CHIRACING OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
On September 5, 1995, French President, Jacques Chirac, made good on his June 13, 1995 promise to resume French
nuclear testing in the South Pacific. 20 kT of nuclear rage detonated the hope of millions of people who spoke out for peace when the nuclear bomb exploded at 11:30 a.m. in the heart of Moruroa atoll lagoon. The Hollywood image of France had been one of an accomplished lover, free from insecurities or fear of impotence. Now, Jacques Chirac provides new meaning to the promise that, "France will be absolutely firm". What provoked this defiance? What arrogance would devastate and contaminate the earth well beyond its continental borders? It is "Chiracing", the causing of extreme environmental damage in someone else's backyard affecting many generations to come.
Through France's many embassies and consulates, we are informed that, lacking suitable deserts, France cannot perform nuclear testing at home. In addition, Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls, we are told, are really part of France despite being on the other side of the globe. And, moreover, nuclear testing is not only safe, it is necessary for security purposes.
Let's examine these claims through the lens of history. The French claim to Moruroa and Fangataufa reaches back to the late thirteenth century Papal Bulls of Pope Innocents IV.1 The Papal Bulls sanctioned the crusades as the "Will of God", defining a framework between Christian crusaders and the "Infidels on the new land". The advent of Columbian voyages germinated the "Age of Discovery" and exacerbated the conflict between European Crowns, vying to claim title to and the abundant wealth of the new land. So rapacious were these battles over wealth, a situation worsened by concomitant bitter struggles over Reformation, that a third of the population of some areas perished.2 The need to legitimize juridical standards and their attendant mechanisms of conflict resolution became obvious for the sake of stability and order. Using the thirteenth century Papal Bulls as their foundation, early sixteenth century Spanish jurist developed the theories of "Doctrine of Discovery" and "Rights of Conquest" to formulate the basis for claim to new land by European Crown. These theories were endorsed through application as primary tenets of international intercourse, establishing the rights of the European Crowns and the obligations of the discovered.
Legitimacy of "Doctrine of Discovery" and "Rights of Conquest" accrued from application, exercise and pronouncement. Under the "Doctrine of Discovery", outright ownership of new land would be granted to the European Crown of the discoverer if the new land was uninhabited. Although widely applied, this principle of "territorium res nullius or terra nullius" cannot be supported by early sixteenth century historical evidence for most of the "discovered territories". Inhabitants were usually found, in which case, land ownership belonged inherently to the indigenous peoples "discovered". Under this second circumstance, however, rights to trade and future land acquisition were held exclusively by the "discovering" European Crown vis-a-vis other European Crowns. The discovered Infidels were required to accept trade, missionaries and could not inflict gratuitous violence upon the citizens of the European Crowns. If any one of these conditions were breached, the European Crown could legally use force to secure these demands and confiscate property as just compensation for their efforts. As reasoned, the "Rights of Conquest" emerged. Such a relationship places the European Crown in a position of supremacy over the indigenous peoples who were not granted the right to negotiate trade, sale of property or presence of missionaries with or from any other state. It puts to practice a perspective that not all peoples are created equal, that some possess greater rights than others.
While "Doctrine of Discovery" and "Rights of Conquest" were meant to achieve a degree of order among competing European crowns over "newly discovered land", the period of Reformation challenged the notion of sovereignty for the European Crowns.3 The bitterness of religious wars during Reformation destabilized states. Order was re-established in 1648 at the Peace of Westphalia through defining the concept of sovereignty, a juridical standard accepted today as customary international law. Like the "Doctrine of Discovery" and "Rights of Conquest", legitimacy of the concept of sovereignty accrues from application and exercise. Sovereignty required a regime to possess four factors: 1) territory, 2) population, 3) maintenance of a modicum of order within its territory and among its people, and 4) recognition as sovereign by states already possessing sovereignty. The 1648 Westphalian formulation further defined three absolute prerogatives of sovereign states: 1) independence, 2) equality, and 3) unanimity. Independence refers to the right of states to control their internal matters without interference from outside states. Areas considered to be internal matters are: 1) system of governance, 2) choice of religion if any, and 3) structure or form of economy. In principle, every state is considered to be equal with every other state since none are legally subordinate to any other. A corollary to independence is unanimity referring to the principle that, as a result of being free from outside influence, a state is not bound to the majority decision of outside states. Such a state is bound only if it agrees to be bound and each state reserves the right to change any of its decisions at any future time.
In practice, the Westphalian formulation created states with remarkable powers that may be forcibly imposed upon their own citizens including a license to kill sanctioned by independence and unanimity. The Westphalian formulation also created stratification within the exclusive club of states by virtue of creating a gun club where respect accrues from possession of bigger guns. This unfortunate perspective leads to seeking respect through acquiring or protecting club membership by building bigger guns.
Witness the application of these principles in the resumption of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific in 1995.4 In the 1800's France and other powers grabbed Pacific islands for their natural riches and military significance, the later being part strategic and posturing. Like all of the other Pacific Island Nations, Tahiti possessed its own sovereignty, formally recognized by western states from 1815 to 1842. Upon the arrival of their gunboats in the 1830's and using its prerogatives under the "Doctrine of Discovery", France exercised greater control of Tahiti. The beautiful islands and atolls of the so-called Society, Marquesas, Gambier and Austral Islands, and Tuamotu Archipelago became a French protectorate in 1842 and a French colony in 1880 named French Oceania. The United Nations placed French Oceania on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1946 to fulfill the intent of Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter that calls for global decolonization to establish equality among all peoples.5 However, France claimed French Oceania as an Overseas Territory in 1946, thereby abrogating their sacred trust obligation to lead French Oceania to self-governance. Finally, when a French Constitution was adopted in 1958, these Pacific islands and atolls became French Occupied Polynesia.
Wishing to gain membership in the exclusive really big boys nuclear gun club founded by the United States in 1945, France began its nuclear weapons testing in 1960 in Algeria.6 France, after all, could not be lesser than the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom which had all demonstrated the credentials for membership by 1952. Algeria struggled with gaining its independence from France while the testing commenced. A bloody war of independence partially fueled by continued nuclear testing in Algeria's backyard and weather miscalculation causing radioactive fallout to scatter across the Mediterranean all the way into France forced the selection of an alternative site. In 1962, as a replacement for Algeria, France began to develop its Pacific nuclear testing center at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls, about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti in French Occupied Polynesia.
177 nuclear tests have exploded at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls since 1966, the two most recent on September 5, and October 1, 1995.7 44 of these nuclear tests detonated in the atmosphere, the largest being the 2.6 megaton thermonuclear hydrogen bomb, "Canopus", in 1968.8 "Canopus", a bright star of the southern heavens, so heavily contaminated Fangataufa with radioactivity, the atoll was quarantined for 6 years. All vegetation on Fangataufa instantly vaporized beneath the brilliance of "Canopus", 173 times more powerful than the nuclear force unleashed by "Little Boy" over Hiroshima. Attempts to replant Fangataufa fail repeatedly.
20 kilograms of plutonium 239 contaminate the sediment in Moruroa lagoon, the legacy of French nuclear testing. Since 1 microgram of human bone-seeking plutonium 239 causes fatal cancer if ingested, 20 kilograms is the equivalent of 20 billion fatal doses, a three-fold overkill for everyone living on earth today. Further plutonium 239 numerology challenges the French position that their nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa are safe. Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,360 years9, so in practical terms, forever. Estimates indicate that 20 Gigabecquerels of plutonium 239 are transferred into the oceanic waters annually, a measurement unit which means 20 billion radioactive plutonium 239 disintegrations per second. Cesium 137, half life of 30 years and finding a home in human liver, spleen and muscle tissue10, contaminates at 24 million Gigabecquerels (2.4 X 107 Gigabecquerels). This quantity of cesium 137 is more than 20 billion maximum permissible body burden doses. The capability of killing 20 billion people repeats itself to reinforce the destructive potential remaining as residue from French nuclear testing. Strontium 90, half life of 28 years and preferring human bone residence11, contaminates at 9.6 million Gigabecquerels (9.6 X 106 Gigabecquerels), a human dose equivalent four times worse than that of cesium 137. Volatile tritium, a highly mobile radioactive hydrogen, leaked into the interstitial air pockets of the surface terrain soil at concentrations 1000 times greater than expected. Cesium 134, used as a tracer much like fluorescent dyes marking water currents, spread to plankton beyond the 12 mile French security zone limit.12 The fact that cesium 134 has a relatively short half life (2.05 years) and is produced in low yields in nuclear weapons detonations means that cesium 134 found in the plankton beyond 12 miles must have originated from the nuclear weapons testing. The cesium 134 was not contained as we are told to believe. Further evidence of radiation leakage comes from Internional Atomic Energy Agency studies which detected elevated levels of plutonium 239 in seawater down current of Moruroa and Fangataufa Atolls, beyond the 12 mile security limit.
