No to nuclear energy
While plans are being made for building more nuclear reactors in South
Africa, on the other side of the coin are groups such as Earthyear Africa which
are actively campaigning against their development.
Earthlife Africa has published a 36 page factsheet on nuclear energy in South
Africa. Titled: What you need to know about South Africa's nuclear programme,
the document is part of the Nuclear Energy Costs The Earth Campaign. In it they
they provide an overview of nuclear energy, its efects on humans, plants and
animals, climate change and tourism, seeking to gain support in declaring South
Africa a nuclear free zone. They question who actually stands to gain
financially from the PBMR given that the partners are international, even
suggesting that South Africa is being used as a "guinea pig" for
testing the PBMR. Below follows a short insert from the document providing some
background to their arguments.
Eskom wishes to build more nuclear reactors, based on a full scale model that
has been tried and abandoned in the North. These reactors are called Pebble Bed
Modular Reactors (PBMRs). The first is planned for Koeberg, near Cape Town. The
proposal is that the fuel for these PBMRs be produced at Pelindaba.
In addition there are fourteen thousand tons of radioactive weapons scrap
metal at Pelindaba from decommissioned nuclear facilities. NECSA (Nuclear Energy
Corporation of South Africa) wishes to smelt this waste and sell the metal on
the open market, followed by commercialisation of the smelter process - this
process is not international best practice, and could turn South Africa into the
North's radioactive waste dumping ground.
The proposed reactors, radioactive fuel plant, and the proposed radioactive
waste smelter, will emit many kilograms of radioactive emissions into the air,
water and soil every year. Pelindaba is located within two kilometres of a World
Heritage Site, The Cradle of Humankind, and ten kilometres from the townships of
Atteridgeville and Diepsloot.
At full production, for all the planned reactors, there would be nine trucks
carrying nuclear material, and 145 trucks carrying chemicals every day between
Durban, Pelindaba and Koeberg for forty years!
There is no doubt that radiation is harmful. Furthermore, the level of what
is considered a "safe" dose has been lowered consistently, and now
stands at a few percent of what was originally considered a "safe
dose".
One of the arguments for the PBMR is that South Africa will need massive
amounts of new power. This will not be true for at least ten years. In this
time, we will be able to install all of South Africa's power requirements using
safe and clean Renewable Energy Technologies, which are available off the shelf,
and can be installed within weeks.
Further, the planned ten nuclear reactors for South Africa in the near future
will generate less than 2.5% of our current electricity generation capacity, but
with hazardous consequences for hundreds of thousands of years.
Safe, clean, and sustainable alternatives exist, which are proving far more
viable, from an economic and health, safety and environmental point of view.
What's your say? Send us your feedback.
More information:
To obtain a copy of the factsheet, contact Earthlife Africa
Earthlife Africa - Johannesburg
P.O. Box 11383 Johannesburg 2000
Web: http://www.earthlife.org.za
Email: muna@iafrica.com
Mobile: 083-471-7276
Related Articles:
LINK: South Africa's nuclear programme and the PBMR
|
