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

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/

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

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=279738

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISSUED BY: 

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

___________________________________ 

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

SA set for decades of darkness 

December 06, 2008 Edition 1 

 by Thabiso Thakali, www.iol.co.za 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nuclear powers on without Eskom
December 5, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESKOM NOT IN A POSITION TO INVEST IN NUCLEAR 

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

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

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

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

Please sign this petition and alert your friends.

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

We are pleased to alert you to this week’s public release of Securing the Bomb 2008.

The report, commissioned annually by NTI, finds that the world still faces a “very real” risk that terrorists could get a nuclear bomb. The Obama Administration must make reducing that risk a top priority of U.S. security policy and diplomacy, according to the report, which is accompanied by a paper offering a specific agenda for the presidential transition and the opening weeks of the new administration.The report was written by Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center at Harvard University. This is the seventh edition of Dr. Bunn’s annual report, which has the most up-to-date information regarding the security of nuclear weapons and materials around the globe. The report details a broad range of progress in efforts to reduce the danger, including programs that have eliminated potential nuclear bomb material entirely from dozens of buildings and have substantially beefed up security for scores of sites. But it warns that major gaps in these efforts remain, and the risk of nuclear terrorism is still unacceptably high. The study provides a frightening survey of incidents around the world, from an armed break-in at a South African site with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU), to a Russian colonel arrested for soliciting bribes to overlook violations of nuclear security rules, to increasing terrorist threats amid Pakistan’s ongoing strife, to weak security at many of the roughly 130 research reactors worldwide still using HEU fuel.Securing the Bomb 2008 is available on-line at www.nti.org/securingthebomb. Yesterday, The Washington Post published a feature article on the report which you can read here. Printed copies of Securing the Bomb 2008 will be available in December 2008. Please fill out an online form and we will mail you a copy as soon as it is available.A number of recommendations for the incoming Obama Administration and new Congress are outlined in the report. We hope you will continue to support efforts to reduce nuclear dangers and make a safer and more secure world. Sincerely,Charles Curtis
President
Nuclear Threat Initiative

To visit the Securing the Bomb web section,  click here

Nuclear Threat Initiative1747 Pennsylvania Ave., NW7^th FloorWashington, DC 20006www.nti.org 

In a recent analysis, *The Nuclear Illusion,* Amory B. Lovins and Imran Sheikh put the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant at 14* per kilowatt hour and that from a wind farm at 7* per kilowatt hour. This comparison includes the costs of fuel, capital, operations and maintenance, and transmission and distribution. It does not include the additional costs for nuclear of disposing of waste, insuring plants against an accident, and decommissioning the plants when they wear out. The United States, which leads the world with 101,000 megawatts of nuclear-generating capacity, proposes to store radioactive waste from its 104 reactors in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The cost of this repository, originally estimated at $58 billion in 2001, climbed to $96 billion by 2008. This comes to a staggering $923 million per reactor, assuming no further repository cost increases. (See additional data.)  In the event of a catastrophic accident, every nuclear utility would be required to contribute up to $95.8 million for each licensed reactor to a pool to help cover the accident*s cost. The collective cap on nuclear operator liability is $10.2 billion. Anything above this would be covered by taxpayers.  Another huge cost of nuclear power involves decommissioning the plants when they wear out. Recent estimates show decommissioning costs can reach $1.8 billion per reactor. In addition, the industry must cope with rising construction and fuel expenses. Two years ago, building a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant was estimated to cost $2-4 billion. As of late 2008, that figure had climbed past $7 billion, reflecting the scarcity of essential engineering and construction skills in a fading industry.  Nuclear fuel costs have risen even more rapidly. At the beginning of this decade uranium cost roughly $10 per pound. Today it costs more than $60 per pound. The higher uranium price reflects the need to move to deeper mines, which increases the energy needed to extract ore, and shift to lower-grade ore. The high cost of nuclear power also explains why so few plants are being built compared with a generation ago. In a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, nuclear consultant Mycle Schneider projects an imminent decline in world nuclear generating capacity. He notes there are currently 439 operating reactors worldwide. To date, 119 reactors have been closed, at an average age of 22 years. If we assume a longer average lifespan of 40 years, then 93 reactors will close between 2008 and 2015. Another 192 will close between 2016 and 2025. The remaining 154 will close after 2025.  Only 36 nuclear reactors are currently under construction worldwide-31 of them in Eastern Europe and Asia. Although there is much talk of building new nuclear plants in the United States, there are none under construction.   Despite all the industry hype about a nuclear future, investors are pouring tens of billions of dollars into wind farms each year. And while the world*s nuclear generating capacity is estimated to expand by only 1,000 megawatts this year, wind generating capacity will likely grow by 30,000 megawatts.   For full report visit http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update78.htm.  For information contact: Media & Permissions to Reprint Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12 E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org Research Contact: Janet Larsen Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14 E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org Earth Policy Institute 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403Washington, DC 20036Web: www.earthpolicy.org 

Source: http://www.iaia.co.za/News/News_details.asp?art_ID=93  

URGENT PRESS STATEMENT

4 November 2008

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

·         Uranium One,

·         the Department of Labour,

·         the Department of Minerals and Energy,

·         Cosatu and

·         the local municipality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

MARIETTE LIEFFERINK

PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL ARBITERS

073 231 4893

mariette@pea.org.za

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§         500 former South African nuclear workers no closer to compensation

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

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

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

§         Radioactive waste is piling up at Pelindaba & Koeberg

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

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

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

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

We can’t do this alone, DONATE NOW