Witwatersrand, South Africa Uranium mining site Inadequate controls and safety standards in the uranium mining industry in the Witwatersrand ba- sin have resulted in an environmental catastrophe. Radioactive tailings and contaminated water are not just detrimental for the ecosystem in the region, but also represent a grave public health prob- lem. At the same time, South Africa’s nuclear industry is a good example of the intangible connection between civil and military nuclear programs and the inherent proliferation risk of nuclear energy. History Uranium production in South Africa has generally been a by-product of gold mining. Ever since the gold rush of 1886, the Witwatersrand basin has been a major mining site. Today, this region, which roughly corre- sponds to Gauteng province, is home to more than 10 million people. With safety standards and production costs in South Africa signifi cantly lower than in other 10,000 Bq/kg – fi ve times the already high maximum countries, companies like AngloGold, Goldfi elds, First level proposed by authorities.5 Natural uranium lev- Uranium, DRD and Harmony are continuing to mine els are between 7 and 60 Bq/kg.7 Radiation measure- uranium in this populated region. The total uranium ments of soil, air and sediments by the Department of production of the Witwatersrand basin between 1952 Water Affairs and Forestry showed increased levels of and 1998 is estimated to be about 150,000 tons of radioactivity in many of the region’s residential areas refi ned uranium.1 such as Carletonville, Westonarea, Khutsong, Kagiso and Randfontein. Despite massive environmental con- Until 1964, most of the uranium was exported to the tamination from uranium mining in Witwatersrand, no U.S. and to Britain. But starting in the 1960s, South epidemiological studies have been undertaken so far. Africa began to construct its own nuclear weapons pro- Studies from other uranium mining centers in Canada A tailings dam with radioactive acid rock drainage, containing uranium. It is estimated that in parts of the West Rand, 50 tons of gram. As a cover, two nuclear power plants were con- and Germany found long term effects such as infer- uranium enter watercourses each year. Photo: © Michael Harris structed at Koeberg, which began operation in 1984. tility, neurological damage, cancer and birth defects.2 At the same time, a secret uranium enrichment facil- More information can be found on the corresponding ity was set up at Valindaba, which produced enough posters in this exhibition. highly-enriched uranium for six nuclear warheads. These weapons of mass destruction were offi cially never tested due to international pressure and were Outlook eventually dismantled and destroyed after the end of While past uranium mining projects will continue to apartheid. Soon after that, South Africa joined the Nu- pose an environmental and health threat for genera- clear Non-Proliferation Treaty. From then on, the state- tions to come, companies such as AngloGold are con- owned Atomic Energy Corporation put its emphasis on tinuing to expand mining operations in the Witwaters- the civil nuclear program.2 rand basin. Their disregard for the environment and health has been criticized by numerous NGOs. The Health and environmental e ects recently released study “Uranium from Africa – mitiga- tion of uranium impacts on society and environment” South Africa’s mining industry is relatively unregula- points out the country’s failure to reduce the danger- ted, which has led to high levels of radioactive expo- ous impacts of uranium mining activity and criticizes sure among the Bantu-speaking people who work in the National Nuclear Regulator, the agency meant to the mines and inhale radioactive particles. The gene- safeguard the public against mining related radiation, ral population is also exposed to radioactivity, howev- as ineffective and overstretched.7 The environmental er, from the mine’s six billion tons of tailings, which and public health impact of uranium mining in South were distributed in ponds and heaps over a densely Africa cannot be properly assessed without large scale 2 populated area of about 400 km . The radioactive par- epidemiological studies. Even without these, it is evi- 3,4 ticles seep into adjacent rivers. Contaminated wa- dent, however, that the vulnerable population of the The underground mine Ezulwini is located on the edge of Westonaria, about 40 km from Johannesburg. Despite the environ- ter from fl ooded mines or sinkholes also act as major mental catastrophe caused by radioactive tailings and water contamination, many companies are continually extracting gold and townships is bearing the brunt of the problem. These uranium here and even expanding their mines. Photo: © First Uranium sources of uranium pollution affecting surface- and people are also Hibakusha – they are forced to live 3,5 groundwater. The region of Wonderfonteinspruit in with radioactive contamination and to suffer health ef- the western part of the basin has been identifi ed as a fects, all because of their country’s nuclear ambitions. site of signifi cant radioactive pollution; in the Far West Rand goldfi elds alone, 50 tons of uranium are esti- mated to enter watercourses each year.3 South Afri- ca’s Water Research Commission found that the ura- nium content of sediments found in dams, wetlands and the streambed in the Wonderfonteinspruit exceed permissible limits, with uranium concentrations up to References 1 “Uranium 1999 Resources, Production and Demand.” Joint report of IAEA and OECD, 2000, p.251ff. 2 Fig D. “Uranium Road – Questioning South Africa’s Nuclear Direction.” Jacana Media, Johannesburg 2005. 3 Liefferink M. “Poisonous legacy of Gold and Uranium Mining.” Website of the Coalition against Nuclear Energy (CANE), September 10, 2007. www.cane.org.za/uranium/poisonous-legacy-of-gold-and-uranium-mining 4 Winde et al. “Gold tailings as a source of waterborne uranium contamination of streams.” Water SA, Vol.30 (2) 2004: 22. www.ajol.info/index.php/wsa/article/view/5069 5 Coetzee et al. “Reliance on existing wetlands for pollution control around the Witwatersrand gold/uranium mines.” In: “Uranium in the Aquatic Environment.” Springer, Heidelberg 2002, pp 59-64. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55668-5_6 6 Winde F. “Uranium pollution of water resources in mined-out and active goldfi elds of South Africa – a case study in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment on extent and sources of U-Contamination and associated health risks.” Abstracts of the International Mine Water Conference Proceedings, October 2009. www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2009/IMWA2009_Winde.pdf 7 “Umweltradioaktivität und Strahlenbelastung.” German Federal Ministry for Environment, Conservation and Reactor Safety, 1995. http://atlas.umwelt.hessen.de/servlet/Frame/atlas/radioakt/gamma_txt.htm 8 “Uranium from Africa – Mitigation of uranium mining impacts on society and environment by industry and governments.” Report of SOMO und WISE, June 2001. http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3688/at_download/fullfi le Residential houses in Westonaria. Measurements of soil, air and sediments by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry showed increased levels of radioactivity in this and many other communities in the region. Photo credit: Herby Hönigsperger / creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 An exhibiton by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Physicians in Social Responsi- bility e. V. (IPPNW) 66-70 Union Square, #204 Somerville, MA 02143 USA [email protected] | www.ippnw.org Hibakusha worldwide Legally responsible for content: Dr. Alex Rosen.