Sent: Friday 15 June 2007
–03:45 am
Via: Email
Contents of Message:
MR M
L KROG
PO
BOX 468
MAGALIESBURG
1791
TEL:
072-495-7257
DATE:
2007-06-15
ATTENTION:
MS ALBERTINA KAKAZA
MR
LANGA ZITA
CHAIRPERSON
PORTFOLIO
COMMITTEE
DEPT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
NUCLEAR
ENERGY HEARINGS
Dear
Sir
Introduction
Firstly
I welcome some sort of open, transparent dialogue regarding the issue of
nuclear energy in South Africa. I assume from your very advert requesting
submissions that you too are concerned about this issue and are finding the
misinformation and propaganda presented in the media greatly inconsistent.
Certainly the issue of nuclear energy is not one to be taken lightly as it will
affect all generations to come and I trust that your portfolio committee will
conduct a thorough and intensive investigation into all aspects of the nuclear
industry.
I
think it is crucially important to note at this early stage of my submission
that environmental
groups
have been quickly ridiculed and passed off as hysterical freaks by the very
factions who wish to push forward with nuclear energy. You must know that the
environmental groups are all non-profit organisations and do not stand to make
any financial benefit from nuclear energy. Their primary concerns are a safe
and healthy lifestyle for every South African as afforded to every citizen
under Chapter 3 of the Constitution of South Africa. In light of this I
sincerely hope you will take submissions from private citizens and
environmental groups even more seriously than the propaganda and misinformation
that ESKOM, NECSA, PBMR and DME have been distributing and will continue to
distribute to your portfolio committee, they are the ones who will profit out
of this.
It
is equally vital that you read a very lengthy study conducted by Storm van
Leeuwen and Phillip Smith available at http://www.stormsmith.nl. These two men,
one a nuclear physicist and the other a chemist and energy specialist conducted
their own private study on the entire process of nuclear energy from the mining
to the production of electricity. They bring to light the truth of this
industry.
Again you must note that these two men were not paid by the nuclear industry to conduct this study, they did it privately and they too do not stand to benefit financially from their study. But I can assure you that Dr Rob Adams, Dr Kelvin Kemm and the rest of the nuclear industry in South Africa will tell you otherwise, they sure like to create confusion and pass off anything other than their own words as nonsense.
Finally
I invite you to peruse through over 200 articles, studies and reports (local
and international) on nuclear issues available at
http://www.environment.co.za/nuclear/ , keeping in mind that this is a tiny
percentage of the information available on the Internet.
1.
Socio Economic Issues
It
is a known fact that nuclear reactors are often closely situated to vast water
resources and this is why most of them worldwide end up being built on a
coastline. It is also a known fact that reactors sited in such areas have
increased cancer rates in the local populations swimming in those waters and
eating fish from those waters because the water used to cool the reactors are
simply pumped back into the sea. There are adequate documented cases on this
and much of this has been presented to you already through other people’s
submissions that have been brought to my attention.
Tourism
is one of South Africa’s biggest industries. Is South Africa really willing to
risk losing international visitors and investors who would avoid visiting an
area or country if radioactivity may be a concern for them or their family?
People living in first world countries are much wiser to issues of nuclear
energy and radioactivity than what this government may know.
What
about the citizens of South Africa? Property values near reactors will drop and
in the case of accidents would become worthless. It certainly is
unconstitutional towards any South African to place his hard earned property at
risk of losing value due to a reactor being sited in their backyard. It is also
unethical and uncalled for to just expect people of South Africa to suffer the
loss and move elsewhere.
Prime
agricultural lands are some of the areas in South Africa where much of the
Uranium is situated that the Department of Minerals and Energy is now
encouraging to be mined. Is South Africa really willing to lose agricultural
lands so that a minority of mining companies with enough wealth already can
further starve the masses of this country? What about other agricultural lands
that are situated near to Uranium mining operations? They will stand the risk
of radioactive dust from Uranium mining operations settling on their lands and
contaminating their lands for years to come. How is this benefiting a country
that is supposedly on a road to repair?
The
pro nuclear factions, Eskom, NECSA, PBMR and DME are quick to use the draw card
of creating jobs. Firstly we are not talking about enough jobs to satisfy the
risk of putting the rest of the population at risk. Secondly the jobs they
speak of are low-level, high-risk jobs while the CEO’s and senior management of
these companies (all state owned) will be the ones raking in the ludicrous,
obscene and downright unjust salaries. Is South Africa really going to continue
on this path of enriching a tiny minority while the masses are forced to do all
the donkey work and suffer the health consequences? Sounds to me like the South
Africa under Apartheid that I grew up in.
The
costs stated for building ONE conventional reactor by Eskom is R150 Billion.
That is at today’s price as per the media. Given that it is going to take a
number of years, if an additional reactor is built at all, I can assure you
that this cost will increase greatly over that time. Add to this the fact that
NECSA and the PBMR company also wish to build 36 PBMR’s all over South Africa
at a stated cost of about R16 Billion each. We are talking of Hundreds of
Billions of tax-payers money. Why must the South African taxpayer be expected
to fit the bill for this? Why are our taxes not being allocated towards that
which they are intended? The government cannot afford to settle a wage dispute
with striking workers in this country because and I quote “We have no Money”
... really? Where on earth then can the government find several Hundred Billion
Rand to build nuclear power stations when they cannot even pay educators, the
lifeblood of this country, a decent salary? Priorities are severely disjointed.
