The question is:

What kind of South Africa do we want to live in by 2030, and what energy technologies and strategies will get us there? We need to think about these issues:

• What is the most effective way to address climate change?
• What energy path is the safest and simplest?
• How much is it going to cost to build and to run?
• What are the costs to the environment and to future generations?
• Who is going to benefit in terms of jobs and skills?

Nuclear power does not help us

to combat climate change at all

Our planet earth is heating up as a result of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The CO2 acts like a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat in. This rise in CO2 comes mostly from burning fossil fuels, which contain carbon.

Scientists say that the earth’s  temperature has already risen by 0.7 degrees and will rise by at least another 0.6 degree Centigrade in years to come.[1] The Copenhagen Summit of December 2009 agreed that we must keep the global temperature rise below two degrees. A rise of 2 deg C is enough to cause havoc. If we don’t start now, by 2020 it may no longer be practically feasible to achieve the rate of reductions required.[2]

Most of South Africa’s electricity comes from burning coal. We therefore need to choose the most cost-effective low-carbon strategies and act now.

• The first step costs nothing: users of energy can cut back on wasteful energy use.
• The second step is the best way we can spend money: invest in energy efficiency.[3] This means changing the way we use buildings, lights, all kinds of motors, transport, electronics and – most importantly – the production and distribution of electricity. Factories that use heat can also generate electricity from it: this is called co-generation.
  • We can pay back the cost of investing in energy efficiency in less than 3 years[4] and at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[5] This is much cheaper than building new centralised generation plant. The South African Government’s energy efficiency strategy says we can save over 4000 MW of capacity by 2025, the same as a very large, coal-fired power station. Now they need to introduce financial incentives and tax breaks.
• The third step is to use renewable energy. Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural sources of power, such as the sun and the wind (but NOT uranium or coal!), and they are nearly free of CO2. South Africa could have as much as 15% renewable energy by 2020 at a reasonable cost.[6]
• Using the sun’s rays to heat water directly (solar water heating) is better than using electricity to heat a geyser and is free of CO2 when used properly. If the Government were to subsidise one million solar water heaters with timers from now until 2020, we would save another 3000 MW of power for electricity production[7] – the same as another, large, coal-fired power station.
• Engineers can build wind farms in two years, and the power of the wind is free – forever. Wind turbines also do not consume any water. South Africa could have up to 12% of carbon-free wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 20% by 2030.[8] Once again, this is the same as another large, coal-fired power station.
  • Some pro-nuclear lobbyists say that the wind is not always available. Yet, if the wind turbines were built all over the country and fed into the grid, the wind would always blow somewhere, so we have built this fact into our calculation.
• Concentrated Solar thermal Plants (CSP) are like giant magnifying glasses that concentrate the sun’s rays on one spot, which becomes very hot and can then be used to make electricity. Engineers can build these plants in 3-4 years, while CSP could generate 13% of our electricity by 2020, and 27% by 2030.[9] Solar thermal plants are expensive but are coming down in price as fast as the price for nuclear power plants is going up.

South Africa has the best locations for sunshine in the world. By 2030 researchers are sure that solar thermal power will be the most cost-effective source of carbon-free bulk electricity and usable heat. With hot-salt storage, and possibly with gas back-up from the Kudu gas fields, this power supply would be available 24 hours a day.

We do not have time for nuclear

power to make a difference

If we want to make a difference to global warming we need to start now and make the transition before 2020. Although nuclear power does not release much CO2 compared to coal, it is still too expensive, too slow and takes money away from cheaper and quicker options. If we ordered one today, it would not be ready before 2020.[10] Looking at the planet as a whole, we would need 50 years to have enough nuclear power plants to really reduce carbon emissions and by this time it would be far too late to do anything about global warming.

Nuclear power costs too much

No private investors anywhere in the world will take on the capital costs of nuclear power without government loan guarantees or similar public underwriting. The capital costs of nuclear power are so high and so uncertain that it is completely impossible to produce definitive estimates for new nuclear costs at this time.[11] There is evidence that costs have been  rising at about 12% a year in real terms since 2003.[12] At this rate, costs double in 5 years.

No nuclear plant operators anywhere in the world today carry full liability in case of accident.[13] In SA the operator is granted limited liability and regulation is subsidized by the tax payer. Without this, there would no nuclear power.

When we talk about the long-term management of highly radioactive nuclear fuel that has been taken out of a nuclear reactor, we are talking about tens of thousands of years.  We cannot work out the cost because we have no reliable management system for long-term waste management anywhere in the world.[14] Any cost not budgeted for will fall on future generations.

Nuclear power: least jobs for money

South Africa needs the type of skills that workers can learn quickly, so that they can start working as soon as possible, and lift themselves and their families out of poverty and inequality. We also need skills that teach workers to become their own bosses and for them to survive in tough times.

Renewable energy technology and energy efficiency installations, such as solar-water heaters will create many more jobs, much more quickly, and more suited to the job market than nuclear power.[15] These jobs will also be more spread out around the country and not only to be found in one or two places.[16]

Nuclear power: not safe, not simple

The nuclear industry starts with the mining of uranium ore. Then the ore is processed into uranium oxide before being enriched for nuclear fuel. After the fuel is used up it has to be stored and transported, and there has to be an evacuation plan in case of emergency and general security against the theft of nuclear material for use in terrorism or secret nuclear weapons.  All of these activities pose a serious, hazardous risk, some more than others.

• Uranium mining brings up huge masses of radioactive rocks from underground, to be crushed and carried to local people by the wind. It also takes masses of fresh water and leaks radio-active and acidic waste-water into the local water supply, both above and below ground. Acid mine drainage has been described as “second only to global warming in terms of ecological risk”.[17]
• Uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication plants release significant quantities of radioactivity and toxic chemicals into the environment.
• Nuclear power plants are licensed to release radioactive fission products such as cesium and strontium in the normal course of their operation. These waste products are radioactive and chemically similar to elements essential for life. They build up inside plants and animals which we eat.

When the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) allows Eskom to send out these highly dangerous fission products, they only work out the effect on people from exposure outside the body. Yet the real threat comes from fission particles inside the body. This is much more harmful than outside and can cause premature cancers. Women, unborn infants and young children are especially at risk.[18]

• If nuclear plants were inherently safe they would not need any evacuation zone or evacuation plan. In the event of a very bad accident, you would not be insured. Also, all home-owners have radiation damage excluded from their insurance policies. If nuclear power was safe, insurance companies (who understand risk) would insure you.
• As the plants get older, they can become more fragile and more likely to break down.[19]
• The transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste carries a grave risk of accident and is susceptible to terrorist attack. Even ships have to travel with an armed escort.
• The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a new, experimental reactor planned for the existing Koeberg site, near Cape Town.  Some scientists and engineers have questioned the design safety features. It also does not have a bomb-proof containment structure.[20]
  • The nuclear industry can’t be left to manage itself but requires a complex, centralized state with a militarized, security establishment all of its own. This poses a threat not only to democracy, but also the practice of human rights.

Nuclear power: no global security

Nuclear bombs need the elements tritium and plutonium, or uranium. Tritium and plutonium come only from nuclear reactors, so countries that want to make nuclear bombs have to have nuclear reactors and nuclear enrichment or fuel reprocessing plants. Nuclear power plants provide reactors that can be used to extract the raw materials of nuclear weapons or they can be used as a cover to hide a nuclear-weapons programme.

The transfer of technology invariably begins with the construction of civil nuclear reactors for power.  USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear power and nuclear weapons. South Africa produced nuclear weapons at the same time that Koeberg was being built, but has since dismantled them. North Korea started to build two civilian nuclear power plants in 1994, but the construction was stopped in 2002 due to international sanctions. They nevertheless went on to build and explode 2 nuclear bombs.  Iran has civilian nuclear power plants and is suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons.

All the information in this paper is referenced and can be found on the CANE website at www.cane.org.za.

Further reading:

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? Amory Lovins. Dec 2008.

The question is:

What kind of South Africa do we want to live in by 2030, and what energy technologies and strategies will get us there? We need to think about these issues:

• What is the most effective way to address climate change?
• What energy path is the safest and simplest?
• How much is it going to cost to build and to run?
• What are the costs to the environment and to future generations?
• Who is going to benefit in terms of jobs and skills?

Nuclear power does not help us

to combat climate change at all

Our planet earth is heating up as a result of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The CO2 acts like a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat in. This rise in CO2 comes mostly from burning fossil fuels, which contain carbon.

Scientists say that the earth’s  temperature has already risen by 0.7 degrees and will rise by at least another 0.6 degree Centigrade in years to come.[1] The Copenhagen Summit of December 2009 agreed that we must keep the global temperature rise below two degrees. A rise of 2 deg C is enough to cause havoc. If we don’t start now, by 2020 it may no longer be practically feasible to achieve the rate of reductions required.[2]

Most of South Africa’s electricity comes from burning coal. We therefore need to choose the most cost-effective low-carbon strategies and act now.

• The first step costs nothing: users of energy can cut back on wasteful energy use.
• The second step is the best way we can spend money: invest in energy efficiency.[3] This means changing the way we use buildings, lights, all kinds of motors, transport, electronics and – most importantly – the production and distribution of electricity. Factories that use heat can also generate electricity from it: this is called co-generation.
  • We can pay back the cost of investing in energy efficiency in less than 3 years[4] and at 20% of the cost of new generation plant.[5] This is much cheaper than building new centralised generation plant. The South African Government’s energy efficiency strategy says we can save over 4000 MW of capacity by 2025, the same as a very large, coal-fired power station. Now they need to introduce financial incentives and tax breaks.
• The third step is to use renewable energy. Renewable energy is energy that comes from natural sources of power, such as the sun and the wind (but NOT uranium or coal!), and they are nearly free of CO2. South Africa could have as much as 15% renewable energy by 2020 at a reasonable cost.[6]
• Using the sun’s rays to heat water directly (solar water heating) is better than using electricity to heat a geyser and is free of CO2 when used properly. If the Government were to subsidise one million solar water heaters with timers from now until 2020, we would save another 3000 MW of power for electricity production[7] – the same as another, large, coal-fired power station.
• Engineers can build wind farms in two years, and the power of the wind is free – forever. Wind turbines also do not consume any water. South Africa could have up to 12% of carbon-free wind-generated electricity by 2020 and 20% by 2030.[8] Once again, this is the same as another large, coal-fired power station.
  • Some pro-nuclear lobbyists say that the wind is not always available. Yet, if the wind turbines were built all over the country and fed into the grid, the wind would always blow somewhere, so we have built this fact into our calculation.
• Concentrated Solar thermal Plants (CSP) are like giant magnifying glasses that concentrate the sun’s rays on one spot, which becomes very hot and can then be used to make electricity. Engineers can build these plants in 3-4 years, while CSP could generate 13% of our electricity by 2020, and 27% by 2030.[9] Solar thermal plants are expensive but are coming down in price as fast as the price for nuclear power plants is going up.

South Africa has the best locations for sunshine in the world. By 2030 researchers are sure that solar thermal power will be the most cost-effective source of carbon-free bulk electricity and usable heat. With hot-salt storage, and possibly with gas back-up from the Kudu gas fields, this power supply would be available 24 hours a day.

We do not have time for nuclear

power to make a difference

If we want to make a difference to global warming we need to start now and make the transition before 2020. Although nuclear power does not release much CO2 compared to coal, it is still too expensive, too slow and takes money away from cheaper and quicker options. If we ordered one today, it would not be ready before 2020.[10] Looking at the planet as a whole, we would need 50 years to have enough nuclear power plants to really reduce carbon emissions and by this time it would be far too late to do anything about global warming.

Nuclear power costs too much

No private investors anywhere in the world will take on the capital costs of nuclear power without government loan guarantees or similar public underwriting. The capital costs of nuclear power are so high and so uncertain that it is completely impossible to produce definitive estimates for new nuclear costs at this time.[11] There is evidence that costs have been  rising at about 12% a year in real terms since 2003.[12] At this rate, costs double in 5 years.

No nuclear plant operators anywhere in the world today carry full liability in case of accident.[13] In SA the operator is granted limited liability and regulation is subsidized by the tax payer. Without this, there would no nuclear power.

When we talk about the long-term management of highly radioactive nuclear fuel that has been taken out of a nuclear reactor, we are talking about tens of thousands of years.  We cannot work out the cost because we have no reliable management system for long-term waste management anywhere in the world.[14] Any cost not budgeted for will fall on future generations.

Nuclear power: least jobs for money

South Africa needs the type of skills that workers can learn quickly, so that they can start working as soon as possible, and lift themselves and their families out of poverty and inequality. We also need skills that teach workers to become their own bosses and for them to survive in tough times.

Renewable energy technology and energy efficiency installations, such as solar-water heaters will create many more jobs, much more quickly, and more suited to the job market than nuclear power.[15] These jobs will also be more spread out around the country and not only to be found in one or two places.[16]

Nuclear power: not safe, not simple

The nuclear industry starts with the mining of uranium ore. Then the ore is processed into uranium oxide before being enriched for nuclear fuel. After the fuel is used up it has to be stored and transported, and there has to be an evacuation plan in case of emergency and general security against the theft of nuclear material for use in terrorism or secret nuclear weapons.  All of these activities pose a serious, hazardous risk, some more than others.

• Uranium mining brings up huge masses of radioactive rocks from underground, to be crushed and carried to local people by the wind. It also takes masses of fresh water and leaks radio-active and acidic waste-water into the local water supply, both above and below ground. Acid mine drainage has been described as “second only to global warming in terms of ecological risk”.[17]
• Uranium enrichment and fuel fabrication plants release significant quantities of radioactivity and toxic chemicals into the environment.
• Nuclear power plants are licensed to release radioactive fission products such as cesium and strontium in the normal course of their operation. These waste products are radioactive and chemically similar to elements essential for life. They build up inside plants and animals which we eat.

When the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) allows Eskom to send out these highly dangerous fission products, they only work out the effect on people from exposure outside the body. Yet the real threat comes from fission particles inside the body. This is much more harmful than outside and can cause premature cancers. Women, unborn infants and young children are especially at risk.[18]

• If nuclear plants were inherently safe they would not need any evacuation zone or evacuation plan. In the event of a very bad accident, you would not be insured. Also, all home-owners have radiation damage excluded from their insurance policies. If nuclear power was safe, insurance companies (who understand risk) would insure you.
• As the plants get older, they can become more fragile and more likely to break down.[19]
• The transportation of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste carries a grave risk of accident and is susceptible to terrorist attack. Even ships have to travel with an armed escort.
• The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a new, experimental reactor planned for the existing Koeberg site, near Cape Town.  Some scientists and engineers have questioned the design safety features. It also does not have a bomb-proof containment structure.[20]
  • The nuclear industry can’t be left to manage itself but requires a complex, centralized state with a militarized, security establishment all of its own. This poses a threat not only to democracy, but also the practice of human rights.

Nuclear power: no global security

Nuclear bombs need the elements tritium and plutonium, or uranium. Tritium and plutonium come only from nuclear reactors, so countries that want to make nuclear bombs have to have nuclear reactors and nuclear enrichment or fuel reprocessing plants. Nuclear power plants provide reactors that can be used to extract the raw materials of nuclear weapons or they can be used as a cover to hide a nuclear-weapons programme.

The transfer of technology invariably begins with the construction of civil nuclear reactors for power.  USA, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear power and nuclear weapons. South Africa produced nuclear weapons at the same time that Koeberg was being built, but has since dismantled them. North Korea started to build two civilian nuclear power plants in 1994, but the construction was stopped in 2002 due to international sanctions. They nevertheless went on to build and explode 2 nuclear bombs.  Iran has civilian nuclear power plants and is suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons.

All the information in this paper is referenced and can be found on the CANE website at www.cane.org.za.

Further reading:

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? Amory Lovins. Dec 2008.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable South Africa Energy Outlook. Greenpeace. Oct 2008.

http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2009/ER-final-south_africa_lr.pdf

[2] Twenty six Questions and Answers in regard to the study “Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 deg C”. Meinshausen et al. 2009 in 30th April issue of Nature. Q8 Pg 6 and Q12 Pg 8.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/qanda_meinshausen_etal_2009_ghgtargets

[3] McKinsey Global Energy + Materials. Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy. July 2009. http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/downloads/US_energy_efficiency_exc_summary.pdf

[4] Dept of Minerals and Energy. Energy Efficiency Strategy of the Republic of South Africa. March 2005.  Pg 11.  http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/efficiency/ee_strategy_05.pdf

[5] McKinsey Global Institute. The Case for Investing in Energy Productivity. Feb 2008. Pg 12. http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/reports/pdfs/Investing_Energy_Productivity/Investing_Energy_Productivity.pdf

[6] Energy Research Centre, UCT. Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. October 2008.

http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/08-Marquardetal-costing_a_2020_target.pdf

[7] Eskom: Solar water heating FAQ’s. http://www.eskomdsm.co.za/?q=Solar_water_heating_FAQs#crisis

[8] Energy Research Centre, UCT. Costing a 2020 Target of 15% Renewable Electricity for South Africa. October 2008.

[9] Energy Research Centre, UCT. Large-scale roll out of concentrating solar power in South Africa. Edkins, Winkler, Marquard. August 2009. Table 2 Pg 6.

http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/09Edkins-etal-Rollout_of_CSP.pdf

[10] The planning, design and construction of a nuclear power plant takes at least 10 years from inception.

[11] Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy and Research at the World Nuclear Association.  Escalating costs of new build: what does it mean? Nuclear Engineering International. Aug 22 2008.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2050690

[12] Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Update on the cost of nuclear power. May 2009.  Pg17. http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

[13] International Institute for Sustainable Development: Global Subsidies Initiative. Gambling on nuclear power: how public money fuels the industry.

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry

[14] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study. 2009. Pg. 11. Quote: “There is no plan for high level wastes…the progress on high level waste disposal has not been positive”

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf

[15] AGAMA Energy. Employment Potential of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Nov 2003. Fig 5 Pg ix.

http://www.eskom.co.za/content/Employment%20Potential%20of%20renewable%20resources%20in%20SA.pdf

[16] Renewable Energy Briefing Paper. Potential of Renewable Energy to contribute to National Electricity Emergency Response and Sustainable Development. Holm, Banks, Schaffler, Worthington, Afrane-Okese. March 2008. Table 6 pg 22.

[17] Dept of Environment and Tourism. Emerging Issues Paper: Mine Water Pollution. March 2008. Pg. 1.  http://soer.deat.gov.za/dm_documents/Mine_Water_Pollution_fPA1A.pdf

[18] International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009. Article: Very low dose fetal exposure to Chernobyl contamination resulted in increases in infant leukemia in Europe and raises questions about current radiation risk models.  Christopher Busby.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/12/3105/pdf

[19] Union of Concerned Scientists. Safety of old and new nuclear reactors. David Lochbaum. May 2001.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/safety-of-old-and-new-nuclear.html

[20] PBMR. Safety Q & A’s.: “total containment of radioactivity was deemed unnecessary” http://www.pbmr.co.za/index.asp?Content=237

energy [r]evolution: A Sustainable South Africa Energy Outlook. Greenpeace. Oct 2008.

http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/national/2009/ER-final-south_africa_lr.pdf

SAVE BANTAMSKLIP CAMPAIGN

GENERAL PRESS RELEASE

Immediate release

9 March 2010

“NUCLEAR 1”

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:

FATALLY FLAWED AND DESIGNED TO CONFUSE

The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a nuclear power station at the Bantamsklip site has been released for public comment, with a closing date set for 10 May 2010. Bantamsklip is situated near the Pearly Beach resort, 50 km east of Hermanus.

The Save Bantamsklip Campaign and its affiliates and associated organisations are happy to have been placed third on the list of priority sites, but the battle to have the Bantamsklip site removed entirely from the list is far from over. We assert that the Government has already confirmed their whole-hearted support for a “nuclear fleet” with all the ancillary nuclear fuel-chain components. Unless this commitment is opposed, we expect to see construction begin at Bantamsklip in ten year’s time, at the latest.

Like the Trojan House outside the gates of Troy, we believe that the wording of the Executive Summary of the draft EIR for “Nuclear-1″ has been designed deliberately to counter the highly visible and successful advance of the Save Bantamsklip Campaign. The idea behind the proponent’s propaganda is to sow discord and confusion in the ranks of the campaign by appearing to shift focus away to Thyspunt in the Eastern Cape as the first site.

Furthermore, the draft EIR suffers from a number of fatal flaws, such as the failure to specify the type of reactor envisaged for the site. How can we determine scientifically and accurately the environmental impact of a nuclear fission reactor when we don’t know what it is? It is rather like ordering a fleet of motor vehicles at an exorbitant cost, knowing absolutely nothing about the brand, its performance, nor its safety features!

We therefore call on all our supporters to redouble their efforts to defend and consolidate our position to have Bantamsklip and Groot Hagelkraal entirely removed from the list of potential sites.

We support and endorse the positive campaign of strengthening and deepening the drive for a World Heritage Site status and for the site to be taken away from Eskom and incorporated into the Agulhas National Park.

We ask all our supporters to study carefully the EIR and to register their objections to the report, available at www.savebantamsklip.org and to join us in a march in opposition to this proposal on Monday 26 April 2010. Further details will be released closer to the time.

John Williams

Chairman

Save Bantamsklip Association

082 923 1839

john @ savebantamsklip.org

www.savebantamsklip.org

Download the (PDF) pamphlet here.

Why nuclear power is not the answer to Climate Change

The Africa Institute of South Africa (AISA) cordially invites you to a seminar on:

The Development and Demise of South Africa’s Nuclear Industry

By

Mr Mojalefa Murphy

Profile
Mojalefa Murphy is a scientist currently engaged in a research and development attachment at Areva’s CANBERRA Company in Toronto, Canada. He has postgraduate education from Canada (in physics and in nuclear engineering and science) and UK (in medical radiation physics) and has occupied senior management and scientist positions at the former Atomic Energy Corporation and iThemba LABS. He has briefly worked as an independent consultant providing science and technology management services before he relocated to Canada, where he also taught at University of Toronto.

Abstract
From the Nubian through the Roman to the British and lately the US empires, the development and maintenance of a sound technology edge to enable the sustainable provision of energy, national security (military defence) and food security for growing populations have been key governmental activities of the ruling elite. The rise of the Afrikaner ruling elite coincided with a rapid acquisition of energy, military and agricultural technological edge. Within a period of 17 years of assuming power in 1948, the then Nationalist Party government had commissioned the production of liquid fuels from coal in 1955, and developed a nuclear science and technology platform to support the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle for dual purposes of energy and advanced weaponry provision. In this consideration, a timeline account of the development and decommissioning of South Africa’s nuclear technology capability is discussed. The key driving forces of these developments are also explained as are the dire consequences of any failure to curb the post#8208;1990 lack of a sound nuclear vision.

Date: 16 February 2010
09:30 for 10:00 – 12:00
Africa Institute of South Africa
One Embassy House
Cnr Bailey Lane & Edmond Street, Tshwane

For more info:

Tel.: 012 304 9753
Cell: 073 334 3104
Fax: 086 510 0408
email: slekala@ai.org.za

Please be informed that ex-nuclear workers who have repeatedly over the past few years failed in their attempts to get compensation from South Africa’s Nuclear Corporation (NECSA) for debilitating and often fatal occupational diseases, have planned a legal march to NECSA’s headquarters at Pelindaba near Pretoria.

They have vowed to stage a “sleep-in” at NECSA’s gates unless they are adequately responded to by the nuclear bosses. The memorandum they intend handing over is attached.NECSA memorandum 22 Jan 2010

When: Thursday February 4, 2010

Starting time: 10.30 am

Place: Necsa Gate 3, Church Street, Pelindaba (west of Pretoria) Contact person: Mr. Alfred Sepepe 074 299 8214

Many of these Atteridgeville Township based workers formed part of the sample group of 208 ex-nuclear workers who underwent preliminary medical examinations by respected occupational health medical practitioner Dr Murray Coombs. Coombs found that a significant number of these workers suffered from occupational illnesses resultant from their employment at the Pelindaba complex and referred several cases to the Compensation Commissioner. All these applications were rejected. The Commissioner has yet to make known the basis on which he dismissed these applications despite legislation which entitles these workers to compensation based on presumption alone. Coombs further concluded that most of the ex-workers he had seen needed further in-depth medical tests and in 2006 Dr. Coombs approached NECSA to undertake these tests in the presence of representatives appointed by the workers themselves to ensure transparency. NECSA flatly refused and produced its own medical results that denied the claims made in the Coombs Report.

Almost 30 ex-workers from the original sample group have died penniless and with extreme medical conditions since this process began in 2005/6 – this despite numerous appeals to the President, various Ministers and a special hearing before a Parliamentary Portfolio Committee in July 2007 which undertook to ensure justice and compensation for these workers. The chairman of that committee was dropped in the new post-elections administration and to date not a single promise made to these workers has been met.

Please contact Mr. Sepepe for further details.

This media release is issued by:

Pelindaba Working Group
acting in solidarity with the plight of these ex-nuclear workers
Dominique Gilbert – 083 740 4676