January 2013

In 2008 former government chief scientist Sir David King argued that nuclear energy will be essential if Britain is to meet its commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2050.

He was a major influence on Labour's decision to approve a new generation of nuclear power plants.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/12/climatechange.carbonemissions

Soon after, four prominent greens and former opponents of nuclear power announced their conversion to nuclear power as the only option to preventing runaway climate change

Chris Smith

Lord Smith of Finsbury

Chris Goodall

Green Party activist

Mark Lynas

Author and Journalist

Stephen Tindale

Former Executive Director of Greenpeace

The earthquake, tsunami and ensuing Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan in March 2011 provoked well known green author and journalist George Monbiot to declare that …

As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-

neutral. I now support the technology

Nearly two years after the Fukushima disaster, George Monbiot continues to reiterate his support for nuclear power outlining in public correspondence with anti-nuclear campaigner and musician Theo Simon why he thinks activists are wrong to campaign against the proposed new nuclear power station Hinckley C in Somerset.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/10/09/the-heart-of-the-matter/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

In the wake of Fukushima, both George Monbiot and Mark Lynas were at great pains to play down the risks of radiation.

There have been breathless press reports about radioactive iodine

being identified in milk and spinach produced in Fukushima prefecture, whilst a shipment of fava beans to Taiwan has also been discovered

to be ‘contaminated’. I would personally quite happily consume

any of the above: the risk is so small as not to be worth taking

seriously.

One wonders if they would have asked their children to consume contaminated milk and spinach.

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/176/

In the rapidly developing situation after Fukushima, it seemed that politicians and journalists rushed to the assumption that little threat was posed by radiation. One year on, epidemiologist and director of the US Radiation and Public Health Project and toxicologist Janette Sherman warned that such assumptions are political and not scientific as they are not evidence based.

“Simply dismissing needed research on Fukushima health consequences because doses are ‘too low’ is irresponsible, and contradictory to many scientific studies. “

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/2012/259/special1.htm

But Mark Lynas continues to assert a pro-nuclear position and that the dangers of the Fukushima disaster are overplayed.

…we must never forget that Fukushima has killed no one…

Scientists also agree there will never be an observable cancer increase in the Japanese population attributable to Fukushima.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/14/nuclear-global-warming

The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation.http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence- meltdown/

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/

Both George and Mark are keen to show that up to now, the green movement has got it wrong about the dangers of radiation or as one weekly paper puts it

“Opposition to nuclear power is now starting to look like a position occupied by the uninformed masses of the public (who could be easily swayed with a well-run propaganda campaign after they inevitably forget about Fukushima) and die-hard environmentalists who don't give too much thought to the practicalities of a world without cheap, abundant energy.”

http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/6855/monbiot-joins-lovelock-nuclear-power-camp

Liverpool based labour and anti-nuclear activist Greg Dropkin responded to Monbiot pointing out that …

Steve Wing and David Richardson (Radiation and Mortality of Workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1999) found significant increased cancer risks associated with exposure to 10 mSv in workers at the Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee.

Japanese A-bomb survivors' cancer risks are also linked to their radiation dose, even for those who received less than 20 mSv in 1945.

In one of his articles George Monbiot cites a graphic from xkcd.com which claims that 100 mSv is the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk.

The science of radiation might seem difficult to understand to a non-scientist but even 14 -16 year olds can read in their GCSE textbooks that…

There is no such thing as a safe dose. Just one radon atom (alpha radiation) might cause a cancer. Just as a person might get knocked down by a bus the first time they cross a road. The chance of it happening is low, but it still exists. The lower the dose, the lower the risk. But the risk is never zero. GCSE Physics OCR 21st Century Science

Radioactive waste is … hazardous. Imagine that some waste leaked into the water supply. Imagine that this is taken up by a carrot which you eat. This radioactive material is now in your stomach where it can irradiate your internal organs .GCSE Physics OCR 21st Century Science

Given the uncertainties and debates about low-level radiation, the scientific consensus is that it is not possible to establish a minimum dose level which is safe. This is what informs current school textbooks.

This information is what enables young people to decide for themselves whether they wish to eat spinach grown near the site of a nuclear disaster. They may choose to act according to precautionary principles.

However, many people in the world do not have access to education even at this level. How are they to know what to think about the dangers of radiation?

14-16 year olds also learn that although our skin protects against alpha particles, they can be ingested through food or breathed in.

