There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition.
When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder they committed.
When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand ? It's not even in NATO. The only relationship we ever had was being part of the so-called West I suppose, although that never prevented us from going to war with our neighbours.
I do think you could call the countries friendly toward each other. Plenty of New Zealanders have died fighting in France (though at the bidding of our colonial overlords) and the countries have largely got on outside of this dark period.
Nato is a tool of the five eyes and the five eyes are a tool of a program of permanent domination and exploitation of the world by Anglo-American "capitalists".
When Algeria was French performing nuclear tests there in the Sahara was not much different from the US performing nuclear tests in Nevada/New Mexico. The British performed tests in Australia for the same reason.
It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic priority for national security.
As it happens nuclear tests continued in the Sahara even after Algerian independence under an agreement with the new independent Algerian government (so clearly they did not not 'care much' either) before they were transferred to the next possible location... French Polynesia.
It should also be noted that the British and the Americans had already carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific when the French moved theirs there as well.
Unlike Nevada and New Mexico, there were actually people living in those deserts. Surprising, I know, and yes there aren't that many.
The biggest issue is that the Algerian people did not support the tests.
As for the agreement with the Algerian government, it was signed during wartime. Allowing the tests was a condition without which France would have killed more people.
There are people living in Nevada and New Mexico, even within range of the test facilities: tests were carried out 65 miles from Las Vegas. Arguably the Sahara is better suited.
It's fair to criticise the way nuclear tests were carried out and perhaps whether they were needed at all, but this is a general criticism: My comparison with the US and the UK is to illustrate that the French did not do anything different or worse.
Back in those days whatever the answer was the decision would he the same e.g. the people in charge of windscale probably knew it wasn't safe but if you don't have a bomb you are a complete nobody.
All countries underestimate the health and environmental impacts of their military actions and experiments.
There is a part of secret because they are military operations and they are not keen on realising information (that's very true in France). Another aspect is to avoid political and public backlash against military actions and experiments. And, of course, the last aspect is financial because acknowledging the impact and its scale might be very costly in compensation.
Apart from underestimating another tactic is not to look into alleged issues at all. If there are no data there is no need to underestimate anything! A good example of that is the so-called 'Gulf War Syndrome'.
The fallout of the French bombs was on non-whites. This would have been a huge story in Western media of genocide if it was done by say the Chinese (or insert any other non-white nation).
Do you know what makes the ocean glow
Do you know what makes the ocean glow
When unwelcome guests, are making nuclear tests
Are making nuclear tests, are making nuclear tests
Are making nuclear tests
...
Let me be more specific, get out of the pacific
Ki te la pacific, get out of the pacific
Ki te la pacific
And the answer is usually "no", because most of these islands are poor and get net funding and support from France (or whatever other country holds sovereignty).
If you're talking about New Caledonia it's as really biased view. It was a special agreement following a stron crisis with the Kanak independance mouvement that allowed to agree on 3 independance votes. There's a big difference in votes between the people from metropolitan France and a much stronger support for independance in the Kanak population. We'll see next year what's the result is going to be, but the last one was quite close.
Other territories do not have the opportunity to vote on their independance.
Kanak and new Caledonia is a very hard problem to solve, for France but especially for residents. The issue is more about identity and origin than independance at that point (but freedom is nice to have in any case).
The past referendum results mean nothing, they were not rejected because people did not want to be free, but because they don't know who they are. And an independence vote won't be like Brexit, France actually agreed to let new Caledonia resident keep their french passport and rights if they chose to go independent, the effective change will by that social services, police, healthcare will be run by New Caledonia people, but it won't change private rights until next generation. Its a hard question anyway.
I've stayed a year in French polynesia small islands (and ocean, mostly ocean...), i'm pretty sure the only islands that want to leave are the ones with the international airports (and i'm not sure about Bora Bora, never went there). Those with offshore ressources especially don't seem to trust the independence party for whatever reason (it might have changed since then).
