Archive for the ‘environment’ Category

Australia’s uranium should not go to India – say NT Environment Centre

January 29, 2012

The flip side of labour’s uranium back flip, 5 Dec 11 The decision at the ALP Labour conference to overturn policy to sell uranium to India, a country not signatory to the NPT and a known nuclear weapon state, will cause havoc for years to come.

 While the
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is imperfect, it is the world’s best
check and balance against the spread of the world’s worst weapons of mass
destruction. Selling uranium to India will weaken the NPT and
weaken Australia’s credibility on non-proliferation and global peace issues.

‘It is very disappointing that our Northern Territory’s Chief Minister Paul Henderson has welcomed this decision and seen it as an opportunity to profit. The reality is even if Australia supplied 20% of India’s current uranium demand, uranium
exports would increase by just 2% above the 2008/09 figure. Very few if any jobs would be created as Indian demand would easily be met
by existing mines.’ said Cat Beaton from the Environment Centre NT.

‘Mr Henderson also seems to forget that the one uranium mine we have is riddled with operational troubles and environmental and social challenges that are not going away’  ‘If the Australian Labour Party was serious about moving forward, they could look at ways to tighten our uranium exports and strengthen conditions around the use of uranium overseas. Instead they pushed forward a decision that will ensure our participation in international political tension and potential nuclear war’ said Cat Beaton from the Environment Centre NT.

Uranium mining brings area to endangered classification

January 29, 2012

Uranium puts Southside on endangered list  GoDanRiver.com  January 27, 2012 Southside landed on the Southern Environmental Law Center’s fourth annual Top 10 Endangered Places in the Southeast list because of proposed uranium mining and pressure to lift Virginia’s uranium moratorium.

Many of the areas on SELC’s top 10 list are endangered by pressure to undercut environmental protections and to lower the hurdles for potentially destructive projects, …..

Risk of radioactive pollution of water, from uranium mining

January 29, 2012

The truly frightening part is the sentence that reads, ” Covering tailings material with water during operations …”  Where do they imagine all that water will end up?  It’s water containing not only radioactive material, but a host of other toxins as well?  And how do they know for certain that an earthquake could not crack that containment cell open like an egg or that a hurricane would not dump enough water on Coles Hill to cause those cells to become so saturated that they leak their contents into the groundwater surrounding them?

Uranium risks far outweigh benefits AltaVista Journal, Jesse Andrews, 25 Jan 12,   Virginia Uranium Inc.’s most recent propaganda release, “We’re committed to protecting water quality.”   Why does VUI feel the need to continue to explain itself if in fact uranium mining would be as safe and innocuous as they claim?  If uranium mining had ever been safe anywhere, which it has not, they wouldn’t feel such a desperate need to explain just how safe their mine would be. (more…)

Iconic Grand Canyon wins out over new uranium mining

January 29, 2012

the 20-year ban is supported by an unprecedented coalition of tribal leaders; hunting, fishing, ranching and conservation groups; municipal water suppliers; wildlife advocates; and nearly 300,000 individuals who commented favorably on the proposed moratorium. Chambers of commerce, community leaders and elected officials are also among those mainstream voices speaking out against a handful of politicians now defending industrialists’ demand to exploit our treasured landscape.

At risk are the Grand Canyon’s watersheds. These interconnected surface and groundwater systems extend many miles beyond the park’s boundary.

Uranium-mining ban was a grand decision, The Arizona Republic,  by Roger Clark – Jan. 22, 2012   Arizonans and all Americans won a major victory on Jan. 9 when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed a “record of decision” for a 20-year ban on new uranium claims on 1.1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park.

The decision reduces the risk of permanent harm to wildlife, water, our economy and sites sacred to Havasupai and all native people in ourregion. It also best serves our nation’s interests. (more…)

Uranium mining to be banned near Grand Canyon

January 29, 2012

U.S. to Ban New Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon, NYT, 6 Jan 12, By JOHN M. BRODER Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is expected to announce on Monday that he has approved a 20-year moratorium on new uranium mining claims in a million-acre buffer zone around the Grand Canyon.

The decision, which has been under consideration for nearly two years, would allow a small number of existing uranium and other hard rock mining operations in the region to continue while barring the new claims. In 2009 Mr. Salazar suspended new uranium claims on public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon for two years, overturning a Bush administration policy that encouraged thousands of new claims when the price of uranium soared in 2006 and 2007.

Many of the stakeholders are foreign interests, including Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation.

The Interior Department took public comment and prepared an environmental impact statement before deciding to extend the moratorium for another 20 years…. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/u-s-to-ban-new-uranium-mining-near-grand-canyon/

Environmental disaster of uranium pollution at Port Hope

January 2, 2012

“Contrary to statements provided by federal government agencies, no level of radiation is safe and it is cumulative — each dose adds to the risk of cancer. Children are 10 to 20 times more radiosensitive than adults, and fetuses are extremely sensitive,”

Port Hope Uranium Plant Contamination Circumstances Contain Similarities to Huntington’s Buried Uranium Plant, December 29, 2011  BY TONY RUTHERFORD HUNTINGTON NEWS Port Hope has a water treatment plant supplying its drinking water. Incredibly, adjacent to this water treatment plant, is a huge factory which emits uranium gas and dust into the air and Lake Ontario. (more…)

Danger of uranium mining to Tanzania’s land, animals and people

January 2, 2012

companies mining uranium had never solved problems associated with extraction of the minerals and also they had never employed good way of settling remains of the minerals after the mining activity is complete.

that mining activities benefited more investors than Tanzanians.

