing is negligible compared to the background concentrations of radioisotopes.