UnCensored and Blacklisted News
Previous News Tracy Turner Articles Rare Trees of Patagonia Tracy Turner Articles Fukushima Radioisotopes Man-Made Disasters / California
Fukushima Plumegate - 2 Radical Militant Judaic Chabad Gangstalking - Has Moved Here
Yellow Sandman – The Nuclear Proliferation of Your Uranium Nightmares
Yellow Sandman – The Nuclear Proliferation of Your Uranium Nightmares
By Tracy Turner
The largest known deposits of Uranium (circa 2014) are in order largest to smallest: Uzbekistan, Canada, Australia and the United States. If one searches for Uranium mines in each country in a search engine and goes to images, numerous maps show both Uranium mines (some active, some abandoned but not cleaned up) in proximity to “fresh” water sources and urban areas as well as farming areas.
In Australia the Aboriginals are walking from Wiluna to Perth to protest Uranium mining, concentrating and milling operations on their native and sacred lands. Unlike Westerners, the Aboriginals claim that more than chemical or radiological sickness is involved – that mining the yellow sand is a spiritual sickness Westerners do not understand.
Uzbekistan ranks number one in known Uranium deposits, the U.S. is fourth behind Canada and Australia. According to the website seekingalpha.com, these are the five largest Uranium companies:
Reserves & Resources (Measured, Indicated & Inferred) (lbs., in millions)
Paladin Energy (OTCPK:PALAF)
ERA (Rio Tinto) (NYSE:RIO)
First Uranium Corp. (now AngloGold Ashanti) (NYSE:AU)
Berkeley Resources (OTCPK:BKLRF)
All five companies plan to or are ongoing mining/milling via primarily open-pit mining (radon gas, radioactive dust, water contamination and mines that are never cleaned up or ameliorated in any healthful way) in all four nations. The biggest buyer of the Uranium is China, a country intent on building a minimum of a 200-300+ Uranium plants – can you think of a more dangerous, more polluting and more tax-payer-funded way to boil water. Wind, olive biodiesel and Sodium-Solar electrical generation are renewable and sustainable so China picks nuclear.
China will build the plants relatively close to populated areas as the rest of the planet has done to cut costs of a grotesquely pork and corruption project (global nuke model). China has some geothermal energy (Volcanoes, frequent Earthquakes) and is one of the most seismically active areas (Himalayas) on Earth. What could possibly go Tepco with this plan? The Uranium is being mined and the reactors designed and built even as you read this. Capitalism is a magical wand that fixes everything, even Atomic Reactors built atop fault rift zones, volcanoes and geothermal geysers.
The Chernobyl reactor explosion and China syndrome meltdown was just one reactor. Some medical and ecological writers believe millions of persons have died of cancer since Chernobyl – that the real deaths occurred about 7+ years after the news story faded. The cancers from Fukushima are on the rise globally as the pollution from three reactors is much worse and no amelioration efforts were made at Fukushima. The Russians need to re-build the decayed temporary shield they made but nobody has money for the project.
Investors buy into nuclear but nobody buys into a meltdown, the radioactive leaks, water and gases are with us for numerous millennium. The Pacific Ocean nor any other sea or ocean will not simply dilute the pollution harmlessly to us. Oddly, most of the energy consumed anywhere is lights being burned at night when most people are asleep and lights burned at night with no one in the lighted room.
In the Western world, the biblical “man has dominion over the Earth” is taken to mean license to mine yellow sand and let the pollution/meltdowns occur willy-nilly. Cal Tech has a bit different spin on “man’s dominion over the Earth”, in this case seismic zones and volcanism in China. China may have opened up to trade, but it is still a closed society that will be less forthcoming than Shinzo Abe and Tepco when 6 or 8 reactors melt down. To contemplate a disaster even as “small” as Fukushima coupled with a Tangshan-style Earthquake is potentially to contemplate initially 650,000 dead followed by 5,000,000 cancers minimum over the decade after the meltdown. China is extremely vulnerable to Tsunamis breaching nuclear reactors using seawater for cooling.
The crux of the matter is money for the five mining companies and their cohorts; building hundreds of Uranium-poison nuclear reactors for China will also lead us further into post-peak water and post-peak sanity. The Aboriginals walkabout from Wiluna to Perth to protest Uranium mining is being done to make themselves and all the rest of us right in the head. They have stated that we do not understand the spiritual, soulful ramifications to humanity of taking the Uranium out of the ground. Depleted Uranium seems to have mission creep; this metal waste keeps finding itself in bombs, missiles and bullets in one nation after another… Man’s dominion over the Earth. In 500 to 1000 years, the capital of the US could be Fallujah, a city rife with depleted Uranium poison. Borders and ideology change, but one lake and river, one ocean at a time we are boxing ourselves in, painting ourselves into a nuclear corner with less and less options.
In the United States, two main types of companies existed to mine and concentrate Uranium: 1) Larger companies that hired Navajos and other First People's to mine with no safety gear, so the government could get statistics on lung cancer, tumors in both the miners and their families. 2) Smaller family owned single mines or 2-4 small mines. In both cases, there were and still are a lot of cancer and the bandoned mines are sources of slow death to the locals mainly though well water.
The very large multinational companies often sub-contract the entire mine, workers, ownership and all to Joe blo mining. After 10-15 years, everyone is laid off and Joe Blo declares bankruptcy (profits are in the Caymans). Cleanup is on all of us, the taxpayers. The intent of four nations to fuel China with Uranium for China Syndrome is bad for the residents who breath the dust and drink the water. Chima will end up with Depleted Uranium weapons, irradiated rice, fish, fruits and vegetables. Perhaps that is the intent. But we already have to many unmitigated, unaleriorated Uranium Mines in America.
From Wikipedia: It is thought that between 17 and 20 countries have weapons incorporating depleted uranium in their arsenals. They include the U.S., the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, Iraq and Taiwan. Iran also has performed wide research on DU penetrators since 2001. DU ammunition is manufactured in 18 countries. Only the US and the UK have acknowledged using DU weapons.
Photo from Aaron Schwartz's Image Atlas http://tinyurl.com/oym2deq
There is a "grassroots" astroturf "green" movement afoot to attack banks and shareholders invested in coal; that leaves us with Nuke, Frack Gas and Frack Oil. Coal is ugly, but Uranium by comparison is even uglier. The astroturf "green" organizations attacking coal are funded by nuclear, frack gas and frack oil lobbying money. Do not be misled into astroturf movements that are bar-room brawls between the four major dirty energy companies; their faux "green" offers no funding for energy renewables. The truth is we will never be free from the chemical toxins and alpha, beta and gamma emitters that is sadly our light at the end a tunnel burning us to a crisp, metaphorically and in reality. Cancer is on the rise and the increased death count is hidden by the MSM with articles about Methusalah cucumbers being eaten by starlets...
Banning Dissent in the Name of Civility
I had been invited to talk next April 3 at the University of Pennsylvania at a peace conference sponsored by the International Affairs Association, but last week after Truthdig published my column “ISIS—the New Israel” the lecture agency that set up the event received this email from Zachary Michael Belnavis, who is part of the student group:
We’re sorry to inform you that we don’t think that Chris Hedges would be a suitable fit for our upcoming peace conference. We’re saying this in light of a recent article he’s written in which he compares the organization ISIS to Israel (here’s the article in question). In light of this comparison we don’t believe he would be suitable to a co-existence speaker based on this stance he’s taken.
Being banned from speaking about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, especially at universities, is familiar to anyone who attempts to challenge the narrative of the Israel lobby. This is not the first time one of my speaking offers has been revoked and it will not be the last. However, the charge of Belnavis and the International Affairs Association that I do not believe in coexistence between the Palestinians and Israel is false. I oppose violence by either party. I have condemned Hamas rocket attacks as war crimes. And I support Israel’s right to exist within the pre-1967 borders. The charge that I oppose coexistence cannot be substantiated by anything I have said or written. And those of us who call on Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders are, after all, only demanding what is required by international law and numerous U.N. resolutions.
But truth, along with an open and fair debate, is the last thing the Israel lobby and its lackeys seek. The goal is to silence students, faculty members and outside speakers who do not read from the approved script. The decades-long persecution of the courageous scholar Norman Finkelstein, which has included repeatedly successful campaigns by the Israel lobby to get him removed from university teaching positions, is accompanied by efforts to discredit fearless writers on Israel such as Max Blumenthal, the author of “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel.” Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, and Blumenthal are Jews. And Jews who demand justice for the Palestinians—Jews often make up sizable parts of college groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine—are attacked with a particular vindictiveness by propagandists for Israel.
Our universities, like our corporate-controlled airwaves, are little more than echo chambers for the elites and the powerful. The bigger and more prestigious the university the more it seems determined to get its students and faculty to chant in unison to please its Zionist donors. Student groups that resist are often banned, as has happened to numerous chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, including one at Northeastern University. Some are denied meeting spaces, and at times student activists are prohibited from participating in any campus student organizations—even those that have nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Many students have been made to attend re-education seminars run by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Criticism of Israel is equated with anti-Semitism.
I spent seven years in the Middle East as a foreign correspondent, five of them as the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. I speak Arabic. I was frequently in Gaza and lived for two years in Jerusalem. What frightens the Israel lobby is not my critique, but my expertise. It is impossible to spew out the usual Israeli propaganda, half-truths, distortions and lies—as retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz once tried to do when he and I appeared at a Columbia University event—to someone who has spent years in the Middle East reporting on the conflict. What the Israel lobby fears most are facts.
The struggle by students, including some at the University of Pennsylvania, to bolster the nonviolent boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, which I support, has been met by fierce internal resistance on campuses across the country. A national BDS conference in 2012 at the University of Pennsylvania, which to the university’s credit the school administrators permitted, saw the usual outpouring of venom and character assassination. The attacks included a letter to The Daily Pennsylvanian newspaper from professor Ruben Gur of the departments of psychiatry, radiology and neurology. Gur called the BDS movement a “hateful genocidal organization” and accused it of being anti-Semitic. He said the student organizers were concealing “Hamas and Hizballah daggers” and referred to Omar Barghouti’s book “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: the Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights” as the organizers’ “version of ‘Mein Kampf.’ ” He said groups in the BDS movement were similar to those “organized by the Nazis in the 1930’s to boycott, divest and sanction Jews and their businesses.” He compared Jewish students who support the movement to “Capos in the extermination camps.”
The University of Pennsylvania’s Hillel chapter has hosted speakers such as Daniel Pipes and Nonie Darwish who peddle disturbing racist stereotypes of Muslims and justify indiscriminate violence against Muslims. The chapter once organized a university talk by the right-wing extremist Effi Eitam, a former Israeli military commander. Eitam, infamous for personally overseeing and taking part in brutal and sometimes deadly beatings of Palestinians in the occupied territories when he was in the military, declared in a 2004 article in The New Yorker that Palestinians were “creatures who came out of the depths of darkness” and he branded the Palestinian people as “collectively guilty.” “We will have to kill them all,” he said of those with “the evil in their heads.”
The political science department of the University of Pennsylvania, along with Hillel, invited Dershowitz to attack the BDS movement in a 2012 lecture titled “Why Israel Matters to You, Me, and Penn: A Conversation With Alan Dershowitz.”
Dershowitz has called on Israel to use bulldozers to demolish entire Palestinian villages, rather than individual houses, in retaliation for Palestinian terrorist attacks, although collective punishment violates international law. In another context he defends the use of torture and proposes methods that include shoving a “sterilized needle underneath the nail.” He lambastes as an anti-Semite nearly everyone who has criticized the Israeli state; he once said “there is a special place in hell” for former President Jimmy Carter and that South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu is “one of the most evil men in the world.”
When Dershowitz spoke at Penn in 2012, David Cohen, the chairman of the university board of trustees and executive vice president of Comcast Corp., read to the audience a letter written for the occasion by the school’s president, Amy Gutmann, who was in California at the time. In the letter Gutmann praised Dershowitz and castigated the BDS movement, saying “Penn is blessed to have one of the largest and most active Hillel chapters in the country. And we are unwavering in our support of the Jewish state. Let me say it in the clearest possible words: we do not support the goals of BDS.”
The code word that the Israel lobby and its facilitators at universities use to silence critics is “civility.” Israel supporters are permitted to spout hate and calls for indiscriminate violence against Palestinians. Critics of Israel, however, even if they are careful to denounce violence and not to demonize Jews, are banned in the name of “civility.” It is the height of academic duplicity.
It was Steven Salaita’s lack of “civility” that saw the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign “de-hire” him this year after the school invited him to join the faculty as a tenured professor. Salaita had sent tweets at the height of the Israeli bombing of Gaza last summer that left some 2,100 people dead, including 500 children. One reads: “Let’s cut to the chase: If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human being. 11:46 PM—8 Jul 2014.” Chancellor Phyllis Wise, in removing Salaita, said the university would not tolerate “disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.” The board of trustees supported Wise’s decision, saying there is no place in a democracy for speech that does not promote “civility.” Afterward, 34 administrators at the school wrote a letter to the incoming president of the University of Illinois saying the treatment of Salaita had damaged the institution and their ability to attract top-level scholars to the Urbana-Champaign campus.
The crude attempts to suppress debate will backfire on Israel. It is a sign of Israel’s desperation. Israeli leaders, and their supporters in the United States, speak now with naked, unvarnished hatred and racism that are alienating all but the most demented religious fanatics and protofascist Zionists, those who seek to build a nation based on a uniformity of bloodline and religious faith. The old Israel, the one that strove, however imperfectly, to be liberal and democratic, is gone. The new Israel increasingly mirrors the religious extremism of fundamentalist Muslims. The Israeli Cabinet, which has supported a series of discriminatory laws against non-Jews, last month conditionally backed legislative proposals that emphasize Israel’s Jewish character and would damage the rights of 20 percent of Israel’s citizenry, the nation’s Arabs. The new Israel is run by zealots such as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and Housing Minister Uri Ariel. It is championed by retrograde billionaires such as the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, an American who bought a newspaper in Israel to spread messages of intolerance, racism and hate.
Even Israeli Jews no longer have democratic rights. There is mounting state repression against human rights advocates, journalists and dissidents. Racist language against Arabs has poisoned public discourse—crowds chant “Death to Arabs” at Israeli soccer matches. Right-wing thugs belonging to groups such as Im Tirtzu beat up dissidents, Palestinians, Israeli Arabs and impoverished African immigrants who live in the slums around Tel Aviv. Israeli Jews who denounce the racist cant and condemn the indiscriminate violence the state routinely employs against Palestinians are labeled terrorists or collaborators with terrorists. The settlers, as the newspaper Haaretz pointed out, are the real government of Israel.
The late Amnon Dankner, a onetime editor of Maariv, denounced “neo-Nazi expressions in the Knesset [the Israeli parliament]” and “entire parties whose tenor and tone arouse feelings of horror and terrifying memories.” David Landau, a former editor-in-chief of Haaretz, called on Israelis to boycott the Knesset “to stand against the wave of fascism that has engulfed the Zionist project.” And Uri Avnery, a left-wing politician and journalist, argues that “Israel’s very existence is threatened by fascism.”
“Zionism as a force is dead,” the blogger Yossi Gurvitz told Philip Weiss, who co-edits Mondoweiss, in an interview in 2012. “The people who are actually speaking in the name of Zionism are speaking in religious and metaphysical and mystical truths. They are not speaking in the secular Zionist tradition. A poll two weeks ago—about 70 percent consider themselves to be the chosen people. American Jews think we as Jews are chosen to carry out tikkun olam [social justice]. Israeli Jews think something different—we are the chosen people of God, we are chosen to do anything we damn well please. To take people’s land. Take people’s lives.”
Mirrored from: http://virginiaagainsturanium.blogspot.com
Veterans Administration Abandons Vets Suffering From Depleted Uranium Contamination
Rachel Alexander | Mar 24, 2014
After young and healthy Marine Matt Parker fought for his country in the Middle East, he mysteriously came down with tumors. Now, he finds himself without adequate help from the country he fought for. I’ve known Matt since he was a small child; our families grew up together in church, and in high school I taught his sister violin lessons. Matt is a straight shooter; a bright, honest guy raised with solid values by outstanding Christian parents.
Matt enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1994 at age 19. He told KOMO News 4 in Seattle, “ I wanted to be a part of the best fighting force in the world.” Desert Storm and the majority of the fighting in Iraq had ended by then, and so Matt went to the Middle East as part of Operation Southern Watch, which was more of a recovery and rebuilding mission. His unit was tasked in part with arming Cobra helicopters in Kuwait with special 20mm rounds tipped in depleted uranium. No one instructed the Marines to wear gloves or protective clothing.
Upon finishing his service and returning to civilian life a few years later, he started having mood swings, joint pain, insomnia and severe headaches. Sinus infections led to a seizure in 2011, and after he was rushed to the hospital, doctors discovered a massive tumor in the front of his head. The doctors successfully removed the tumor, and asked him if he’d been exposed to radiation.
Matt contacted Marines in his former unit to see if others had developed similar health issues, almost 15 years after their service together. One of them, Dan Paris, told Matt he’d also developed what appeared to be a tumor growing in his head, and had similar physical symptoms.
Neither vet has a history of brain trauma in their families. Matt and Dan served together from late April 1994 until about September 1997. Together, they realized they had both come down with what has been labeled Gulf War Syndrome, a “chronic multi-symptom disorder affecting returning military veterans and civilian workers of the Gulf War.” One of its main causes is considered to be exposure to depleted uranium, which was used in 30mm and smaller caliber machine-gun bullets on a large scale for the first time during the Gulf War. Investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn discovered that “40 percent of the soldiers in one unit were found to have malignant cancerous growths when they returned from a tour of a year and a few months in Iraq.”
Matt’s family life started to fall apart as his health deteriorated. His marriage ended in divorce, and he lost his home to foreclosure. He developed a second tumor.
Dan’s tumor is practically inoperable. If removed, it will very likely affect regions of his brain associated with motor function, speech and higher learning. So far, he is delaying the inevitable; putting up with increasing levels of pain as the tumor continues to grow. Dan applied for disability, which was denied without even the courtesy of a notification. He has been granted 100 percent disability assistance for a shoulder injury, but has only been able to receive 40 percent disability assistance for his other ailments.
Matt applied for disability with the Veterans Administration in 2012, citing the exposure to depleted uranium as the reason for his disability. The VA denied his request, claiming there was no connection between his tumor and the exposure. They also bizarrely claimed that Matt had never been stationed in the Ali Al Saleem area in Kuwait where the exposure to depleted uranium took place. This isn’t true, because he’d been in a bus accident in Kuwait, resulting in a hospital stay - as well as teasing from his unit. The VA inexplicably lost the paperwork documenting the hospital stay.
Matt got nowhere until he went to the media with his plight. Nevada congressional leaders in Washington, D.C., including both U.S. Senators, began looking into the situation. Veteran's Advocate and retired Army sergeant, Dan Swafford of Phoenix, Ariz., put together an 80-page rebuttal to the VA’s turndown, which he turned in to the VA in Reno, Nev., last September.
Farmers along Dan River worry about livelihood
By Richard M. Barron
(Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record | Posted: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:29 pm
MILTON — Robert Brandon talks about when the Dan River ran gray.
“You should have seen it right after it happened,” he said. “Imagine mixing up a bag of cement in there. You stick your hand in it, it’ll turn gray.”
That gray water from the Feb. 2 coal ash spill at Duke Energy’s storage pond in Eden may threaten fish and wildlife for generations.
Swimmers, boaters and those who fish have lost their refuge for the moment.
Now, Brandon may lose his way of life.
Brandon is a farmer. He raises cattle on a stretch of land that runs at least a half-mile along the river.
He is one of a dozen or more farmers — nobody knows how many for sure — who have raised crops along this river in Rockingham and Caswell counties for generations.
When the weather turns dry, these farmers turn to the river.
But at the moment, that’s not an option.
When a stormwater pipe burst at Duke Energy’s retired Dan River Steam Station, sending thousands of tons of coal ash into the Dan River, the fallout was predictable.
Concerns over safe drinking water and wildlife. The outcry from environmentalists. Public assurances by Duke Energy and Gov. Pat McCrory. And a flow of finger-pointing, subpoenas and controversy that hasn’t let up.
Lost in the discussion has been the plight of farmers, whose fields sit in the lowlands along the Dan in the back roads of Rockingham and Caswell counties.
During growing season, they depend on the river for irrigating crops and as drinking water for cattle.
This summer may be different.
Soil scientists from N.C. State are looking at data from Duke Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether the water will be safe for farming.
Their early conclusion Friday was that levels of dangerous metals will be at acceptable levels.
But for weeks, farmers grew weary of uncertainty.
Few things are predictable down on the farm, least of all the weather.
Even so, the coal ash spill was something the farmers along the Dan never saw coming.
In slate gray weather on the last day of winter, Mike Powell, a thin, 54-year-old, crunched across last year’s corn crop toward the Dan River.
His land is rimmed with trees as the river gently bends along a half-mile of frontage.
Deer and turkeys scavenge these muddy fields. Tree frogs provide the sound track.
Powell is used to watching the weather. That and market prices for his crop define his work.
Cold, rainy weather this year has pushed Powell’s corn-planting season toward its mid-April deadline.
But even if the weather improves in the coming weeks, he will wait to plant corn, wheat and tobacco until somebody can tell him if the Dan River is safe.
Opinions vary on how contaminated the water is — and how long it will stay that way.
State wildlife officials estimate that the toxic sludge coats 70 miles of the river bottom.
Recent tests by Duke Energy and the EPA show the water’s quality has improved.
One environmental group, however, has warned against exposure to skin.
In the meantime, all farmers can do is wait and hope.
“One day I want to retire and sell this land,” Powell said. “But you think anybody’s gonna buy some land here right now?
“I grow crops along here, and all of them are consumed by humans and animals. I would not like to be told I can’t farm here. I’d like some answers. I’d like to know.”
Carl Crozier, an N.C. State faculty member at the Vernon James Research and Extension Center in Plymouth, specializes in soil fertility.
Crozier said Friday that recent tests suggest that the river water won’t hurt crops or animals.
He is running some final calculations before he makes a firm recommendation, however.
His analysis comes from the latest information from Duke Energy and the EPA.
“We can actually take the data that they make available ... and we can calculate what could happen if someone pulls this water out of the river for livestock drinking water or irrigation water,” Crozier said.
Based on recent tests, “the levels are so small that they’re within drinking water standards,” he said.
Still, it can be tricky to draw conclusions. Especially when there’s not a lot of research about the effects of coal ash on crops to begin with.
Amy Adams, the North Carolina campaign coordinator for Appalachian Voices, an environmental group that focuses on coal, said scientists should be conservative when they make recommendations.
“All we have,” Adams said, “is studies from other states.”
Jerry Apple stood beside a fragile-looking contraption, 20 feet tall and hundreds of feet long, on wheeled legs. It’s an “irrigation pilot,” an aluminum truss designed for watering crops.
He has two of them he uses when he needs a lot of water for the farm, he said, which is often when his corn gets dry.
This year, Apple doesn’t know whether he will have a corn crop to water.
The farm he and a friend own along the Dan River, near Ruffin, straddles the North Carolina-Virginia- state line.
Walk a few hundred feet into the field, and you’re in Virginia.
Apple’s mind was somewhere else the day he stood on the muddy land in a cold breeze.
A big man, Apple, 67 talked about the higher yield he gets from corn and wonders if he will have to plant soybeans instead. Soybeans may not need much irrigation. But they don’t make as much money either.
Like other farmers, Apple isn’t as angry as he is puzzled and anxious.
He sells his corn for livestock feed, and buyers do their own testing.
If his crops contain elevated levels of toxic material, a buyer down the line might refuse to purchase his crop.
“They test everything so much that if they find something and we can’t use the corn for feed, we’d be out of luck.”
Apple walked over to the wide trench in the river bank where he pumps river water into his irrigation pilots.
“Hopefully, by the time we need water, it’ll be OK,” Apple said. “But we don’t know.”
Robert Brandon raises cattle on his land in Milton.
It’s a beautiful and unusual spot.
The land sits under the W. Claire Taylor Bridge, which carries N.C. 62 over the border into Virginia.
Along the farm’s south side, a wide, grassy byway sweeps beside the trees.
It’s a long stretch of the Southern Railway. A wooden depot sits near the bottom of the bridge, nearly collapsed from years of neglect.
But Brandon isn’t much for the railway bed’s aesthetics.
The river across his field is the scenery that concerns him.
Wearing a “Universal Leaf” tobacco hat, the bearded Brandon stands beside his Black Angus cattle, who moo loudly now and then.
When the summer weather gets hot, the small streams his cattle drink from dry up, and the livestock head for the river.
He said he worries they will be drinking polluted water.
Brandon, 54, recalls how he heard about the spill.
“Somebody called and said, ‘What is the gray stuff coming down the river?’ I said, ‘I have no earthly idea.’ It looked like a mix of cement to me.”
Prices are high on the beef market, and Brandon is likely to soon sell the 50 cattle who graze on his 50 acres.
But he has 30 calves he is getting ready to raise.
March 25, 2014
Mary Anne Hitt
Director, Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign
The controversy continues almost two months after a Duke Energy spill of toxic coal ash into the Dan River. First, the Waterkeeper Alliance discovered Duke Energy dumping some 61 million gallons of coal ash wastewater into yet another waterway – the Cape Fear River. Duke Energy has been cited eight times since the Feb. 2 Dan River spill!
Now, state regulators have withdrawn the sweetheart coal ash violation settlements offered in previous years and instead have asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to step in to further investigate coal ash violations.
Today the Sierra Club released a poll showing that these inexcusable and shocking continued water violations are taking their toll on North Carolinians. Some highlights from the poll:
- A stunning 90 percent of North Carolina voters want Duke to clean up all coal ash sites in the state, including the Dan River spill, and 88 percent feel coal ash should be stored away from water in specially lined landfills.
- A large majority of North Carolina voters – 75 percent – are aware of the Dan River coal ash spill and there is broad concern about it within the state’s electorate.
There is strong bipartisan support for regulating coal ash as a hazardous substance, to the tune of 83 percent of North Carolina voters, including super majorities of Democrats (91 percent), Independents (85 percent), and Republicans (75 percent).
- North Carolinians, particularly those who have heard the most about the spill, place the blame for it squarely on Duke Energy.
- North Carolinians strongly favor more regulation and enforcement when it comes to coal ash, and overwhelmingly believe that without this another spill will occur.
- 70 percent of voters would support a candidate who favors strong regulations and enforcement to protect the water, air, and health of North Carolinians and to prevent future incidents like the recent coal ash spill, including 55 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.
These results are strikingly similar to the poll we recently conducted in West Virginia. Taken together, the two polls demonstrate a clear finding that turns conventional wisdom on its head – people in states where the coal industry is still powerful want protections against coal pollution, and they want to support independent leaders who will stand up for clean air and water safeguards.
This story is not going away, in part because residents of the affected states continue to suffer from these spills. In Charleston, residents are still not drinking their water and new test results revealed just today that the coal chemical MCHM is still leaking into the Elk River and showing up in household drinking water.
In North Carolina, officials say it will take at least two years to clean up the Dan River spill, while more coal ash problems are being revealed all the time. In Virginia, which also received some of the Dan River pollution, residents are angry and worried about their health, safety, and economy, and Governor McAuliffe has called on Duke to cover the costs of the cleanup.
The EPA has the tools it needs to prevent another Dan River spill from happening. As Politico reported this week, the EPA is coming under increased scrutiny for failing to finalize long-overdue coal water protections. No more delay – just ask the people of North Carolina. TAKE ACTION: It’s time to protect our water from coal pollution.
Lawyer hired by NC in spill probe represented Duke
Posted: March 24, 2014
The lawyer hired to represent North Carolina's environmental agency during a federal investigation into its regulation of Duke Energy's coal ash dumps once represented the utility company in a different criminal probe
uranium mines: indigenous populations, ecocide & genocide
a great site on mccain’s genocidal legislature toward dineh people, much with respect to mining coal and uranium, mineral rights etc that were taken from dineh and the relocation of whom has perpetuated a genocide on their nation
mccain works in collusion with the mining interests of peabody coal, founded in — CHICAGO! peabody is very active in writing legislation for clean coal. currently hqd in st louis.
Navajos ban uranium mining
By Winona LaDuke
Navajos (Dinés) who have lost family members from radioactive contamination – and those fighting new proposals for uranium development – celebrated the passage April 19 of the Dine Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005. Navajo Tribal Chairman Joe Shirley’s signing of the Act into law signaled a bold step in protecting the arid southwest’s most precious natural resource – water – from mining contamination. The Act bans all uranium mining and processing anywhere on the Navajo Reservation.
A new law bans all
and processing on
“It’s very simple: Uranium kills,” said Mark Maryboy of the Navajo Council Delegate. “This legislation just chopped the legs off the uranium monster,” added Norman Brown of Diné Bidziil, a coalition of 23 Navajo organizations seeking to end uranium mining on Navajo lands. While celebrating the passage of the law, the first of its kind in Indian country, the Diné community vowed to oppose passage of a federal energy bill with subsidies of $30 million for uranium mining.
The Navajo Nation’s new law passed as the Bush administration called for new investment in nuclear power to mitigate global climate change. Calling nuclear power “one of the safest and cleanest sources of power in the world,” the Bush administration proposed new subsidies to the US uranium industry. Indeed, global climate change is a leading factor in the push for more nuclear power. As mining conglomerate Rio Tinto Zinc noted in a recent report, climate change worries are prompting renewed debate on nuclear power. After two decades of slack market, uranium prices have doubled in nine months. Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the world’s largest uranium mining corporations, looks to new mines in Australia, the United States, and Kazakhstan to fuel pending and projected reactors in China, and possibly the US.
Indigenous lands have historically been the source of most of the world’s uranium production. Native nations in the US, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere are deemed to hold 70 percent of world’s uranium resources. The Navajo Nation alone holds an estimated 25 percent of recoverable uranium in the US. Native people are increasingly concerned about energy proposals for ramping up nuclear power, as new mines will compound the already devastating environmental and health effects of historic mining.
At the same time, groups like the Apollo Alliance point to underused solar and wind energy capacity, much of it in Navajo country. In Arizona and New Mexico, over 200 million-megawatt hours a year of solar energy and another potential five million megawatts a year of wind energy go unused. Potential solar production alone could supply well over six million American homes.
Navajo uranium sorrow
The Navajo Nation has a long and tragic relationship with the nuclear industry. In Cove, Arizona, at least one member of every Navajo family is thought to have died from cancer or other diseases resulting from uranium mining. Although the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was designed to compensate victims, many Navajo miners died before the funds were released. Old uranium mines have never been cleaned up, and over 1,000 abandoned mines on the reservation still pose environmental and health hazards. Navajos in Church Rock and Crownpoint, NM have been victims of the nation’s worst radioactive uranium spill. In 1979, a liquid uranium tailings dam was breached and 100 million gallons of radioactive liquid spilled into Navajo waterways. The Little Colorado River and subsequently the Colorado River were contaminated.
Recently, proposals for in situ uranium mining operations have surfaced in Eastern Navajo lands held by individuals. Hydro Resources Incorporated (HRI), a Texas-based uranium mining corporation and potential beneficiary of the Bush subsidies, is proposing to mine four areas near Crownpoint and Church Rock. Meanwhile, Strathmore, a Canadian mining corporation, has purchased additional uranium interests in the Grants Mineral belt adjoining the Navajo Reservation. In HRI’s proposals, the uranium would be removed by in situ leach mining, a process of injecting chemicals into the ground to strip the uranium from the underlying sandstone. The in situ leaching process has been shown to increase concentrations of uranium, other radioactive elements, and heavy metals in the groundwater by up to l00,000 times. Citing the threat to the Navajos’ water supply, Eastern Navajo and Diné Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) and the Southwest Research Information Center have spent over $ l million in challenges to HRI’s uranium proposals. Speaking in Diné and English, Michael Capitan, co-founder of ENDAUM, said, “Our water is more sacred and our water is clean. They want to dirty the water in our communities.”
The implicated water is drinking water for 15,000 Navajo. “These wells are the sole source of drinking water for thousands of people that live in the area,” says Mike Wallace, a groundwater hydrologist who has worked in the nuclear industry at the Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico and the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.
“It is enough to cause renal damage,” Wallace says, concurring with Dr. John Fogerty, the Indian Health Service Director in Crownpoint, at Eastern Navajo. “I’ve never seen such poor science, poor accountability, and poor traceability,” Wallace added.
“We can get by without
uranium. We cannot get by
On March 7, ENDAUM, Southwest Research and Information Center and two Navajo women filed a 1,200-page brief outlining why the project will illegally contaminate underground sources of drinking water in Church Rock and Crownpoint. Despite the Navajo moratorium, legalities abound. At present, it appears that HRI, and possibly Strathmore, may be able to carry out in situ leaching and other techniques on lands adjacent to the Navajo nation at Church Rock.
Representative Tom Udall (D-NM) is among those opposing the federal uranium subsidies in the 2005 Energy Bill. ”This corporate subsidy is both unnecessary and potentially environmentally dangerous,’’ Udall said in a letter to fellow congressmen. He has proposed an amendment to strike Section 631 of the energy bill, which authorizes the appropriation of a $10 million subsidy for the next three fiscal years to “identify, test and develop improved in situ leaching mining technologies, including low-cost environmental restoration technologies.” Taxpayers for Common Sense Action joined ENDAUM and Udall in opposition of the corporate uranium subsidies. “The 50-year-old nuclear industry has benefited from cradle-to-grave subsidization for too long,” Taxpayers co-founder Jill Lancelot said.
“‘Water is life’ is not just a political slogan – it’s a description of some of the fundamental principles we live by every day. Water is used in our religious ceremonies, just like it is used in the ceremonies of the Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim faiths. It is essential to our survival in an arid climate,’’ Capitan explained to a United Nations Conference this past September. Echoing those words, Richard Abitz, geo-chemist and environmental scientist, said, “Water is needed for life. Uranium is not needed for life. We can get by without uranium. We can not get by without water.”
Take action: ENDAUM urges anyone opposed to continued pollution of groundwater in the Navajo country to tell their representatives to oppose federal uranium subsidies in the 2005 Energy Bill. Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
“The people have spoken and our leaders have listened to the people,” said delegate Alice Benally of Crownpoint. “Our people are still dying from this. This legislation was important to Navajo Nation, a very big step for Navajo people.” The Navajo law is also a major step in challenging the Bush and nuclear agenda for America.
Winona LaDuke is a writer and activist living on the White Earth Reservation in Minnesota.
Disaster Uranium: Democratic Presidential Candidates Backed by Nuclear Powerhouses
by Jessica Lee
While Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to spar for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, a hidden conflict over uranium mining and radioactive waste dumping is simmering, pitting the two candidates, other prominent politicians and Wall Street financiers against many indigenous and non-native American communities.
Tens of thousands of people across the continental United States and in Hawai’i still suffer the effects of previous uranium mining booms during the 1940s and the Cold War, and fears are growing over how a nuclear power renaissance will impact tribal lands.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse, a member of the Lakota Nation, explains, “In western South Dakota, there is an unspoken nuclear Chernobyl. There are days when the sky is brown from the dust of uranium mining tailings in the air. This is cattle and wheat country. When the dust settles, no one knows they are being radiated.”
Ghosthorse, also the host of “First Voices Indigenous Radio” on New York’s WBAI, speaks in a firm voice when he discusses the impact of uranium mining on his home in Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. “A few years, there were only 19 of us left from my 1973 high school graduating class of 70 or 80 people. Nine out of 10 of them had died of cancer.”
To bring attention to the environmental threats and the destruction of sacred sites, hundreds of Native Americans and supporters began trekking from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11. The five-month walk commemorates the 1978 Longest Walk that led to the defeat of 11 anti-Native American bills in Congress and passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.
“The Walk is a call of action to the people to wake up and realize that the continued exploitation of Mother Earth cannot go on,” said Ricardo Tapia, a national coordinator of the Longest Walk 2. “This walk is for people of all colors. We are concerned about the trees, water and the sprit of the land. These things are alive. To most non-Indians, these are just seen as resources.”
The New York Times recently noted that in the case of New Mexico, where the nuclear power industry is seeking to restart uranium mining near a Dine (Navajo) reservation, “mining companies walked away from their cleanup responsibilities” of a thousand open mines after the Cold War ended. The Times stated “among the horrors” that resulted were “shifting mountains of uranium tailings; open mines leaching contaminated rain into drinking water tables; wind-blown radioactive dust; home construction from uranium mine slabs; and even the grim spectacle of children playing in radioactive swimming holes and ground pits.”
NUCLEAR ENERGY BACK ON THE TABLE
Like many other commodities, from gold to oil to wheat, uranium’s price has risen because of speculation. As of 2003, processed uranium ore, known as yellowcake, was trading for $7 a pound. Last year, it hit $138. The dwindling of Cold War-era uranium supplies combined with anticipation that industrializing economies in China, India and Russia would turn to nuclear power, led hedge funds and other big investors to drive up the price of yellowcake and the stocks of uranium mining companies. It’s this paper wealth that has stoked mining interests around the world.
The Las Vegas Sun noted on Feb. 10, “More than 1,000 new uranium mining claims have been staked on federal lands near the Grand Canyon during the past three years because of rising uranium prices.” According to the U.S. Department of Energy, uranium exploration and development drilling totaled 5,000 holes covering 2.7 million feet in 2006. It is estimated that at least 50 percent of uranium deposits are located on Native-owned lands.
But to realize these vast profits, the uranium mining industry needs various governments to approve new mining operations and to revive the controversial and dangerous nuclear power industry. In Virginia, for example, which has a moratorium on uranium mining; the state Senate approved a bill commissioning a “study” on Feb. 13 to determine if it is safe to mine a site that contains the “largest unmined uranium deposit in the United States, worth an estimated $10 billion.”
While the Bush administration is pushing for nuclear power’s revival, its future is not just in the hands of Republicans.
Claiming the United States cannot meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if nuclear power is not an option, Obama wants to spend $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new ”climate-friendly” energy sources. Clinton says the issue of nuclear waste storage can be overcome by American technological innovation.
The major political factor driving nuclear power’s revival is global warming. “What the industry’s public relations are trying to do … is find a bigger boogie man that is greater risk than building nuclear reactors,” said Jim Riccio, the nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. “If you are afraid of nuclear power, you need to come up with an alternative that is more frightening. That is where the industry has latched itself to the climate change debate, and it is trying to sell themselves as a solution.”
THE DEMOCRATS’ DIRTY SECRET
The nuclear industry has helped bankroll the presidential campaigns of both Senators Obama and Clinton. Executives and employees of the Illinois-based Exelon have given Obama at least $221,517 — making Exelon Obama’s eighth largest contributor. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has also served as a consultant to Exelon.
NRG Energy is betting on Clinton. In September, NRG filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open the first U.S. nuclear plan in more than 30 years. NRG Energy has given Clinton nearly $80,000 in campaign contributions. The company’s president and CEO, David Crane, is a “Hillraiser” — a Clinton backer who has raised at least $100,000. NRG Energy has also given $175 million to The Clinton Global Initiative run by former President Bill Clinton.
A NEW AGE OF COLONIALISM
Left unsaid on the campaign trail is the tragic fallout. Uranium exploration and mining, nuclear testing and radioactive waste dumping began more than 60 years ago, largely on lands that Southwestern Native Americans were forced onto generations earlier. Not only did Native communities receive little in the way of royalties for the uranium extracted from their lands, health and safety precautions were essentially non-existent.
As with people in South Dakota, Wyoming and Montana, Dine and Hopi communities in the Four Corner region (Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico) have suffered greatly from environmental contamination and widespread illness. These areas were deemed “National Sacrifice Areas” by the U.S. government — lands determined “uninhabitable” due to the planned depletion of water resources by industry and widespread radioactive contamination.
For the Native communities who are all too familiar with the dangerous consequences of being the nation that possesses thousands of nuclear weapons and relies on nearly 20 percent of its power from nuclear generation, this is a cry for environmental justice. And the Democratic leadership does not seem to care.
“Not one of the presidential candidates has an energy policy that excludes exploitation of indigenous lands,” said Klee Benally, founder of Indigenous Action Media and a volunteer with the Save the Peaks Coalition.
Ghosthorse agrees. “Hillary and Obama are not going to do anything about this. It is not who we elect, it is the system.” While the presidential primaries continue to hypnotize the nation, the Native American resistance walks on.
“Politicians do not have the answers and we cannot rely on them to provide the answers in the context of a system that is built on the exploitation of our lands,” Benally said. “We do not just need political action, we need direct action in our communities — because behind every environmental crisis is a social crisis.”
“This is the low-intensity warfare against Native people all of the time,” Ghosthorse said.
Mike Burke and A.K. Gupta contributed additional reporting.
On the front lines of the new uranium rush with the Inuit of Nunavut
by Mark Dowie
Published in the January/February 2009 issue of Orion magazine
A CARIBOU CALVING GROUND – Nunavut, Canada: June days lengthen and snow melts to reveal tiny bright wildflowers and nutritious lichens. Thousands of pregnant caribou gather in tight circles. They are gaunt and exhausted from their six-hundred-mile migration from the boreal forests of Saskatchewan. They have traversed steep mountains through howling blizzards and crossed raging ice-choked rivers into the subarctic taiga, then in single file trudged on to the arctic tundra to offer the world a new generation. The castanet-clicking of heel bones mixes with groans of delivery. The thrumming of desperate mothers and the bleating of lost calves create a chaotic din that can be heard for miles across the treeless expanse.
This is Kivalliq, a vast region of central Nunavut, the bleak but starkly beautiful Inuit autonomous region of northern Canada. If you are a caribou, it is not a safe place. Fragile cows pace nervously around staggering newborns as winter-starved grizzlies and wolves encircle the herd. A thousand caribou swirl frantically up and down a slope, charging in unison like a flock of shorebirds to escape the bears and wolves. As many as half the calves will be lost in the ferocious predation that follows. In the weeks to come, many more will succumb to insects, disease, and starvation. As few as five of every hundred born in that dramatic seven- or eight-day birthing period will return to this same ground next year to relive this poignant ritual of birth and death.
The Beverly and Qamanirjuaq caribou herds of Kivalliq face an additional hazard, of which they are completely unaware. Beneath their Thelon Basin calving ground, about eighty kilometers west of the town of Baker Lake, is a massive vein of pitchblende, the raw material of uranium oxide (U3O8), which is the feedstock of neutron-rich uranium-235, the essential fuel of nuclear power and a vital ingredient of modern weaponry. Buried deep under the tundra, the low-grade, 100-million-pound Kiggavik-Sissons deposit poses no threat to the caribou.
But if it is mined, and tailings piles and waste ponds are created in the process, as they almost surely would be, the ground, air, and water of this already treacherous place will be contaminated with radioactive wastes. Toxic radionuclides will find their way into the flesh of every animal that eats the vegetation and drinks the water. As it moves up the food chain, radioactivity will concentrate, threatening the food security of the inland “Caribou Inuit,” a people for whom the caribou are still, in this modern time, a vital source of food, clothing, and shelter. The Inuit people living along the Thelon River and surrounding Baker Lake have thrived side by side with the Beverly herd for thousands of years.
In 1990, not long after pitchblende was discovered in Kivalliq, the people of the region voted overwhelmingly to ban outright the mining of uranium. Urangesellschaft Canada Ltd., a German mining company that had its heart set on the ore, packed up its drills and bulldozers and fled back to Europe. Uranium at the time was about $7 a pound on the world market. The calculus of mining, milling, and shipping U3O8 from Nunavut to Europe at that price was not much better than break-even.
But something happened to change all that. The planet began to heat up, carbon dioxide became recognized as a global threat, and before long the sagging, moribund, but allegedly CO2-free nuclear power industry was reconsidered. A “nuclear renaissance” was predicted that would expand global production of nuclear power from the current 439 plants operating in 30 countries to over 1,000 by 2025. China and India have each announced plans to build scores of nukes, a tired old Washington lobby has been rejuvenated, and there is talk of a “hydrogen bonus”—using new nuclear capacity to produce hydrogen, the current dream fuel for a new clean and green economy.
World production of uranium, however, does not even meet present demand. In 2004 world consumption of U3O8 was 79,000 tons while global production was just 46,500 tons. The difference was made up with secondary sources (stockpiles, decommissioned weapons, and recycled waste). But those sources are shrinking, and demand is growing for new sources of radioactive fuel. So when U.S. energy policymakers gave serious reconsideration to nuclear in 2007, about the same time as some large mines in Canada and Australia became flooded with groundwater, hedge-fund speculators dove into the market and uranium shot up to $138 a pound, settling back eventually to about half that price, but still almost ten times the $7 low.
