 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
enviroadmin
Forum Admin
2482 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Mar 2008 : 13:51:02
|
AFRICA - TOXIC DUMP FOR THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD
by Ingela Richardson
"Toxic terrorism" and "garbage imperialism" are terms that come up often in a resource list compiled by Deanna Lewis and Ron Chepesiuk. In their research, "The International Trade in Toxic Waste" one African official says the Third World has been turned into the industrialized world's "outhouse".
A polite word - considering what it has meant for the people of Africa, where certain "recycling" facilities do not have adequate safety or environmental standards. There is not enough protective equipment and workers suffer lead and mercury poisoning, increased rates of birth defects and miscarriages, kidney disease, cancer and even death from toxic waste. To avoid negative publicity and laws against dumping toxic wastes, many companies just change the labels on their freight.
And yet, South Africa is planning to lead a nuclear charge into Africa. Nuclear power has been advertised across the continent as the answer to Africa's energy needs, which is ironic, considering major security issues like the genocide in Rwanda, "blood diamond" wars in Sierra Leone and the illegal trade in uranium and nuclear materials.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seems to think that spending 7 million Euros on "nuclear security" in Africa will somehow prevent an African nuclear holocaust. According to a report on their website, "Ghana, South Africa, Morocco and Nigeria are among the countries the IAEA will work with to secure nuclear and radioactive materials and sites at risk of sabotage. South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia are among countries the IAEA will assist to strengthen their capabilities to detect and respond to illicit trafficking".
Why is the international community not simply investing their millions in safer renewable energy providers? Maybe because these nations' own nuclear power stations require continuing supplies of uranium that they want from Africa.
What is the nuclear threat to Africa? Only last year, a gang of armed men broke into the Pelindaba nuclear facility. Three men have already been condemned by South African courts for smuggling nuclear materials. And in Niger armed men attacked a uranium prospecting camp maintained by the French company Areva, killing a security guard and wounding three other people. In the Congo, a thin barbwire fence protects a nuclear research reactor with an outdated control room and unguarded radioactive waste storage building. The Congo has repeatedly been accused of illegally selling uranium and not preventing smuggling.
According to a report on the IAEA website, Congo allows the IAEA to conduct "intrusive, short-notice inspections", but "safety conditions at the often chaotic Shinkolobwe mines in its unstable Katanga province have given cause for concern".
So the IAEA has sent African member states on "workshops" and "courses" to improve nuclear security. Does Africa feel safer?
French nuclear company Areva plans to build 12 nuclear reactors in South Africa. The first - Nuclear 1 - would cost N$120 billion (that's Namibian dollars - who knows what Eskom's latest number is in South African rands?). It seems that Eskom wants nuclear power plants of 20 000 MW total capacity to be built in South Africa before 2025.
Namibia also plans to build a nuclear reactor according to a report in "The Namibian", although it does not yet have a regulatory framework to govern issues like waste. Another report states that Namibia is considering the "floating nuclear reactors" that Russia has not been able to sell to anyone else due to safety concerns.
And Zimbabwe's "Herald" said: "Zimbabwe has had plans to invest in nuclear energy since the 1990s, and there were plans to acquire a nuclear reactor from Argentina to process uranium". But also that: "It is widely perceived that a region-wide switch to nuclear energy without qualified human resources will result in an exponential increase in the proliferation of weapons grade uranium on the global nuclear parallel market and raise the risk of a major catastrophe with nuclear plants".
In Malawi, Keyelekera is targeted for uranium mining, despite resistance from environmentalists and human rights organisations. Here, 200 tonnes of sulphuric acid would be used daily in the uranium leaching process. Environmental experts warned of contamination of rivers and watercourses, and that leaks of ammonia and sulphur-dioxide threaten more than 1000 people in the area.
It would be very nice to think that highly toxic nuclear waste is "recycled" or simply disappears. But the reality is that no nation in the industrialized world has any "disposal" solution. The best idea that nuclear scientists have come up with is to bury nuclear waste in a large hole in the ground - not like the one Necsa is already using at Vaalputs in Namaqualand - but a huge tunnel that costs millions and looks more like an underground subway station.
There is no question as to the extreme expense and toxicity of nuclear waste. The only question is - where the industrialized world plans to put theirs? In Africa? The toxic dump of the industrialized world?
Ingela Richardson is an environmental activist based in the Eastern Cape of South Africa
|
|
|
Google Adsense
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Environment South Africa - NEWS - FORUMS - ARTICLES - LEGISLATION |
© Respective Authors, Media Sites and Web Sites - All sources quoted in Articles. |
 |
|
|
|
AFRICA - TOXIC DUMP FOR THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD
