India hopes to acquire uranium from South Africa, which is party to a treaty that bars signatories from conducting nuclear trade with states that do not have a full-scale safeguards agreement in place with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Indo-Asian News Service reported on Tuesday (see GSN, Oct. 13).

Discussions on the uranium supply are under way, even though nuclear-armed India does not allow comprehensive monitoring of its atomic facilities and is not a member state to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, said New Delhi’s ambassador to South Africa, Virendra Gupta.

“It appears to us that there will need to be an exception” to the African Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, Gupta said (see GSN, May 6).

“But it will not be difficult. We have civil nuclear agreements with several countries. I don’t see any reason why we can’t do it here,” the envoy added.

He spoke in Pretoria following a summit between the leaders of India, South Africa and Brazil. The three heads of state issued a statement that seemingly addressed India as a reasonable nuclear actor.

“The leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the goal of the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons within a specified time frame, in a comprehensive, universal, nondiscriminatory, verifiable and irreversible manner,” according to the statement from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, South African President Jacob Zuma and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

“Brazil and South Africa welcomed India’s engagement with, and interest in, participation in the relevant international multilateral export control regimes and utilization of their guidelines,” the declaration adds (see GSN, Jan. 31; Arvind Padmanabhan, Indo-Asian News Service/Yahoo!News, Oct. 18).

Source: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20111019_7101.php

THE COALITION AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY (CANE)
PO BOX 82 PLETTENBERG BAY 6600 SOUTH AFRICA

In March 2011, soon after the catastrophe of Fukushima, the Minister of Energy declared for six new reactors as part of the Integrated Resource Plan for electricity production (the IRP2010). This was also in the face of heavy opposition and many submissions by members of the Civil Society Energy Caucus, including affected communities, the labour movement, faith-based organizations, and many Non-Government Organisations (NGOs).

Moreover, in recent months, Eskom has persisted with public meetings in Cape Town, Overstrand and Kouga Municipalities, in desperate defence of their Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. Indeed, they were met with fierce resistance on the part of individual CANE members, the Koeberg Alert Alliance, the Save Bantamsklip Campaign, the Thyspunt Alliance, and many others. What is most disconcerting is that no nuclear technology has been specified; many specialist studies have not been completed adequate; and no final solution for the spent fuel has been specified.

This failure to prepare the ground properly for the preferred Thyspunt site (but with Bantamsklip and Koeberg to follow, making up two reactors each on three designated sites) will inevitably lead to a series of court challenges in the following years. A “war chest” has already been started for this express purpose.

In the light of these developments, and in response to popular demand, the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy has therefore convened a National Anti-Nuclear Summit at the Country Crescent Hotel in Plettenberg Bay on Friday the 29^th and Saturday the 30^th July.

List of Delegates

Rianne Teule, Johannesburg-based, but Netherlands-born Greenpeace, anti-nuclear campaigner, recently returned from Japan;
Richard Worthington, veteran Climate-Change campaigner, World Wildlife Fund, Johannesburg, and founder of the  South African Climate Action Network;
Dr David Fig, policy analyst, academic researcher, and author of Uranium Road, among other works;
Makoma Lekalakala, (Sustainable Energy Climate Change Project, Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg Branch;
Dominique Gilbert, Pelindaba Working Group, Brooderstroom;
Keith Gottschalk, Senior Lecturer in Political Studies, University of the Western Cape;
Peter Becker, Convenor, Koeberg Alert Alliance, Cape Town;
Rod Gurzynski, Architect, Researcher & Green Building Consultant, Cape Town;
Sibusiso Mimi, Research Officer, National Union of Mineworkers;
Muna Lakhani and Gray Macguire, Earthlife Africa, Cape Town Branch;
Rodney Anderson, Chairman, Save Bantamsklip Campaign & Vice-Chairman, Hermanus Ratepayers Association;
Ebeline de Villiers, Save Bantamsklip Campaign;
John Williams, Stanford Conservation Trust and former Chairman, Save Bantamsklip Campaign;
Lesley Richardson, Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative;
Wilfred Chivell, Dyer Island Trust;
Katja Vinding Petersen, Dyer Island Trust;

Hilton Thorpe, St Francis Residents Association and member, Thyspunt Alliance;
Alison Kuhl, Supertubes Surfing Foundation, Jeffreys Bay;
Derek Luyt, Public Service Accountability Monitor, Rhodes University

Apologies

Len Swimmer (Chair, Greater Cape Town Civic Association);
Louis de Villiers (former Chair, Wildlife & Environment Society of South Africa, Western Cape);
Dave Whitelaw (ABI Initiative, Overberg Region);
Helena Kingwill, Writer-Producer of Buried in Earthskin a TV documentary on nuclear waste dumping in Namaqualand;
Bernedette Muthien, Executive Director. Engender, an NPO focusing on Eco-Feminism;
Brenda Martin, Project 90X2030;
Dr Yvette Abrahams, Commission for Gender Equity;
Bobby Peek, Groundwork/Friends of the Earth.

Thank you for supporting our previous efforts to build a nuclear-free future for our kids. More than ever, the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy needs your help to make that future a reality.

The disaster in Japan continues to unfold – with authorities now admitting three meltdowns and some reports putting Japan’s nuclear disaster on a par with Chernobyl.

The terrifying reality is the same thing could happen in South Africa. Government has nailed its colours to the mast by promising SIX REACTORS as part of its “nuclear fleet”. In addition, Rob Adam of NECSA has promised us “localization” with uranium enrichment, fuel assembly and spent fuel reprocessing. All this despite the opposition from the Civil Society Energy Caucus, faith- labour- and community-based Organisations.

We must urgently work to prevent that. To that end, leading campaigners & activists from NGOs and civil society organisations associated with C.A.N.E., academics and professionals plan to hold a “summit” on 27 and 28 July to tackle the problem. And our budget is virtually non-existent.  It is called a “summit”, because – this is designed expressly for leadership to discuss ways and means of defending our country against the threat of a “nuclear fleet”, which (according to IPAP2 by the Department of Trade & Industries) will cost us R1.3 trillion.

We aim to discuss strategy and tactics over the next two years, as well as budgets for fund-raising purposes.  We will also seek fresh elections for the National Executive to take us forward with a renewed mandate from the Summit.

We seek to ensure that the lessons learned from the nuclear meltdown in Japan are incorporated into S.A. regulations, and ensure our government will impose a moratorium on new licenses for dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power plants, and no more secrecy over our nuclear legacy.

Please act now and urge your local politicians and media to support this stand so we can build a safer future for generations of South Africans.

Thanks for taking action. And please also consider making a donation to C.A.N.E. today. It is the only group in South Africa that focuses solely on preventing a nuclear future! Your support will help us build a grassroots movement to close dangerous nuclear plants and create a safe energy future for our children. Your donation will also make it possible for a team to dedicate their time and effort to increase pressure on government and the media, and keep you informed and our website going.

Thank you for working with us for a nuclear-free world.

A nuclear forum is being held in South Africa on the 19th of May 2011 at Emperor’s Palace, Johannesburg, aimed at once again promoting nuclear energy in South Africa. As always these “forums” are not for free and are designed that way in order to keep out NGO’s and community driven organisations who simply do not have the funds to attend them. To give you an idea the cost of attending is R2850.00 per person which most NGO’s will not be able to afford, simple as that.

What happens with all these events is that 99% of the attendees are already pro nuclear so one wonders what’s the fricking point??

If the nuclear industry really wants to enter into debate with the South African public WHICH THEY DO NOT, they would make attendance for NGO’s and community driven organisations FREE but they DO NOT want to debate anything. They have an agenda and they will stick with it no matter what. In 5 years we have never been able to get anyone inside the highly secretive South African Nuclear Industry to debate anything, they cannot even answer the simplest of questions posed to them.

What is most annoying is an email promoting this event which was circulated by the company managing the event, namely Siyenza Managament (Pty) Ltd. In this email the author one Mabel Modipa spits out the biggest bunch of bogus unscientific garbage we’ve seen yet.

The email reads as follows:

Africa Needs Nuclear Power

In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident, resulting from the recent massive Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and following the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in the former Soviet Union, there has been much public debate internationally concerning nuclear power.

Much of the information projected to the public is misguided and inaccurate which leads to a public fear which in turn affects the formulation of government policy internationally. This in turn affects the costs of construction of nuclear power stations because, at times, unrealistic requirements are put in place, which then tend to drive costs up.  The mystique surrounding the subject of nuclear power tends to confuse matters further, in the public mind.  A confused public cannot make informed energy decisions relating to nuclear power.

In Fukushima province the first person to die as a result of the Fukushima nuclear incident has just been reported.  He was a 64 year old farmer from Sukagama, 65km from the reactor.  He hanged himself because the authorities would not let him sell his produce.  To receive any meaningful radiation dose from his spinage a person would have to eat many tons of it, which would be impossible.  It is sad that misguided policy caused his death.

Issues of nuclear construction costs and public perceptions of nuclear power will be discussed at the forthcoming nuclear power conference; Nuclear Forum 3, on 19 May 2011 at Emperor’s Palace, Johannesburg.

The conference will be opened by the Minister of Energy, The Hon Dipuo Peters.

A lot of debate around the use of nuclear as an alternate energy source has been debated this week at the Africa World Economic Forum in Cape Town.  South Africa will be taking the lead in Africa, with the proposed implementation of nuclear as a reliable source of power for the country.  This will no doubt raise the nuclear debate in the rest of the African continent.

ENDS
5 May 2011
Issued by: Siyenza Management
+27 11 463 9184

Mike Kantey, the chairperson of the National Coalition Against Nuclear Energy duly responded to Miss Modipa with the following response.

Dear Mabel

As the National Chairperson of the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy (see www.cane.org.za) and on behalf of the African Uranium Alliance, I take the strongest objection to the unscientific and emotional language employed in your press release appended below.

If this is the quality of business “intelligence” that is sold at high expense to political, investment, and business leaders in Africa, may Heaven help us over the next century.

Not only does the recently Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010) for South Africa make it abundantly clear at Table 18 on page 43 that a non-nuclear future is perfectly and affordably obtainable, but the respected International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) declared the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident at its highest level of INES-7, equivalent to the worst accident ever at Chernobyl.

To trivialise and minimise this horrendous accident as your misguided “press release” appears to do makes a mockery of those Japanese citizens within a 20-km radius who have been forced to evacuate their lands and their homes, probably forever, and the risk to all those who are forced to consume foodstuffs and liquids with traces of Strontium-90 and Cesium-137. Unlike your ill-informed and disgraceful mockery of an old man’s death by suicide (an understandable response in Japanese society), as well as your simple ignorance of the basic rules of English spelling (“spinach” not “spinage”, which is what you appear to be practising), the smallest, micro-quantity of Cesium-137 or Strontium-90 will be sufficient to trigger a cancer or genetic defect, once it has been inhaled or swallowed.

I trust that your conference will not be another exercise in pulling radioactive wool over your monied classes, but an honest assessment of what really is in the best interests of the African masses.

Sincerely

Mike Kantey
National Chairperson
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy
www.cane.org.za

Source: http://www.environment.co.za

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

This was evidenced in the recently approved Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010). The IRP 2010 provides for 9600MW of nuclear energy in the energy mix from 2023. The approval of the IRP2010 was a clear indication that government has shown little or no regard for the many civil society objections and submissions to the Department of Energy and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee. The announcement of cabinet’s approval of South Africa’s nuclear plan was also made less than one week after the world was reeling from the devastating earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear plant. It is hard to believe that government is oblivious to the impacts of nuclear energy.

So is this a case of a government being obstinate or has the government already signed agreements with France to build nuclear power stations?

While the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster has been attributed to a natural disaster, its impacts are incredibly widespread. As of 12 April 2011, the nuclear accident at Fukushima was rated as a Level 7 ‘major accident’ – the highest level on the international nuclear accident scale, and equivalent to that of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Level 7 is used to describe an event consisting of “a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.” The Japanese government is now expected to extend the evacuation zone around the plant and declare the immediate area a no-go zone. About 22 000 residents have fled the area.

Ironically, this year is the 25th “anniversary” of the Chernobyl nuclear accident – the only other Level 7 accident in history. After 25 years, the area around Chernobyl remains uninhabitable with an exclusion zone of 30km still in place. Almost 200 000 people lived in the zone – which is now desolate. Radiation levels around the plant remain so high that authorities do not expect the area to be inhabitable for between 180 and 320 years. The Ukrainian government is still heavily burdened by the costs of this disaster, a quarter of a century later.

Given these impacts, one would have expected a responsible government to exercise some caution with nuclear energy plans. In many countries the nuclear debate has been re-opened as a result of Japan’s nuclear troubles and Austria, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Germany called for a review of the safety of their nuclear reactors. Germany has since shut down seven of its old reactors.

Governments will continue to ignore their citizens until they remember that it is these same citizens who put them into power. The South African government may be confident of its support but this will not go on for as long as people are ignored. In Germany, the power of the voters has demonstrated that no government will be safe in power if they continue to endorse nuclear power. On the 28th of March 2011, Germany’s anti-nuclear Green Party won the Baden-Wuerttemberg state election and managed to beat Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which had been in power for almost 60 years.

Merkel’s duplicitous position on nuclear power was one of the main reasons for the defeat of the CDU. In 2010, Merkel’s government passed a law extending the life-span of nuclear plants by an average 12 years – a decision that toppled the previous German administration’s pledge of a gradual phase-out of nuclear energy. Then in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Chancellor made an abrupt turnaround and ordered a temporary shutdown of seven of the country’s older reactors. This quick change raised doubts about her credibility and was viewed as a mere election ploy.

The nuclear energy debate may not have grown enough yet to sway voters in South Africa’s upcoming local government elections. Government has not listened to its citizens’ objections to nuclear power and may well get away with it for now. However, the tide is turning and government will have to listen to the needs of the South African people. The objections to nuclear energy are growing, with not only environmental organisations raising their voices, but also the labour movement with both the National Union of Mineworkers and Congress of South African Trade Unions raising concerns about nuclear energy in South Africa. However, the big challenge for civil society is the cloud of secrecy surrounding nuclear energy. There are numerous and complex problems of nuclear energy that are often hidden, including radioactive waste, untested new designs [PBMR comes to mind], phenomenal cost overruns, government loan guarantees, possible tax subsidies for the industry, and the general downplaying of potential hazards.

For decades South Africa has developed its nuclear industry, but what do we really know about it? It is time to ask the questions of the people we have put into power and demand honest answers. How is radioactive waste being dealt with in uranium mine dumps – Pelindaba and Koeberg? Where would South Africa source the fuel for its six new nuclear stations? Government‘s commitment to the future of nuclear energy is very strong, but where would it obtain funds for six nuclear stations?

Since the South African government is going to take decisions with pseudo-consultative processes, it is up to civil society to start asking the right questions. And if we don’t get answers to our questions, these decisions must be challenged to the full extent of the law so as to put a stop to nuclear energy in South Africa.

Our future is in our hands, and it is up to us to hold the government accountable.

- Makoma Lekalakala is a programme officer at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg.

Source:

http://www.ngopulse.org/article/nuclear-energy-sa-government-sticks-its-head-sand



(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

Apr 17, 2011 10:13 PM | By Andrea Nagel
Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/article1026595.ece/Deadly-cost-of-power

Before March 11, not many people outside Japan had heard of the towns of Okuma and Futaba. Now the area around the towns, home to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, one of the 15 largest nuclear power stations in the world, has been splashed across news stations around the world.

When the 9.0 earthquake and resultant tsunami hit Japan, the reactor cooling systems of the plant were disabled, which led to nuclear radiation leaks that required a 20km-radius evacuation zone.

The security category of the crisis has now reached level 7, equal to the Chernobyl disaster, which means a major release of radiation and a widespread health and environmental impact, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency .

But experts are saying the new rating exaggerates the severity of the crisis, and that the Chernobyl disaster was far worse.

April 26 will be the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. The blast at Chernobyl blew the roof off a reactor and sent large amounts of radiation wafting across Europe. The accident led to the evacuation of well over 100000 people and affected livestock as far away as Scandinavia and Britain.

Against this backdrop and ever since President Jacob Zuma’s visit to France to discuss plans for our nuclear power developments, a debate is raging in South Africa over whether nuclear power is a safe alternative for energy in this country.

Some residents of Krugersdorp are have been relocated because of high levels of radiation detected on a mine in the vicinity and our National Nuclear Regulator plans to distribute hundreds of leaflets to teach the affected community how to protect themselves from mining radiation.

Environmental group Earthlife SA believes nuclear power is not only risky but also complex, dangerous and expensive.

“It’s reckless insanity to continue with the nuclear programme in South Africa,” said Tristan Taylor, spokesman for Earthlife SA.

In the same week the disaster in Japan took place, Eskom announced that South Africa is “well-equipped” to have nuclear power stations, and that we have a good nuclear safety culture.

“Clearly we’d be looking at what actually happened in Japan, but South Africa has a nuclear safety culture because of Koeberg station,” Eskom spokesman for nuclear power, Tony Scott, told Sapa.

Taylor argued: “We don’t take a breath to reassess our security schemes. This government just goes ahead with its nuclear stance, even after China put a moratorium on its nuclear projects to think about its nuclear security.

“Do we need nuclear power at the great cost of this power?” he asked.

“Not only is it unsafe, it is also one of the most expensive ways of powering this country. Aside from the costs of building and running the nuclear plants, we also require a police force to guard them.”

Eskom’s Scott has a different perspective: “How many people are killed on the roads every day compared to people killed in the nuclear industry?

“Obviously if something does go wrong in nuclear the consequences are enormous.”

But, he said most of the nuclear reactors at power stations in Japan shut themselves down as they were supposed to, following the earthquake and tsunami.

Taylor, however, asks: “Why are we going down the nuclear road when we have safer and cheaper alternatives, such as renewable wind and solar energy?

‘We should be putting combined state funds from taxation, revenue from the sale of electricity and debt into renewable energy. South Africans should be questioning not only where their electricity comes from, but also the social investment that this country is making in the supply of electricity.”

Scott was positive about South Africa’s ability to supply safe nuclear power.

“If we do build more [nuclear power stations], we would buy modern technology, and certainly the events that happened [in Japan] would be looked at and taken into account to see what technology should be used,” he said.

But Taylor says that going forward with nuclear technology is a mistake.

“Nuclear energy requires a lot of state funding.

“We know we can manufacture what we need for renewable energy locally, like windmills and solar geysers. We have the industrial base to go renewable. Plus there are distinctive safety advantages.

“The danger of nuclear energy is that it can have adverse effects on the young that are only discernable after many years. [With renewable energy] the worst thing that can happen if a windmill falls down is that it kills a cow.”

Source: http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/article1026595.ece/Deadly-cost-of-power

The Pelindaba Working Group today slammed the clandestine manner in which the government and its nuclear industry are pushing a radioactive agenda on the South African public and in particular a workforce for whom a job could be tantamount to suicide.

The Department of Energy sent out a media invitation to attend a “public participation event on understanding Nuclear Energy” and tout for workers in the very same black township outside Pretoria where scores of former workers of the nuclear industry have died from occupational disease.

Residents who live in Atteridgeville and Sausville where the Energy Minister and others will today try to persuade residents to take up a career in the nuclear industry, were totally unaware of the planned event which was only announced late yesterday afternoon.

“We suspect this is a carefully staged event for propaganda purposes,” said Alfred Sepepe, representative of many Atteridgeville-based ex-nuclear workers for whom there has been no compensation for occupational diseases. “Whoever arrives here will have been pre-organised by them themselves as a way of pretending that people from Atteridgeville support them. We don’t. Too many of us have died from sicknesses caused by working at Pelindaba.”

Mr. Sepepe has spent the past 2 years trying to obtain a meeting with the Energy Minister who has repeatedly failed to pitch for pre-arranged meetings. He and his team have also approached President Jacob Zuma’s office, which sent him back to the Energy Minister. Late last year the Energy Minister finally sent Mr Sepepe a letter saying he should take up his issues with the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (NECSA) and regurgitated stock answers issued by NECSA over the issue of ill workers over several years.

About 208 ex-Necsa workers were diagnosed by medical expert Dr Murray Coombs as having the basis for claims for occupational compensation. NECSA was approached to assist them with additional medical examinations under independent supervision but refused and instead produced their own white-washed medical report refuting the workers claims.

“The irony of these workers failing to get a single meeting with the Minister and now having to attend a “participation” meeting on understanding “nuclear energy” at a time when the world over people are turning their backs on this heinous energy source is beyond conscience,” said Dominique Gilbert, coordinator of the Pelindaba Working Group.

Mr. Sepepe and members of his committee will be attending the meeting uninvited as it may be the closest the manage to get to see the Minister.

We call on the government to immediately put an end to its nuclear policy.

South Africa’s nuclear policy is undemocratic and Gazetted without so much as a Parliamentary debate.

Before South Africa turns to more nukes, there must be full disclose of the legacy of the full fuel cycle of the industry from uranium mining to radioactive waste “management”/spills/leaks/environmental hazard and a full assessment of how innocent workers and communities have been affected from the various radioactive sites in this country.

ISSUED BY:
Dominique Gilbert
Coordinator
Pelindaba Working  Group
Tel: 083-740 4676
www.cane.org.za

The Editor

Business Report

Per e-mail

Dear Sir

The ill-fated Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) programme will probably go down in history as the most expensive set of CAD drawings ever produced. Despite dire warnings from Eskom’s own internal studies, a never-released PriceWaterhouseCoopers study, and various official thumbs-down signals from investment bankers and government regulators worldwide, the PBMR advocates persisted nevertheless, drawing one Power Point presentation after another, year after year after year, from as early as 1993 to as recently as 2010. During that time they probably siphoned well over R10-billion from the public purse.

Professor Eben Mulder, a past contributor to the PBMR programme and STILL singing its praises (Business Report 1 February 2011) on the eve of the Budget Speech, has the effrontery to want even more money for some redundant project from yesteryear: the thorium reactor.

Talk about throwing good money after bad!

Just so that your readers have some idea of the kind of money we’re talking about, the South African Department of Trade & Industry published their Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) in February 2010 with the following nugget on pages 88-89:

Nuclear component and equipment manufacturing is highly limited at present due to the lack of local and global demand over the last two decades. A future nuclear programme will cost in excess of R1 trillion. This will place enormous strain on the balance of payment and without an effective localisation programme will have severe consequences for the South African economy.

http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2010/10021909551001.htm

What is even more amazing, however, is the extraordinary use of rhetoric and obfuscation on the part of Mulder in an attempt to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader that a thorium reactor is somehow to be prioritized above all other solutions to the provision of constant bulk electricity for mining and industry (the so-called “baseload” supply).

Already, it seems, the larger mining houses have started to make provision for their own supplies, as have the larger municipalities. Even Coega will not need a nuclear power station for the simple reason that they will build their own station on site, without the problems associated with nuclear energy. The market, it seems, for the private supply of all kinds of large-scale electricity production plants – from combined-cycle gas plants at the coast to inland wind farms and concentrated solar power plants – has never looked rosier. Think only of the massive, unregulated market of diesel generators for small users in 2008 and then scale up a few megawatts.

Rather than addressing the economic facts themselves, however – always a weakness among the PBMR’s advocates – Mulder chooses a long list of mind-numbing detail on the old Armscor principle of “bullshit baffles brains”: nuclear weapons, global warming, finite resources, carbon taxes, nuclear physics, everything except polo entrance fees and pork barrel futures.

And yet, when you actually examine the arguments in favour of thorium as against uranium, one cannot help wondering where these arguments were when Mulder was a keen advocate (and remaining hopeful) of PBMRs? Shortage of uranium? Possibility of core melt? Long-lived nuclear wastes? Weren’t these the very arguments used by the Coalition Against Nuclear Energy and its allies from the early days of Koeberg Alert through the rise of Earthlife Africa to the recent arrival of Greenpeace in Africa?

This last point, however, is the real reason why nuclear energy will never be accepted in South Africa, despite many Government attempts to force it down our throats, from the National Party of BJ Vorster onwards.

We simply don’t want it.

Finish en klaar.

The entire City of Cape Town doesn’t want it, including their own council. The people of the Overberg, Theewaterskloof, Bitou and Kouga don’t want it, as well as the people of Namaqualand, Hartebeespoort, and the Northern Cape NGO coalition. The people of the Khoisan Council don’t want it; nor does the National Union of Mineworkers, nor COSATU, nor even many members of the South African Council of Churches and the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

There’s a wonderful old T-shirt slogan from the days of Rape Crisis, which sums it up.

“What is it about the word ‘NO’ that you don’t understand?

Sincerely

Mike Kantey

National Chairperson

Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

www.cane.org.za

072 628 5131