Many licences have already been issued for exploration. The delegation, consisting of academics and experts from Australia, Cameroon, Germany, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Zambia, has surveyed exploration sites and has met with concerned local communities.

Uranium mining poses a direct threat to the livelihoods of local communities as well as to ecotourism. Community members were outspoken in their opposition to the planned mining.

The group of experts is part of an international conference on the impact of Uranium mining which takes place 10th-11th November in Dar es Salaam.

UK-based Professor Chris Busby, a recognised expert in the health effects of Uranium, will present new scientific evidence of its radio-toxicity and the shortcomings of existing international safety standards. He will say: “New scientific discoveries in the last few years have opened a new era in the understanding of radiation risk. These discoveries significantly impact the regulations governing the mining and processing of Uranium which threaten the health of people and animals in Tanzania.”

FEMAPO is increasing its efforts to highlight the Uranium issue with a series of meetings and consultations in cities and towns in Tanzania, and is gaining national and international support for this work.

“Uranium mining is a new development in Tanzania and one with very serious long-term consequences. Citizens of Tanzania need to be fully informed and involved as stakeholders in any decisions about the future of this industry,” said FEMAPO Director Mathias Paul Boniface.

 A media conference will be held at 13:00 Tuesday 10th November at the Rombo Greenview Hotel, Shikilango Road, Dar es Salaam.

For further information contact FEMAPO at +255 787 876 997 Pr. Busby is on +44 7989 828833.

ISSUED BY: Low Level Radiation Campaign     http://www.llrc.org/

5 December 2008There is little reason for over optimism about Eskom’s decision today not to invest in foreign companies for the Nuclear-1 project plant while the government remains committed to its nuclear power programme. 

The Board of Eskom Holding Limited announced its decision on December 5 not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

There remains a deliberate silence over the ill-conceived experimental Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) which has already cost taxpayers over R16 bn (some estimates put this figure closer to R32 bn), and the nuclear industry’s stated intention to re-launch uranium enrichment plant at Pelindaba and “reprocess” radioactive waste to fund nuclear power projects. 

The country stopped enriching uranium in 1997 following the dismantling of its apartheid-era nuclear weapons programme. 

Nuclear officials have repeatedly said they intend planting up to 36 PBMRs throughout South Africa and elsewhere in Africa and, we fear, intend to trade and traffic in radioactive waste to fund this. 

Already the mechanism exists for an untouchable and virtually privatised State-run business via a Radioactive Waste Management Agency, which was approved this year. 

Officials in the nuclear industry and Minerals & Energy have declared government’s intention to re-launch extremely hazardous and highly energy intensive uranium enrichment & reprocessing plans, and sold the notion by using words like “recycling”, “sustainable” and “renewable”.  The DME’s Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maqubela sold the idea to government last year by announcing that despite the hefty costs of building a uranium enrichment plant, its “profits are big”. 

The approved radioactive waste Smelters at Pelindaba await licensing despite long-standing  opposition for fear that these will be commercialised, leading to nuclear waste dumping by other nuclear countries on South Africa for profit.  

In addition, former Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin announced some time back that old Russian nuclear warheads will be “brought in to fuel the PBMRs”. 

Questions remain unanswered over the brazen “military-styled” attacks by two armed groups last November on the heavily guarded Pelindaba Complex which is stores hundreds of tons of weapons-grade radioactive spent uranium fuel (HEU) enough to build a dozen atomic bombs. International reports claim the attackers were after the HEU and had inside help. South Africa has been implicated in nuclear-trafficking rings in at least three trials in the recent past. 

South Africans can only rest once the nails are hammered into the coffin of the Nuclear Energy Bill, the PBMR and calls for South Africa to hand over its HEU for international safekeeping are heeded. 

(Below you’ll find some of the recent news reports on Eskom’s decision.) 

