Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-593-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.65.2-593-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Sonik for triggering this debate and for preparing the oral question.
I agree that we should never forget the Chernobyl disaster. We are well aware that the long-term consequences of the catastrophe are still being experienced a full quarter century later. There is still a large uninhabitable area, so that people can no longer return to their homes. Then there is the long-term impact on health. Television has shown us that women still suffer miscarriages 25 years after the disaster.
Europe shares some of the responsibility because the issue of nuclear safety is not a matter of national sovereignty, but rather one of European responsibility. On this densely populated continent, every nuclear power plant has consequences for neighbouring countries. It is for this reason, Mr Oettinger, that you have particular responsibility for ensuring that we get to grips with this topic, especially in the light of what has happened in Fukushima. Later on we are going to talk with you about the stress tests, in other words the safety analyses for the 143 nuclear power plants. I would encourage you to stick to your principles. We want the highest possible safety standard in Europe, not just investigations into natural disasters. Accordingly we must also investigate other risks, such as plane crashes, terrorist attacks, computer attacks, in other words this combination of attacks on nuclear power plants; what is more, you must guarantee that this does not become simply a token gesture.
There is still a great deal to be done in Chernobyl. The sarcophagus is not yet safe, which is why new financial resources are required to put this in order. I have not yet heard any plans for what to do with the nuclear waste lying about the site; the disposal of this material is not yet assured. Accordingly I believe, Mr Reul, that research studies are necessary because we do not have enough experience with the long-term effects of radiation. I would encourage the Commission to put such studies in motion.
In the final analysis, the safest option is the nuclear exit strategy. As we continue to cooperate with the affected countries, my greatest wish is that we should establish workshops for future technology there, and provide advice on how to save energy and develop alternative energy sources. This is precisely what is needed 25 years after Chernobyl."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(The speaker agrees to take a question in accordance with Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure.)"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples