Nuclear: The Myth of French Safety and Excellence
December 20, 2013
January 5, 2014
I strained myself writing my latest cosmology work. Now the real struggle will be getting it published. But I’ve reached my goal, as set out in my plan: a bimetric model with, in the second sector, negative energies, not only shorter distances but also a higher speed of light. I’m tackling the "Light Barrier."
Now a new imperative arises: to keep speaking, again and again, about nuclear energy.
I did so during two one-hour broadcasts on the website "Bob vous dit toute la vérité" (Bob Tells You the Whole Truth).
Bob had his show squeezed out of the "teen radio" circuit. Sometimes, he was said to "go too far," for example when discussing September 11. So, in higher circles, someone decided his show would simply end—unless he agreed to produce only entertainment.
Thus, Bob launched the first subscription-based radio station with paid podcasts. A daring operation, without sponsors or advertising. For now, it works. He has just enough subscribers to keep going. But a show must be filled. So there’s all kinds of content. Yet what matters is being able to express oneself through performances that, unlike conventional radio or TV appearances—which reach more people but are fleeting—offer lasting impact.
This man, in seeking his own freedom, also offers you yours—take a moment to reflect on that.
In areas like nuclear energy, it is increasingly vital to inform the public. What French citizens fail to realize is that the French nuclear plan continues inexorably and utterly suicidally.
Anti-nuclear associations do some work, but it's entirely insufficient in terms of information. The association Sortir du Nucléaire (14 full-time employees, "uniting 900 associations") provides daily information by highlighting the continuous stream of incidents at aging power plants. But the real problems—like the preparation for deploying fast-neutron breeder reactors, a secret plan—are not presented in a way that the public can understand.
Six weeks after being elected, Hollande, who truly deserves his nickname "Flamby," signed authorization to study and build a 600 MW fast-neutron breeder reactor cooled by sodium, called ASTRID. And it passed unnoticed. No one noticed this detail. Yet ASTRID is nothing but Superphénix, renamed the "4th-generation reactor."
Have the Greens moved? No. Agreements had been made with the Socialist Party (PS), which committed not to "launch new nuclear projects." The government presented ASTRID as "a project already approved during Sarkozy’s mandate." Thus, "Hollande was respecting his commitment to the Greens." And no one moved—despite this gesture being gravely serious. Why? Because the Greens have nothing—neither guts nor brains. They bicker and squabble. It took me time to understand that Michèle Rivasi's evasiveness stemmed from political agreements, such as "we’d ease up on ITER."
Yet nuclear energy is such a grave issue that it cannot be negotiated, especially when it concerns the health of future generations. If needed, to convince you, revisit
my investigation into French nuclear energy.
The decisions that should be made now are:
- Immediately abandon the CIGEO project—a nonsensical plan to bury long-lived waste at Bure in Champagne-Ardennes (uncontrollable waste that will burden 6,000 future generations!!!). A project presented as a "research site," already costing one billion euros for French taxpayers.
Watch this film:
"CIGEO, WHY SO FAST?"
-
Abandon plans to build EPR reactors (supposedly to "export this cutting-edge technology"). See further below.
-
Prioritize large-scale projects focused on renewable energies.
-
Stop the ITER project, which will not work (see videos on my site).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi_uurHZY-g&list=PLfdj8oy5zeoEyEgTusYRznnwptG_n-OVo -
Obviously cancel the ASTRID project. Halt all research related to fast-neutron breeder reactors, now rebranded as "4th-generation reactors."
-
Stop storing recovered plutonium—the key to the "French project designed by our nuclear pathologists," stemming from reprocessing at La Hague.
-
Put an end to the Flexblue project: repurposing submarine reactor technology into self-sufficient underwater mini-power plants.
The Flexblue project: converting submarine reactor technology (Cadarache)
A contract may already have been signed to sell this madness to a foreign country.
A reader’s comment suggests the country in question might be Bangladesh. Source:
http://www.paristechreview.com/2013/11/15/
Excerpt:
The market for these underwater power plants could reach several hundred units over the next 30 years, particularly in Southeast Asia, but also elsewhere worldwide. The competition is underway, and the first modules will hit the market before 2020.
Other source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_in_Bangladesh
Excerpt (translated):
Bangladesh also has agreements in place with countries like the United States, France, or China. On May 29, 2013, the country’s Prime Minister declared that a power plant could be built on an island in the south.
Bangladesh’s Prime Minister. The legend:
He insists on reducing corruption in the country.
But underwater, unmonitored reactors pose the danger of blockage of cooling water intake ports by sediments.
Source (Flexblue):
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexblue#Pol.C3.A9mique_sur_la_protection_par_l.27immersion
The Bangladesh reactor could potentially face water shortages during the dry season (again...).
Source:
http://www.yourcommonwealth.org/2013/07/19/is-nuclear-power-the-answer-for-bangladesh/
Excerpt (translation):
On the other hand, the Padma River is now heavily affected by India’s withdrawal of 75% of its flow during the dry season, using the Farakka barrage located 40 km upstream. The remaining water would then be insufficient to cool a 1,000 MW unit (the minimum for a nuclear reactor).
The IAEA is overseeing the project (link). Anyway, how can one imagine that nuclear projects in Bangladesh wouldn’t lead to an insane risk, given that this country ranks at the top for corruption (link)?
