When ESKOM announced its plans to construct a nuclear power
station in Thyspunt, Oysterbay just outside of Jeffreys Bay, the
majority of the community, environmentalist groups and even
pro-surfers protested and warned against it. But what is all the fuss
really about? Are there life- and health-threatening risks involved?And what can be done about similar electricity issues when they hit close to home?
“No Nuke at Thyspunt” – the
phrase on bumper stickers on nearly every car in the Kouga district in the
Eastern Cape, South Africa. The ‘No
Nuke’ movement was founded by the Thyspunt Alliance after ESKOM announced its
plans to build a nuclear power plant four times the size of the plant in
Koeberg, near Cape Town. However, the size of the plant is not the issue that
created the uproar in the South African surf capital’s community, but rather
the irreversible impact the construction would cause to the environment.
One of the biggest impacts will be on the marine
environment. During construction, 6.3
million cubic meters of sand will be pumped into the ocean. The plan also allows for the construction of
several tunnels for the inlet and outlet pipes respectively. The digging of the trenches for these tunnels
will cause irreparable damage to an area of up to 54 000m2.
The wetlands that will be
affected by construction of such a nuclear plant are considered as a very
unique and extremely rare wetland system.
It comprises of an exceptional interaction between the wind, sand dunes
and water table. It is the last active
headland bypass dune system in the country. The site is also an historical
landmark still being discovered and studied by archaeologists. It is not only home to the first nation of
South Africa, the Khoisan community, but is also a very rare area where a
timeline of 1.5 million years can be followed.
Studies also revealed that the construction of various
tunnels for the inlet and outlet structures of the plant will damage 54 000
square meters of ocean floor. Furthermore, 28% to 37% of squid caught in the squid sector occurs
within ten nautical miles east and west of the proposed Nuclear-1 location. Pumping
6.3 million cubes of sand into the ocean will most likely suffocate marine life
and kill the squid industry in the area, which could result in the local chokka
industry’s relocation and the losses of hundreds of jobs in the fishery
industry alone.
Besides the environmental and
economic concerns, social safety issues have also surfaced concerning people
living in and around the community. Local residents face countless health risks
as Eskom has failed to give proper safety guarantees to citizens in the
surrounding areas. Estimates revealed that accidental radioactive fallout at
Thyspunt could be potentially five times that of Chernobyl, resulting in tens
of thousands of deaths, long term cancers and birth deformities. It’s no wonder
that international pro-surfers are backing the Thyspunt Alliance to protest
against the construction of the nuclear plant.
The full spectrum of risks
needs to be carefully analysed and understood before plans for nuclear power
plants are proposed in any populated area of the world. Evidence shows that through
nuclear power plants, no carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere and the
nuclear industry even claims that nuclear power could aid by reducing the
causes of pollution causing global warming. However, the factors of nuclear
waste and production raise questions about whether nuclear power can fulfil
this claim and what the price of trying might be. As voices in our communities,
we need to be asking these questions. Should we be satisfied with the biased
information that electricity and energy corporations are soon feeding us, or
should we be doing our own homework on matters concerning our health and safety
and the impacts of nuclear operations on our environment?
In the event of the Chernobyl tragedy
of 1986 in northern Ukraine, about 168 000 out of the 3.2 million victims
died over the period of ten years following the nuclear disaster. The remainder
of the total victims affected still suffer from disease and genetic disorders
as a direct result of radiation toxicity caused by the Chernobyl nuclear plant
disaster. A total area of 50 000 square kilometres covering 12 regions was
contaminated in the tragedy. As a result, radio-active pollution spread through
the air via clouds capturing radio-active particles, emitting toxic rain over
exposed areas and inevitably also spread through water systems, leaving citizens
in those areas completely vulnerable to toxicity caused by the radiation. Even
today, the final effects of the Chernobyl disaster have still not been
confirmed.
We need to weigh up the
benefits of nuclear energy versus safer alternatives of generating electricity.
Imagine for once, a world where we feel safe in our own homes, knowing that we
won’t be blasted with rays of radio-active pollution when watching television
powered by the solar panels on our roofs. Driving in our electric powered cars,
past the wind plantations that power the metropolitans we work in. Picture our
children playing safely on the playgrounds at school, knowing they are safe
from genetic deformities and cancer caused by nuclear plant explosions and
waste. How comforting would a green world be where the lives and safety of
people prevail in the war of money and irresponsible electricity businesses
practices by our governments and business tycoons? Imagine, a nuke-free,
problem-free world philosophy. □
No comments:
Post a Comment