Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Radiation Exposures and Compensation of Victims of French Atmospheric Nuclear Tests in Polynesia

Philippe, Sébastien, Schoenberger, Sonya, Ahmed, Nabil·2022·Science & Global Security
DOI 10.1080/08929882.2022.2111757
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Between 1966 and 1974, France conducted 41 atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in French Polynesia, exposing local populations to radioactive fallout. Under French law, individuals who were present at the time and later developed certain radiogenic cancers are eligible for compensation from the government—unless it is proven that they could not have received effective doses greater than 1 mSv in any given year. Using new information available from recently declassified documents, as well as atmospheric transport modeling of radioactive fallout, this article shows that upper-bound government estimates of effective doses received by the public have been underestimated by factors of 2 to 10. As a result, approximately 110,000 people, representing 90% of the French Polynesian population at the time, could have received doses greater than 1 mSv per year. Integrating updated dose estimates into the claim adjudication process would enlarge the pool of eligible claimants by a factor of 10.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08929882.2022.2111757

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Timeline of the different methodologies in force for the compensation of victims from French nuclear tests and corresponding claim rejection rates. Data from 2019 CIVEN Activity Report.
Figure 1 Timeline of the different methodologies in force for the compensation of victims from French nuclear tests and corresponding claim rejection rates. Data from 2019 CIVEN Activity Report.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 Reconstruction of the fallout from the ALDEBARAN nuclear test. Dose rate contours (solid blue) were obtained using Hysplit (see methods) in order to validate the CEA historical simulation results (red lines) normalized to H+1 after the explosion. Our results are in good agreement with the CEA simulation and with the measured dose rate on the Gambier archipelago.
Fig. 2 Reconstruction of the fallout from the ALDEBARAN nuclear test. Dose rate contours (solid blue) were obtained using Hysplit (see methods) in order to validate the CEA historical simulation results (red lines) normalized to H+1 after the explosion. Our results are in good agreement with the CEA simulation and with the measured dose rate on the Gambier archipelago.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 Reconstruction of the RIGEL Test Fallout. Dose rate contours (solid blue) were obtained using Hysplit and normalized to H+1 after the explosion in order to be compared with the CEA historical simulation results (red lines). Unlike the CEA simulation, our results capture the effect of SE lower altitude winds, which pushed the cloud stem over Moruroa and Tureia.
Fig. 3 Reconstruction of the RIGEL Test Fallout. Dose rate contours (solid blue) were obtained using Hysplit and normalized to H+1 after the explosion in order to be compared with the CEA historical simulation results (red lines). Unlike the CEA simulation, our results capture the effect of SE lower altitude winds, which pushed the cloud stem over Moruroa and Tureia.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 4 Reconstruction of the CENTAURE cloud trajectory over French Polynesia. Air activities between 0 and 500m were obtained using Hysplit (see methods). We find that the cloud travelled directly from Moruroa to Tahiti in about 2 days before reaching the leeward islands (including Huahine, Raiatea, Taha'a, Bora-bora and Maupiti). Early time steps are consistent with the CEA map of the fallout contour (simulated for the first ~24h). Our simulation underpredicts the measured activity in Mahina, Tahiti by a factor of ~10, however.
Fig. 4 Reconstruction of the CENTAURE cloud trajectory over French Polynesia. Air activities between 0 and 500m were obtained using Hysplit (see methods). We find that the cloud travelled directly from Moruroa to Tahiti in about 2 days before reaching the leeward islands (including Huahine, Raiatea, Taha'a, Bora-bora and Maupiti). Early time steps are consistent with the CEA map of the fallout contour (simulated for the first ~24h). Our simulation underpredicts the measured activity in Mahina, Tahiti by a factor of ~10, however.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 5 Measurements of ground activity in Tahiti following the 1974 Centaure test. Both maps provide deposition values in relation to the reference data at the Mahina Radiological Control Station. The 2006 official map on the right is the reproduction of the original 1974 map on the left. The highest activity values in Taravao (9.6 times) and Teahupoo (11 times) do not appear on the 2006 version. More importantly, the upper bound for activity in the western part of the main island is modified from 0.3 to 0.2. The CEA 2006 Centaure reconstruction study assume a 0.13 ratio between the Pirae/Papeete zone and Mahina, and as the histogram of the daily deposition measured in Mahina shows, does not take into account ground deposition after July 19.
Fig. 5 Measurements of ground activity in Tahiti following the 1974 Centaure test. Both maps provide deposition values in relation to the reference data at the Mahina Radiological Control Station. The 2006 official map on the right is the reproduction of the original 1974 map on the left. The highest activity values in Taravao (9.6 times) and Teahupoo (11 times) do not appear on the 2006 version. More importantly, the upper bound for activity in the western part of the main island is modified from 0.3 to 0.2. The CEA 2006 Centaure reconstruction study assume a 0.13 ratio between the Pirae/Papeete zone and Mahina, and as the histogram of the daily deposition measured in Mahina shows, does not take into account ground deposition after July 19.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Drozdovitch, Vladimir, Florent de Vathaire, and André Bouville. "Ground deposition of radionuclides in French Polynesia resulting from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls." Journal of environmental radioactivity 214 (2020): 106176.
  2. CIVEN, Rapport d'activité 2019, https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece- jointe/2020/07/rapport_dactivite_2019_avec_annexes.pdf, pp. 16. 82 LOI n° 2010-2 du 5 janvier 2010 relative à la reconnaissance et à l'indemnisation des victimes des essais nucléaires française, JORF n°0004 du 6 janvier 2010, Article 1(II). REFERENCES List of references to be generated from footnotes.

Cited by

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Philippe, S., Schoenberger, S., & Ahmed, N.
Affiliations
  • Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
  • Department of History, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
  • Faculty of Architecture and Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
ORCID
Venue
Science & Global Security
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-05-04
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
62-94
ISSN
  • 0892-9882
  • 1547-7800
DOI
10.1080/08929882.2022.2111757
Cited by
16
References
9
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.