High Risk – Low Return: The case against uranium mining in Queensland
Australian Conservation Foundation Australian Manufacturing Workers Union Electrical Trades Union Friends of the Earth North Queensland Conservation Council Queensland Conservation Council Queensland Nuclear Free Alliance The Wilderness Society
Cover picture: Mine tailings dam failure at Merriespruit, South Africa gold mine. On the day of the failure 50mm of rain fell in 30 minutes, comparable to flooding rain quantities in Qld in recent summers (source: tailings.info)
High Risk – Low Return: The case against uranium mining in Queensland
1. Overview 2. Overstated economic potential 3. Environmental Impacts 4. Radiation and Health 5. Uranium and Indigenous
…show more content…
In a nutshell, it is because the economic benefits are grossly overstated and are outweighed by the wide-ranging environmental, public health and weapons proliferation problems and risks. Uranium accounted for 0.19 per cent of Australia's export revenue in 2011/12 (the last available figures)1. By the most generous estimate, uranium accounts for 0.015% of all jobs in Australia.2 For Queensland, there is the additional limitation that the state has around just 2% of Australia's uranium resources. Clearly, the industry has no capacity to deliver significant economic or employment benefits. Instead of acknowledging the extremely limited economic potential of uranium mining in Queensland, the LNP state government, the Australian Uranium Association and the Queensland Resources Council have continued a pattern of extravagant and unsubstantiated claims regarding jobs, revenue and royalties. Enthusiasm is no substitute for evidence and limited sectoral self-interest is not the same as the public interest. The assumptions and analysis of those promoting the uranium sector in Queensland needs to be challenged and reviewed.
Left: Mary Kathleen, former Qld uranium mine – poorly rehabilitated
1
In the absence of open, inclusive and evidence based policy making the Newman LNP government has set up the Uranium Implementation Committee. The Committee has not sought broad community input and has not been asked to assess the
Nuclear power plants should be legal in Australian as they pose many advantages. Such as high money income and cleaner power source than coal power. This essay will argue that nuclear power plants in Australia should be legalised.
An example is that nuclear power emits more energy than fossil fuels. In an article called “The Pro and Cons of Nuclear Power”, Jeremy Smith states that Uranium, which is used to make nuclear energy, can produce 20,000 times as much energy than fossil fuels (2011). This means that a small amount of Uranium would be used to make an abundant amount of energy. On the other hand, the process of acquiring the Uranium may be more dangerous that predicted. According to Jeremy Smith, uranium mining exposes workers to radium, a highly radioactive element, which then turns into radon gas. “Radon gas… can expose workers and nearby communities to an array of health risks like lung cancer, bone cancer and lymphoma” (Smith 2011). In conclusion, although uranium gives an immense amount of energy, it would not be worth it if thousands of workers become ill and possibly die.
Since its discovery in the late 19th century, nuclear energy has been used in a diversity of areas such as atomic bombs, medicine, reducing pollution and food irradiation (Gupta, 2012). However, one of the biggest outcomes since this discovery is nuclear energy generation. This subject is largely controversial as it has many pros and cons. It is considered to be a more eco-friendly alternative source of electricity, as it emits less carbon emissions than coal-fired power stations, for example. Yet there still an environmental risk provided by the radio-active waste and its inability to be disposed of for 100,000 years (Phillips, 2012). Today in Australia there are no active nuclear power plants but that is predicted to change in the
The Navajo have endured environmental injustice since 1944 when uranium, was mined on their land. Even though it brought them mining jobs there were negative effects on the Navajo Nation. Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal that may cause negative health effects. The radioactive materials caused lung cancer or various forms of fibrosis. These uranium mines affected not only the minors but
The South Australian Government is looking for ways to decrease the unemployment rate within SA and some propose that this could be the answer. Are the jobs opportunities worth the sacrifice of land needed to have a nuclear waste dump? I don’t think so. Increasing the employment rate is good in the short term but, when you take into consideration the health risks, such as cancer, that a nuclear waste site holds for not only the workers but the locals it suddenly becomes unappealing. There’s no point giving them jobs when they’re all going to become terminally ill.
The mining has become a controversial topic due to the mass publicity regarding the potential danger of nuclear power and uranium mining, not to mention the objections by some Indigenous groups. The controversy is significant
While this is a main concern which has yet to rise to the forefront of the media, another such concern is the lack of Utilities Commission review mandatory by law. For approximately the last 37 years since its establishment the Utilities Commission has been an important independent oversight that was formed to prevent any government or politician to dictate the operations of utilities for political consideration. Its sole responsibility is to protect BC taxpayers from the greed of politicians teamed with corporations. And yet, despite its creation the Site C project was able to bypass the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) by conducting a Joint Review Panel that took 9 months to complete which did not look at the environmental, social and First Nations impacts. 370 scholars and scientist deemed the decision to forge ahead without such a review was an “unprecedented imposition of numerous significant adverse environmental effects” (Ducklow, 2017). The BC Liberals stand by their decisions to make exceptions in their favour, with no research or studies to back up
The mining business is where the greater part of Australia’s economy originates from. Conservative politicians are unwilling to accept climate change, for the reason that they favour society’s values and aspects to be unchanged. A case which supports this notion is Australia’s and the United States rejecting to join other countries in partaking in the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol aims to unite countries to set limits on their greenhouse gas emissions, to suppress the destructive effects of climate change. The United States expresses that it will not participate in the international treaty due to; absence of sufficient supporting scientific evidence, large developing countries such as China or India aren’t partaking in the movement and reducing the greenhouse emissions would mean loss in their economy. Therefore, Australia and the United States will be more reluctant to adapting accepting climate change as it will negatively affect the industries that both countries originated from and have thrived on (Vanderheiden,
Paragraph 1: Australian resources are bountiful and aplenty when it comes to need in Australia. According to geoscience sector of the Australian government , Australia's mineral resources are an integral factor of the nation's wealth. Most money that pays for the development of our country, comes from the selling of our mined resources. In actual fact, for the selling of our precious minerals, we don’t even have
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge in Golden, CO, has been a topic for debate for many years. In 2010, I testified and spoke out against the wildlife refuge on the house floor regarding House Bill 10-1127. The topic is still making local headlines with leaders on both sides arguing what are considered safe levels of Plutonium and Uranium. The article depicts the nature of the arguments and how the policies will affect the community. Some of the controversies discussed in the article that may affect the community include, safety, zoning, recreational, and environmental issues.
Even though the mining of uranium can cause environmental pollution, the power plant itself does not actually produce pollution. Yes, there is also nuclear waste we have to take care of, but it is stored in Yucca Mountain.On the contrary, people may be afraid of the nuclear waste having an accident while transporting it to the mountain, but it hasn’t happened yet. This is why we should help keep TMI open.
I am here concerning the endangerment of the Koalas, an animal only found in four of the 8,222 islands and is only found in the country of Australia. It is losing its habitat rapidly due to human population rising and the increase of forest fires caused by the increase in global weather caused by coal plants. I suggest a program to help that would not only preserve the wildlife and forests of the Australian and Oceania but restore it to its proper glory and state. The government is also a key part in this as the country's overall habitat protection is monitored by the government and a federal organization would be helpful in restoring and maintaining the ecosystem. This could lead to this group being a federally funded program and would help bring the koalas and other species of the
With many negative effects our overall society should make nuclear fission obsolete. In 2009 the U.S. lost over 10 billion dollars (along with very long construction times)just to create a few nuclear reactors. This shows that the actual nuclear reactors take the longest time to create and get up running. “There are many harmful effects of the mining of uranium in and near local populations”. Even though uranium is an essential part of the running nuclear reactor it is harmful when they are mining for it near local populations. When uranium is being mined for the rocks it releases harmful gasses that can cause cancer or other inner organs. Ultimately nuclear fission is very
Another arguments against the limitations on uranium mining in Australia is that uranium mining can increase job oppurtunity to local people in Australia. According to Greenpeace Australia Pacific (2006), the uranium industry could create a large number of job opportunity because energy resource industry need a lot of employees to support that business. If the Australian Government expand their uranium mining it will create potential local job and it would be one solution to solve the unemployment problems. So, some people believe that the limitations of uranium mining is not necessary because it can reduce the job opportunity in Australia.
Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a