Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-052"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Consequences of recent events for the safety of air transport and industrial installations including nuclear power plants2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011022.4.1-052"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-22-Speech-1-0532
lpv:speaker	lp:Rolf Linkohr2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is no doubt that nuclear power installations are not wholly safe from terrorist attacks. No reactor could withstand the impact of a Boeing 747. It would simply be wrong to assert anything else. What is true of nuclear installations, though, is also true of other technological systems. Mr Vitorino rightly pointed out that even a dam can be destroyed, and the Second World War shows that the consequences can be devastating. An attack on a gasometer, such as can be found in the heart of our towns, could be positively appalling. I might mention that some pressurised gasometers already operate at a lower pressure for safety reasons. If methane were to escape from a high-pressure holder – a heavy machine-gun would suffice to bring that about – and spread over the town, then once it mixed to a certain degree with the surrounding air, the town would simply burn to the ground. Accidents of this sort have occurred in the past; thank God we have managed to avoid them in the past ten years. The same applies to the water supply. It is relatively straightforward to poison water. We can all imagine how immense the consequences of that would be. Now, I accept that many in our countries are opposed to nuclear energy, and that, in some countries, they may well be in the majority. Although it is not an opinion that I share, it is one that I respect. This argument, based on the risk of terrorist attacks, could lead us to get rid of the gas industry or stop drinking water, and I find that absurd. My conclusion simply follows the line taken by the Commission. I admit it is not likely to make very good press copy, but it does have the advantage of being sensible. We should identify the dangerous sites and improve the protection of targets. Perhaps we should also take other security measures, but these must be implemented without delay. Studies are something we do not need. Mr President, please allow me a final word. We should not give the impression of total security. That can be had only at the price of total surveillance, which cannot be reconciled with a free state under the rule of law."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph