Take emotions out of nuclear debate

The entire nuclear power debate is an emotional issue in some quarters.

This is a great pity because the best way to handle it is with calm, reasoned pro- fessionalism. It is a pity that this knee-jerk emotional response happens at all, but even worse is when it happens with people who should know better and who should exhibit more professionalism.

Sadly, this label fits a number of the media outlets. One that is often particularly guilty is a South African weekly newspaper. Recently, the newspaper published an editorial titled ‘Poisoning the Karoo’, which was an attack on nuclear power. It was a very poor piece of journalism. It was so overtly full of extreme bias, but, sadly, was also full of inaccuracies.

One would imagine that the newspaper’s readers would be of above-average intelligence and so should be treated like think- ing people, not fodder. The editorial referred to “exposed uranium waste” that is “laced with uranium”. This material was rocks that contain uranium. Essentially, all South Africa’s gold mines contain uranium. It generally occurs in the same rocks as gold.

The editorial stemmed from a development in the Beaufort West area. There is a plan to restart a uranium mining operation that closed decades ago. Currently, there are some rocks lying around from the original mining operation and these rocks contain uranium. The newspaper referred to these rocks as “exposed uranium waste”.

Incredibly, the editorial states that these rocks are not cordoned off with barbed wire fences and “yellow and black” radiation warning signs. The comment about ‘yellow and black’ also, to me, indicates that the writer does not know what he or she is talking about. The well-known radiation symbol actually comes in a set of colours. The colours indicate different radiation levels. At certain high levels, the colours even become stripes. The fact that, at times, the signs are yellow and black is just that the sign maker used that colour because he or she liked it, or that someone who knows no better told him or her to do so.

The way the newspaper uses the term ‘yellow and black’, to me, just looks as if the newspaper is trying to be overly dramatic.

Then we are told that the newspaper found rocks 40 km outside Beaufort West “with uranium levels as high as seven microsieverts”. The newspaper tells us that the “legal limit is 0.2.”

Clearly, the newspaper’s team did not take a physicist with them, so they posi- tioned themselves as nuclear experts. The ‘measure’ of microsieverts is wrong. You do not measure the activity of a rock in microsieverts – you measure radiation activity in Becquerels.

The editorial refers to uranium as if it is radioactive and, therefore, dangerous. This is wrong and it seems the writer of the editorial either has no idea of what he or she is talking about or is intentionally trying to mislead readers.

Yes, uranium is technically radioactive, but the radioactivity is so mild that you can put a block of uranium metal on your desk for decades with no fear whatsoever. Granite table tops, as found in kitchens, are also radioactive – and so are bananas.

Imagine the editorial writer eating a banana at a granite table– maybe ‘fear factor’ second to none.

Then we are told that the news- paper found “piles of new waste dumped in an old mining pit”. This, apparently, “pushed a Geiger counter to 1.2 microsieverts. Again, the legal limit is 0.2.” No! There is a legal limit of 0.2 Bq/g (Becquerels per gram) for manufactured nuclear waste, but, interestingly, the limit for natural uranium is 0.5 Bq/g. However, in Government Gazette R388, coal ash is allowed to have radioactive concentrations far above this limit. Radiation far higher than this is actually perfectly safe. The writer seems to have no understanding of this.

South Africa is considered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be an absolute model of good compliance. The director-general of the IAEA told me that himself, face to face. The South African National Nuclear Regulator has substantial powers, like those of the Public Protector, and would not tolerate any illegal disposal of nuclear waste. So, to imply that nuclear waste is illegally dumped near the road and that everybody knows about it is bunk.

There are many more inaccurate statements in the editorial. It is not worthy of a respectable newspaper. The slap in the face to South Africa’s dedicated nuclear professionals is inexcusable. We really do need to conduct the nuclear debate in a calm and professional manner.