tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9736185154905963152024-03-05T09:31:24.569+02:00Uranium Free South AfricaMining companies under encouragement by the South African Government now want to mine Uranium on a vast scale all around South Africa. 120 years of Uranium pollution due to Gold Mining Activities has never been cleaned up ... what will make this any different?stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-18925485620969092362008-05-10T11:13:00.001+02:002008-05-10T11:14:42.348+02:00NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>"NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION"</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>- NUCLEAR AUTHORITIES (1982)</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>by G. Edwards</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In November 1981 , two atomic workers at Chalk River, Ontario, were granted full pensions because of cancers which they had contracted as a result of radiation exposure on the job. "We acknowledge that it was probable that their cancers were caused by working here," said a statement issued by Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, despite the fact that neither of the men had ever been over-exposed to radiation. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Thomas Arnold was awarded a pension of $1335 a month by the Ontario Workman's Compensation Board (WCB), on the advice of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Arnold credits AECL with doing all the work to get him the pension. He developed lymph cancer during his 28 years of work as a reactor maintenance man at Chalk River. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The other case involves a 31-year veteran of Chalk River who died of leukemia shortly before the WCB granted his compensation. His widow was awarded $490 a month for life, the maximum permitted under WCB rules. A spokesman for the WCB said there is a third claim pending from Chalk River over a case of skin cancer. Meanwhile, a 50 year-old Pembroke man has also filed a claim with the WCB . Raymond Paplinskie, who has lost an eye and most of the skin on one side of his face, says that he got cancer of the sinuses from doing nuclear cleanup work following a 1958 reactor accident at Chalk River. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>AECL spokesman Hal Tracy explained that the nuclear industry in Canada accepts the theory that there is no safe threshold limit for radiation exposure; hence, it must also be accepted that any dose at all has the potential for harm, and that eventually there will be some evidence of this harm. "Possibly there will be more cancers among our workers," said Mr. Tracy. "These first cases weren't a total surprise. Deaths due to radiation exposure had been predicted. We've always believed there was an increased risk." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Robert Potvin, a spokesman for the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), which regulates the Canadian nuclear industry, said that the two cases of compensation have "no implications" form the safety standpoint. They "simply confirm the long-standing expectation" that nuclear workers run a higher-than-usual risk of cancer due to years of exposure to low-level radiation, he said. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Our limits admit that any dose can increase the risk and, on that premise, cancer deaths are not unexpected." He added that "studies say the average risk under these limits is comparable to the risk in an industry with a high safety standard -- for example, manufacturing shoes." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A spokesman for Ontario Hydro, Richard Furness, said in an interview with the Toronto Star that "no one has ever died or suffered lost-time injuries due to radiation at a Hydro nuclear plant -- or any other Canadian nuclear facility." When told about the AECL acknowledgement of two cases at Chalk River, Furness remarked: "Oh. Well, there goes that record." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Ontario Hydro's Health and Safety Director Bob Wilson said it was time the public recognized the facts. For every hundred million hours of work done under radiation exposure (at no more than the permissible limits) about 2 to 4 otherwise unexpected cancer cases will develop, Wilson said. "We have never said a radiation worker is without risk," he insisted, but added that radiation workers are 10 to 100 times less likely to die from work than such people as fishermen, forestry workers, miners or even Hydro linemen. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But a well-informed AECL worker told the Toronto Star that "this is going to open an intense debate about safety. What can we expect from all the other live or dead cancer victims who have long-term low-level radiation exposure at AECL or Ontario Hydro? It could mean that the whole system of predictions that five rems of radiation was an acceptable dose for workers is dead wrong." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Critics of the nuclear industry have argued that the industry's predictions could prove fatally wrong for many more workers than anticipated. It can take 20 years or more for cancers to develop from low-level long-term radiation exposure, and at least 250 Hydro workers and about the same number at AECL are coming up for the 20-year turning point. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In fact, a special report on the medical effects of alpha radiation published by the AECB in September 1982 indicates that the present permissible exposure limits could result in a quadrupling of the risk of lung cancer deaths among uranium miners, whether they smoke or not. This conclusion is based on actual mortality figures among uranium miners from Colorado, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Canada, and elsewhere. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>REFERENCES </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Canadian Occupational Health and Safety News, v.5, n.10, March 15, 1982. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Canadian Environmental Law Association Newsletter, 1982. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Toronto Star, March 4, 5, 6, 7, 1982. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Globe and Mail, March 5, 11, 1982. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Risk Estimates for the Health Effects of Alpha Radiation, INFO-0081, AECB, Sept. 1982.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-3971992764446837882008-05-10T11:13:00.000+02:002008-05-10T11:14:20.849+02:00Strontium 90 in Baby Teeth near Nuclear Reactor<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>published by WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor on May 16, 2003</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>U.S.: strontium-90 in baby teeth near Florida reactors</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A study on childhood cancer near nuclear power plants in Florida, U.S., was released in April. According to the study by the Radiation and Public Health Project, levels of fission product strontium-90 in the teeth of children living in southeast Florida had increased with 37% from 1986-1989 to 1994-1997. The highest levels were found near the Turkey Point and St. Lucie reactors. The amount of radioactive strontium-90 appeared to be 85% higher in the teeth of children with cancer than those without. The results might suggest a link between cancer and exposures to radioactivity from the reactors, but further studies are still needed to confirm this. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>(587.5518) WISE Amsterdam - The study was conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) and funded by the Health Foundation of South Florida. RHPH is an independent non-profit research organization, established by scientists and physicians to investigate the links between environmental radiation, cancer and public health. The main authors of the study are Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Professor Emiritus Radiation Physics of the Unversity of Pittsburgh, Dr. Jerry Brown, Founding Professor Florida International University and Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of RPHP.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Four nuclear reactors are in operation in southeast Florida: Turkey Point-3 and -4 in Miami-Dade County and St. Lucie-1 and -2 in St. Lucie County. Concerns have been raised about reported increases in childhood cancer. RPHP studied data on radioactive releases from the plants, radioactivity concentrations in rain- and drinking water, cancer rates in the region and levels of strontium-90 in baby's teeth in the region. The main findings of the RPHP study are:</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Radioactivity emissions</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Radioactivity in Miami-Dade County (Turkey Point) rainwater rose from a minimum in 1987-1988 to a plateau in 1990-1993, and later by some 60% in the last half of the 1990s. Atmospheric bomb testing by the U.S. ended in 1963 and by other countries in 1980. Accidental releases by underground bomb testing ended in 1992-1993. The releases by these test were an important source of beta-emitting radionuclides. As the activity in water still increased in the late 1990s, the persistence of (high beta) radioactivity in precipitation and drinking water near Turkey Point and St. Lucie therefore is likely to be caused by those two NPPs.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Radioactivity in drinking water</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The highest levels of fission product strontium-90 in drinking water in southeast Florida were found within 5-20 miles (8-32 kilometers) of the Turkey Point and St. Lucie reactors. Fission products like strontium-90, cesium-137 and iodine-131 are always released during normal operation of a reactor. The are released by the plant by air or water discharges. The levels of strontium-90 decreased with distance from the plants. This appears to rule out past nuclear bomb tests as the source of strontium-90 in drinking water. Contamination by nuclear tests would have caused equal activity levels all over Florida instead of the highest levels found near the two NPPs.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Cancer rates in Southeast Florida</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>From the early 1980s to the late 1990s, cancer incidence in children under 10 rose 35.2% in the five counties closest to the Turkey Point and St. Lucie reactors. Childhood cancer in the whole U.S. had only risen with 10.8%. So, the amount of childhood cancer rose more quickly in the regions of the two NPPs. A high amount of 325.3% increase in childhood cancer was observed in St. Lucie County.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Radioactivity in Florida Baby Teeth</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The authors collected baby teeth for measurements on strontium-90 concentrations. The study found that levels of strontium-90 in 250 Miami-Dade County baby teeth have been rising since the early 1980s. The current level is even as high as in the late 1950s, when the U.S., U.K., and the Soviet Union conducted atmospheric bomb tests. As the major releases of strontium-90 have ended since the atmospheric tests stopped, the authors suspect another cause for the (increased) presence of strontium-90 in teeth.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A comparison of the 461 baby teeth from six southeast counties near the two NPPs with 24 teeth from 12 other Florida counties (more than 40 miles from any NPP) showed that strontium-90 levels in the six southeast counties have a significant 44% higher concentration of strontium-90.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In 1982, the average concentration of strontium-90 in southeast Florida baby teeth was 2.23 picoCuries per gram Calcium. By 1995, it reached 5.29 picoCurie/g Calcium. That significant rise of +137% makes it almost impossible to ascribe the current levels to past atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. That is because of the fact that one would expect a decline in strontium-90 levels as the atmospheric tests had ended and strontium-90 from that cause is more and more disappearing from the natural environment.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>From 17 teeth from children diagnosed with cancer and living in the counties near the NPPs, 14 were found to have strontium-90 levels above the average for those without cancer in the same counties. Furthermore, 11 out of these 14 teeth have significantly higher strontium-90 concentrations. On average, strontium-90 levels in cancer teeth were 85% higher than those found in non-cancer teeth.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Conclusions and recommendations</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The authors conclude that the radioactivity releases from the Turkey Point and St. Lucie NPPs are the primary cause of rising strontium-90 levels in southeast Florida baby teeth, which is the highest in the counties near the plants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Strontium-90 levels are significantly higher in teeth from children with cancer. The higher levels of strontium-90 in children with cancer raises the question whether exposure to emissions by the two NPPs may be a possible cause for the cancer. The authors are quite strong in their conclusions when they state that "there is now substantial evidence that exposure [...] is a significant causal factor". But as this is only a first study on strontium-90 levels in Florida they also recommend that more detailed studies on cancer rates and a relation with strontium-90 levels are necessary before full conclusions can be drawn. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The possible radiation-cancer link should also be considered in future federal policies regulating the operation of nuclear reactors, especially on renewal or extension of the licenses of aging reactors. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>More information about the Radiation and Public Health Project can be found at their website: <a href="http://www.radiation.org." target="_blank">www.radiation.org.</a> The website also includes earlier study results of the project.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Sources:</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>1. Environmental Radiation from Nuclear Reactors and Childhood Cancer in Southeast Florida, Radiation and Public Health Project, 9 April 2003 </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>2. Press release RPHP, 9 April 2003 </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Contact: J. Mangano, National Coordinator, RPHP, 786 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, NY 11215, U.S.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Tel: +1 718 857 9825</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Email: <a href="mailto:odiejoe@aol.com">odiejoe@aol.com</a></span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Web: <a href="http://www.radiation.org" target="_blank">www.radiation.org</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-22855851108391848622008-05-10T11:12:00.002+02:002008-05-10T11:13:26.504+02:00Radioactive Fish<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><a href="http://www.rawfoodinfo.com" target="_blank">www.rawfoodinfo.com</a> </span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The Journal News</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>(Original Publication: January 16, 2007) </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Hudson River Fish Found to Contain Radioactive Isotope</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By Greg Clary</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Strontium 90's effect on health</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Strontium 90 is chemically similar to calcium, and tends to deposit in bone and blood-forming tissue (bone marrow). Thus, strontium 90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to strontium 90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia. Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to strontium 90. The risk depends on the concentrations in the environment and on the exposure conditions.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>BUCHANAN - In what could be the region's next environmental controversy or simply just a laboratory mistake, fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of strontium 90. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the Indian Point nuclear plants, and tests on 12 fish show four with detectible amounts, according to a memo obtained by The Journal News. The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river during the summer - six from the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area, and the rest from around Indian Point. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of the sampling," said C. J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied immediately." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far have only been able to capture much of the radiated water without successfully plugging the sources. No other radioactive isotopes were found in the fish, federal regulators said. Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant showed 18.8 picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last week.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Picocuries measure radioactivity level in the tiniest amounts, and though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 picocuries per kilogram. Strontium has a half-life of nearly 29 years and was banned in the United States after weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s left large amounts in the atmosphere. Health officials warned at the time that it competed with calcium in human bodies, especially in growing children, and could affect bone development. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager to see more sampling results to determine if the results were merely inaccurate, as false positives are more likely at low levels, or is something more significant. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"We have samples that quite honestly seem to be a little questionable," said Anthony Sutton, Westchester County's top emergency management official. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"A follow-up test is called for and that's what we've advocated." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Sutton said the fact the majority of fish testing positive for strontium 90 had been found 30 miles away in the control group only muddies the results more. As part of its investigation into groundwater contamination at Indian Point, Entergy has increased its monitoring of aquatic life in the Hudson River, including bass, perch, sunfish and eel. The strontium 90 has shown up in the fleshy parts of the fish, not the bones, which surprised regulators. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Plant officials have acknowledged that a tritium leak discovered in August 2005 and strontium leaks discovered in February have likely reached the river, though they and NRC regulators have maintained there is no threat to worker safety or public health. Jim Steets, Indian Point's spokesman, said state Department of Environmental Conservation officials have been tracking strontium levels in fish around the nuclear plant, and strontium has shown up in fish at these levels before, levels he said were more background readings than a real cause for concern. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Attempts to reach the state DEC yesterday were unsuccessful because the offices were closed for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said his agency was interested in reviewing state data for the area for comparisons while awaiting more sampling data.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"We don't consider this a serious situation," Sheehan said. "We would very much like to gather some more information before we make any judgments on this. There are several issues that may call these results into question." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Opponents of the nuclear plant said yesterday that they want to see more research done as well, to determine how significant the impact on the river is from the leaks. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"If the levels of strontium 90 in Hudson River fish are indeed above background levels, this confirms Riverkeeper's worst fears," said Lisa Rainwater, the Indian Point campaign coordinator for Riverkeeper. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Based on the preliminary data, the leak is likely affecting the entire Hudson River ecosystem. This is a black eye for Entergy and their management of high-level radioactive waste." </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext><a href="http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_strontium90inHudson.html" target="_blank">http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_strontium90inHudson.html</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-65369680296838561542008-05-10T11:12:00.001+02:002008-05-10T11:12:55.476+02:00Radioactive Rivers - The Brenk Report<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>SA Radioactive Stream - 400,000 At High Risk</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By Adriana Stuijt</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Exclusive to Rense.com</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.rense.com/general77/sarad.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rense.com/general77/sarad.htm</a></span><br> <br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOUTH AFRICA -- Elise Tempelhoff, an investigative journalist at the Afrikaans-language newspaper Beeld in Johannesburg, South Africa, has published details of a restricted scientific German report which has found that more than 400,000 people living along a 100-km stretch of the Wonderfontein Spruit in Gauteng province are being seriously contaminated by, among others, dangerously high levels of radioactive radium-pollutants including lead and radioactive polonium - similar to the substance which had killed former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in London on November 23, 2006.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>This lethal pollution comes from Harmony Gold Mines, the fifth-largest producer of gold in the world, and which also produces uranium as a byproduct of its gold-mining operations. More than 400,000 people, their livestock and crops rely on water from this South African stream which has now been found so dangerously polluted.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The report by a group of German physicists headed by Dr Rainer Barthel stressed that there was ' no natural water in the whole area that was safe for use by humans, animals or plants - ' adding that the livestock of the subsistence-farmers living along this stream, are also stirring up the radioactive mud, thus endangering people even more -- and were at particularly high risk. People should not eat any meat from this livestock, drink any of its milk, nor consume any of the crops irrigated with this dangerously polluted water...</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>According to Barthel 's report, the water from the Wonderfontein Spruit, used to irrigate the crops, had absorbed polonium and lead, the radioactive by products of uranium and radium. More than 400,000 people live in the area ranging from the towns of Randfontein, Bekkersdal, Carletonville, Westonaria, Khutsong and Welverdiend, their livestock drinks from the river and their crops are irrigated from it.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Barthel was prevented from delivering two speeches from the report at the Environmin 2007 conference at the Pilanesberg nature reserve two weeks ago. He had to withdraw these speeches at short notice. These two excerpts had by then already been included in the literature distributed at the conference and were obtained by the Beeld journalist.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>International experts say people who eat or drink these products could suffer liver or kidney failure or get cancer. It could also hamper children's growth and cause mental disability. German physicists working with Dr Rainer Barthel from BS Associates warn that the water from the Wonderfontein Spruit, which was used to irrigate the crops, had absorbed polonium and lead, the radioactive byproducts of uranium and radium. Cattle also contaminated</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Cattle drinking from the Wonderfontein Spruit that churned up the uranium-rich mud, were also contaminated by these radioactive pollutants. Their meat and milk would also probably be poisonous. This report by the Germans, known as the Brenk report, was compiled on request of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), who refused to make the contents known for the past three months. Beeld, the hard-hitting Afrikaans-language newspaper, had obtained excerpts from the report. Natural water sources unsafe</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Barthel and his co-authors came to the conclusion in the report that the land in this area - where more than 400 000 people live in Randfontein, Bekkersdal, Carletonville, Westonaria, Khutsong and Welverdiend - was seriously polluted by overflow from sludge dams during 100 years of mining.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>People in towns in this area received their drinking water piped in from Rand Water Company, but many tens of thousands of people on the farms and in the squatter-camps along its banks rely wholly on water from Wonderfontein Spruit.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Sandy Carroll, who was recently appointed environmental manager at Harmony Gold Mines, told Beeld newspaper that admittedly, 'the mining groups were informed about the dangers indicated in the report.'[ She said Harmony 'was talking to NNR and they were together seeking solutions. '</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The West Rand district municipality planned to erect notices warning people along the Wonderfontein Spruit (which runs for 100km) not to use the water. Carroll replied in an e-mail to Beeld's enquiries: "Alternative water sources will be suggested."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The report stressed that there was no natural water in the whole area that was safe for use by humans, animals or plants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mariette Lieffering, an environmental activist who established the Public Environmental Arbiters (PEA), said said she had just written to the Human Rights Commission of South Africa to step in. A cabbage that was irrigated with water from the Wonderfontein Spruit catchment area and which was analysed by Dr Francois Durand, zoology lecturer at the University of Johannesburg, was found to contain 153 times more aluminium, 680 times more iron, 590 times more manganese, 980 times more vanadium that was recommended for human and also had too much zinc.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>LINKS:</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Beeld report on radioactive poisoning:</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext><a href="http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News" target="_blank">http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News</a></span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>/0,,2-7-1442_2156238,00.html</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Harmony Gold Mines in SA:</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext><a href="http://www.harmony.co.za/" target="_blank">http://www.harmony.co.za/</a></span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Russian poisoning:</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2090034,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2090034,00.html</a></span><br> <br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.rense.com/general77/sarad.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rense.com/general77/sarad.htm</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-33800728495437172752008-05-10T11:11:00.001+02:002008-05-10T11:12:27.838+02:00Alarm Spreads As Gold Mines Poison Rivers<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Dec 3, 2007, 2007 (IPS/GIN via COMTEX) — Gold-mining companies operating to the west of Johannesburg, South Africa, stand accused of contaminating a number of water sources with radioactive pollutants.</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>One case involves the Wonderfontein Spruit — a stream that runs 90 kilometers from the outskirts of Johannesburg to the southwest past the towns of Krugersdorp, Bekkersdal, Carletonville and Khutsong, before flowing into the Mooi River near Potchefstroom.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mariette Liefferink, an environmental activist, blames the mines for the high concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, cobalt and zinc in the waters of the “spruit” (watercourse). She is particularly troubled by the levels of uranium, which gives off radioactive byproducts such as polonium and lead.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“The Wonderfontein Spruit is of major concern to us because every year the gold mines discharge 50 metric tons of uranium into the receiving watercourse. The Water Research Commission has found that there are approximately 1,100 milligrams per kilogram of uranium in the upper Wonderfontein Spruit and 900 milligrams per kilogram in the lower Wonderfontein Spruit area.” </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Government bodies have commissioned several studies to ascertain the gravity of the water pollution in the Wonderfontein Spruit. The most recent study, known as the Brenk report, was commissioned by the National Nuclear Regulator — a governmental body set up to monitor and regulate the production and use of nuclear materials — and compiled under the direction of German physicist Rainer Barthel.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Initially the government was so embarrassed by the Brenk report that the National Nuclear Regulator refused to release it to the public. Barthel was due to present his findings to the Environmin 2007 conference July 24-25, so organizers of this event were told to withdraw his invitation.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>When the Brenk Report was eventually made public in August, it resulted in a number of contradictory messages.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Harmony Gold — the world’s fifth largest gold producer, and one of the mines responsible for the uranium discharge — relayed to farmers on its lands a directive from the National Nuclear Regulator saying that livestock may not consume water from the Wonderfontein Spruit.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The report said water in the river had absorbed polonium and lead. Barthel also noted in the study that there was no natural water in the area that was safe for use by humans, animals or plants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Lindiwe Hendricks said in a written response to a question posed in parliament that none of the 47 samples from the Wonderfontein Spruit exceeded the National Nuclear Regulator regulatory limit for public exposure. “The use of this water is therefore safe for drinking purposes, but it should be borne in mind that the water is raw or untreated river water that has not been treated to potable drinking water standards,” Hendricks said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>This assurance came despite her acknowledgement, in the same response, that “elevated levels of radioactive contamination have been detected in the sediments of dams and weirs along the river. This may pose potential problems should it be ingested by livestock churning up the sediments.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The chief executive of the National Nuclear Regulator, Maurice Magugumela, has made an effort to quell public fears over this situation, saying that the poisoned water and sediments posed “no cause for concern.” </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://angryscientist.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/mining-industry-malarkey/" target="_blank">http://angryscientist.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/mining-industry-malarkey/</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-63833235768464248532008-05-10T11:11:00.000+02:002008-05-10T11:12:12.057+02:00Wonderfontein Radioactive Water, the Price of Gold<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Steven Lang</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Johannesburg</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/" target="_blank">http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/</a></span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Large gold-mining companies operating to the west of South Africa's commercial centre, Johannesburg, stand accused of contaminating a number of water sources with radioactive pollutants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>One case involves the Wonderfontein Spruit ("water course", in Afrikaans): a stream that runs 90 kilometres from the outskirts of Johannesburg to the south-west past the towns of Krugersdorp, Bekkersdal, Carletonville and Khutsong, before flowing into the Mooi River near Potchefstroom.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mariette Liefferink, an environmental activist, blames the mines for the high concentrations of heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper cobalt and zinc in the waters of the spruit. She is particularly troubled by the levels of uranium, which gives off radioactive by-products such as polonium and lead.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"The Wonderfontein Spruit is of major concern to us because every year the gold mines discharge 50 tonnes of uranium into the receiving water course. The Water Research Commission (a parastatal research body) has found that there are approximately 1,100 milligrammes per kilogramme of uranium in the upper Wonderfontein Spruit, and 900 milligrammes per kilogramme in the lower Wonderfontein Spruit area."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Heavy metal concentrations are higher in the upper reaches of the river because a large percentage of the pollutants sink into the sediments as water flows downstream. This means that under normal circumstances water tests in lower areas do not cause great concern, and users may feel that they are not under threat from heavy metal contaminants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>If, however, the sediments are in any way disturbed -- by cattle, or children playing in the river, for example -- the uranium can easily be dislodged from the sediments and reabsorbed into the water.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mixed messages</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Government bodies have commissioned several studies to ascertain the gravity of the water pollution in the Wonderfontein Spruit. The most recent study, known as the Brenk report, was commissioned by the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) -- a governmental body set up to monitor and regulate the production and use of nuclear materials -- and compiled under the direction of German physicist Rainer Barthel.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Initially government was so embarrassed by the Brenk report that the NNR refused to release it to the public, and as Barthel was due to present his findings to the Environmin 2007 conference on Jul. 24-25, organisers of this event were told to withdraw his invitation.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>When the Brenk Report was eventually made public in August, it resulted in a number of contradictory messages.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Harmony Gold -- the world's fifth largest gold producer, and one of the mines responsible for the uranium discharge -- relayed to farmers on its lands a directive from the NNR saying that livestock may not consume water from the Wonderfontein Spruit.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The report said that water in the river had absorbed polonium and lead. Barthel also noted in the study that there was no natural water in the whole area that was safe for use by humans, animals or plants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Lindiwe Hendricks said in a written response to a question posed in parliament that none of the 47 samples from the Wonderfontein Spruit exceeded the NNR regulatory limit for public exposure. "The use of this water is therefore safe for drinking purposes, but it should be borne in mind that the water is raw or untreated river water that has not been treated to potable drinking water standards."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>This assurance came despite her acknowledgement, in the same response, that "Elevated levels of radioactive contamination have been detected in the sediments of dams and weirs along the river. This may pose potential problems should it be ingested by live-stock churning up the sediments."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The chief executive of the NNR, Maurice Magugumela, has made an effort to quell public fears over this situation, saying that the poisoned water and sediments posed "no cause for concern."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In addition, the city council of Potchefstroom has gone to great lengths to assure its residents that the city's drinking water is safe. Potchefstroom sources much of its water from the Boskop dam which is partly fed by the Wonderfontein Spruit.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Treated water from the Boskop and Potchefstroom dams are of high quality especially regarding its heavy metal and uranium content," said mayoral spokesman Kaizer Mohau, in a statement.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There is no reason to doubt Mohau's statement, which must certainly comfort city residents who drink tap water.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But it will do little for the estimated 150,000 people living in impoverished settlements along the Wonderfontein Spruit's banks. They may have no choice but to drink untreated water from the river.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Acid mine drainage</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Gold mines are also finding themselves in the dock over acid mine drainage, another means by which heavy metals are being released into the environment.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mining operations expose heavy metals and sulphur compounds that have been locked away in the ground. Rising ground water then leaches these compounds out of the exposed earth, resulting in acid mine drainage that can continue to pollute the environment decades after mines have been closed down.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In 2002, acidic water began decanting out of a disused mine on Randfontein Estates about 42 kilometres south-west of Johannesburg. The property belonged at that time to Harmony Gold. In terms of South Africa's National Water Act the owner of land is accountable for the quality of the water flowing out of that ground.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>While some of this acidic water was produced by Harmony's own operations, a large proportion was generated by its competitors.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mining companies extracting ore in the Witwatersrand area, to the east and west of Johannesburg, have created a 300 kilometre labyrinth of interlinking passages, according to the 'Water Wheel' magazine (Jan./Feb. 2007 issue).</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The companies have to work together to make sure their respective operations are not flooded out; this means that in some cases even disused mines have to be pumped dry to ensure the viability of a neighbouring shaft.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Water coming out of the disused mine in Randfontein could not simply be channelled into the nearest river because it was far too acidic and could have had serious consequences for the environment.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>As an emergency measure, Harmony fed the water into Robinson Lake, at that time a popular recreational area where fishing was a favourite pastime. Today the lake has very high levels of uranium and a pH level of 2.2, which makes it as acidic as lemon juice and completely incapable of sustaining any life forms.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The NNR measured in the water a uranium concentration of 16 milligrammes per litre, obliging it to declare Robinson Lake a radiation area.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Harmony Gold has spent more than 14 million dollars on capital and operational expenses over the last five years to treat the acidic water emerging from disused mines. An additional 200,000 dollars is spent every month to continue with the treatment processes: in its 'Sustainable Development Report 2007' the company claims that it ". . . treats the water to acceptable standards given the current treatment technologies available."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>What Harmony Gold finds acceptable, however, may be less so to environmentalists.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/" target="_blank">http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/</a></span><br> <br> <br> </span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-27821347311277956382008-03-03T10:36:00.001+02:002008-03-03T10:36:22.266+02:00Enough of Uranium says Froneman<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Enough was enough, says Froneman</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningmx.com/energy/952794.htm" target="_blank">http://www.miningmx.com/energy/952794.htm</a> </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Allan Seccombe</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Posted: Thu, 21 Feb 2008</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>[miningmx.com] -- IT was time to move on, and time for a change because a chief executive should only be in the position for five to seven years, said Neal Froneman, who suddenly and unexpectedly quit his position as the head of Uranium One on Thursday.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Froneman, who spent the five years building Uranium One from scratch, announced his resignation at the same time the company issued a second downward revision of uranium production targets in four months because of problems in South Africa and Kazakhstan.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium One shares fell hard in South Africa on news of Froneman’s departure and the production revision, wiping out some R5.5bn in market capitalisation. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The latest reverse in fortunes for Uranium One played no role in his decision, Froneman said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“Uranium One has moved into a very different phase. There’s going to be a lot more focus on operational issues in coming years and it is an opportune time for me to move on,” Froneman told Miningmx in an interview.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“I’ve had a very difficult, but exciting five years. It gets to a point where enough is enough," he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“I left of my own accord. I could have stayed on, but I’ve always said the appropriate tenure for a CEO is five to seven years,” he said, adding he has offered his services as a consultant to Uranium One, which had aspirations to challenge Cameco for the position as number one uranium producer.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Jean Nortier, a company stalwart who is filling the CEO position in the interim, suggested the ongoing problems at the Dominion mine in South Africa could have been one of the causes to prompt Froneman's departure.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"The issue of Dominion raised a lot of tensions internally and it's not nice when an operations doesn't function optimally. You not only have to deal with staff working longer hours, but you also have the difficulties of the promises you made to the market," Nortier told Miningmx.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Neal's decision was very quick otherwise we would have put in place a proper succession plan. It was a pretty big surprise," he said. Asked whether his departure could have been better planned, leaving a succession strategy in place, Froneman said there was a lot of talent in the company. “I think there’s good succession in place in the company,” he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“It’s very difficult to prepare the market for a change,” he said, arguing that by telling the market in advance he was leaving it could have built up an overhang of shares. “Either I could have told the market well ahead of time that I was leaving, but that creates its own longer-lasting damage, or I could just get to the point and leave,” he said. “At executive level, you should just resign and move on.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Froneman is going to take a break of month or more before devoting his attention to Aflease Gold, a company majority held by Uranium One and one which has long headed as CEO.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“There’s always sadness in leaving behind something you’ve worked so hard to build, but I’m very proud of what’s been achieved. I’ve mixed feelings. I’m happy to be getting into something new,” he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The first thing he’d like to do is take the company to an offshore listing, most likely to be on a North American bourse, before looking at mergers and acquisitions.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There needs to be more liquidity in Aflease Gold shares, and while he says he’s not expecting Uranium One to completely exit its holding, Froneman would like to see more Aflease Gold shares released for the retail market.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There are mounting challenges in operating a mining company in South Africa, with the power shortages and the government's approach to enforcing safer working conditions on mines being just two of these, he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“If you talk to any mining company in South Africa at the moment you will hear they are operating under ridiculous conditions. The power outages have having a bigger impact than is being realised in the market,” Froneman said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The Department of Minerals and Energy’s approach of temporarily shutting down shafts when there’s a death on a mine is counterproductive, he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“People react very badly when they’re put under pressure from a safety point of view,” he said. “The big stick approach doesn’t work. It’s been tried before and didn’t work.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Once he’s achieved what he wants to at Aflease Gold, most likely when its growth aspirations have been met, he will move on to something else. “I’m at that stage in my life where I’m looking at other options, but there’s nothing planned.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>********************************************************************************************</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Froneman says Dominion a solid asset as Uranium One continues its slide </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=127674" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=127674</a></span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By: Matthew Hill</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 22 Feb 08 - 16:44</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>While distressed uranium-miner Uranium One's stock continued its downward spiral on Friday, shedding a further 15%, questions had been raised about the legitimacy of its Dominion Reefs Uranium Mine, near Klerksdorp, after 2008 production forecasts were slashed by one-quarter.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, Neal Froneman, who suddenly stepped down as Uranium One CEO on Thursday, said he continued to believe that the project was solid.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"I am still of the view that Dominion is a solid asset," he told Mining Weekly Online in a telephone interview.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium One was trading 15% down at around R32 a share by 11:00 in Johannesburg, before regaining some ground to close at just more than 10% down for the day.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Consultancy firm SRK Consultants compiled the competent persons report on the project in 2006, and the author who signed it off said that the firm had done it in compliance with international standards.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Partner and corporate consultant Roger Dickson said that SRK had no reason to believe that its report was not 100% accurate.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A media report on Friday said that Anglo American had compiled a report on Dominion ten years earlier, which reported a recovered grade that was less one-half of what SRK cited.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Dickson said that he had not seen such a report, nor was aware of the existence of one.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>He said he "found it quite hard to believe" that Anglo American would have spent R20-million on such a report, as the media report suggested.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-55971559737350897932008-02-05T12:55:00.000+02:002008-02-05T12:56:20.488+02:00Uranium faces continued bumpy ride<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Uranium faces continued bumpy ride<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Source and copyright: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=126044">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=126044</a><br> <br> By: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/author.php?u_id=132">Matthew Hill</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Published: 4 Feb 08 - 18:26<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The long-term fundamentals for the uranium price looked strong, with possible northward movement in the future, unless there was a worldwide recession, an expert on the nuclear fuel said on Monday. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The 2007 uranium spot price was plagued by volatility, shooting upward in the first half of the year to an all-time high of $138/lb, but then dropping nearly as quickly to trade at current levels of below $90/lb.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>These prices would remain volatile until a clear picture of the future in supply and demand emerged, US consultancy firm Ux Consulting president <strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Jeff Combs</span></strong> told his audience at the <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/page.php?rep_id=1400">Mining Indaba</a>, in Cape Town.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>But, while the spot price might be dropping, long-term contracts were holding steady, at levels around $95/lb.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The factors affecting uranium's outlook included the number of nuclear reactors that countries around the world were building, and the fact that a large amount of the fuel used in these was produced by a few "megaprojects", which made supply susceptible to disruption, Combs said.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>This was illustrated by flooding issues at mines like Canada's Cigar Lake project.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Some 50% of new uranium production would come out of Africa and Kazakhstan.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>"There should be no problem if this production comes through to meet demand," Combs said.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>However, he stated that these projects needed to be stepped up.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>"The production response has been anaemic, except for Kazakhstan," Combs said.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>On the demand side, there could be 86 countries producing nuclear electricity by 2050, which equated to 630 reactors that would need uranium to generate power.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>China had a big appetite for the fuel, but Russia and India also had significant nuclear ambitions. There were also a number of European countries looking to boost their nuclear power generation capacities.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Egypt had also said that it would build its first nuclear reactor, with Turkey planning two to four of its own.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The Ukraine also had plans to build 15 000 MW of nuclear power capacity by 2030, Combs said.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The South African government had also declared nuclear energy to be a big part of its new power-generation capacity build programme, with 25 000 MW additional nuclear power-generation capacity to come on stream by 2025.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Source and copyright: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=126044">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=126044</a><br> <br> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-32061608626252008492008-02-04T14:31:00.000+02:002008-02-04T14:32:02.772+02:00What to do with 'those dangerous uranium stones'<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>What to do with 'those dangerous uranium stones'</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By Helena Kingwill, free-lance journalist and independent film-maker</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Nuclear Energy is the government’s choice as “the cleaner, more eco-friendly” solution to South Africa’s increasing energy crisis. Industrialists promoting this technology use the argument that it is more environmentally friendly because in comparison to the monstrous CO2 emissions being pumped into our atmosphere by South Africa’s dinosaur coal powered power stations, the apparently slick, dinky high-tech Pebble Bed Modular reactors (PBMRs) look cleaner (in theory—they have not been built yet.) Even the controversial existing Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) at Koeberg doesn’t look like it’s contributing to global warming at the rate of her smoke-bellowing coal counterparts. However there is much more to the process of creating nuclear energy than meets the eye. The mining and processing of nuclear fuel does in fact create CO2 emissions, but that is almost beside the point. Media reports about global warming, important as they are, have given the spin doctors for nuclear energy a way to use the public’s own fear to pull wool over their eyes. What about the nuclear waste?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>If Eskom's nuclear plan goes ahead, tons of nuclear waste will be produced every year. A whole radioactive industry will be built around it, from the mining of uranium to the processing of the fuel, all of which produce forms of waste. Anything that comes into contact with radiation is regarded as nuclear waste. It all has to be transported along our roads to the SA’s main nuclear waste-dump – Vaalputs near Springbok, from the city highways to the slippery gravel tracks of Namaqualand, where it is very easy for trucks to overturn.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Components of spent nuclear fuel (High-Level Waste) remain toxic for millions of years. Although we have been making it for over 20 years, South Africa still has no official plan for the safe disposal of this waste. Billions of Rands have already been spent on developing the P.B.M.R. yet the safe disposal of the waste it will produce, not to mention the decommissioning of the actual plant, have not fully been accounted for. Obviously this is much longer than any company or government can account for.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>If this waste is buried, it could leak into the underground water and poison the ecosystem around it, spreading radiation like a cancer. The earth is constantly moving and shifting. According to paleontologist Dr. John Anderson, “continents drift at the rate of the growth of your fingernails.” One drop of nuclear waste can cause cancer, so by planting nuclear waste in the earth, we could be said to be planting a malignant tumor in the earth’s skin. This is the central metaphor of my documentary: “Buried in Earthskin” which has been screened at the Earthnotes Festival.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The community who are the focus of the film, and which the film constantly returns to, is a group of Namakhoi women whose husbands are workers at the nuclear waste dump Vaalputs in Namaqualand. They live in a village (Nourivier) about 100 km away from the waste dump but are extremely worried about the effects of the radiation on their health. Their greatest concern is that the nuclear waste could be seeping into the underground water supply. They are disappointed by false promises made by the apartheid government who deceived them into believing that the place was going to be a game reserve. They are surprisingly well informed about radiation and its possible effects on the environment and their health.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The Namakhoi people of Nourivier live in grass-domed homes and follow many old ways in their lifestyle. They are aware of which plants to pick for medicine and are very close to the earth. The women bake bread once a week in wood fired ovens made of clay. According to the Namaqualand Recreation and Education Centre (NAMREC) based in Springbok, although white farmers were moved off land near the dump, many "coloured" communities were not taken into account when the nuclear waste storage facility, Vaalputs, was planned. All around the world, the earth’s first peoples have been the most scarred victims of nuclear technology. In South Africa nuclear workers have suffered health problems due to being exposed to radiation, but have not been compensated due to the fact that they have not been able to prove, nor been in a position to sue or prove that their health problems are due to being exposed to radiation. “The distances are too large and the politics too big,’ one worker told me. This particular character, an ex-Vaalputs worker living in Nourivier, confided that he was never given the results of blood-tests taken one day. He felt that his body was un-naturally worn down by his work at the waste dump. (He died within a year of the interview.)</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In comparison to nuclear technology, the government has paid far less interest in researching sustainable renewable alternative technologies such as solar and wind power. The reason given for this is that they will not be as reliable for big industry as centralized power stations. If they were given a chance, researchers developing this technology could find ways to store the energy generated by solar and wind technologies. More focus should be put on ways to reduce our wasteful consumption of energy. (Recent loose screws at Koeberg plunged half the Cape into darkness last year and forced us into a new awareness regarding reducing our energy consumption.)</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Respected economist author and academic Patrick Bond puts us in the picture about the history of government spending with regards to energy, with the figures he has at his fingertips: “The problem of priorities appears to be getting worse, not better.” He said “Expenditure on renewable energy was less than 0.5% of the DME budget in 2002/03…. Indeed, perhaps the greatest waste remains in the area of nuclear research and development.”</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>He explains that historically the nuclear industry has always consumed more than its share of the national energy budget. Ironically it was started during the apartheid era, when the National Party secretly built 6 nuclear bombs. (These were officially dissembled when the A.N.C. came into power. However this new surge of interest in the technology makes one wonder if there may be a second agenda.)</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“First considered in the 1960s, South Africa’s nuclear industry began in 1974 with the construction of the Koeberg nuclear station“, Bond explains. “The plant was commissioned a decade later. Nuclear development consumed two-thirds of the DME’s annual budget but only generated about 3% of South Africa’s primary energy supply and 5% of electricity in 1997”, explains Bond. “Eskom has been working on the PBMR since 1993, and therefore has a strong financial interest in keeping the programme going”, he says.