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.

Residents near Pelindaba last Thursday, 5 August 2010, reported that they twice heard sirens around 8am from near NECSA’s Gate 3 to the Nuclear Complex. Both NECSA and the NNR deny that sirens went off at NECSA, passing it off as a possible hoax or “someone else’s siren”. A local block watch in the area was contacted but said they knew of none other than Necsa with sirens in the area.

Go to Important Info page for map

Initially not a single person at the communications division of NECSA could be reached around 8.30am Thursday – even on cell numbers – and finally NECSA’s Elliot Mulane answered his mobile. He was not at work but did phone back with his findings.

Both NECSA and the National Nuclear Regulator subsequently denied that sirens went off at Pelindaba that morning, but Mr Mulane said the routine siren tests had taken place on Monday the 2^nd August.

However:

1. Residents in the area were not notified about
2. Residents in the area say they did not hear Monday’s sirens (but NECSA said it happened)
3. The NNR admitted it had not been informed of the Monday tests. A spokesman said they should have been notified.

This is all very worrying for people who live in the region as they may never know when there is a real emergency at Pelindaba. Last year, after the sirens repeatedly went off over a period of month, we alerted the media and it turned out an emergency situation had triggered the sirens and confined all staff indoors. The siren was triggered by an abnormal release of “noble gas” during a regular production of isotopes.

Residents were not contacted at all. NECSA claimed the radioactive gases that escaped were contained within their fenced area (on a windy day!!!) We submitted numerous questions to the NNR over this incident – subjoined hereunder – and have still not had appropriate replies. Since this incident, sirens have not been heard again from Pelindaba – not even routine monthly siren tests – until Thursday morning. NECSA are supposed to test their sirens on the first Monday of every month but have stopped notifying residents, whether or not they continue this practice.

It is a mystery and residents have a right to know what’s going on. There are worrying health risks to children and mothers from the harmful effects of ionizing (man-made) radiation. You cannot see it, smell it, taste it yet it needs only the smallest particles to cause leukemia, a variety of cancers, spontaneous abortions and genetic abnormalities in unborn children.

THE QUESTIONS THE NNR HAVE NEVER ANSWERED:

The National Nuclear Regulator

Dear Gino Moonsamy and Thiagan Pather

Further to your media release, I am pleased to know the NNR will continue with its investigation. We trust you will inform us once this is complete, and ask that you indicate how long this investigation is likely to continue?

In terms of your legislated mandate to protect the environment, humans and property, however, I trust you will also provide us with answers to the following questions:

1. Can you confirm the chemical structure of the xenon and krypton that was released?
2. Can you confirm that the xenon and krypton were radioactive? If so, what can you tell us about the nature of that gamma radiation?
3. Can you confirm the suspected amount of the xenon and krypton that was released over legitimate levels? And for how long?
4. Please confirm the legal daily limit of these emissions?
5. Please outline known health and environmental implications of xenon and krypton – especially the particular Xe and Kr that is believed to have been released.
6. Please provide information on the exact building stack that triggered the alarm? Was it the Safari 1 reactor or another building, and if so, please name the building and describe the exact nature of the processes that take place in this building?
7. Since it was established within a short period after the emergency that xenon and krypton were released, could you indicate whether ANY emissions of ANY OTHER substance was released simultaneously, whether considered hazardous or not?
8. Why were no residents informed? Instead residents contacted Necsa to enquire about the alarms.
9. If the emergency warranted all personnel being mustered to safe designated areas behind locked doors, closed windows and switched off ventilators as indicated by NECSA’s Emergency Control Centre, why were the closest residents to Pelindaba not evacuated until the emergency was called off?
10. Mr. Rob Adam indicated to me personally that NECSA has detectors onsite and also off-site. Can you confirm this?
11. The emergency took place on a relatively windy day. What assurances are there that the event was of a localized nature?
12. Who is responsible for the emergency?
13. The NNR has indicated to Parliament last year it has a skills and manpower shortage. Is this likely to affect your investigation?
14. What will be done to prevent a recurrence of abnormal levels of radioactive emissions at Necsa’s Pelindaba site?
15. Can you please indicate how many other events of abnormal levels of radioactive emissions have been recorded at Pelindaba over the past that have warranted an on-site emergency– whether or not these were deemed to have posed a threat to the public and workers at the facilities or not.

Please can you ensure that I am on all your emailing lists? I sent you and other officials at the NNR an email request the night before the emergency at Pelindaba and have still received no reply, let alone a copy of your media release – which I now have via people based in the Cape! I am, as you know, a resident in the Pelindaba region.

It is sincerely hoped you will provide a prompt response to these questions in light of the now scaled-up activity at the Pelindaba Complex which makes it more imperative than ever that the public can rely on the NNR.

Sincerely

Dominique Gilbert

From: Gino Moonsamy [mailto:gmoonsamy@nnr.co.za]
Sent: 18 March 2009 09:49 AM
To: Pelindaba Working Group; Thiagan Pather
Subject: RE: Media Release – National Nuclear Regulator Assures Public of Safety – Pelindaba

Dear Dominic

Your contact details have been added to our mailing list.

Your enquiry is noted and currently being attended to.

best regards

Gino Moonsamy

National Nuclear Regulator

“Safety first, Safety always”

The government has pulled the plug on its ambitious nuclear energy programme after pumping more than R9-billion into it over more than 11 years. There have been suggestions that this figure is far higher than declared and allegations that PBMR funding resulted in various slush funds. There are also suggestions that the PBMR project may continue to be funded in the US and may yet try to rear its ugly head in South Africa. What we want to know is what will happen with the PBMR “test” fuel factory established at Pelindaba and why were no environmental reports made public from the several years of pebbles experimentation that transpired in the hills of Hartbeespoortdam? And what ever became of the nuclear pebbles produced at Pelindaba that were shipped overseas for testing? – Comment from CANE

In a letter dated July 5, Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan told the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM): “The minister of finance has clearly stated that there will be no further funding for the company, and I would like to reiterate that this position has not changed.

“It is clear that the remainder of the cash on hand is to be utilised solely for the winding down of the company as well as the preservation of the intellectual property.”

One objective was to design, license and build a prototype nuclear reactor plant, which, if successful, would have paved the way for building small power plants to help meet SA’s needs.

The company operates as an independent entity governed by an agreement between founding investors Eskom, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and US nuclear giant Westinghouse.

It has spent R5-billion on projects since 1994, including R2.7-billion on a demonstration power plant, which was to have been built at the Western Cape’s Koeberg nuclear power station, but was later scrapped. In the process, the company wasted R268-million on the manufacture of a major component of the demonstration power plant, a 2000-ton reactor pressure vessel.

The vessel, which is due to leave the Spanish port of Santander next Sunday, will be stored at Saldanha Bay for R10000 a month as the company can no longer afford the R1.4-million it will cost to transport it to Pretoria.

Business Times was told that the company decided to have the component shipped to SA as it would have been liable for R34-million in VAT had it remained in Spain. Nuclear experts were unanimous this week that the vessel would have to be scrapped as the PBMR company changed the original design of the demonstration power plant last year to 200MW from 400MW. The vessel can function in a 400MW power plant only.

Although the part is unfinished, as the contract for its construction was cancelled last year, PBMR was forced to pay the Spanish builder R268-million for the incomplete product. The original contract price was R317-million.

Payments to companies that made parts for the demonstration power plant include:

• R503.2-million to Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for a helium turbine for the power plant;
• R256.8-million to German company SGL Carbon for manufacturing carbon reflector blocks; and
• R256-million for graphite for the demonstration power plant.

The company also spent millions of rands manufacturing coated uranium oxide particles encapsulated in graphite fuel spheres, which were sent to Russia for testing.

However, staff say the financial cut-off did not stop the company recently giving golden handshakes of R1.8-million each to some of its general managers.

Last year, the company’s 11 executives were paid a combined R18-million in salaries and other benefits. Other big payments since 1994 include:

• R2-billion to mostly overseas consultants;
• R115.9-million for building rental;
• R707.9-million for the construction of a pilot fuel plant; and
• R172-million for overheads.

Hogan recently turned down a rescue plan proposed by the NUM that included a request for a R262-million government bail-out until March next year. In a detailed submission to Hogan, the union called on the auditor-general’s office to conduct a forensic investigation into the company’s financial affairs.

The union also called on the government to suspend the company’s board and executive officers. It said some engineers and scientists were “inappropriately qualified” for nuclear reactor engineering applications.

“The actions of certain individuals can be treated as sabotage for changing the design almost every second year. It seemed as if they did not want to see the reactor built.”

