“No” to uranium transport through Queensland Port

Anti-nuclear campaigner seeks port uranium assurances http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-05/anti-nuclear-campaigner-seeks-abbot-point-uranium/5137248    An anti-nuclear campaigner is calling on the Queensland Government to rule out that uranium will be exported through the Port of Mackay.

Last year, the Newman Government reversed a long-standing ban on uranium mining in Queensland.

The port’s operator, North Queensland Bulk Ports (NQBP), said it could be used to transport associated mining equipment.

Mark Bailey from Keep Queensland Nuclear Free says he has serious concerns about the possibility of the resource being shipped through the reef.”I don’t think any of us want uranium on the Great Barrier Reef and we certainly don’t want our tourism industry affected by an incident like a grounding on the reef in bad weather with a uranium ship,” he said.

“This has happened before, you know Cameco had a ship that hit bad weather in the Pacific. If that happens on the reef, the publicity will be very bad.”

He says he wants assurances Abbot Point will not be used.

A spokesman for NQBP says there are no plans to export the commodity through the Port of Mackay at this stage.

Determined opposition to uranium mining in Western Australia

“There has never been a successful uranium mine in Australia. Each one has had its accidents, its spills, its leaks and its failed rehabilitation.”

“Uranium is the asbestos of the 21st century”

Forty uranium mines is the plan for Western Australia The Stringer, by Gerry Georgatos November 29th, 2013“……….Ms Pepper said there is still time to halt the push for uranium to be mined. “It is a long way from a Federal approval to an operating mine and we will be there every step of the way contesting and opposing this uranium mine and any other proposed uranium mine in WA.”

“Uranium is different. It is radioactive and poses great risks to workers, communities and the environment.” “Uranium oxide can be very dangerous if ingested or inhaled.” “Other breakdown products of uranium can also be dangerous – like Radon gas,” said Ms Pepper.

“Radon gas is the second biggest cause of lung cancer in the world.” “The biggest concern with uranium mining is the long-term impacts of radioactive mine waste on country – how that is contained, whether that will get into the groundwater and the food chain.”

“There has never been a successful uranium mine in Australia. Each one has had its accidents, its spills, its leaks and its failed rehabilitation.”

“The Aboriginal communities that will be near these mines have legitimate concerns on how uranium mining and potential radiation fallout will impact on the environment – the animals, bush tucker, and their townships. Toro have done some opportunistic studies on road kill (dead animals) but they have not done detailed data analysis on the fauna passing through the region,” said Ms Pepper.

“Uranium is the asbestos of the 21st century.” “The World Health Organisation, the United Nations and other international agencies recognise the risks of radiation and they all say that there is no safe dose of radiation.”

“What they are saying is that every dose of radiation increases the risk of developing cancer,” said Ms Pepper. Ms Pepper is correct that there is no safe level of radiation according to the weight of scientific opinion which holds that there is no threshold below which ionising radiation poses no risk.

“We know that Australian uranium was in the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactors at the time of the multiple meltdowns. From cradle to the grave Australian uranium threatens country and lives…………….”http://thestringer.com.au/forty-uranium-mines-is-the-plan-for-western-australia/#.UpzLRNJDuik

 

Scotland protest against firing depleted uranium weapons

Dundrennan depleted uranium protest staged http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-24835544 6 Nov 13 The last DU tests were carried out at Dundrennan five years ago  Campaigners have held a “mass walk-on” at the Dundrennan range in protest at the test firing of depleted uranium (DU) weapons into the Solway Firth.

It was part of an international day of action and followed concerns about serious health issues resulting from the use of such weapons in war zones.

The last DU tests at the south of Scotland range were in 2008. Earlier this year the Ministry of Defence said it had no plans to restart firing in the area.

One of the campaigners, Rachel Thompson, said the protest had been well supported from across Scotland and beyond. ”We have found that depleted uranium is one of those issues people really do care about,” she said.

“They knew when they started that Scottish people did not want this to happen.” She said the protest wanted to make the link between that objection and the consequences of the use of such weapons in Iraq.

Queensland protest against uranium mining

Activists protest return to uranium mining in Queensland http://www.centraltelegraph.com.au/news/activists-protest-return-uranium-mining-queensland/2065510/  28th Oct 2013  ABOUT 20 people staged a colourful protest in Brisbane today to mark the first anniversary of the Queensland Government’s decision to allow a return to uranium mining in the state. The protesters gathered outside the Executive Building in the hope of catching State Government ministers as they entered the building for the weekly Cabinet meeting.

Members of anti-uranium group, Keep Queensland Nuclear Free, spent about 10 minutes chanting “No Mandate for Uranium” before dispersing. Anti-Nuclear campaign co-ordinator Mark Bailey said regional centres like Townsville, Mt Isa, Emerald and St George along with a number of smaller towns will be at risk from nuclear accidents.

“Rather than arrogantly place many Queenslanders at risk the government should at least facilitate an informed debate about the dangers and risks of uranium mining through an independent inquiry,” he said.

“It is highly unlikely a majority of Queenslanders would support the resumption of mining when presented with all the facts. ”Uranium mining is a dangerous, risky, small industry with big impacts on the environment, on workers, surrounding regions and potentially along transport routes.”

Huge protest in Niger, against uranium miner AREVA

5,000 march against French uranium miner in Niger http://www.mining.com/5000-march-against-french-uranium-miner-in-niger-17954/Frik Els | October 12, 2013 Thousand of protestors marched against French uranium miner Areva (EPA:AREVA) in the remote town of Arlit in Niger on Saturday.

Areva has been operating in Niger for more than 50 years with two sites, Somair and Cominak, currently producing, and its long-term deal with the government of Niger is up for renegotiation at the end of 2013.

The roughly 5,000 protesters in Arlit were out in support of a Niger government audit to determine how to better distribute revenues from the two mines Reuters reports:

“We’re showing Areva that we are fed up and we’re demonstrating our support for the government in the contract renewal negotiations,” Azaoua Mamane, an Arlit civil society spokesman, said in an interview with a private radio station.

“We don’t have enough drinking water while the company pumps 20 million cubic meters of water each year for free. The government must negotiate a win-win partnership,” Mamane said.

The two mines together produce 4,500 tonnes of uranium for export to France and another project at Imouraren, which will be the largest uranium mine in Africa, is set to start operations in 2015.The Somair mine was back to full production in August, after a suicide attack in May killed one worker and injured 14 partially shutting down mining.

Prices for uranium are  languishing at 8-year lows of $34 a pound and have not recovered since the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011

No uranium mining in Black Hills, Colorado – say 50 medical groups

The acceptance by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that “the restoration of an ISL-mined aquifer to pre-mining water quality is … an impossibility.”

 “the loss of large volumes of water in such mining operations is not in the public interest” when “considering the projected future scarcity of uncontaminated fresh water in our semi-arid region.”

SD medical association unanimously against uranium mining in Hills http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/article_833ccd96-2536-11e3-b6be-0019bb2963f4.html 24 Sept 13, 

Group hopes to work with Colorado Medical Society, bring petition to AMA By Adam Hurlburt Black Hills Pioneer

CHAMBERLAIN — The South Dakota State Medical Association has come out in opposition of uranium mining in the Black Hills in direct response to Powertech USA’s proposed in situ leach (ISL) uranium mining project in Fall River County, making it the second statewide medical association to publicly oppose uranium mining in response to a Powertech ISL uranium mining proposal in the past six years.

At a recent meeting held in Chamberlain, the SDSMA’s 78-member Council of Physicians unanimously voted to support a petition opposing not only Powertech’s proposed Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium mining project in the Southern Hills, but uranium mining of any type in the Black Hills Area.

City Council in South Dakota swamped by opponents of uranium mining

Water is precious thing, a gift of life,” said Mark Kammerer, an area rancher who opposes the operation. “I hope you go ahead and come up with a good resolution denying Powertech the use of this water. You have that responsibility to my kids, your kids and kids not yet born. Water is the gift of life. Without it, all life dies.”

Uranium mining opponents swarm council committee Rapid City Journal,   •  John Lee McLaughlin Journal staff, 15 Aug 13, After learning that the mayor and three city council members met privately with Powertech representatives, opponents of a proposed uranium mine packed Rapid City’s council chambers on Wednesday to find out where the city stands on the matter.

Despite nearly an hour of testimony, the Legal and Finance Committee declined to take a stand on a resolution opposing the project near Edgemont that needs state and federal approval. The resolution will now be considered Monday night by the Rapid City Council…… opponents to Powertech’s proposed Dewey Burdock mining project were concerned the meeting may have watered down the council’s original opposition, which was discussed at a meeting where council members say they wanted assurance the proposed project wouldn’t hurt the local water supply……

Project opponents voiced concern over the mine’s potential impacts on regional water quality and contamination from heavy metals and radioactive material that they said would pose a risk for 4.4 billion years, which is the half-life of uranium.

If a state water permit is granted, the mine would take water from the Inyan Kara and Madison aquifers at a rate of around 9,000 gallons per minute. Most of the water would come from the Inyan Kara Aquifer, which has lower quality water.

“Water is precious thing, a gift of life,” said Mark Kammerer, an area rancher who opposes the operation. “I hope you go ahead and come up with a good resolution denying Powertech the use of this water. You have that responsibility to my kids, your kids and kids not yet born. Water is the gift of life. Without it, all life dies.”

Opponents also feared that once Powertech gets approval, it would invite other mines to come to the Black Hills. They charged that no mining operation has surfaced without leaks or spills and that Powertech representatives have no “skin in the game.”

Opponents said that Powertech representatives have also had an unwelcome hand in removing South Dakota’s regulatory oversight of the mine……. http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/uranium-mining-opponents-swarm-council-committee/article_e3057078-786f-5ff6-9ad2-cb50e4f5e5b2.html

runswithhorses -comments – How proud we are of our Rapid City Council and the residents of Rapid City to realize that uranium mining is not what we want to be known for in our area. We want to retain our real estate prices, our wonderful, healthy place to raise our kids. Good economic development doesn’t happen in devastated areas and superfund sites. Nor will tourists come and bring their families. Other towns in the Black Hills need to sit up, take notice and follow good leadership we are seeing in our RC Council. Water is more precious than gold or uranium.

Continuing opposition to Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium mine plan

Wiluna uranium mine not officially protested http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/06/19/3785317.htm By GlennBarndon, Sarah Taillier, Chloe Papas 

ABC’s Sarah Taillier spoke to Mia Pepper from the Conservation Council of WA. Have a listen to the interview

Toro Energy’s potential uranium mine at Wiluna has been the subject of much controversy – but was not officially appealed during the required period. So, what happens next?

Toro Energy’s plans to build a uranium mine in Wiluna have been the subject of considerable controversy since the $269 million project was proposed last year. Recently, the company announced that no appeals were launched during the four-week protest period allowed by the Federal government.

Though this takes the company one step closer to putting plans into action, Mia Pepper from the Conservation Council of WA told ABC’s Sarah Taillier that a formal appeal was not the only avenue of protest.

“The fight against the Wiluna uranium mine is definitely not over just because of not lodging one out of many possible appeals.” Pepper told the ABC that not only are there other ways to attempt to stop the mine, but the company may have bigger issues than a formal protest.   ”They’ve been trying to take it to market for a long time and haven’t been successful, and I think they’re using this event or non-event as a platform to try and fundraise for the project – which is and has been their main problem for a long time.”

Community opposition in Jiangmen against plannned uranium processing plant

Jiangmen residents protest against uranium processing plant http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1280894/jiangmen-residents-protest-against-uranium-processing-plant  Several hundred people gathered in Jiangmen’s city centre on Friday morning to protest against a planned uranium processing plant in the Guangdong city.

“Jiangmen doesn’t want radiation”, one banner carried by demonstrators said. “We want children, not atoms,” said another. Police appear to have been anticipating the protest with Jiangmen city government building being cordoned-off.

One group of protesters gathered in front of the building, another group meet at the Donghu Lake park.

Two protesters, who declined to be identified, said that the protest had been organized via QQ and WeChat, two social messaging services, at least two days ahead of the protest.

One local said that the local government had held an emergency meeting last night to prepare for the protest. According to one demonstrator, the public protest lasted from 8am to 11:30am and is planned resume in the afternoon.

Some protesters were holding banners calling for another protest on Sunday.

Thee 30-hectare plant would carry out uranium conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication, the Jiangmen City Development and Reform Bureau said in an earlier statement.

The plant’s construction some 100km from Hong Kong and Macau has sparked health concerns in both cities as well. The Heshan government under the administration of Jiangmen held a press conference earlier on Friday morning defending the project. Heshan mayor Wu Yuxiong said that the local government has decided to extend the period in which the risk assessment report is publicly accessible by a further ten days.

Microblogs about the protests have been quickly censored, indicating increased sensitivity about a backlash. Earlier this year, two demonstrations against a gas refinery in Kunming have caused a public backlash. A similar protest in Chengdu had been repressed.

Anxieties over China’s Guangdong uranium processing plan

Experts call for more details on Guangdong uranium plant, South China Morning Post,  Olga Wong and Minnie Chan  Concern over sketchy nature of details and possible radiation risks from proposed nuclear development in Guangdong.

Nuclear experts and green activists have called for more information from the Guangdong government after limited details were released about its proposal for a uranium processing plant in Jiangmen, about 100 kilometres from Hong Kong.

An announcement by the Jiangmen City Development and Reform Bureau said the 230-hectare plant would carry out uranium conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication.

But the three-page statement, issued last Thursday, did not make it clear whether the plant, in the Longwan industrial district of Zhishanzhen, would perform spent fuel reprocessing – recycling of old fuel rods that could emit high doses of radiation – or what measures would be used to avoid radiation leaks……

“My concern is that poor protective measures could lead to pollution of food chains by the leakage of uranium dust,” Dr Luk Bing-lam, past chairman of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers’ nuclear division, said.

Uranium dust could cause leukaemia if absorbed by the human body, he said.

“Placing the plant in an industrial park instead of a remote area could also present security issues,” he added. “What if uranium gets stolen and sold for making dirty bombs?”

Placing the plant in an industrial park instead of a remote area could also present security issues. What if uranium gets stolen and sold for making dirty bombs?

Luk said the plant seemed to involve processing of natural uranium, which would emit radiation relatively higher than that from granite rock. “But we are not 100 per cent sure given the limited information made available by the government,” he added….. affected villagers had agreed to move to make way for the plant.

Zheng Qian, a 58-year-old representative of Lianzhu Village, said the 160 residents would move to a new site the same size as their village near the government headquarters. They were given a relocation fee of HK$220,000 and a construction fee for their houses. “It’s a desirable arrangement for a village as remote as ours,” Zheng said.

One villager said he would just have to accept the “reality” of the situation, but a motorcycle driver living in the area said the plant was incompatible with tourism in nearby Zhuhai .

“The safer the government says it is, the more worried I am,” he said. “This government cannot be trusted.” http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1279122/experts-call-more-details-guangdong-uranium-plant