Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.9.3-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, today is a day of remembrance. We should remember the thousands of people who have died and will die and the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer as a result of the accident at Chernobyl. Despite 20 years having passed, citizens and policy-makers are not well-informed about the extensive consequences of the disaster.
The nuclear lobby stated last week in
that only 50 people died as a result of Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna spoke about 4000 deaths up to the beginning of last week, and had to revise this figure upwards under pressure from new independent studies, one of these commissioned by our colleague Mrs Harms.
What are the political lessons to be learnt from Chernobyl? First of all, we need more dignity. Victims of Chernobyl have faced considerable difficulty in getting recognition. The victims deserve dignity. They should not have to fight constantly against those who seek to suppress or to deny their suffering.
Secondly, we need absolute transparency
on the real consequences of the accident. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN pro-nuclear biased agency, must no longer be allowed to interfere and suppress studies from the World Health Organisation on the health impact of radiation. We therefore have to end the 1959 agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation as provide in Article 12 of that agreement.
The same is true for Euratom – and I thank Mr Rübig of the PPE-DE Group who, in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, has taken the initiative of raising the issue of putting an end to Euratom. This agency cannot be a pro-nuclear agency and be independent on related health issues.
Thirdly, we need absolute transparency on the plans of the nuclear industry. Today 450 nuclear reactors produce 2.5% of world energy and 6% of European energy demands. If nuclear energy is the answer to security supply and to climate change, that percentage would need to rise from 2.5 to 30, 40, 50 or 60% of the mix. We are not speaking about one reactor here and one reactor there. We are speaking about 4000, 5000, 6000 or 7000 reactors. That is what the nuclear industry wants because we do not have plutonium. That means fast breeders, enrichment, retreatment.
Do we want this risk to be taken in a world where accidents in the nuclear chain cannot be excluded, where al-Qa’ida and other terrorists lie in wait, where proliferation is revealed in the Iran crisis? Societies must learn. Societies survive only if they learn the lessons from history. Now is the time for decision."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples