Mining 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?

Sunday, September 9, 2007

GOLDEN OLDIES AND LOST ISOTOPES

GOLDEN OLDIES AND LOST ISOTOPES

By Ingela Richardson

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.

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!"

Suddenly the DME has changed its mind. Instead of selling uranium 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

According to the DME, uranium 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 uranium 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.

Unfortunately, uranium 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?

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?).

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?

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.

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 Uranium was the weapon of choice and soldiers and civilians alike have suffered the consequences?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

No comments: