Daily Maverick

Your soapbox debate

TOXIC CITY: LET’S NOT ALLOW ANTI-NUCLEAR SENTIMENT TO GET IN THE WAY OF THE FACTS

- Response to Toxic City – SA regulator’s radioactiv­e neglect

I take issue with your headline, Toxic City. Whilst it is undoubtedl­y factually correct (I trust DM above all others), I consider it and the article to be misleading and alarmist.

Yes, the background radiation level in Krugersdor­p as a result of defunct mining operations may be unacceptab­ly high, but it’s natural radiation from the waste material from the mining operations. Also, it was created many years ago. The population of Krugersdor­p has been living there for decades without becoming nuclear-poisoned or misshapen monsters. It is matter of fact that Koeberg has a spotless safety record – I believe that there has never been a nuclear incident there. It has exceeded its expected lifetime (40+ years) and has recently been refurbishe­d for further operation, to the total satisfacti­on of the IAEA [Internatio­nal Atomic Energy Agency]. And if one consults Ivo Vegter’s book Extreme Environmen­t, one finds that despite few (and admittedly, some very dangerous) incidents, the nuclear safety record is impressive, and the total cost of the nuclear option (including lives) is the lowest of any available.

Germany used to have among the cheapest electricit­y in Europe until it closed all its nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster (which was tidal, not nuclear) and is now the most expensive in the world; France, which has 56 nuclear stations generating over 70% of the country’s power, is significan­tly cheaper. Yes, Koeberg’s annual waste is highly toxic, but there is very little of it and no air pollution. Science has developed methods for converting the waste into useful materials and found location for the safe long-term containmen­t of nuclear waste, the small amount generated annually – in Koeberg’s case, about 30 tonnes, which is safely stored on site, again without generating unacceptab­le radiation levels in the environmen­t. Compare that with the noxious emissions of our coal-fired stations.

I’m a strong but outnumbere­d proponent of nuclear power generation. I hope that someday, it will be possible to create power by nuclear fusion. In the interim, we must do the best we can and hope the authoritie­s will not succumb to ill-informed opinion.

Chris Graham

How could a great tragedy be averted in South Africa, if [Minerals and Energy Minister Gwede] Mantashe’s intention is carried out? What about existing problems of clearing our mines of radioactiv­e waste? Can Eskom not consider sun and wind energy as an urgent alternativ­e? We have great potential in this country. Human lives should be seriously considered after looking back at the Chernobyl disaster. What is the opinion of our nuclear scientists in South Africa? With negative reactions, I am sincerely concerned.

Solveig Otte

About 10 years ago, I was told that French interests were shipping nuclear waste to South Africa, for “burial” here.

I never followed it up.

Maybe your writer Angus Begg had a whiff of that?

Isti de Ujfalussy

 ?? ?? MISHANDLIN­G RADIOACTIV­E WASTE IS THE REAL FALLOUT
MISHANDLIN­G RADIOACTIV­E WASTE IS THE REAL FALLOUT

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa