This week controversial plans for mining Uranium in Tanzania are being examined critically by a visiting group of international experts invited by Tanzanian NGO FEMAPO (Foundation for Environmental Management and Campaign Against Poverty).
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/
By Zelda Venter
The Star 19/12/08
A former operator at the uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba, west of Pretoria, believes he contracted multiple myeloma (cancer of the blood plasma) while on duty and is thus entitled to workman’s compensation.
Tilman Roux (62) claimed that the cancer might be related to his being exposed to radiation while he worked at the plant about 30 years ago.
The Compensation Commissioner (CC), however, earlier turned down Roux’s application on the ground that his illness was not work-related.
On Tuesday, Roux will head for the Pretoria High Court for an order to either declare that he is entitled to compensation or to force the CC to properly consider his application.
Roux also wants the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (Necsa) to make information available to the office of the CC to enable it to investigate the circumstances under which he worked at the plant. These include the radiation levels in the plant during the time he worked there, as well as records of all incidents and accidents relevant to his claim.
Roux said he was diagnosed with cancer last year and was told by his doctor that it might be related to exposure to ionising radiation. He said his only exposure to such radiation was when he was employed at Valindaba between 1974 and 1982.
“My condition has steadily worsened from June last year and I am now experiencing excruciating pain, for which I require high doses of morphine.
“I was advised by my doctor that my condition will become terminal unless I receive immediate treatment in the form of chemotherapy and stem cell transplant,” Roux stated in court papers.
http://www.security.co.za/fullStory.asp?NewsId=11115
Man seeks compensation for cancer
December 19, 2008
PRETORIA: A 62-year-old former operator at the uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba, west of Pretoria, who has multiple Myeloma (cancer of the blood plasma), believes that he contracted the illness while on duty and is entitled to workman’s compensation.
Tilman Roux said the cancer might be related to him being exposed to radiation while he was working at the plant 30 years ago.
The Compensation Commissioner, however, earlier turned down Roux’s application on the ground that his illness was not work related. Roux will ask the Pretoria High Court on Tuesday for either an order declaring that he is entitled to compensation or that the commission be ordered to properly consider his application.
Roux also wants the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa to make information available to the commission to enable it to investigate the circumstances under which he had worked at the plant.
These include the radiation levels in the plant during the time he worked there and records of all incidents and accidents which may be relevant to his claim.
Roux said when he was diagnosed with cancer last year was told by his doctor that it might be related to exposure to ionising radiation. He said his only exposure to ionising radiation was between 1974 and 1982 when he was employed at Valindaba. – Mercury Correspondent
http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4767721
COMMENT:
We are grateful that finally there is a case now before the courts involving the shoddy treatment of former nuclear workers at Pelindaba Complex. If the truth be known, there are over 500 ill former workers who have approached the environmental justice organisation Earthlife Africa seeking assistance for compensation. Their former employers have held back medical and work records in many cases and even denied knowledge of some of these workers – this despite the fact that many worked for sub-contractors to the nuclear plant but were required to comply with all the normal security regulations.
There continue to be any number of these workers who, according to an Occupational Health medical practitioner who incidentally helped write the relevant legislation, believes they qualify for compensation. Yet, their former employers have white-washed the findings of the doctor’s study, and the Compensation Commissioner appears to have turned down their applications. Government officials have promised to help these people but to date no-one has. At last count, well over 20 of those former workers who came forward for assistance two years ago have now died.
Many of these people tell gruelling stories. Let’s hope the truth will out before it is too late – not only for the workers but also the surrounding populations. Nuclear waste, ionizing radiation and the emissions and pollution from normal operations (excluding accidents) is already deadly enough to cause long term harm which in many cases takes years to manifest. Then it’s too late.
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
PELINDABA WORKING GROUP
& member of the national
COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY
15 December 2008
By Derek Luyt
ESKOM might have decided to shelve its R700billion nuclear energy expansion programme, but there remain lots of good reasons why the public should be more actively involved in deciding energy policy in South Africa.
For a start, the Eskom load-shedding fiasco, which still hangs over the country, should remind us that the mandarins can get it wrong. Despite knowing more than a decade ago that SA was heading towards an energy shortage, government could not avert a crisis.