Regarding the development of Flexblue reactors (DCNS: the internationalization of submarine reactor expertise is evident by reviewing the links on this French shipbuilding company’s site, centered in Cadarache). This project falls under small modular reactors (SMRs).
IAEA link.
-
At the La Hague facility, stop the reprocessing process that involves storing dangerous plutonium (60 tons at La Hague). Treat stored plutonium as ordinary waste by vitrifying it. Limit activities at La Hague to vitrification of waste only.
-
Launch research into aneutronic fusion on the Z-machine, in a civilian, non-military context.
-
Demand the creation of a credible reflection cell focused on the rapid, if not immediate, abandonment of nuclear energy and the transition to renewables.
I invite you to watch a video of Gregory Jaczko’s speech. He served as director of the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)—the U.S. equivalent of France’s ASN—from 2010 to 2012. Here is someone who fully grasped the scale of the problems and, like me and an ever-growing number of people, concluded that nuclear energy production is unfeasible given the risks involved.
Gregory Jaczko’s statements in the U.S., former head of the American NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
http://groupes.sortirdunucleaire.org/Gregory-Jaczko?origine_sujet=LI201312
IN FRANCE:
You’ve just read Gregory Jaczko’s opinion. He was director of the NRC—the U.S. equivalent of France’s ASN—for three years, from 2010 to 2012. This man is no ordinary figure. To hold such a position in the U.S., he necessarily had to deeply understand all nuclear-related issues. And he quit. His statements are unambiguous: "Nuclear energy is not viable, neither in Japan nor anywhere else in the world." I fully share his position.
This man is not an "extremist." He’s an engineer concluding based on facts. For 60 years, nuclear engineering and science have mobilized immense efforts worldwide—time, people, money. Highly sophisticated techniques were developed.
Let’s be clear: everywhere, initially, the motivation was military. Then came civil nuclear energy, focused on electricity production. Under President Giscard d’Estaing, France plunged headfirst into this path. Now is the time for assessment: Is nuclear energy "playable"? Is there a "reasonable" nuclear option?
I am categorical, like Jaczko: my answer is NO. One argument is its danger, which no longer needs proving. A second argument may be even heavier: the inability to manage waste from this industry. French citizens must know that our socialist government has approved a delusional plan: transitioning to reactors operating not on uranium but on plutonium. Plutonium is infinitely more dangerous than uranium for reasons I’ve repeatedly explained on my site. Beyond that, waste from this fuel contains components requiring 50 years of pool storage until their thermal emissions drop low enough to allow extraction from liquid form. Shifting from uranium to plutonium thus multiplies the required pool storage time by ten!
Another point repeatedly mentioned: plutonium-based operation is already a reality in France. MOX fuel is plutonium-based (93% non-fissile uranium-238, "fertile," and 7% plutonium). Current pressurized water reactors are partially loaded with MOX (about 25% of the core, I believe).
The EPR is designed to operate with a core fully loaded with 100% MOX. This has been said and reiterated.
This transition to 100% MOX will produce waste that the GIGEO deep geological storage project was not designed to handle (do your research).
Behind the EPR, we have "4th-generation reactors," alias fast-neutron breeder reactors, alias... Superphénix, sodium-cooled. All of this is underway.
Everything is moving forward. Everything is racing—and no one talks about it, neither socialists, self-proclaimed Greens, nor actors currently debating the long-term waste burial project.
I’d like you to watch this video. You’ll hear Monique Sené, former particle physicist. She appears frequently as an expert. She’s a former CNRS researcher.
The excerpt
This isn’t new. In France’s opaque nuclear world, such things have always existed. When Superphénix was built, the Italians were to construct the linear-moving overhead crane. During load testing, it simply collapsed—calculation error.
Next to Superphénix, the French built a pool for storing spent fuel elements. When filled with water, the pressure caused ground deformation, resulting in a tilt of the reactor building! No terrain study had considered this load from water weight. Finally, we know that the roof of the large building housing heat exchangers and turbines—calculated by Parisians who likely didn’t realize snow frequently falls in Isère—collapsed under the weight of snow. "Fortunately," on that day, the reactor was... shut down.
Mistakes happen occasionally in industry: human errors, underestimated loads, poor evaluation of various factors, poor material quality (concrete at the EPR site!). These failures grow exponentially with the number of participants due to component incompatibility and lack of coordination.
The problem is that in nuclear energy, there’s no room for error.
This video was posted on the Sortir du Nucléaire website. The issue is that this massive organization, which only organizes skeletal events, ends its powerful presentation with "make a donation." To what? For "chains"? I remind you that Sortir du Nucléaire, despite having a large audience, remained silent when I proposed writing in-depth articles to truly inform people and make them directly accessible on their site. Simply: no response.
I sent this article to Mediapart about ASTRID. No response either...
ASTRID
You can compare this configuration with the EPR. It’s simply because in ASTRID, everything will be buried to shield the reactor from missile attacks.
You’ll easily find many articles about the recent incident (December 16, 2013) concerning the EPR reactor’s polar crane at Flamanville, which led to a work stoppage until installations were brought into compliance. I searched for the best explanation and found this video, accessible via the following link:
The polar crane, in yellow.
The following images, extracted from the video, show the handling of the reactor vessel weighing 650 tons using this polar crane.
The reactor vessel. The people in the foreground provide scale.
The yellow polar crane gripping the vessel via its lifting lugs.
Beginning of the lift of the vessel.
The vessel, suspended by the crane, ready to be lowered.
Gwenaëlle’s comment on the video is very explicit. You can access the video a bit further down on the page. Causes of such chaos? Multiple. First, lack of coordination among subcontractors from different nationalities, driven by cost-cutting (to remain competitive against foreign producers). To this must be added the sheer incompetence of various partners.
All of this isn’t new. In France’s opaque nuclear world, these things have always existed. When Superphénix was built, the Italians were to construct the linear-moving overhead crane. During load testing, it simply collapsed—calculation error.
Next to Superphénix, the French built a pool for storing spent fuel elements. When filled with water, the pressure caused ground deformation, resulting in a tilt of the reactor building! No terrain study had considered this load from water weight. Finally, we know that the roof of the large building housing heat exchangers and turbines—calculated by Parisians who likely didn’t realize snow frequently falls in Isère—collapsed under the weight of snow. "Fortunately," on that day, the reactor was... shut down.
Mistakes happen occasionally in industry: human errors, underestimated loads, poor evaluation of various factors, poor material quality (concrete at the EPR site!). These failures grow exponentially with the number of participants due to component incompatibility and lack of coordination.
The problem is that in nuclear energy, there’s no room for error.
To conclude, I reproduce this image of the EPR.
In yellow: the "corium" collector, after a major accident—core meltdown, vessel breach.
Here is an official technical drawing showing this "corium collector" system. It reveals that in these projects, to ensure "safety," they’ve planned for core meltdown—a major nuclear accident.
The English phrase above the drawing means: "Water level in the corium collector after passive (gravity-driven) drainage." Water intended to complete cooling. But why not start cooling precisely when the vessel is breached and the corium plug rushes through the resulting opening? The reason is simple: corium isn’t just a mix of uranium-238 and plutonium-239, since the EPR will operate with 100% MOX. Besides these two heavy metals, there are residues from zirconium cladding—known for its extraordinary appetite for oxygen at high temperatures (contained in water molecules). It was precisely this oxidation of zirconium reducing cooling water that caused hydrogen release and the fantastic explosions seen at Fukushima.
Thus, contacting still-too-hot corium with water could trigger hydrogen release, then an explosion, with the projection of... plutonium.
Under the aegis of the Nuclear Safety Authority, even the worst is planned. After all, zero risk doesn’t exist—everyone knows that. What you see in this drawing is nothing but a fantastic apprentice sorcerer’s game. We must understand that in France, the awareness that nuclear technology, as it stands (before aneutronic fusion becomes viable), is simply unmanageable, has not yet taken root.
Among the Greens (EELV, where careerism and negotiations are freely combined) or within the Sortir du Nucléaire group, we are a thousand miles away from even considering that if humanity wants to avoid a major, irreversible environmental and health catastrophe, immediate abandonment of nuclear energy is imperative. This isn’t about a "reasonable transition"—it’s about making a decision.
And this at a time when many countries are rushing to become nuclear, while in France our nuclear pathologists are preparing, by 2050, the start of deploying "4th-generation reactors," alias fast-neutron breeder reactors, packed with sodium—flammable in air and explosive in water. AREVA dreams of export profits. We continue reprocessing, meaning we keep accumulating this deadly plutonium at La Hague.
We feel we’re living a nightmare.
Even worse, we’re beginning to consider educating the masses to assign individual responsibility in case of a major catastrophe. But this is merely, technologically speaking, a replication of modern finance principles:
Privatize profits and socialize losses.
Here, it’s:
Privatize profits and socialize the consequences of a major catastrophe.
Read this text by Ivo Rens (The Geneva Appeal 2):
In her remarkable book La France nucléaire. L’art de gouverner une technologie contestée, published by Seuil in September 2013, historian and sociologist of science Sezin Topçu, a CNRS researcher, recalls that French nuclear officials long claimed that a serious accident with public health consequences was impossible in France. However, after Chernobyl, they gradually changed their stance. As noted in an article in Le Monde on October 21, 2008, titled “France prepares for the consequences of a Chernobyl-type accident on its soil.” (S. Topçu, op. cit., p. 242)
It seems this shift originated with two French experts: one director of Mutadis, a firm specializing in risk management, and the other a sociologist-psychanalyst from the University of Caen, who were entrusted by the European Commission with the European Programme for Assessing the Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident (1991–1995). (S. Topçu, p. 225) This firm was very active in launching the Ethos project, aimed at helping populations displaced from a Belarusian district after the accident to return to contaminated zones and learn to "live differently" by managing their own radiation exposure. This policy led to "individualizing risks" previously assumed by Soviet authorities. Curiously, the Swiss government agreed to co-finance a second phase of this project with the European Commission. (S. Topçu, p. 226)
In 2003, a large international program named Core (Cooperation for the Rehabilitation of Living Conditions in Contaminated Territories of Belarus) was launched to deploy Ethos in other Belarusian districts, again with Swiss financial participation. (S. Topçu, p. 238)
In 2002, shortly before launching this program, a European project emerged aiming to develop a practical guide to radiation culture for the general public. According to S. Topçu, this program has two aspects: “The first is a pedagogy of catastrophe, aiming to habituate individuals to the idea of a profound and irreversible change in their living conditions. The second aspect deals with a pedagogy of responsibility, preparing individuals to take active roles even before a disaster occurs, so they understand the permanent active role they will play in a post-accident context.” (S. Topçu, p. 240,1)
And it should be known that the French experts from Ethos are already at work in Fukushima, accumulating knowledge for our future.
Thus, we are already the guinea pigs of a monstrous experiment designed to adapt us to our future condition as "radiologically contaminated citizens."
These are the precedents one must keep in mind to grasp the significance of the article titled “Naoto Matsumura’s Tour in France: A Radioactive Suicide Honored?” available on the Coordination Stop Nucléaire website:
http://coordination-stopnucleaire.org/spip.php?article38
This text from Coordination Stop-Nucléaire:
“Naoto Matsumura’s Tour in France: A Radioactive Suicide Honored?”
Naoto Matsumura, nicknamed “The Last Man of Fukushima,” is scheduled to visit eastern France in March 2014 at the invitation of certain anti-nuclear groups.
Naoto Matsumura chose to live in a restricted zone just a few kilometers from the Fukushima plant, to care for domestic and farm animals left behind after the evacuation of residents following the nuclear disaster.
Not everyone knows Naoto Matsumura. We’ve never exchanged with him. We don’t judge an individual life choice—remaining alone where one is exposed to lethal radiation levels in the long term.
However, as members of Coordination Stop-Nucléaire, who advocate for the immediate end of nuclear energy and denounce the horrific consequences of nuclear disasters on humanity, we are deeply disturbed by the speeches accompanying his “tour” in France and before the European Parliament. (1)
We believe this staging contradicts everything we oppose; it’s counterproductive, even dangerous. We want to warn about how media and the nuclear lobby will exploit this.
We also question the motives behind this initiative.
Antonio Pagnotta, the project’s initiator, deserves close attention. Facing the nuclear disaster, facing the reality of radiation levels in the restricted zone that will inevitably lead to serious illnesses for Naoto Matsumura or anyone encouraged to follow his example and settle there, Antonio Pagnotta opposes this with a notion of “resistance” based on moral, sacrificial, spiritual, and nationalist values. (2)
First, “courage” is emphasized. Entering the restricted zone to visit Naoto Matsumura, Antonio Pagnotta himself removes his mask (3). To better confront death? To flirt with danger? To feel the thrill? And ultimately to show that facing the radioactive monster bare-faced, unprotected, is better: “When disaster strikes, we must fight bare-handed, relying on archaic memory—spirituality.” (4)
It’s reckless to suggest the radioactive monster could be confronted this way without protection, and that it could be overcome by inner spiritual strength alone. How can one not think of the Chernobyl liquidators who “cleaned” the contaminated zone? One does not resist radiation through sheer willpower.
In Antonio Pagnotta’s texts and videos, notions of dignity and honor are also invoked, under which “The Last Man of Fukushima” allegedly refused evacuation to avoid becoming a pariah, a leper. Note that the segregation system producing such pariahs is not challenged in any way.
If this is again an individual choice concerning Naoto Matsumura, when Antonio Pagnotta portrays it as a form of “struggle,” we believe he’s mistaken. Naoto Matsumura is instead in a position of impossibility to fight. He chose to stay. He represents an example of the submission we will be expected to accept during the next disaster—submission to irreversible radiation effects and to the dictates of the international nuclear lobby, which claims life in contaminated territory is not only possible but desirable with just a few precautions.
Then, among the slew of Judeo-Christian and moral concepts Antonio Pagnotta invokes to justify Naoto Matsumura’s choice, we find compassion for animals. He even compares losing an animal to losing a “dear one,” calling it a “emotional catastrophe” (6). According to him, Naoto Matsumura has thus, “thanks” to the nuclear disaster, found “meaning in life”: “Matsumura shows the world that compassion is necessary after a disaster. Keeping animals alive is also an act of humanity.” (7)
According to Antonio Pagnotta, “He overcame his fear of the nuclear specter. Losing his dignity cost him more than losing his health or even his life.” (8) … “We will face the same choices and must overcome our fears.”
This call to overcome fear of nuclear energy is unacceptable because it serves only the nuclear lobby’s viewpoint: fear of radiation should be overcome, as it stems from irrational phobia.
The idea of an “irrational nuclear specter” isn’t new. Recall pro-nuclear lobbyist Maurice Tubiana, who in 1958 sent a report to the WHO (World Health Organization) proposing psychiatry as an explanation for the harmful effects of radiation (9), and before his death, recently published a book titled “Let’s Stop Being Afraid!”, urging us to bury our heads in the sand regarding GMOs, electromagnetic waves, nuclear energy, etc. This aligns with the controversial professor Sunichi Yamashita: “If you don’t smile, radiation will affect you.” (10)
On the contrary, we believe this fear is legitimate. We are not called to “overcome” it, but to free ourselves from it. It should drive us to act against nuclear energy now—not after a disaster.
There is nothing mystical or irrational about fearing the consequences of a nuclear disaster: nuclear energy is not a "ghost." The dangers are very real: people, children, and animals are irradiated, radioactivity enters the food chain, contaminates the soil, air, and water, and people, children, and animals develop illnesses, their genomes deteriorate, and their lives are degraded. Overall, most beings exposed to radioactivity die sooner.