The message that nuclear power is the only immediately viable alternative to coal in the campaign against climate change has been spread far and wide through the UK press over the past couple of years. Stephen Tindale announced his support for nuclear energy in The Sun newspaper in 2009.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article2265768.ece

And while those environmentalists in support of nuclear energy admit that it is not the perfect solution, they do really underplay the problems associated with it.

Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind

energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are

considered.

1.Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. According to an article in Scientific American…

2. We do not have adequate solutions for nuclear waste disposal

The nuclear energy industry has so far generated 300,000 tons of waste which must be isolated from living organisms for at least 100,000 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/apr/24/nuclear-waste-storage

The problem of uranium mining is rarely mentioned. After all…

http://nouranium.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/aussies-will-accept-nuclear-power-conference-told-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/

There is powerful opposition to wind farms in the UK but

we forget that …http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1870086/fierce-opposition-drives-wind-farm-approvals-low

70% of the worlds uranium resources are located in the lands inhabited by Indigenous Peoples in Africa, Asia, Australia, North and South America. http://www.wise-uranium.org/uip412.html

…it is not something that affects us here in the UK.

September 2007 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

was adopted by the UN General Assembly  

Article 19States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own

representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

This means that Indigenous people have the right to refuse mining on their land.

For mining companies, the presentation of nuclear energy as the most viable green alternative is an opportunity to pressure governments to allow more land to be opened up for uranium mining.

Unfortunately, this makes those those environmentalists in favour of nuclear energy, sound like lobbyists for the nuclear energy and uranium mining industry.

Until recently both BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, two of the world`s biggest mining companies and both registered in London were seeking to expand uranium mining operations in Australia.

In 2005, BHP Billiton bought the Olympic Dam uranium mine from Western Mining Corporation.

This mine, situated in South Australia, has been operating since 1983 despite strong and sustained opposition from the traditional landowners and environmentalists.

The Ranger Mine in Northern Territory is owned by Energy Resources Australia, a 68% subsidiary of Rio Tinto. It supplies 10% of the world`s uranium.

Rio Tinto is interested in opening up the Jabiluka uranium deposit situated nearby just outside the National Park.

There has been sustained opposition to the Ranger Mine and the proposed Jabiluka mine.

In 2009, BHP Billiton announced plans to turn Olympic Dam into an open pit mine expanding production from 200,000 tonnes to 750,000 tonnes/year.

This will consume 260million litres of water/day depleting and damaging natural groundwater supplies and producing vast quantities of liquid waste. This water will be provided at no cost to the mining company.

Greenhouse emissions will increase to 5.3-5.9 million tonnes increasing South Australia`s total greenhouse emissions by 12-14%.

http://bhpbillitonwatch.net/2010/11/18/south-australia-olympic-dam-mine-2/

Enough damage has been done from the Olympic Dam uranium mine, they should not expand it.

Many of our food sources, traditional plants and trees are gone because of this mine. We worry for our water: it’s our main source of life. The mine causes many safety risks to our roads – transporting the uranium from the mine. It has stopped us from accessing our sacred sites and destroyed others. These can never be replaced. BHP never consulted me or my families, they select who they consult with. Many of our people have not had a voice. We want the mine stopped now, because it’s not good for anything.http://bhpbillitonwatch.net/2010/11/18/south-australia-olympic-dam-mine-2/

Eileen Wani Wingfield, a Senior Kokatha Woman from Coober Pedy in South Australia and award winning environmentalist.

August 2012 - BHP Billiton announced that it was delaying/shelving the planned expansion of this mine due to cost factors and that no new projects will be approved until June 2013.

http://londonminingnetwork.org/2012/09/back-to-the-drawing-board-for-olympic-dam-expansion/

Near the Olympic Dam is the Woomera Prohibited Area, a weapons testing facility taken from the traditional owners in 1947 `to make provision for the defence of Australia and the British Empire`.

It contains 62% of the country`s copper deposits and 78% of its uranium reserves. Mining companies are now to share access to the area in order to exploit these vast reserves.

The original owners of the land whose access is restricted do not stand to benefit from the mineral rights. Of the two groups involved in the consultation process, the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation preferred the land to be used for mining rather than defence if forced to choose as there may be wider economic benefits.

