A one percent risk, 100 percent too high

As news of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami of March 11 disappears from the front pages of the newspapers, some experts warn that the threats from the power plant can persist indefinitely, with one saying the mess cannot be cleaned up and “no-one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.”

The New York Times last week reported that United States engineers sent to help with the crisis in are warning that the troubled nuclear plant is facing an array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely. In some cases these threats are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable, according to a confidential assessment prepared by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In the new threats cited in the assessment, dated March 26, are the mounting stresses placed on the containment structures as they fill with radioactive cooling water, making them more vulnerable to rupture in one of the aftershocks rattling the site.

“Among other problems, the document raises new questions about whether pouring water on nuclear fuel in the absence of functioning cooling systems can be sustained indefinitely. Experts have said the Japanese need to continue to keep the fuel cool for many months until the plant can be stabilised, but there is growing awareness that the risk of pumping water on the fuel presents a whole new category of challenges that the nuclear industry is only beginning to comprehend,” the report states.

For instance a rise in the water level of the containment structures has often been depicted as a possible way to immerse and cool the fuel in the plant. The assessment, however, warns that “when flooding containment, consider the implications of water weight on the seismic capacity of the containment.

“Enormous stress is put on the containment structures by the rising water. “The more water in the structures, the more easily a large after-shock could rupture one of them.”

David A. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who worked on similar General Electric reactors to those used in Japan and who now directs the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the welter of problems at three separate reactors revealed in the document made a successful outcome even more uncertain.

“Even the best juggler in the world can get too many balls up in the air. They’ve got a lot of nasty things to negotiate in the future, and one missed step could make the situation much, much worse,” he told The New York Times.

In the meantime Dr. Tom Burnett is reported on the Information Clearing House site as saying: ”Fukushima is going to dwarf Chernobyl. The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

“The disaster is occurring in the opposite way to Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

“The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s not true. They cannot clean it up. And no-one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.”

Spreading contamination

Radioactive lodine 131 has recently been turning up in Tokyo’s drinking water some 240 kilometres south of Fukushima. It led to official advice not to give this water to babies.

This contamination emanated from the core of the reactors at the nuclear plant, signifying a partial meltdown, which could result in far greater contamination from other dangerous radionuclides, such as Ceasium 137, and possible plutonium contamination.

Unlike lodine 131, with a half-life of just over eight days, these long-lived radioactive substances were strongly implicated in clusters of childhood leukemia near the UK nuclear facilities at Sellafield and Aldermaston from the 1960s to the 1990s

After Fukushima

“As we pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons, we also need to phase out reliance on nuclear energy. Both are incompatible with our environmental and human security,” writes the director at the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, Rebecca Johnson on the openDemocracy website.

“There is still a long way to go before anyone can feel reassured that the disaster caused by Japan’s massive off-shore earthquake and tsunami will not result in an additional nuclear catastrophe,” she writes.

She argues that major natural disasters might not be very frequent, but they will keep happening when we least expect. So we need to factor that into our energy and security choices.

“It is an inherent problem of nuclear technologies that if something goes wrong the risks are much greater and may spread far more widely than with any other kind of weapon or energy,” she writes and adds: “… the Fukushima crisis demonstrates with chilling clarity, a nuclear crisis can turn into a long-term tragedy far more frightening for the world than the worst foreseeable oil spill, fire or fossil-fuel accident.

“Fifty years of nuclear operations have resulted in many near misses and several severe nuclear accidents that caused serious contamination outside the plant: Sellafield (UK, 1957), Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), Chernobyl (Soviet Union, 1986). And now Japan, which believed it had designed its many nuclear facilities well enough to withstand earthquakes,” she writes.

The bottom line is that by the very nature of the risks involved with nuclear technology, a one percent risk is 100 percent too high.

In an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel peace activist and author Jonathan Schell warns that “our most dangerous illusion is that we can control nuclear energy” and comes to the conclusion that what has happened in Japan could mark a turning point for the world.

Source of article: http://www.leadershiponline.co.za/articles/other/1244-fukushima-disaster

Russia will provide South African nuclear power stations with uranium until 2017. The contract was signed in the Kremlin by President Jacob Zuma and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev. President Zuma is on an official visit to the Russian Federation, looking to narrow the trade deficit with one of the most populous nations in the world. The country’s hoping to build on historical ties with the Russian Federation and the uranium deal is a step in that direction.

Under the deal Russia will control almost half of South Africa’s uranium market, but the world’s 12th largest economy is also an influential member in Bric. And South Africa may have secured the support it needs to gain access to this group which includes Brazil, India and China.

Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev said: “Saying Russia supports the move but that the decision is not Russia alone to make as it depends on other members of Bric

The Russian President says the deal is just the start South Africa’s imports from the Russian Federation more than doubled last year. The country imported goods to the value of R3,6bn, while its exports generated R1,5bn.

Several agreements on energy, visa requirements and space could expedite the cooperation. Eleven government ministers and a high-level business delegation are accompanying the president.

South Africa and Russia already cooperate on a multilateral level. Now they want to use their historical ties to open up markets for increased trade between the two countries.

Source: SABCTV News http://www.sabcnews.com/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=4fdb9e807b24a210VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default

Russia, South Africa Discuss Potential Nuclear, LNG, Titanium Co-Operation

By Yuriy Humber – Aug 4, 2010

South Africa is discussing how Russia may supply the nation’s nuclear plant with fuel, plug an energy gap with liquefied natural gas shipments, and help process its mineral sands into titanium, Trade Minister Rob Davies said.

The two countries are looking to boost trade and investment as South African President Jacob Zuma leads a delegation of more than 50 politicians and businessmen to Russia this week. South Africa sees mining, energy and transport as areas where ties with Russia can grow, Davies said today in a Moscow interview.

“We see deepening relations with the BRIC countries,” Davies said, referring to Brazil, Russia, India and China, an acronym combining the biggest emerging markets. Trade between Russia and South Africa reached 4 billion rand ($550 million) in 2008, he said.

Tenex, a unit of Russian nuclear holding company Rosatom Corp., is in talks over supplying South Africa’s Koeberg power plant, Davies said. Russia is also interested in being involved should South Africa decide to build more plants, he said.

Russia may also deliver LNG to Mossel Bay, Davies said, without giving further details. PetroSA, South Africa’s state- owned oil company, needs to secure replacement supplies to feed the Mossel Bay refinery as its natural gas reserves dwindle.

South Africa also hopes to use Russian technology to develop a mineral sands deposit that could yield titanium, zirconium and silicon, Davies said. Rare Metals Industries Ltd., a venture with South African, Russian and U.S. investors, said in February it may list shares to fund the $1.5 billion cost of a processing plant needed to turn sands into metal.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/russia-south-africa-discuss-potential-nuclear-lng-titanium-co-operation.html

16 Jan 2009

Australia would not resort to nuclear power to tackle climate change, despite a report urging the government to consider it, federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering – representing engineers and scientists – released the report on climate change on Friday which calls the government to spend $6 billion on researching ways to slash the carbon emissions from electricity generation.

The academy’s report says no single technology will solve climate change, and takes a look at everything from nuclear power to clean coal and renewable energy.

At the launch of the report in Melbourne, Mr Ferguson said the government was committed to meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets without turning to nuclear power.

“It is the government’s view that nuclear power is not needed as part of Australia’s energy mix given our country’s abundance and diversity of low-cost renewable energy sources,” he said.

“The government has a clear policy of prohibiting the development of an Australian nuclear power industry.”

Mr Ferguson said the report focused the Australian community’s mind on technology and how it can help solve climate change.

“Technology created the problem and technology will be the solution to the problem. What we’re about is encouraging a debate,” he said.

When asked by reporters whether the government would commit the $6 billion asked for in the report, Mr Ferguson said its policies would see major investment in research and development in the private and public sectors.

“The carbon pollution reduction scheme, putting a price on carbon in association with renewable energy targets, will facilitate investment by the private sector in association with ongoing investment, not only by the Australian government, but also state and territory governments,” he said.

The report’s author Dr John Burgess said he believed Australia would need to put in a lot of work to reduce emissions by between five and 15 per cent by 2020.

“We think it is realistic and possible. But the point we’re making in the report is that a lot of work will need to be done … it’s only 11 years and a lot of work will need to be done to develop up the technologies to replace that carbon because of the growth in consumption that is happening,” he said.

He said he was not disappointed by the minister’s comments on nuclear power.

“I guess what we’re slightly concerned about is that without nuclear energy the other technologies have to work,” Dr Burgess said.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Govt-rejects-call-to-use-nuclear-power-NC3KE?OpenDocument

Confidential information related to South Africa’s apartheid-era nuclear weapons programme is due to be released following a landmark ruling by the High Court in Pretoria.

The information consists of medical and occupational safety records related to a former employee of Ucor, a private company that conducted top-secret research at the Valindaba nuclear facility outside Pretoria in the ’70s and ’80s.

The company records are currently held by the state-owned SA Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa).

In terms of the court order, Necsa must hand over all relevant medical records and health and safety documents related to 62-year-old Tilman Roux, who is seeking compensation for cancer he alleged was caused by exposure to ionising radiation.

Roux worked at the infamous Y plant of Ucor’s uranium enrichment plant between 1974 and 1983 at a time when South Africa was actively seeking nuclear weapons capacity.

Roux’s lawyers claim Necsa withheld some information from their client last year when his case came before the Department of Labour’s compensation commissioner, who dismissed the matter. Necsa spokesman Chantal Janneker yesterday confirmed that the company would “provide what is available as ordered”.

This week the court found that Roux’s case had not been properly investigated — and instructed Necsa to deliver all relevant information to the compensation commissioner.

Janneker says Necsa has already provided “substantial information”.

However, Roux’s lawyer, Paula Howell, said it was possible some relevant information may have been destroyed or gone missing.

Howell said: “It seems as if they (Ucor) may have destroyed all documents related to the (uranium enrichment) process.”

Roux’s concerns about possible radioactive contamination mounted after he was diagnosed with rare blood plasma cancer in June 2007.

Dominique Gilbert of the anti-nuclear lobby, the Pelindaba Working Group, said there were at least 500 other former Necsa employees who might seek compensation. She said Roux’s case might finally lift the veil of secrecy around working conditions at apartheid-era nuclear facilities, but that the current government appeared to be repeating the mistakes of the past by denying access to information.

Published: The Times

http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=920295

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sunday 18 January 2008

MEDIA STATEMENT: Pelindaba Working Group callS for COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER TO REVIST ALL NUCLEAR WORKER CASES

The Pelindaba Working Group urges the Compensation Commissioner to compel the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) to produce complete documentation which it has failed to produce for hundreds of workers over the past 5 years, ignoring the pre-requisites of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).

On the 15^th January, for the first time in South Africa, a Pretoria court set a precedent by ordering NECSA to hand over health and safety records in order to assist a former employee in the nuclear industry to claim workers’ compensation benefits.

If, however, the State-owned company NECSA remains incapable of producing untampered with or missing medical and worker records, a truly independent inquiry is necessary to determine whether these records were destroyed or have “gone missing”, and why.

The Pretoria ruling also puts an end to NECSA’s practice of refusing to supply information to compensation claimants in circumstances where the Compensation Commissioner could be relied upon not to assist claimants in obtaining the required information.

Mr Tilman Roux, 62, a former employee of South African Uranium Enrichment Corporation (UCOR), applied for workers’ compensation benefits in accordance with the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 1993 (COIDA) in November 2007 following a cancer diagnosis in June 2007.  His claim was rejected in March 2008 by the Compensation Commissioner, because of NECSA’s refusal to supply records. 

In terms of COIDA only the Compensation Commissioner can compel NECSA to supply information, but the Compensation Commissioner, contrary to the provisions of COIDA, told Mr Roux that he had no duty to investigate the claim further.

Mr Roux has now successfully approached the High Court of Pretoria to obtain an order instructing the Compensation Commissioner to investigate his claim properly in accordance with COIDA and compel NECSA to supply all information relevant to his claim.

This ruling has implications for any worker confronted by the refusal of an employer such as NECSA to disclose health and safety information on its workers.  

Mr Roux worked at the infamous Y plant of UCOR’s uranium enrichment plant between 1974 and 1983 at a time when South Africa was actively building nuclear bombs.

There are at least 500 other former Necsa employees who believe they qualify for compensation some of whom were also turned down by the Commissioner. Several could not apply to COIDA as NECSA failed to produce complete records. We believe the Commissioner should revisit the other NECSA cases that have come before him in the past and keep his door open to others who seek justice.

We hope Roux’s case might finally lift the veil of secrecy around working conditions at nuclear facilities that the public will benefit from the knowledge. It’s high time the cloak and dagger nature of the nuclear industry is exposed.

Not only are nuclear workers at risk, but also the public at large for whom nuclear liabilities and insurances and medical recourse from routine emissions (let alone accidents) is almost non-existent.

That no dose of ionizing (man-made) radiation is a safe dose is no longer in question. It can take up to 20 years to manifest before cause slow painful death.

The South African government remains committed to the trumped-up “nuclear renaissance” it can ill-afford and its ambitious nuclear expansion program which was Gazetted in December despite wide-spread opposition.

We reiterate our call for an independent inquiry and want the government to:

·          To ensure that by law, the nuclear industry is held responsible for illness of the workers

·          To ensure that worker’s rights are understood and respected

·          To influence the zero emission of radiation to workers, the environment and property.

Issued by:

Dominique Gilbert

Coordinator

PELINDABA WORKING GROUP

MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY

Kindly take note that we did not have 64 days to comment as has been erroneously advised to DEAT in the Arcus Gibb letter of 16th Oct 2008.  You will be aware that we have had the documents in our possession from only the 2nd October 2008 (date of receipt of documentation sent to us in post) to 24th October 2008.  We were only notified on the 27th Oct that in spite of our notification that we required 3 to 6 month extension to respond properly, we received only a minor extension until the 7th November 2008.  We therefore had only 22 days plus an extension of 12 days including the date of notification making a total of 33 days.

Many I&AP’s, including ourselves, have only weekends and evenings to prepare a response; to access these voluminous documents at a public library would be almost impossible out of normal business hours, in support of this we assert that very few, if any I&AP’s, access the EIA material at public libraries, and contend that it is not possible to do so adequately within such a short time frame – indeed even if one had the documents for the alleged 64 days, this would be an enormous undertaking for all I&AP’s, given the size and complexity of the documentation.

Further, we did not ask that Arcus Gibb request the permission of the proponent before sending the request for an extension of the comment period to DEAT on our behalf, nor were we notified of the unilateral decision by Arcus Gibb that they would not to make the request that they had undertaken so to do so at the focus group meeting.  Arcus Gibb, despite their undertaking to us, did not make the recommendation to DEAT that we be granted this extension; they chose instead to make a case on behalf of the applicant as to why our request should be changed to an unacceptably short period.

Kindly remind Arcus Gibb that they are ethically and legally bound to act as an entirely independent consultant.  We still await confirmation by their directors, as requested in our letter of 16th July 2008, that inter alia, Eskom will not be allowed by Arcus Gibb, as Independent Consultants, to foist its nuclear aspirations upon the general public, nor, to bring pressure to bear in any manner upon that organisation, to slant this EIA process towards a pre determined nuclear outcome. Further, that directors of Arcus Gibb and their employees will undertake to act within the framework of statutory, fiduciary and legal corporate governance principles while conducting this EIA and that public meetings will engage the public in a manner that provides a full & clear picture of all the negative aspects of the proposed nuclear expansion programme and the potential health and safety risks of all affected parties, the environment and any other problems identified during this EIA process.  This request holds good for the proposed PBMR EIA as well as the proposed nuclear 1 EIA as independence of the consultant is fundamental to both.

The actions of Arcus Gibb now speak for themselves; they act exclusively in the interests of their “clients” the proponents in this matter, clearly not as independent consultants. This EIA process as a consequence is fundamentally flawed.  We view this behaviour by Arcus Gibb as unethical, illegal and unacceptable, especially in the light of their depriving ordinary citizens of their rights to participate in this process.

We request that DEAT is approached again with regard to the extensions and that the public meetings and impartial information requested for the public be arranged prior to the closure of the draft EIR process.

Please request that a copy of the letter in which DEAT refused ARCUS GIBB permission to conduct a full economic study and requested that only a macro economic study be conducted is sent to us as a matter of urgency as it impacts on our incomplete submission that will be sent to you by the 7th November 2008.

We remind you that if there are no independent studies to be paid by the applicant we need six months to raise the funds to pay an independent consultant for at least the more important studies.

All further participation will be done on the basis that although we consider this EIA process to be fundamentally flawed, our withdrawal may impact on our rights in law.  We therefore will to continue to participate without prejudice to our rights, however in so doing, this may not be construed as any condonation of the manner in which this EIA is being conducted.

Insofar as Acer Africa is involved in this EIA process they are also answerable to the public for any or all of the complaints raised above and in previous correspondence in this regard.

All Rights and Interests of all I&AP’s who may have been marginalized through this process are reserved.

Sincerely

Christine Garbett & Robert Garbett personally and on behalf of the following I&AP’s and their members

Pelindaba Working Group (members of CANE – National Coalition Against Nuclear ENERGY)

Wat Props Pty Ltd

Karee Trust

Professional Aviation Services Pty Ltd.

And on behalf of all I&AP’s whose rights may have been unwittingly marginalised by this flawed process

2 Should you wish to attend please write to us at:

Email: caneoffice@cane.org.za
Fax: 086 679 8610
Post: 9 Beldon Place, Macon Road, Lorriane 6070
Giving us the following information;

Name:
Address:
Email:
Fax:
Phone:
Cell:

What your skill and experience are that will assist in the objectives of CANE.

Any proposed changes or comments, if any, on the Constitution (attached) or any other relevant matter.

The office bearers will be elected at the launch and if you have anyone you would like to suggest for nomination, find out if they are prepared to stand and if they agree, please tell us who they are.

Should you need financial support to attend please let us know. We will do so if possible.

3 Click here for a copy of the constitution which will be presented to the meeting for approval.