Joining International Commemorations, and in solidarity with radiation workers everywhere, anti-nukers took to the streets of Cape Town to protest South Africa’s future energy plans.

In support of the “Fukushima 50″, and radiation affected workers everywhere, a memorandum was also handed over to the Japanese Consul General during protest action near the Japanese Embassy in Cape Town.

Here are some pictures from Earthlife Africa’s Cape Town branch

This was evidenced in the recently approved Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010). The IRP 2010 provides for 9600MW of nuclear energy in the energy mix from 2023. The approval of the IRP2010 was a clear indication that government has shown little or no regard for the many civil society objections and submissions to the Department of Energy and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee. The announcement of cabinet’s approval of South Africa’s nuclear plan was also made less than one week after the world was reeling from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant. It is hard to believe that government is oblivious to the impacts of nuclear energy.

So is this a case of a government being obstinate or has the government already signed agreements with France to build nuclear power stations?

While the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster has been attributed to a natural disaster, its impacts are incredibly widespread. As of 12 April 2011, the nuclear accident at Fukushima was rated as a Level 7 ‘major accident’ – the highest level on the international nuclear accident scale, and equivalent to that of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Level 7 is used to describe an event consisting of “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.” The Japanese government is now expected to extend the evacuation zone around the plant and declare the immediate area a no-go zone. About 22 000 residents have fled the area.

Ironically, this year is the 25th “anniversary” of the Chernobyl nuclear accident – the only other Level 7 accident in history. After 25 years, the area around Chernobyl remains uninhabitable with an exclusion zone of 30km still in place. Almost 200 000 people lived in the zone – which is now desolate. Radiation levels around the plant remain so high that authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years. The Ukrainian government is still heavily burdened by the costs of this disaster, a quarter of a century later.

Given these impacts, one would have expected a responsible government to exercise some caution with nuclear energy plans. In many countries the nuclear debate has been re-opened as a result of Japan’s nuclear troubles and Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Germany called for a review of the safety of their nuclear reactors. Germany has since shut down seven of its old reactors.

Governments will continue to ignore their citizens until they remember that it is these same citizens who put them into power. The South African government may be confident of its support but this will not go on for as long as people are ignored. In Germany, the power of the voters has demonstrated that no government will be safe in power if they continue to endorse nuclear power. On the 28th of March 2011, Germany’s anti-nuclear Green Party won the Baden-Wuerttemberg state election and managed to beat Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which had been in power for almost 60 years.

Merkel’s duplicitous position on nuclear power was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the CDU. In 2010, Merkel’s government passed a law extending the life-span of nuclear plants by an average 12 years – a decision that toppled the previous German administration’s pledge of a gradual phase-out of nuclear energy. Then in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Chancellor made an abrupt turnaround and ordered a temporary shutdown of seven of the country’s older reactors. This quick change raised doubts about her credibility and was viewed as a mere election ploy.

The nuclear energy debate may not have grown enough yet to sway voters in South Africa’s upcoming local government elections. Government has not listened to its citizens’ objections to nuclear power and may well get away with it for now. However, the tide is turning and government will have to listen to the needs of the South African people. The objections to nuclear energy are growing, with not only environmental organisations raising their voices, but also the labour movement with both the National Union of Mineworkers and Congress of South African Trade Unions raising concerns about nuclear energy in South Africa. However, the big challenge for civil society is the cloud of secrecy surrounding nuclear energy. There are numerous and complex problems of nuclear energy that are often hidden, including radioactive waste, untested new designs [PBMR comes to mind], phenomenal cost overruns, government loan guarantees, possible tax subsidies for the industry, and the general downplaying of potential hazards.

For decades South Africa has developed its nuclear industry, but what do we really know about it? It is time to ask the questions of the people we have put into power and demand honest answers. How is radioactive waste being dealt with in uranium mine dumps – Pelindaba and Koeberg? Where would South Africa source the fuel for its six new nuclear stations? Government‘s commitment to the future of nuclear energy is very strong, but where would it obtain funds for six nuclear stations?

Since the South African government is going to take decisions with pseudo-consultative processes, it is up to civil society to start asking the right questions. And if we don’t get answers to our questions, these decisions must be challenged to the full extent of the law so as to put a stop to nuclear energy in South Africa.

Our future is in our hands, and it is up to us to hold the government accountable.

- Makoma Lekalakala is a programme officer at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg.

Source:

http://www.ngopulse.org/article/nuclear-energy-sa-government-sticks-its-head-sand



(Endorsed by 87 Japanese NGOs)

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, precipitated by the huge earthquake and ensuing tsunamis that hit eastern Japan on March 11, has created fear of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination not just in Japan, but throughout the world.