Union general secretary Frans Baleni deplored the company’s “wasteful expenditure. The closure is marked by serious allegations of corruption and unethical conduct. We would be pleased if it can be investigated thoroughly,” he said.

A nuclear expert employed at PBMR blamed the board and executives for the company’s failure. “The technology in terms of electricity production was good, but the only problem was that it was not well managed. Nothing was ever achieved by the company. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

Eskom said in a short statement that it was a minority investor, and referred queries to PBMR.

PBMR’s acting chief executive Alex Tsela declined to comment, referring all questions to the company’s corporate communications department, which could not be reached for comment.

The chairman, Alistair Ruiters, could not be reached for comment either.

• - govenderp@sundaytimes.co.za

Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article555632.ece/Government-pulls-plug-on-PBMR

The employees are accusing the nuclear power station for various illnesses which they allege are a direct result of the radiation they were exposed to while ‘on the job’. They have organised themselves into a formal group which is headed by Alfred Sepepe.

The 58-year-old chairperson said most These allegedly ailing workers told Hartbeespoort News that they, and their loved ones, have suffered ‘severe health risks’ after working at the nuclear plant, near Phelindaba.

These (affected) workers have  organized of the workers, all of whom have served at Necsa at some time or the other, are suffering from various diseases, including lung and kidney cancer.

Sepepe, who had previously worked as a machine operator … for some 14 years … said Necsa’s nuclear radiation had caused tremendous health problems in his life – much as was the case with other colleagues.

“I was healthy before I started working for that company,” he alleged during an interview with Hartbeespoort News. “Since I have been working there though, I have been in and out of hospital, suffering from various diseases.”

This father of three claimed that, as a result of one particular illness he endured, he underwent an operation during which one of his testes was removed … to prevent the spread of a growth.

He explained how his doctors had also told him that the cause of his illness was radiation.

Sepepe is now part of the group of over 80 former Necsa employees who want Necsa to be held legally accountable for the health hazards they were exposed to during their tenure at the company (and also ‘the loss of beloved ones’).

Hartbeepoort News has learned that the former workers have engaged professional legal aid as they seek to  claim compensation from their former company.

In documents in possession of Hartbeepoort News, there is proof that these complaints have also been forwarded to the Office of the State President, Jacob Zuma, and also referred to the Minister of Energy Affairs, Dipuo Peters.

In response to a query from Hartbeespoorl News, Elliot Mulale, communications and media manager for Necsa, remarked that the company was ‘not aware of any health risks suffered by employees due to exposure to radiation’.

He also alleged, “Necsa’s facilities operate in such a way as to ensure that individuals are not exposed to radiation levels in excess of international dosage limits.”

Former employees, he concluded, are welcome to approach Necsa for their medical records … ‘but this information will only be provided on receipt of their full contact details’.

Former employees have alleged that Necsa would not allow them to consult private medical practitioners during their terms of employment. They alleged that they were instead referred to on-site doctors by the company.

Closed-circuit video capture the shootout and arrest in South Africa where police obtained nuclear material that could have been used for a dirty bomb.

An international police sting at a Pretoria petrol station has netted four men involved in the sale of a highly radioactive metal suspected to be destined for use in a dirty bomb.

The high-risk operation by the Hawks’ specialised tactical unit was carried out yesterday.

Police recovered some Caesium-137 contained in a protective cover, but admitted they had yet to find a larger device, which was set to be sold on the black market for R45 million.

CCTV footage shows how undercover members of the Hawks’ organised crime unit stormed through a Sasol garage, opening fire on the suspects with semi-automatic weapons, sending terrified customers, motorists and petrol attendants fleeing.

Within moments of arresting the Mamelodi and Vanderbijlpark men, who are aged between 35 and 50, environmental officers and a field team of South African nuclear specialists sealed off the area as they gathered air samples and conducted tests on the radioactive material.

The lunchtime chaos brought an end to a lengthy police investigation involving Interpol agents around the world.

Police said they began their investigation after infiltrating a criminal organisation, which has allegedly been trying to source the highly radioactive Caesium-137.

Sources said the amount recovered, although small, could have been used in building a dirty bomb. According to the Wikipedia website, a dirty bomb combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. It is used to contaminate the area around the explosion and create terror.

A policeman said the source of the Caesium-137 was unknown and investigators were going all out to locate the larger device. “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly,” he said.

Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA spokeswoman, Chantal Janneker, confirmed the material was Caesium-137, and said there had been no contamination in the area.

Hawks spokesman, Colonel Musa Zondi, said the four were arrested as they tried to sell the stolen material which was a sample of a device which was to be sold for R45 million.

Zondi said the suspects would appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on charges of theft, possession of a radioactive device and violating the Health Department’s prohibition of handling this material in public.

* This article was originally published on page 1 of The Independent on Saturday http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20100710085544493C308461

The Pretoria News reported Saturday that police had recovered a limited amount of cesium 137, which has been identified as possible dirty bomb material (see GSN, July 6). The newspaper indicated, though, that the device that once housed the material had not been found.

“At this stage we don’t know where it comes from or where the remainder of the device is, which is of grave concern to us, especially as cesium 137 can be used in dirty bombs,” a police officer said. “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly.”

GSN reported that Friday’s operation was the result of an extended investigation that included Interpol officers from various countries and targeted a criminal group that had spent months trying to sell the radioactive material, police said. It ended at a gas station, with the suspects unsuccessfully trying to flee under semiautomatic fire from the Hawks.

The Right Perspective said in its report officers are still looking for a much larger device the suspects are believed to have.

The Digital Journal reported that Caesium-137 is radioactive isotope (radioisotope) of Caesium and is toxic in even small amounts. It is soluble in water and can be difficult to detect. It is used in small amounts for radiation testing and for some medical applications.
The isotope would make an effective component of a so-called “dirty bomb,” a device which is made up of a normal explosive like TNT and a radioactive isotope. When the bomb explodes, the area it affects becomes contaminated and people coming into contact with surfaces or water containing the radioisotope could become seriously ill or even die.
Caesium-137 was released into the atmosphere during the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown and was one of the three most toxic radioisotopes in the disaster. Dirty bombs are used primarily to created terror in populations, as the explosion itself is no worse than that produced by regular explosives, but the fear of radiation sickness could cause panic.

A policeman who was not named said:  “We don’t know what these suspects’ intentions were and we need to find the device quickly” according to the Digital Journal.

The suspects will appear in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court to face charges of theft, possession of a radioactive device and violation of health regulations pertaining to nuclear material.

The Global Security Network reports that police said the incident was not World Cup related despite earlier reports that Iraq claimed its security forces had detained an al-Qaeda militant suspected of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb” at a soccer stadium.

While it was not immediately clear where the device involved in Friday’s sting had come from, a significant amount of nuclear medicine manufacturing for treatment of certain cancers is manufactured at NECSA’s Pelindaba site near the Hartbeespoortdam outside Pretoria.

In 2007 a daring breach in security occurred at Pelindaba as two separate gangs of armed men broke into NECSA’s operations room during which an official was shot. NECSA passed this incident off as “crime-related” at the time and no further information was ever made available. There has been little fuss in South Africa over the security breach at Pelindaba but international media and  nuclear watchdog organisations remain severely disturbed believing that a significant amount of Highly Enriched Uranium at Pelindaba was a likely target for the break-ins.

Sources:

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100712_8973.php

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/07/11/south-africans-arrested-selling-dirty-nuke/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/294511

More and more mainstream media are ignoring the health and economic risk – let alone the legacy – involved with nuclear power and appear to be backing an  already well-oiled propaganda machine of the nuclear industry, hell-bent on foisting dangerous technology on this country. Their published views DO NOT reflect the vast and irrefutable evidence against this heinous form of electricity generation. Here are two letters recently written to the Business Day newspaper to set the record straight which we trust the paper bothered to publish.

10 June 2010

The Editor

Business Day

Dear Sir

Two undated articles from your newspaper were recently forwarded to me. One was an otherwise reasonable article by Siseko Njobeni on the state of play in the IRP2 process, but which had a disturbing caption attached to its photograph: “There is little debate about the benefits of nuclear power … as the least carbon-generating  technology.” Apart from the constant privileging of nuclear power over other and cheaper viable technologies for electricity production that this prominent photograph suggests (and belied in the accompanying article), the very idea of “no debate” is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher’s TINA: “There is No Alternative” – a Goebbelsian mantra, if ever there was one.

If your reporters had attended the recent Environmental Impact Assessments public meetings for the ill-starred “Nuclear-1”, they would have experienced an extremely robust and entirely hostile debate at all three sites. Indeed – with the rebirth of Earthlife Africa and the Koeberg Alert Alliance in Cape Town; the fierce resistance of the Save Bantamsklip campaign in the Overstrand; and the Thyspunt Alliance in the Kouga Municipality – one can honestly say that the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE) has come of age. It also currently enjoys the active support from the National Union of Mineworkers, the faith-based SAFCEI, and a clear mandate from the Civil Society Energy Caucus to represent its anti-nuclear interests to the IPR2 process.

More objectionable, however, both in its cynical, “embedded” tone and its uncritical content, is Sarah Wild’s “Science & Technology” column on the subject. Quoting (without making it clear) standard nuclear industry propaganda, Wild writes that “fewer than 50 people” died and guesstimates the overall cancers at 4 000 from the disaster at Chernobyl. According to the Russian newspaper Pravda of 16 December 2002, however –

A total area of 50 000 square kilometres covering 12 regions was contaminated in that awful tragedy. Over three million people, including about one million children are suffering [in 2002] from diseases of the respiratory airways, thyroid gland, etc., which rates are higher in the regions contaminated after the tragedy as compared with the whole of Ukraine. About 600 000 people participated in the clean-up … of Chernobyl: 200 000 of them were exposed to an enhanced radiation dose. These people will now need special medical aid and supervision for the rest of their lives.

Within the first ten years after the Chernobyl tragedy, about 168 000 people (out of the total number of 3.2 million … victims) died. It was later discovered that 4 300 died [immediately] as a result of the tragic consequences, about 3 000 of [these] fatalities were those who participated the clean-up. Those victims of the tragedy who remained alive registered a worsening of their health condition.

While the red herrings may be trotted out about for cars and jets and coal stations and farting cattle, the scientific facts are that the two principle by-products of nuclear fission – Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 – both have a half-life close to thirty years and therefore tend to accumulate in the environment over many decades. Even the otherwise extremely reluctant Air Specialist Study in the EIA for Nuclear-1 admits as much:

The methodology described in IAEA Safety Report No. 19 (IAEA 2001) was adopted in the estimation of inhalation and immersion dose….. The inventory of long-lived radionuclides builds up in the environment, with the result that exposures may increase as the discharge continues. [emphasis mine]

When I studied Eskom’s own Environmental Science Laboratory reports to the National Nuclear Regulator on emissions and effluents from Koeberg Nuclear Power Station,
the following amount of Strontium-90 was recorded in liquid effluents in Becquerels per year:
1994 =   53 600 000
1995 =      9 560 000
1997 =   15 100 000
2001 =      3 140 000
It follows, therefore, that there is a genuine risk from routine operations of nuclear power stations, and this was borne out in a number of peer-reviewed studies. Writing for Global Research, Ian Fairlie (2008) drew attention to the following:

Last year [2007], researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston carried out a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukaemia in children under 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14 to 21 per cent, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5 to 24 per cent, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities (European Journal of Cancer Care, vol 16, p 355).
…
This was upstaged by the yet more surprising KiKK studies (a German acronym for Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants), whose results were published this year [i.e. in 2008] in the International Journal of Cancer (vol 122, p 721) and the European Journal of Cancer (vol 44, p 275). These found higher incidences of cancers and a stronger association with nuclear installations than all previous reports. The main findings were a 60 per cent increase in solid cancers and a 117 per cent increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003. The most striking finding was that those who developed cancer lived closer to nuclear power plants than randomly selected controls. Children living within 5 kilometres of the plants were more than twice as likely to contract cancer as those living further away, a finding that has been accepted by the German government.

I am normally convinced that Business Day conducts proper research in order to better inform its readers of investment potential in one business sector or another. I therefore think it would be equally helpful for the newspaper to engage in a more critical investigation into the dubious merits of electricity production from nuclear power stations before questioning the “viability” of its critics. We may not be financially viable (or even properly functional) as a lobbying group, but at least we do our homework.

