Residents near Pelindaba last Thursday, 5 August 2010, reported that they twice heard sirens around 8am from near NECSA’s Gate 3 to the Nuclear Complex. Both NECSA and the NNR deny that sirens went off at NECSA, passing it off as a possible hoax or “someone else’s siren”. A local block watch in the area was contacted but said they knew of none other than Necsa with sirens in the area.

Go to Important Info page for map

Initially not a single person at the communications division of NECSA could be reached around 8.30am Thursday – even on cell numbers – and finally NECSA’s Elliot Mulane answered his mobile. He was not at work but did phone back with his findings.

Both NECSA and the National Nuclear Regulator subsequently denied that sirens went off at Pelindaba that morning, but Mr Mulane said the routine siren tests had taken place on Monday the 2^nd August.

However:

1. Residents in the area were not notified about
2. Residents in the area say they did not hear Monday’s sirens (but NECSA said it happened)
3. The NNR admitted it had not been informed of the Monday tests. A spokesman said they should have been notified.

This is all very worrying for people who live in the region as they may never know when there is a real emergency at Pelindaba. Last year, after the sirens repeatedly went off over a period of month, we alerted the media and it turned out an emergency situation had triggered the sirens and confined all staff indoors. The siren was triggered by an abnormal release of “noble gas” during a regular production of isotopes.

Residents were not contacted at all. NECSA claimed the radioactive gases that escaped were contained within their fenced area (on a windy day!!!) We submitted numerous questions to the NNR over this incident – subjoined hereunder – and have still not had appropriate replies. Since this incident, sirens have not been heard again from Pelindaba – not even routine monthly siren tests – until Thursday morning. NECSA are supposed to test their sirens on the first Monday of every month but have stopped notifying residents, whether or not they continue this practice.

It is a mystery and residents have a right to know what’s going on. There are worrying health risks to children and mothers from the harmful effects of ionizing (man-made) radiation. You cannot see it, smell it, taste it yet it needs only the smallest particles to cause leukemia, a variety of cancers, spontaneous abortions and genetic abnormalities in unborn children.

THE QUESTIONS THE NNR HAVE NEVER ANSWERED:

The National Nuclear Regulator

Dear Gino Moonsamy and Thiagan Pather

Further to your media release, I am pleased to know the NNR will continue with its investigation. We trust you will inform us once this is complete, and ask that you indicate how long this investigation is likely to continue?

In terms of your legislated mandate to protect the environment, humans and property, however, I trust you will also provide us with answers to the following questions:

1. Can you confirm the chemical structure of the xenon and krypton that was released?
2. Can you confirm that the xenon and krypton were radioactive? If so, what can you tell us about the nature of that gamma radiation?
3. Can you confirm the suspected amount of the xenon and krypton that was released over legitimate levels? And for how long?
4. Please confirm the legal daily limit of these emissions?
5. Please outline known health and environmental implications of xenon and krypton – especially the particular Xe and Kr that is believed to have been released.
6. Please provide information on the exact building stack that triggered the alarm? Was it the Safari 1 reactor or another building, and if so, please name the building and describe the exact nature of the processes that take place in this building?
7. Since it was established within a short period after the emergency that xenon and krypton were released, could you indicate whether ANY emissions of ANY OTHER substance was released simultaneously, whether considered hazardous or not?
8. Why were no residents informed? Instead residents contacted Necsa to enquire about the alarms.
9. If the emergency warranted all personnel being mustered to safe designated areas behind locked doors, closed windows and switched off ventilators as indicated by NECSA’s Emergency Control Centre, why were the closest residents to Pelindaba not evacuated until the emergency was called off?
10. Mr. Rob Adam indicated to me personally that NECSA has detectors onsite and also off-site. Can you confirm this?
11. The emergency took place on a relatively windy day. What assurances are there that the event was of a localized nature?
12. Who is responsible for the emergency?
13. The NNR has indicated to Parliament last year it has a skills and manpower shortage. Is this likely to affect your investigation?
14. What will be done to prevent a recurrence of abnormal levels of radioactive emissions at Necsa’s Pelindaba site?
15. Can you please indicate how many other events of abnormal levels of radioactive emissions have been recorded at Pelindaba over the past that have warranted an on-site emergency– whether or not these were deemed to have posed a threat to the public and workers at the facilities or not.

Please can you ensure that I am on all your emailing lists? I sent you and other officials at the NNR an email request the night before the emergency at Pelindaba and have still received no reply, let alone a copy of your media release – which I now have via people based in the Cape! I am, as you know, a resident in the Pelindaba region.

It is sincerely hoped you will provide a prompt response to these questions in light of the now scaled-up activity at the Pelindaba Complex which makes it more imperative than ever that the public can rely on the NNR.