“Take an example of Niger, they are now suffering from the impacts of uranium extraction, including high levels of environmental degradation,”

PP Media 28 Dec 11, “………The Legal and Human Rights Centre Legal Officer in-charge of Corporate and Environment Flaviana Charles says the metal posses dangers not only to human beings but to animals and environment.
Already companies including Mantra (T) and Uranex (T) limited are exploring the minerals in various parts including Namtumbo (Mkuju River Project) Bahi and Manyoni, a move which has been criticised by majority of the members of public including legislators.

“We have decided to take the initiative to raise awareness to the public on this new mineral expected to start being mined in the country,” says Charles. (more…)

BHP shareholders demand answers on environmental dangers of planned expansion of Olympic Dam uranium mine

November 28, 2011

BHP Billiton AGM asked about mining radiation risk , ABC News, 17 Nov 11 The environmental credentials of the planned Olympic Dam mine expansion in outback South Australia have been questioned by some shareholders at BHP Billiton’s annual general meeting in Melbourne.

Dr Jenny Grounds from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War has questioned the BHP Billiton board about monitoring radiation exposure levels for Olympic Dam workers. She has also raised the issue of disposal of radioactive tailings by the company “with its open cut mine and the surface tailings piles and the potential for dispersion by dust storms and groundwater retention.”….

Water demands The board also was asked about water demands for the proposed expansion. A desalination plant will be built on upper Spencer Gulf near Whyalla to supply water for the huge mining expansion. Anne Kennedy from the Great Artesian Basin Protection Group says it will produce a surplus of 80 million litres of water daily.

She asked if it would replace water now being drawn from the basin. ”To allocate half of that surplus would enable [the company] to return that same quantity of water to the Great Artesian Basin,” she told the meeting…. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-17/bhp-billiton-agm-environment-olympic-dam/3677110?section=sa

Uranium milling and mining a threat to water supply

November 28, 2011

The most powerful influences in any decision on uranium mining and processing are likely to be financial and political,”
“Thus, it is imperative that the public evaluate the long-term ‘big picture’ because the actual impacts will be paid for by numerous future generations.”..

Uranium mining, milling threatens water, report claims, By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune, November 22, 2011 A report funded by the Roanoke River Basin Association warns that a proposed uranium mining and milling project in Pittsylvania County could be a serious threat to water quality and may increase competition for water in the future.

The 39-page report, “Site-Specific Assessment of the Proposed Uranium Mining and Milling Project at Coles Hill, Pittsylvania County, Va.,” was released Thursday. (more…)

Pittsylvania County gets a detailed, site specific, report on uranium milling, mining

November 28, 2011

Uranium mining, milling threatens water, report claims, By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune , November 22, 2011 “………Moran’s study is one of the few reports on the potential impact of uranium mining not funded by the mining industry,…

Moran’s site-specific findings include:

Virginia Uranium has failed to present any sort of detailed project proposal in writing.

The verbally described plans have changed constantly, depending on the audience.

Hence, the public has no way of reliably knowing the details of the proposed mining and mineral processing methods or the related impacts.

The project as proposed may generate at least 28 million tons of solid uranium mill tailings and roughly the same amount of liquid waste.

The solid wastes would remain on site forever, requiring maintenance forever.

Uranium mill tailings would contain radionuclides, heavy metals, and other toxic elements.

Undiluted tailings liquids may contain 1,160 to 1,460 times the existing Safe Drinking Water Act standard for uranium.

The confirmed presence of sulfides in the Coles Hill rock raises the possibility that long-term, active water treatment may be required, in perpetuity.

Numerous factors combine to provide long-term pathways for the migration of contaminants into local waters.

As proposed, the Coles Hill project would require over 5 billion gallons of water. During the start-up period, the project would use at least 525.6 million gallons per year.

It has been estimated that at least 136 million gallons of groundwater would flow into the open pit per year.

This water would become contaminated with numerous radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants.

To allow mining, this contaminated water must be pumped out of the open pit and discharged to some undefined location.

The Coles Hill project may use over 2,030 tons of explosives per year, releasing potentially toxic concentrations of nitrate, ammonia, and other organic compounds into the environment.

Such a project would cause long-term, chronic degradation of water quality and increase wate competition in the region.

Statistically adequate baseline data (water quality, quantity, etc.) have never been collected, compiled, and interpreted, or released to the public.

Thus, the public has no reliable “yardstick” against which to demonstrate that changes have occurred or not.

There is no credible evidence to indicate that either the federal or state regulatory agencies have sufficient staff, budgets, or political clout to adequately oversee and enforce the appropriate regulations….  http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/11/23/chatham/news/news43.txt


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.