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>If only the present Government in its position of power on this decision about the future of our country’s energy sources would remember Nelson Mandela’s words when he spoke at the opening to the 5th session of the World Commission on the Ocean: "Our policy must rest on the solid moral foundation of dedication to the primacy of people and their long-term well being. We have to be on guard against temptations of short-term benefits and pressures from powerful forces at the expense of long-term interests of all. We cannot afford to bargain away the birthright of future generations."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The fate of future generations hangs in the balance, especially those poverty stricken communities living near the places where they will be mining, processing, burning and burying the waste from those “dangerous uranium stones’’ as Namakhoi elder, Oom Japie Dekeurs, calls them. Why not invest in even cleaner solar and wind energy projects which could be run by the communities themselves, generating revenue by selling excess power into the grid when weather is favourable, and creating far less hazardous employment for locals? Such decentralized projects would really bring power to the people thus preventing the burning of the last few trees and cutting down on lung diseases such as TB agitated by smoke, not to mention the tragic runaway fires that we see too often. Why I wonder, are we so stuck in the nuclear rut?</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>For more information about Buried in Earthskin, please contact Helena Kingwill at hdkingwill @ polka.co.za</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>About Buried in Earthskin:</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A young female journalist sets off on a road trip to Namaqualand to see where the nuclear waste is buried. She meets a group of Namakhoi women living near the nuclear dump. In an attempt to understand the government’s decision to invest in nuclear as apposed to renewable energy, Helena visits experts and Nuclear facilities all over South Africa in what becomes a spiritual as well as picturesque physical journey which takes place over two years.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Credits: Helena Kingwill 2004 South Africa 56min</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.dlist-benguela.org/Monthly_Newsletter/Newsletter_4/What_to_do_with_%27those_dangerous_uranium_stones%27/" target="_blank">http://www.dlist-benguela.org/Monthly_Newsletter/Newsletter_4/What_to_do_with_%27those_dangerous_uranium_stones%27/</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-26013492680168374262007-12-04T11:06:00.001+02:002007-12-04T11:06:53.874+02:00Ireland rejects uranium prospecting applications<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Ireland rejects uranium prospecting applications, signals 'wider policy decision'</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=122718" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=122718</a></span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By: Liezel Hill</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 3 Dec 07 - 21:38</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Ireland's Natural Resources Minister, Eamon Ryan, said on Monday that would not grant prospecting licenses to two companies which had applied for government permission to explore for uranium in the country.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The rejections signalled a "wider policy decision to prohibit such activity in Ireland", the Ministry said in a statement.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"I have decided...as Minister of Communcications, Energy & Natural Resources, I will not license any prospecting for uranium in Ireland."</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Nuclear generation of electricity is outlawed in Ireland, and Ryan said that it would be "hypocritical" to allow the mining of uranium for use in other countries.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"A prospecting license is the first step in the mining process. Granting a license carries an implicit policy agreement permitting its extraction should a viable prospect be discovered," he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"There are also significant environmental and public health concerns surrounding uranium mining, including contamination of ground and surface water supplies and radiation levels."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Spot uranium prices reached a record high of $138/lb earlier this year, helped, in part, by setbacks at Cigar Lake, a big new mine under construction in Canada, as well as output constraints at several other mines around the world.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Prices have since retreated somewhat, but Neal Froneman, who heads TSX- and JSE-listed Uranium One, told Mining Weekly Online last month that he expected uranium spot prices to touch new highs in the next year to 18 months.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=122718" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=122718</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-38126659709078569002007-10-17T18:16:00.000+02:002007-10-17T18:17:19.809+02:00Nuclear Emissions - Helen Caldicott<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>URANIUM MINING, MILLING, ENRICHING, ROUTINE RELEASES AND ACCIDENTAL RELEASES</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In the last chapter we discussed the medical, physical and biological characteristics of radiation.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In this chapter we will deal with the toxic radioactive legacy of each step of the nuclear fuel chain and the ecological and health impacts that this legacy bequeaths for this and all future generations</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>As we proceed through this chapter it will become more than obvious that the steps necessary for the production of nuclear power are so medically dangerous that the production, dissemination and distribution of nuclear materials should be subject to the same stringent taxes and restrictions as those placed on the global production of carbon dioxide, or, more obviously perhaps this technology should be abandoned immediately. In fact it beggars the mind that we have benignly allowed the nuclear industry to get away with its severely polluting technology for so long.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>As a physician I see the extraordinary efforts that I and my colleagues pursue to save the lives of our patients suffering from cancer and genetic diseases, let alone the amount of money allocated to find the cure to cancer. Yet here we have an industry that is actively promoting and incurring massive increases in these disastrous diseases, and society has not yet called their bluff. It is beyond time that we did.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium Mining</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium mining began in Europe in the late part of the 19th century when Madam Curie was refining pitch blend from uranium ore and discovering the wonders of radiation. Large scale mining commenced 65 years ago specifically to provide fuel for nuclear weapons. Much of the uranium was located on Navajo and Pueblo tribal land. The mining continued unabated for many decades thereafter and large numbers of Native Americans were employed as below-ground and above-ground miners. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>People who mine uranium below the ground are at great risk because they are exposed to a high concentration of radioactive gas called radon 220 which accumulates in the air of the mine. Radon is a daughter or decay product of uranium, and is a highly carcinogenic alpha emitter which if inhaled, deposits in the air passages of the lung irradiating cells which then become malignant. As a result, uranium miners have suffered from a very high incidence of lung cancer. One fifth to one half of the uranium miners in North America, many of whom were Native Americans, have died and are continuing to die of lung cancer. Records reveal that uranium miners in other countries including Germany, Namibia and Russia suffer a similar fate. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Another lethal uranium daughter is radium 226, which is an alpha emitter with a half life of 1600 years. This radioactive element is notorious in the medical literature. In the early part of the 20th century women painted numbers on watch dials with radium enriched paint, so that the numbers glowed in the dark with radioactivity. To make the figures precise, they licked the tips of the paint brushes thereby swallowing large amounts of radium. Because radium is a calcium analogue it deposited in their bones. Many of these women subsequently died of osteogenic sarcoma – a highly malignant bone cancer, affecting their facial bones while others succumbed to leukemia, because white blood cells which were mutated are manufactured in the bone marrow. Uranium miners are exposed to a similar risk because radium is an integral component of uranium dust in the mine. When they swallow the dust, radium is absorbed from the gut and deposits in their bones.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium ore also emits gamma radiation which emanates from the ore face, so the miners are also exposed to a constant whole-body radiation exposure (like X-rays) emitted by other uranium daughters, which irradiates their bodies and continuously exposes their testicles.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>As the uranium ore is mined, and the uranium is extracted, large quantities of radioactive dirt and soil are discarded and left lying in huge heaps adjacent to the mine exposed to the air and the rain. This material is called tailings. Most tailings in North America are situated on indigenous tribal land of the Navajo nation and the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico, and on the Serpent River First Nation in Ontario, Canada. Millions of tons of radioactive dirt constantly leak radon 220 into the air exposing the indigenous populations who live nearby in their pueblos and settlements. As they inhale the radon, many of these people have and are developing lung cancer.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Rain also leaches soluble radium 226 through the tailings piles into the underground water which often is the source of drinking water for these people. When radium enters streams and rivers it bio-concentrates thousands of times at each step in the food chain of the aquatic life and terrestrial plants. Because it is tasteless and odourless, people in these contaminated populations cannot tell whether they are drinking radioactive water, breathing radioactive air or eating fish or food containing radium 226 which induces bone cancer or leukemia. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Hundreds of mines and tailings heaps lie exposed to the air and wind on Navajo land. Thousands of Navajos are still affected by uranium induced cancers, and will continue to be so for thousands of years unless remediation takes place. In total 265 million tons of uranium tailings pollute the American South West. </span><br> <br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Ecological Racism</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There has never been any attempt by the government or the nuclear industry to clean up this massive radioactive pollution which contaminates tribal land. It would be hard to imagine that the nuclear industry would be permitted to leave millions of tons of radioactive tailings lying adjacent to the well-heeled town of New Canaan Connecticut or near the Rockefeller estate in the Adirondacks.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium Milling</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The US federal government covers the cost of milling uranium. The ore is crushed and chemically treated at the milling plant in the American South West where it is converted to yellow cake. As in the mining process, the waste ore is discarded on the ground. These mill tailings contain radium and a dangerous radioactive element called thorium – a uranium daughter and a high energy gamma emitter with a half life of 80,000 years. Thorium is used in colour television sets. Over the last 40 years over 100 million tons of mill tailings have accumulated in the American South West </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Human cost is again important in the energy discussion. To illustrate the dangers of loose unguarded nuclear material, in the mid 1960s, local contractors at Grand Junction in Colorado discovered acres of discarded mill tailings. Not knowing they were radioactive they used them for cheap landfill and concrete mix. Schools, hospitals, private homes roads, an airport and shopping mall were constructed from this material. In 1970, local pediatricians noticed an increased incidence of cleft lip, palate and other congenital anomalies amongst newborn babies born to parents who lived in these radioactive structures, which continually emitted gamma radiation and radon gas. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The EPA allocated monies to the University of Colorado Medial Center to study the correlation between the birth defects and the radioactive dwellings. However one year into the study, funds were abolished because, the government said, it had to save money for budgetary purposes. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium Enrichment</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>As described in the second chapter, the uranium 235 isotope is enriched from a low concentration of 0.7% to 3% for fuel in nuclear power plants. If uranium 235 is enriched above a concentration of 50% it can be used as nuclear weapons fuel. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Workers at all stages of the enrichment process are exposed to whole body gamma radiation from daughters in the uranium. But the most serious aspect of enrichment is the material that is discarded, and that is uranium 238. This is called “depleted uranium” (DU) because it has been depleted of its uranium 235. But it is not depleted radioactively.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>DU is lying around in hundreds of thousands of leaking disintegrating barrels at the enrichment facilities in Paducah Kentucky, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Portsmouth Ohio. At Padacah alone, some 38,000 cylinders of DU await disposal. DU has contaminated the ground water, forcing the government to provide alternative drinking water for the local residents. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But the Pentagon, in its wisdom has found a nifty use for this radioactive waste. Because uranium 238 is 1.7 times more dense than lead it has been found to be the ideal antitank weapon. When shot out of a cannon at great speed its ten pound mass develops great momentum, so the solid uranium antitank shell cuts through the steel on the other fellow’s tank like a hot knife through butter.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But DU has several unfortunate properties. It is pyrophoric which means that it bursts into flame upon impact and up to 80% disintegrates into finely powdered aerosol which is distributed to the four winds. It is radioactive, and it has a half life of 4.5 billion years</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Nevertheless, the Pentagon is very keen about this weapon. In the 1991 Gulf war invasion they used 360 tons of it in the form of antitank shells. In the 2002 invasion they already have deployed well over 2000 tons, in cities such as Baghdad where half the population of five million people is children who play in the burned out tanks and on the sandy dusty ground. Children are ten to twenty times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. My pediatric colleagues in Basra where this ordinance was used in 1991 report a seven fold increase in childhood cancer and a seven fold increase in gross congenital abnormalities.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Uranium is a heavy metal. It enters the body via inhalation into the lung or via ingestion into the GI tract. It is excreted by the kidney where, if the dose is high enough, it can induce renal failure. It can induce kidney cancer. As a calcium analogue, it lodges in bones where like plutonium, it causes bone cancer and leukemia. Last but not least it is excreted in the semen where it mutates genes in the sperm. This may be one of the causes of the huge increase in congenital disease reported in Basra.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Because of the infinitely long half-life of uranium 238, the food, the air and the water in the cradle of civilization have been forever contaminated. T</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In summary, the two gulf wars have been nuclear wars and people, particularly children are condemned to die of malignancy and congenital disease for ever more.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Other countries involved in uranium enrichment include Britain, China, Russia, Israel, Japan, Germany, Argentina, France, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Brazil and India. Any of these countries if they so desired could make nuclear weapons if they decided to enrich their uranium beyond 50%. America set the example and the world follows. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Fuel Fabrication.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>After milling, the uranium fuel is made into cylindrical ceramic pellets the size of a cigarette filter and placed in zirconium fuel rods, half and inch thick and twelve to fourteen feet long. Each rod contains at least 250 pellets. About 50,000 of these rods are then packed into the core of a thousand megawatt reactor within a cylindrical space, fourteen feet high and twenty feet in diameter. Fuel fabrication workers are once again exposed to gamma radiation emanating from the uranium as well as to radium radon gas and uranium dust. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>It Does Not Take An Accident </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Routine Releases </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Once the fuel in a nuclear reactor reaches critical mass, the high radiation ambiance causes uranium fuel to swell over time, pinhole breaks appear in the zirconium cladding and some faulty welds rupture in the fuel rods themselves releasing radioactive isotopes into the cooling water. In addition, the radiation emitted through the wall of the fuel rods activates water molecules and impurities in the water itself. For example, neutrons emitted from the fuel rods interact with water molecules to form tritium – a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The primary coolant - water which cools the reactor core thus becomes intensely radioactive.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>This thermally hot primary coolant is piped through a steam generator to heat the secondary cooling system. This secondary water is converted to steam which turns the generators to produce the electricity. The primary coolant is not supposed to mix with the secondary coolant but of course it does, allowing radiation to be released to the environment from this secondary system. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Because of these factors and many more to be described, a nuclear power plant cannot operate without routinely releasing radioactivity into the air and water.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Radioactive gases which leak from fuel rods are routinely released or “vented” into the atmosphere at every nuclear reactor. Before release they are temporarily stored to allow the short lived isotopes to decay and then released to the atmosphere through engineered holes in the reactor roof and from the steam generators. This process is called “venting”. About 100 cubic feet of radioactive gases are also released hourly from the condensers at the reactor. Planned ventings increase in frequency when the reactor shuts down due to mechanical malfunctions. Accidental ventings are not infrequent.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Planned “purges” when radioactive gases are actively flushed into the atmosphere by a fan, are officially permitted by the NRC so that utility operators can decrease the intensely radioactive environment into which maintenance workers must enter. Older reactors are allowed 22 purges per year during routine operation and 2 purges per year during cold shut-down. (Cold shut occurs when the fission reaction is stopped at the reactor and 30 tons of very radioactive fuel is removed and replaced by new fuel).</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Some of the more dangerous gases such as iodine 131 are usually trapped by filters, but not always. After the radioactive iodine is filtered, noble gases are routinely released. The nuclear industry argues that noble gases are chemically inert and therefore not capable of reacting biochemically in the body but they actually decay to daughter isotopes which themselves are chemically very reactive. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Noble gases have names that remind me of superman - xenon, argon, krypton. There are many varieties of these elements, some of which I will describe below. They are inhaled into the lung, particularly on a day when a meteorological inversion system causes the plume of radioactive gases to cling to the ground in a concentrated form. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Noble gases are high energy gamma emitters and they are readily absorbed from the lung, and enter the blood stream. Because they are very fat soluble, they tend to locate in the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, adjacent to the testicles and ovaries. There, they can induce significant mutations in the eggs and sperm of the people living adjacent to a reactor. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There have never been any epidemiological studies performed on the effects of exposure to the noble gases xenon and krypton. This is a grave deficit in the study of radiation biology because these gases are so ubiquitous around nuclear reactors, and are released with irresponsible impunity.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But many noble gases decay to other more dangerous isotopes, all of which have different metabolic pathways in the body. I will describe several of the more dangerous.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Xenon 137 with a half life of 3.9 minutes converts almost immediately to the notoriously dangerous cesium 137 with a half life of 30 years.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Krypton 90 , half life of 33 seconds, decays to rubidium 90, half life of 2.9 minutes, then to the medically toxic strontium 90, half life 28 of years. </span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Xenon 135 decays to cesium 135 with an incredibly long half life of 3 million years. Large amounts of xenon 133 are released at operating reactors, and although it has a relatively short half life of 5.3 days, it remains radioactive for 106 days.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Krypton 85 which has a half life of 10.4 years is a powerful gamma emitter.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Argon 39 has a 265 year half life.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Other dangerous noble gases include xenon 141, 143 and 144 which decay to cerium 141, 143 and 144. According to the National Council on Radiation protection (NCRP Report No 60) these three cerium isotopes which are beta emitters, are abundant products of nuclear fission reactions and have moderately long half lives. They bio-concentrate in the food chain and they irradiate the lung, liver, skeleton and gastrointestinal tract where they act as potent carcinogens. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A very important and little discussed isotope that is routinely emitted in large quantities into the air and waste water from nuclear power plants is tritium, (H3) a radioactive isotope of hydrogen which is composed of one proton and two neutrons. Tritium has a half life of 12.4 years and as such is radioactive for 248 years. H3 combines readily with oxygen to form tritiated water (H3O).</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Because it is impossible to remove tritium gas or tritiated water via filters, it is released continuously from reactors into the air and into lakes, rivers or seas – depending upon the reactor location. At least 1360 curies of tritium are released annually from each reactor. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Tritium gas is an interesting radioactive material which is utilized extensively in exit signs, runway signs at airports and on watch faces. But it is very reactive and tends to chemically bind with any material in which it is enclosed.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Tritiated water in particular is scary material. If one is immersed in a cloud of tritiated water on a foggy day near a reactor it is absorbed straight through the skin. It is also readily absorbed through the lungs and the GI tract. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Because tritium is a soft energy beta emitter, all the radiation it gives off is readily absorbed by the surrounding cells, hence it is biologically very mutagenic. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There is a vast literature on the biological effects of tritium demonstrating that it is highly mutagenic and causes chromosomal breaks and aberrations. In animal experiments it has been shown to induce a five fold increase in ovarian tumours in offspring of exposed parents while also causing testicular atrophy and shrinkage of the ovaries. It causes decreased brain weight in the exposed offspring and mental retardation with an increased incidence of brain tumours in some animals. Increased perinatal mortality was observed in these experiments as well as a high incidence of stunted and deformed foetuses.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>These effects were observed with surprisingly low concentrations of tritium, becoming three times more dangerous biologically at very low doses. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Tritium is also more dangerous when it becomes organically bound in molecules of food. As such it is incorporated into molecules including DNA within bodily cells. Chronic exposure to contaminated food causes 10% of the tritium to become organically bound within the body where it has a biological half life of 21 to 550 days - meaning that it can reside in the body from one year to twenty five years. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>When tritium is released to the environment it is taken up by plants and trees, partially incorporating into the ecosystem. Trees constantly transpire water vapour into the air it has been found that higher concentrations of tritium occur at night at breathing height in a forest that has incorporated tritium from a nearby reactor. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Let’s look again at the reactor.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The primary coolant water becomes extremely radioactive over time because the fuel rods leak. But to add fuel to the fire, the NRC is now allowing nuclear operators to retain uranium fuel in reactors for six years instead of three, lengthening the “burnup” time and substantially increasing the radiation levels in the fuel. As well the NRC is allowing a concentration of 4.5% uranium enrichment in the fuel instead of the previously approved maximum of 3.5%. This policy will also substantially increase the amount of radioactivity produced in the fuel rods.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The longer the time that the zirconium fuel cladding is exposed to high levels of radiation, and the higher the radiation levels, the greater the damage to the cladding subsequent leakage of radioactive materials into the primary coolant. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Radioactive corrosion or activation products not the result of uranium fission are produced as neutrons bombard the metal piping and the reactor containment. These elements which are powerfully radioactive include cobolt 60, iron 55, nickel 63, radioactive manganese, niobium, zinc and chromium. These materials slough off from the pipes into the primary coolant. Officially called CRUD (Chalk River Unidentified Deposits), this material is so intensely radioactive that it poses a severe hazard to maintenance workers and inspectors in certain areas of the reactor. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>According to David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, during shutdowns of reactors, the utilities not uncommonly flush out pipes, heat exchangers etc to remove highly radioactive CRUD build-up. Some of the CRUD is sent to radioactive waste dumps while some is released to the river, lake or sea on which the reactor is located. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The utilities admit that about 12 gallons of intensely radioactive primary coolant leaks daily into the secondary coolant via the steam generator through breaks in the pipes which is then released to the air. Some of these emissions are not even monitored. Likewise about 4,000 gallons of primary coolant water are intentionally released to the environment on a daily basis while some just leaks out unplanned. Many other emissions are simply not monitored. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In summary, radioactive gases, radioactive water, and CRUD particulates are intentionally released in daily batches, some in continuous streams and some during accidents. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Very radioactive primary coolant filters which frequently contain often contain intensely carcinogenic plutonium 238, 239, 241, americium and curium are shipped to nuclear waste facilities. Other dangerous elements in the filters include technetium 99 with a 211,100 year half life, iodine 129 with 15,700,000 year half life, carbon 14 with a 5700 year half life, nickel with a 100.1 year half life, and plutonium 241 with a 14.29 year half life. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Almost certainly these extraordinarily dangerous materials which are present in the primary coolant are escaping also in small quantities via the gaseous or liquid effluents into the environment at the nuclear power plant where they will bio-concentrate in the food chain, there to enter human bodies! </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>It is instructive to note that most of the data of radiation releases are not real measurements but are only estimates made by computerized mathematical models based on data generated from operational reactors, field and laboratory tests and plant specific design calculations.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Hence the nuclear industry is consistently guessing about its radioactive releases and has no real idea what specific isotopes are escaping from its radioactive mausoleums. They even admit that when their operating data is non existent, information that was confabulated – made up and drawn from laboratory and field tests and from engineering judgement! The reference for this material is dated 1985, the last such document published by the NRC available for the public scrutiny. Also note that this last document was published when reactors were relatively young and plagued with fewer corrosion and maintenance problems. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In other words, all the releases are done in secret, they are at best guesstimates, and the general public is kept in the dark. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Reports indicating gaseous and liquid radioactive releases vary enormously. For instance, the Millstone One reactor in Connecticut alone released a remarkable 2.97 million curies of noble gases in 1975, while Nine Mile Point One released 1.3 million curies in 1975. In 1974, the total release from all reactors in the US was 6.48 million curies while in 1993 it ranged between 96,600 curies to 214,000 curies. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Some years the nuclear industry is collectively releasing millions of curies annually. But remember that the nuclear industry claims it is “emission” free and they are gearing up to build a new generation of nuclear power plants!</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Lesson? Do not live near a nuclear power plant, otherwise you will never know what you are breathing, eating and drinking.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-7485121401331112932007-10-17T16:09:00.000+02:002007-10-17T16:10:03.010+02:00Niger's Uranium Rebelllion<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>David Lewis</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>17 September 2007 11:59</span><br> <br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Before the protest march, leaflets were scattered around town claiming Libyan troops had entered Niger to annex the country’s oil and land while French business people were busy looting the country of its meagre wealth.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>And when hundreds of Nigeriens took to the streets of their capital recently, they did more than accuse neighbouring Libya of backing rebels and call for Areva, a French nuclear firm mining uranium in the north of the country, to leave.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>They highlighted the complexity of Niger’s latest rebellion, which, though not even officially recognised by the government, has killed some 50 government soldiers, seen dozens more kidnapped and sparked a vast military operation in the north.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Seven months ago, the Niger Movement for Justice (MNJ), a Tuareg led rebel group, emerged from relative obscurity, launching strikes on military and strategic installations in remote corners of Niger’s desert north. Mainly targeting isolated military camps or patrols, the rebels have also attacked fuel depots and foreign mining interests.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In response, the army has sent 4 000 men to the region, where they operate under special powers granted by the president. The region of Agadez is now effectively under martial law as government forces continue their operations and impose strict controls on movements.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Since then, the MNJ has outlined its demands for justice and a fairer distribution of Niger’s modest wealth. But, for some, the complaints have fallen on deaf ears. “It is not about rebellion, but a bunch of bandit mercenaries who are benefiting themselves,” explained Nouhou Arzika, the head of the Citizens Movement, which organised the march.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Arzika believes that the MNJ is just another band of criminals involved in the Sahara’s lucrative trade in weapons, drugs and cigarettes. Areva’s involvement stems from its anger that the Nigerien government recently ended its 35 year monopoly on uranium, while Libya is hoping the rebellion will boost its claims to Niger’s oil, he says.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The government largely agrees, though not publicly in such vociferous terms, but many feel that it may be lending Arzika’s movement a helping hand.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Looking to profit from a resurgence in global interest in nuclear power, Niger has issued 90 exploration licences for uranium mines in the last year and hopes to double production by 2011. Among other issues, claims that some of Niger’s potential oil fields belong to Libya are at the heart of tensions with that country.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But the origins of the latest rebellion lie in previous Tuareg-led rebellions in the region, the first of which was in the 1960s in Mali. Violence broke out again in Mali and in Niger in the early 1990s as Tuaregs, who are divided up between the five countries that share the Sahara, accused their respective governments of marginalising them until peace deals silenced the guns in 1995.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, while they were then promised development, jobs and a greater say in the running of their part of the country, critics say violence has erupted because the deals were never fully implemented.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“The first rebellion was about reducing the gap between the north and the south,” says Iguelas Weila, president of Timidria, a Nigerien human rights organisation. “Peace deals were signed and people took jobs, but nothing has changed for people on the ground.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Initially without a clear set of goals, the MNJ has set up a regularly updated website that claims military successes and clarifies its strategies. “Our community has been persecuted. Our people haven’t been able to integrate into society,” complains MNJ political secretary Ahmed Akoli. “This is a situation that is imposed. We have an ideal. It is not just banditism.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>According to the UN, Niger remains the least developed country in the world. The literacy rate is estimated at about only 25% and with a population growing at 3%, there is increasing pressure on food security, even in a good year. Buyers from neighbouring Nigeria will often pay more for food, leading to food shortages. A recent increase of seven US cents in the price of a baguette prompted threats of a boycott of bakeries.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Some say the failure to implement past peace deals was as much a lack of ability as a lack of will and that Niger has been simply too poor to improve the lives of any of its people, not just the Tuaregs.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Now, though, internal politics are also at play. So far the government has pursued a policy of denying that there even is a rebellion; local broadcasters have been banned from holding live debates on the situation and foreign journalists are not allowed to travel to the region.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Analysts say Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja’s refusal to recognise the rebels and begin talks is compounded by the southern-dominated armed forces’ desire for a military solution and politicians’ reluctance to make further compromises.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=319475&area=/insight/insight__africa/" target="_blank">http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=319475&area=/insight/insight__africa/</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-46913492634426669902007-10-12T00:16:00.000+02:002007-10-12T00:17:33.781+02:00DEADLINE: Public Comment- Nuclear Energy Policy (Deadline 17 October 2007)<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Public Comment: Nuclear Energy Policy & Strategy for the Republic of South Africa<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The Department of Minerals and Energy has invited the public to make written submissions on the Nuclear Energy Policy and Strategy.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:#943634'>Deadline: 17 October 2007<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>For Attention</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>: The Director-General, Mr T Maqubela<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Postal Address</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>: Private Bag X59, Pretoria, 0001 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Or Fax</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>: 012 322 8570 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Or Email</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>: <a href="mailto:kedibone.theko@dme.gov.za">kedibone.theko@dme.gov.za</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>The document is available at <a href="http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/energy/nuclear/nuclear_energy_policy.pdf">HERE</a>, <a href="http://www.participation.org.za/docs/nuclearpolicy.pdf">HERE</a> or <a href="http://www.environment.co.za/legislation/nuclear_energy_policy.pdf">HERE</a> (PDF – Adobe Acrobat Format)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Contact Person:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>Mr T Maqubela 012 317 8340</span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-65526100609468856682007-10-08T14:54:00.000+02:002007-10-08T14:55:27.765+02:00Finally some sense - more African governments need to do this.<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'>DRC says Brinkley uranium venture 'won't progress'</span></b></span><b><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> </span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By: Liezel Hill</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 8 Oct 07 - 11:53</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has fuelled undercurrents of concern regarding the security of investments in the country, by announcing on Friday that a “questionable” mining joint venture between UK-based Brinkley Mining and the country’s Atomic Energy Authority (CGEA) “will not be progressing”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Brinkley said in July this year that it had signed an agreement with the CGEA to form a uranium exploration and development joint-venture company.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, in a statement released by public relations firm Bell Pottinger, the government said that it had determined that the agreement between Brinkley and the CGEA did not meet “the highest standards of integrity”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Further, the Commissaire General of the CGEA, Professeur Francois Lubala Toto, who negotiated and promoted the relationship with Brinkley Mining, and scientific director Professeur Leopold Makoko Moyengo, had been dismissed, and were currently the focus of a criminal investigation into the origins and terms of the agreement.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, in a statement also issued on Friday, Brinkley said that, while it had seen the press statement, it had not received any confirmation from the government of the DRC that the joint venture would be cancelled, and was seeking further clarification from the CGEA.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The DRC is conducting a review of about 60 existing mining contracts, and seeking to determine the validity of mining permits, in an attempt to “clean up” and “stabilise” its mining industry, which had been damaged by years of political instability.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“This [the Brinkley] enquiry has been in progress for some time. Just as my colleagues in the Ministry of Mines are moving to ensure that the mining industry is based on deals that have been fairly and properly transacted, so must we ensure that all nuclear issues are managed according to the law,” said DRC Minister for Science and Higher Education Sylvain Ngabu Chumu.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=118523" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=118523</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-9785496596698530582007-09-23T10:56:00.000+02:002007-09-23T10:57:17.270+02:00The African Nuclear Renaissance<div class=Section1> <div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><strong><span lang=EN-US>NUKES FOR AFRICA?</span></strong><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>If nuclear power is okay for South Africa, what about Zimbabwe? Or how about Rwanda, or Sierra Leone? If we are concerned about South Africa's ability to provide safe transport for nuclear fuel and waste, risks of sabotage and smuggling of nuclear materials - what about nations in Africa that have been torn by civil war? What about a neighbouring nation like Zimbabwe where inflation is now at 7000%? South Africans may not be aware that despite poverty and starvation, Zimbabwe is somehow still considering the hugely expensive option of nuclear power. How comfortable do South Africans feel about President Mugabe sitting with a potential finger on the nuclear button? <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The nuclear industry's multi-million dollar marketing programme (courtesy of the taxpayer) is making security in Africa about as predictable as a game of roulette. Spin the nuclear wheel of fortune and the dial could point to any one of a number of African countries, where despite a majority of impoverished people, certain governments have still managed to spend millions on weaponry.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Countries in Africa currently prospecting for uranium, include: <a name=DZ>Algeria</a>, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and of course, Zimbabwe.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>In Harare Zimbabwe's Minister of Energy Michael Nyambuya said nuclear energy was an option, although Zimbabwe still had to verify uranium deposits. The company responsible for prospecting uranium in Zimbabwe is Omegacorp Ltd.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><br> However, the same names pop up in each country - like Uramin, Brinkley Mining, Paladin and Areva. And while the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) has gone out of its way to reassure South Africans that an expanded nuclear programme in this country would be "safe", there is no way that they can make any guarantees concerning other nations. Despite this, Necsa and the fabled Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project intend - not only to manufacture nuclear reactors for South Africa - but also to export to the rest of Africa.</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>What about the Congo? This country's uranium mines produced material for the nuclear bombs the US dropped on Japan in World War II. They were officially closed since 2000, but illegal mining continued. Negotiations between the Congo and Brinkley Mining ground to a halt when the government official who set up the deal was imprisoned on charges of illegally selling uranium. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <p><span lang=EN-US>Meanwhile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is suspected of trying to reopen the Shinkolobwe uranium mine with help from North Korea. (In 2000, North Korea denied reports that it might be importing uranium from Congo to manufacture nuclear weapons). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span lang=EN-US>In Malawi, five Non-Governmental Organisations oppose uranium mining. They are extremely concerned about Malawi's natural heritage including treasures such as Sere Stream, Rukuru River and Lake Malawi. "This is an ecological disaster in waiting," they said. They were aware of the detrimental impact uranium mining would have on the health of workers and nearby communities, radioactive mine wastes, environmental damage and water contamination. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>In Niger, the uranium mining industry has been plagued by violence. In April 2007, heavily-armed men attacked a camp of uranium prospectors in northern Niger, killing a security guard and wounding three other people. Between 20-30 men from the Niger Movement for Justice raided French nuclear company Areva's camp. A Chinese employee from a uranium mining company was captured on July 6, 2007, by the same group. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Despite this, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has directed his energy ministry to establish a nuclear unit and in Zambia, Albidon Ltd and African Energy Resources Ltd have begun feasibility studies for uranium mining. The Omega Corporation wants to open up a uranium mine in Siavonga with an investment of 60 million US dollars and Equinox Minerals Ltd is considering extracting uranium from Lumwana in Zambia. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>In South Africa, Uramin Inc wants to expand into the Beaufort West area of the Karoo and produce 1745 tonnes of uranium oxide per year. Interestingly, an American comapny - SRK Consulting - was to conduct the feasibility study. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) granted Uranium One a new order mining right for the Dominion Uranium Project for 30 years covering an area of 14 000 hectares. First Uranium intends to produce 342 tonnes of uranium annually. This year, Uranium One produced ammonium diuranate (ADU) at Dominion Reefs Uranium Mine near Klerksdorp. This was shipped to the Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Nufcor SA) to be processed into U3O8 (yellow cake) in Nufcor's calcining plant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Just as there is no smoke without a fire, so there is no nuclear without the uranium fuel. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has been selling nuclear as a "sustainable" energy source, which it obviously is not. In fact uranium reserves will be depleted before coal reserves run out and the nuclear industry is even asking for coal to power its nuclear smelter at Pelindaba.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The nuclear industry has also been marketing itself as "safe" which again has proven to be a false claim. South Africa has one nuclear reactor at Koeberg and yet at least three men have been caught and stood trial for smuggling nuclear materials. If, as the South African government intends, the nuclear programme in this country expands to include 30 nuclear reactors for South Africa and others marketed to Africa, how much illegal nuclear trade will go on? <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>The construction of "dirty bombs" and international terrorism is only one of the deadly faces of the nuclear industry. Wherever uranium mines are sited, radioactive contamination spreads to soils and water sources and the dust is blown by the wind into the homes of nearby communities. Primary cancers are recognized as a health hazard of uranium mining and the inhalation of uranium dust is second only to tobacco smoking for producing lung cancers.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>From the cradle to the grave, the nuclear process is deadly. And for Africa - regarded as the cradle of life - this would seem to be the final desecration of a once beautiful and fertile continent.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Yours sincerely<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>INGELA RICHARDSON <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-61679120088810495392007-09-19T10:58:00.000+02:002007-09-19T11:07:09.887+02:00SA wants to enrich own uranium<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>SA wants to enrich own uranium</span></b></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>SOUTH Africa is holding off joining a US-led initiative to spread atomic power since it does not want to give up its right to enrich uranium.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica told reporters, at a meeting of the UN atomic agency, about Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s (GNEP) invitation accompanied by a declaration.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But “we got a bit concerned that there was some conflict of ... our national policy”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>South Africa was not among the 11 countries which joined the US-led GNEP in Vienna on Sunday – an effort to spread atomic power but not technology which can be used to make nuclear weapons. Uranium enrichment makes nuclear power reactor fuel but also atom bomb material.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>New members Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine joined the United States, China, France, Japan and Russia in signing a statement of principles for GNEP.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Sonjica said that under the GNEP “fuel would be distributed” to countries but South Africa “has taken a decision to beneficiate its minerals ... in other words to end-value the minerals in South Africa, and that would include uranium”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Exporting uranium only to get it back refined, instead of enriching it in SA, would be “in conflict with our national policy”, she said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Sonjica added that SA, which abandoned its nuclear weapons programme in the 1990s, including uranium enrichment, is now set to expand its civilian atomic power programme in order “to reduce the amount of CO2 our power plants emit”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>It is looking for international partners to develop uranium enrichment.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Nuclear power is seen by many as crucial in a world where energy demand is booming since it makes electricity without adding to the greenhouse gases which cause global warming. — Sapa-AFP </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.dispatch.co.za/2007/09/19/SouthAfrica/anuke.html" target="_blank">http://www.dispatch.co.za/2007/09/19/SouthAfrica/anuke.html</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-86110051334407925222007-09-18T08:54:00.000+02:002007-09-18T09:03:38.537+02:00Oz firm targets Namibian Uranium Project for 2011<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Oz firm targets 2011 start-up at Namibian uranium project</span></b></span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> </span></b><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>By: Matthew Hill</span></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 17 Sep 07 - 11:48</span></span><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br> <br> </span></span><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Australia-based uranium company Bannerman Resources said on Monday that a scoping study of its Namibian Goanikontes project indicated it to be economically viable, and that it could begin production in mid-2011, ranking the company within the top-ten nuclear fuel producers globally.</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The mining and milling would be similar to that of diversified giant Rio Tinto’s nearby Rossing mine, with a maximum production target of 4 000 t/y of U3O8, Bannerman said in an emailed statement.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Capital costs for the project were projected to be between $363-million and $400-million, depending on the plant design.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Bannerman said that it would complete a bankable feasibility study of the project by the end of next year.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>MD Peter Batten said that the project could see Bannerman rank within the top ten uranium producers in the world “almost immediately”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=116968" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=116968</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-82409947218633461702007-09-18T08:53:00.000+02:002007-09-18T09:02:44.328+02:00DRC minister says Brinkley Uranium deal not valid<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>DRC minister says Brinkley Uranium deal not valid</span></b></span><b><span style='font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> </span></b><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>By: Reuters</span></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 17 Sep 07 - 17:28</span><br> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Congo's deputy mines minister said on Monday a uranium prospecting deal between UK-based Brinkley Mining and Congo's nuclear agency had "no value or validity", but both parties to the deal insisted it stood.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>In July, Brinkley announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Democratic Republic of Congo to create a joint venture with the vast central African nation's atomic energy agency to explore for, mine, and export uranium.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported the deal could be under threat from a review by Congo of mining practices because of the pivotal role played in setting up the accord by a convicted fraudster who has fallen foul of the government.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"There is no ministerial approval of this deal. So it has no value or validity for the government," Congo's Deputy Mines Minister Victor Kasongo told Reuters.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Reacting to the Sunday Times report, Brinkley issued a statement via the London Stock Exchange on Monday saying its board was confident the agreements were "legally binding and will deliver value for shareholders".</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Brinkley Africa Ltd, a subsidiary of Brinkley Mining, signed the deal with the blessing of Sylvanus Bonane, then minister of scientific reasearch -- a post which has authority over the country's General Commission for Atomic Energy.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Kasongo said Bonane, who was fired from the government just days after the deal was announced, had no authority to approve it.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"This was a commercial company that hid behind a research company to negotiate a commercial deal. It doesn't exist for us," Kasongo said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A new minister of scientific research has not yet been named.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>However, Francois Lubala Toto, the head of Congo's nuclear energy agency, the CGEA, told Reuters there was nothing wrong with the deal and that it was awaiting signature by President Joseph Kabila.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Everything involving the negotiation of exploration, exploitation, and treatment of uranium falls under the responsibility of the agency," Toto said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"It's not until we make a request for a mining permit that the ministry of mines is implicated."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By 1250 GMT, Brinkley shares were down 4 pence, or 23.88 percent, at 12.75 pence, after falling as low as 12 pence in earlier trade.</span><br> <br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=117004" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=117004</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-88169186440482701532007-09-17T17:55:00.000+02:002007-09-17T18:08:05.030+02:00Reason not to glow about Nuclear<div class="Section1"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="spnmessagetext"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10;color:midnightblue;" >Reasons Not to Glow</span></span><span style=";font-family:";font-size:10;color:midnightblue;" ><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">On not jumping out of the frying pan into the eternal fires</span><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">by Rebecca Solnit</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Chances are good, gentle reader, that you are going to have to sit next to someone in the coming year who will assert that nuclear power is the solution to climate change. What will you tell them? There’s so much to say. You could be sitting next to someone who hasn’t really considered the evidence yet. Or you could be sitting next to scientist and Gaia theorist James Lovelock, a supporter of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy™, which quotes him saying, “We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available, energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.”</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">If you sit next to Lovelock, you might start by mentioning that half the farms in this country had windmills before Marie Curie figured out anything about radiation or Lise Meitner surmised that atoms could be split. Wind power is not visionary in the sense of experimental. Neither is solar, which is already widely used. Nor are nukes safe, and they take far too long to build to be considered readily available. Yet Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth Catalog fame, has jumped on the nuclear bandwagon, and so has Greenpeace founding member turned PR flack Patrick Moore. So you must be prepared.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Of course the first problem is that nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything. A bicycle is a better answer to a Chevrolet Suburban than a Prius is, and so is a train, or your feet, or staying home, or a mix of all those things. Nuclear power plants, like coal-burning power plants, are about retaining the big infrastructure of centralized power production and, often, the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power. But this may be too complicated to get into while your proradiation interlocutor suggests that letting a thousand nuclear power plants bloom would solve everything.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Instead, you may be able to derail the conversation by asking whether they’d like to have a nuclear power plant or waste repository in their backyard, which mostly they would rather not, though they’d happily have it in your backyard. This is why the populous regions of the eastern U.S. keep trying to dump their nuclear garbage in the less-populous regions of the West. My friend Chip Ward (from nuclear-waste-threatened Utah) reports, “To make a difference in global climate change, we would have to immediately build as many nuclear power plants as we already have in the U.S. (about 100) and at least as many as 2,000 worldwide.” Chip goes on to say that “Wall Street won’t invest in nuclear power because it is too risky. . . . The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island taught investment bankers how a two-billion-dollar investment can turn into a billion-dollar clean-up in under two hours.” So we, the people, would have to foot the bill.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Nuclear power proponents like to picture a bunch of clean plants humming away like beehives across the landscape. Yet when it comes to the mining of uranium, which mostly takes place on indigenous lands from northern Canada to central Australia, you need to picture fossil-fuel-intensive carbon-emitting vehicles, and lots of them—big disgusting diesel-belching ones. But that’s the least of it. The Navajo are fighting right now to prevent uranium mining from resuming on their land, which was severely contaminated by the postwar uranium boom of the 1940s and 1950s. The miners got lung cancer. The children in the area got birth defects and a 1,500 percent increase in ovarian and testicular cancer. And the slag heaps and contaminated pools that were left behind will be radioactive for millennia.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">If these facts haven’t dissuaded this person sitting next to you, try telling him or her that most mined uranium—about 99.28 percent—is fairly low-radiation uranium-238, which is still a highly toxic heavy metal. To make nuclear fuel, the ore must be “enriched,” an energy-intensive process that increases the .72 percent of highly fissionable, highly radioactive U-235 up to 3 to 5 percent. As Chip points out, four dirty-coal-fired plants were operated in Kentucky just to operate two uranium enrichment plants. What’s left over is a huge quantity of U-238, known as depleted uranium, which the U.S. government classifies as low-level nuclear waste, except when it uses the stuff to make armoring and projectiles that are the source of so much contamination in Iraq from our first war there, and our second.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was supposed to be one alternative to lots and lots of mining forever and forever. The biggest experiment in reprocessing was at Sellafield in Britain. In 2005, after decades of contamination and leaks and general spewing of horrible matter into the ocean, air, and land around the reprocessing plant, Sellafield was shut down because a bigger-than-usual leak of fuel dissolved in nitric acid—some tens of thousands of gallons—was discovered. It contained enough plutonium to make about twenty nuclear bombs. Gentle reader, this has always been one of the prime problems of nuclear energy: the same general processes that produce fuel for power can produce it for bombs. In India. Or Pakistan. Or Iran. The waste from nuclear plants is now the subject of much fretting about terrorists obtaining it for dirty bombs—and with a few hundred thousand tons of high-level waste in the form of spent fuel and a whole lot more low-level waste in the U.S. alone, there’s plenty to go around.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">By now the facts should be on your side, but do ask how your neighbor feels about nuclear bombs, just to keep things lively.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">The truth is, there may not be enough uranium out there to fuel two thousand more nuclear power plants worldwide. Besides, before a nuke plant goes online, a huge amount of fossil fuel must be expended just to build the thing. Still, the biggest stumbling block, where climate change is concerned, is that it takes a decade or more to construct a nuclear plant, even if the permitting process goes smoothly, which it often does not. So a bunch of nuclear power plants that go online in 2017 at the earliest are not even terribly relevant to turning around our carbon emissions in the next decade—which is the time frame we have before it’s too late.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">If you’re not, at this point, chasing your poor formerly pronuclear companion down the hallway, mention that every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle is murderously filthy, imparting long-lasting contamination on an epic scale; that a certain degree of radioactive pollution is standard at each of these stages, but the accidents are now so many in number that they have to be factored in as part of the environmental cost; that the plants themselves generate lots of radioactive waste, which we still don’t know what to do with—because the stuff is deadly . . . anywhere . . . and almost forever. And no, tell them, this nuclear colonialism is not an acceptable sacrifice, since it is not one the power consumers themselves are making. It’s a sacrifice they’re imposing on people far away and others not yet born, a debt they’re racking up at the expense of people they will never meet.</span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Sure, you can say nuclear power is somewhat less carbon-intensive than burning fossil fuels for energy; beating your children to death with a club will prevent them from getting hit by a car. Ravaging the Earth by one irreparable means is not a sensible way to prevent it from being destroyed by another. There are alternatives. We should choose them and use them. </span><br /><br /><span class="spnmessagetext">Source: <a href="http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/316/" target="_blank">http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/316/</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div>stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-48341421181631215822007-09-11T09:33:00.000+02:002007-09-11T09:41:16.552+02:00NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORT ROUTES<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>NUCLEAR FUEL TRANSPORT ROUTES</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>A number of people in South Africa have been very concerned that the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA)has indicated no specific transport routes showing where enriched uranium, nuclear fuel and nuclear waste will be moved through in this country.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>We are hoping that NECSA or the NNR - as a concerned independent body - will be able to supply information concerning these transport routes, seeing as a Record of Decision has already been signed on the nuclear smelter at Pelindaba and many people are still unaware as to the method of transport and direction that will be used.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>So far it seems that NECSA has been rather vague - and indicated that materials will move from Durban (presumably from the port) through to Pelindaba and from Pelindaba to Koeberg. Then another route would obviously be from Koeberg to Vaalputs waste dump. However, since the government plans to build a nuclear reactor in the Eastern Cape, it is obvious that this area is also involved in terms of delivery of nuclear fuel and removal of nuclear waste from the site. This could then involve the Port Elizabeth harbour and main roads or rail.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The people of South Africa need to know the method of transport chosen in all cases: whether road, rail or shipping. And all the towns that would be passed through or close by on this route, since all people in these areas would need to have some kind of emergency planning in place in the event of a nuclear accident, leak or spill. South Africa’s roads and transport system are not known for being the safest in the world.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>If NECSA is unable to provide this information at this late stage of their planning, then it begins to appear to the people of South Africa as a deliberate attempt to leave them ignorant and uninformed about decisions that may impact negatively on their health and wellbeing.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>We therefore look forward to seeing a full and specific disclosure of the nuclear raw material, fuel and waste transport routes, as a matter of priority.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Thank you for your time.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Yours faithfully</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>INGELA RICHARDSON</span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-90346804153662690682007-09-09T21:21:00.000+02:002007-09-09T21:29:27.418+02:00Waste storage dilemma crimps nuclear future<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Waste storage dilemma crimps nuclear future</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer</span><br> <br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The San Francisco Chronicle </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Jun 11, 2006</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Avila Beach, San Luis Obispo County -- In a quiet, air-conditioned room deep inside the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant sits a small pool filled</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>with water colored an unnatural blue. It's packed with radioactive waste. The pool holds roughly half of all the used fuel ever pulled from the</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>plant's reactors. The other half sits in a second concrete tank nearby, slowly cooling beneath 25 feet of water. Some fuel rods have been there</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>about 20 years.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Both pools are nearly full. Neither was designed to store this much waste. But there's nowhere else to put it.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The government long ago promised Diablo's owner, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., that it would haul away the waste and entomb it deep below Nevada's</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Yucca Mountain. But, in the face of unrelenting opposition from Nevada residents irate over the prospect of becoming a dumping ground for nuclear</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>waste, the repository never opened.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>With the nation's appetite for energy growing, the U.S. nuclear industry appears poised for a renaissance. President Bush has made building nuclear</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>plants, for the first time in decades, a cornerstone of his energy policies. And some former foes are willing to give the technology another</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>look, lured by the promise of generating abundant power without belching greenhouse gases from more fossil fuel plants.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But the industry and its supporters in Washington still have not resolved one of the biggest issues that derailed nuclear power in the 1970s and</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>1980s -- what to do with the waste, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. Yucca Mountain remains bottled up by Nevada</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>politicians.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>One alternative would be to recycle spent fuel rods, extracting radioactive material for reuse and reducing the amount of waste that would</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>need to be stored. But the idea has long been blocked by fears that plutonium removed from old rods could fall into the hands of terrorists or</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>rogue countries trying to build nuclear weapons.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>So Diablo and other nuclear plants must keep their waste on-site -- indefinitely. PG&E installed replacement racks that pack more rods into</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Diablo's pools and has even started building another storage facility that could cost up to $200 million on a hillside behind the plant.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"The government hasn't lived up to its contracts, so what's happening now is Plan B," said David Vosburg, a PG&E project manager. "The extra racks</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>are filling up. The same thing's happening across the country."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Extra storage sites next to nuclear plants, however, won't solve the problem. They will just buy time.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"You just have to hope that there's a national solution, because this won't be a Diablo issue -- it will be a national issue," said Richard</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Hagler, project engineer for the new storage facility.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Anyone living near a nuclear plant also lives near a long-term storage site for radioactive waste. Those facilities aren't long-term by the</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>standards of engineers, who must consider what happens to radioactive material over centuries. Homeowners, however, find themselves spending</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>decades close to used fuel rods, with no end in sight.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"They promised us that the waste would be removed and the government would come to the rescue," said Jack Biesek, 58, who lives in a lushly wooded</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>canyon about 7 miles downwind of Diablo. "I think it's going to stay there. The handwriting's on the wall."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Without a long-range solution for the waste problem, America's much-heralded "nuclear spring" may never come.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Obviously, waste storage is the elephant in the room," said Frank Bowman, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>industry's main lobbying group. America now has roughly 40,000 metric tons of spent radioactive fuel, according to the institute, with another 2,000 metric tons added each</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>year. Even if Yucca Mountain opens, the nation would soon need another facility just like it. Reprocessing the fuel would relieve that pressure, but it's far from clear that reuse will ever happen.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"If we don't recycle, we're going to have to build a new Yucca Mountain every few decades," said U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Used fuel rods are hot and highly radioactive when they emerge from a reactor. Both the heat and the radioactivity drop substantially within the</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>first several years, the radiation falling by a factor of 1,000 in a decade, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. But the rods remain</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>dangerously radioactive for many thousands of years. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Diablo Canyon has relied on its twin spent-fuel pools to store waste since the plant began commercial operation in 1985.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>They sit not far from the towering containment domes that hold Diablo's reactors, separated from the outside world by steel walls and concrete</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>floors. The plant refuels every 18 to 21 months, plugging some new rods into the reactors and transferring old ones to the storage pools.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Standing 12 feet tall, each rod is a metal tube filled with uranium pellets -- the source of the plant's power. The rods are narrow, about the</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>width of a fat pencil, and are bundled into assemblies that weigh 1,350 pounds each. Workers maneuver the assemblies into the pools through a</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>series of water-filled channels to keep the fuel cool, making sure it never touches open air. A crane grabs the assemblies underwater and lowers</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>them into waiting racks. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Each pool was designed to hold 270 assemblies. Now, the racks have been reconfigured to store 1,324.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>One pool already has 1,064. The other, 1,100.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"Five percent of the state's electricity generation for the last 20 years is sitting in that pool," Vosburg said, as a current of circulating water</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>rippled the surface. The water, surrounded by concrete walls 6 feet thick, dissipates heat coming from the fuel rods and shields the outside world</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>from radiation. Boric acid, added to the water to absorb neutrons, gives the pool its deep blue tint.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Later this year, PG&E will install temporary racks in both pools to provide 154 more storage slots each. Even so, they will run out of room by</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>2010. So PG&E, like operators of the nation's 64 other nuclear power plants, is trying to make do.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>On a shaved-off hillside overlooking the plant, workers pour the concrete floor for Diablo's next storage facility. Instead of using a pool, PG&E</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>will seal old fuel assemblies inside 20-foot-tall canisters lined up like squat obelisks on an open field. There will be no walls or ceiling of any</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>kind -- just the canisters themselves.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The technology is called dry cask storage, and it isn't new. Its use at Diablo, however, has alarmed many of the plant's long-standing opponents.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>They fear that the field, which could eventually hold 138 casks, will make an even more alluring target for terrorists than the plant itself, perched</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>on a rocky stretch of the central California coast. A commandeered jet, they say, could approach Diablo from the water, fly over the plant and</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>crash into the casks, spewing radioactive material into the air. "How is that safe from terrorism, especially when there's no 'no fly</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>zone' at the plant?" asked Rochelle Becker of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. "California needs to know, how much radioactive waste are</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>we willing to store on our coast, for how long?"</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Last week, a federal court ruled that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should have examined the possibility of a terrorist assault on Diablo</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>before giving PG&E permission to build the dry cask facility. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered the commission to</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>study what threat an attack could pose to the local environment. However, a PG&E spokesman said construction will continue during the review, with</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>the first casks scheduled to be loaded with fuel next fall. The company considers the facility secure.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Standing above the field, PG&E engineer Hagler sketched out possible lines of terrorist attack. Fly a commercial airliner in from the west, over the</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>ocean, and the hillside would rip off the plane's right wing before it could reach the casks. Approach from the east, and the pilot would have to</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>hug the contours of several protecting hills before making a swift, steep plunge into the field.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Those obstacles wouldn't matter as much to a small plane. But small aircraft, he said, lack the mass to smash open the steel-and-concrete casks.