Deadly radioactivity presence demonstrates the extent of environmental contamination caused by French nuclear testing. The quantities of plutonium 239, cesium 137 and strontium 90 at Moruroa and Fangataufa prior to the latest two tests should have been sufficiently compelling to call for banning all future nuclear weapons testing. The half-lives of these radionuclides ranging to 24,360 years fulfills the last criteria of "Chiracing" in affecting many generations to come.
How much of this will now leak out into the Pacific and end up in our food for dinner? The concussion from a nuclear bomb explosion kills thousands of fish, stimulating a shark feeding frenzy. How much of the radioactivity that is expelled immediately is ingested by these scavengers that venture throughout the Pacific and when they die far beyond the vicinity of Moruroa and Fangataufa, will the radionuclides pass along the food chain into the fish we consume? How much of the radionuclide leakage is transported throughout the Pacific by this mechanism?
The physical structure of both Moruroa and Fangataufa Atolls are rock layers of basalt formed by submarine volcanic activity overlaid in varying depths by aerial volcanic sediment, transition zone clays, dolomite and topped with limestone. The natural state of these atolls is accurately described as a "leaky sieve" with a coefficient of porosity ranging from 6 to 30%.13 Vertical water migration through the transition zone clays upwards has been measured at 90 meters per year. Recently disclosed 1980 French army maps indicate the presence of fissures several miles long, as deep as 28,000 feet and up to 11.5 feet wide.14 French nuclear weapons explosions continued through the 1980's into 1991 and have now resumed in spite of this prior knowledge. Data from United States underground nuclear tests indicate an expectation that the October 1, 1995 110 kT nuclear explosion will have melted a cavity 80 meters wide with its roof collapsing to create a chimney greater than 300 meters high and a fracture zone radius of greater than 575 meters. How much further damage have these nuclear explosions inflicted? Slippage of large portions of the submerged outer limestone apron have already been observed, one occurring in 1979 when a million cubic meters of rock broke loose from an explosion of a nuclear bomb stuck half way down the testing shaft. Such limestone aprons serve as protective skins surrounding atolls and islands to keep seawater from percolating through the porous rock base. It has been estimated that trapped radionuclides will begin to leak out in greater proportions within 10 to 100 years.15 Now, with the limestone apron slipping away allowing for greater seawater percolation, greater leakage may occur faster than expected.
Our fears of radiation leakage should be assuaged according to French authorities because the heat generated by the nuclear bomb explosions vitrifies (forms into glass) the surrounding rock, thus sealing the deadly radioactivity into its own tomb. Vitrification, after all, is the current method of choice to process spent nuclear fuel. French authorities fail to share with the public the next two necessary steps in spent nuclear fuel management.16 1) Vitrified spent nuclear fuel is packaged in zircaloy cladding, a special alloy of zirconium, aluminum and stainless steel to confine and protect it from exposure to the environment. Zircaloy cladded spent nuclear fuel rods are further packaged in casks designed to withstand truck and rail accidents. Only in the worst physically conceivable conditions, we are told, will these casks sustain sufficient damage to release significant radioactivity into the environment. 2) The final step in spent nuclear fuel management is storage of these casks in a geologically quiet zone as a precaution against subjecting the casks to the worst physically conceivable condition scenario. It's a no brainer to figure out that French vitrification fails miserably to meet these last two conditions. The vitrified material is not packaged and it sits at ground zero for other nuclear bomb explosions. What worst physically conceivable condition can mankind create than to drill next to this deadly radioactivity and detonate a nuclear bomb?
Estimates to cleanup radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production in the United States are staggering. These sites were confined operations thus localizing the expected efforts yet it will take 75 years at a cost of $350 billion.17 Plans to cleanup contaminated soil and groundwater are not included in this estimate. Project this now to the two atolls in the Pacific ocean that are experiencing limestone apron slippage and an exchange of 100 million cubic meters of water each day from their central lagoons. Could it be conceivable that containment is possible and at what costs?
A fatal accident already occurred in 1979 killing two workers and dispersing radioactivity over the atoll. The full extent of radiation compromise on the health of the Pacific peoples resulting from French nuclear testing has not been made public by French authorities and the French will not allow independent investigations to proceed. Such a hard line on disclosure calls to question the credibility of the French government's position that the testing is safe. In its place are numerous testimonies given by people and workers from the French nuclear testing region describing miscarriages, stillborn babies, infants dying of leukemia before their first birthday party, infants dying of a painful affliction that blackened their skin which, in some cases, blistered and peeled away as if molting, adults suffering from severe headaches, reddening, blistering skin, hair loss and painful deaths.18 The incidence of thyroid cancer for people in the vicinity of the nuclear weapons testing is twice that of others throughout the Pacific.
The visible signs of radiation sickness are startling yet much of the mutational load caused by radiation may not be immediately apparent. For example, in less than ten years, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster produced mutations in field mice that represent variation greater than that generated by natural evolution over 15 million years.19 This was measured in well-known gene sequences. What about the greater portion of the genome, not yet sequenced, which is subjected to the same type of radiation induced mutation?
The current nuclear test resumption, French authorities insist, are to safeguard their current nuclear weapons arsenal which will age into obsolescence by the year 2015, a mere twenty years into the future.20 For this minuscule window and the possibility of simulating future nuclear weapons development, France risks immediate destruction of beautiful atolls and the leakage of deadly radiation over tens of millennia. What arrogance would devastate and contaminate the earth well beyond its continental borders? Sadly, this is a blatant example of "Chiracing", the causing of extreme environmental damage in someone else's backyard affecting many generations to come.
1Ward Churchill, Struggle for the Land: Indigenist Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide, and Expropriation in Contemporary North America, (Monroe, 1993) p. 33 - 38.
2Lawrence T. Farley, Plebiscites and Sovereignty: The Crisis of Political Illegitimacy, (Boulder, 1986) p. 7. 3Lawrence T. Farley, op. cit. (note 2) p. 7 - 9.
4Greenpeace International, Testimonies: Witnesses of French Nuclear Testing in the South Pacific, (Auckland, 1990). 5Chapter XI. Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories. Article 73. Charter of the United Nations. Done at San Francisco, 26 June 1945. Also, United Nations General Assemble Resolution 66(I) of 14 December 1946. 6Greenpeace International, Nuclear Testing: Fifty Years is Enough, Greenpeace homepage http://www.meer.net/greenpeace/ 7Paul Johnston, Ruth Stringer and Dave Santillo, Environmental Aspects of Weapons Testing at Moruroa Atoll, South Pacific, Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 04/96, 31 July 1995, Greenpeace homepage http://www.meer.net/greenpeace/. 8Greenpeace International, Fangataufa - France's Secret Test Zone, Greenpeace homepage http://www.meer.net/greenpeace/. 9CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, (60th Edition, Boca Raton, 1979) p. B-385.
10CRC Handbook, op. cit. (note 9) p. B-382.
11CRC Handbook, op. cit. (note 9) p. B379.
12Paul Johnston et. al., op. cit. (note 7).
13Paul Johnston et. al., op. cit. (note 7).
14Associated Press Release, 3 October 1995, citing articles in the French newspapers, Le Monde and Ouest-France, reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser 4 October 1995 as French N-Test site called unsafe, and, 12 October 1995 as Photos show cracks under N-test site. 15Paul Johnston et. al., op. cit. (note 7). 16Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1, (DOE/EIS-0203-D, June 1994). 17Associated Press Release, 3 October 1995, reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser 4 October 1995 as Nuclear cleanup: 75 years and up to $350 billion.
18Greenpeace International, op. cit. (note 4).
19Earthwatch 14 July 1995.
20Tom Zamora Collina, French Nuclear Testing: Less than Meets the Eye: Official Jusitifications for the Tests are not Compelling, (Institute for Science and International Security, Washington, 14 September 1995). Also, Thomas Sancton, Trouble in Paradise, (Time, 18 September 1995) p. 85 - 87.
Dr. Andrew H. Kuniyuki - Draft October 10, 1995 for DARK NIGHT FIELD NOTES DARK NIGHT FIELD NOTES Faith Attaguile Office: 312/427-4457, Fax: 312/427-5623, Home: 312/536-4936
Dr. Andrew H. Kuniyuki, Hawai`i Coalition Against Nuclear Testing
Dr. Andrew H. Kuniyuki - October 10, 1995 for DARK NIGHT FIELD NOTES ©
1995 Dr. Andrew H. Kuniyuki All Rights Reserved