Mike Kantey
National Chairman
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE)
www.cane.org.za
072 628 5131

Endnotes

Ian Fairlie (2008) “Reasonable Doubt: Children living near nuclear facilities face an increased risk of cancer” April 24, 2008 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8785)

A follow-up for your self-confessed “science” writer may be made through examining Chris Busby’s 2009 study: “Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models” in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Volume 6. www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph]
Chris Busby et al (2006): A survey of cancer in the vicinity of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in north wales Report 2006/3, Green audit Aberystwyth, June

Communities adjacent to nuclear facilities in the U.S. and U.K. have increased rates of leukemia and other childhood cancers (Cragle et al. 1988; Morris and Knorr 1996; Beral et al. 1993; Pobel and Viel 1997; Cardis et al. 2007).

Arjun Makhijani (2008): The Use of Reference Man in Radiation Protection Standards and Guidance with Recommendations for Change, December (Revision 1, April 2009). Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Maryland

Kaatsch P, Spix C, Schultze-Rath R, et al. Leukemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726
Baker PJ, Hoel DG. Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities. Eur J Cancer Care. 2007:16:355-363
Laurier D, Jacob S, Bernier MO, et al. Epidemiological studies of leukemia in children and young adults around nuclear facilities: A critical review. Rad Prot Dosim. 2008; 132:182- 190
———————————————-

Sent:     Tuesday, June 08, 2010
To:     busday@bdfm.co.za
Subject: What’s on my plate in a nuclear future?

Dear Editor

What’s on my plate in a nuclear future?

Koeberg emits, by their own admission, ‘permitted levels of radioactive waste’ from their site. This means that radioactive isotopes (such as Cesium-137, Strontium-90 and Iodine-131) become part of the environment in which they are emitted. When we eat the crops, or, the animals that graze on effected vegetation, we take in substances that, are not only carcinogenic to our bodies,  but, will also change the characteristics of our DNA, and, by implication the DNA of future generations. Wind dispersion allows for emissions to be spread over vast areas.

With the government’s planned ‘fleet’ of nuclear power plants to be rolled out in SA, how much of our farming land will be effected?  Which European country will import radioactive fruit, or, wine? Avian flu (a mere virus) decimated sectors of economies in the world. We could face a blanket  ban on all our export produce. So, not only will our health be adversely effected by a nuclear future, but our economy too. If I was a farmer I would definitely be toy toying.

The latter will be nothing compared to a nuclear waste accident…  even if it is  minor.  Consider that every month we transport radio active waste from Koeberg to Vaal Puts in the Karoo for ‘safe storage’. Our road accident rate is high. It is only a matter of time before a transit vehicle, carrying the waste, is involved in an accident. High level waste remains at Koeberg – over 1 million killograms of it.  Why? There is no actual plan for disposal (ps this goes for nuclear waste worldwide). And, as far as procuring material to create nuclear energy is concerned, personally, I will not be applying for a mining position on any uranium mine in the near future… call me crazy if you like. Let us not be duped into thinking that there is anything clean about nuclear energy.

Most countries in the world are actively sourcing renewable energy solutions. Countries with no wind or sun to speak of (incl Germany and Denmark) generate substantial  amounts of electricity via renewable sources. Yet, SA is committing to generating nuclear energy in spite of clean alternatives that will cost less financially.

South Africans have been given one chance in Jhb, to participate in the IRP2 process. This ends 10  June 2010 (one day before kickoff date???). This is unacceptable, particularly since Capetonians sit with the ‘permitted emissions’ in our own backyard. I recently wrote a letter to local (CT) organic producers of diary products… “I know that your products are RBST free, but, are they free of radioactive isotopes”, to which the response has been… ‘this is a valid point, we are looking into it’. What if our food producers cannot supply us with raioactive isotope free produce? National health is already strained and just how many lawsuites can our government afford to take on?

Quite frankly, I find embracing a nuclear future to be just a tad unpalatable.

Your sincerely,

Jemimah Birch

Hout Bay
083 716 1010

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

Government turns its back on thousands of jobs and SME opportunities giving dictatorial support for “arms deal style” nuclear power acquisitions that will impose nuclear risks to South Africans for thousands of years. Billions of rand destined to alleviate poverty will once again be commandeered by the ruling party without allowing any public debate to derail this irrational & unsustainable policy.

“Is this the Government we fought to bring to power?” asked anti-nuclear stalwart Mike Kantey who was evicted from a nuclear stakeholder meeting on Tuesday in Cape Town called by Energy Minister Dipuo Peters.

ISSUED BY:
National Executive Committee
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy
Email: caneoffice@cane.org.za
Website: www.cane.org.za

Mike Kantey
National Chairman
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (CANE)