Journey:Diskussion ueber einen Brief an TVO

From Nuclear Heritage
Jump to: navigation, search

Bitte beteiligt euch an dieser Diskussion und der Formulierung des Briefes!

Contents

Stichpunkte für unseren Brief

Allgemeines zu diesem Brief

Vorschlag für das Vorgehen: Wir diskutieren den Inhalt hier und schreiben einen Entwurf, Antonia bespricht den mit Luontoliitto und dann machen wir daraus eine Presseinfo in Deutschland (plus Indymedia?) und bitten die FinnInnen darum, dies auch zu publizieren. Der Brief sollte nicht nur an den BesucherInnenservice von Olkoluito, sondern auch direkt an die verschiedenen AnsprechpartnerInnen und Vortragenden gehen - wer hat da vielleicht die Kontakte, das sollten wir zusammentragen!

geplante EmpfängerInnen

Ich wuerde einfach eine E-Mail mit einem Greenkids Absender schreiben, dass war doch der offizielle Traeger, oder? Wenn Falk nicht da ist, kann das sicher auch Jan machen.

(wer Details weiß, bitte hinzufügen)

  • Hannas Kontakt beim Betreiber
  • Der erste Dozent: Martti Kätkä, Senior Adviser, CSR and Communication, Teollisuuden Voima Oy, Töölönkatu 4, FI-00100 Helsinki, Finland; Tel. +358 9 6180 3130, Fax +358 9 6180 2570, martti.katka@tvo
  • Der zweite Dozent: Kari Koskinen, Posiva Oy, kari.koskinen@posiva
  • Senior Vice President, CSR and Communications, Ms Anneli Nikula, anneli.nikula@tvo
  • Manager Public Information, Mr Juhani Ikonen, juhani.ikonen@tvo
  • Communication Manager OL3, Ms Käthe Sarparanta, kathe.sarparanta@tvo
  • Information Officer, Ms Susan Pietilä susan.pietila@tvo
  • Visit coordinator, Ms Tea Berger, tea.berger@tvo
  • weitere Leute, von denen jemand die Kontakte gesammelt hat

Missachtung der Absprachen

  • die Absprachen, dass wir eine Führung bekommen, wurden nicht eingehalten
  • dies wurde uns nicht einmal mitgeteilt
  • jedE von uns wurde mit einer anderen Begründung abgespeist (aber auch erst im Verlaufe des Besuchs - wir wurden nicht einmal gleich am Anfang darauf hingewiesen, sondern es wurde bis auf die Nachfrage hin dezent verschwiegen)
  • ihr Zeitplan war viel zu knapp und erlaubte auch keine Zeit für eine anschließende Diskussion oder die Ausstellung
  • Forschungsaspekt unseres Projektes

...

Eingehen auf ihren Input

  • es fehlte eine Einleitung, was sie uns zeigen/erzählen wollen
  • der Zeitplan war nicht klar und der erste Sprecher hat dem Zweiten kaum noch Zeit gelassen, wir sehen das auch als Respektlosigkeit gegenüber dem Kollegen
  • angeblich sollte jeder 1 Stunde reden, der erste Dozent hat jedoch etwa 40(?)min überzogen
  • der erste Dozent hat 3 mal nach dem Namen des zweiten Dozenten gefragt
  • damit blieb fast keine Zeit für das Thema Endlagerung - auch wenn das Erklärterweise eines unserer Hauptinteressen war
  • auf die bestehende Endlagerung (schwach- und mittelradioaktiven Mülls) wurde nicht eingegangen, obwohl wir daran Interesse gezeigt haben
  • kaum Zeit für Fragen, Fragen wurden eher abgeblockt
  • die Präsentation des ersten Vortrags mit offensichtlich alten, finnischen Folien war dürftig, die Folien wurden teilweise spiegelverkehrt aufgelegt
  • man hat uns offensichtlich wenig Hintergrundwissen zugetraut und alles etwas grundsätzlich aufgebaut; der Dozent ist kaum auf Details eingegangen und hat sehr wenig über das Atomkraftwerk selbst geredet

...

Fazit

  • für die weite Anfahrt und die eigentlich anders abgesprochene Führung war das Programm SEHR dürftig, kein Wort der Entschuldigung
  • es schien kein wirkliches Interesse vorhanden zu sein, mit KritikerInnen zu diskutieren (es kam sofort eine Antihaltung rüber (Begruessung Hannas), ohne dass wir überhaupt unsere Position auch nur angedeutet hatten. Klar sind wir als AtomkraftgegnerInnen und mit Luontoliitto dahingefahren, wir wurden jedoch nicht wie Interessierte Besucher behandelt, sondern er (der erste Dozent) stand mit erhobenem Zeigefinger da)

Entwurf des Briefes

2. Version, Jonas, 2.3.


Dear Sir or Madam,


we would like to thank you for hosting us at Olkiluoto and offering us an overview of your activities at the nuclear power plants, the new construction, and the planning of the final repository.

We, however, would like to express, that as we came the whole way from Germany and invested time and money, we had expected more from our visit. We had arranged for a visitation and besides the nuclear power plants had expressed special interest in the construction site of the final repository and the site of the existing repository. It was confirmed to our partners at Luontoliitto that we would be shown around at Olkiluoto. These arrangements were bluntly ignored when we came, neither were we able to see anything other than the visitors' center, nor were we even told about this change of plans. It was not mentioned, except when individuals from our group asked about the possibilities of being shown around. On asking each one was given a different explanation why this supposedly was not possible.