Identity and independance are quite tight together though, no?
I think it was the idea behind having 3 referendums: to give people the time to think, debate and make their mind after having seen the bigger picture given by the vote (basically considering independance as a possible thing).
I would think that being colonised, and for such a long time, is a really complex situation to deal with and has a deep impact on everything.
As a white metropolitan french I feel the only right thing to do is to give colonised people the choice, the time to prepare for it and to not take any outcome personally.
In regards to Mururoa I'm glad the actual impact is becoming public now. This is part of the many shameful things that we did in colonies, and, even if it's impossible to make things right, we should take responsibilities on all the consequences.
Mururoa is not in New Caledonia. The situations of French Polynesia and New Caledonia are quite different for a whole bunch of reasons.
I am not quite sure what you mean by “other territories do not have the opportunity to vote in their independence”. French Polynesia has its own parliament and government, which has been dominated by “independentists” for quite a while. Nothing is stopping them from holding a referendum every other year, just like in New Caledonia.
1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).
It's not my place to evaluate which method of calculating the exposure was correct. Just pointing out, that 1 mSv is a rather small amount of radiation. The smallest amount of radiation where one sees some indications of an increase in cancer risk is at 50-100 mSv [1].
I'm not arguing either way whether this should have an impact on any payments. Putting the threshold for compensation at 1 mSv is very conservative and will lead to the payment of compensation for many cancers that weren't caused by radiation. Which, again, is fine by me because I do believe that very little interest was paid to the protection of the neighboring populations.
The issue here is both the linear no threshold and threshold model are indistinguishable with our current data.
The problem is cancer is really quite common and has many sources so it’s hard to say what if any level is actually safe to expose X million people to. At least with medical X rays there is some benefit to offset risk, but without that it’s much harder to justify.
Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out.
I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing several pushy dentists over the course of a few years who in retrospect focused on the money. One of the dentists I saw was busted by the FBI for insurance fraud.
Just look at the American academy or association of dentistry recommendations. I forget the name but it’s the scientific organization that accredits dental education etc..
You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the issue at all!
Modern dental x-rays involve minuscule radiation levels.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but extractions can be cheaper and more effective than root canals, fillings, and crowns.
If you have a tooth with only 2 roots and one of them cracks, then it's better to just remove the tooth. Besides chronic infection that can hemorrhage, it will have to be extracted within 5 years anyway.
With 3 roots and only one cracked, sometimes dental surgeons can do something.
Also, the comment about dental x-rays being a profit center are clearly true. In SV, it's like they put you on a calendar for them, and they're usually done before an exam.
I'm not going to read all 29 pages at this hour, but the chart on page 5 clearly indicates that patients with teeth should be getting 4BW every 2-3 years at the longest.
Note: if a dentist or hygienist notices something, it doesn't matter if you had FMX or pano 3 months ago. Getting another BW or PA can make the difference between a tiny filling and lots of discomfort.
France is unique in the West as one of the few countries that unapologetically holds on to its colonies which it still regards as French territory. It continues to actively permit white settlers to migrate to New Caledonia and French Guiana, subtly ensuring the autonomy referendums are defeated and indigenous populations continue to be suppressed. It will come as no surprise that the French military are also actively involved in these overseas 'training' bases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_Fra...
You should at least make the effort of detailing the enormous educational, medical, infrastructural resources (not to mention subsidies) that mainland France directs to these places.
No one ever said that colonial empires didn’t invest in their colonies. But the real question is how do the people who live their feel about the way their country is governed.
Agreed. The opinion among these populations tends to be quite split, believe it or not. It’s a complicated question, contrary to what the top-level comment would have us believe.
It's more complicated than even that. People who were born after the 1997 handover, and thus have had no real experience with British times, tend to be more supportive of the British than older people who have seen both sides.
This anti-colonialism needs to cease. As a French person, do i have to choice about how much taxes we pay or whether we belong to the E.U.? No, I need to compose with my neighbors, who have an entirely different idea of my freedom than I have. Democracy is an illusion, we don’t actually choose our leaders, we are told who to choose, that is point #1.