The other group, the Kokatha Uwankara Native Title Claim Group expressed concern that a previous plan in place with the government had “not been followed and has been largely ignored by Defence …” and that “any proposal to open the areas of the WPA up to future mining and exploration are of great concern … traditional owners will not permit any damage to such sites of significance”.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/06/australias-trillion-dollar-land-swindle/

Not Prohibited to Mining Companies

The Ranger mine in Kakadu National Park in Australia is owned by Energy Resources Australia, a 68% subsidiary of the London based company Rio Tinto. It supplies 10% of the world`s uranium.

Rio Tinto is interested in opening up the Jabiluka uranium deposit situated nearby just outside the National Park.

The Mirrar people, traditional owners of the land where both the Ranger mine and the Jabiluka deposit are sited, have, following the Fukushima disaster, have restated their opposition to mining at the Jabiluka. They request that Jabiluka be included in the protected territory of the Kakadu National Park.

Given the long history between Japanese nuclear companies and Australian

uranium miners, it is likely that the radiation problems at Fukushima are, at least in part, fuelled by uranium

derived from our traditional lands. This makes us feel very

sad .

While Monbiot was telling us of his conversion to nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar elder and award winning environmental activist, wrote this in a letter to the UN …

http://antinuclear.net/2011/04/16/letter-to-united-nations-from-yvonne-margarula/

Ranger has operated since 1980 and has brought much hardship to local

Aboriginal and environmental damage to our country. For over 30 years we have experienced and lived with the ‘front end’ reality of uranium mining and we are opposed to any further

mining at the Jabiluka site.

Today some 12 million litres of radioactive contaminated water lies on

site at the Ranger Uranium Mine, upstream of Indigenous communities

and internationally recognised Ramsar listed wetlands.The mining company, owned by Rio Tinto, has suspended

all milling of uranium due to the persistent water management

problems and threats posed to the environment.

http://antinuclear.net/2011/04/16/letter-to-united-nations-from-yvonne-margarula/

In 1977, Aboriginal opposition to the Ranger Uranium proposal was overridden with the words "their opposition shall not be allowed to prevail". Bininj people were told that the rest of Australia wanted uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region, within what would become Kakadu National Park. Almost three decades later, the voices of Mirarr continue to be ignored or marginalised by the mining industry and all levels of government.http://www.mirarr.net/

The Mirrar continue to live in poverty, gaining little economic benefit from the exploitation of uranium on their land. Furthermore…

…according to a report published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) in 2006

• cancer cases in the indigenous community living in the vicinity of the Ranger mine appear to be almost double the normal rate

• no data on birth defects and stillbirths were kept

• there has been no monitoring or investigation of the health impacts of the mine on the local indigenous people since 1984

• but since 1981, there have been more than 120 spillages and leaks of contaminated water

Aborigines and Uranium Monitoring the Health Hazards Tatz, C., Cass, A., Condon, J., Tippett, G. AIATSIS Dec 2006

The report points out that…

…high doses of radiation are known to cause cancers, foetal damage, congenital malformations and even to retard cognitive development. We know less about the effects of low doses, but any community-protection program must assume some degree of health risk. Radiation can enter the body by ingestion of local food and water, by inhaling radioactive gases and airborne dust, and by irradiation from external sources.

Aboriginal communities have traditional knowledge that warns them of the importance of leaving the uncertain dangers of uranium well alone. Yvonne Margarula goes on to say…

For many thousands of years we Aboriginal people of Kakadu have respected sacred sites

where special and dangerous power resides. We call these places and this power Ojang. There is

Ojang associated with both the Ranger mine area and the site of the proposed Jabiluka mine. We believe and have always believed that when this Ojang is disturbed a great and dangerous power

is unleashed upon the entire world. My father warned the Australian Government about this in

the 1970s, but no one in positions of power listened to him.

http://antinuclear.net/2011/04/16/letter-to-united-nations-from-yvonne-margarula/

On the 1st of March 2012 “In a move signalling an improvement in relations, the Mirarr Traditional Aboriginal Owners of the Ranger Project Area and miner Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA)… announced the establishment of an independent surface water study at the Ranger mine and the decommissioning of an interim water management pond on the Jabiluka lease.

The independent Ranger surface water study… will examine the impacts, monitoring and reporting of surface waters flowing from the Ranger mine.

http://www.energyres.com.au/media/38_media_releases_2767.asp

Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world.

40% of children are malnourished and three quarters of the population are illiterate.

But the country is rich in mineral resources, particularly uranium.

Areva whose majority shareholder is the French government and its locally owned subsidiaries have been mining uranium in the north of the country since 1968.

COMINAK near the town of Akokan is the largest underground mine in the world.

Near the town of Arlit is a massive open pit mine.

A third mine is planned for 2013 and will be the largest in Africa.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Left-in-the-dust/

A report by Greenpeace International, Left in the Dust (2010,) found that…

• In over forty years of mine operation, 270 billion litres of water have been used, contaminating and depleting the aquifer in a very arid region.

• In 4 out of 5 water samples taken uranium concentrations were above WHO levels. Some samples also contained some dissolved radon gas.

•Soil samples were found to have radioactive levels 100 times higher than normal for the area and higher than internationally set limits.

•Someone spending an hour on the streets of Akokan would be exposed to more than the maximum allowable annual dose where radiation levels were found to be up to 500 times the normal background levels.

•Greenpeace found several pieces of radioactive scrap metal in the local market with 500 times the level of normal background radioactivity. People use these to build homes.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Left-in-the-dust/

Miners were unaware of the

dangers of radiation until the 1990s.

Health inspections did not take place

until 2007.

Radioactive dust and radon contaminates the air and the soil.

Respiratory disease is the primary cause of morbidity in the region.

30 million tons of radioactive waste is left outdoors. The

dried waste is easily airborne.

Radioactive waste has been used to build homes and repair

roads.

Radon released at surface to reduce lung cancer risk among miners

working underground contaminates the air

above health recommendation levels up to 10km

away.

In a region where water is precious, local water supplies have been

depleted and contaminated with

radioactive and toxic waste

There are some truths that we shouldnot say but it’s like this: we are living dead!We can spend days without approachingour families: we repel them [because ofthe danger]! We are all radiated.

Interview with Salifou Adinfo, November 2009.

Former driller for AREVA, Arlit, Niger

http://www.wecf.eu/english/articles/2010/05/almahacen-csd.php

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Left-in-the-dust/

When the price of yellowcake shot up in 2007 as a result of the new enthusiasm for nuclear energy, the now ousted President Tandja awarded more than 100 uranium exploration licenses. These licenses cover the land of the Tuareg almost entirely.

Areva is committing a crime here. They take the water, and trees and plants disappear as a result. There is no life. And what for? For your energy.

The Tuareg live from their animals. They can't go anywhere else. They live from this land, and it belongs to them."

The Tuareg pastures and watering places are disappearing because of the existing mining. Any economic benefits brought by the mining to Niger, do not go to them.

Almoustapha Alhacen,Tuareg and former mineworker and founder of Aghirin Man (Protection of the Soul) which is the first civil society organisation in Arlit. It was set up to defend the local people`s right to health and environmental protection.

http://www.wecf.eu/english/articles/2010/05/almahacen-csd.php

The Tuareg are a nomadic herders who wander across the Sahara. Frustrated by decades of marginalisation and discrimination exacerbated by the mining, the Tuaregs began an armed rebellion in the region which continues on and off to this day. The government has therefore forced NGOs and journalists out of the area.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/uranium-mining-in-niger-tuareg-activist-takes-on-french-nuclear-company-a-6867

Enduring pollution! Lack of water,because the ground water table is already at 70%. As they fill every 100 million years, one can say they are not filling. The fauna has also disappeared. The flora has disappeared. It is a desert country, but there are trees...their roots cannot grow deeper than 60 metres! However, the water tables are now at 300 metres: the trees cannot reach them. The heritage for us is enduring pollution.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/Left-in-the-dust/

According to Almoustapha Alhacen, the legacy of the mine is …

The state of Jharkand is home to many of India's Adivasis (Indigenous people) who have been resisting uranium mining for many decades.

Thousands face displacement, cancers, and birth defects.

In May 2009, these villagers entered the office of the Chief Commissioner of Singhbhum in Jamshedpur to demonstrate their opposition to the Uranium Corporation of India's efforts acquire their land for a new tailings pond.

The waste is generated by the nearby Banduhurang uranium mines.

In 2009, the villagers still hadn`t been compensated for land taken from them in 1983.

http://intercontinentalcry.org/adivasis-fighting-against-nuclear-terror-in-jharkhand/

This woman is washing spinach a few yards down stream from the outflow from the mine workings.

There are no signs to warn people of potential contamination.

These are just two of the unusually high number of young people born with congenital defects. Many will be unable to take care of themselves.

These people live around the Jadugoda mine complex.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/south_asia_living_by_india0s_uranium_mine/html/7.stm

At the Jadugoda mine in Jharkand, India, the dangerous powers of uranium have been unleashed with disastrous impact on the local people.