Another argument from Antonio Pagnotta, which seems highly suspect to us, is that of the nation's "survival."
"At Fukushima, Japan is playing its survival, its very existence as a nation,"
or again, "the Japanese government has learned a painful lesson from Fukushima... We will have to accept radioactivity..."
(11)
It's barely believable: where could Mr. Pagnotta possibly get the idea that the Japanese government has learned anything at all, except how to keep refugees in temporary housing for nearly three years, how to refuse compensation to those who want to leave, how to deny the consequences of radioactivity, and how to allow thousands of tons of radioactive water to flow into the Pacific Ocean?
The Japanese government wants to bring refugees back to contaminated zones. The Japanese government wants to reopen reactors in Japan and, as part of the international community of nuclear elites, actively promotes its "nuclear expertise" abroad, just like France.
And Naoto Matsumura is presented as someone who would save "the dignity of his city and all of Japan" (12): another "martyr" glorifying the Japanese nation? Like the kamikaze pilots of World War II, sent to die for the honor and survival of the empire? While those who chose to flee radiation are considered traitors to the nation?
We believe that the theatrical portrayal of Naoto Matsumura, a real victim of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, showing him as a kind of "hero" of modern times confronting nuclear technology, and also as a "martyr" alone against TEPCO, contradicts our goals in the struggle against nuclear power.
Naoto Matsumura's personal choice resembles a planned and clearly accepted suicide. We believe that elevating such a person as an example and glorifying suicidal behavior is irresponsible.
Come on—just a bit of courage, dignity, honor, a touch of spirituality and compassion, and the job would be done. To sacrifice oneself to save the dignity of one's country, the human condition, and the animal condition—what a noble death!
But let's return briefly to Antonio Pagnotta, author of "The Last Man of Fukushima," an book we certainly have no desire to acquire given his statements and videos (13), and the organizer of this "tour."
The least one can say is that he is not particular about his associations when it comes to self-promotion. Why did he feel it necessary to participate in a seminar in September 2012 organized at Sciences-Po Paris by the IDDRI (Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations), whose president is none other than Laurence Tubiana, facilitator of the energy transition debate, who leaves no doubt about her nuclear convictions:
"Nuclear energy will remain with us for a long time, regardless of the decisions made after 2017" (14).
Ms. Tubiana also explains:
"...safety and security in nuclear plants... are the responsibility of a... public debate. The risk taken must be fully accepted by society..." (15)
The seminar was part of the DEVAST project (16), whose coordinator, François Gemmene, stated along the same lines:
"All know it is illusory to want to exit nuclear energy. But the lie must stop, and this debate must cease being hijacked from citizens" (17).
Regarding the stated goal of this project, Reiko Hasegawa, study officer, clarifies:
"The question is how to increase transparency from authorities in crisis management, especially regarding nuclear accidents, and how the population can participate in this political decision-making. That is truly the key question after the disaster" (18).
Isn't that exactly what our nuclear authorities, ASN and IRSN, aim for in defining CODIRPA: "Within the framework of post-accident management: the decision-making process during the transition phase evolves toward a concerted and participatory mode, involving affected populations, economic actors, associations, and local elected officials" (19)?
Does Antonio Pagnotta ignore the motivations behind such conferences, or is he knowingly playing along? In either case, what a windfall for all the "post-catastrophe managers" to have Naoto Matsumura as an example—this man who chose to remain in a restricted zone and "accept... the risk."
In this regard, a recent article by Greenpeace Belgium's "nuclear expert" must have delighted them immensely. He boasts about having enabled a farmer to stay on her farm 45 km from the Fukushima plant thanks to a measurement device developed by Greenpeace (20).
Yes, truly, enough to delight all promoters of "governance," "participatory democracy," "public debate," all those seeking to make "citizens" into "stakeholders," willing participants in the tragedy imposed upon them—provided nuclear energy remains "transparent," safety failures are punished, but above all, above all, that no one speaks of ending it.
Yannick Rousselet, responsible for nuclear issues at Greenpeace France, said nothing different after the National Conference of CLI on December 11, 2013:
"We are objective allies [with ASN and CLI members] on safety and transparency... Everyone benefits in these pluralistic exchange forums... They are a very interesting tool for democracy and debate" (21).
That well-known anti-nuclear activists support Naoto Matsumura's tour in France without hesitation or concern for its consequences is not a promising sign for developing strategies to end nuclear power.
It is irresponsible to succumb to the siren song of easy media attention without reflecting on the messages the media and the nuclear lobby will gladly amplify, and the goals they seek to achieve.
Why would nuclear elites refrain from seizing this opportunity to portray anti-nuclear activists as a bunch of "mystical delusional fanatics," defenders of animal rights, and supporters of new idols: Naoto Matsumura, the "Buddha of Fukushima" (22); Ren Yabuki, who will join the French tour, the "Christ of Flies" (sic) (23), presented as "potentially a leader, a figure the Japanese ecological movement... needs in the coming years" (24). Why would they miss a chance to depict anti-nuclear activists as a bunch of irrational laggards refusing progress?
But alas, the delusion doesn't stop there, for in all humility, Naoto Matsumura's visit is presented as "an inspiration" and an "amplification of all ongoing anti-nuclear projects" (25). Just that!
