Tag Archives: Health

Nuclear waste will last longer than civilisation

October 4, 2010

by Judith Taylor

Amid the rather futile discussion about South Africa’s nuclear power generation policy and programme the most important aspect of all seems lately to have dropped off the list of factors to be considered. I refer to the radioactive longevity of nuclear fuel residue. For its radioactivity to decay to just half its initial intensity takes about 25 times longer than the entire recorded history of man.

It is no solution to encase the stuff in concrete then drop it down a mine shaft or push it inside a mountain tunnel. A quarter of a million years is ample time for unpredictable chemical and geological processes to re-expose this deadly material. Nuclear power generation on a global scale would produce enough radioactive leftovers to occupy a great deal of no-go land and require costly guarding virtually for ever, a period that would see the end of our civilisation and the rise and fall of several more.

Theoretically, nuclear waste could be recklessly shot off into space or by some yet-to-be-invented marvel of nuclear physics changed into something less lethal. In the meantime it would be more realistic to persevere with developing wind and solar power networks to succeed Eskom’s present coal-fired generation programme. However, in the interests of time and expense the government should facilitate this development work being carried out by private industry.

Meanwhile Eskom should incentivise the government to pursue diplomatically the agreement to bring hydropower from the Congo River, a sensible idea but discarded because of political and military instability on the route. This threat could be overcome if the need is pressing enough.

True costs of nuclear power are ignored

The problem with nuclear power is the total lack of transparency. People such as Dr Kemm can never give cradle to grave costs of the projects. Let’s look at what is involved if nuclear power goes ahead:

  • Nuclear power is not only a substantial threat to our water resources, but also to the biodiversity of the Cape.
  • At Thyspunt, 5 000 jobs and a R500 million industry will be replaced with a polluting reactor and 750 jobs.
  • Uranium mining, the birthplace of the fuel, is highly polluting of miners themselves, water and surrounding land.
  • Nuclear waste is also highly polluting. Nuclear power’s real carbon footprint has never been acknowledged nor has the full cost of nuclear been computed.

The citizens of Niger have recently instituted action in the US against Areva, which is mining for uranium in that country, for damage undergone by the state as well as the inhabitants of the area where Areva works. This suit is claiming several million euros in compensation.

Currently, there is not one proven, operating nuclear plant of the “new generation”. In addition, the safety issues have been omitted from the environmental impact assessments.

However, do we wish to see our water supplies, our land and our people so polluted by uranium, caesium, lead and so on that there is no quality of life and we all die a slow and painful death? Is it a logical path to follow, given the experiences of native Indians in the US who mined uranium and have died of radiation sickness?

Renewables can come on line right now and provide more than 10 times the number of jobs that nuclear or coal can. South Africa’s ingenuity in pioneering new technology can grasp the renewables revolution and bring us true wealth and health.

The cost of Chernobyl was 985 000 lives. In the UK the Sellafield plant’s decommissioning has failed, leaving a radioactive waste land for generations to come. Koeberg’s decommissioning could do the same.

Source:

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5672085

25 total views, 2 views today

Rate this post

Robinson Lake, Gauteng, a radioactive area

Acid mine water: The damage done – Uranium levels over 220 times safety levels

Oct 4, 2010

By Dan Kemp

Dan Kemp writes: We’ve all heard about the acid mine water problem and the danger it poses to drinking water in the Gauteng area. I had the opportunity to see some of the damage first hand.

Photograph by: Ashley Kemp

My Dad heard an expert on the matter, Mariette Lieffering, talking on radio. He contacted her and she invited us on a tour she was giving to some journalists.

The tour was to various accessible sites on the Western Gold Reef of some of the most visible examples of the damage caused. Mariette is a well known and clearly passionate activist concerned with acid mine drainage.

The scepticism I had of “clearly passionate activists” was dispelled as Mariette cited official report after report written by government bodies (Dept of Water Affairs, Dept of Minerals and Energy, Dept Environmental Affairs and Tourism, CSIR, National Nuclear Regulator) and academic institutions.

It was clearly not speculation.

First stop was the basin that is Luiperdsvlei. No major surprises, it is after all a giant slimes dam catchment surrounded by mine dumps.

Apart from the lack of security fencing, the first thing that shocks you is the ground between the road and the edge of the basin. If you break the surface of the earth with your shoe, you find a bright sulphur-yellow sediment, concentrated in a 2cm thick layer, just below the crust.

Its caused by the runoff from the mine dump itself, which flows directly into the vlei. The second shocking fact is, Luiperdsvlei is a source of the Vaal. In fact, the stream flowing out of Luiperdsvlie, contributes 35% of the salt content but only 3% of the water volume to the Vaal.


Warning Signs at Robinson Dam - Photo: Environment.co.za

These salts have high levels of Cobalt, Cadmium, Aluminium, Arsenic, Lead, Nickel and Uranium. Uranium and Cadmium are particularly bad health risks.

Rand Water supplies most of Gauteng’s water from the Vaal.

All water on the south of the intercontinental water divide, which includes Luiperdsvlei, flows into the Vaal/Orange River system and into the Atlantic Ocean.

We then went north, over the divide, into Randfontein. All water this side of the divide flows into the Crocodile River system and into the Indian Ocean. Next to Randfontein Golf Course is Robinson Lake, a former recreational lake filled with water pumped from Robinson Deep mine.

This has a pH of 2.6. Water has a natural Uranium concentration of 0.0004mg/l. The DWAF considers a concentration of 0.07mg/l safe to drink. Robinson Lake has a Uranium concentration of 16mg/l, more than 220 times safe levels. This has resulted in the NNR declaring Robinson Lake a radioactive area.

Source:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/iLIVE/article688413.ece/Acid-mine-water–The-damage-done

151 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post

NO INSURANCE FOR COASTAL – or any – PROPERTY NEAR NUCLEAR REACTORS

by Ingela Richardson

According to national planning commission member, Bobby Godsell, half of SA’s electricity could come from nuclear energy.

This is a highly expensive and non-sustainable energy source, since it depends on uranium enrichment and most of Africa’s uranium is being imported by China already. Energy Minister Dupuo Peters said that by the time a nuclear plant was constructed in SA, this country would not be able to afford enriched uranium.

She also raised the valid point that coastal homes would be affected, since nuclear power plants would be built on the coast.

All South Africans with property investments at the coast should take a look at their insurance policies.

A typical household policy by Alexander Forbes for example states the following:

“The General Exclusion relating to Nuclear losses is restated as follows: Except as regards Personal Accident section, this policy does NOT cover any legal liability, loss, damage, cost or expense whatsoever or any consequential loss directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from:
i) ionising, radiations or contamination by radio-activity from any nuclear fuel or from any nuclear waste from the combustion or use of nuclear fuel;
ii) nuclear material, nuclear fission or fusion, nuclear radiation
iii) nuclear explosives or any nuclear weapon
iv) nuclear waste in whatever form; regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss.
For the purpose of this exclusion only, combustion shall include any self-sustaining process of nuclear fission.”

So it is very clear that general insurance will not cover coastal property owners from losses related to nuclear plants.

And emergency services or evacuations? Once again, South Africans who have tried to call for government ambulances in times of emergency will know the answer to that one.

46 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post

Koeberg workers contaminated

2010-09-20

Johannesburg – A total of 91 Eskom workers were contaminated with a small amount of radiation while doing maintenance work at the Koeberg power plant, the parastatal said on Monday.

During maintenance on Koeberg Unit One, 91 workers tested positive for cobalt 58 as they left the site on September 12, said Eskom spokesperson Karen de Villiers.

The workers then had body scans to search for the radiation. It is believed that they were contaminated with airborne radiation, possibly from dust particles.

The site was shut down for two days while tests were conducted

The Democratic Alliance has accused Eskom of mishandling the contamination and risking the health of workers.

“The DA has been informed by an inside source at Koeberg that workers at the plant were not immediately evacuated, contrary to the claims by an Eskom spokesperson,” said DA MP and spokesperson for public enterprises Pieter van Dalen.

De Villiers said the radiation the workers were exposed to was low, about 0.5% of the annually allowed exposure limit.

“Frankly, they would pick up more radiation from a couple of plane trips to Joburg,” she said.

De Villiers added that cobalt 58 was a ‘very short-lived radiation’ and would leave the bodies of the workers easily.

She said the workers would continue to be monitored in the coming weeks.

The site at Koeberg Unit One was shut for two days while tests were being conducted.

She said the company also counselled the workers on the contamination.

“We had a chat with the workers because the issue was an emotional one,” said De Villiers.

Van Dalen said Eskom was ‘downplaying’ the matter and the party would ask the government for an inquiry.

“It is concerning that Eskom would downplay this matter. It is clear that an investigation needs to take place, to ensure that any mistakes that have occurred are not repeated,” he said.

-          SAPA

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Koeberg-workers-contaminated-20100920

Related Link:

Koeberg shut down due to corrosion

-          http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Koeberg-shut-down-due-to-corrosion-20100313

39 total views, 1 views today

Rate this post

New liability law “could end civil nuclear growth in India” – little wonder South African nuclear industry refuses to discuss the issue

Indian Lawmakers Approve Atomic Liability Bill

Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2010

India’s Parliament last week passed the divisive nuclear liability bill, paving the way for implementation of the landmark 2008 U.S.-Indian civilian atomic trade agreement, Reuters reported (see GSN, Aug. 25).

The Aug. 30 passage by Parliament’s upper house occurred ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama’s planned November visit to the South Asian state.

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill received the support of India’s leading opposition party, Bharatiya Janata, when the government acceded to stronger terms against nuclear suppliers and power plant operators that business groups said might limit development of India’s burgeoning atomic energy industry.

Under the measure, plant operator liability in the event of an atomic incident was increased to about $320 million and the suppliers of nuclear materials and technology could also be sued (Prusty/Kuncheria, Reuters, Aug. 30).

Some experts believe the harsh measures could lead to weaker implementation of the atomic agreement that permits U.S. nuclear firms to export atomic technologies and materials to the nuclear-armed nation in exchange for India agreeing to open up its civilian atomic sites to international monitors, the New York Times reported.

A key foreign affairs initiative of the Bush administration, the 2008 deal ended New Delhi’s decades-long status as a nuclear pariah. A number of other nations have also now established their own atomic trade deals with India.

International rules presently limit liability to the operators of nuclear power plants. By including language that leaves open the potential for suppliers to be held responsible for a mishap, the Indian legislation goes against worldwide norms.

“This makes the fruits of the Indo-U.S. deal go to waste,” New Delhi-based security analyst G. Balachandran said. “It may well be the end of civil nuclear growth in India.”

Leading Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker Arun Jaitley defended the legislation, saying it permits a nuclear plant operator to file suit against suppliers only under specific conditions (Jim Yardley, New York Times, Aug. 30).

Sudhinder Thakur, executive director of the state-owned Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., said in released comments that “no manufacturer, Indian or foreign, would be able to serve the nuclear power industry” in his nation due to the legislation, the Washington Times reported Sunday.

The liability bill will be “a significant deterrent not only to U.S. business but, equally importantly, to Indian and other international private business as well,” said Ashley Tellis, who took part in the U.S.-Indian atomic deal negotiations.

“It’s going to be interesting to see whether the Indians, now that they have passed this law, are going to stick to their guns or cave under possible U.S. pressure to reverse course,” Nonproliferation Policy Education Center Executive Director Henry Sokolski said (Ashish Kumar Sen, Washington Times, Sept. 5).

Source: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100907_3150.php

In South Africa, the nuclear industry has for years been trying to establish whether changes will be brought about to a virtually non-existent nuclear liabilities law. Repeated enquiries to the Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA) and the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) have gone unheeded for years. After a pummeling for a response, they finally replied three years later that the question should be submitted in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. And this is where they’ve left it.

It is understood that the Stellenbosch University was looking into the issue of nuclear liabilities and third party insurances for the nuclear industry, but enquiries into this have also met a with a dead end.

Activists in South Africa maintain that despite strong environmental legislation, the regulation,  monitoring and standards practised by the nuclear industry remain among the most secretive and fatally flawed in the world.



145 total views, no views today

Rate this post
lazy-submarginal