Eskom has recently announced that it will most likely be going ahead with South Africa’s second nuclear power station. The draft scoping report has been completed and it looks as if Koeberg might be the most likely site for the station.
Last week, French President Sarkozy visited South Africa and apparently spoke to President Mbeki about French companies’ involvement in nuclear power stations in South Africa. (One would think that after the arms-deal debacle they would just stay away.)
And this week we are being “blessed” with the presence of Patrick Moore. A proponent for nuclear energy, Moore will be travelling around South Africa telling people that nuclear is not all that bad — actually, he is saying that nuclear power is good and the way to go! This comes from someone who in the 1970s was a leading figure in Greenpeace campaigning against nuclear power.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — but at least have some compelling arguments for the change of opinion. Moore proposes that nuclear energy:
has a low contribution to global warming, as there is little greenhouse-gas emission;
could reduce the dependence on fossil fuels;
could generate a high amount of energy from a single plant; and
is available and not subject to fluctuations in energy production experienced with solar or wind energy.
Apart from the low emissions of greenhouse gases, the rest of the arguments are just deceitful. For starters, not pumping fumes into the air does not negate the fact that poisons would be dumped into the Earth’s soil and water. We have not yet found a solution to dealing with radioactive waste. Moore suggests that nuclear waste “is no more dangerous than many other chemicals. The trick is to keep it contained and limit our exposure to it.” Is he out of his tree? Has this man looked at how well we’ve done so far in containing harmful substances?
The reckless manner in which industry has dealt with dangerous chemicals is proof that we cannot trust it to work with even more harmful substances in a responsible manner. Even with the best security and safety standards, accidents can still happen. In addition, it is foolish to compare nuclear waste to other chemicals. Unlike other substances, the waste from nuclear energy has to be looked after for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. So we may not give the Earth a death sentence by the climate-change noose, but by a lethal injection of nuclear waste instead. Either way it is still a death sentence!
Notwithstanding the waste, nuclear power is just not sustainable. Not only does it take many years to develop a nuclear power station, but uranium (the energy source for nuclear power) is also in short supply. It is believed that the supply of uranium is estimated to last for only 30 to 60 years, depending on the demand. So in the short term the technology may be available, but in the long term it will also be subject to fluctuations. It just does not make business sense to invest billions in something that has such a short life span and that will be such a liability to the environment.
And then what happens when the uranium is depleted and all we have left is nuclear waste? Hmm, I guess we could use the nuclear waste to make weapons! Well that will solve the problem of the waste for sure and then we could just nuke each other to death. Lovely, just lovely …
34 Responses to “It’s nuclear, it’s now and it’s happening — whether you like it or not”
At least nuclear waste is something that is “somewhere”. Carbon dioxide has a nasty habit of spreading everywhere and is a lot tougher to contain or get back into one place.
Humanity doesn’t have a good track record on chemical pollution, but IMHO the management of CO2 is much much more lacking. It’s taken us this long to even acknowledge that it is a pollutant.
Interesting article. It would be nice if you could cite your sources - particularly about the uranium supply - because as always there are very conflicting estimates: from the greenies on the left to the conservative (spin)thinktanks on the right.
It seems to be an endlessly debatable subject; but what could be a more important yardstick is the useful lifespan of the nuclear plants, and the ultimate cost of decommissioning. Between 2010 and 2025 there are over 100 nuclear plants which will have to be decommissioned in the US - at an estimated cost of over $1 billion each.
(http://www.answers.com/nuclear+power?cat=technology)
In my humble opinion PV or solar reflectors using the Sterling engine will ultimately provide the world’s population (on an individual and commercial scale) with the answer to our quest for power.
I’m sorry, but your arguments are weak. I’m sure you can do a lot better than that - motivations, figures, studies, reports. While Uranium is finite, breeder reactors are capable of generating a lot more fuel over time…etc etc.
I am guessing that if nuclear waste can be used to make weapons, research will find a way to convert that energy to electricity given time. I understand that we now have a problem dealing with the waste but humans are damned clever things when not being totally obtuse. Two hundred years ago Coal was the only source of fuel in industry yet it is no longer essential if we use technology, Building more coal powered stations will only do more harm, Have you been to a coal power station and seen the polution first hand?
You should do a bit of research on the subject before slating nuclear energy. New nuclear technology has come a long way. Newer reactors produce almost no nuclear waste because they can consume it. They can also produce hydrogen as a by-product. Smaller sealed unit reactors can simply be placed and attached to steam turbines to quickly produce energy to power small cities.
Fuel for the reactors can be seeded i.e. it can be produced. Uranium is also only one of the potential fuel sources for reactors.
In terms of fuel availability: Resources are plentiful. enough to last us until fission reactors are feasible.
With the arrival of President Sarkozy en entourage, I was overwhelmed by a hideous and all too recent de ja vu.
Once more the ravening colonial masters come forth to speak with forked tongue and fleece the natives… again! I thought how much more precious foreign exchange is to be expended upon more stuff we don’t need or on a harebrained nuclear project which is doomed even before the first sod is turned. Perhaps the motivation behind the ‘strengthening of ties’ between us and le Francais stems from a desire by the Europeans to hammer the last dregs of profit from a dying technology. The victims of the dumping will again be the hapless and gullible indigenes of Africa.
I have no opposition to nuclear technology per se. Coal extraction processes conducted on the future envisaged scale are rather more capable of delivering a “lethal injection of […] waste” as any nuclear technology, primarily through the acidification of groundwater.
There is also the small matter of stripping away overlaid sedimentary rock, which acts as a water filter, to get at the coal in Mapumalanga. This is set to poison and trash much of the Lake District once the coal has been mined out.
The environmental objections to nuclear are grossly overplayed due to negative perceptions about ‘radiation’, a fundamental and natural phenomenon much feared and little understood by the public at large. The most compelling reason not to bother with nuclear lies not with concerns about ‘waste’ but, as Ferrial pointed out, about sustainability.
The fissionable uranium isotope used in reactors constitutes only 0.7% of the uranium extracted from the ore. It is a scarce and non renewable resource. Attempts to extend the fuel supply in fast breeder reactors have produced disappointing yields in practice, and the processes have not even been commercialized at this juncture. Breeder processes have been applied in research, and in military reactors to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. This in itself should raise concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation.
Polar-bear-huggers are great at criticizing nuclear and fossil fuel sources of power, but have nothing practical to offer instead.
Solar energy? It would be nice if the sun were to oblige by shining at night between 18:00 and 22:00 when Eskom’s demand peaks.
Wind power? Except at the coast there is little wind here in South Africa. What happens when the is no wind even at the coast?
I quote you: “how well we’ve done so far in containing harmful substances”. Of yes? Every heard of lead in petrol that has been, and is still being spewed over our homes and crops? The poison in lead remains FOREVER; radioactivity, at least, has a finite life (albeit long in some cases).
If you want a crusade against problem chemicals try “endocrine disruptors” (ie. natural and artificial hormone pollution in water supplies). Even in minute concentrations they seriously affect humans and other animals.
As usual the opponents of nuclear power use emotions rather than hard facts to support getting the public on their side. Everything in life has risk.In a power hungry world we have to accept that electricity has to be generated, it’s just to find ways of doing it in sufficient amounts with as little harm to the environment as possible. The nuclear industry is the most strictly regulated and controlled industry on the planet and I can assure you that the people in this field are not oblivious to potential problems. Waste is not an issue, yes you have to contain it and look after it, but the long term high level waste from a nuclear plant is an incredibly small amount. In fact, a plant like Koeberg can store all the spent fuel generated in its lifetime in a pool on site. Compare that with all the human waste we generate, the mine dumps of ash generated by coal plants, and the exhaust gases of our vehicles. Why pick on nuclear power which has proven to be safe over so many years?
My summary: Going nuclear is dangerous because of the waste problem and the potential for bombs, and it’s not even economically viable once you take all costs into account. (Interestingly, last week I read a piece about energy companies in the US only considering to build new fission reactors after the government agreed to make substantial subsidies - just like they were to support my argument.)
@Dewald: You could have mentioned that the THTR failed and already caused costs north of 2 billion euros (at current rates more than 23 billion rands). Not overly impressive, considering that it only generated 300 MW!
@treehugger I agree with you - It is true that “power is a political and short term financial game”. I also agree that statistics are often manipulated. So without referring to the ‘greenie’ source that I obtained - The IAEA (international atomic energy agency) suggests that there is enough uranium for at least 85 years. Should the demand increase this number would change significantly.
But the point is - even if we have uranium for longer periods are we forgetting the impact that this will have on the earth?
In no way am I saying that we must continue as usual and spew out fumes - but a greater emphasis must be given to alternative sustainable energy sources. I have recently read an article which states that ESkom spends only 1% of the amount it spends on Nuclear energy activities - just 1%! And then we are told that renewable energy will not be able to meet the present demands - but not enough is being done on renewables for us to make a true assessment.
This column is a gross example of emotional, non-scientific, non-quantitative thinking. For example: how many people have ever been killed by nuclear waste and nuclear accidents combined, including Chernobyl?
Well, Chernobyl killed 57 directly, and possibly caused about 2000 deaths due to cancer. It is uncertain how many people have ever died due to nuclear storage mishaps, but they are probably not numbered even in hundreds.
The coal industry, on the other hand, causes more deaths EVERY YEAR - in 2006 alone, just less than 5000 people died mining coal in China.
Is a person killed by black lung or in a coal mine somehow less dead than a Chernobyl victim?
Please, Ms Adam, you are clearly totally out of your depth and utterly unqualified to understand what you are talking about here. Rather stick to cookery or knitting columns, which may be more suited to your capabilities.
“The actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors.” - Sounds like enough until we get Fusion reactors or Space-based Solar Satellites going.
Everything productive that mankind can do is associated with risk. In fact, our primary skill is evaluating, mitigating, taking and managing risk.
The question is not whether there is risk, but whether such risk is worth taking. The question is not whether there is risk, but how the risk can be minimised.
And if you do apply the precautionary principle, you also have to evaluate the risk of applying the precautionary principle. And if that sounds like a logical contradiction, it is.
Risk requires reason and caution. Fear is no way to evaluate the risks and benefits of technologies or alternative courses of action. Sadly, the tone and substance of your argument speaks not of rational caution, but of irrational fear.
Your rude, arrogant and patronising last paragraph totally made me disregard the rest of what you wrote. Play the ball not the man (woman).
@ Ferrial
I found your article and the responses, very thought-provoking. My knee-jerk reaction has always been that I’m against nuclear power but reading throgh the responses made me stop and ponder. Several readers (Perry Curling-Hope and Robin Grant for example)made statements that caused me to think that I haven’t formed my opinions with enough information at hand.
I am still very much in favour of sustainable and “green” energy but I would like to know more about nuclear power, in light of what some have written here.
Would you consider writing a piece on it that looks at the latest technology, waste, safety, sustainability, etc?
Interesting article (”Its nuclear…”) but perhaps you want to do your homework next time, this isn’t a trivial issue as yoour article conveys. Toxic waste is a major concern but despite that nuclear energy is the cleanest major energy source we have. The amount to toxic waste generated is a tiny fraction of the twenty-odd billion tonnes of CO2 (much of it from the coal based energy sector) that’s spewed into the atmosphere every year - and the latter is okay? How many people have died in direct consequence to peace-time nuclear accidents? Three Mile Island - zero, the back up system worked. Chernobyl - around fifty of those directly exposed - in the generation since. At the height of nuclear weapons testing around the world, no spike in radiation related diseases was detected - this includes the two thosusand or so under- and overground tests at the Nevada Test Site just outside of ‘Vegas. Then we ask ourselves how many severe health issues are caused by the 24/7 coal fired emmissions? Perhaps up there with nuclear weapons that might be fired in anger, or the half a million or so smoking related deaths in Western Europe alone every year. Nuclear is the only option at present. Until then, roll on fusion. Stephen, Germany.
Ah, the typical simplification of nuclear power issues.. It is very easy for environmentalists targeting the uninformed to quote highly disputed statistics about the toxicity of buried waste and the sustainability of nuclear fuel.
Many scientists without vested interests say that the danger is very minimal from properly handled nuclear waste. Regarding sustainability many believe that with increased demand and a higher uranium price the percentage of economically recoverable uranium increases. The raw (unprocessed) uranium price is a very small factor in the final fuel price due to the very high cost of refinement (which is expected to decrease), meaning that even if the raw price increases by a factor of 10 (thus making more of it economically recoverable) the cost of power generation would only go up by only a few percent.
Regarding decommissioning costs: any competent comparative economical analysis (eg. comparing nuclear to coal or renewables) will take capital, running and decommissioning costs into consideration. They are part of the equation that shows nuclear power to be the second most economical generating method after coal, and not an afterthought.
The bottom line is that all the facts are disputed depending on one’s motives. Nuclear must be compared to the alternative: Coal. Solar and wind power cannot possibly be looked at as a realistic major source of power at this time due to the lack of electricity storage technology and predictable output.
Nuclear is the current devil we know, as opposed to the devil we are yet to meet when wind turbines go up in Algoa Bay or solar farms cover the Karoo, all guaranteed to arrive with fresh reason for fear and loathing. I happen to live within 15km of one of the new proposed sites and have worked hard at keeping food down at umpteen dinner parties dominated by this @#$%^&* discussion. As much as I dislike it, our only energy provider is providing a single option: nuclear. If I am not willing to take to the streets to stop this, nor cover my roof with an assortment of alternatives, I must accept it. That I would prefer to not see a plant built in this pristine piece of unique biosphere is as incidental and irelevant as my choice in shirt colour. And since the birds and fish don’t read nor care less, it comes down to a simple aesthetic preference of where is the most suitable location for building this demonic monument to the human race? One community will keep passing the buck to the next, until a practical decision is made that few will appreciate. So go ahead and make an intelligent decision about the location by building it at Koeburg, right amongst the humans that will benefit from it. Having it in the faces of the consumer at large is the only catalyst to changing the group behaviour that warrants it in the first place.
ESKOM’s already made it’s decisions, Manual has allocated the budget, and all that remains is a poorly acted road-show to ease us into accepting the inevitable. I am getting used to feeling like a fudged-off South-African, fed leftovers from the West, feeling too lack-lustre to take action, and barely interested in watching the show.
Fatalist? Ja. Me and another forty-five million.
@Odette thanks! yes, i think this discussion needs to be expanded and thus would definitely require a follow up piece that will incorporate the comments. Some have been very interesting indeed.
I should have something next week - there goes my weekend of knitting!!
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Nuclear powered electricity generation.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Global warming.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Elephant overpopulation.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Poverty and starvation.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Solution: Greenies, tree huggers, anti-abortionists etc. etc.
Opinion: I don’t think so - do you?
Installing solar heating systems instead of traditional electricity geysers will reduce our electricity consumption dramatically. And all the technology is available at present. Ditto to using energy saving light bulbs and air drying washing instead of using tumble driers! Lets not lose track of simple practical solutions in this whole rather theoretical debate about nuclear energy. I think the real problem is that people in this country are too damn lazy to force change in habits. Nuclear is not the way to go.
What government needs to do - is do a cost-benifit analysis. Put options for coal, nuclear, renewables etc side by side and evaluate them, and then act very quickly. Personally, I do not like nuclear power - even if people say they are safer and that new materials can be used - simply because I would not like to live near a nuclear power station. But, the point I get from this article is that nuclear energy will require both a large capital outlay, and possibly large maintanance and disposal costs. And then if uranium prices go up because the commodity is scarce, we will then see even bigger increases in the price for power.
I’m still struggling to understand why the Mr. Moore’s last three arguments (bullet points) are “deceitful”. Nuclear WILL help reduce fossil fuel dependency, and intermittentcy IS a very serious problem that will limit renewables’ impact. As other posters have shown, long-term uranium supply limitations is simply not an issue.
Lack of CO2 emissions is not the only argument for nuclear (not by a long shot). Fossil power plants cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, worldwide, every single year. Western nuclear power plants have never killed a member of the public or had any measurable impact on public health, over their entire ~40-year history. It is also true that nuclear waste, from Western reactors, has never killed anyone or affected anyone’s health. Even the worst conceivable accident event at a nuclear plant or waste repository would have an impact that is negligible compared to the ANNUAL impact from fossil fuels.
Since nuclear power yields about a million times as much energy per gram of fuel, the volume/mass of nuclear waste is roughly a million times smaller than that produced by coal plants. The nuclear waste stream is also millions of times smaller than other waste streams like chemical toxic wastes, petrochemical industry wastes, and ordinary garbage. In large part due to the tiny volume, nuclear power plant waste has always been completely contained and has had no measurable health or environmental impact. Furthermore, the industry is required to show that the waste will remain contained until it decays to harmlessness. No other industry or waste stream is held to nearly the same standard. Thus, the reference to nuclear power “dumping poisons into earth’s soil and water” is a gross mischaracterization. It is the one industry that does NOT do that!
Nuclear waste IS more manageable than other waste streams (e.g., chemicals, etc..). It is generated in tiny volumes, in the form of a leach/corrosion resistant ceramic solid, and it decays away. Other waste streams are generated in vastly larger volumes, in highly dispersible (hard to contain) forms like liquids, gases, or sludges, and many of the toxins never decay away. That nuclear waste is unique in terms of longevity is a myth. It’s not that the other waste streams don’t remain toxic/risky over long periods. It’s just that we’ve arbitrarily decided not to care about the long term risks from those other waste streams, and therefore do not make any long term requirements. A million years from now, just about all other waste streams will have pose a greater risk to the environment than nuclear waste will.
One example would be the toxic components of solar cells (e.g., arsenic). These toxic elements are harder to contain and never decay away, and the solar cells would be used/generated in much larger volumes. It’s possible that the waste stream from solar cells would actually be a greater long term threat, per unit energy produced.
The article is saying that uranium reserves can satisfy the world energy demand for less than 50 years and nuclear fission produces radioactive waste. Oil and coal reserves are also limited and we are sending too much waste from fossil fuels into atmosphere.
While fission fuel reserves may be limited the nuclear energy by fusion can supply the entire world for hundred of thousand years. Nuclear is unavoidable for a real solution and it is the same engineers and scientists working on current plants based on fission that will crack the controlled fusion or thermonuclear energy problem.
1. The waste from nuclear plants can’t be used to make bombs. If it could, it would be recycled back to the plant for fission again. Bombs and plants work on fission, so if the spent fuel could be used for fission, it would be possible to re-use it for fuel in the plant. In such cases, it is re-used till it’s spent. The fuel is then sealed in lead boxes and buried in caves under concrete shielding. That’s much more careful with what we do with wastes from plastic manufacturers and coal stations. Anyway, uranium comes from the ground, and we put the waste back there, and the earth has managed to survive despite the fact that the crust is full of radioactive particles anyway… So I don’t see what the fuss is about. If anything, we’re cleaning up because we’re taking the original uranium, using up some of its radioactive power, and putting it back in sealed containers with reduced radioactive power… There’s another way of looking at it.
2. There is however a risk that the enrichment process will be prone to terrorists and corruption. We saw in the news the case where technology was sold to the Pakistanis and that a South African company was the one making the parts they needed. This is risky considering the evidence we’ve seen of large-scale corruption in the country. We’d need ElBaradei to live here to keep an eye on things when he’s finished with Iran.
3. There’s also geothermal power which people keep ignoring. Ie., using the earth’s heat to boil water to turn turbines, instead of using nuclear heat to do the same. Of course Warmbaths isn’t hot enough to power the nation, but people seem to keep forgetting about it.
4. Says who (page, article) that we’re going to run out of uranium? Isn’t South Africa the world’s biggest or second-biggest producer?
Another thing occurred to me. Perhaps people aren’t aware of the power difference between uranium and coal? A single Kg of uranium provides the equivalent energy to thousands of tons of TNT. This is what the power measurement of weapons means. Eg., at one stage Russia had a 60-megaton bomb. This was equivalent to 60 million tons of TNT. Etc. The point is that the volume and mass of fuel used in nuclear stations is much less than coal - thousands of times less. This is what Einstein’s equation means: it is a calculation of the energy available in a nuclear reaction. Nuclear submarines can swim around underwater for months on a handful of fuel. A coal submarine would require thousands of tons, and spew those thousands into the atmosphere as it burnt. In the nuclear case they just put it in a little jar and bury it.
Firstly let me say that I do not take this issue lightly at all.
@Ivo - I have thought about whether it is my fear that makes me take this position on nuclear and I am certain that it is not. If we look at all the issues around nuclear - resources available, economic, waste etc - I am just not convinced that this is the best way.
@and thanks - I agree.
@Stephen Lynch - With regards to Chernobyl - it has become an almost uninhabited place with checkpoints and a huge zone of alienation. So just telling me that only 57 or so people died is missing the point of a sustainable planet - it is more than just people dying.
@Odette - Thanks. I do agree with you - the responses have been thought provoking and have created quite a bit of debate. And perhaps I do need to write a more detailed article and not just respond to the comments. I have deadlines at the moment and should post it next week - so i look forward to the review then.
