Reading Response #1

[Ms. Weston]

Read the article and explain whether you would live in Marcoule, France. Why or why not?

_{www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14883521}
France nuclear: Marcoule site explosion kills one
One person has been killed and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule nuclear site in France.
^{12 September 2011 Last updated at 12:42 ET}

There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials.

The owner of the southern French plant, national electricity provider EDF, said it had been "an industrial accident, not a nuclear accident".

The cause of the blast was not yet known, said the company.

The explosion hit the area at 11:45 local time (09:45 GMT). A security cordon was set up as a precaution.

But interior ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet later said there had been no leak of radiation, neither inside nor outside the plant.

None of the injured workers was contaminated by radiation, said officials. The worker who died was killed by the blast and not by exposure to nuclear material.

The Centraco treatment centre belongs to a subsidiary of EDF. It produces MOX fuel, which recycles plutonium from nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear reactors on site.

The EDF spokesman said blast happened in a furnace used to burn waste, including fuels, tools and clothing which had been used in nuclear energy production but had only very low levels of radiation.

"The fire caused by the explosion was under control," he said. Another official later said the incident was over.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it was in touch with the French authorities to learn more about the nature of the explosion.

Speaking on the sidelines of a scheduled meeting of the IAEA's board, Director General Yukiya Amano said the organisation's incident centre had been "immediately activated".

France's Environment Minister Nathalie Kosciuscko-Morizet visited the site on Monday, to "help carry out a precise evaluation of the possible radiological impact of this accident".

"For the time being, no exterior impact has been detected," the AFP news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying.

"There are several detectors on the outside and none of them detected anything, the building is sound."

Stress tests

Marcoule was opened in 1955 and is one of France's oldest nuclear sites, though it has been extensively modernised.

It is located in the Gard department in Languedoc-Roussillon region, near France's Mediterranean coast.

All the country's 58 nuclear reactors have been put through stress tests in recent months, following the disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant which was hit by an earthquake and tsunami.

EDF's share prices fell by more than 6% as news of the blast emerged.

France is the world's most nuclear-dependent country, relying on nuclear power to meet 75% of its energy needs, so safety in the industry is a highly sensitive issue, says the BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris.

In June, France announced it was investing 1bn euros (£860m) in nuclear power, including a significant boost for safety research.

French nuclear giant Areva is developing the next generation of nuclear reactors and has been involved in a huge publicity campaign since the Fukushima disaster to reassure the public of the safety of nuclear energy.

Other countries in Europe, including Germany, Italy and Switzerland, have said they will reduce or phase out their use of nuclear power over the next few years.

Analysis
^{Richard Black - Environment correspondent, BBC News}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The French nuclear programme does not have a stellar record of transparency. In environmental circles, particular opprobrium is reserved for officials who in 1986 claimed the Chernobyl accident would have no impact on France - a statement lamthingyed as indicating officials believed radioactive fallout observed national boundaries.

What this incident implies for the future of the French nuclear programme is not entirely clear. If it remains a relatively minor matter, it will probably be passed off as the type of thing that regrettably happens in all types of industrial facility.

However, Marcoule is on the list of candidate sites to host one of the European Pressurised Water Reactors (EPRs) that according to government policy are to provide the next generation of French citizens with nuclear electricity.[/i]

[davidmccoy]

I personally would not live in Marcoule, France or any other city that houses a nuclear facility. The site in Marcoule may have been checked to make sure that no radioactive leaks are present but that does not mean that leaks will not occur in the near future. A simple hairline crack can turn into huge crack with just the slightest shift in the earth. If a crack occurred, then there is a possibility of radioactive material being released and affecting residents. Once a leak occurs, the entire site and many miles around must be evacuated. I would have Chernobyl in the back of my mind at all times. Though this specific site does not have nuclear reactors there is still chance of contamination in the residential areas nearby.

[lesliegillett]

The recent BBC article about the Marcoule nuclear reactor site raises concerns about both the French nuclear program and safety of the public. It is noted that the Marcoule site is one of the oldest nuclear facilities in France, having been constructed in 1955. The article also points out that France is the most dependent country in the European Union on nuclear power. It is understandable that people are sensitive to issues related to nuclear power and safety, especially in light of recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Those events caused French authorities to commence extensive testing of their facilities.
The fire mentioned in the article did not even happen at a reactor site, but rather at a furnace in a waste storage site. All evidence indicates that there was no detectable leakage of radioactivity. I would not have any issues with living near the site of either the nuclear reactor power plant or the storage facility because I believe that overall safety is ensured. Despite the very rare occasion where there have been deaths related to some type of failure in the industry, I feel they are fundamentally safe. From a statistical standpoint, being in an automobile is far more dangerous than living near a nuclear power plant. Besides, Marcoule is near the French Mediterranean, what’s not to like?

[Stefan Flurry]

According to the article about Marcoule’s energy plant having an explosion in a furnace where waste is burned, we must remember that accidents like this can happen anywhere at any time. This nuclear power plant has been there for over a half a century, but who decided to build homes and businesses around this place knowing the risk factors that we must be aware of? In my opinion, I personally would love to live in Europe. Not in particularly France but honestly I would not mind. The power plant is located near the Mediterranean Sea and with it being built; I personally think that the country should have a zone in which they do not build anything near this plant in case of an accident like this one. The explosion took place in a furnace where waste and other materials are burned, but the detectors that are suppose to detect and warn people of any malfunctions did not work properly. This is the problem in my opinion. Why did the detectors not work?
The man who was killed because of the detectors not warning the crew working on the power plant should not have lost his life. But, because of the malfunctions in the power plant his life was taken. Is this fair? No, in fact we must be aware that this could take place at any nuclear power plant site because malfunctions like this happen every day in our world. For example, in some new cars we have call backs, meaning the company that made the car re calls all the cars they made because of a malfunction. Because of them becoming aware of the malfunction, not many people who bought the car suffered from the problem. I personally, would love to live in many parts of the world, but everywhere we go we can be a victim of cases such as this or even the Japan nuclear plant that was hit by the tsunami. It is up to professionals and governments whom are in charge of these risks who need to be more competent in order for freak accidents like this not to take place. Meaning, it is up to them to make sure that everything is properly working and they must think of the risks or problems that can take place if something were to go wrong. With them being aware of these risks, they can prevent cases like this from happening and the man may still be alive today.

[stefanflurry]

According to the article about Marcoule’s energy plant having an explosion in a furnace where waste is burned, we must remember that accidents like this can happen anywhere at any time. This nuclear power plant has been there for over a half a century, but who decided to build homes and businesses around this place knowing the risk factors that we must be aware of? In my opinion, I personally would love to live in Europe. Not in particularly France but honestly I would not mind. The power plant is located near the Mediterranean Sea and with it being built; I personally think that the country should have a zone in which they do not build anything near this plant in case of an accident like this one. The explosion took place in a furnace where waste and other materials are burned, but the detectors that are suppose to detect and warn people of any malfunctions did not work properly. This is the problem in my opinion. Why did the detectors not work?
The man who was killed because of the detectors not warning the crew working on the power plant should not have lost his life. But, because of the malfunctions in the power plant his life was taken. Is this fair? No, in fact we must be aware that this could take place at any nuclear power plant site because malfunctions like this happen every day in our world. For example, in some new cars we have call backs, meaning the company that made the car re calls all the cars they made because of a malfunction. Because of them becoming aware of the malfunction, not many people who bought the car suffered from the problem. I personally, would love to live in many parts of the world, but everywhere we go we can be a victim of cases such as this or even the Japan nuclear plant that was hit by the tsunami. It is up to professionals and governments whom are in charge of these risks who need to be more competent in order for freak accidents like this not to take place. Meaning, it is up to them to make sure that everything is properly working and they must think of the risks or problems that can take place if something were to go wrong. With them being aware of these risks, they can prevent cases like this from happening and the man may still be alive today.

[alicagalikova]

There are many places in the world that are beautiful and do not offer a room with a nuclear power plant view. Nuclear power plants do not explode daily and these days it is far more dangerous to be on an airplane or drive a car. However, if a leakage occurs, there is greater number of deaths as well as continuous health issues. This is one of the many reasons why I would not choose to live in Marcoule, France.

There are many disputes whether it is safe to live near a nuclear power plant and that is not only because of a possible explosion or leak, but because of health concerns, such as toxic growing of produce, or livestock. I will not be able to trust the claims of government on what is harmless. There have been many instances when fatalities happened and authorities could have prevented at least the machine failure by proper control. Then, there is still the human error. Born in Slovakia, experienced the Chernobyl disaster and the aftermath of radiation causing cancer not only in Ukraine, but the winds carried the radiation well through Europe, I would never voluntarily choose to live close to a nuclear power plant.

[klmann]

I would not want to live in Marcoule, France because it is France's oldest nuclear site. Modernising a nuclear site does not mean that the potential dangers or threats have been obliterated. Radiation has been linked to the cause of cancer and I would not want to voluntarily put my health or my family's health at risk knowingly moving to a place that houses nuclear plants in close proximity. The explosion was caused by a furnace that was used to dispose of clothing, fuels, and tools that was used in nuclear energy production. Since it was necessary to burn these items that must mean that they pose some kind of threat regardless of low radiation levels.

[alicagalikova]

Hello everybody:

Does anybody know where are the other Reading Responses? I can't seem to find any, apart from the Reading Response #1. Can you please tell me if some others were posted already and I missed them? Thank you, thank you.
Alicia

[brandireschke]

My impression of France before reading this article was unparallelled beauty, sophistication, and gourmet food. Now what comes to mind is radiation and huge nuclear power plants with smoke coming out of the top of them. Given the choice, I would not live in Marcoule, France. My mom loves this movie named Silkwood. The characters work in some kind of nuclear facility. I am not sure what kind but I do know that radiation is involved. Merle Streep, the main character, ends up being exposed to radiation twice. The thing that stuck out in my mind is she was worried about not being able to have kids. I now associate nuclear power plants with radiation and not being able to have kids. Of course I realize it was a movie but there is also some truth to it. I would not put myself in a situation where I could possibly be exposed to radiation. The possiblity of something bad happening is to great. It is not worth the risk to me. I am sure France is a beautiful place to live but after reading his article I would not move there.

[ameirrobertson]

The explosion at the Marcoule site seems to be not related to any leaked radiation, and there seems to be little for the general french population to worry about. Every time there is a problem with a nuclear reactor, the general public becomes frightened, due to the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those places will be inhabitable for thousands of years, and the effects will be felt for generations to come. In this situation, it was a small explosion, and only one life was lost. The entire country of France practically runs on nuclear power. The article states that they are 75% dependent on nuclear energy and planning to increase that amount. Hopefully, the billion euro increase in nuclear funding will prevent any issues with their plants in the future.

[Courtney Laddimore]

Personally, I know I would not live anywhere near a reactor or nuclear power plant. There is just something very unsettling abour nuclear power plants to me anyway, and knowing that I live in a town so close would be diffcult for me to handle. Keeping in mind that they claim they do testing to ensure safety could be benfical to many who live in the town. I do not believe in some of the measurments of safety they take because of stories where many have been affected with radioactive gases. Although Marcoule may not have a direct active site, it would be scary knowing the effect of a possible outbreak in the future. The way plant handled the explosion was very detailed and properly excuted. For me, the problem is that nuclear reactions are never thought of as a serious problem until something disasterious happens. Hopefully in the near future places with plants and reactors will perform frequent test to ensure the safety of the community.

[vcontreras]

Personally, if given the choice, I would not live in Marcoule, France or near any nuclear power plant for that matter. There is far too much risk associated with the area surrounding a nuclear power plant than there could possibly be benefits. Any small accident could cause a major disaster that could result in an evacuation or mass citizen death from radioactive leakage. I would not trust any government that would push to its citizens to believe that an area is safe when there is the possibility of radioactive contamination. It would appear that there must be some other motive pushing them to allow their citizens to be put in possible danger and more often than not, that motive is money. Money that is probably used for things other than to guarantee the safety precautions used at the power plant. I don't think there will ever come a time when a nuclear power plant would be completely safe and the area surrounding it will be one-hundred percent livable, so I would prefer to avoid the area all together.