The Japanese Government, electric power companies and academics who served them boasted that Japan’s nuclear power plants were completely safe, that a nuclear accident would not occur. Their responsibility is heavy indeed. Many people had long warned of precisely the situation that is now in progress – of the danger of a huge earthquake and tsunami, of an accident caused by a loss of power supply, of the danger of concentrating several plants on a single site, of the problems facing suicide squads required to respond to a major accident, of the defects of emergency response preparations which only covered a 10 kilometer radius – but these warnings were not taken seriously. The attitude of promoting nuclear energy no matter what is one of the reasons why the response on this occasion by the Japanese Government and Tokyo Electric Power Company has at each stage been too late. To nevertheless claim that this was “beyond expectations” is both immoral and criminal.

Reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station have not achieved cold shut down. The situation continues to be unpredictable. It is important to maintain cooling function and to take measures to prevent further contamination from releases and leaks of radioactive material. It goes without saying that in doing so sufficient consideration must be given to the safety of the workers. Radiation exposure standards for residents should not be set excessively high to meet accident circumstances. Rather, it is necessary to rapidly take all steps to enable the earliest possible adherence to the original standard of less than 1 millisievert per year. Decommissioning and disposal of the huge heap of radioactive waste that Fukushima Daiichi has become will probably be a long battle extending over decades.

We have continued to oppose nuclear power and nuclear facilities, calling for a phase out of nuclear energy through activities throughout Japan. Hoping for the earliest possible end to the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi, whatever we are able to do together we wish to do it now.

As a first step we are issuing this joint statement today, 25 years after the Chernobyl accident. At an appropriate time we will launch a large national action demanding a formal decision to permanently close down the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Stations, to cancel the nuclear fuel cycle program, to cancel plans to build new nuclear reactors and to shut down aging nuclear reactors and we will propose a process for achieving a steady phase out of nuclear energy.

We refuse to allow the earth to be further subjected to radioactive contamination and radiation exposure. For the sake of all living beings, let us walk together towards the achievement of a nuclear-free society.

Contact

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center

Email: cnic@nifty.com

Web: http://www.cnic.jp/english/

Tel.&Fax. 81-3-3357-3810

A list in Japanese of endorsing groups can be found after the Japanese statement on the following URL:

http://www.cnic.jp/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1098

Nuclear fuel has melted in three reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and fallen to the lower sections of their container vessels, raising the specter of overheated material compromising a container and causing a massive radiation release, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan said in a report released on Friday (see GSN, April 15).

(Apr. 15) – Abandoned flowers wilt on Tuesday in the exclusion zone surrounding Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Nuclear fuel has melted inside three reactors at the severely damaged facility, says an expert assessment published on Friday (Athit Perawongmetha/Getty Images).

The group played down the possibility of a container breach, though, noting that only a small amount of fuel had melted so far and affected material had assumed a granulated structure and remained relatively cool, Kyodo News reported. The six-reactor plant was crippled by the 9.0-magnitude earthquake and devastating tsunami that hit Japan on March 11; the confirmed death toll from the events now exceeds 12,000 people.

The melted fuel was thought to have dispersed uniformly across the lower portions of the containers of reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, making the material highly unlikely to resume the fission process in a “recriticality,” according to the organization, which said fuel rods in all three reactors had been harmed. Fuel in the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors has made contact with air, while the No. 3 reactor’s rods have remained underwater, the group said.

Bringing the fuel under control could take between two and three months if restoration work moved forward as expected, said Takashi Sawada, the group’s deputy chairman. The organization based its assessment on information provided by the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and by Tokyo Electric Power, the plant’s operator.

Plant personnel pressed ahead in efforts to prevent additional radioactive material from escaping the site, deploying steel barriers around a No. 2 reactor pipeline and proceeding with the insertion of nitrogen gas into the No. 1 reactor to prevent additional hydrogen blasts. Pressure in the No. 1 reactor has fallen to a certain degree, pointing to the possible escape of air, but radiation in the area has remained largely unchanged.

Tokyo Electric Power indicated it could drop sandbags filled with zeolite into the nearby ocean as soon as Friday to help curb the spread of radioactive contaminants (Kyodo News I, April 15). Silt fencing was deployed in front of screening at the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors for containing radioactive water, the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Thursday (International Atomic Energy Agency release, April 15).

Workers earlier this week transferred roughly 660 tons of radiation-tainted water out of an underground passage, but fluid flooding the area reached its original depth by Friday morning, Kyodo News quoted the atomic safety agency as saying. Contaminated water has hindered efforts to restore cooling mechanisms needed to help prevent additional radioactive material from escaping the site.

A nuclear waste treatment area intended to receive the water was still undergoing inspection for possible weak points in pipelines.”‘I’m hoping that work to stop water leaks at the (facility) is finished as soon as possible to start channeling the water there,” said Industry Minister Banri Kaieda said on Friday (Kyodo News I).

Fresh water continued to be transferred into reactors No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said. Conditions remained consistent at the No. 5 and No. 6 reactors (International Atomic Energy Agency release).

Soil samples taken at the facility between March 31 and April 4 contained small amounts of plutonium, Kyodo News reported on Friday. The finding marked the third detection of plutonium traces at the site (Kyodo News I).

Radioactive iodine and cesium levels might increased dozens of times over in groundwater close to the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors between April 6 and 13 (Kyodo News II, April 15). Strontium also turned up in soil close to the facility for the first time, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on Friday.

Tokyo Electric Power was still developing a longer-term strategy for stabilizing plant conditions, company president Masataka Shimizu said (Danielle Demetriou, Sydney Morning Herald, April 15).

Specialists with Toshiba, one supplier of plant components, said conditions could be brought under control “in several months,” Norio Sasaki, the firm’s chief executive, said on Thursday. A plan developed by the company calls for the removal of fuel from reactor containers to start after five years and for decontamination to take place over another five years, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

Hitachi, which has developed a separate plan to decommission the facility, said Toshiba’s proposal was too hopeful and suggested the fuel removal process alone could take a decade to complete.

The status of the nuclear fuel at the site would affect the speed of dismantlement, said Tetsuo Matsumoto, a nuclear engineering professor with Tokyo City University. “Will it still be shaped like rods? Or will it have melted and collapsed into a big mass?” the expert asked. “It could be 10 years or it could be 30. You just won’t know until you open up the reactor” (Hiroko Tabuchi, New York Times, April 14).

Tokyo Electric Power on Wednesday said the deterioration of spent fuel stored in the No. 4 reactor’s cooling pond appeared confined, the Asahi Shimbun reported. Fuel in the reactor was only partly compromised, the company indicated (Asahi Shimbun I, April 15).

The Japanese government on Friday indicated a smaller quantity of radioactive contaminants had been poured into the ocean in a controlled dump of low-level radioactive water than previously suspected, Kyodo News reported. Tokyo Electric Power suggested the 10,393 tons of water jettisoned between April 4 and 10 contained up to 170 billion becquerels of contaminants, but the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency estimated the total amount released to fall around 150 billion becquerels (Kyodo News III, April 15).

The U.S. Energy Department was sending five massive steel containers and a tractor trailer for holding contaminated water from the plant, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo indicated on Thursday (Kyodo News IV, April 14).

Fukushima University experts have plotted out the spread of air-based radioactive materials from the plant using samples taken late last month from 370 points around Fukushima prefecture, the Asahi Shimbun reported on Friday (Asahi Shimbun II, April 15).

In excess of 100 academic specialists intend next month to launch an investigation of the ecological and safety implications of radioactive contaminants released from the facility, Kyodo News reported. Members of the team are expected to help the Fukushima government gather soil samples from 1,500 points along 62 miles of coastline and as far as 37 miles from the ocean (Kyodo News V, April 14).

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday said specialists in his country “will assess the impact of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident on the environment and will also conduct environmental monitoring” (Kyodo News V, April 15).

Participating agencies would include the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry and Russian Meteorological Service, ITAR-Tass quoted Russian Geographical Society Vice President Artur Chilingarov as saying. The monitoring “starts on April 22 and will continue 24 days,” he said (ITAR-Tass, April 15).

Source: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110415_5020.php

Experts Urge Jordan to Abandon Nuclear Energy Quest

Friday, April 15, 2011

Amid the ongoing nuclear power plant crisis in Japan, specialists in Jordan are questioning their government’s pursuit of atomic energy, Agence France-Presse reported on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 29, 2010).

Government Environment Ministry adviser Rauf Dabbas said Jordan’s program “lacks environmental assessment and feasibility studies.”

“We do not know its actual cost. We do not know what precautions should be taken to prevent a nuclear catastrophe in the country,” he said.

The energy-starved Arab nation possess large reserves of uranium and has expressed ambitions of developing full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities which include uranium enrichment — a process that can generate weapon-usable material (see GSN, June 24, 2010). Amman wants the country’s first atomic energy reactor operational no later than 2019.

Read more @ http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110414_8170.php

This diagram shows how long it will take for radiation to reach the areas around Pelindaba - a similar diagram applies to Koeberg. Evacuating this area will be impossible in case of an accident. The evacuation plans (of Eskom and the Department of Energy, through the National Nuclear Regulator) call for at least a ten kolometre zone to be evacuated. Yet hardly anyone near either site (Koeberg or Pelindaba) has even heard of this and no full scale evacuation plan has ever been tested. We believe that it is impossible to evacuate people at risk in the time available - less than two hours. How will people be informed? How will people who speak different languages be informed? Where will they go? How will they get there? How many buses will it take? Are these available? Of course, none of the above answers are forthcoming. Diagram: Courtesy of "What you need to know about South Africa's nuclear programme!"-Earthlife Africa which is downloadable in PDF from the "Important Info" page on the CANE website.

Monday 11 April 2011

By Cynthia Dreyer

If the disaster management control at Pelindaba is as tardy as the response to the concern of our readers and ourselves, Gawd help us. MadibengPulse first sent an email on 14 March asking for answers to what disaster measures were in place should an emergency at Pelindaba arise, and how they would communicate with the public to take protective measures. This was done when there was worldwide concern about the hazards of nuclear power and when a sophisticated nuclear country such as Japan were caught unawares (despite years of warnings – comment).

Our email asked for “an urgent response”

In a reply received only on 31 March, a communications spokesperson for NECSA Ms Chantal Janneker says they received our questions on Wednesday 16 March, whereas we sent the first request on Monday 14 March to Ms Shaun Chetty. That it took two days to get to the relevant person is not our concern. The only communication we received was on 17 March and was a general statement issued regarding the Fukushima disaster released by the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa. What is of extreme concern is that it took two weeks to get a reply out of Necsa regarding local disaster management. Necsa spokesperson Ms Chantal Janneker says we did not indicate that we needed an immediate reply, but quotes our email which states: “An urgent response is required. Thank you”! More than 24 hours would have elapsed before publication of the 17 March edition, but no attempt was made to reply or to acknowledge our request in what should have been merely a “cut and paste” ready response for all media, immediately available.

According to our distribution records, our article on 17 March was read by various staff members at Necsa, including Mr Eliott Mulane who forwarded us the reply quoted below, but only on 31 March! The follow up article on 21 March was read by more members of Necsa including Ms Shaun Chetty, but still no answer was forthcoming. If this is how Necsa views its responsibilities as custodians of the most dangerous substances on earth, we can all sit with our heads between our knees and kiss…. goodbye!

After two weeks, the following is the reply received form NECSA:

“Necsa has a comprehensive Emergency Plan for on site emergencies and a combined on site plan which involves the Madibeng and Tshwane disaster Management Organizations. These plans are approved by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR). “The emergency plan requires a demonstrated ability by Necsa to alert residents living in the 5 kilometer formal emergency planning zone. (At Fukushima all residents were evacuated in a 20 kilometre radius zone – Editor) Necsa carries out routine exercises to ensure this and will utilise an auto dial system, ground shout and radio stations to alert the public of an emergency. Initial public alert must be achieved within time frames from 5 minutes to 1 hour depending on the emergency scenario. “Pamphlets and calendars distributed by Necsa on an annual basis are used to inform the public to go indoors and tune in to a local radio station. (We live in full view of Necsa but have in the 30 years of living here, never received any “pamphlet or calendar” from Necsa, nor would we know which local radio station to tune in to – CD.) Both Jacaranda FM and Motsweding FM have agreed to assist Necsa with emergency announcements. “The radio stations will broadcast emergency messages provided by Necsa on the emergency situation and request residents to perform required appropriate protective actions. “The Emergency Plan is not generally available to the public since it is a comprehensive and technical operating plan that is constantly being updated and tested in regular emergency drills that involve the Madibeng and Tshwane Disaster Management Organizations and which are closely supervised by the National Nuclear Regulator and the Department of Energy. “This plan is however regularly communicated and discussed in the quarterly Public Safety Information Forums to which the general public in the 5 km Necsa exclusion zone is always invited including your own newspaper and concerned organisations such as that headed by Ms Dominique Gilbert .These meetings are monitored and attended by the NNR and the Department of Energy. “In the spirit of fairness, transparency and the right to hold a different opinion, we would appreciate it if you would publish our comment and concern in an equitable manner.”

Comment (Madibeng Pulse):

Having had a home in Hartbeespoort for thirty years this month, this is the first we have heard of Necsa’s plans for an emergency, The already existing Hartbeespoort Community Policing Forums and neighbourhood watches may be good forums for a start where affected communities can have their concerns aired and questions answered. Communication networks via radio and sms already exist to various members and could be used for instant messages. The Disaster Management from Madibeng, though invited to every meeting of the Community Policing Forum, have never attended. This is another avenue of communication with the public which could be explored by Necsa – Cynthia Dreyer.

Source: http://www.madibengpulse.co.za/?Task=system&CategoryID=32103&HeadingText=Environment+110411+disaster+plan

Comment (Pelindaba Working Group):

Necsa and the NNR have shown complete disregard for public and environmental safety for years and, at best, merely adhere to the bare minimum as laid down by Acts that control them. Common sense and experience tells us the 5km zone is mere tokenism and that radiation will not be contained within the barbed wire fencing around Pelindaba’s nuclear farm. Truth of the matter, as was evidenced at a PSIF meeting over this issue, is that they do not want to extend the evacuation zone as it may mean residents from neighbouring Atteridgeville township would also be included and potentially elected to chair their white-wash forums. It was actually stated at one such meeting (at the time the plight of nuked ex-Necsa workers from Atteridgeville were making headlines during their failed quest for medical compensation) that “we don’t want busloads from Atteridgeville”. Moreover, the more people become aware of the need for an evacuation plan in the general area, the more people may actually begin to take notice and want Necsa out of the area. That we occasionally attend these PSIF meetings is often used by Necsa for its own propaganda purposes but should NOT be construed as our condoning or accepting what they claim.

It is high time questions are raised over the legitimacy of the nuclear complex in the area – an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was NEVER conducted before they began to nuke the place – and subsequent EIAs have largely traded on the fact that there already exists a radioactive footprint, so let’s add to it… All scientific evidence points to this situation becoming more and more dangerous as radiation and chemical footprints accumulate on site.

Pelindaba is NOT prepared for a disaster and nor are residents.

Hardly anyone has ever heard of an evacuation plan let alone take part in such. At least one radio station mentioned above was also unaware that it had a role to play!

We used to hear alarms go off frequently at Pelindaba only to discover they were experiencing emergency situations which they later denied would impact anyone outside their fences. Lists of questions over these incidents have remained unanswered but international experts have replied and warned us we should not rest assured. When people started becoming concerned, the alarms went silent (except for the ones they said “must have come from elsewhere”).

The third party insurance and nuclear liabilities  from the nuclear industry in this country are also virtually non-existent. Most insurance policies also emphatically exclude nuclear liability. Repeated attempts over many years – including a Promotion of  Information Act (PAIA) application to elicit information and to raise concern over this issue has been completely ignored.

by Max Matavire

A provincial anti-nuclear energy organisation has intensified its opposition to the proposed construction of a reactor at Thyspunt, Oyster Bay, on fears of repercussions of a nuclear accident.

Japan’nuclear disaster has bolstered the opposition to the use of this type of energy. ­Reactors at Fukushima plant in Japan have been leaking harmful radioactive materials into the environment following an earthquake and a tsunami there on March 11.

South Africa is faced with an energy crunch and identified increased use of nuclear power as one of the possible solutions. Power utulity Eskom has earmarked Thyspunt as a site for the construction of a nuclear reactor.

Activists and residents are vehemently opposed to the plan. Mike Kantey, the chairperson of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (Cane), said his organisation wanted to change the country’s energy policy away from nuclear power plants.

Kantey vowed to oppose the development of a nuclear plant all the way, promising to take the fight to the Constitutional Court.

Cane is now calling on all residents of the province – and the Garden Route – to rally behind the call to stop the construction of the nuclear reactor.

Kantey said the nuclear emissions and waste along the N2 national road posed serious health risks and could irrevocably damage tourism in the region. The government has said it hoped to break ground in 2013, but the plant has to first receive environmental approval and undergo a public participation process before any construction work can begin.

Kantey said he was busy preparing for “battle” against the up-coming environmental approval of the nuclear facility.

Numerous organisations of nuclear activists, environmentalists, dairy farmers, chokka fishermen and ordinary residents have been mobilised to fight against the construction of the nuclear facility.

Some of the organisations involved are the Thyspunt Alliance, the Supertubes Foundation in Jeffreys Bay, Gamtoos community, dairy farmers, residents and the fishing community. The concerns raised include the risk of winds carrying radioactive emissions from Thyspunt to neighbouring areas and the effect on the agriculture and dairy industries.

The opponents of the plant further wanted detailed information on the safety measures and disaster management plans that were in place for the towns along the N2 highway in case of an accident.

Kantey called for substantial support. “I am calling on residents of Knysna and Plettenberg Bay to put their money and support behind the Thyspunt Alliance so that we can take this matter to the Constitutional Court.”

http://www.thenewage.co.za/15163-1016-53-Opposition_to_nuclear_reactor_mounts

Watch this interview on the comparison between Fukushima and the Chernobyl Plant and what experts are saying:

This report “Radiation up 400 times in Miyagi, new blast feared at Fukushima” can be watched at:             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE_Au0J-gqw

Statement re the Nuclear and Earthquake Disaster Unfolding in Japan

The Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) is deeply concerned for the health and safety of the people affected by the earthquakes and tsunamis that have struck Japan over the last two days. We are particularly concerned for the people in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, including workers who are trying to minimize the scope of the disaster.

Unit 1 of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is in a state of meltdown. A nuclear disaster which the promoters of nuclear power in Japan said wouldn’t happen is in progress. It is occurring as a result of an earthquake that they said would not happen.

This could and should have been predicted. It was predicted by scientists and NGOs such as CNIC. We warned that Japan’s nuclear power plants could be subjected to much stronger earthquakes and much bigger tsunamis than they were designed to withstand.

Besides the question about how this accident will unfold, the big question now is, will the government and the nuclear industry acknowledge its mistakes and change track?

Last December the Japanese government began a review of its nuclear energy policy. The review was commenced in the spirit of essentially confirming the existing policy. That approach is no longer viable. The direction of the policy review must be completely reversed. It must be redirected towards developing a policy of phasing out nuclear energy as smoothly and swiftly as possible.

Philip White

International Liaison Officer

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center

Phone: 81-3-3357-3800 (office)

Phone: 81-3-3708-2898 (home)

Web (will be updated on Monday):

http://cnic.jp/english/

READ ABOUT:

TEPCO’s Damage Cover-up and Data Falsification Fukushima I Fukushima II

http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit92/nit92articles/nit92coverupdata.html

READ ABOUT:

Japan’s nuclear legacy, Earthquakes and Nuclear Energy, and the never-ending problems and cover-ups of Japan’s nuclear industry.

http://cnic.jp/english/

BREAKING NEWS.

FACT SHEET ON FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

UPDATE 2:30 pm, Sunday, March 13, 2011 from NIRS:

Tokyo Electric Power is reporting that some six feet of the core of Unit-3 remains uncovered and has been for some time despite efforts to pump water into the core. Tepco speculates there may be leaking pipes and water is not remaining in the core. A translation of part of the statement from our Japanese colleagues:

“The fuel’s integrity has been considerably compromised. We are assessing a considerably serious situation.”

Full Fact Sheet available @:

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/Fukushimafactsheet.pdf

Core is uncovered at Unit 3; Tokyo Electric Power calls it “a considerably serious situation.”

There are currently 23 General Electric Mark I reactors in the U.S.–the design that exploded at Fukushima. A top Atomic Energy Commission official first proposed banning this design nearly 40 years ago. List/fact sheet.

Link to video of press conference in Japan by Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center (in Japanese with English translation), March 13, 2011.

Statement of Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, March 12, 2011

Green Action blog on Japan nuclear crisis, includes updates, video links.

TMI Alert piece on similarities/differences between Fukushima and Three Mile Island events.

2002 report from Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center on cover-ups of safety problems by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

Nuclear Disaster in Japan – workers and citizens at high risk

The massive explosion following a cooling problem at one Fukushima’s nuclear reactors, Daiichi,  has not only released radiation and other toxic compounds, but has created an untenable situation for workers at Fukushima’s other nuclear reactors nearby, called Daini, especially given that a state of emergency has been declared for five reactors at the two plants. Latest news is that a hydrogen explosion is now possible at the No. 3 reactor at Fukushima 1.

“Workers are being exposed to the ‘allowable’ annual dose of radiation every hour that they remain on site. Our hearts go out to them,” said Muna Lakhani, co-ordinator of Earthlife Africa’s Unplug Nuclear 1 campaign. The danger is not over. There are fears of another explosion as the cooling system at a second reactor has also failed, as of Sunday morning. “The measuring of Caesium at the plant indicates that a meltdown has indeed taken place, which raises the levels of radiation released to catastrophic proportions” suggested Lakhani. Latest news on Sunday confirms fears of a multiple meltdown.

The reactors have all been shut down.  The reactor core remains hot for days after shutdown, however, so workers have been busy ensuring that the fuel rods do not melt down.  For this the cooling systems need to be operational requiring a power source.  The quake has disrupted the backup supplies of power including diesel generators.  The IAEA supplied batteries and coolant in the interim. They are now flushing the highly radioactive core with seawater which will cause massive seawater contamination whilst preventing a full scale Chernobyl type meltdown. This is an act of desperation and unprecedented.

Platitudes by the Japanese government and nuclear industry suggesting that the radiation threat is minimal must be treated with great caution, as reports confirm that not only has the containment been breached, and that ‘venting’ is taking place, but also that radiation levels at about 1000 higher than normal have been measured. The 24 hr monitoring that is supposed to happen as a matter of course, has been shutdown (www/nu/pamp/index-j.html) – Japanese activists suggest that this is so that the public and the world at large will not be told how much radiation has and is being released” said Gray Maguire, ELA branch secretary.

It took local activists many hours to get the exclusion zone expanded from the initial 10km to 20 km, which, while not completely safe, helps limit harm to local residents.

“We call upon the nuclear industry, and the South African government, to take this disaster seriously, and abandon all nuclear plans for our country. Given that proposed sites are all along the coast, we believe that this gamble is unacceptable. Not only are sustainable and safe alternatives cheaper than nuclear power, but they are also better solutions to the creation of decent work and energy security, as well as the best solutions to limit climate change,” Lakhani states. The public should note that our existing nuclear power plant Koeberg is on a geological fault on the Cape Fold Belt with the last destructive large earthquake occurring in 1809. Interesting also is that if we were to apply the 20km exclusion/ evacuation zone (which has been applied to Fukushima) to Koeberg this would mean evacuating most of Cape Town.

There has been a history of safety problems and cover-ups by TEPCO at the Fukushima reactor complex. (http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit92/nit92articles/nit92coverupdata.html).

South Africa is considering a ‘fleet’ of nuclear reactors, at Thyspunt, Bantamklip and additional reactors at Koeberg, at a potential cost of hundreds of billions of Rands. Yje National Nuclear Regulator has also come under fire, for not mobilising a “hazmat” team, with local activists questioning their ability to respond to a disaster at Koeberg.

ENDS/—–

Issued by:

Earthlife Africa Cape Town

Unplug Nuclear 1 Campaign

Contact:

Muna Lakhani

083-471-7276

muna@iafrica.com

The Editor

Business Report

Per e-mail

Dear Sir

The ill-fated Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) programme will probably go down in history as the most expensive set of CAD drawings ever produced. Despite dire warnings from Eskom’s own internal studies, a never-released PriceWaterhouseCoopers study, and various official thumbs-down signals from investment bankers and government regulators worldwide, the PBMR advocates persisted nevertheless, drawing one Power Point presentation after another, year after year after year, from as early as 1993 to as recently as 2010. During that time they probably siphoned well over R10-billion from the public purse.

Professor Eben Mulder, a past contributor to the PBMR programme and STILL singing its praises (Business Report 1 February 2011) on the eve of the Budget Speech, has the effrontery to want even more money for some redundant project from yesteryear: the thorium reactor.

Talk about throwing good money after bad!

Just so that your readers have some idea of the kind of money we’re talking about, the South African Department of Trade & Industry published their Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) in February 2010 with the following nugget on pages 88-89:

Nuclear component and equipment manufacturing is highly limited at present due to the lack of local and global demand over the last two decades. A future nuclear programme will cost in excess of R1 trillion. This will place enormous strain on the balance of payment and without an effective localisation programme will have severe consequences for the South African economy.

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10021909551001.htm

What is even more amazing, however, is the extraordinary use of rhetoric and obfuscation on the part of Mulder in an attempt to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader that a thorium reactor is somehow to be prioritized above all other solutions to the provision of constant bulk electricity for mining and industry (the so-called “baseload” supply).

Already, it seems, the larger mining houses have started to make provision for their own supplies, as have the larger municipalities. Even Coega will not need a nuclear power station for the simple reason that they will build their own station on site, without the problems associated with nuclear energy. The market, it seems, for the private supply of all kinds of large-scale electricity production plants – from combined-cycle gas plants at the coast to inland wind farms and concentrated solar power plants – has never looked rosier. Think only of the massive, unregulated market of diesel generators for small users in 2008 and then scale up a few megawatts.

Rather than addressing the economic facts themselves, however – always a weakness among the PBMR’s advocates – Mulder chooses a long list of mind-numbing detail on the old Armscor principle of “bullshit baffles brains”: nuclear weapons, global warming, finite resources, carbon taxes, nuclear physics, everything except polo entrance fees and pork barrel futures.

And yet, when you actually examine the arguments in favour of thorium as against uranium, one cannot help wondering where these arguments were when Mulder was a keen advocate (and remaining hopeful) of PBMRs? Shortage of uranium? Possibility of core melt? Long-lived nuclear wastes? Weren’t these the very arguments used by the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy and its allies from the early days of Koeberg Alert through the rise of Earthlife Africa to the recent arrival of Greenpeace in Africa?

This last point, however, is the real reason why nuclear energy will never be accepted in South Africa, despite many Government attempts to force it down our throats, from the National Party of BJ Vorster onwards.

We simply don’t want it.

Finish en klaar.

The entire City of Cape Town doesn’t want it, including their own council. The people of the Overberg, Theewaterskloof, Bitou and Kouga don’t want it, as well as the people of Namaqualand, Hartebeespoort, and the Northern Cape NGO coalition. The people of the Khoisan Council don’t want it; nor does the National Union of Mineworkers, nor COSATU, nor even many members of the South African Council of Churches and the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

There’s a wonderful old T-shirt slogan from the days of Rape Crisis, which sums it up.

“What is it about the word ‘NO’ that you don’t understand?

Sincerely

Mike Kantey

National Chairperson

Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

www.cane.org.za

072 628 5131

by SISEKO NJOBENI

8 October 2010

AN AMBITIOUS plan to reduce SA’s reliance on coal by almost half by 2030 and to more than double the use of nuclear energy was released by the Department of Energy yesterday, while the contribution of renewable energy technologies is poised for a significant increase.

The proposals, which are part of the department’s draft integrated electricity resource plan, show the government’s preferred energy mix for the next 20 years.

They provide prospective investors with an indication of the shape of SA’s future energy industry. The integrated resource plan is a 20-year electricity capacity plan that gives an outcome of projected future electricity demand, how the demand would be met and at what cost.

The interministerial committee on energy, set up to consider energy policy issues, has approved the integrated resource plan.

The committee’s approval paves the way for a second round of a public consultation process. The department held the first round of consultations in June.

In the draft integrated resource plan, the department is proposing that coal contribute 48% to the energy mix by 2030, followed by renewable energy (16%), nuclear (14%), peaking open cycle gas turbine (9%), peaking pump storage (6%), mid-merit gas (5%) and baseload import hydro (2%). These point to a window of investment opportunity mainly in renewable energy and nuclear technologies. The draft plan envisages 52248MW of new capacity in the next 20 years.

While coal will still be the biggest contributor to electricity generation, the department’s proposals represent a significant reduction in its contribution.

Coal currently accounts for over 90% of electricity generation. Eskom’s two nuclear reactors at the Koeberg power station supply 1800MW or 6% of SA’s electricity needs. The renewable energy industry is yet to take off in SA.

The department said in drawing up the draft integrated resource plan the inter- ministerial committee considered various scenarios. These included cancelling the Kusile power station, or delaying the building of Medupi and Kusile power stations.

Eskom MD for systems operations and planning Kannan Lakmeeharan yesterday repeated the utility’s commitment to completing Kusile.

‘These are just scenarios. In fact, the final proposal includes both Kusile and Medupi.

‘The department also says we should not delay the two projects because they are important for security of supply,’ Mr Lakmeeharan said.

The department has also warned of looming power supply constraints. In a report on the medium-term risk mitigation plan for electricity in the period between this year and 2016, the department said latest forecasts indicate a worsening of electricity supply constraints from next year until 2016.

‘This situation poses a real risk of rolling blackouts, similar to those experienced in 2008, and a serious threat to government’s objectives for growth and job creation,’ the department said.

Mr Lakmeeharan said Eskom had in the past alluded to the looming supply constraints ‘because the rate of capacity addition will be less than the (electricity) demand reduction. The report says we must do something. Options include energy efficiency, independent power producers (contribution) and the energy conservation scheme’ .

Frost & Sullivan energy programme manager Cornelis van der Waal yesterday applauded the department ‘for coming up with something that portrays the real scenario as we see it. Urgent action is needed.’ The required action includes commissioning power from independent
suppliers, Mr van der Waal said.

The committee had asked the team drawing up the plan to do more work on the possibility of incorporating carbon capture and storage capability on all future coal-fired power stations.

njobenis@bdfm.co.za
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=123180

by Judith Taylor

Amid the rather futile discussion about South Africa’s nuclear power generation policy and programme the most important aspect of all seems lately to have dropped off the list of factors to be considered. I refer to the radioactive longevity of nuclear fuel residue. For its radioactivity to decay to just half its initial intensity takes about 25 times longer than the entire recorded history of man.

It is no solution to encase the stuff in concrete then drop it down a mine shaft or push it inside a mountain tunnel. A quarter of a million years is ample time for unpredictable chemical and geological processes to re-expose this deadly material. Nuclear power generation on a global scale would produce enough radioactive leftovers to occupy a great deal of no-go land and require costly guarding virtually for ever, a period that would see the end of our civilisation and the rise and fall of several more.

Theoretically, nuclear waste could be recklessly shot off into space or by some yet-to-be-invented marvel of nuclear physics changed into something less lethal. In the meantime it would be more realistic to persevere with developing wind and solar power networks to succeed Eskom’s present coal-fired generation programme. However, in the interests of time and expense the government should facilitate this development work being carried out by private industry.

Meanwhile Eskom should incentivise the government to pursue diplomatically the agreement to bring hydropower from the Congo River, a sensible idea but discarded because of political and military instability on the route. This threat could be overcome if the need is pressing enough.

True costs of nuclear power are ignored

The problem with nuclear power is the total lack of transparency. People such as Dr Kemm can never give cradle to grave costs of the projects. Let’s look at what is involved if nuclear power goes ahead:

• Nuclear power is not only a substantial threat to our water resources, but also to the biodiversity of the Cape.

• At Thyspunt, 5 000 jobs and a R500 million industry will be replaced with a polluting reactor and 750 jobs.

• Uranium mining, the birthplace of the fuel, is highly polluting of miners themselves, water and surrounding land.

• Nuclear waste is also highly polluting. Nuclear power’s real carbon footprint has never been acknowledged nor has the full cost of nuclear been computed.

The citizens of Niger have recently instituted action in the US against Areva, which is mining for uranium in that country, for damage undergone by the state as well as the inhabitants of the area where Areva works. This suit is claiming several million euros in compensation.

Currently, there is not one proven, operating nuclear plant of the “new generation”. In addition, the safety issues have been omitted from the environmental impact assessments.

However, do we wish to see our water supplies, our land and our people so polluted by uranium, caesium, lead and so on that there is no quality of life and we all die a slow and painful death? Is it a logical path to follow, given the experiences of native Indians in the US who mined uranium and have died of radiation sickness?

Renewables can come on line right now and provide more than 10 times the number of jobs that nuclear or coal can. South Africa’s ingenuity in pioneering new technology can grasp the renewables revolution and bring us true wealth and health.

The cost of Chernobyl was 985 000 lives. In the UK the Sellafield plant’s decommissioning has failed, leaving a radioactive waste land for generations to come. Koeberg’s decommissioning could do the same.

Source:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5672085