One more thing - I think I’ve said it before - I am not advocating for a business as usual situation. Yes - Coal powered stations are polluting the atmosphere. I do believe that science and technology have been able to develop fabulous alternative ways of producing energy. And perhaps I need to do something on alternative energy and what is feasible in South Africa
Thank you for the response. I look forward to your next article and I am very interested in learning more about alternative energy sources so I hope you write that article too.
Have you heard of climate-porn? This is nuclear-porn. It’s incredible that at this point intelligent people in SA and abroad still have no idea what our options are. Ferrial, if we follow your ’sensible’ thinking to the obvious conclusion, what is the alternative to nuclear? The answer is that given climate concerns, nuclear is the ONLY option. The waste is hazardous and is a concern, but it amounts to looking after hazardous material the size of a small swimming pool, as opposed to massive mine dumps, environmental pollution etc etc. For a decent dose of common sense on energy issues read www.kunstler.com every Monday afternoon. Otherwise please steer clear of this subject entirely.
@Palabora
“Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Nuclear powered electricity generation.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Global warming.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Elephant overpopulation.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Symptom: Poverty and starvation.
Problem: Human overpopulation. Solution: Greenies, tree huggers, anti-abortionists etc. etc.
Opinion: I don’t think so - do you?”
Nice approach, but how do you put anti-abortionists into the same category as environmental and ecological activists? (emphasis on logical)
The problems, symptoms and solutions are far more complex, and when it comes to power the problem is not over population so much as an intellectual malaise and myopic opportunism that plays to the monotonous marching tune of the demagogic populists.
If South Africa made a concerted effort to roll out the equivalent solar power as Germany already has, we could shortly be covering about 20% of our overall requirements… However, allowing the creation of a national power feedback grid or independent power suppliers is about as likely as DoC (Ivy Katsepi-Masaburri, and co) and ICASA allowing the rollout of independent last-mile un-licensed WiFi mesh networks, with free VOIP; and thereby losing the associated revenue from their “economic engine”. See, the technology exists, but the immediate cash cow has too much milk to slaughter for the cause of education, ubiquitous communications, and ultimately, crossing the digital divide.
The hilarious reality is that many smelters could be offsetting their power consumption by installing electricity turbines in their heat dissipation units - but it has been seen to be near impossible to negotiate with Eskom over the power feedback revenue split. Farmers with hydro capacity and other free enterprisers cannot provide power, in much the same way that WiFi networks are not allowed to cross cadastral boundaries: state controlled conflicting interest.
Personally I am ambivalent about nuclear power and also, perhaps superstitiously, consign it to demonic roots; but that is hardly even the issue, really. There is an insidious short-sightedness prevailing to finance the welfare state (and political cronies) at all costs, rather than pursue the myriad of ecologically and economically feasible options available.
Incidentally, dropping private consumer power consumption by solar water heating is only going to drop national usage by a small fraction - when one considers that over 60% of overall usage is by heavy industry (largely vested in offshore consortiums) at hugely discounted prices at the expense of the average citizen and the environment.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Ferrial Adam works in the environmental sector. She has worked on issues ranging from media and corporate accountability to radio astronomy telescopes and, more recently, issues of sustainable energy. The environmental sector has given her the opportunity to merge her interest in science with her commitment to socio-economic development issues. She hopes to use the blogosphere to share her passion for environmental justice.
I have just moved back to Johannesburg after spending about seven months in Cape Town. Even though I am very glad to be back in Johannesburg ,I am sti...
Last weekend I spent some time collecting signatures for a petition to stop the development of the Sea Point Pavilion in Cape Town. The development be...
This blog has nothing to do with the government’s new slogan sound bite -- it has to do with thieving and unscrupulous business practices in South A...
As a Muslim woman, I have often been asked if I would ever consider "covering up". In my late teens and early 20s, my response was almost always a hea...
Loading ...
At least nuclear waste is something that is “somewhere”. Carbon dioxide has a nasty habit of spreading everywhere and is a lot tougher to contain or get back into one place.
Humanity doesn’t have a good track record on chemical pollution, but IMHO the management of CO2 is much much more lacking. It’s taken us this long to even acknowledge that it is a pollutant.
(Report abuse)