ISSUED BY: 

Dominique GilbertCoordinatorPELINDABA WORKING GROUP& member of the COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGYhttp://www.cane.org.za 

___________________________________ 

(A reflection of how inane the electricity debate here remains… not even a mention of who is really responsible for guzzling SA electricity, just a stupid prediction of ‘decades of darkness’…) 

SA set for decades of darkness 

December 06, 2008 Edition 1 

 by Thabiso Thakali, www.iol.co.za 

South Africa faces up to two decades of electricity crises after Eskom decided to pull the plug on the construction of a second nuclear power station, experts have warned. 

Eskom announced yesterday that it had decided not to proceed with the proposed building of its second nuclear power station because of the magnitude of the investment. 

Environmentalists called it a “watershed moment” in South Africa’s history of energy supply, but energy experts said it meant the electricity crisis was going to remain in the country for at least the next 15 to 20 years. 

Andrew Kenny, an independent energy expert, said the decision means South Africans will have to keep their candles handy for many more years. 

“We are already struggling with a very low reserve margin and they(Eskom) are basically telling us that we will run out of capacity again in the near future.” 

Kenny said although capital costs for building a nuclear power station were higher than those for a coal-fired power station, it would cost less to run and maintain such a plant considering it would last longer than a coal-fired plant. 

However, Tristen Taylor, a policy officer with Earthlife Africa, said by cancelling its plans to build a new reactor Eskom has saved the country from “economic ruin”. 

Eskom spokesman Tony Stott said the decision did not mean Eskom would no longer consider building nuclear power stations. 

“We now have a downturn in the economy which means we have a leeway of about 12 to 18 months in terms of how quickly we need to build power stations as per the projections made,” he said. 

“And in terms of government’s nuclear policy and commitments to the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of SA (AsgiSA) government wanted more local companies to take part in the project.” 

He said the decision would have no implications for the development of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). But he warned that the electricity grid would remain tight going forward unless consumption levels were reduced by the required 10%. 

Stott said the government and Eskom would now review a 4% projection growth on electricity demand given that a lot of manufacturing companies had now indicated they would cut down on their production. 

Eskom had hoped to raise R300 billion for its expansion programme in the next five years but according to Stott, the utility’s balance sheet is not strong enough to handle this scale of spending. 

This is largely because, Stott added, Eskom was unable to get the 60% electricity tariff hikes earlier this year. “Rating agencies downgraded us and therefore we couldn’t get the money we hoped to raise,” he said. 

As part of its long-term plans to double its generation capacity by 2025, Eskom had hoped the first of the proposed nuclear power plants would add about 3 500 megawatts of capacity to its grid. 

Koeberg power station is the only nuclear power station and two groups of companies led by French company Areva and US-based Westinghouse were bidding for the construction of the proposed plant. 

Serge Lafont, Areva South Africa chairman, said the company was disappointed by Eskom’s decision even though he said they remained committed to being Eskom’s partner in the future. 

“You must understand that when we put up the bid we did so with intent to win,” he said. “So this is like a loss to us but that is the nature of life. Government has said it is still willing to continue with nuclear as part of its energy mix therefore we remain hopeful that we will still be Eskom’s partner.”………………………………………… 

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fSetId=262&fArticleId=4747885 

Nuclear powers on without Eskom
December 5, 2008

Johannesburg – South Africa remains committed to its nuclear power programme despite Eskom’s decision not to proceed with the construction of a second nuclear power plant, a government official said on Friday.

“The South African government remains committed to introducing nuclear because we have to deal with our carbon footprint and we have to diversify our energy mix,” Portia Molefe, director general at the Department of Public Enterprises told Reuters and other reporters present at the announcement.

Sapa reported that Eskom will not proceed with its proposed investment in the Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the sum involved, the parastatal said on Friday.

The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant.
Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station.

Eskom said that, as a result, it has also terminated the tender process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project.

The two bidders, the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA, have been informed of Eskom’s decision.

“The board has expressed its appreciation to the two bidders for their interest in the Eskom build programme, and in particular their desire to participate in the nuclear industry in South Africa,” said Eskom chief executive Jacob Maroga.

“We were impressed by their professionalism throughout the bid process.” – Sapa and Reuters 

ESKOM NOT IN A POSITION TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR 

The Board of Eskom Holding Limited announced today its decision not to proceed with the proposed investment in Nuclear-1 project due to the magnitude of the investment. The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

The proposed Nuclear 1 project would have resulted in the construction of the country’s second pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Koeberg Power Station is South Africa’s first and only nuclear power station. 

The Eskom Board has, as a result, terminated the commercial procurement process to select the preferred bidder for the construction of the Nuclear-1 project. The two bidders, the EPR consortium led by Areva of France and the N-Powerment consortium led by Westinghouse of the USA, have been informed of this decision of the Eskom Board. 

“The Board has expressed its appreciation to the two bidders for their interest in the Eskom build programme, and in particular their desire to participate in the nuclear industry in South Africa. We were impressed by their professionalism throughout the bid process. We thank them for their patience and understanding during the past few months”, says Mr Jacob Maroga, Chief Executive of Eskom Holdings Limited.ENDS 

Please sign this petition and alert your friends.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service  Dear Friends,   Back in 2000, the nuclear power industry tried to obtain credits under the carbon trading schemes set up by the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) provisions.   NIRS and our partners WISE (World Information Service on Energy), working with many environmental groups from across the world, along with a little help from Al Gore, who seemingly had just been elected President of the United States, beat back the industry at the Kyoto Protocol’s COP6 meeting in The Hague in November 2000.   Now the nuclear industry is trying again–at the upcoming climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland, the industry is again seeking to become eligible for lucrative carbon trading credits. And again, NIRS, WISE and the world’s environmental and clean energy movements are gearing up to stop them.   YOU CAN HELP! The statement below will be distributed to the delegates at the Poznan climate meeting. Please join us and sign your organization on by sending your name, organization, city, state and country if outside the U.S. to nirsnet@nirs.org by noon, Eastern time, on Sunday, November 30. (Note: we are only taking organization signatures for now).   Thanks for all you do! Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service   Women in Europe for a Common Future Greenpeace International Forum on Globalization World Information Service on Energy Nuclear Information and Resource Service Friends of the Earth International   •   Nuclear Power Has No Place in the Kyoto Protocol Financial Mechanisms: It’s a Dangerous Obstacle to Climate Change Solutions   NGOs Call for Options to “Include Nuclear Activities” in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) to be removed.   (From Agenda Item 3a of the Accra Conclusions of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol: Item I-D, Option 2 in the CDM and Item II-B, Option 2 in the JI)      Nuclear Power contradicts Clean Development The nuclear industry is using the issue of climate change and energy supply as a vehicle to win political and financial support for its dirty and dying sector.  Even a massive, four-fold expansion of nuclear power by 2050 would provide only marginal reductions (4%) in greenhouse gas emissions, when we need global emissions to peak at 2015 and 50 – 80% cuts by 2050. Nuclear energy’s ‘contribution’ to fighting climate change would come too late (long after 2020), with huge costs (US$ 10 trillion) and would create a myriad of other serious hazards related to accidents, waste and proliferation.  These large costs and negative impacts make nuclear energy an obstacle to the necessary development of effective, clean and affordable energy sources – both in developing and industrialised countries. Activities related to nuclear power must not be allowed to become eligible for the Kyoto Protocol’s flexible mechanisms in order to avoid: Undermining climate protection by wasting time and taking resources away from more effective and clean solutions; Dumping this expensive and unsafe technology on developing countries who would be landed with the associated economic and environmental impacts (accumulation of massive financial debts, increased dependency on foreign fuel and technologies, increased risk from reactor accidents and contamination); and Decreasing global security as volumes of nuclear waste with no safe methods of disposal increase massively and both nuclear materials and technologies are spread.  Nuclear power is not only expensive and slow to develop, it would provide only a marginal contribution to carbon mitigation  The OECD International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 Blue Map scenario1 assesses what energy mix could achieve a 50% reduction in carbon emission by 2050.  The agency assumes a four-fold increase of nuclear power generation, from today’s 2,600 TWh/year to 9,900 TWh/year in 2050. But this would only reduce CO2 emissions from the energy sector by 6% (around 4 % of overall greenhouse gases).  Even getting to this 6% would require unprecedented rates of growth, sustained over four decades.  The nuclear industry would have to build an average of 32 large (1,000 MWe) nuclear reactors every year from now until 2050. Compare this with the last decade’s average where the nuclear industry added 3000MW of new capacity a year. In the 1980′s, the decade of the industry’s fastest growth, it built an average of 17,000 MW a year2  – still only half the rate needed to realise the IEA’s Blue Map scenario.  But the IEA believes we can build 32,000MW capacity every year from now to 2050. Then there’s the cost.  Moody’s3 currently estimates the investment cost for new reactors at USD 7,500 USD/kW. Assuming this, the required 1,400 large new reactors would cost around USD 10,500 billion – and this is only the upfront investment. While nuclear power presents itself as the largest carbon free energy source, its potential role in carbon mitigation is very limited and is simply not worth taking, given all its risks and costs.   Nuclear energy’s massive problems and risks remain unsolved   Even today, running at one-tenth of the hypothetically required construction speed, the nuclear industry is struggling with serious problems and has hit many bottlenecks: Massive technical problems and ever-rising costs have affected attempts to build new reactor units, for example both of the French EPR units – in Finland and France – have experienced years of delays and billions in cost overruns already.4 Capacity to produce reactor components is limited to only several pieces a year and are only produced by half a dozen corporations in a handful of countries.5 Shortages in uranium supplies to fuel the existing fleet of reactors; the annual consumption reached 69,000 tonnes of uranium in 2007, compared to an annual production of just 41,300 tonnes in 2007.6 The world’s proven and reasonably assured uranium resources would only be able to cover current consumption for a few decades and, as they deplete, carbon emissions from the nuclear fuel chain would rise significantly.7 A crunch for raw materials, because of the high demand for large volumes of steel and concrete. Negative health effects of ionising radiation. Recently published peer-reviewed research found statistically high incidence of childhood leukaemia in the close vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany8 and the US9. Dangerous impacts of uranium mining and milling threatens the lands, communities and health of Indigenous Peoples, many of whom (in Canada, the US, Africa, India and Australia, inter alia) continue to protest the extraction of uranium on or near their homelands and territories Lack of qualified engineers, inspectors and personnel to safely manage and oversee operations at the current scale. Long lead-times for projects. It takes 10 to 15 years, even in countries with developed related infrastructure, to plan, approve, site and build a new reactor, not to mention bringing it online. It would take even longer in countries that are just starting their nuclear programs. No safe disposal method for radioactive wastes that reactors have already produced, despite decades of research and money spent.  In the past five years, the estimated costs of radioactive waste disposal grew by USD 40 billion in United States10 and by GBP 27 billion in the United Kingdom,11 with no guarantees that safe storage, at the end of the day, is really possible. Growing proliferation problems: As stockpiles of separated plutonium increase, nuclear technologies and materials spread to new countries. International safeguards are under-resourced and structurally weak. It is only a question of time before they become accessible to terrorist groups. One large reactor can produce 200 kgs of plutonium every year – enough for two dozen nuclear weapons.   All these factors raise additional scepticism about the actual potential of nuclear power to really mitigate greenhouse gases on any useful scale and within a reasonable timeframe.   Nuclear power steals “time and money” that would be better invested in energy efficiency and renewable technologies   Expensive, dirty and hazardous nuclear power stands in the way of clean and sustainable solutions.  It could take USD10 trillion or more to build enough reactors to produce 9,900 TWh of “nuclear electricity” as projected under the International Energy Agency (IEA) 2008 “Blue Map” scenario.  Building enough wind farms to produce the same amount of electricity, for example, would cost USD 6 trillion at current prices, for a savings of USD 4 trillion.  And, these costs would decrease over time. Wind power has no associated fuel costs and does not require expensive dismantling of its power plant at the end of its life and long term disposal of radioactive waste as is required in the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant.   Other calculations show that, compared to nuclear, wind power at today’s costs replaces twice as much carbon per invested dollar and energy efficiency measures three to six times more.12 Even the IEA’s 2008 Blue Map scenario itself shows that, while massive nuclear expansion reduces carbon emissions from the energy sector by 6%, the potential of renewable energy sources is around four times greater, and the potential of energy efficiency six times greater. It is clear by these numbers which technology deserves the priority for investment. Lastly is the issue of time. Energy efficiency measures can be implemented in months. A wind farm can be planned and built in one year. Nuclear reactors take one to two decades to plan and build. Every dollar invested in nuclear power means a dollar less invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources – sources that can not only replace several times more carbon for the same cost, but also achieve the desired carbon reduction more rapidly.   Renewable energy sources can easily provide power to remote areas with underdeveloped infrastructure and can be implemented quickly while supporting local job development. In contrast, large nuclear power plants are often not compatible with established grids and infrastructure in developing countries. Various institutions have recently warned developing countries against unrealistic expectations from nuclear energy plans.   “You should go for it [renewable energy]. It is cheaper than investing in nuclear development.” 13 - Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, spokesman for the EU Energy Commissioner, speaking about renewable energy projects in South East Asia.               “Nuclear energy is not the panacea for tackling global warming. Even if you set aside the problem   of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult. The first problem is one of         economics…..The second is nuclear weapons proliferation. For eight years when I was in the    White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was connected to a reactor program.”             – Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, 2007     Our Conclusion: Too little, too late, too expensive, and just too dangerous: Nuclear power is not a suitable answer to climate change and should be removed as an investment option for the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation strategies   To endorse our call, or for more information, contact by email or, where indicated, by mobile, in Poznan:    Sascha Gabizon, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF), sascha.gabizon@wecf.eu, +49-172-8637586 (mobile in Poznan)   Claire Greensfelder, International Forum on Globalization (IFG), cgreensfelder@ifg.org,  +1-510-917-5468 (mobile in Poznan)   Thomas Breuer,  Greenpeace, Thomas.Breuer@de.greenpeace.org   Peer de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy (WISE) , peerder@gmail.com   Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, nirsnet@nirs.org   References: 1    International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (Paris: IEA, 2008) 2    International Atomic Energy Agency’s PRIS database, http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html 3    New Nuclear Generating Capacity – Potential Credit Implications for U.S. Investor Owned Utilities, Moody’s Corporate Finance, May 2008 4    Nucleonics Week, Platts, 4 September 2008; Detailed briefings and references at http://www.greenpeace.org 5    Platts Nucleonics Week publications; Nuclear Engineering International; http://www.areva.com . 6    See World Nuclear Association, online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html . 7    Benjamin Sovacool, “Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power” (2008) 36 Energy Policy 2940. 8    Spix C et al, Case-control study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany 1980- 2003, European Journal of Cancer (December 2007) 9    Joseph Mangano, Janette D. Sherman: Childhood Leukaemia Near Nuclear Installations, European Journal of Cancer Care No 4 Vol 17, July 2008 10   Platts, Nuclear Fuel, 11 August 2008. 11   Guardian, online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/18/nuclearpower.energy . 12   Amory Lovins, The Nuclear Illusion, May 2008. 13   http://www.bangkokpost.com/121008_News/12Oct2008_news08.php

URGENT PRESS STATEMENT

4 November 2008

I have been requested and credibly informed by the authorized representatives of the dismissed employees of Uranium One, to notify the press and to urgently call for news media coverage of the mass protest march by  thousands of dismissed mine workers, all former employees of Uranium One and the community of Dominionville,  and SANCO against Uranium One.  The purpose of the march is to present a Memorandum of Grievances to:

·         Uranium One,

·         the Department of Labour,

·         the Department of Minerals and Energy,

·         Cosatu and

·         the local municipality.

The grievances include health and safety issues, labour related issues and alleged unfair dismissals.

The protest march will commence at 9h00 from the Pigane Stadium in Hartebeestfontein, Klerksdorp on the Thursday, the 6^th of November, 2008.

The grounds for the grievances are relevant to the contents of previous press reports on Uranium One.  The recent Report by the Labour Resource and Research Institute and the public debates during the last week of October, 2008 in Namibia, subjoined hereunder,  have significant relevancy to the grievances of the former employees of Uranium One and the community of Dominionville.

FORUMS FOR PUBLIC DEBATE ON THE IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA

Of similar fact evidence is the Report which was recently released by the Labour Resource and Research Institute (LaRRI) in co-operation with Earthlife Namibia, Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, Citizens for Justice, the World Information Service on Energy, Human Rights 3000 and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment.  The Report and the debate were extensively reported upon by the Namibian news media.

The debate forms part of a global campaign to raise awareness about uranium mining and the implications, that is, economics social, environmental or health, particularly on countries rich in this resource.  The debate will be partly informed by a recent study by LaRRI, Uranium Mining:  The  Mystery Behind ‘Low Level Radiation’ that considers environmental and health concerns linked to uranium mining.  It also reports on interviews conducted with over 50 former and current employees of the Rossing Uranium Mine that now suffer from cancer and although it does not find a direct causal link to these cancer cases reported mostly in Arandis, the coincidences said LaRRI are uncanny and worrying.

According to Hilma Shindondola-Mote, Director of LaRRI, uranium mine workers are not aware about the true nature of their health status.  “During the time we conducted the study, employees claimed that Rossing does not explain what health problems can arise from exposure to uranium and the workers are not aware of the true status of their health:, Shindondola-Mote said.  She further said that workers of the company raised concern that although they are tested annually, the results are never revealed until such a time when they leave the company.  “The workers feel that there is a conspiracy between the doctors and Rossing.  They are only informed about health problems like cancer after leaving their jobs.  The doctors tell them that the deterioration in their health is because of their genes, family history or lifestyle.”

Inge Lindemann, a former member of the German Green Party and journalist, said the effect uranium has on health is still highly underestimated.  Lindemann explained that uranium is a known nephrotoxin.  Cancer can be caused by low and medium contaminations of uranium.  More recently, uranium has been proven to mimic the effect of oestrogen at drinking water levels, which are considered as being ‘safe’ by authorities.  In addition, she said, the brain is a ‘target’ for uranium toxicity.”

Gunter Wippel, a member of Friends of the Earth Germany and Society for Threatened People organizations, said in countries such as Canada and Tanzania, people are driven of their land in order to make way for uranium mines.  And in cases where people stay on, they no longer use the land for raising cattle or growing crops.  “This is a violation of human rights of the people, it seems like a trade off between human health and economic development”, he said.

It is sincerely trusted that my request for news media coverage will not be passed over.

Sincerely yours,

MARIETTE LIEFFERINK

PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL ARBITERS

073 231 4893

mariette@pea.org.za

CANE reminder to readers of reports that don’t make front pages of the news:

§         The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) has admitted there are 53 areas dangerously contaminated by radioactivity in South Africa

But, the NNR said in it’s annual report to Parliament last year, it had “discontinued” proposed rehabilitation of sites in the Karoo that were “contaminated …with radiological hazard to members of public and to future generations” since the late 1970s and early 1980s because the DME had issued uranium prospecting permits to new companies in that region. The NNR said it was understaffed and overwhelmed by governments proposed nuclear energy plan.

http://www.pmg.org.za:80/viewminute.php?id=9845

§         The North West Province’s 2002 “State of the Environment” Report disclosed substantial evidence of radioactivity in the drinking water of communities

This report found that “there is a growing body of evidence pointing that both the long- and short-term effects of radioactive substances present in the environment may be impacting on the health of the population of the North West Province, particularly in the gold mining areas. Communities that are not currently supplied with safe, treated water and which rely on radionuclide-contaminated surface or ground water resources for their potable water are the most vulnerable to such health risks.”

§         One in 20 mineworkers exposed to excessive levels of radiation –  Council for Nuclear Safety

Around 1999 the Council for Nuclear Safety (CNS) estimated that at least 10,000 mineworkers, or roughly one in 20 mineworkers, had been exposed to radiation levels that exceeded safety limits.

(Business Report Oct 7, 1999).   In February 2007 during the NNR submission of its annual budget, its CEO Mr. Magumela stated that in 2002, 7 931 people had been exposed to unacceptably high doses, but this number had declined year by year to 1133, 424, and 8. He said there had been an improvement over the last five years but failed to mention this was as a result of a largely stagnant uranium mining industry at the time.

§         500 former South African nuclear workers no closer to compensation

The cases of over 500 ex-workers at the National Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA)’s Pelindaba complex who came forward for an Occupational Health Study initiated by Earthlife Africa around 2005 remains unresolved since the company claimed its own “health study” showed there is no basis for the claims. Well over 20 of these people – seriously ill and poor – have now died.

§         Vaalputs communities fear nuclear contamination
Representatives from Namaqualand communities living near the Vaalputs national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Cape told Parliament’s Minerals and Energy portfolio committee this year they feared their water supply was being radioactively contaminated. Community leader Tony Coetzee appealed to Parliament to test the water in their area but the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA, which manages Vaalputs, rejected these allegations, saying the region’s groundwater had not been contaminated by radioactive waste from its facility

 http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_2386935,00.html

§         Radioactive waste is piling up at Pelindaba & Koeberg

Reports indicate that there are alarming statistics of radioactive waste piling up at Pelindaba and Koeberg – where it is also being poured into the Atlantic Ocean. At the Pelindaba complex thousands of litres of radioactive waste has been discharged into the Crocodile River which flows into the Hartbeespoortdam. These practises have continued unabated for decades and continue to this day.

The ONLY way to stop these criminal activities is to ensure an end to the quest for nuclear expansion in South Africa. Clean, safe and sustainable renewable energy sources ARE available and CAN provide sufficient power for this country but the reports that prove this are not seeing the light of day.

JOIN CANE ONLINE NOW AND HELP US SECURE A SAFER FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN

You can help create a Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free future

We can’t do this alone, DONATE NOW

The government and mining houses face a major challenge – with the strong likelihood of legal action – from a powerful new conservation alliance.

The coalition is about to be formed by an array of environmental bodies seriously concerned at the way precious parts of the natural environment are being destroyed.

Renowned human rights lawyer George Bizos has pledged his support in his capacity as a consultant to the Legal Resources Centre.

“We are very concerned about the environment and are willing and able to look after your interests,” he told a large gathering of conservationists representing environmental organisations from all over the country at a meeting in Johannesburg yesterday.

The meeting was presided over by Tony Ferrar, chairman of the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (Wessa). “If we don’t stop the degradation, there are not going to be many good natural spots to go to much longer,” Ferrar said.

The aims of the proposed alliance is to fight for the environmental integrity of the country and for sustainable development.

The conference followed months of separate meetings by increasingly frantic environmental groups. They met in the Mpumalanga Lakes District, under serious threat of coal mining; the Loskop Dam catchment area where rivers have been killed by acid drainage from old coal mines; the Seringveld north-east of Tshwane where uncontrolled sand mining is destroying the landscape and river systems; and the Wild Coast where a dune-mining application from an Australian company is pending.

The government and the mining houses came under strong attack for their disregard of environmental concerns despite environmental protective laws, notably the National Environmental Management Act (Nema). Provincial and local authorities, too, were criticised for the way bad planning and inaction was causing raw sewage to foul up rivers and underground water.

Fear

The fear is that the government’s professed policy of sustainable development has switched to one that drives growth regardless of the impact it is having on what remains of the natural environment.

One of the conveners of the meeting, environmental activist Mariette Liefferink, said the time has come to hold the mining industry responsible for environmental damage and the government for failing its mandate to protect the environment.

Accusations were made by several speakers of collusion between the department of minerals and energy and the mining houses. This resulted in uncontrolled operations, and neither doing anything about destructive consequences like the acid mine drainage that has killed aquatic life in the Wilge River running through the Ezemvelo Reserve and the Olifants River inlet to the Loskop Dam.

It was claimed that the state of some rivers had become a health threat to adjoining communities and their livestock. Some farmers could not grow vegetables watered from polluted rivers because the market would reject such products. And mine dumps left uncovered by vegetation were sending choking dust clouds over large regions, causing a health hazard to many communities.

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk and his department were not spared the conservationists’ wrath either. They were accused of not acting and of not even responding to concerned conservationists’ approaches.

Bizos told the meeting that there were legal remedies. But irrefutable facts were needed for cases to be taken to court. He has found academics to be very willing to assist in such cases.

He noted that the high court had ruled that communities could on the basis of common interest, such as having their drinking water polluted, have their case admitted to court as a group. “Our courts take their function seriously of protecting people’s fundamental rights.”

But Bizos cautioned against believing that developments like mining could be stopped – but it had to be ensured that such activities took place in accordance with the prescribed procedures.

There could not be a gung-ho approach that mining was going to happen, whatever the consequences. “A balance has to be struck,” he said.

The conference was told that a sign of the power shift in government was a proposed amendment to the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. It would exempt the Department of Minerals and Energy and its activities from the provisions of the country’s master environmental law, Nema.

The proposed amendment has been put on ice, apparently because of a tussle over it between the two departments.

Yours sincerely
INGELA RICHARDSON

Adam noted that the Minister’s announcement was “just the beginning” and that South Africa was likely to add an additional 15 GW of nuclear power by 2025 and, by 2030, its nuclear power generation would account for 30% of the South African energy mix. This means that the country would have to build six new conventional nuclear power stations and 24 pebble bed modular reactors by 2025. A further six nuclear power stations would be needed by 2030.

INGELA RICHARDSON

FURTHER RESEARCH:
There are many reports on the impacts of mining on the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment and its people. They include: The Jordaan Commission Report of 1960, Radioactivity and the Leakage of Radioactive Waste Associated with Witwatersrand Gold and Uranium Mining by Coetzee, H. 1995,. Radioactivity Study on Sediments in a Dam in the Wonderfonteinspruit Catchment by Coetzee, H., Wade, P., Ntsume, G. & Jordaan. W. 2002, Reliance on Existing Wetlands for Pollution Control Around the Witwatersrand Gold/Uranium Mines in South Africa – Are They Sufficient? by Coetzee, H., Wade, P. & Winde, F. 2002, Contamination of Wetlands by Witwatersrand Gold Mines – Processes and the Economic Potential of Gold in Wetlands by Coetzee, H., Venter.J. & Ntsume, G. 2005, Report on the Radioactivity Monitoring Programme in the Mooi River (Wonderfonteinspruit) Catchment. IWQS. 1999. Report No. N/C22/00/RPQ/2399. Pretoria: Institute for Water Quality Studies, Overview of Radioactivity in Water Sources: Uranium, Radium and Thorium. Kempster, P.L., Van Vliet, H.R., Looser, U., Parker, I., Silberbauer, M.J. & Du Toit, P. 1996. IWQS-No:N/0000/00/PRQ/0196. Pretoria: Institute for Water Quality Studies, Tier 1 Risk Assessment of Selected Radionuclides in Sediments of the Mooi River Catchment*. Wade, P.W., Woodbourne, S., Morris, W.M., Vos, P. & Jarvis, N.W. 2002. WRC Project No. K5/1095. Pretoria: Water Research Commission, The Significance of Groundwater-Stream Interactions and Fluctuating Stream Chemistry on Waterborne Uranium Contamination of Streams – A Case Study from a Gold Mining Site in South Africa. Winde.F. & Van Der Walt, I.J. 2004. In Journal of Hydrology, 287. Pp 178-196 and Impacts of Gold-mining Activities on Water Availability and Quality in the Wonderfonteinspruit Catchment. Winde, F. 2005. In Coetzee, H. (Ed.) An Assessment of Current and Future Water-pollution Risk with Application to the Mooirivierloop (Wonderfonteinspruit). WRC Report No. K5/1214. Pp 14-38. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.

INGELA RICHARDSON