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"An aircraft that size? It'd be like a bee hitting a windshield," Hagler said. "I know the cask is going to win."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>To some neighbors, terrorism isn't the only issue. They object to the possibility that Diablo's waste will never leave, staying decade after</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>decade on the coast they love until its presence becomes permanent. "This whole area is going to be a carbuncle ruined for millennia," Biesek</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Since 1976, he has lived in nearby See Canyon, along a stream shaded by oak and pine trees. He and his wife, Susan, have long opposed the plant.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>They keep a Geiger counter in the house, although it needs new batteries. The Bieseks question whether any storage technology can isolate nuclear</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>waste from the environment forever, particularly in a place prone to earthquakes and other disasters. If radioactive material from Diablo found</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>its way into an aquifer or the ocean, they said, who knows how widespread the effects could be?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"It's not like this backyard dump is just our dump," Susan Biesek said one recent morning, as birdsong filled the canyon's cool air. "Where do you</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>move that's safe?" Such talk drives nuclear engineers to distraction. Used nuclear fuel does pose risks, they say, but those risks can be controlled.</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"I hate the word 'dump,' " said Mark Somerville, a PG&E physicist specializing in radiation protection. "I sympathize with people who, like</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>we did, thought there'd be an endgame where things would be handled long term. ... But it's anything but a dump. It's a very carefully controlled</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>process."</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Meanwhile, the Bush administration keeps pushing to open Yucca Mountain and recycle used fuel. Storing waste on-site, Deputy Energy Secretary Sell</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>said, is safe but won't solve the problem. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>"As an interim solution, it's acceptable," he said. "As a long-term solution, it's not." E-mail David R. Baker at <a href="mailto:dbaker@sfchronicle.com.">dbaker@sfchronicle.com.</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-61483334064451323732007-09-09T13:37:00.000+02:002007-09-09T13:45:31.139+02:00GOLDEN OLDIES AND LOST ISOTOPES<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>GOLDEN OLDIES AND LOST ISOTOPES</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By Ingela Richardson</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Forget about those American sit-coms. We have the Minerals and Energy Portfolio Committee with their update on Nuclear Energy brought to you by the corporation who wants to bring back all those golden oldies from way back when South Africa had nuclear weapons. Unfortunately you can't hum along to the tunes, but you can click your fingers to the Geiger counter - if you happen to have one handy. If not, better get one, because the government wants to raise dem nuclear bones.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>At a meeting on 22 August, the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) stated that South Africa was "moving toward an enhanced reliance on nuclear energy". The problem is that no one seems to know how much this will cost. And this isn't a couple of rands we're talking about - it's millions. A better reason for not committing to a price is that old excuse used by contractors when time and materials have run out, the bank loan is called in and the job is still not finished - "It was just a rough estimate!" </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Suddenly the DME has changed its mind. Instead of selling </span><span class=spnsearchhighlight>uranium</span><span class=spnmessagetext> as a raw material to those hungry "colonnial" powers overseas who have nuclear reactors and scientists who want to hang onto their jobs - South Africa is now planning to manufacture its own nuclear fuel. This is slightly tricky, since it will cost a bundle (about R20 billion quoted - but you know quotes) and is highly dangerous as far as radioactive contamination is concerned. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The DME has said that they will show concern for the environment though - which must be a relief to many environmentalists who were thinking that the DME wanted to do away with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) altogether. After all, who cares about a few frogs and butterflies anyway? They are not as important as people. They may be food for some animals that eat other animals that in turn are eaten by people, but that is not important - is it? What is the old circle of life anyway? Just a song by Elton John.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>It is also reassuring that the DME hastens to add that nuclear energy is intended for civil consumption only. Phew! Here we were worrying that while we only have one nuclear reactor (Koeberg) we already have about three nuclear smugglers. If South Africa increases its nuclear programme to include up to 30 reactors, that would make, how many smugglers? Don't really want to look at that Math. After all, South Africa's crime rate is improving, isn't it? No reason to think terrorists could gather radioactive material for a "dirty bomb" here?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Rob Adam (CEO of Necsa) is very proud of his isotopes, but he shouldn't have tried to explain basic chemistry to the committee. After all, not everyone is a rocket scientist. How was Mr Louw of the ANC to know that Dr Adam hadn't literally "lost" a third of his radioisotpes. They just decay, don't they - if they aren't delivered in time? Don't ask where the radioisotopes are being transported, in what and how. Don't bother your pretty little head. It's just part of the wonderfully unstable nature of the nuclear business. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There have indeed been changes in the "nuclear environment". If you read ANC policy from 1994 that was decidedly anti-nuclear - you wouldn't believe it is the same party that desperately wants nuclear now. Almost as though someone were putting words in their mouths...And whose example is South Africa to follow in this nuclear arena? Dr Adam cites the Russians. Would those be the same Russians who invented Chernobyl and have dozens of old reactors ready to kick the bucket at any minute knocking around Eastern Europe? Or would it be the Russians who invented the brand new "floating reactors" that nobody wants to buy because they are so dangerous? As for President Bush - well anyone would like their daddy to buy them a presidency one day when they grow up, wouldn't they? He knows which side his bread is buttered. If he swings enough work the nuclear contractors' way, perhaps they will fund his re-election?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>What is sad though, is whenever unpalatable projects are on the cards, the South African government dangles employment like a carrot in front of the starving masses. Thousands of jobs are always mooted for these projects. Once again, is that an estimate? Or a quote?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>According to the DME, </span><span class=spnsearchhighlight>uranium</span><span class=spnmessagetext> mining is not going to leave a legacy of radioactive slime pits - not like the gold mines have done. Shameful! So how about South Africa cleaning up the radioactive slime dams in Gauteng before they start building </span><span class=spnsearchhighlight>uranium</span><span class=spnmessagetext> slime dams in the Karoo and Magaliesburg? The National Nuclear Regulator has known about Gauteng's radioactive contamination for a couple of years now - so South Africa can rest assured that if there is a radioactive emergency in this country, the NNR will be there - sooner or later. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Unfortunately, </span><span class=spnsearchhighlight>uranium</span><span class=spnmessagetext> is not sustainable. Like coal or oil, it will run out. And then there will be all those nuclear reactors standing around with no fuel. To consider "recycling" or "reprocessing" nuclear fuel is just another of George Bush's bad dreams that goes against 30 years of US policy, is extremely expensive and highly dangerous. Like trying to extract the proverbial needle from a radioactive haystack. Then try to get another thousand needles out of another thousand haystacks and use the needles for fuel. How much electricity does Koebergy make again? 4 per cent? 6 per cent? Not much for your money, is it?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>It is good to know that someone has been allocated to deal with every aspect of nuclear. There is Nuclear Research, Development and Innovation (Necsa), Nuclear Power Generation Organisation (Eskom) Integrated Nuclear Safety Regulator (someone?) Nuclear Security Agency (someone else) Nuclear Architectural Capability (someone else) Radioactive Waste Management Agency (er?). </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The DME congratulated graduates in nuclear technology. Lucky students to have been given the necessary funding for their degrees. It seems that the Innovation Fund that was set up years ago to focus on little problems in South Africa like crime, is now almost totally devoted to science and technology. Coincidentally, Rob Adam is the chairman of this trust fund. Perhaps Dr Adam believes that nuclear science is just more important than crime statistics in South Africa? </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The DME and Necsa are reassuring each other that there will actually be people with the necessary skills to run nuclear reactors in South Africa. But while the DME is hoping that the solution will come from the youth, Necsa wants to bring back its pensioners (the golden oldies) before they forget how reactors work. The DME wants to encourage the development of local skills, but with the price of electricity set to sky-rocket to accommodate nuclear prices (and therefore prices of everything else going up, including crime) there may be more of a brain-drain than government would like. Strangely, some people - whether young or old - do value safety and security above nuclear technology.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mr Louw of the ANC believes that the youth are not sufficiently informed about the benefits of nuclear energy. How strange! But then perhaps today's youth are less credulous. Perhaps young people today have learned that "our friend the atom" can be deadly? Perhaps they have seen young people, like themselves dying in conflicts where Depleted </span><span class=spnsearchhighlight>Uranium</span><span class=spnmessagetext> was the weapon of choice and soldiers and civilians alike have suffered the consequences?</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Mr Greyling of the ID queried costs of the nuclear programme. But it seems that the DME is looking ahead to potential profits, rather than immediate costs. The story of "counting chickens before they are hatched" springs to mind. And Mr Kekana of the ANC said the media should be used to promote nuclear engineering. Does he mean the media as in advertising pamphlets and brochures? Or the media as in daily newspapers that are supposed to be unbiased? </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Prof Mohamed of the ANC asked how the DME planned to dispose of lethal plutonium. But Dr Skalk De Waal, a Nuclear Specialist, has that one covered. It seems this issue is governed by Act 47 of 1999. Relax South Africa. You are protected from plutonium by legislation. What a relief. According to Dr De Waal, there is a "facility" in Namaqualand for waste managed by Necsa. Remember that next time you want to see those blooming daisies.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>At any rate, South Africans will be relieved to know that the issue of nuclear security is "a work in progress" according to Mr Maqubela of the DME. So while EIA's for the construction of nuclear reactors may be forging ahead, security is still being planned. It seems that "intelligence agencies" will train Eskom and Necsa. </span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Ms Mathibela of the ANC was reassured that South Africa would not be placed in a similar position to that of Iraq - being accused of possessing nuclear weapons - since South Africa has signed all the right papers.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>When Adv Schmidt of the DA asked what would happen if communities were not in favour of nuclear, Mr Maqubela responded that the public had sixty days to comment on government strategy - but after that the government would have to proceed. No sense in letting a little thing like public opposition delay government plans.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>So drug addicts just say "No", victims of crime say "No", but communities against nuclear say "No" and the government goes ahead? Is that what they mean by public participation? You can get involved and have your say as long as you know the government will continue anyway? Mr Maqubela said there was no purpose in extending the period of public meetings that "might not even add value to the process". In other words, quick build that nuclear reactor before those people know what hit them.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The DME is very clear. South Africans do have a choice - as long as they choose nuclear. But if they say, "NO!" the government will just carry on. After all, no sense in listening to the people, is there?</span><br> <br> </span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-67056356361037782652007-09-09T12:44:00.000+02:002007-09-09T15:35:57.828+02:00Uranium Resources South Africa<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO2yFaWnRxKI6S4mhH4V8kFmcqzbKIjdNj8ftXYnx0SBm6SNoyahE2ayRu7VtCRWmCKGgL5_Nn-cAArztO777OLxpqsWWFjmIfGFVLZhb6G-al0W5T5KTIZPSg9LM1umWfn3RSvhIz3dgD/s1600-h/Uranium-South-Africa.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO2yFaWnRxKI6S4mhH4V8kFmcqzbKIjdNj8ftXYnx0SBm6SNoyahE2ayRu7VtCRWmCKGgL5_Nn-cAArztO777OLxpqsWWFjmIfGFVLZhb6G-al0W5T5KTIZPSg9LM1umWfn3RSvhIz3dgD/s320/Uranium-South-Africa.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5108154898362931714" border="0" /></a><br />Here is an image showing the Uranium resources of South Africa. The South African Government, Eskom, Necsa, PBMR and "friends" all wish to see most of South Africa mined for this toxic metal to fuel their multitude of planned nuclear reactors all over South Africa. A few "already" wealthy men will continue to follow their paths of greed just so they can get even richer and screw the people of South Africa.stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-66727541641345619702007-09-07T16:22:00.000+02:002007-09-07T16:30:29.387+02:00Zambian Uranium Projects<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>African Energy from Zambian uranium</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> </span><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>By: Mariaan Olivier</span></span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 5 Sep 07 - 16:49</span></span><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br> <br> </span></span><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>Uranium explorer Albidon has finalised a joint-venture agreement with African Energy, covering the Chirundu and Kariba Valley uranium projects in Zambia, the company said on Wednesday.</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The Chirundu project included the Njame uranium deposit and the recently discovered Gwabe uranium prospect.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>African Energy is exploring for uranium on a number of Albidon’s mineral tenements in Zambia under an exploration cooperation agreement .</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Albidon said that African Energy had spend A$1-million on the Chirundu project which earned it an initial equity interest of 30% in the property, with the right to earn up to a 70% stake by completion of a prefeasibility study.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The company informed Albidon in January that it planned to earn equity stakes in the Chirundu and Njame projects.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=116268" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=116268</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-973618515490596315.post-20684092121976727622007-09-06T15:15:00.000+02:002007-09-06T15:23:25.740+02:00At least 25 new uranium mines needed by 2020<div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span class=spnmessagetext><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'>'At least 25 new uranium mines needed by 2020'</span></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";color:midnightblue'><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>By: Martin Creamer</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Published: 6 Sep 07 - 10:51</span><br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The world would need “at least” 25 new uranium mines by 2020 and global uranium marketing would change as fundamentally as oil marketing did in the 1970s, Paladin Resources MD John Borshoff said in Perth on Thursday.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Borshoff told the Africa Downunder conference that, in transforming from being inventory dominant to being mining dominant, uranium marketing would shed its current “cosy arrangement” between consumer and supplier and take on a new global dimension.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Borshoff, who is credited with accurately forecasting uranium’s renaissance well ahead of time, described the current uranium-price downturn as being “almost a shenanigan”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>On uranium coming down in price from $138/lb to $90/lb, he said: “Rest easy, because it’s going to start moving upwards again.”</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>He said that the price drop was part of an extremely sharp upturn and would continue on an upward path after an adjustment.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>And on marketing, he added that “remarkable” uranium-marketing changes would be at a level of “the oil shock of the 1970s”.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Thirty-two nuclear reactors were currently under construction and proposed are another 288 reactors by 2025, compared to 35 in 2003 and 150 in 2005.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>The current production of 103-million pounds of uranium a year would need to rise to 190-million pounds in 2013 and then between 230-million pounds and 250-million pounds going further forward.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“These are massive requirements from an industry that has almost been dead in the head for 20 years,” he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>From that “sleeping mode”, the industry would have to prepare itself to achieve “huge” increases in the supply, which was not only needing to grow above the current 103-million-pound base, but that base was in the throes of diminishing as mines depleted.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>There thus had to be both replacement and additive components and “at least 25 new mines would be required by 2020”, Borshoff said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>But, having reached that point, the industry would then immediately have to enter the next phase to find more uranium.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>“Whether or not we get the 288 reactors by 2025, is not that relevant, but what is relevant is that the growth of nuclear reactors is going to outpace the supply of uranium,” he said.</span><br> <br> <span class=spnmessagetext>Source: <a href="http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=116350" target="_blank">http://www.miningweekly.co.za/article.php?a_id=116350</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> stop-toxic-uranium-mininghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04082357019297263154noreply@blogger.com0