We acknowledge that you organised for lecturers who normally don't work in the visitors' center. Their presentations, however, were rather unprofessionel in several ways. First of all we were never told about the timetable and the changed plans compared to the arrangements. Then Mr. Kätkä gave a rather poor presentation. It shows a not too high regard of the visitors to present slides in Finnish to an international group, not to mention that the slides were old and some were soiled. He additionally seemed to expect little background knowledge among the visitors, keeping the presentation rather general and talked in an educational tone giving his disputatious philosophy on energy usage, which was not exactly what we had come for. We know these general arguments from publications and although not agreeing with most of them we didn't see a point in discussing them in this context, as the time was short. Unfortunately this general presentation even took far more than the scheduled time. It was rather disrespectful towards Mr. Koskinen to steal his time and not even to remember the name of the colleague. This had the effect that the topic of final reposition which was our special interest was only covered very roughly. The already existing storage of low and medium level waste, which was another topic we had expressed special interest in, when arranging the visit, was only mentioned. The second lecturer, Mr. Koskinen, had obviously been better prepared - unfortunately he had not enough time for his presentation and a deepening discussion. It seemed that this had more of a potential to cater for our interests, but as the timetable had not been properly presented to us, it was not clear to us at that point, that the second lecture would fall out so short, or we would have interrupted Mr. Kätkä to ask for Mr. Koskinen's presentation.

Our group has worked on the history of German final repositories and has actually visited several sites in Germany (like the underground facilities at Morsleben and Gorleben). The trip to Finnland was to put the topic in a more international context and received funding from the European Union. However, the time you had scheduled was not even enough for your basic presentations so that no time was left to answer questions from our side, besides your unwillingness to show us anything except the visitors center. A good presentation, by the way, should only give an overview and then leave room for questions to cater for the special interests of the visitors.

We knew that as environmentalists we would not always agree with what we would hear, however, we did expect to learn and see more during this visit. We had the feeling of not being taken seriously and the outcome of the visit was disappointing for the long way we had come.


Sincerely,

Jonas Laehnemann, Inga Schulze, Falk Beyer, Jan Kummerfeldt and Antonia
on behalf of Greenkids Magdeburg e.V.

Dokumentation des Briefwechsels mit Luontoliitto

Antonia an Hanna Kaisa am 01.03.

Hi Hanna Kaisa,

we are just finnishing our letter to TVO. But we would still need some more information on what you arranged with them so that we can refer to that. It would be great if you could answer and even greater if you could answer still this week :) because we want to finnish the letter this weekend..

Here is the page dealing with the nuclear problems http://www.greenkids.de/europas-atomerbe/index.php/Hauptseite

and we discuss the travel to TVO on this site (mostly German, sorry) http://www.greenkids.de/europas-atomerbe/index.php/Diskussion_ueber_einen_Brief_an_TVO

Okay, I hope to hear from you soon! All the best, Antonia


Hanna Kaisas Mail vom 20.2.

Hi people!

We have been also discussing about the practice of Olkiluoto. I heard that this has happened before also in Finland. During the last decision about the fifth NPP Luonto-Liitto visited Loviisa and was refused to get inside the power plant area.

I am not conviced about the results of the letter. Propably they are going to say, that there has been some misunderstandings, information of our group has not come early enough (even though we discussed about in on the phone and agreed that beginning of the week is OK), they thought that we knew were not able to get in and so on. I´m just so so convinced that they have an explanation. (And if they are any professional, they´ve already picked a good one.) We know that it is an excuse, but the public doesnt, and It´s hard to campaign based on that (at least in Finland, people believe too much in authorities).

(I may also be wrong, but nevertheless I´m pessimistic. If a pessimist gets disappointed, It´s good news.. ;) )

But I think that a letter where you explain that you are very disappointed could be OK still, just to inform them that they cannot treat us any way they want to. But I´m not sure that - at least in Finnish atmosphere - it has so much PR power. But I´d suggest that you´d write a letter, I can comment the draft if you want, and you could send it as disappointed individuals who have travelled far and could not see the nice caves nor power plants. And I´d be happy to hear what kind of respose you´ll get.

But I really hope to meet you again, with less disappointments! I also enjoyed the day in Olkiluoto, and it was very revealing to meet with the people in the power plant. I´m sure you´ve had a good idea what it´s the atmosphere in the hard core of nuclear reneissance, and I think that alone is a good issue to write about. ;)

Yours, Hanna Kaisa

Jonas Mail vom 19.2.

Hello,

we arrived back in Germany after a slightly more shaky ferry trip back. I want to join antonia's thanks for all the arrangements. We enjoyed the time in finnland, except for that disappointment at Olkiluoto. The discussions with you and the other activists on Friday and Saturday were very interesting. As Anotnia mentioned, we thought if we write a critical letter to TVO (possibly delivered by you), we could send out a press release in Germany and you could also use it for your PR. We would be happy to hear your oppinion on that and then would start to draft the letter.

Regards from Berlin, Jonas

Antonias Mail vom 18.2.

Dear Hanna,

first of all, thank you very much for arranging everything in and around Rauma! And also thanks you for that meeting on saturday with Luontoliitto. That was very interesting, we learned a lot and the people there were really friendly and cared very well for us :) As we already discussed on the bus, we were a 'little' bit disappointed about how we were treated in Olkiluoto and that we were not allowed to the the reactor or the workplaces.. We decided to write a complaint to them. For this we need some more information on what exactly you arranged with them. Maybe you (Luntoliitto) want to join that complaint?

Best regards, Antonia

Personal tools
Emergency Alert