Point #2 is, would those places be more democratic and wealthy if they seceded? Algeria is still governed by military and sending its youths to France because it’s a better country.
I’m not for or against the size if the French territory, I’m tired of anti-whiteness being disguised under seemingly principled arguments. Although your principle is sincere, good-willed and aims at improving the world, its side-effects are horrible if you are not also able to defend white people for all the good things they also did.
Basically, generalized hate in mass media + inability to talk about upsides is generally a preparation for a genocide, and UN wouldn’t save us given they are not principled, are filled with anti-white feelings, and the western civilization is only 10% of humanity so we wouldn’t win in a vote long-term. Do you believe the Western civilization should disappear? Because sure it did bad things but it is also the only one who ended slavery.
The abolition of slavery occurred at different times in different countries. It frequently occurred sequentially in more than one stage – for example, as abolition of the trade in slaves in a specific country, and then as abolition of slavery throughout empires. Each step was usually the result of a separate law or action. This timeline shows abolition laws or actions listed chronologically. It also covers the abolition of serfdom.
Although slavery is technically illegal in all countries today, the practice continues in many locations around the world, often with government support.
If citizens vote in elections as equals with all others in the country it is not comparable to a colony. Instead you have an area which may want to secede from the country, which is a common problem in many countries throughout the world.
France straight up committed acts of international terrorism and murder against a western ally in response to criticism of its nuclear testing program in 1985.
This was a fully sanctioned military operation against an allied nation that had willingly sent its own citizens to die defending France from its enemies -- Twice in the previous 70 years.
The autonomy referendum are lost because of the insane amount of subsidies the mainland sends there that would disappear in case of autonomy. They already have a huge administrative autonomy. If you ask me the 'mainland' is actually too nice.
Not it’s not. UK has a lot of small islands colonized here and there and the US is an aggregate of colonies itself with its original inhabitants still robbed of most of their land.
It's not true. Overseas parts of France are fully integrated in the republic, and citizens there have the same rights as in the mainland. There's no distinction between "settlers" and "natives" from a legal point of view (the economic picture is a bit different). There have been referendums in New Caledonia about independance and people there still want to be part of France.
To be faire, I don't even understand how New Caledonia or French Polynesia (where people have full representation in congress) can be on the non-self-governing list of the UN when Puerto Rico (where citizens don't have a seat in the house, senate or electoral college) isn't.
> Overseas parts of France are fully integrated in the republic, and citizens there have the same rights as in the mainland.
I'm sure you know that the exact same claim was made about French Algeria.
"the Mediterranean coastal region of Algeria, housing the vast majority of its population, was ruled as an integral part of France from 1848 until its independence. "
Such statements like yours were exactly what was repeatedly screamed out by perhaps what you would call your hero?, Jean-Marie Le Pen. His daughter also recently said all that torturing of some folks was good for Algeria. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170420-le-pen-french-col...
Vous savez exactement ce que vous êtes.
> There have been referendums in New Caledonia about independance and people there still want to be part of France.
As one of France's longest-held overseas territories, Algeria became a destination for hundreds of thousands of European immigrants known as colons, and later as pieds-noirs. However, the indigenous Muslim population remained the majority of the territory's population throughout its history. In 1835, indigenous rebels organized the Algerian resistance movement against French settlement; the rebellion was suppressed in 1903 after the "pacification campaign" by the colonial forces, who used chemical weapons, mass executions of prisoners and civilians, concentration camps and other atrocities in order to put them down.
I don't think I'll answer to a comment calling me a fascist. Comparing Algeria before independence and the current status of overseas France is dishonest.
No one called you a fascist. But you clearly hold views identical to Le Pen. Comparing how you justified continued sending settlers to "overseas" France and how the same steps were justified for pre-independence Algeria is perfectly valid and honest.
Saw an interview a couple of days ago here on French television with the journalist who published a book about it recently. Lying to the public was baked into the test explosion right from the beginning. That is as much part of the trade as firing guns.
59 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadWasn’t it more in the south pacific?
There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition.
When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder they committed.
Who needs enemies with friends like these?
Usually when the Germans invaded.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rue+de+la+Nouvelle+Z%C3%A9...
> It's not even in NATO
Article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty kinda prevents Southern Hemisphere countries in the Pacific from joining.
No doubt NZ would have joined in the 60s, 70s, around the same time we had a penchant for getting involved in other people's post colonial wars.
It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic priority for national security.
As it happens nuclear tests continued in the Sahara even after Algerian independence under an agreement with the new independent Algerian government (so clearly they did not not 'care much' either) before they were transferred to the next possible location... French Polynesia.
It should also be noted that the British and the Americans had already carried out nuclear tests in the Pacific when the French moved theirs there as well.
The biggest issue is that the Algerian people did not support the tests.
As for the agreement with the Algerian government, it was signed during wartime. Allowing the tests was a condition without which France would have killed more people.
It's fair to criticise the way nuclear tests were carried out and perhaps whether they were needed at all, but this is a general criticism: My comparison with the US and the UK is to illustrate that the French did not do anything different or worse.
And no, it's not normal to do nuclear tests in a territory which is currently fighting for independence.
Crazy times!
There is a part of secret because they are military operations and they are not keen on realising information (that's very true in France). Another aspect is to avoid political and public backlash against military actions and experiments. And, of course, the last aspect is financial because acknowledging the impact and its scale might be very costly in compensation.
Apart from underestimating another tactic is not to look into alleged issues at all. If there are no data there is no need to underestimate anything! A good example of that is the so-called 'Gulf War Syndrome'.
It's long past the time for the French to GTFO out of the Pacific. Decolonise and free the Tahitians and Kanaks.
And the answer is usually "no", because most of these islands are poor and get net funding and support from France (or whatever other country holds sovereignty).
Other territories do not have the opportunity to vote on their independance.
The past referendum results mean nothing, they were not rejected because people did not want to be free, but because they don't know who they are. And an independence vote won't be like Brexit, France actually agreed to let new Caledonia resident keep their french passport and rights if they chose to go independent, the effective change will by that social services, police, healthcare will be run by New Caledonia people, but it won't change private rights until next generation. Its a hard question anyway.
I've stayed a year in French polynesia small islands (and ocean, mostly ocean...), i'm pretty sure the only islands that want to leave are the ones with the international airports (and i'm not sure about Bora Bora, never went there). Those with offshore ressources especially don't seem to trust the independence party for whatever reason (it might have changed since then).
As a white metropolitan french I feel the only right thing to do is to give colonised people the choice, the time to prepare for it and to not take any outcome personally.
In regards to Mururoa I'm glad the actual impact is becoming public now. This is part of the many shameful things that we did in colonies, and, even if it's impossible to make things right, we should take responsibilities on all the consequences.
I am not quite sure what you mean by “other territories do not have the opportunity to vote in their independence”. French Polynesia has its own parliament and government, which has been dominated by “independentists” for quite a while. Nothing is stopping them from holding a referendum every other year, just like in New Caledonia.
No. Tahiti doesn't get to vote on that.
That news is old. New Caledonia has in the recent past very narrowly voted in favour of continued control by France, but that will change soon.
For the first time, NC has a pro-independence government.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975273437/new-caledonias-new-...
I'm not arguing either way whether this should have an impact on any payments. Putting the threshold for compensation at 1 mSv is very conservative and will lead to the payment of compensation for many cancers that weren't caused by radiation. Which, again, is fine by me because I do believe that very little interest was paid to the protection of the neighboring populations.
[1] Pretty good summary: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761
The problem is cancer is really quite common and has many sources so it’s hard to say what if any level is actually safe to expose X million people to. At least with medical X rays there is some benefit to offset risk, but without that it’s much harder to justify.
I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing several pushy dentists over the course of a few years who in retrospect focused on the money. One of the dentists I saw was busted by the FBI for insurance fraud.
You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the issue at all!
Modern dental x-rays involve minuscule radiation levels.
If you have a tooth with only 2 roots and one of them cracks, then it's better to just remove the tooth. Besides chronic infection that can hemorrhage, it will have to be extracted within 5 years anyway.
With 3 roots and only one cracked, sometimes dental surgeons can do something.
Also, the comment about dental x-rays being a profit center are clearly true. In SV, it's like they put you on a calendar for them, and they're usually done before an exam.
https://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Publications/ADA%20News/File...
before you spout nonsense.
Note: if a dentist or hygienist notices something, it doesn't matter if you had FMX or pano 3 months ago. Getting another BW or PA can make the difference between a tiny filling and lots of discomfort.
You’re not telling the whole truth, here.
Point #2 is, would those places be more democratic and wealthy if they seceded? Algeria is still governed by military and sending its youths to France because it’s a better country.
I’m not for or against the size if the French territory, I’m tired of anti-whiteness being disguised under seemingly principled arguments. Although your principle is sincere, good-willed and aims at improving the world, its side-effects are horrible if you are not also able to defend white people for all the good things they also did.
Basically, generalized hate in mass media + inability to talk about upsides is generally a preparation for a genocide, and UN wouldn’t save us given they are not principled, are filled with anti-white feelings, and the western civilization is only 10% of humanity so we wouldn’t win in a vote long-term. Do you believe the Western civilization should disappear? Because sure it did bad things but it is also the only one who ended slavery.
So you would support Germany re-colonizing France like in 1938 to fix all the problems France has?
> also the only one who ended slavery
Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave...
The abolition of slavery occurred at different times in different countries. It frequently occurred sequentially in more than one stage – for example, as abolition of the trade in slaves in a specific country, and then as abolition of slavery throughout empires. Each step was usually the result of a separate law or action. This timeline shows abolition laws or actions listed chronologically. It also covers the abolition of serfdom.
Although slavery is technically illegal in all countries today, the practice continues in many locations around the world, often with government support.
I don't think this [1] for example would happen if the portions of the pie had been well distributed.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_French_Caribbean_genera...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
This was a fully sanctioned military operation against an allied nation that had willingly sent its own citizens to die defending France from its enemies -- Twice in the previous 70 years.
Unique indeed.
To be faire, I don't even understand how New Caledonia or French Polynesia (where people have full representation in congress) can be on the non-self-governing list of the UN when Puerto Rico (where citizens don't have a seat in the house, senate or electoral college) isn't.
I'm sure you know that the exact same claim was made about French Algeria.
"the Mediterranean coastal region of Algeria, housing the vast majority of its population, was ruled as an integral part of France from 1848 until its independence. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria
Such statements like yours were exactly what was repeatedly screamed out by perhaps what you would call your hero?, Jean-Marie Le Pen. His daughter also recently said all that torturing of some folks was good for Algeria. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170420-le-pen-french-col...
Vous savez exactement ce que vous êtes.
> There have been referendums in New Caledonia about independance and people there still want to be part of France.
Again, such facts were also claimed about Algeria using the exact same tactics. It is not until 1961 where an actual fair referendum was held. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0035853590845221...
As one of France's longest-held overseas territories, Algeria became a destination for hundreds of thousands of European immigrants known as colons, and later as pieds-noirs. However, the indigenous Muslim population remained the majority of the territory's population throughout its history. In 1835, indigenous rebels organized the Algerian resistance movement against French settlement; the rebellion was suppressed in 1903 after the "pacification campaign" by the colonial forces, who used chemical weapons, mass executions of prisoners and civilians, concentration camps and other atrocities in order to put them down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria
The US pioneered this in the marshal Islands, from 8 to 40 minutes here: https://youtu.be/vAfeYMONj9E
Not the brightest moments of human history...