NUCLEAR REACTORS AT THE SEASIDE
By Ingela Richardson
June 2 2007
According to CEO, Jacob Maroga, Eskom is planning to build at least ten more nuclear power stations within the next 20 years. It is incredible to think that Eskom is hanging on to the nuclear option – literally at all costs – while solar power has been put on the back-burner. Once again we could ask why nuclear is spared no expense and Africa’s free and actually sustainable energy source – the sun – is neglected?
Eskom wants up to 20,000 megawatts to be generated by Koeberg-style nuclear plants. Environmental impact assessments have begun and the Department for the Environment wants to change the laws of this country so that Eskom can put its nuclear reactors on any site it chooses in the country – regardless of public protest. It seems that the South African government has had enough of public participation and wants to put its nuclear foot down. What a pity that all of this determination is not behind a project that all South Africans could support. What a pity that development in South Africa is being forced at the expense of people’s health instead of for their benefit.
Eskom is targeting five potential sites for nuclear reactors – one in the Eastern Cape, and the others along the Western and Northern Cape coast. Maroga said nuclear plants had to be close to large quantities of water and at sea temperature. If a nuclear reactor goes in, then tourism will go out the window for that coastal area. So the tourism industry is also being sacrificed in this process. What about real estate values? Who will want a holiday home next to a nuclear reactor? Real estate values in those areas will plummet as well. And then there is agriculture. What is the market like for radioactive fruit and veg? Who will want to buy produce from that area? Another sector of the economy will suffer, especially those farmers who are trying to go organic.
But that is not all. Why do these reactors need water? Because they are Pressurized Water Reactors – they use water in the nuclear process. And water is used to cool down spent fuel rods. Last year, the television channel S4C revealed the results of a survey from around Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in Wales in the United Kingdom. A questionnaire was given to nearly a thousand people of all ages around the closed-down power plant. The questionnaire asked about cancer in each household from 1996 – 2005 and showed levels of cancer which ex-Environment Minister Michael Meacher said were “sensational”.
A significant proportion of the breast cancer victims said they had sometimes eaten fish from Trawsfynydd Lake, so researchers conducted another survey. Trawsfynydd Lake covers almost 5 square km. It is artificial and has been used as a cooling lagoon during the active life of the power station. The lake-bottom sediment down to 300 mm is contaminated with a concentration of 4¼ million Bequerels per tonne of radioactivity – more than 10 times the concentration which under UK legislation is defined as Low Level Radioactive Waste requiring control. But the lake is still advertised as a sports amenity for swimming, boating and fishing.
Michael Meacher said the research findings were “a sensational development” and must be subject to a full inquiry. He said true health effects of radioactive discharges should be resolved before any commitment to new nuclear power stations was made.
And then of course there is the radioactive waste that is highly toxic to humans for thousands of years. The South African government has not made any decisions about that yet. The nuclear industries that create the waste are being fast-tracked while waste disposal issues are still under consideration.
How much will all this cost the South African tax and electricity bill payer? Only about R150 billion. This is the budget for Eskom’s new programme so far and despite the fact that no other government in the world asks the public to shoulder a nuclear financial burden alone – this seems to be what the South African government now wants of its people.
The reality for South Africa is that there are many reasons to say “No” to nuclear and no valid reasons to go ahead. In fact to do so would mean sacrificing health, financial stability and the permanent loss of precious natural resources.
What can you do as a taxpaying South African?
You can and should register as an Interested Party in the first of Eskom’s Environmental Impact Assessment Processes which was officially announced a week ago. To do send your details to the following email address/fax number and INSIST they respond to you in writing to confirm they have registered you as an Interested Party.
To register as an Interested Party in the Matter of the EIA – 12/12/20/944
Write to:
Ms Bongi Shinga
PO Box 503
Mtunzini
3867
Fax: 035-340-2232
Tel: 086-010-4958
Email: nuclear1@acerafrica.co.za
AND also write to:
Ms Suzette Hattingh
Tel: 083-235-6799
Email: designop@designovative.com
PLEASE send copies all your correspondence to:
nuclear@environment.co.za
so that we may keep track of registered parties and objections.
Make sure to quote the EIA Number: 12/12/20/944 in all your correspondence and insist on a written confirmation of your registration. A telephonic confirmation is not sufficient.
Once the EIA process officially starts you will have a chance to comment on documentation created by Eskom and their Environmental consultant. At this stage if you have problems understanding the deliberately confusing documents you can contact us at environment.co.za and we will put you in touch with those who can help you to make sense of matters and to submit objections that hold water. You should also at this point in time encourage your friends and colleagues to take part in this very important matter.