Well, we have no desire to be "inspired" or have our voices "amplified" by the following:
"Naoto dreamed with open eyes. He reflected on his grand project: bringing Tomioka back to life. His meeting with Masamichi Yamashita from the Japanese Space Agency opened up unknown horizons. The researcher had developed methods to reduce organic waste to one percent of its original volume—a useful technique in spacecraft or orbital stations. From the first weeks of the nuclear disaster, Dr. Yamashita had imagined using space technologies for decontamination.
The project Matsumura wanted to develop was the foundation of all civilization: a core of life around which the city could begin to live again, the original farm.
The tiny village that Tomioka once was in ancient times could thus be recreated—the first necessary step toward the return of civilization" (26).
Ultimately, with all the delusion, nausea, and sheer unconsciousness in this discourse, we think that if some wanted to sabotage the anti-nuclear struggle, they couldn't do it any better!
January 7, 2014,
Coordination Stop Nucléaire.
Still within this complete blindness, watch this video of Monique Sené, former research director at CNRS.
Monique Sené, former research director at CNRS, particle physics
"Neither for nor against, on the contrary..."s
Here is the complete video, during the public debate on the waste disposal project.
The excerpt
Three years ago, I had several phone conversations with the Sené couple, including her, when the ITER project arose. Immediately, Monique Sené's response was: "My husband and I are too old to consider recycling in terms of plasmas, fusion."
Hearing her speak, I wonder whether, despite never having worked in nuclear energy but in particle physics—only a neighboring field—she has truly grasped the scale of technical problems and their dangers. I think not. For decades, Monique Sené has campaigned within the CLI ("Local Information Groups"), sponsored by ASN, the Nuclear Safety Authority, for "greater transparency and better public information about risks related to the nuclear industry."
But we realize that this woman, like many others, is utterly incapable of conceiving that the only solution is the decision to abandon nuclear energy, not "learning to live with nuclear power." As de Gaulle wrote:
"Sometimes, old age is a shipwreck.
A shipwreck of thought, of scientific and technical reflection."
Monique Sené will continue indefinitely to dialogue with the Nuclear Safety Authority (which, as noted above, approved that EPR reactors be equipped with corium catchers!). While what should be aimed for is the immediate halt of all projects (while we are launching the ASTRID fast breeder reactor project!). In this context, the ASN would eventually... disappear, just like the CLI, along with nuclear energy itself.
As a reader, a scientist, reminded me after reading this page, reactors operating on plutonium differ significantly from those burning uranium. Uranium fission produces fission products whose activity, due to their decay, releases heat for 5 to 8 years. This is why reactor cores must be stored in pools for that entire time before they can be handled and eventually moved to dry storage.
The cooling of spent MOX fuel takes 50 years!!!
Plutonium fission leaves behind waste that, due to the slower heat release from decay, must be stored in pools for 50 years before being moved to dry storage—spanning two generations. Already, half of France's reactors operate on MOX. The waste they produce must be managed and stored in confined environments. This time, deep geological storage of spent MOX fuel would require prior cooling in pools for 60 to 100 years.
The CIGEO project, the deep geological disposal site at Bure, initiated ten years ago in the Champagne-Ardennes region, was not designed to store waste from MOX fuel. The project only concerns the disposal of currently stored waste (at Marcoule, Cadarache, and La Hague), an operation expected to take 100 to 120 years, requiring a complex robotic system that must never fail. Yet every five years, all reactor loads reach expiration. These cores must be unloaded and stored. This usage time might be slightly longer for MOX reactors, where plutonium content has been raised to 7% (plus 93% uranium-238, instead of 3% for U235 + U238 mix). But this only postpones the problem. We stop using cores when they no longer produce sufficient energy. In uranium reactors, unloading occurs when U235 concentration drops below one percent.
Why not load these cores with more enriched uranium? Because enrichment is expensive (e.g., via centrifugation). In France, uranium isotope enrichment is carried out at the Tricastin facility, in the Rhône Valley, opposite Saint-Paul-les-Trois-Châteaux—a complex equipped with four pressurized water reactors, completely worn out, where incidents multiply. Compare this with AREVA's presentation of this center.
Plutonium used to make MOX is not obtained by isotope separation but extracted chemically from spent reactor cores (because plutonium produced in reactor cores has different chemical properties than the oxides it is mixed with).
France thus has a 60-ton stock of Pu-239 (increasing by an additional 5 tons annually due to the reprocessing activities at La Hague), which it uses to manufacture MOX, loading it partially into its reactors, while the EPR is designed to operate with 100% MOX.
In a program about the CIGEO project, the (young) project manager addressed the MOX issue, adding:
"If the Bure site were to be required to store spent MOX fuel, its functionalities would need to be redefined..."
In short, Bure is not designed to store spent MOX fuel, only uranium fuel cores. So what are we to do with this mass of waste already produced by the gradual, then systematic, shift to MOX in French reactors?
This makes no sense. It's complete irresponsibility. Opening a parenthesis on the CIGEO project at Bure, where the decision to start the process must be made by 2019—only six years from now—after studies on site that have already cost taxpayers one billion euros and continue to cost 100 million annually, we will outline some of the dangers involved.
Many spent materials are packaged in bitumen, which burns at a relatively low temperature: 300°C. Where could the heating come from? From the combustion of hydrogen released by plastic waste (nuclear accessories, gloves, etc.). The decomposition of such waste is inevitable over time. These materials, currently contained in steel drums, have never been inventoried. In fact, we have no idea what is actually inside the drums we plan to lower 500 meters deep into Bure.
Steel corrodes.
Concrete decomposes.
Let us recall that concrete is merely a mixture of a binder (cement) plus gravel, with... water. Standard concrete is composed of half its volume in water (if you live in a concrete building, know that half the volume of walls and floors is water!). When we wait "for the concrete to dry," we are not talking about evaporation of the water it contains (otherwise the slab level would drop), but about completion of the hydration process, the very basis of this construction material.
Acidic infiltrating water will corrode the concrete. Beyond that, oxidation will corrode the iron rods forming its reinforcement. Some modern concretes are strengthened by adding plastic material, which itself can degrade and release hydrogen. The arches of the Bure storage galleries will be built from... reinforced concrete, by people incapable of projecting beyond a century, even though they are supposed to build installations meant to last a million years (6,000 human generations!).
Installations that, after the century dedicated to burial, will be... sealed and off-limits. But then, the collapse of the galleries would cause fissures in the clay, in contact with limestone above, whose karst system—whether it exists or not—is unknown, with possible water circulation.
"Concrete cancer"
When corium becomes active and gasifies, what emerges in the form of bubbles is nothing other than water vapor.
Low-quality concrete also has porosity, and the tiny hydrogen molecule can pass through... anything. There have already been fires in mines storing chemical waste (Stocamine, an old salt mine).
Fire control proved impossible, and these mines were sealed. Among other things, asbestos and pesticides were stored there. The combustion produced massive amounts of toxic waste, including dioxin. The fire was unforeseen, as this area was not electrically powered. The hypothesis is that temperature rise resulted from the unforeseen fermentation of agricultural fertilizer waste (...).
The current storage time for radioactive waste in France would be at least a century at the Bure site (not counting new waste from MOX!). Given the expected lifespan of containment materials like concrete, steel, and bitumen, fire risks would arise even before the disposal of current reactor waste is complete. Anyway, maintaining temperature at the base requires ventilation of 500 cubic meters per second. Who could guarantee that the region will remain politically stable over the next century?
With the Stocamine accident, we already have an example of how things could go wrong with chemical waste storage. What about the consequences of losing containment of waste whose danger lasts a million years?
The "Bure parenthesis" has no end. As shown in a recent, very well-made film, the development of this type of storage is equivalent to a full-scale mining operation, in terms of gallery excavation. These excavations induce mechanical stresses capable of causing fissures and significant ground movements. The example is the German site of Asse, an old salt mine.
Asse storage site, location
Salt being hygroscopic, seemed to provide a natural barrier against water infiltration. Geologically, the original salt mass was considered by geologists to offer stability guarantees. But for this salt mass alone, the various excavations corresponding to mining operations created a structure that mechanically no longer offered the same resistance guarantees.
Asse cracked,
and water infiltration occurred.
Asse: salt fissuring due to gallery excavation.
Asse: water infiltration. In inaccessible chambers, drums are submerged.
Masses of drums, scattered, in chambers whose access has been sealed, are currently underwater, accelerating their oxidation.
Asse: the storage method for "packages"
(...)
The result is simply catastrophic, despite the fact that Asse's deep waste disposal was decided based on formal conclusions from "experts." Asse was not supposed to move for millions of years (of course, if we had not dug galleries there!).
It's even worse for Bure's clay, which simply dissolves in water.
I've just watched the "public debate" as it was organized in the media, considering that holding a debate with public participation was impossible. It featured project representatives from ANDRA, plus Bernard Laponche ("Global Chance"), the bearded one, Jean-Marie Brom. But I don't see Tuillier, the man who has worked the most on the risks inherent in deep disposal. Let's return to this investigation:
CIGEO, WHY SO FAST?
Since technical discussions are thus avoided, only a philosophical debate remains. Too bad I wasn't at that table. I could have discussed a nuclear future that might one day lead to aneutronic fusion. Does the person speaking of transmutation imagine what physics was like a century ago? We were in 1913. Nuclear physics, if mentioned then, would have been considered science fiction (the neutron wasn't discovered until 1932...).
The CIGEO man, the young one, talks about... memory. But Brom retorts that near Lille, a munitions depot from World War I was recently discovered, one that had been completely forgotten. Laponche rightly reminds us that if the CIGEO project starts, dozens of similar projects will emerge worldwide, and within a century, humanity will irreversibly pollute the Earth's crust.
But nothing, visibly, will stop this race toward catastrophe. It's all about money. Brom, a particle accelerator specialist, lacks the competence. I vainly tried to contact Global Chance to meet Laponche in Paris. But the blockage is there, and firmly in place. Laponche himself is powerless. In relation to the CIGEO project, neither he nor Brom managed to retrieve the points that Thuillier had uncovered in ANDRA's own reports.
This is completely insane!
The solution?
A year ago, I was received by a figure in French nuclear energy, Paul Henri Rebut, creator of the tokamak at Fontenay-aux-Roses. He received me in his splendid apartment on the Place des Vosges in Paris, adorned with antique furniture and master paintings. In 2010, he gave an interview to Science et Vie (cited on this page), declaring:
"I am personally skeptical about whether we can extract energy from fusion by the end of this century" (that is, in... 90 years!).
Two years later, in his living room, Rebut had changed his mind, telling me:
"Who says ITER won't work?"
We then had a fairly intense technical discussion at his home. Rebut's proposed solution to save the ITER project and manage a neutron production of 14 MeV was to place uranium-238 "fertile" cover plates on the first wall, which would thus be transformed into plutonium-239, suitable for use in fission reactors, EPRs, or fast breeder reactors. I reproduce below the exchange that followed, which left me speechless:
"But then, we're back to the previous problem! We lose the advantage that fusion reactors could have, if they worked well, regarding waste."
"Waste can be managed."
Of course! Where was my head? The solution was right before my eyes, and I couldn't see it: all we needed to do was store it in Rebut's living room, Place des Vosges!
Let's return to the general theme of this page. The EPR is nothing more than a transition toward fast breeder reactors cooled by sodium, with ASTRID serving as the "demonstrator."
Who knows what this "new fuel," MOX, really is? It's a mixture of 93% non-fissile uranium-238 and 7% fissile plutonium-239—infinitely more dangerous than anything used so far (this plutonium, produced by transmutation of U-238 after absorbing a fission neutron in uranium reactor cores, is extracted during "reprocessing" operations at the La Hague plant).
Plutonium—the explosive in bombs. But who cares?
All of this is quite nightmare-inducing. But the entire nuclear industry is a nightmare, which the Fukushima disaster has merely revealed. To turn away for a moment from all these things I must recount, I wrote and illustrated "The Book of the Underwater Jungle." A moment of dream for you (and for me, as I relive my memories as a diver-caver). In passing, I'd like readers who have bought this book to send me their comments; I'll publish them. After an edition that, due to a unfortunate coincidence, brought me into contact with a man I'd have preferred never to meet, I'm trying a literary genre slightly different from what I've done for decades, always very technical, in the "document" style.
I, too, need to escape from time to time, and my readers have no idea of the drafts sleeping in my attic, of which "The Book of the Underwater Jungle" is just one (I think of plays, a grammar course for Neolithic men...).
Humans make a lot of nonsense. It's as if they strive to make as much as possible. But there is a human universe from which only good emerges: music. Of course, there's that nonsense that is military music, which helps men march in step.
This reminds me of a rather amusing anecdote. When I was drafted for military service, I was directed to Caen-Carpiquet Air Base with other Officer Cadets (those from Supaéro were directly commissioned as second lieutenants in the Air Force, without going through the Reserve Officers' School, EOR).
So we were a few hundred students at a training base, where for three months we were subjected, like other soldiers, to rigorous training—exercises, gymnastics drills, foot maneuvers, shooting, etc. The base command then decided to make us sing marching songs with strange lyrics. One came from the Foreign Legion. I remember a few lines:
"The street belongs to whoever walks it,
The street belongs to the flag of the white caps,
And against us, hatred,
Against us, cries and curses,
Trampling the dark mud,
The white caps go."
Thanks to this link, you'll access an excerpt from a film depicting the Battle of the Ardennes. You see young tankists in Nazi uniforms, black, marked with the skull insignia, barely twenty years old, singing this song, so "manly," hammering their words into the ground. Exalted beyond measure, as long as you only see the impeccable uniforms and not the wounded, bloodied bodies.
This wasn't the only one.
Of course, it wasn't to the taste of the many Jewish students from Grandes Écoles present. In solidarity and protest, the entire class decided to sing these songs (the Legion song is a French transcription of the famous "Panzerlied" sung by Nazi troops during the attack on the Belgian Ardennes) in German. Shock among the command.
"We're simply singing it in its original version."
"What?!"
"There are enough marching songs in the French military repertoire to avoid those translated from German."
The reaction was an avalanche of collective punishments, which had no effect.
Fortunately, there's a majority of compositions with no connection to such displays. Music remains the shared space of peace for all peoples.
Here are the links allowing you to listen to a famous piece by Argentine composer Astor Piazzolla, titled Libertango. It has been adapted and interpreted in countless ways. But I find those performed by guitar duos especially beautiful.
First, two Chinese women, Wang Ya Meng and Su Meng, absolutely impassive. But what perfect technique, what sensitivity in their playing!
Libertango, by Wang Ya Meng and Su Meng: perfection of playing and interpretation
The Beijing duo
Overwhelming in sensitivity.
The duo Olivier Bensa (composer) and Cécile Cardinot
What's fantastic about the Internet is that these simple links allow offering such treasures.
I've just discovered a link leading to a recording of Raymond Devos's performance at the Olympia. Devos, poet, magician, human orchestra. A great evening, a way to relax.
Raymond Devos at the Olympia in 1999
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAxFoVGh6I4&list=RDAbs4Cuds9VI
It's also a humor that rises above what we hear more and more, which exploits every possible angle. While one can be both humorous and provocative, not everyone can do so with talent and lightness. Yet it is precisely the subtlest traits that penetrate most deeply, and it is the best words that we remember. We opt instead for heaviness, vulgarity, and mediocrity.
Finally, for those wishing to learn about alternative energy solutions that are viable, watch this report on solar thermal energy in Spain, with storage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iBKtCfcPfk&hd=1
Or tidal energy, in a segment from C'est pas Sorcier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbrFQfnnWqE
"Tree houses" that... generate energy (C'est pas Sorcier):