Nuclear Power and its affects on the South African Environment
In this essay I will explore a local environmental issue
relative to the city of Cape Town in the Western Cape. In this topographically
diverse South African province, Cape Town is the largest and fastest growing
city. It boasts a population of over one million and with that a demand for
energy. To fulfill that need South Africa’s first and only nuclear power plant
was built, the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station. I aim to investigate Koeberg and
its direct, indirect effects and future threats on the environment. I also will
compare my findings with global contexts, see how the media portrays nuclear
energy and look at nuclear alternatives.
Koeberg Nuclear Power
Station and the Western Cape
Koeberg Nuclear Power Station construction began in 1976,
situated 30km north of Cape Town. At
that time the building was situated outside of metropolitan areas but as time
progressed urban development encroached. Even so, the plant grounds include a
sizeable nature reserve, owned by Eskom, separating the town of Melkbos and
Duynefontein from it. Koeberg was successfully integrated into the Cape Town
power grid in 1985. {Eskom, 2012}
Koeberg Nuclear Power Plant {Eskom, 2012}
Since the launch of the Koeberg nuclear plant, it has
successfully generated ample electricity and has essentially served its purpose
of supplying power to the towns and city. The topic of nuclear energy is
debated heatedly and at length over numerous topics like war, technology and
alternative energy but the one topic I will focus on is how nuclear energy and
its future in the Western Province and the country as a whole will affect the
environment.
As we near
Koeberg’s 30th anniversary we can see it has been anything but
smooth with external and internal factors threatening its integrity. The ageing
reactors have become dated and are patched up ever few years but there is no
denying that the plant is in need of an upgrade.
At this point in
time Koeberg has been using the same “Pressurised water reactors” since its inception.
There are numerous pros and cons for using this technology. The major issue
with these water reactors is that the water coolant needs to be highly
pressurised to remain liquid at high temperatures. If there were even a small
rupture within the reactor a large explosion would soon follow as the liquid
water would rapidly expand to steam causing major damage. Ruptures could happen
from an array of scenarios one of which is age because as the years go on emissions
from inside the reactor cause the steel housing to become less ductile and need
to be replaced or repaired. {NIRS, 2011}
Resistance against nuclear energy in South Africa started
before Koeberg was operational spawning the first green movement in the country
in 1983. This green movement was dubbed Koeberg Alert and they campaign against
the broad array of negative effect nuclear energy could have including health,
safety and the environment. {KAA, 2012}
Nuclear Waste
To date, South Africa only has two operational reactors
(Both at Koeberg) which supply a substantial amount of energy to the Western
Cape. Currently with these two reactors, Koeberg generates 30 tonnes of nuclear
waste a year. {KAA, 2012} In the near
future, The ANC will be allowing six more reactors to be built in the country
of which four of those reactors to be situated in the Western Cape. The estimated
deadline for these new reactors is 2030. This would bring our provincial
nuclear waste generation to 90 tons a year. {Mail&Guardian, Lionel Faull,
2011} It’s understood that all these reactors would be running on uranium which
is mined within South Africa naturally at several locations. With the higher
demand of uranium from the expanding reactors not only would an increase in
waste come from them but also from the actual mining and transporting of the
uranium itself. Nuclear reactors
generate a small volume of waste compared to the uranium mining process which
churns out tons of debris. This waste is does not give off deadly amounts of
radiation but still could essentially have an influence of some sort. {David
Thorpe, 2008}
Why does this matter?
What is nuclear waste? Nuclear waste is exactly what it implies; it is
the byproduct of nuclear reactors. Unlike normal waste, nuclear waste is far
more sinister and dangerous as it can’t merely be disposed off or destroyed as
it is radioactive and thus toxic. The
main proponent in nuclear waste is the spent fuel rods that are assembled to
enclose stacked ceramic uranium pellets.
These rods undergo fission where specific atoms split with the uranium
atoms to go on and create vast amounts of energy. Once the rods are retired
they are not what they used to be as now they have become dangerously
radioactive. Brief exposure of a couple of a few seconds to high level
radiation can result in guaranteed death but death may follow gradual exposure
as well. On top of this fact, nuclear waste radiation decay’s extremely slowly
and a set of fuel rods can remain radioactive for 10 000 to 1 million years,
making the substances very difficult to dispose of or conceal.{What is nuclear,
2012}
Fuel Rods {What is nuclear, 2012}
This is why South African activists are concerned with
how out government’s dispose of the waste.
Its unlike any country to dump raw nuclear waste into the environment as
there are regulatory boards that oversee the process such as NECSA. All spent
fuel is shielded from affecting the outside world. There are several methods of shielding that
Koeberg uses to store its waste. They have underwater racks where barrels are
placed for a certain period of time before they can be placed within concrete
trenches or casks. {Eskom, 2012} The scenarios all include that this deadly
waste be put in the earth and forgotten about. The truth of the matter is that
there is currently no cost effective way to dispose of the waste. There are a
handful of countries that offer reprocessing of spent fuel to be reused by
nuclear plants but transportation of nuclear waste to these countries is costly
and dangerous. {JAIF 2011}South Africa will eventually have large expanses of
land used as graveyards for waste disposal, waste that will be dangerous for
many thousands of years. The greatest
fear is that this waste somehow leaks or during transport the containers leak,
spill , corrode and contaminates the local ecosystems or creates wide spread
contamination making large pieces of land uninhabitable forever. Once the new
reactors are in place, the amount of waste will triple if not more. How many
years will it be until storage becomes a problem? How long will it be until one
of the barrels leak? It could mean the end of all life in and around the dump
sites.
A practice from nuclear countries is to ship and or trade
their waste to other countries. Germany has previously sent its waste to Russia.
{CSIS, 2011} Japan is currently using a French nuclear facility to reprocess a
large undisclosed amount of their nuclear waste.{MOFA, 2012} Consequently all
of those shipments between France and Japan have come past Cape Town and up the
South African east coast. Spent Fuel rods not only are highly radioactive but
also contain plutonium and other fission elements which make transporting them
highly dangerous. Greenpeace, South Africa and numerous other countries along
these routes have banned these shipments. In worry of the tremendous risk
associated with these nuclear waste shipments, South Africa has been clear and
vocal against the practice. This Japanese waste trade is estimated to persist
for the next 15 years. As a result the
companies responsible for the trades have refused to disclose the shipments
route through the oceans, essentially ignoring the bans from effected
countries.
Currently South Africa can afford to take the moral high
ground. The aftermath of a shipment of nuclear waste spilling off the shores of
the cape could lead to catastrophic repercussions environmentally. It would
take just one spill to upset and toxify our local beaches contaminating a large
portion of our fish population. This would upset local fishing causing
widespread unemployment along the seafood market chain from the fishermen to
the workers and fish packaging factories. A spill could make tourist beaches
danger zones making them restricted from the public which would affect locals
the most but would also contribute to loss of tourism.
Why I stated that South Africa can currently afford to
take the moral high ground and ban nuclear waste shipments is because the
country currently only has two reactors creating waste. The amount of waste
created by these reactors can be swept under the rug for now but what will
South Africa do once it increases the reactor count by six? These new reactors
will quadruple the amount of nuclear was generated by our country. In twenty
years will South Africa have to take back its stance on nuclear waste shipments
so that it can dispose of the piling up nuclear waste? If it does, our own
government will be allowing dangerous cargo passing through the Cape Town
harbor which would take only one accident to damage on our city and harbor
ecosystems.
Koeberg’s nuclear waste is currently dumped at Vaalputs
Radioactive Waste Facility overseen by NECSA. {NECSA, 2012}The dump site is
100km south of Springbok in the Northern Cape. {Vaalputs,2005} This dumpsite
has been used since 1986 with its first container leak reported in 1997.{Biophile
Magazine, Shellee-Kim Gold}
.png){kind=spacer}
Vaalputs nuclear dump site {KAA,2012}
The energy demand in South Africa is growing each year
and the only viable way to meet this demand cheaply is through nuclear energy.
Is having cheap electricity worth the cost of using our own country side as
dump sites? Is having cheap electricity worth the risk of shipping nuclear
waste through our harbors and oceans?
Realistically if South Africa wants to grow it needs power and to deny
the country cheap energy which would increase employment and stimulate growth
would be illogical.
Nuclear Meltdown
Apart from the day to day creation of waste from nuclear
reactors there is a deep rooted and ever looming spectre hanging over the
concept of nuclear energy. This would be the real fear of a nuclear reactor
meltdown. This term implies a serious accident that would result in reactor core
damage caused by overheating. There have been few incidences of this happening
worldwide but the effects are monumental nonetheless. Most notable of these is
the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl in Ukraine and most recently at Fukashima
Daaichi in Japan. Both of these accidents have lasting environmental and
economic effects which should be observed and emphatically applied to the
Koeberg nuclear plant as a projection of the potential damage it could cause in
the wake of a nuclear meltdown.
On April 26 1986 a large explosion during a standard test
within the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine resulted in large amounts
of radioactive particles being forced hundreds of meters in the air and into
the atmosphere. The closest city to the plant was called Pripyat and resided a
mere 2km from accident. Within the following days the whole city was evacuated
followed by attempts to contain further contamination that took the help of
thousands of workers, hundreds of which suffered acute radiation poisoning and
died shortly after working at the plant. What was left in the end was a ghost
town with no inhabitants, completely abandoned left to the elements. The city
now, 26 years later is still completely abandoned and still highly radioactive
and will remain that way for many years. Not only was the surrounding area
around Chernobyl affected but the radioactive contamination the atmosphere
floating around Europe leaving permanent damage in its wake. {World Nuclear,
2012}A leading Russian science publication estimated that just under a million
premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 due to the
radioactive leak from Chernobyl. {Chernobyl’s Legacy, 2005}
Pripyat 26 years later {Behance}
Pripyat 26 years later {Behance}
After such a large scale contamination, how did the local
environment react to high level of radiation? Like all nuclear power plants,
Chernobyl was situated next to a river as it needed an abundant water supply to
use for coolant. The Pripyat River is connected to larger reservoir systems
which were vulnerable to contamination. During the immediate aftermath high
concentrations of specific radioactive substances were found in the surface
water making it highly dangerous for anyone to drink. Studies showed that after
a few months that the radiation level within the moving water was safe enough
to drink due to dilution, physical decay and absorption of these substances by
river banks/soils. The fish in the Pripyat River and nearby closed lakes in
Belarus noted bio-absorption of radioactivity in their fresh water fish. The
levels of radioactivity in these fish were sixty-thousand times higher than
what they were supposed to be, this caused short term panic but ultimately took
a few years to for the levels to drop not to mention that the radiation
affected only the fish bones and not the muscle. {Chernobyl’s Legacy, 2005}
Agricultural areas were also affected heavily causing
gross mutations in livestock. A specific type of radiation called radioiodine
would be easily absorbed into milk which would lead to livestock and humans to
ingesting polluted milk. Children would suffer the most due to this and suffer
widespread thyroid cancer. Plantations were effected but to a lesser degree but
were a concern as it was an additional contributor to human internal dose of
radiation. {Chernobyl’s Legacy, 2005}
{World Nuclear}
Environmental exposures to radioactive materials {Chernobyl's Legacy, 2005}
Very close to the Chernobyl plant 4km of pine tree forest
turned a red/brown colour as they died following the high levels of radiation.
This “Red Forest” remains one of the most radioactive places on the planet.
Most of the trees were bulldozed and buried due to how they absorbed the
radiation and were deemed dangerous as the trees could’ve let the radiation
reach the ground water which was untouched at the time. 90% of the current
radioactivity in the Red Forest now rests in the soil. {The Red Forest}
{The red forest}
Wildlife in the immediate area are interesting as a large
amount of them died off due to their thyroid glands being destroyed by high
radiation doses while other types of animals seem to take over. This is due to how each animal and plant has
a different radio sensitivity and also how large their radiation exposure was.
A study with a 30km radius of Chernobyl noted that there was a higher mortality
rate of coniferous plants, soil dwelling invertebrates and of course, mammals.
The other observation was the rapid decline in reproduction not only in animals
but also in plants. Birds, boars,
rodents and various other animals are currently prevalent in the area of Pripyat
and some have been recorded to have mutations to some degree yet they still
thrive. Nevertheless, it took few years
were needed for the wildlife and plants to recover from the effects of the
meltdown. Ironically a 30km radius around the Chernobyl plant has now become a
unique sanctuary for biodiversity. {Chernobyl’s Legacy, 2005}
The closest town of Pripyat is now restricted from the
public but is subject to many tests including observations in how radiation is
transported over time. Following the meltdown, high levels of radiation settled
on building walls, roofs, lawn, streets and trees. Rain was a big factor to the
transporation of radiation because as it rained the water would wash the
contaminants from roofs and walls to the base of the buildings making the
highest concentrations of radiation to be found around the buildings. Due to the efficient evacutation of Pripyat
large scale external exposure to radiation was averted. Even so the population
was effected to some degree as even low levels of exposure can rear side effects
many years after. Other residential areas further away from Chernobyl were also
affected for many years following and still are affected by the radiation to
this day but at much lower levels. Even
so, it is noted that “… in most of the settlements subjected to radioactive contamination as a result of
Chernobyl, the air dose rate above solid surfaces has returned to the
background level predating the accident. But the air dose rate remains elevated
above undisturbed soil in gardens and parks in some settlements of Belarus,
Russia and Ukraine.” {Chernobyl’s
Legacy, 2005}
Coming back to South Africa we can start to project what
type of effects the a full meltdown of Koeberg nuclear power plant would mean
for the Western Cape and the rest of South Africa. The Koeberg Alert green
movment has set up a projected exclusion zone in case of a meltdown. The
exclusion zone would the area that would be evacuated in case of emergency.
With Koeberg at the heart of this zone, a large number of highly populated
towns and suburbs would have to be abandoned such as Table View, Milnerton and
Melkbos. In light of the Chernobyl accident we can only estimate how long those
suburbs would be desolate forcing thousands out of home and work. The immediate
environmental reserve could be affected drastically or not at all as research
into the radio sensitivity of the local environment is yet to be tested. The
only certain fact is, by comparison with Chernobyl, the surrounding areas
within the exclusion zone will be contaminated for many years making it
uninhabitable for humans but may increase wildlife prevalence in the future. The
radiation effects in the Western Cape would cripple agricultural areas as the
fallout settled as well as poisoning livestock, the adverse effect it would
have on the South African Economy would cripple it. {KAA, 2012}
The orange circles indicate affected areas of a Koeberg meltdown {KAA,2012}
Eskom, the owner of
all South African electricity, refuse to release its emergency response plans
in case of a meltdown. The KAA has
stated that “In Cape Town, it would be extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to evacuate the same area around Koeberg, and currently there
is no plan to do this. (The Koeberg Emergency Response Plan only deals
with an area 16km around Koeberg, whereas at Fukushima it has been necessary to
evacuate a 20km radius.” {KAA, 2012}
While knowing these effects following the Chernobyl
accident might be worrying, it’s important to note that this incident is the
only one of its kind. What is slightly more common is what would be called a
partial meltdown. The most recent and notable partial meltdown is from the Fukushima
Nuclear Power Plant. The primary cause for the partial meltdown was due to the backup
generators keeping the reactors cool, were knocked out by the large earthquake.
It is suggest that the age of the plant was one of the main issues because
newer plants could have sustained much longer power outages and also have more
back up resources. {Popular mechanics,2011}Fukushima at the time of the
accident was 40 years old while Koeberg is reaching its 30th year in
operation in 2015. Can our Koeberg plant withstand any unexpected accident?
It was
reported that “Koeberg
nuclear power station is sitting alongside a geological fault which gave rise
to an earthquake in 1809 that was the same magnitude as last month’s earthquake
in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Milnerton fault lies about 8km offshore of
Koeberg. New Zealand’s earthquake, which killed 145 people, measured 6.3 on the
Richter scale. Cape Town’s earthquake 200 years ago, which had its epicenter in
present-day Milnerton, is estimated to have measured between 6.3 and 6.5. Several
earthquakes in Cape Town have been recorded from this fault, including a small
one in May 2009.” {IOL sci tech, Melanie Gosling,2012}
With fukushima being so recent an
Eskom representative made several statements in regards to Koeberg:
"The
Koeberg plant is built on a raft to withstand a Richter scale 7 earthquake. So
you've got to look at what is the history of seismic activity in South Africa,
and whether that design is sufficient.” {News24, 2011}
"So there
are some differences; obviously what's happening in Japan is of concern, and we
have to keep reviewing our own practices in the light of what we learn" {News24,
2011}
Both the KAA and Eskom are not without fault as
the KAA are sensational in its claims and Eskom is not transparent. It’s hard
to choose which to trust especially once you do your own research on the
matter. The only definitive opinion is that there is a risk but to what degree
remains to be accurately assessed by an objective source. Koeberg alert over simplifies it’s claims with
health risks and uses dated research to support
it. Eg “Leukemia in young children living in
the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Int J Cancer. 2008; 1220:721-726
…living within a 5km radius of the power plant exhaust stacks were more than
twice as likely to develop leukaemia{KIKK}” {KAA,2012}
While this paper is
relevant it is indeed dated. It has recently become scientific consensus that
there is no direct way to confirm wether cancer comes from living near a
nuclear plant and that they previous paper’s stipulating it did were using very
small test samples. {BBC Horizon,2011} Their website is filled with this form
of persuasive rhertoric and it can be because they are uniformed or they are
trying to gain support through a manipulative manner.
{BBC Horizon,2011}
Let’s not forget Eskom’s over confident assurance of the
safety of Koeberg. They have made claims that everything will be fine but
refuse to release important emergency plan procedures. In true corporate manner
they merely have to save face with simple words but never release the details.
This fact raises a worrying notion that there is something they are trying to
hide or resolve. Would Cape Town be nearly impossible to evacuate in time? Or
are they just being a typical tight lipped corporation?
Nuclear Energy and the
media
Nuclear energy is hotly debated and presented in the media as
both negative and a positive energy source. I have sourced several campaigns
from both for and against organizations and will attempt to critically analise
their arguments as well as identify the communication techniques they employ.
The first of these campaigns comes from Greenpeace which
aired this anti-nuclear power advertisement in 2006. The ad depicts a normal
family enjoying themselves at an undisclosed beach and is filmed as if the
father is filming from a hand camera. They seem to be enjoying themselves until
a large aircraft flies to close to the ground and is set to crash into the
nuclear plant situated just off the beach. Just before the impact the ad cuts
to text which asks the question “Do we really want more nuclear power stations?”
“Tell Tony Blair nuclear power is not the answer to climate change.” {Greenpeace:
Anti-Nuclear power,2006}
To begin with Greenpeace essentially frames their argument
as a threat of a terrorist attack. This is in no means constructive nor does it
bring any evidence that nuclear energy is harmful other than a looming threat
of a terrorist attack. Sensational fear mongering at best. The final statement
that nuclear energy won’t stop climate change has no base as the advert failed
to bring yet again any testable evidence for people to stop and asses. This
doesn’t stop Greenpeace from ordering people to blindly oppose nuclear energy
with the only motivation of fear.
The second anti-nuclear energy campaign comes from an
independent creative collective calling themselves Be Part of the Movement.
Their campaign ad is a highly conceptual, well shot and it’s visually pleasing. Due to the high conceptual quality of the ad,
most of the scenes don’t make sense at first but the communication is that of
modern man breaking out of nuclear power dependency and also the threat of
leaving pollution to the hands of our future generations. {Be part of the movement, 2011}
Their message frame isn’t clear and would leave many
viewers wondering what they just watched. They romanticize the anti-nuclear
movement with high budget visuals and try to create their own brand. Like with
the Greenpeace ad, there is no evidence presented to why people should listen
to them instead this ad tries to create a trend movement which other young creative’s
can buy into.
The final campaign I will look at is one that comes from
the American NEI(Nuclear Energy Institute). This 60 second ad is a light
hearted animation that uses an infographic type format to communicate its
message. It states that the general population is using more energy and that
nuclear energy is cheap, reliable, better for the environment and safe. {NEI,
2012}
The NEI insult the intelligence of the viewers with its
upbeat suburban music them and smiling characters with over simplified
information of what people want to hear. People don’t worry about the cost as
opposed to the dangers of nuclear energy and the only assurance is a brief
statement that can be only described as corporation lip talk. The NEI could’ve
made a campaign that spoke truth into the matter and that transparency would’ve
gained more trust than just saying everything is ok.
Conclusion
Through my research it’s evident that the practice of
nuclear energy is deeply complex and I see the need for everyone affected by it
to take the initiative and educate themselves on the issue from objective and
up to date sources. Ignorance from the general public and its green movements
is one of the main reasons why governments fail to take them seriously. Our
growing power need worldwide is growing each year and the only viable source
for cheap and effective power is Nuclear energy. Alternative methods such as
wind power and solar power are never ruled out but further research is still
needed to be done within those fields for them to be able to generate power
consistently. In time these technologies will become available but until then governments
are forced to choose between nuclear energy which in comparison to other
current coal plants are exponentially better for the environment.
With a sufficient education of nuclear power people will
lose the fear of the unknown. It is certain that in the case of an accident at Koeberg
the environment would suffer but what choice do we have as South Africans to
meet our energy needs? The final sentiment would be for us as South Africans to
be strong willed and demand Eskom’s transparency so that we know we are in good
hands but also to not fight the expanding nuclear power expansion in the
country as we can’t afford to hold back the country economically and socially.
References
Koeberg Power Station. 2012. Koeberg Power Station.
[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.eskom.co.za/c/74/koeberg-nuclear-power-station/.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
HAZARDS OF BOILING WATER REACTORS IN THE UNITED STATES -
NIRS. 2012. HAZARDS OF BOILING WATER REACTORS IN THE UNITED STATES - NIRS.
[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
About KAA | KOEBERG ALERT ALLIANCE. 2012. About KAA
| KOEBERG ALERT ALLIANCE. [ONLINE] Available at: http://koebergalert.org/about/. [Accessed 22 April 2012]
Battle for South Africa's R1-trillion nuclear contract -
Investigations - Mail & Guardian Online. 2011. Battle for South
Africa's R1-trillion nuclear contract - Investigations - Mail & Guardian
Online. [ONLINE] Available at:http://mg.co.za/article/2011-10-07-r1trillion-nuclear-tender-bidding-war/.
[Accessed 22 April 2012
David Thorpe: The effects of uranium mining are
disastrous. To minimise the risks, the nuclear supply chain needs independent
auditing | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk . 2008. David Thorpe: The
effects of uranium mining are disastrous. To minimise the risks, the nuclear
supply chain needs independent auditing | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk .
[ONLINE] Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics.
[Accessed 22 April 2012]
What is nuclear? / Nuclear Waste. 2012. What is
nuclear? / Nuclear Waste. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html.
[Accessed 22 April 2012]
JAIF. 2012. . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1319605053P.pdf.
[Accessed 22 April 2012]
Nuclear Waste Shipments to Russia | Center for Strategic
and International Studies. 2011. Nuclear Waste Shipments to Russia |
Center for Strategic and International Studies. [ONLINE] Available at: http://csis.org/blog/more-nuclear-waste-headed-russia.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
MOFA: Japan-France Relations. 2012. MOFA:
Japan-France Relations. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/france/index.html.
[Accessed 22 April 2012]
NECSA. 2012. . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.necsa.co.za/Portals/1/Documents/4d04001c-20fd-40a5-a871-04daa8447ab5.pdf.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Vaalputs. 2012. Vaalputs. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.radwaste.co.za/vaalputs.htm.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Biophile Magazine -- » Death threats, secrets and lies.
2012. Biophile Magazine -- » Death threats, secrets and lies. [ONLINE]
Available at:http://biophile.co.za/energy/death-threats-secrets-and-lies.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Chernobyl | Chernobyl Accident | Chernobyl Disaster.
2012. Chernobyl | Chernobyl Accident | Chernobyl Disaster. [ONLINE]
Available at:http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Chernobyl’s legacy 2005. . [ONLINE] Available
at:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf.
[Accessed 22 April 2012]
The Red Forest. . The Red Forest. [ONLINE] Available
at:http://www.nuclearflower.com/zone/zone08.html.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Accidents and safety | KOEBERG ALERT ALLIANCE. 2012. Accidents
and safety | KOEBERG ALERT ALLIANCE. [ONLINE] Available at:http://koebergalert.org/accidents-and-safety/.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Fukushima Nuclear Disaster - Japan 9.0 Magnitude Earthquake
- Popular Mechanics. 2011. Fukushima Nuclear Disaster - Japan 9.0
Magnitude Earthquake - Popular Mechanics. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-what-went-wrong-5508927.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Koeberg can withstand quake, tsunami | News24 . 2012. Koeberg
can withstand quake, tsunami | News24 . [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Koeberg-can-withstand-quake-tsunami-20110315.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Background information KiKK study.. Background
information KiKK study. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/kikk.html.
[Accessed 22 April 2012].
Fukushima: Is Nuclear Power Safe?. (2011). Is
nuclear power safe?. [Online Video]. 08 September. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014s49z.
[Accessed: 22 April 2012].
Greenpeace:Anti-Nuclear Power . (2006). Anti-Nuclear
Power . [Online Video]. 2006. Available from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOI-Va5aU3U.
[Accessed: 22 April 2012].
Be part of the movement. (2011). BE PART OF THE
MOVEMENT - anti nuclear energy commercial. [Online Video]. 11 March. Available
from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H2pTgXBAGs.
[Accessed: 22 April 2012].
NEI. (2012). NEI_60-secondTVad_POSTED_FINAL. [Online
Video]. 20 March. Available from:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr6advnLQdU.
[Accessed: 22 April 2012].
Chernobyl: An Inventory of
Mortality on the Behance Network. 2012. Chernobyl: An Inventory of
Mortality on the Behance Network. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.behance.net/gallery/Chernobyl-An-Inventory-of-Mortality/3595489.
[Accessed 22 April 2012]
