About a message "Being stained with fire and fire, so that its meager scrap is not known" (freely according to Ibsen), its contents are not more true for that reason. That is, in my opinion, this Christer Gulbrandsen has done in his post about nuclear scares of 11/11/05. But even with a number of professional expressions, he hits outside the target.
For me it has not been a goal in itself to write as hard as possible. My main point is to write so that people with the common sense of common sense should understand. An important point for me was to present the contents of section 20 of the "Act of 12 May 2000 on radiation protection and the use of radiation", which Gulbrandsen has completely overlooked. It is clear that Euratom Directive 96/29 of 13 May 1996 has been used as a model for this law, because in § 20 of Norwegian law it says:
"The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority can refuse the import or sale of any product or substance and any product that may pose a health or environmental risk due to radiation, provided this does not contravene international agreements to which Norway is a party."
It's a legal text like this that has made me react. The content of this section means in plain text that it is permissible to introduce radioactive goods, even if they entail health and environmental risks, if they come from a country Norway has a trade agreement with.
The yellow fire refers to Article 4.1 of the Euratom Directive and uses as the main argument here that "the limit value of 1 mSv radiation dose per person per year from artificial sources shall not be exceeded". How does Gulbrandsen think this can be controlled when radioactive substances are dispersed in the environment in this way? In addition comes the natural background radiation, radiation from medical treatment and nuclear accidents. There will be no control over where the radioactive waste ends up. Some can gain a lot, others less. This can get completely out of control. It is pure wishful thinking that one should be able to control this.
Under the section «The size of the radiation doses», Gulbrandsen refers to the figure on which precautionary calculations are based and believes «this must be regarded as a reasonable level». As he himself suggests, there is great uncertainty in these calculations. There is a lot of new research that shows that radioactive radiation is much more dangerous than we have previously thought, especially low-dose radiation that enters the body. It is completely utopian to think that it is possible to control how large a dose the individual receives.
Under the section "The EU otherwise has few common rules", Gulbrandsen says that "the Euratom Treaty requires that nuclear waste is handled safely". My answer to this statement is: "No, nuclear waste is not handled safely". The Euratom Directive allowed for low-level radioactive nuclear waste to be mixed into pure substances and reused. The storage spaces are thus out in the environment, for example in the road surface and in the foundation wall of a kindergarten. The waste can also be stored in furniture in houses and apartments, for example in the steel lamp in the living room, in steel cutlery. Is this to require that nuclear waste be handled safely?
I do not want to distort the debate or contribute to intimidation propaganda. But I think it is strange that the content of § 20 of the Radiation Protection Act cannot be discussed without it being perceived as a distortion of the debate. One must be able to ask questions such as: “Where do these substances come from? Is there anything new? ” Yes, it is Euratom Directive 96/29 that allows a completely new practice, namely to mix nuclear waste into consumer goods.
Now I would like to end this debate on my part and rather work for the establishment of a committee from No to the EU that can work further on this topic with a view to preparing a report on Euratom Directive 96/29 and its effects within the EU. and the EEA area today.
Gullbjørg Røisli is a board member of Akershus No to the EU.