matimba-health-risk-assessment_8-64d754a8a3e40115.pdf

This report, prepared by INFOTOX (Pty) Ltd for Eskom Holdings, evaluates the confidence levels and uncertainties associated with the health risk assessment of particulate matter (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from Eskom operations. It concludes that risk quantifications based on mortality and particulate matter are more reliable than those based on hospitalisation and gaseous pollutants.

• The report identifies four general uncertainties applicable to all studies estimating the burden of disease from outdoor air pollution: the actual magnitude of mortality effects and their confidence intervals, the shape of the concentration-response function (linear vs. log-linear) and the existence of threshold concentrations, the influence of co-pollutants, and the baseline rates of health outcomes in the studied population.
• Confidence in the concentration-response functions for particulate matter (PM) is rated higher than for gaseous pollutants because PM has been subject to more extensive global research, including a WHO meta-analysis of 629 ecological time series and 160 individual or panel studies.
• Estimates of mortality are considered more valid than estimates of hospitalisation. This is because the WHO provides a reasonable basis for applying mortality relative risks globally, whereas hospitalisation data is scarce for non-industrialised nations and difficult to relate to the ultimate disease burden.
• There is a lower degree of confidence in the baseline hospitalisation data used for the Eskom assessment compared to mortality data. Mortality data is supported by the South African National Burden of Disease Study 2000, while hospitalisation numbers were extrapolated from a study in KwaZulu-Natal, which may not be representative of Mpumalanga and Gauteng due to different industrial profiles and HIV-AIDS prevalence rates.
• The report concludes that while hospitalisation numbers can be used for decision-making and comparing mitigation options, they should be interpreted with caution as they likely possess a wide confidence interval, meaning actual numbers in receptor communities could be considerably higher or lower than predicted.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). matimba-health-risk-assessment_8-64d754a8a3e40115.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Matimba-Health-Risk-Assessment_8.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. matimba-health-risk-assessment_8-64d754a8a3e40115.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Matimba-Health-Risk-Assessment_8.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=matimba-health-risk-assessment_8-64d754a8a3e40115.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Matimba-Health-Risk-Assessment_8.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centreforenvironmentalrightsndmatimbahealthriskassessment864d754a8a3e40115pdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{matimba-health-risk-assessment\_8-64d754a8a3e40115.pdf}}, institution = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Matimba-Health-Risk-Assessment_8.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }