The final scoping report for Eskom's proposed new nuclear plant, the PBMR, has been completed and is now open to the public for comment. This is an important stage in the Environmental Impact Assessment being undertaken.
 
 
Media
Earthlife wins right to appeal 07 Jul 2006
Court Ruling on Pebble Bed Reactor 03 June 2003
ELA Shocked 26 June 2003
Countdown to deadline of appeal 21 July 2003
Nukes vs Climate Change 14 Aug 2003
Flawed Appeal Process 20 Aug 2003
Huge support for Earthlife 25 Aug 2003
Next Round of Court Action 15 Sept 2003
Cancer Risk 22 Jan 2004
ELA welcomes Nuclear Summit 02 Feb 2004
Koeberg's Secret Horror 06 Feb 2004
Nuclear Summit cancelled 17 Feb 2004
Who's Bluffing 04 Mar 2004
Cancer Risk Raised Again 08 Mar 2004
Cape Town at risk 21 May 2004
Call for a Nuclear summit 02 Jun 2004
Demand for Nuclear summit 04 Jun 2004
Nuclear is Definately Avoidable. 22 Jun 2004
Victory for ELA 26 Jan 2005
Cabinet Accepts Court Judgement 8 Feb 2005
National Budget Speech 25 Feb 2005
Protect our Children 21 Apr 2005
Unguarded Site 25 Apr 2005
ELA Call for Investigation 30 Apr 2005
New NNR Head Destrys Credibility 25 May 2005
Power Failures Reveal Safety risks 19 Nov 2005
ELA Loses Case for Eskom's Board Minutes 15 Dec 20
Cancer Risk Raised Again 08 Mar 2004

Cancer risk from nuclear reactors raised again but summit tries to silence our voices

2004 has started with the red flag of danger being raised.ᅠ As in previous years, increasing evidence is coming to the fore showing potential health risks associated with nuclear power stations.

Over the last decade, nuclear power has come under increasing fire from concerned scientists who are studying the health impacts of nuclear reactors on the surrounding communities.ᅠ Strontium-90, a by-product of uranium fission, is one of the pollutants emitted into the air by nuclear reactors. If inhaled or ingested, it collects in bones and tissue and increases the risks of cancer and leukaemia, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Nuclear experts and the federal government in the USA say strontium-90 levels should be dropping because above-ground atomic bomb tests stopped decades ago, below-ground tests and nuclear weapons production halted at least 12 years ago and nuclear fuels reprocessing ceased in the late 1970s.

However, the latest research, published in The Science of the Total Environment January 2004 again highlights the seriousness of the issue.ᅠ The Radiation and Public Health Project in New York claim that in areas surrounding nuclear reactors, children have higher concentrations of strontium 90 than is areas where there are no nuclear reactors.ᅠᅠ Further research is underway to substantiate claims that this exposure may mean that more children in the area have cancer.

Such horrific possibilities are not news to the nuclear industry.

An epidemiologic study published in 1997 reported no significant rise in childhood cancer rates around West German nuclear power plants. The conclusions of this study were extensively used by politicians and lobbyists as proof of no increased cancer risk around nuclear power plants. A reanalysis of the data, however, reveals a statistically significant increase of childhood cancers (all malignancies) when the evaluation is restricted to commercial power reactors, the vicinities closest to the plants, and children of the youngest age group (0-4 years).

Again in England, near Bradwell Nuclear Power Station, a study was initiated. In February 2001 a report of cancer mortality was commissioned following local concern about the health impact of incinerating contaminated waste at Bradwell.ᅠᅠᅠ The results showed that there seems to be a clear excess of breast cancer mortality in wards surrounding the Blackwater Estuary.

What about South Africa?
Communities live in close proximity to Koeberg (Atlantis and Milnerton), Vaalputs and Pelindaba (Diepsloot and Attridgeville) and have done for years.ᅠ Do they show increased rates of cancer?ᅠ

Eskom's response seems to be that there is no health impact therefore there is no need to do any studies. According to the PBMR EIR report, the monitoring, under the control and inspection of the National Nuclear Regulator (NNR), is based on international standards and is undertaken to demonstrate that discharges of radioactivity from Koeberg result in no significant health risk to members of the public, staff or the environment.ᅠ However, the report also states that this monitoring however, "excludes health monitoring of the public."ᅠᅠᅠ

Obviously, if you dont look for evidence, you wont find any, so then it is easy to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and claim that there is no problem.

Earthlife Africa feels strongly about the importance of transparency around nuclear health issues.ᅠ Let Eskom tell communities the real risks, let them get independent studies and then let communities decide if they want Koeberg to continue.

The Nuclear Summit, which was to have been hosted by parliament, would have provided a platform for people to voice their health concerns.ᅠ The cancellation of the summit means that people's voices were silenced.

Nuclear energy does cause health impacts in other parts of the world.ᅠ We do not believe that South Africa is any different.ᅠ We will not be silenced.ᅠ All communities should demand a nuclear summit where these issues can be raised and debated in full.