hi jean-noël, thanks for the info. i appreciate your reply.
> -Our government was lying in 1986 during Tchernobyl. " The cloud has not been > in France" wich is completely false. And now everyone knows this was a > lying. Everyone knows about tchernobyl history. Every birthday of the 1986 > catastrophe, there are a lot of documentaries on tv. Thousands people in > france still suffer from thyroid problems from tchernobyl, 25 years ago. They > protest in the streets every year, without success to have compensations from > french gov., because french gov did not forbid people to eat french > contaminated vegetables and animals. this point sounds a little contradictory to me, especially when one is to take into account everything else you wrote in your mail: at the time of the chernobyl accident, i was living in sweden. after the news broke (which was not as immediate as the fukushima, it took a couple of days if i remember correctly) we were warned not to ingest certain things: to stay away from wild berries, wild mushrooms and wild meat in the northern part of sweden. this warning was kept at least two years. a friend of mine who lives in munich recently told me they were advised not to drink tap water for several years in bavaria. if the french government knows so much about nuclear power and have strict rules, why didn't france take the same precautions? or did they change their regulations after the chernobyl accident? can you clarify? for the record, i'd like to mention that i have always been against nuclear power and after this i will still remain against nuclear energy. but i would like the climate of major news network to change, from emotionally based reporting which leads to fear mongering and panic. sweden seems to have the same regulation as japan, i.e. international standard, though i will have to check into this to be 100% sure. in any case they have not made any claim that is not the case. the swedish public channel recently showed a documentary which was in line with the so-called "scientific community's consensus." that is there is no or little evidence to suggest there is abnormal increase in cancer rate except for those unfortunate who were exposed to immediate high radiation and outside the exclusion zone except for those who continuously ingested highly contaminated radioactive food and water (the worst long term effect). (here again, let me also state i am personally for making a larger exclusion zone to be on the safe side, especially for the infants and those under 40 years old). so far i have not heard a case in sweden that resembles those claims in france. s. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