A study conducted by Indian Doctors for Peace and Development in 2007 in five villages up to 2.5km away from the mines, tailings ponds and ore processing sites found there was

• a significant increase in congenital birth defects

• a significant increase in infertility

• an increased number of cancer cases

• a reduced life expectancy

A 2004 study by Hiroaki Koide of Kyoto University, Japan, confirmed that the amount of air-gamma dose exceeds 1 milli Sievert (1mSv) per year in the villages and reaches 10 mSv/y around tailing ponds.

http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/jadugoda-health-survey.pdf

Since uranium prices began to rise in 2005, driven by expected future demand for nuclear power, the number of mining claims staked on public lands adjacent to the park has mushroomed. They now cover about half the public land that makes up Grand Canyon's northern watershed. Dozens of exploration projects have been proposed and plans are afoot to reopen old mines.

Havasu Falls in the Grand Canyon is one of the USA`s most famous areas of natural beauty and home to the Havasupai people.

According to the New Scientist …

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028075.500-say-no-to-uranium-mining-in-the-grand-canyon.html

The Havasupai People who live in the canyon depend on the springs for their water.

The springs are also critical to the National Park`s biodiversity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028075.500-say-no-to-uranium-mining-in-the-grand-canyon.html

"Scientific evidence suggests that the exploitation of uranium resources near the Grand Canyon will be intimately connected with the groundwater aquifers and springs in the region. The hydrologic impacts have a great potential to be negative to people and biotic systems. I believe that an assumption that uranium mining will have minimal impact on springs, people and ecosystems in the Grand Canyon is unreasonable, and is not supported by past investigations, research and data.“

David Kreamer, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada giving testimony before Congress in 2009

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028075.500-say-no-to-uranium-mining-in-the-grand-canyon.html

The area already has problems with old uranium mines…

The Orphan uranium mine on Grand Canyon's south rim, was abandoned in 1969 but

•it still leaches polluted water into Horn Creek.

•it contains dissolved uranium at levels 10 times as high as those considered acceptable in US drinking water

• nobody knows how to clean it up.

•the National Park Service warns visitors against drinking or swimming in that water

•in 2010, the US Geological Survey found elevated uranium in soil at every old mining site it visited in Grand Canyon's watershed.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028075.500-say-no-to-uranium-mining-in-the-grand-canyon.html

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/09/cleanup-costs-abandoned-uranium-mine-grand-canyon-national-park-are-deferred-costs-nuclear-p

The Navajo Nation stretches over the states of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico in the USA. It covers 27,000 square miles of land and is larger than 10 of the 50 US States.

In response to this renewed interest in uranium mining, in 2005, the Navajo Nation Government banned uranium mining on tribal lands.

Uranium has been mined here since the 1940s but stopped in the late 1970s.

However there is a renewed interest in mining the remaining uranium reserves using a method called in situ leaching.

http://navajopeople.org/

Note: Many Navajo people prefer to be known as the Dine and this name will be used alongside the term Navajo.

http://masecoalition.org/navajonation/

When uranium mining stopped in the late 1970's, the companies walked away from the mines leaving

•unsealed tunnel openings,

•gaping pits, sometimes hundreds of feet deep

• piles of radioactive uranium ore and mine waste.

Dine families live within a hundred feet of the mine sites.

They graze their livestock here, and have used radioactive mine tailings to build their homes.

Dine children play in the mines, and uranium mine tailings have turned up in school playgrounds.

http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/humanhealth.html

The Dine are not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that in situ leaching is a safe method of mining. In situ mining is where a solvent, usually sulphuric acid is injected into the underground rock and the uranium containing solution is pumped to the surface. Although it reduces the spread of radiation and dust, it can contaminate groundwater and this is impossible to restore once the mining operation is complete.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/uisl.html

The Dine have good reason not to trust the mining companies.

The Church Rock Disaster

The USA`s biggest accidental release of radiation

1979

This little known disaster took place when an earthen tailings dam at the Church Rock Uranium Mill was breached and over ninety million gallons of radioactive liquid carrying over1,100 tons of radioactive waste flowed into the Puerco River in New Mexico and downstream to Chambers in Arizona.

http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Church+Rock+Dam

The spill ranks second only to the 1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown in the amount of radiation released. This along with more than 20 years of discharges of untreated or poorly treated uranium mine water has added to the long term contamination of the Puerco River.

http://www.cibolabeacon.com/news/commemoration-set-for-uranium-spill-site/article_5b79d3a5-edb7-539b-bb89-efbf16d65e90.html

According to a report by the Church Rock Uranium Monitoring Project 2003-2007…

Only one population-based epidemiological study of health effects possibly associated with exposure to uranium mining has ever been conducted on the Navajo Nation despite nearly 60 years of uranium development.

No health study has ever been conducted in the Church rock area despite its lengthy and well-documented history of uranium-related impacts.

Little scientific and medical data exist to determine if the health of dependents of uranium workers and residents of mining districts was adversely affected by their environmental exposures to uranium and other radiological and chemical toxicants.

Yet anecdotal information and informal surveys suggest that public health has been adversely affected in mining districts.

http://www.cibolabeacon.com/news/commemoration-set-for-uranium-spill-site/article_5b79d3a5-edb7-539b-bb89-efbf16d65e90.html

Therefore, it was hardly surprising that the Dine renewed their demand that their 2005 ban on uranium mining be respected….

The legacy of uranium mining has devastated both the people and the land. The workers, their families, and their neighbours suffer increased incidences of cancers and other medical disorders caused by their exposure to uranium. Fathers and sons who went to work in the mines and the processing facilities brought the remnants of uranium into their homes at the end of the each day infecting their families.

www.navajo.org (please note – link seems to no longer work)

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley

The Navajo people do not wantrenewed uranium mining on or nearthe Navajo Nation. I ask you to respect the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act that places a moratorium on Navajo landand within Navajo Indian Country.

www.navajo.org (please note – link seems to no longer work)

January 2012- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar formally signed a 20-year moratorium on new uranium and other hard rock mining claims on a million acres of federal lands around the Grand Canyon, saying it was a "serious and necessary step" to preserve the mile-deep canyon and the river that runs through it. The move, which has been opposed by the mining industry and a majority of Republican politicians in Arizona, comes after more than two years of study. It reverses a decision by the George W. Bush administration to allow new leasing in the buffer zone around the canyon.http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusaaz.html

This is yellow cake, which is produced after grinding the uranium containing rocks and mixing them with sulphuric acid to extract this uranium oxide. This is turned into nuclear fuel.

IN A DINE CREATION STORY, the people were given a choice of two yellow powders. They chose the yellow dust of corn pollen,

and were instructed to leave the other yellow powder—uranium—in the soil and never to dig it up. If it were taken from the ground, they were told, a great evil would

come.http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4248

According to Winona LaDuke, Native American environmentalist and author in an article about uranium mining in Orion magazine…

Uranium ore has a yellowish tinge. This yellow dirt is known to the Dine as Leetso – a word that also suggests a powerful and dangerous monster.

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/hcare/db_npum.html

Uranium mining is dangerous, dirty and destructive. What's more, it mainly takes place on other people's land, in the process destroying livelihoods often more sustainable than our own in the UK, communities, cultures, environment and health. In many cases, those people do not benefit even from the so-called `clean` energy produced from uranium. Many may not even have access to electricity in their own homes. Yet, the impacts of uranium mining will be felt for many generations.

Is it right than we inflict great evil on other people by choosing the wrong yellow powder?

Recently there has been a growing interest in thorium as an alternative to uranium as a nuclear fuel and in particular in liquid fluoride thorium reactors and integral fast reactors.

Recognising the problems of conventional nuclear power Monbiot has expressed his support for liquid fluride thorium reactors and claims to have asked Caroline Lucas, Green MP, in a debate if she would support research into developing this technology. Her response he claims left him speechless

“No, she told me, because thorium reactors are not a proven technology. Words fail me.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/mar/31/double-standards-nuclear

A recent article in the New Scientist about liquid fluoride thorium reactors seems to support Caroline Lucas` position that they are not a proven technology.

Pavel Tsvetkov, a nuclear engineer at Texas A&M University in College Station, points out that many of the claimed safety advantages of LFTRs must still be proved in more detailed studies. "Safety research is yet to be done," he says.

A European research project not due to be completed until November 2013 is looking at the viability of using fluoride salts which are highly corrosive and after that hoping to get further funding to build a prototype reactor.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.500-thorium-reactors-could-rescue-nuclear-power.html

Additional note

Merika Productions

2011

This presentation was created by Kerima Mohideen.

Kerima is a teacher and a member of the London Mining Network Management Committee.

All quotations and images are referenced if they are not, this is an oversight which we will correct.

http://londonminingnetwork.org/