Sincerely

Dominique Gilbert

From: Gino Moonsamy [mailto:gmoonsamy@nnr.co.za]
Sent: 18 March 2009 09:49 AM
To: Pelindaba Working Group; Thiagan Pather
Subject: RE: Media Release – National Nuclear Regulator Assures Public of Safety – Pelindaba

Dear Dominic

Your contact details have been added to our mailing list.

Your enquiry is noted and currently being attended to.

best regards

Gino Moonsamy

National Nuclear Regulator

“Safety first, Safety always”

Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the Earth by the sun and the fact that temperatures will always be trying to reach an equilibrium (heat is always moving to a cooler area). With the rising price of energy and the destruction of the environment from non-renewable fuels, it is starting to be equitable to harvest this renewable resource.

The advantages of wind energy are that it’s virtually free (in case you purchase the equipment) and there is no pollution. The disadvantages include the fact it’s not a continuing source (the velocity varies and many times it is insufficient to produce electricity) and it typically requires about one acre of land.

How Wind Energy Works

The amount of power that is available varies by wind speed. The amount available is named it’s power density which is measured in watts per square meter. For that reason, the U.S. Department of Energy has separated wind energy into classes from 1 to 7. The typical wind speed for class 1 is 9.8 mph or less while the average for a class 7 is 21.1 or more. For effective power production, class 2 winds (11.5 mph average speed) are usually required.

Generally, wind speeds increase as you get higher above the Earth. For that reason, the standard wind turbine comes with a tower at least 30 feet above obstructions. That there are two basic different kinds of towers useful for residential wind power systems (free standing and guyed). Free standing towers are self supporting and are usually heavier meaning they take special equipment (cranes) to place them. Guyed towers are supported on a concrete base and anchored by wires for support. They typically are not as heavy and most manufacturer’s produce tilt down models which can be easily raised and lowered for maintenance.

The kinetic (moving energy) from the winds is harnessed by a device called a turbine. This turbine includes airfoils (blades) that capture the energy of the wind and use it to turn the shaft of an alternator (like you have on a car only bigger).

That there are two basic types of blades (drag style and lifting style). We all have seen pictures of traditional windmills with the large flat blades which are a good example of the drag style of airfoil. Lifting style blades are twisted instead of flat and resemble the propellor of a small airplane.

A turbine is classified as to whether it is designed to be installed with the rotor in a vertical or horizontal position and whether the wind strikes the blades or the tower first. A vertical turbine typically requires less land for it’s installation and is a much better option for the more urban areas around the globe. An upwind turbine is designed for the wind to impact the airfoils before it does the tower.

These units normally have a tail on the turbine which is needed to maintain the unit pointed into the wind. A downwind turbine doesn’t need a tail as the wind acting on the blades tends to keep it oriented properly.

These turbine systems would be damaged if they were to be allowed to turn at excessive speeds. Therefore, units should have automatic over-speed governing systems. Some systems use electrical braking systems while some use mechanical type brakes.

The output electricity from the alternator is sent to a controller which conditions it for use in the home. Using residential wind power systems requires the home to either remain tied to the utility grid or store electricity in a battery for use when the wind will not blow sufficiently.

When the home is linked with the grid, the surplus electricity that is created by the residential wind power system can be sold to the utility company in order to reduce or even eliminate your utility bill. During times with not enough wind, the home is supplied power from the utility company.

The Cost of Wind Energy

Small residential wind power turbines can be an attractive alternative, or addition, to those people needing more than 100-200 watts of power for their home, business, or remote facility. Unlike PV’s, which remain at basically a similar cost per watt independent of array size, wind generators get more affordable with increasing system size. At the 50 watt size level, for instance, a small residential power wind generator would cost about $8.00/watt when compared with approximately $6.00/watt for a Photo voltaic module.

That’s why, everything being equal, Photo voltaic is more affordable for very small loads. As the system size gets larger, however, this “rule-of-thumb” reverses itself.

At 300 watts the wind turbine costs are down to $2.50/watt, while the PV costs are still at $6.00/watt. For a 1,500 watt wind system the cost is down to $2.00/watt and at 10,000 watts the cost of a wind generator (excluding electronics) is down to $1.50/watt.

About the Author – Mary Jones writes for the residential wind power systems web log, her personal hobby blog focused entirely on ideas to reduce Carbon dioxide and lower energy costs using alternative power sources.

If you wish to read my complete Bio

Why has Millions of South African Rands been spent in the last few years for EIA projects on nuclear power stations and to date nothing has materialised from it? Do you have any idea how much wind power could already be installed and operational right now with that wasted money? At the end of 2008 the worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 121.2 Gigawatts. 19% of electricity in Denmark is produced by wind generated power, 11% in Spain and Portugal and 7% in Germany and Ireland. Some countries are serious about alternative forms of energy but the South African government is hell bent on Nuclear and are quick to shun wind and solar energy.

If other countries can produce figures such as above, WHY is South Africa NOT on that list?

Wind Energy in South Africa - It's possible