France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study • Hacker News Board

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#11

Post by lostlogin » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #3

youeseh wrote: post #2

What was the incentive to adequately estimate the fallout vs. underestimate it?

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

> because it's in Algeria

Wasn’t it more in the south pacific?

There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition.

When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder they committed.

Who needs enemies with friends like these?

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#12

Post by bpodgursky » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

markdown wrote: post #7

Do you know what makes the ocean glow Do you know what makes the ocean glow When unwelcome guests, are making nuclear tests Are making nuclear tests, are making nuclear tests Are making nuclear tests ... Let me be more specific, get out of the pacific Ki te la pacific, get out of the pacific Ki te la pacific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZD8dA678ss It's long past the time for the French to GTFO out of the Pacific.…

You know these territories regularly vote on independence, right? https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/375335/tahi...

And the answer is usually "no", because most of these islands are poor and get net funding and support from France (or whatever other country holds sovereignty).

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#13

Post by dr_faustus » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #10

dr_faustus wrote: post #8

1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).

Could you expand on this? I didn’t understand the problem to be the threshold, but the convenient underestimation of dose by a factor of 2-20x.

It's not my place to evaluate which method of calculating the exposure was correct. Just pointing out, that 1 mSv is a rather small amount of radiation. The smallest amount of radiation where one sees some indications of an increase in cancer risk is at 50-100 mSv [1].

I'm not arguing either way whether this should have an impact on any payments. Putting the threshold for compensation at 1 mSv is very conservative and will lead to the payment of compensation for many cancers that weren't caused by radiation. Which, again, is fine by me because I do believe that very little interest was paid to the protection of the neighboring populations.

[1] Pretty good summary: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#14

Post by jshmrsn » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #11

sudosysgen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

> because it's in Algeria Wasn’t it more in the south pacific? There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition. When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder…

I had not heard of this before, thanks for bringing it to my attention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#15

Post by boudin » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #12

markdown wrote: post #7

Do you know what makes the ocean glow Do you know what makes the ocean glow When unwelcome guests, are making nuclear tests Are making nuclear tests, are making nuclear tests Are making nuclear tests ... Let me be more specific, get out of the pacific Ki te la pacific, get out of the pacific Ki te la pacific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZD8dA678ss It's long past the time for the French to GTFO out of the Pacific.…

You know these territories regularly vote on independence, right? https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/375335/tahi... And the answer is usually "no", because most of these islands are poor and get net funding and support from France (or whatever other country holds sovereignty).

If you're talking about New Caledonia it's as really biased view. It was a special agreement following a stron crisis with the Kanak independance mouvement that allowed to agree on 3 independance votes. There's a big difference in votes between the people from metropolitan France and a much stronger support for independance in the Kanak population. We'll see next year what's the result is going to be, but the last one was quite close.

Other territories do not have the opportunity to vote on their independance.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#16

Post by boudin » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:58 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #11

sudosysgen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

> because it's in Algeria Wasn’t it more in the south pacific? There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition. When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder…

France did the first tests in Algeria but this is about the ones done at Mururoa, in the pacific indeed.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#17

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

youeseh wrote: post #2

What was the incentive to adequately estimate the fallout vs. underestimate it?

All countries underestimate the health and environmental impacts of their military actions and experiments.

There is a part of secret because they are military operations and they are not keen on realising information (that's very true in France). Another aspect is to avoid political and public backlash against military actions and experiments. And, of course, the last aspect is financial because acknowledging the impact and its scale might be very costly in compensation.

Apart from underestimating another tactic is not to look into alleged issues at all. If there are no data there is no need to underestimate anything! A good example of that is the so-called 'Gulf War Syndrome'.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#18

Post by Bayart » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #11

sudosysgen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

> because it's in Algeria Wasn’t it more in the south pacific? There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition. When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder…

When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand ? It's not even in NATO. The only relationship we ever had was being part of the so-called West I suppose, although that never prevented us from going to war with our neighbours.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#19

Post by markdown » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #12

markdown wrote: post #7

Do you know what makes the ocean glow Do you know what makes the ocean glow When unwelcome guests, are making nuclear tests Are making nuclear tests, are making nuclear tests Are making nuclear tests ... Let me be more specific, get out of the pacific Ki te la pacific, get out of the pacific Ki te la pacific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZD8dA678ss It's long past the time for the French to GTFO out of the Pacific.…

You know these territories regularly vote on independence, right? https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/375335/tahi... And the answer is usually "no", because most of these islands are poor and get net funding and support from France (or whatever other country holds sovereignty).

> You know these territories regularly vote on independence, right?

No. Tahiti doesn't get to vote on that.

That news is old. New Caledonia has in the recent past very narrowly voted in favour of continued control by France, but that will change soon.

For the first time, NC has a pro-independence government.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975273437/new-caledonias-new-...

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#20

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 11:41 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #3

youeseh wrote: post #2

What was the incentive to adequately estimate the fallout vs. underestimate it?

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

When Algeria was French performing nuclear tests there in the Sahara was not much different from the US performing nuclear tests in Nevada/New Mexico. The British performed tests in Australia for the same reason.

It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic priority for national security.

As it happens nuclear tests continued in the Sahara even after Algerian independence under an agreement with the new independent Algerian government (so clearly they did not not 'care much' either) before they were transferred to the next possible location... French Polynesia.

It should also be noted that the British and the Americans had already carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific when the French moved theirs there as well.