Joining International Commemorations, and in solidarity with radiation workers everywhere, anti-nukers took to the streets of Cape Town to protest South Africa’s future energy plans.

In support of the “Fukushima 50″, and radiation affected workers everywhere, a memorandum was also handed over to the Japanese Consul General during protest action near the Japanese Embassy in Cape Town.

Here are some pictures from Earthlife Africa’s Cape Town branch

(Endorsed by 87 Japanese NGOs)

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, precipitated by the huge earthquake and ensuing tsunamis that hit eastern Japan on March 11, has created fear of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination not just in Japan, but throughout the world.

The Japanese Government, electric power companies and academics who served them boasted that Japan’s nuclear power plants were completely safe, that a nuclear accident would not occur. Their responsibility is heavy indeed. Many people had long warned of precisely the situation that is now in progress – of the danger of a huge earthquake and tsunami, of an accident caused by a loss of power supply, of the danger of concentrating several plants on a single site, of the problems facing suicide squads required to respond to a major accident, of the defects of emergency response preparations which only covered a 10 kilometer radius – but these warnings were not taken seriously. The attitude of promoting nuclear energy no matter what is one of the reasons why the response on this occasion by the Japanese Government and Tokyo Electric Power Company has at each stage been too late. To nevertheless claim that this was “beyond expectations” is both immoral and criminal.

Reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station have not achieved cold shut down. The situation continues to be unpredictable. It is important to maintain cooling function and to take measures to prevent further contamination from releases and leaks of radioactive material. It goes without saying that in doing so sufficient consideration must be given to the safety of the workers. Radiation exposure standards for residents should not be set excessively high to meet accident circumstances. Rather, it is necessary to rapidly take all steps to enable the earliest possible adherence to the original standard of less than 1 millisievert per year. Decommissioning and disposal of the huge heap of radioactive waste that Fukushima Daiichi has become will probably be a long battle extending over decades.

We have continued to oppose nuclear power and nuclear facilities, calling for a phase out of nuclear energy through activities throughout Japan. Hoping for the earliest possible end to the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi, whatever we are able to do together we wish to do it now.

As a first step we are issuing this joint statement today, 25 years after the Chernobyl accident. At an appropriate time we will launch a large national action demanding a formal decision to permanently close down the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Stations, to cancel the nuclear fuel cycle program, to cancel plans to build new nuclear reactors and to shut down aging nuclear reactors and we will propose a process for achieving a steady phase out of nuclear energy.

We refuse to allow the earth to be further subjected to radioactive contamination and radiation exposure. For the sake of all living beings, let us walk together towards the achievement of a nuclear-free society.

Contact

Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center

Email: cnic@nifty.com

Web: http://www.cnic.jp/english/

Tel.&Fax. 81-3-3357-3810

A list in Japanese of endorsing groups can be found after the Japanese statement on the following URL:

http://www.cnic.jp/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1098

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

19th World Congress – Basel, Switzerland

March 25‐30, 20010

RESOLUTION

Adopted on August 29, 2010

Title of Resolution: Global call to action for a ban on uranium mining

Submitted By: Helmut Lohrer

Affiliates: IPPNW Germany and PSR/IPPNW Switzerland

Date Submitted: August 18, 2010

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

Uranium ore mining and the production of uranium oxide (yellowcake) are irresponsible and represent

a grave threat to health and to the environment. Both processes involve an elementary violation of

human rights and their use lead to an incalculable risk for world peace and an obstacle to nuclear

disarmament.

The International Council of IPPNW therefore resolves that:

IPPNW call for appropriate measures to ban uranium mining worldwide.

Reasons for Above:

Uranium mining contaminates groundwater and radioactivity remains in the heaps, tailings and

evaporation ponds. Uranium and its radioactive decay elements are highly toxic. They attack inner

organs and the respiratory system. Scientific studies have shown that the following diseases are caused

by exposition to radon gas, uranium and uranium’s decay elements: Bronchial and lung cancer; cancer of

the bone marrow, stomach, liver, intestine, gall bladder, kidneys and skin, leukemia, other blood

diseases, psychological disorders and birth defects.

Approximately three‐quarters of the world’s uranium is mined on territory belonging to indigenous

peoples. The inhabitants of affected regions are (for the most part) vulnerable to exposure from

radioactive substances that threaten them with short‐ and long‐term health risks and damaging genetic

effects.

As well as the direct health effects from contamination of the water, the immense water consumption in

mining regions is environmentally and economically damaging – and in turn detrimental for human

health. The extraction of water leads to a reduction of the groundwater table and thereby to

desertification; plants and animals die, the traditional subsistence of the inhabitants is eliminated, the

existence of whole cultures are threatened.

This is not all. Ending uranium mining ‐ also because of its relevance to the processing of uranium, its

military use, the production of nuclear energy and the unresolved problem of how to permanently

dispose of nuclear waste ‐ would represent a provision of preventive health care, as well as a policy of

peace and reason.

Banning uranium mining would reduce the risk of proliferation. It would make uranium resources more scarce,

thus accelerating the abandonment of the civil use of nuclear energy. The pressure on political decision‐makers

to find safe methods of permanently disposing of nuclear waste would increase. Banning uranium mining would

thus promote the phasing‐out of the irresponsible practice of using nuclear energy and increase pressure

globally to force a change‐over to renewable energies.

Describe how this resolution might be implemented and by whom:

In order to achieve the goal of an international ban, IPPNW will strengthen its public education on this issue and

exert influence on both national and international political decision‐makers.

Estimate for amount of staff time and resources required to implement this resolution:

Minimal staff time will be required, mainly for coordination of activities and communication between

activists.

Estimated expenses and sources of funding:

Minimal cost for shipment of information material.

As an act of goodwill to determine the energy plan for the coming 25-35 years South Africans are currently involved in a “participatory & consultative” Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2) process – a supposed blueprint for South Africa’s future, in spite of objections that government’s Integrated Energy Process is still far from completion.

Among others the Civil Society Energy Caucus, a coalition of numerous civil society organisations that engage on energy issues, submitted detailed comments on the IRP2 and presented views at stakeholder plenary session of 8^th June. They have still not had any response to their submission from the Department of Energy or anyone else.

The deadly legacy of radioactive toxic contamination of water in the Witwatersrand from uranium and chemicals from mining has yet to be adequately addressed.

When you’ve done reading this, please Google “Russian nuclear legacy” showing a litany of horror stories from warheads and decaying submarines to radioactive lakes and rivers, massive nuclear explosions in addition to the Chernobyl accident, growing discoveries of radioactive “hotspots”, over-filled radioactive storage facilites in very bad condition, neglected maintenance and unpaid nuclear workers.  Environmental groups say the Russian nuclear industry has not managed to address the question of nuclear waste disposal in general.

Russia’s nuclear reprocessing facility – Mayak – is described as “the most polluted place on earth” and has seen a series of serious accidents. But Mayak is just one of Russia’s nuke facilities. The country has almost 100, situated in 10 “nuclear cities”, mostly closed and the location for some of Russia’s most dangerous rotting infrastructure. Reports indicate there is still a very low level of safety awareness in that country.

Highlights of Zuma’s deal with Russia:

• Medvedev, Zuma make deals in metals and nuclear industriesRussia to control almost half of South Africa’s low enriched uranium market
• Russia to control almost half of South Africa’s low enriched uranium market
• Deliveries begin this year
• Russia to provide SA nuclear power stations with uranium until 2017
• Russians to help build new nuclear plants in SA
• Eskom confirmed it has already signed contract with Russian U-trader

Maxim Shipenkov / AP

President Dmitry Medvedev welcoming South African leader Jacob Zuma in the plush Kremlin ahead of talks Thursday.

Medvedev, Zuma Oversee Dealmaking

06 August 2010 (which marks the 65^th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshma, Japan)

By Maria Antonova

President Dmitry Medvedev met with his South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma, on Thursday in Moscow, where the two oversaw deals in the metals and nuclear industries.

Under the deal, Russian state uranium trader Tenex will sell enriched uranium to Eskom Holdings for use at South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear station, which accounts for 5 percent of South Africa’s energy needs.

The contract is an extension of one reached 15 years ago that is about to expire. Under the new contract, deliveries will begin in 2011 and last until 2017 to 2018. Russia hopes eventually to control 45 percent of the low-enriched uranium market in South Africa, Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters.

Additionally, Norilsk Nickel signed a memorandum with the South African government to create a joint mining venture in South Africa.

“We will be engaged in the exploration and production of minerals in the framework of this venture with the South African government,” Norilsk Nickel head Vladimir Strzhalkovsky said, Interfax reported.

The metals giant is already involved in a joint venture with African Rainbow Minerals, which mines for nickel, zinc, cobalt, chromium and platinum.

On the governmental level, the two countries agreed to cooperate on space issues and may jointly launch satellites using Russian equipment, Federal Space Agency head Anatoly Perminov said, adding that Russia would also build a space data collection center in South Africa.

Among other deals reached in the course of the visit were agreements to cooperate on agricultural trade issues and visa-free diplomatic visits.

Medvedev and Zuma, who led a delegation of 11 ministers (75 officials from 13 departments, including five young people from the newly revamped youth entity, the National Youth Development Agency…and business delegation, which is expected to be led by the chairman of the SA-Russia Business Council, Robert Gumede*) and about 100 businessmen in his first visit to Russia since taking office in May, also discussed South Africa’s potential participation in the BRIC bloc.

Brazil, Russia, India and China, which have been grouped together as “BRICs” because of their fast-growing economies and regional influence, formalized the grouping when they started holding official summits last year.

“South Africa’s participation in discussing various issues in the BRIC format would be very productive” since South Africa is also an emerging economy, Medvedev said, according to the transcript of the conference posted on the Kremlin’s web site.

“Our countries share the commitment to a more fair distribution of power and influence on the global economic scene,” Zuma said, adding that Russia and South Africa were “natural partners.”

Russia has always been “sympathetic to the struggle of African countries for independence” and is “open to developing relations of a new kind,” Medvedev said.

Zuma offered Medvedev his condolences for the Russians who have perished in the wildfires that are currently devouring the central part of the country. He also invited Medvedev to visit South Africa in 2012, the year of Russia’s presidential elections.

© Copyright 1992-2010. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.

Highlights from other reports:

Business Report reports:

-          South African power utility Eskom on Friday confirmed that it has signed a contract with Russian state uranium trader Techsnapexport (Tenex) for the supply of low enriched uranium to Eskom.

-          Russia’s nuclear regulatory body Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation suggested that Russia was ready to build a nuclear power plant in South Africa.

The Nambian reports:

-          No tenders have been issued yet, but discussions have taken place, according to Trade Minister Rob Davies.

-          A delegation visited Rosatom’s subsidiary Tvel, which makes nuclear fuel, on Monday, Tvel said in a statement Wednesday.

Bloomberg reports:

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

-          Zuma led a delegation of more than 50 politicians, including 11 Ministers and businessmen to Russia this week.

-          Trade Minister Rob Davies  said SA sees mining, energy and transport as areas where ties with Russia can grow.

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

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

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

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

RTT News reports:

-          Russia has agreed to provide technological support and uranium in building South African nuclear power stations until at least 2017.

-          A contract to this effect will come into effect next year.

-          Addressing a news conference in the Kremlin after talks with Zuma, Medvdev said the deal was ‘just a beginning’ in developing the immature relations between the two countries.

-          The deal includes defense and aerospace

-          Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia’s nuclear power corporation ROSATOM, told reporters that the deal enabled Russia to control nearly half of South Africa’s uranium market.

-          Russia, possessing the world’s biggest uranium-enrichment capacities, is planning to set up the world’s first nuclear fuel reserve to ensure uninterrupted supplies for the world’s power reactors.

-          Russia’s critics have accused it of using its energy supplies as a political weapon.

Fin24 reports:

-          Deliveries under the contract will begin in 2011 and last until 2017-2018, Kremlin documents seen by Reuters showed.

-          Bilateral trade between South Africa and Russia remains tiny, totaling just $517m last year, a fraction of a percent of Russia’s total external trade turnover of $469bn, according to Russian statistics. Some investment bankers in Moscow say that Russia has been much slower than China to appreciate the potential benefits of investment in Africa. Zuma, who leads Africa’s biggest economy, is seeking to increase trade with Russia and China, which are forecast to grow about 4% and 10% respectively this year.

EarthTimes.org reports:

-          The South African Space Agency and the Russian Federal Space Agency are also to sign an accord on cooperation in the area of earth observation. Last year, Russia launched South Africa’s first satellite aboard a Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

-          Zuma’s visit is part of a diplomatic and trade blitz of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) bloc of four biggest emerging markets. Earlier this year, Zuma visited Brazil and India. Later this month, he will also visit China.

Business Day reports:

-          Russia, in hosting SA, is on a quest to regain lost ground as an influential player on the continent. Its influence has waned significantly since the collapse of the Soviet Union almost two decades ago. During those days, most exiled African leaders who belonged to liberation movements – including the African National Congress – received their tuition, including grounding in economic policy, in the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only reduced Russia’s influence in Africa politically but also saw its communist economic principles discarded. Russia is now a democracy pursuing a free market economic system, the very system it detested so passionately during its days as the Soviet Union.

-          Also on the agenda will be cooperation in the field of energy affairs. GazProm, a Russian energy enterprise, is looking to explore new natural gas deposits along SA’s western coast.

-          There are also plans to hold further discussions on the proposed Kudu power plant on Namibia’s border with SA. It is estimated the plant will yield 50-billion to 60-billion cubic meters of gas. Energy utility Eskom has reportedly shown interest in acquiring 500MW of the 800MW output from the Kudu power plant to increase its electricity supply to the local market.

-          Mr Zuma and Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to sign memorandums of understanding in the fields of plant quarantine and visa exemption for diplomatic and official passport holders. Other memorandums of understanding to be discussed or signed include maritime transport, aviation safety and an extradition order between the two nations.

SOURCES:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/medvedev-zuma-oversee-dealmaking/411794.html

ttp://www.fin24.com/Companies/Eskom-signs-Russian-nuclear-deal-20100805

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/338110,russia-trade-talks-medvedev.html

*http://allafrica.com/stories/201008030041.html

_____________________________________________

SOME BACKGROUND TO THE STORY:

By John Helmer in Moscow

Posted On March 18, 2008 In Africa-Russia

Russia has been locked out of the largest nuclear power contract ever prepared in Africa, despite two years of promises from the South African government that it would invite Russia’s nuclear industry to join a competitive tender with the French and American companies, Areva and Westinghouse.

The lockout appears to be regional in scope, blocking a bid by the Russians to build a nuclear reactor in Namibia, that country’s first. It also makes unlikely that ambitious schemes to draw Russian investment into uranium mining, ore concentration, and uranium fuel enrichment will materialize in southern Africa.

According to the SA utility Eskom, the first SA reactor to be commissioned would cost an estimated R120 billion ($15 billion); six power stations to produce an estimated 20,000MW would cost more than R720 billion ($90 billion), Eskom officials have publicly estimated.

The circumstances in which SA officials made their decision to exclude the Russians have been kept secret for weeks, while crisis talks were held by officials of the two governments, first in Moscow on February 12, and then in Pretoria on March 10.

The secret spilled out after SA Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma came to Moscow, along with the acting director-general of her ministry, Gert Gobler. A communiqué issued by Pretoria claimed their meeting was a routine session of the SA-Russia inter-governmental trade and economic committee (ITEC).

The communiqué claimed there was progress on nuclear power issues, although both Dlamini-Zuma, Gobler and their Russian counterparts knew the reason for the meeting was Russian anger at being shut out of both the nuclear power and the aerospace sectors.

The conflict between Moscow and Pretoria in aerospace follows the recent breakdown of agreements for the Russian space agency Roskosmos to launch SA satellites, one of them the civilian Sumbandila satellite; and another, a South African military communications and reconnaissance satellite.

According to Dlamini-Zuma last month: “the two sides welcomed the establishment of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy with a view to ensuring a proper and structured implementation of the agreement signed during the visit of President Vladimir Putin to South Africa in September 2006.”

This is a reference to agreements reached, not only during Putin’s visit to Cape Town, but to subsequent reiteration of SA promises to Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov in March 2007, and at meetings in Sochi with Putin and other Russian officials in mid-2007.

Dlamini-Zuma also claimed there was no problem in the aerospace sector. She reported on February 13, after her Moscow talks, that “the two sides considered enhanced South Africa – Russia co-operation in the sphere of space research and the finalisation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between South Africa and Russia in this regard. “

On February 26, Gobler briefed reporters ahead of the visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Leaks in the French press had earlier reported that Areva believed it was SA’s preferred bidder for the first nuclear contract.

Gobler referred to a paper leaked to his ministry in February, which disclosed the crisis that had erupted in Russian-SA relations over the cancellation of the invitation to Atomstroyexport (ASE), the Russian reactor builder, and thetit-for-tat cancellation by the Russian space agency Rosatom over agreements to launch SA satellites.

“Many of those allegations are totally unfounded, if not simply untrue,” Gobler said. “The real fact is the insinuations that there are major problems between Russia and South Africa is [sic] simply also not true.”

But Gobler admitted that the nuclear reactor bid was one “of the issues that were raised in that article [and] were up for discussion between the two governments.” The discussion, he added, had been “in a constructive and amicable spirit”, and “that issue is being currently discussed on a government to government level.”

The report on crisis between the SA and Russian governments, Grobler said, was a “list of questions, allegations and insinuations that obviously… involves a number of government departments and that I would not like to comment on this at that point because it needs further consultation with these departments who are accused or allegations are made.”

Although Gobler insisted on February 26that “the relations between Russia and South Africa are in fact very good,” he did not mention that First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov was expected to visit Mbeki shortly after Sarkozy had departed.

Ivanov arrived on March 10, accompanied by two ministers:Yury Trutnev, Minister of Natural Resources, is co-chairman with Dlamini-Zuma of ITEC; and Yury Levitin, the Minister of Transport.

An announcement was issued in Pretoria by Vice President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka just ahead of Ivanov’s arrival. This claimed the visit was “within the context of South Africa’s priority to strengthen bilateral political, economic and trade relations with the Russian Federation. In this regard, relations between Russia and South Africa are driven through the Inter–sessional Intergovernmental Trade and Economic Committee (ITEC)”. The SA statement added that Ivanov was expected to discuss “the status of bilateral political, economic and trade relations between the two countries…[and] preparations for the ITEC that will be hosted by Russia in May 2008.”

Ivanov’s spokesman told Mineweb that the visit to the SA capital, where he met President Mbeki, was not decided until the week before their March 10 meeting. Trutnev said through a spokesman that he had no agenda for the visit, but was there to accompany Ivanov. Levitin told Mineweb, also through his spokesman, that he was accompanying Ivanov, and had no discussion bearing on the satellite controversy.

A newspaper report in Moscow, published immediately after Ivanov’s meetings with Mbeki and Mlambo-Ngcuka, cited a Trutnev deputy, Igor Maidanov, as saying”the supply of energy is top on the agenda.” Maidanov is the director of the Natural Resource Ministry’s international cooperation department. “Russia is aware of South Africa’s present energy problems. I believe that the delegation will discuss this issue in order to find ways to help.”

Russia’s nuclear assistance was the cat Maidanov let slip from the bag SA officials were determined to keep shut.

As co-chairman of ITEC, Trutnev has been a public promoter of deals in the uranium mining, fuel processing, and reactor building segments of the nuclear market. Russia “would invest as much as needed” in new nuclear power stations and joint uranium mining ventures, he told the SA audience last year; a sentiment repeated in SA communiqués on the progress of ITEC.

A source close to Atomstroyexport (ASE) has revealed that early in March, just before Ivanov decided on his SA visit, officials from the SA Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) and the SA Embassy in Moscow had conveyed Pretoria’s message — the decision had been taken at the highest level not to include ASE in the nuclear tender.

An announcement from Levitin and the Russian Transport Ministry claimed the object of their visit to SA this month was to check on the operation of a Russian satellite navigation system, GLONASS; to inspect Russian aircraft modification and flight operating plans for the Antarctic; and to call at Novolazarevskaya, the 47-year old Russian scientific station on Queen Maud Land.

Roskosmos was also represented in Ivanov’s delegation. But asked to say if Ivanov had discussed the satellite problem, Roskosmos spokesman, Alexander Ryadinskiy, replied: “nothing extraordinary happened”.

Ivanov has not commented publicly on the substance or outcome of his SA talks. But a source close to him denied the purpose of his trip had been to visit SA. The source told Mineweb that Ivanov was intending to visit Russian operations in the Antarctic. He had stopped off in Pretoria on his way south, the source now says. Ivanov’s spokesman, Pavel Zinovich, told Mineweb that Ivanov’s talks had “nothing to do with the intergovernmental commission”.

Before he visited SA, Ivanov was on record as urging Roskosmos to do more for the GLONASS system and for Russian satellite launches.

Tseliso Maqubela, who heads the nuclear division of the DME, and Bheki Langa, the SA Ambassador, refuse to answer questions about the crisis triggered by the nuclear power exclusion, and the satellite launching spat.

In Moscow in March, junior SA officials told the Russians they may be invited to bid for the second round of reactor contracts; these are scheduled to be tendered at the end of the 5-year construction period for the first reactors.

This is a sop. Nuclear sector experts in SA and Russia acknowledge that, on account of the differences in technology, training protocols, site and fuel specifications between the French, American, and Russian nuclear reactor systems, it is very rare for a country to buy and operate more than one type of system. South Korea is the exception, however.

In a report this week on Russian marketing efforts for its nuclear power exports, Moscow analyst Yury Humber suggested that outside of China and India, where ASE reactors are dominant, “the competition for nuclear-plant sales may broadly play out along Cold War lines, with Russia grabbing contracts among former Soviet satellites such as Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and African allies including Namibia.”

He quoted US sources as confirming that “Russia is likely to be shut out of U.S. and Western European markets partly because of historical ties to local manufacturers, said Gene Clark, chief executive of U.S. consulting firm TradeTech. ‘The markets that Russia’s going for, I’m not too worried about,’ said Dan Lipman, senior vice president for nuclear power plants at Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse. ‘Myanmar’s not on my list.’”

A source close to ASE told Mineweb that Namibia, a major international mine source for uranium, has made no firm commitment to a reactor tender, or to inviting the Russians to bid.

A visit to Windhoek a year ago by Mikhail Fradkov, then Russia’s Prime Minister, proposed a variety of options for launching nuclear power generation for Namibia. One of the options reported by Mineweb at the time as discussed with Namibian President Hifikepunya Pohamba was a low-capacity floating nuclear power plant. “We want our own power plant utilising our own (uranium) resources… We are pleased the Russian Federation wants to assist Namibia in this field,” Pohamba was quoted as saying.

Last month, the Namibian government repeated its policy target to develop nuclear power generation, and the beneficiation technology to convert locally mined uranium for fuel.

Article printed from Dances With Bears: http://johnhelmer.net

URL to article: http://johnhelmer.net/?p=356

Nuclear Protest at Thyspunt - Jeffrey's Bay

By Melanie Gosling
Environment Writer
Source

Just over 2 000 people marched through Jeffreys Bay on Sunday in protest against the multi-billion rand nuclear power station Eskom plans to build at the nearby Thyspunt.

While marchers converged on the local municipal offices where organisers handed over a memorandum, 14 chokka (squid) fishing boats dropped anchor just behind contestants in the Billabong international surfing championships and switched on their lights in support of the marchers.

The protest was organised by the Thyspunt Alliance, an umbrella body of several local resident, ratepayers, environmental, surfer and other organisations, who were joined by the chokka fishermen and a range of local people.

Allliance spokesperson Trudi Malan said on Sunday: “We thought we would not get many people because we were competing with the surfing and the rugby, but some of the surfers phoned and said please can we wait till the Kelly Slater heat had finished. We did and they all came rushing over. And some rugby fans told us they could always watch rugby again, but they may not have the opportunity to show their support again against a nuclear power station that would affect all their lives.”

Malan said the Alliance had purposely not entered the debate about the pros and cons of nuclear power, but were all opposed to siting a nuclear power station at Thyspunt. The Alliance was heavily critical of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) Eskom had commissioned, saying it had failed to address many biophysical issues of building the power plant at that spot.

Eskom had selected the site in the apartheid era with no input from the public. One of the criteria was that a site for a nuclear power station had to be at least 100km from any of the former “homeland” areas for security reasons.

“The EIA is an atrocious document. The biggest flaw is that it did not consider the chokka industry and there was no public participation in the site selection. During construction they will dump 6.3-million cubic metres of sand into the sea, which will kill the chokka industry. We do not want to jeopardise the development of our country, but we do not believe development should come at the expense of the environment,” Malan said.

Read full article

Unable to admit defeat – and in the face of legal challenges, rigged bidding processes, and ludicrous, record-breaking costs – the country’s government have resurrected the plan once again and have drawn up an agreement with Russia to build a nuclear reactor in the south of Turkey. The parliament will vote on the agreement this Friday.

This week 60 activists took a petition with 170,000 signatures to the parliament building to demonstrate the widespread opposition to the nuclear plan. Will the politicians listen to these voices? The evidence, history and the people are all against a nuclear reactor being built in Turkey.

source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/170000-say-no-to-turkeys-dirty-nuclear-deal/blog/12903

They have vowed to stage a “sleep-in” at NECSA’s gates unless they are adequately responded to by the nuclear bosses. The memorandum they intend handing over is attached.NECSA memorandum 22 Jan 2010

When: Thursday February 4, 2010

Starting time: 10.30 am

Place: Necsa Gate 3, Church Street, Pelindaba (west of Pretoria) Contact person: Mr. Alfred Sepepe 074 299 8214

Many of these Atteridgeville Township based workers formed part of the sample group of 208 ex-nuclear workers who underwent preliminary medical examinations by respected occupational health medical practitioner Dr Murray Coombs. Coombs found that a significant number of these workers suffered from occupational illnesses resultant from their employment at the Pelindaba complex and referred several cases to the Compensation Commissioner. All these applications were rejected. The Commissioner has yet to make known the basis on which he dismissed these applications despite legislation which entitles these workers to compensation based on presumption alone. Coombs further concluded that most of the ex-workers he had seen needed further in-depth medical tests and in 2006 Dr. Coombs approached NECSA to undertake these tests in the presence of representatives appointed by the workers themselves to ensure transparency. NECSA flatly refused and produced its own medical results that denied the claims made in the Coombs Report.

Almost 30 ex-workers from the original sample group have died penniless and with extreme medical conditions since this process began in 2005/6 – this despite numerous appeals to the President, various Ministers and a special hearing before a Parliamentary Portfolio Committee in July 2007 which undertook to ensure justice and compensation for these workers. The chairman of that committee was dropped in the new post-elections administration and to date not a single promise made to these workers has been met.

Please contact Mr. Sepepe for further details.

This media release is issued by:

Pelindaba Working Group
acting in solidarity with the plight of these ex-nuclear workers
Dominique Gilbert – 083 740 4676

All charges against the three activists from the APF and Earthlife who were assaulted, arrested and subsequently charged with public violence and resisting arrest at yesterday’s NERSA hearings, have been unconditionally dropped by the state prosecutor. The dropping of the charges came after the activists were kept locked up in police custody for over eight hours.

None of this comes as a surprise to either the APF or Earthlife since there was no ‘case’ against the activists in the first place. Indeed, the only case to answer is that emanating from the completely outrageous conduct of the SA Police Services, which has unfortunately become a hallmark of many police actions at events and protests involving community organisations. The APF and Earthlife – alongside other community organisations and social movements – will continue to vigorously oppose ESKOM’s application for multiple electricity tariff increases. We will not be silenced!

For further comment/information contact: Ferrial Adam of Earthlife on

0741813197