食料の放射能レベルに関する仏Criiradのコミュニケ

フランスの知り合いより仏Criiradのコミュニケの翻訳が送られて来たので、それを掲載します。多くのブログに既に転載されているようですが、ときには関係のない補足がされているようですので、元の情報のみを掲載します。
個人的なコメントを許されるなら、日本政府が発表する情報に二面性が見られます。危険はないと発表しながら、実際には出荷制限をしています。Criiradが求めている政策を実施しているようにも見受けられます。

リンク

• 完全なコミュニケ
• 元のサイト

コミュニケ    2011 年 3 月 20 日 9 時

3月20日(日)に フランスのメディアでも「福島第一原発近辺でとれた農作物に微量の放能が検出された」と話題になりました。汚染のレベルは人体に影響のある量ではないと 言っていますが、

その情報は正確ではありません。

食料品(一週間以上前から放射能をかぶってきているホウレンソウ、葉物野菜など)の分析結果がだんだんと出てきています。検査対象はごく一部であるにもかかわらず、時として放射能にかなり汚染されていることがわかります。

— 汚染レベルは高く、微量とは言えません。1キログラムあたり 6100 ベクレルから 15020 ベクレル、平均すると 10450 ベクレル/kg の放射性ヨウ素 131 が ホウレンソウに検出されました。 その上検査の対象になった農作物の産地は 福岡第1原 発近辺ではなく、茨城県の中の7つの市町村の作物で検査が行われました(原発 から南におよそ 100km位)。

— 5歳の子供がヨウ素 10000 ベクレルを摂取すると年間許容量1ミリシーベルトに達し ます。2歳未満の子供の場合、約 5500 ベクレル(15020 ベクレル/kg のホウレンソ ウを 366g)で年間許容量に達してしまいます。

— 汚染された食品は 撤去されなければなりません(葉物野菜、牛乳、チーズなどが 汚染されやすい食品です)。「危険性が無い」という事は無いのです。もちろん非常に高い量ではありませんし、ただちに危険があ るわけでもありません。現在福島第1原発の高度の放射能の下で働いている方々 に比べても、被爆量は格段に少ないでしょう。しかし これらの数値を見ると、予防策をとる必要があります。汚染された食物摂取による被爆は、空気に含まれる放 射性物質の吸入と、その空気に触れることによる被爆、そして汚染された土壌からの被爆にさらに付け足される事になるのですから。

— 3 月 21 日(月)追加情報 : 茨城県日立市における18日採取のホウレンソウに 放 射性ヨウ素 131 が 1kg あたり最高 54100 ベクレル検出されました。

この値では2歳から7歳の子供には 184g の摂取で年間許容量1ミリシーベルトに 達する事になります。

※ CRIIRAD (Commission de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité) — 放射能に関する独立調査 情報委員会

クリラッド研究所は フランスの独立非営利団体で  — 放射能と原子力について知る権利 — 放射性物質の危険から身を守る権利を擁護することを目的としています。

訳者註 : クリラッドは チェルノブイリ原子力発電所の問題でフランスの住民が十分な情報 を得られなかったために大きな被害をうけたことをきっかけにつくられた民間団体です。現 在福島第一原子力発電所の問題でおこる人体へのリスクを「予防の原則」を踏まえて随時 分析中です。

For further queries : laboratoire@criirad.org and contact@criirad.org

A strange campaign

The more I follow the run up to the French presidential election, the more I feel this campaign is strange. Maybe the 10000 kilometers distance changes my way of seeing thing... no, I'm certainly not the only one to realize that this campaign is nothing about programs, and everything about identifying with the French people. How to explain otherwise that both Royal and Sarkozy say more or less the same thing? Even when this is in complete contradiction with what they said a few months ago? Take for instance their stand on how companies should behave in a moral way, or how help to companies should be distributed according to their needs and behavior. Or how police should get closer to people. Actually, this is mostly Sarcozy reneging on his economically liberal and socially authoritarian credo, when he realizes that he is no longer in agreement with the people, but Royal does it sometimes too. And yet, does anybody believe that there is no difference between the two of them? Clearly not, you just have to look in the close past to see that temporary positioning before an election is very rarely related to the policy applied after this election.

The result is that the debate is somehow empty. Note that what the candidates say doesn't matter, just that people have to look much more at the form than at the contents. On one side, protection and understanding, on the other side dynamism(?) and authority. But this is only a part of the picture. Traditionally the socialists are also much more fond of research and culture.
And of keeping a budget balanced, even if this means more taxes. But somehow, the people will have to find this by themselves, because both sides will just argue that next time they will be the best at just everything.

So personally, I've already decided. But I wonder whether this is the right way to run a democracy. On the other hand, I realize that both sides have very little leeway: if they try to argue a point too strongly, then create a gap between them and the people, and they go down in the next opinion poll. At least, we've got charismatic candidates on both sides, which means that they both have their chance. However, might I hope that the French people will look a bit further than the charisma?

By the way, I don't think that this is specific to France. In Britain, the Tories are now running on what looks in large part like a Labour program, and in Japan there is no visible difference between the two main parties. Might this be related to a kind of "national consensus", on what has to be done, limiting drastically the politicians?

A crisis? Which crisis?

I was planning to write my first post on the C.P.E, the much fought First Employment Contract. But as time passed, it became clearer and clearer that all this crisis is not so much about the contract itself (which I will not comment), but about the incapacity of the Prime Minister to negotiate anything. And this is caused by his rivalry with the Minister of Interior, his arch-rival, to decide who will be candidate in next year's presidential election. This was visible in many ways since the beginning, but taken to its extreme last friday, when the majority party (headed by the Minister of Interior) found an agreement with the unions to end the crisis, but the Prime Minister refused it as being too weak (for his personal standing...)

Conclusion: France is going through all these strikes and demonstrations, not because of a real crisis, but because this government needs to create crises to function. You certainly remember the riots of november (not so sure that riot is the right word, considering that there was not very much violence outside of burning lots of cars, which they already do all year round.) That time this was the opposite pattern. The Minister of Interior was very happy to start such a crisis, and keep it going by provocative comments (he knows very well what suburb youth do not like to be called.) When the situation started to get out of control, he could not back lest he would loose his image of though guy who can make France right. He was luckier than the Prime Minister, as suburb youth lacked the organization to call unions to their help, but this could have turned out differently, and the Prime Minister would have been happy to play the conciliatory part in that case.

I'm not pretending that there are no problems in France. Unemployment (and under-employment), racism, violence, bad relations between employers and employees. But this is far from clear that the situation is worse than in many other countries (except maybe for the last item.) Something should be done about these problems. But for the time being, the real crisis seems to be a the top of the state.

By habit, I more often react than act. I may like to comment on others' ideas, but I hesitate a lot before disclosing my own thoughts. Just the opposite of a blogger.

Yet, in this era of ubiquitous communication, one has to express to be heard. Even be oneself. So let's try.

I'll use English, at least at the beginning. Not because it is my preferred language, but just because I have two daily languages, French and Japanese, with disjoint sets of locutors. Translating everything would be rather time-consuming.

Politics is going to be the main subject, as I feel concerned. Yet, I'll try not to forget one important factor: doubt. I have opinions, but they might be wrong. Not admitting this would be ideology.