The last bomb exploded more than 20 years ago, and yet knowledge on the health consequences on the Polynesian population of the nuclear tests carried out by France remains as limited as ever.
A study published by Inserm adds its share of confusion.
She ensures that there is, to date, too little data to establish or exclude a link between nuclear tests and pathologies such as cancer.
Findings that arouse the ire of anti-nuclear associations.
Le Parisien explains why.
What does this report say?
Commissioned in 2013 from Inserm by the Ministry of Defense, it was largely interested in the consequences of the atmospheric nuclear tests carried out by France in French Polynesia between 1966 and 1974 on the health of populations.
In an attempt to answer this question, a multidisciplinary group of ten scientists "bringing together skills in sociology, epidemiology, dosimetry, radiobiology and genetics", established an assessment of current knowledge on the association between nuclear tests and human health ", explains Inserm.
In this river study, the experts looked at 1150 documents in particular, and concluded that the results of the studies carried out in French Polynesia "are insufficient to make a solid conclusion on the links between exposure to ionizing radiation from the fallout from nuclear tests atmospheres in French Polynesia and the occurrence ”of pathologies such as thyroid cancer or hematologic malignancies.
“At the time of the expertise, there had been three epidemiological studies, including one on thyroid cancer.
In this type of collective expertise, a single epidemiological study is never sufficient to conclude for a causal relationship, ”reminds the Parisian Florent de Vathaire, director of epidemiology research at Inserm.
While her team does not completely rule out health consequences "gone unnoticed until now", she recommends improved health surveillance of non-communicable pathologies, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and congenital anomalies.
Experts consider it necessary to refine the estimates of doses received by the local population and by civilian and military personnel who participated in the tests.
How was this report received?
Very badly on the side of the associations of defense of the Polynesian populations.
As a reminder, 150,000 civilians and soldiers participated directly or indirectly in the 210 French trials conducted in the Algerian Sahara and Polynesia between 1960 and 1996, and only a handful obtained compensation.
Years later, the subject of the health consequences of French nuclear tests remains very sensitive, so much does it suffer from opacity.
“This report does not add anything new, it is the continuity of a negation of reality.
193 nuclear tests are the equivalent of 800 Hiroshima bombs: to say that there were no effects is denial ”, said Father Auguste Uebe-Carlson, president of 193, an association which campaigns in particular for better compensation for victims of the trials.
In 2016, the then head of state, François Hollande, took a step forward in recognizing the victims by admitting, "that the nuclear tests carried out between 1966 and 1996 in French Polynesia" had "an environmental impact" and “health consequences”.
For Florent de Vathaire, the conclusions of his study in no way call into question this recognition.
“Communication is difficult on these subjects […].
The objective of the collective expertise was to sum up all that we knew about ionizing rays, and to take stock of what there was as data on the effects of nuclear fallout on local populations and military.
We do not question, we do not dispute the health consequences of these tests as recognized by France and by the committees which deal with indemnities, ”he recalls.
Is there any other work on this issue?
Yes, and they are sometimes contradictory.
The Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIAD), for example, looked into the effects of tests and did not come to the same conclusions.
“These tests obviously resulted in the propulsion of radioactive elements into the atmosphere.
Dozens of different radioactive elements fell in areas of Polynesian housing.
[…] The local populations were not properly protected, we saw during a mission in 2005 on the Gambier archipelago that on this island had been built a blockhouse with walls 60 cm thick, to protect the members of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1967. But on the other hand to protect the population, only a simple corrugated iron hangar was built, ”assures Parisian Bruno Chareyron, nuclear physics engineer, head of the laboratory of Criirad.
This NGO studied the official report published by the Ministry of Defense in 2006 on the exposure of the inhabitants of Polynesia.
"It clearly shows that certain groups of the population, and in particular young children, received doses well above the health limits concerning the thyroid, at the time of the fallout", assures Bruno Chareyron.
Data that are underestimated according to his work.
“For Tureia for example, the military, in their measurements, in 1966 only retained the fallout from a single shot.
However, declassified documents showed that Atol had been subjected to fallout from six shots that year.
"
Morning essentials newsletter
A tour of the news to start the day
Subscribe to the newsletterAll newsletters
In 2012, expert opinions were carried out at the request of Anne-Marie Bellot, investigating judge in charge of the investigation following the complaint filed at the end of 2003 by Aven (Association of victims of nuclear tests).
They concluded that there was a probable link between the radioactive fallout from the bombs and the serious diseases (cancer in particular) developed by former soldiers or nuclear professionals for the 6 people assessed out of the 15. “By bringing together many elements, I was able to construct a bundle of presumptions which makes it possible to say that the link between radioactive fallout and diseases is likely for some of the cases assessed, ”confided at the time to the Parisian, the expert: a certain Florent de Vathaire.
“The epidemiology and the individual aspect is totally different.
Given the documents that had been shown to me, my opinion was that it was quite possible that the pathology of the people examined was due to the exposures.
But it was something individual, which has nothing to do with an epidemiological study whose conclusions concern an entire population, ”he concludes.