ETHEL Hazelhurst’s column “Government dithers even as world outlook deteriorates” (Business Report, September 29) is chilling. She states succinctly every reason our president should stop sitting on his hands, take advice from those who have the experience to give it, and open his mouth to make declarations that will save our country from further economic downgrading.
What is President Jacob Zuma waiting for? Surely the position of governor of the Reserve Bank is one that needs to be filled urgently and correctly, taking into account the credibility and experience of the prospective candidate?
Surely the water crisis in Gauteng should elicit some sort of response from the government, at least from the minister of water affairs herself, despite the fact that she has little or no experience in this portfolio? Ministers and the president cannot be experts in every aspect of the field in which they serve, granted, but surely there is a plethora of experts to whom they can refer.
The only utterance from the top that I recall hearing in the past few weeks has been messages of condolence for the victims of the TB Joshua disaster.
While this is appropriate given the extent to which the South Africans involved in the disaster were affected, it is the government’s duty as an elected body to take counsel and make comment, for media release, on what it proposes to do to rectify the current state of affairs across the board.
What does it take for them to understand that their lack of response is aiding and abetting the falling value of our currency, if nothing else? And if our currency continues to fall, the potential for social upliftment takes a concomitant nose-dive.
Please, Mr President, open your mouth and speak. And let it not be a reason to absolve yourself – let it be a reason to lead our country forward economically and socially.
Restore our faith by telling us that there is a way out of this mess.
Janey Edwards
VIA E-MAIL
State puts incompetent people in crucial posts
I CANNOT agree more, over and over, with what is stated by Tim Anderson in “Eskom cannot plan and manage major projects” (Business Report, September 29). If only this would be discussed in Parliament.
Our problem with people in strategic positions is incompetence, greed and a couldn’t-care-less attitude. This reaches to the core of most of our problems.
Many of our parastatals are run by managers who are cronies instead of being of people of integrity and ability. These “managers”do not know how to manage the projects they are supposed to run.
Instead of going, like a capable manager, directly from A to Z using the best contractors, they go from A to B to C, through the alphabet, losing money at each stage by choosing inferior contractors who mostly cannot do the job. The obvious result is non-delivery and escalation of expenditure.
If this should not be true, then let us see Eskom’s “list of managers and their technical and executive credentials” for its different projects.
The writing has been on the wall for a long time but is being ignored totally. Look at the lead story in Business Report on September 29: the Automotive Leather Company is relocating to Lesotho of all places.
We cannot even provide running water to our big cities, guess why?
Erik Barnard
Betty’s Bay
SA should use atomic energy alongside solar
I REFER to Joachim Zimmer’s letter “Nuclear lobby is wilfully blind to dangers” (Business Report, September 29). What the writer is saying, essentially, is that we have experienced Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, so what rational person can now support nuclear? A not unreasonable question, surely.
It is best answered by asking another question. How badly do we want reliable, environmentally friendly energy?
We all agree that we must get away from coal. Mining, transporting and burning over 10 million tons every year in a single power station is environmentally horrific, locally and globally. If you’re worried about carbon dioxide emissions, burning the equivalent amount of oil or gas, fracked or otherwise, is not much better.
Moreover, according to the Paul Scherrer Institute, 20 276 coal miners were killed in major accidents between 1969 and 2000. Accidents that killed fewer than five are not counted. Amazingly, 26 182 people were killed in oil- and gas-related accidents and 29 938 died as a result of hydroelectric dam failures, mainly in China and India.
In contrast, no one died in the feared core-melt accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Neither did the major release of radioactivity caused by the tsunami-induced meltdowns of three ill-sited, obsolescent reactors at Fukushima. In fact, the danger of low-level exposure to ionising radiation has been greatly exaggerated. The tsunami drowned about 20 000.
Approximately 65 deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl (1986), half of them firemen and recovery personnel on site. There have been claims of later deaths among recovery workers but these appear not to have been substantiated.
The massive socio-economic disruption caused by the latter two accidents cannot be denied. But over the past 50 years nuclear generation is known to have killed only 65 people. Over a shorter period coal, hydroelectric, oil and gas accidents have killed tens of thousands. Because of our disproportionate fear of radiation, other safety concerns, notably associated with radioactive waste, are much exaggerated.
So, if we want reliable energy, we cannot logically oppose nuclear generation on grounds of safety. We can oppose it only if we choose to believe that renewable energy can do the job. And it is manifestly obvious that it cannot. Wind, in particular, is erratic and uncontrollable. The sun is far more reliable. Why not run nuclear power stations 24/7 and top up with solar energy during the day?
The second reason to develop nuclear generation in parallel, particularly with solar and possibly even marine sources of energy, is that it will see us far into the future. It is still a young industry. New and improved types of reactor are on the world’s drawing boards and there will be plenty of uranium and thorium to fuel them. The power packed into the nucleus is a gift of nature, just as much as our abundant sunshine.
John Walmsley
Nuclear Institute (South Africa Branch)
Simon’s Town
Nuclear power is safe and cost-effective
JOACHIM Zimmer from Cape Town (“Nuclear energy lobby is wilfully blind to dangers”, Business Report, September 29) ignores the evidence on his doorstep.
Nuclear power as typified by Koeberg is a very safe and cost-effective means of producing electricity.
Nobody has died there other than from natural causes. How may miners have died digging coal?
Nuclear waste can be buried in a few double garages deep in ground that has been geologically stable for a million years. What’s the big deal?
Hysteria won’t help the debate and technology isn’t the problem. However, the same can’t be said for money, governments, and the abuse of power.
Bernard Benson
Parklands