It may well be that there were vested interests involved, coupled with a belief that investors would be found to bring nuclear energy on stream in time to alleviate the looming crunch. We may never know for sure what led to the crisis, but what is quite clear is that government failed to respect the right of the South African public to participate meaningfully in the critical issue of our country’s future energy policy.
The public simply cannot afford to allow this situation to continue. We need to insist on the right to participate in the formulation of energy policy in our country because whatever policy gets adopted and implemented will have profound effects on all South Africans for decades to come.
The energy policy implemented in SA will have a major impact, for example, on efforts to eradicate the poverty which currently blights the lives of far too many citizens. It is imperative that such policy maximizes job creation and enhances opportunities for the improvement of the quality of life of the poor majority.
The issue of nuclear power is central to any consideration of future energy policy. Nuclear power is enormously expensive and there are coherent arguments that it is not cost effective, does not create the kind and number of jobs that our country desperately needs and that it poses unacceptable environmental risks.
Renewable energy, in the considered opinion of some, offers better prospects for job creation than conventional or nuclear energy. For a country with unemployment rates so high, this alone makes renewable energy worthy of far greater investment. But, as Liz McDaid points out, the main obstacle to developing renewable energy in SA is the “lack of political will to transform Eskom”. Hence civil society must “play a major role in lobbying government for change in the energy sector”.
The deputy director-general of the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE), Nelly Magubane, last week stated that “renewable energy is definitely on the cards … we are actually looking at ways of making sure that we get even more renewable energy in the system”. While this is encouraging, and although Eskom has postponed immediate plans for Nuclear One procurement – because, according to Portia Molefe, DPE director-general, “it is not affordable to Eskom” – it has made it clear that nuclear power remains firmly on its long-term agenda. According to Molefe, government “remains committed to introducing nuclear”.
This commitment has been made without any meaningful public participation, and none of the 26 comments recently submitted on the Nuclear Energy Bill have been made public.
Vast amounts of money – about R345bn – will be ploughed into developing energy infrastructure in SA over the next five years. While government has committed about R60bn towards these costs, Eskom is currently negotiating a 5bn (about R50bn) loan from the World Bank to help fund its expansion. It has already secured a 500 million (about R5bn) loan from the African Development Bank.
ANC leader Jacob Zuma, who last week said he and the ANC “are very concerned about the level of corruption in government and we must do something radical about it”, would presumably understand public concern that the amounts of money being pumped into energy development in SA provide fertile grounds for corruption.
The public would rightfully be even more concerned were Eskom to implement an offset based nuclear procurement policy, which seems, finances allowing, probable.
Despite such concerns, nothing especially radical is needed to ensure that SA’s energy policy does not degenerate into a carnival of elite enrichment. A healthy dose of public participation, coupled with legislated oversight and accountability, will be enough.
The public should therefore insist that both Eskom and the World Bank conduct its negotiations openly and transparently. After all, what is being considered is essentially a loan to the people of SA, and we have a right to know what the conditions of the loan are, since we will be repaying it.
The public should also insist that the World Bank, which is committed to promoting transparent and accountable governance, and the government of SA, which is constitutionally obliged to promote transparent and participatory policy-making, make any loan to Eskom conditional on guarantees of meaningful public participation in the formulation of SA’s future energy policy.
Finally, the public should also insist that both parties ensure that the terms and conditions of any loan are transparent, allowing both Parliament and the public to hold Eskom accountable for its use of such funds.
The arms deal may have taken the public by surprise. We still don’t know the extent of corruption involved in the procurement of the weapons involved. Nor do we have accurate information on the offsets which apparently persuaded our government that the deal was good for the country. We are not even sure that we needed the arms in the first place.
What we do know is that the public was not involved in deciding any of these matters. Vested interests took these costly decisions on our behalf. We dare not let our future energy policy become a hugely expanded repeat of the arms deal. There is a lot more at stake than keeping the pool pumps running.
Derek Luyt is media and advocacy head for the Public Service Accountability Monitor
Source: Daily Despatch Insight
by Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Thanks to everyone who signed the nukes/climate statement for release at the negotiations in Poznan, Poland. More than 300 organizations and more than 1200 of you signed as individuals. We appreciate your support! Below is the press release for the action in Poznan where the statement was released. Please feel free to send to your own local media. At the bottom of the release are links where you can obtain a formatted copy of the statement and a list of the organizational signers.
It can no longer be said that nuclear energy is acceptable anywhere in the world. Globally opposition to nuclear energy is mounting.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
**************************************************
Poznan, Poland. Three dozen environmental leaders from 16 countries braved icy cold weather on Wednesday morning in front of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Meeting in Poznan, Poland where they called nuclear power “a Mickey Mouse solution” to climate change. The activists were carrying banners and posters with lively slogans including “Don’t Nuke the Climate,” “No Nuclear Power in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)” and “Nuclear Power, No Thanks!”
Most were wearing t-shirts with the familiar “Mickey Mouse ears” emblazoned with the radiation symbol. The activists, representing non-governmental organizations from nearby European countries and from as far away as Taiwan, South Korea, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and California, announced the release of a global call for the elimination of proposals to include nuclear power as an approved investment for greenhouse gas mitigation in the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC.
In only one week, over 300 NGOs representing millions of individuals from 50 countries in every corner of the planet signed on to the public appeal to keep the nuclear power option out of the climate talks.
Spokespeople from the four organizers of today’s action made their case throughout the morning by talking one-on-one to hundreds of government delegates and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they entered the conference site for morning sessions.
Speaking to the press, Sabine Bock, coordinator of energy and climate protection for Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said: “Nuclear energy has proven in the past that it is a threat not only to our health and the environment, but also to human rights.”
“In our work at WECF with local communities,” Bock continued, “we have encountered severe health problems and human rights abuses of populations due to the harmful effects of nuclear energy and radiation.” Bock added: “We can’t understand why governments still promote this dangerous technology rather than taking the opportunity to develop safe and sustainable new, renewable, and clean energy solutions.”
Jan Van de Putte, Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Greenpeace described nuclear power as an obstacle to effective climate protection saying that money invested in nuclear power is not nearly as effective as money invested in wind power, for example.”
“Nuclear power is a dangerous and dirty energy source – it provides too little energy for mitigation at too slow a pace and at too great a cost.” Van de Putte continued, “the cost per Kwh of nuclear power is double that of wind energy. It just doesn’t make sense to pursue this outdated energy source.”
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Ecodefense Russia, called upon his national government as well as other delegations to stop promoting nuclear power into the Kyoto Protocol via provisions for Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. “78 % of Russians are opposed to nuclear power,” Slivyak said. “We demand that the Russian delegation stop any plans to develop new nuclear plants.” “We further call on all governments to stop new nuclear development.”
Claire Greensfelder, Deputy Director of the International Forum on Globalization of San Francisco, California, said: “Despite year after year of rejection by the state parties to the Convention, the nuclear industry (and a small group of states) continues to promote the economic and public health disaster of nuclear power.” Greensfelder continued: “We also have grave concerns about the health and environmental impacts of increased uranium mining, milling and nuclear waste storage, much of which is on indigenous peoples’ lands, many of whom are opposed to continued nuclear development. Indigenous peoples’ right to free prior and informed consent of development on their lands, as established by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, (passed in the UN General Assembly in September 2007), must be taken into consideration.”
Holding a colorful homemade banner proclaiming “No Fishy Nukes!,”, Gloria Hsu, Chair, of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU) said: “Using nuclear power for CO2 reduction is the same as drinking some poison to quench your thirst.”
“We have managed thus far to keep nuclear power out of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Peer de Rijk, executive director of World Information Service on Energy (WISE), speaking from Amsterdam. “We will continue to do whatever we can to achieve the same for a much needed post-Kyoto agreement. Nuclear energy is a deadlock, blocking real solutions. Don’t nuke the climate!
A copy of the statement can be found on NIRS’ website at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/pa_nuclearaction9dec17h1.pdf
A list of the organizational signers can be found on NIRS’ website at http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/nonuclearcdm_signons_10dec08press-pdf.pdf
—————————————————————-
Thanks for all you do!
Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
- Government still supports nuke plans & its nuke industry is likely to turn to dangerous tactics like U-enrichment & radioactive waste to fund its ambitions
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
