What is Hip, Hot & Happening around Hermanus - sponsored by Nosy Rosy
|
|
|
SILENCE IS CONSENT |
|
|
DA CALLED UPON TO CLEARLY STATE ITS POSITION ON NUCLEAR POWER STATION IN THE OVERSTRAND The Save Bantamsklip Association conducted a protest march in Hermanus on Saturday 19th December to raise public awareness of Eskom’s proposal to build a 4 000 megawatt nuclear power station (that is more than twice the size of Koeberg) at Bantamsklip in the east of the Overstrand and to ask the DA Council to formulate and publish a factually based, informed position on the proposal. Why take such as step? If the project goes ahead, the proposed power station and associated transmission lines will forever change the Overstrand’s character. The project will be one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken in South Africa, employing around 6 000 construction workers, most of whom will be specialised and will be drawn from outside of the Overstrand, for up to 10 years. Add to the 6 000 workers their family members and the influx of people could be three or more times that number. Will this be an economic windfall that will uplift the poor and create a vibrant future for all who live in the area? Eskom says “yes.” What evidence is there of this? Well, there is Koeberg with the prosperity it has brought to the population of Atlantis! Consider the enormity of the civil construction work that will take place in an area that is internationally renowned as one of the hottest biodiversity hotspots in the world, both terrestrial and marine. The notoriety of this unique biodiversity and the beauty of the pristine landscape will bring millions of tourists to the Overstrand over the next few years and will result in escalating property values in the Overstrand. What will the comparative value of our properties be if we instead become known internationally as the location of an enormous nuclear power station? Well, what has Koeberg done for property values in Melkbos Strand? The questions the Save Bantamsklip Association and the Overstrand Conservation Foundation (OCF) are asking our DA Councillors is “This is the biggest project with the biggest impact on the Overstrand that will ever be considered by any incumbent council … Have you done your homework? Do you have the facts at hand that you need to make an objective, informed decision on what position the Overstrand Municipality should take on Batamsklip? Do you know whether it is good for the Overstrand population to have a 4 000 megawatt nuclear power station at Bantamsklip? Or, are you going to wait and see what happens and hope that everything will work out in the end?” The Overstrand Conservation Foundation (OCF) has adopted the position that building a nuclear power station at Bantamsklip, near Pearly Beach in the Overstrand, is not appropriate. The OCF is participating in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes for the proposed power station and those for the associated transmission lines. Of great concern is the harm that building the proposed power station and transmission lines will have on the ecologically sensitive environment, upon the Overstrand’s tourist-based economy, upon the social structure in the area and upon the value of properties across the whole Overberg coastline. The OCF does not have the financial resources to properly investigate the likely impact nor to properly analyse the specialist reports done during the EIA. We have looked at the proposal in the light of the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, the official Provincial policy document for development in the region, and find that building a nuclear power station at Bantamsklip conflicts with Provincial policy, but we don’t have the resources to go beyond that level of analysis. The OCF is very concerned that the Overstrand Municipality, which could find the necessary funding but seems unconcerned, must commission an independent resource economist to study the likely economic effects on the Overstrand of the proposed nuclear power station relative to the preferred development of the tourist economy. We additionally ask that the Municipality engage independent technical specialists, capable of critically analysing the specialist reports that are produced during the EIA process, to verify the findings of the EIA specialists and to advise Council on the position that Council should take. Adopting a wait and see position is not good enough when faced with a project of this enormous magnitude. Now is the only opportunity to influence the outcome of the EIA’s. If Council waits to see what is going to happen, it will not have any influence on what will happen! Rob Fryer
Manager, Overstrand Conservation
Foundation. NUCLEARPOWER at Bantamsklip
Bottomline facts:
1. This will effectively prevent the
L2L walk from covering the last
remaining pristine length of coastline
in the Overstrand. (How do you like
that?)
2. Released cooling water will raise the
surrounding sea temperature by 5 - 15
degrees. (Wonder how the whales and the
rest of the sea life that thrives on
this cold coast will like that.)
3. Eco-tourism & agriculture and its
suport business is the economic
foundation of the Overstrand. (Tourists
do not like nuclear powerstations...I
know that!)
4. Hermanus sits within the 50 km "no
go" zone. Meaning if a meltdown should
happen the whole area is evacuated not
to return for 200 years. ( Or something
like that.)
5. A few people benefit from
construction but go to their villa in
the Seychelles by the time the fuel rods
arrive.
6. Remember silence is interpreted
as agreement and public input is
essential. This information
has not reached the general public until
now. Please pass this to everyone you
know in the area, YOU COUNT...
You are an Interested & Affected Party
(I&AP), register yourself, club, union,
church, NPO children NOW and send an
email or letter to:
Acer Africa
Environmental Management Consultants
P.O. Box 503
Mtunzini
3867
Inform them how you, the area, our
environment & economy will be adversely
affected.
Ask them to acknowledge their receipt of
your email.
Cesium-137 and strontium-90 are the most dangerous radioisotopes to the environment in terms of their long-term effects. Their intermediate half-lives of about 30 years suggests that they are not only highly radioactive but that they have a long enough half-life to be around for hundreds of years. Iodine-131 may give a higher initial dose, but its short half-life of 8 days ensures that it will soon be gone. Besides its persistence and high activity, cesium-137 has the further insidious property of being mistaken for potassium by living organisms and taken up as part of the fluid electrolytes. This means that it is passed on up the food chain and re-concentrated from the environment by that process. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 are the radioisotopes which should be most closely guarded against release into the environment. They both have intermediate half-lives of around 30 years, which is the worst range for half-lives of radioactive contaminants. It ensures that they are not only highly radioactive but also have a long enough half-life to be around for hundreds of years. Strontium-90 mimics the properties of calcium and is taken up by living organisms and made a part of their electrolytes as well as deposited in bones. As a part of the bones, it is not subsequently excreted like cesium-137 would be. It has the potential for causing cancer or damaging the rapidly reproducing bone marrow cells. Strontium-90 is not quite as likely as cesium-137 to be released as a part of a nuclear reactor accident because it is much less volatile, but is probably the most dangerous components of the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