2.
Waste Management
The
issue of nuclear waste is an issue that plagues ever single country that ever
installed a nuclear reactor. The high level nuclear waste which remains
radioactive for 80,000 years or more tends to stay at the power station because
there is nowhere to dispose of it. If First World countries are plagued by
their own nuclear waste then what makes South Africa think that we will magicly
solve that problem? Is digging a hole in the ground and hiding it away really a
solution? Seems very much to me like the way an Ostrich will bury his head in
the sand and pretend his enemy does not exist.
To
think of disposing of nuclear waste in this way is unethical, immature and
certainly not safe. The nuclear industry say they will produce such a dumping
site and the waste will be buried down in hard rock. Well no matter what hard
rock they are referring to, water can pass through ALL types of rock and water
will indeed pass through whatever underground rock they have in mind. What this
means is that over many years gradual seepage of water that has passed through
radioactive materials buried under the ground will eventually enter our water
tables and the future generations of this country will drink contaminated water
and will eat radioactive foods irrigated from underground water sources.
Sealing
this radioactive waste in concrete is also not a viable alternative. Concrete
is porous and seepage does and has already occurred at various radioactive
waste sites all over the world even in South Africa. Currently this method is
only used for low-level radioactive waste and all the high level waste like
spent fuel rods still lie at Koeberg and Pelindaba.
We
simply cannot go on as a human race by simply burying our mistakes deep
underground and hoping they will disappear.
3.
Security of Supply
This
is an ambiguous topic to discuss as it can be interpreted in many fashions.
Security of this country? Security of Electricity Supply? Security of Uranium
Supply?
Multiple
nuclear reactors will pose a security risk to the State of South Africa and to
every citizen of this country. South Africa is certainly not immune from
terrorist attacks or sabotage. Already a court case is underway in South Africa
relating to smuggling of Uranium from South Africa. At present we have limited
areas of availability of enriched uranium. What will happen when we have 40+
reactors all over South Africa with Uranium being transported all over our
national roads? Highly secure armoured vehicles cannot escape the clutches of
crime rings in South Africa, what makes the government think that it will be
any different with their highly guarded vehicles transporting Uranium
everywhere?
As
far as security of Electricity supply goes. The media has painted a picture
that we have a current shortage which is simply untrue. Eskom themselves stated
in a media report just over a month ago that and I quote “there is enough on
the system to meet the demand, even before we talk about Koeberg”. This does
not mean that this country should not be looking at securing future supplies of
electricity but it does mean that the current frenzy, panic and emergency that
Eskom, NECSA, PBMR and the DME are portraying is deceiptful to the public of
South Africa to say the least. There are many viable alternatives to energy but
the nuclear lobby do not want to hear of them and quickly usher out any such
ideas as foolish. They simply do not want anything else but nuclear energy and
the buck stops there.
The
last 2 years of major blackouts and power outages were and are not as a result
of any shortage.
The
real reason is the fact that Eskom has not maintained the power grids supplying
most of South Africa. Eskom relies on subcontractors to do most of their work
and much of this work is unmonitored. Certain areas of South Africa have been
experiencing massive growth in property development yet Eskom has not upgraded
their grids adequately, instead they just push more power through lines that
are not equipped to handle such loads. As a result transformers burn out and
power lines fail. This type of information would be certified if an independent
enquiry into Eskom is carried out.
South
Africa is one country in the world where we have an abundance of Sunlight and
Wind and vast tracks of open land. Solar technology is indeed viable and the
technology has changed much in recent years that high Megawatt installations
can easily be built in deserted areas of which this country has many such
places. For instance in the Nevada Desert a solar trough station is nearing
completion. This installation uses no more than 1 hectare of land to produce
1,000,000 Watts of Electricity. That is enough to power 1200 households.
Investing in Solar technology would provide this country the means to power
many thousands of South African households which in turn would reduce the
strain on the national power grid. By reducing the strain in the power grid it
would reduce the need to produce more electricity by conventional means. The
same applies to wind generated electricity. Vast areas of this country have
ample wind that could power households and even certain smaller towns which
again would reduce the stress on the national power grid.
Now
it is very important to note that the nuclear lobby will quickly try to pass
off these ideas as foolish. They will claim that wind power is unreliable which
is clearly not true. The United States produces around 7,300 Megawatts of
Electricity through Wind Power, enough to power more than one city the size of
Philadelphia. Many other countries have very successful wind power
installations that power vast areas of their cities. So the false claims by the
nuclear lobby are exactly that, false.
The
nuclear fraternity will also state silly things like “migrating birds could fly
into wind turbines” while this may happen on a very rare occasion is it really
worth putting the whole populations safety at risk for a few birds who might
get harmed by a wind turbine?
As
for Uranium supply. I for one am a landowner in Magaliesburg, an area rich in
Uranium. Our community, just 15 km from the Cradle of Humankind, were notified
in February this year that a private mining company wishes to conduct an EIA to
prospect for Uranium on our properties. We are just one of many communities who
would be affected by such developments by greedy mining companies. As far as I
am concerned this is my only property, my life and my future and I have worked
my entire life to get to this point and now someone wants to take it away. The
DME has recently proposed amendments to the Minerals and Petroleum Act which
would in effect give themthe right to confiscate properties from landowners.
Not only do their proposed amendments violate virtually the entire Constitution
of this country, they violate any sort of ethics.
The
fact is Mr Zita, there ARE other very viable alternatives to South Africa’s
future power needs but only if we learn to start thinking differently and stop
being driven by greed. This country certainly also does not need to dig up vast
areas of valuable countryside just to satisfy their appetite for money because
at the end of the day that’s what all of this relates to.
4.
Human Resource Development
The
only human resources development that will be introduced by Nuclear Power
Stations would be:
-
Development in sick workers
-
Development in Cancer in the population
-
Development in contaminated lands and drinking water
-
Development in low-level, high-risk jobs
-
Development in insanity
When
you look carefully at all the evidence and “Truth” about nuclear energy, the
risks are quite simply not worth it.
5.
Science and Technology
As
it stands NECSA, PBMR and ESKOM already have to consider bringing atomic
scientists out of retirement to work on a nuclear programme. Alternatively
scientists would have to be employed from other countries which does not bode
well for the creation of local employment. What happens when these elderly
scientists finally resign and leave these plants in the hands on people not
adequately qualified to do the job? Certainly the nuclear lobby has not made me
feel very safe that they have the right people for the job.
As
far as actual Science and Technology goes. If South Africa focused it’s energy
and finances on alternative energy sources that are truly clean and renewable
we could quite easily become a world leader in clean energies. That is
something that other countries would be interested in, that is a resource we
can resell.
The
PBMR company have produced much propaganda and misinformation regarding their
PBMR reactors. They have also shown their true colours by green-washing
environmentalists at every opportunity, by taking solid fact and truth about
nuclear energy and twisting the truths to suit their goals, by invading public
meetings and behaving like little children who cannot get their own way. I
honestly have seen enough of these PBMR people to know that they do not and
will not play fair and I cannot believe one word they spew out.
The
PBMR company has spent vast amounts of taxpayers money already to produce all
sorts of feasibility studies and to fund their operation. They make claims of
how safe the PBMR is or would be but that is absolute nonsense. How can
something that we have not built yet be declared safe?
It’s
ludicrous and insane to just draw pretty pictures on pieces of paper and then
say it’s safe.
The
entire nuclear lobby continually puts out this image that nuclear power is
safe, clean and our answer to global warming. No it’s not. It’s certainly not
safe and there are hundreds of reports by highly regarded scientists around the
world that prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt. It’s also not an answer to
global warming either. Global Warming and Climate Change is merely a scapegoat
for the nuclear industry. Ask Dr Kelvin Kemm who will no doubt participate at
your hearing about
Global
Warming. He for one does not believe in it so then you have to ask him: If he
does not believe in Global Warming then WHY is he pushing so hard for nuclear
energy as a clean and safe energy?
Nuclear
Energy is also NOT renewable. Once we have burned up all the world’s Uranium we
will be left with thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste with nowhere to
store it and the mining companies who made all their billions of Dollars out of
it will be long gone living in places that are not contaminated.
South
Africa will also be left with a very sick population riddled with cancers and
all sorts of other strange and not so wonderful diseases. This will further
plague our health system. Is this the kind of Human Resource Development that
the government has in mind?
The
very fact that the entire Nuclear Industry is shrouded in secrecy, mystery and
mistruths is enough cause for grave concern.
Conclusion
This
hearing on nuclear energy should be a preliminary stage of the process as I do
not believe that the future of every South African can be decided in one
meeting. This is a matter that concerns every single South African and it
should be a matter discussed on a national level with full involvement of all
South Africans. Public workshops should be held in every major South African
city spanning several days thereby allowing for full and fair participation.
These workshops should be held by an independent body who will provide truthful
information to the public showing BOTH sides of the story and not just the
nuclear lobby side of the story. These workshops should then produce draft
documents which can then be further discussed and hopefully after several
months of this type of involvement we would have a fairer and more truthful
look at the WHOLE picture. It could then be brought down to a referendum for
the public, the taxpayer, to decide on the matter and not a hasty decision
taken by cabinet.
Intensive
sessions spanning almost 2 years and with full public participation were
carried out in the Western Cape regarding Provincial Spatial Development and
Guidelines on Golf courses and Polo Fields which ended up producing legislation
that was sensible and represented the voice of the people. So why is an even
more intensive procedure spanning 2-3 years not being carried out with the
nuclear issue?
I
trust your portfolio committee will do the right thing and take a big backward
step and do a thorough and intensive investigation in this matter.
The
Constitution of this country is very clear and it must be defended and upheld
at all costs.
This
is certainly a matter that the people of South Africa have every right to have
a say in.
Thank
you for your time.
Yours
Faithfully
Mitchell
Krog