Within weeks of the price jump there were thousands of uranium claims staked around the world, hundreds of them in Nunavut. Each claim, a small parcel of land purchased from the government for as low as $5, gives its owner the rights to all minerals beneath it. In most countries a claim owner is required to invest a small sum in the development of the claim in order to retain ownership. One by one newly formed prospecting companies helicoptered supplies into barren, windswept field camps across the Arctic, each staffed with geologists, engineers, pilots, cooks, and as many Inuit helpers as they could recruit. They were either oblivious to the plebiscite that banned mining or hopeful that it would be overturned. One camp opened in 2004, six more the following year. There were eight by 2006, and when I arrived in April of 2008 there were twenty-eight uranium prospectors drilling the tundra of Nunavut.
Huge mining companies from around the world with names like Uranor, Areva, and Titan opened community-liaison offices around the territory, promising jobs, partnerships, and royalties to impoverished Inuit villagers. “We want to make sure that we’re moving at a pace that is not too intimidating to the people of the region,” Titan Uranium president Philip Olson told the territory’s leading newspaper, the Nunatsiaq News, in 2006. Olson said he received a warm welcome from Baker Lake mayor David Aksawnee and the hamlet council. “People are looking for work,” he said of the people who had once voted 90 percent to oppose uranium mining. In truth they are desperate. The unemployment rate in some Nunavut communities is close to 70 percent.
Complicating matters is the fact that the Baker Lake plebiscite was held nine years before Nunavut was Nunavut. This vast area, a landmass the size of California and Alaska combined, used to be part of the Northwest Territories, but land-claim and sovereignty negotiations had been under way between the Inuit and Ottawa since the late 1970s. True autonomy and the complex gazetting of Canada’s first and foremost native-governed region were finally achieved on April 1, 1999. At that point, the land ownership of the region became exceedingly complex. The surface of Nunavut remains mostly federal property, administered from Ottawa. However, about 20 percent of the land is owned outright by the Inuit people, who also gained about 2 percent of the territory’s subsurface rights. And under those sections lies most of the region’s uranium, which means the resource is native-owned, and any potential mineral royalties would become dividends for the twenty-four thousand Inuit of Nunavut, most of whom live in twenty-five small communities on the coastline of the Arctic Ocean.
Mineral rights were what Inuit leadership had been striving for during the long and tense land-claim negotiations with Canada’s federal government. Sovereignty and autonomy were vital goals, as they are in any native drive for independence, but the wealth of natural resources is also a powerful motivator, particularly in a resource-rich country like Canada, where most of the harvest from indigenous lands has long inured to the benefit of Toronto businessmen and the national treasury.
SHOULD MINING BE ALLOWED to proceed in the Thelon Basin, huge diesel-powered machines and trucks will be shipped by rail to Churchill, Manitoba, then barged almost one thousand kilometers to a yet-to-be-constructed port on Baker Lake. From there they will be driven up a seventy-five-mile all-weather road that is also yet to be built across the migratory route of the Beverly caribou herd. Fuel for the machinery and the mill will be hauled into the site along the same road by diesel-fueled tanker trucks. All electricity at the mining camp will be provided by diesel-powered generators.
Once the mine opens, uranium ore will be extracted from an open pit and refined on site, and the resultant uranium oxide (U3O8, aka yellowcake) will be hauled to the Baker Lake port and tug-barged one thousand kilometers back to the railhead at Churchill. In the winter months, when Hudson Bay is frozen, yellowcake packed in fifty-gallon drums will be flown from a yet-to-be-paved airstrip to Toronto, then trucked to Port Hope, Ontario, where most Canadian uranium is shipped to reactors around the world (never, according to national policy, to weapons facilities).
This heavy reliance on fossil fuels is ironic, given the fact that the driving force behind the nuclear renaissance is a claim that nuclear power is a carbon-free energy source. The assertion is that, once up and running, a functioning nuke creates no greenhouse gases and thus contributes nothing to global warming. That part is almost true, but the claim ignores the total environmental impact of nuclear energy, which includes a long and complicated chain of events known in the industry as the “nuclear cycle.” The cycle begins with finding, mining, milling, and enriching uranium, then spans through plant construction and power generation to the reprocessing and eventual storage of nuclear waste, all of which creates considerable CO2. At every stage of the cycle greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere from manufacturing steel and cement, burning diesel, and, in the circumpolar regions of the planet, by disturbance of the tundra, which releases huge amounts of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas.
Even the claim that a functioning nuclear-power facility is CO2-free is undermined by the fact that an operating plant requires an external power source, and that electricity is almost certain to derive from the burning of fossil fuels. So the frequently repeated notion that nuclear power is a carbon-free energy source is simply wrong. The estimated contribution of atmospheric carbon from the entire nuclear cycle ranges from 5 to 30 percent of an equal power output from fossil-fuel generation, depending on whom you ask and what they’re comparing nuclear to.
Of course all this talk of carbon emissions obfuscates the other significant dangers associated with the nuclear cycle. If, for example, one of those barges moving through Hudson Bay should overturn in a storm and a ton or so of yellowcake is released into open water, the western shores of the bay would experience a major insult to their ecosystems that would last for thousands of years. An inland radionuclide spill could be equally horrific, permanently poisoning the drinking water of caribou and Inuit alike, as has been the case near so many former uranium mines around the world. Most of those mines were adjacent to indigenous communities whose members were either unaware of the hazards or so impoverished that they were willing to accept the risks of uranium mining in exchange for some of the profits, even if only a modest hourly wage.
WHAT IS UNFOLDING in Nuna-vut is emblematic of a worldwide challenge to the sovereignty of indigenous communities in Africa, Asia, Australia, and North and South America, beneath which roughly 70 percent of the world’s uranium resources are located. (About two-thirds of prospective uranium deposits in the U.S. are under or adjacent to Native American land.) The demand for U3O8 from an industry hoping to grow exponentially over the next two or three decades has driven uranium prospectors to the most accessible deposits. That doesn’t necessarily mean places where high-grade ore is close to the surface; more likely, it means under or near the homelands of those least likely to oppose or resist mining: economically desperate and politically marginalized indigenous peoples.
Uranium prospectors and miners meet much stronger opposition from more affluent communities, like the one I visited on my way to Nunavut. Sharbot Lake is a small rural community about sixty miles west of Ottawa. Not far from the lake, Frontenac Ventures, a small uranium-prospecting company (aka a “junior”) has staked a few claims, drilled out some core samples, and declared its intention to one day mine the property. That plan is being strongly resisted by two bands of the Algonquin tribe, which has long claimed treaty rights to much of the region. One leader of the Ardoch Algonquin band, Robert Lovelace, has been fined $25,000 and sentenced to a six-month prison term for attempting to block access to the exploration site.
Were the Algonquins fighting Frontenac on their own, they would almost certainly lose, and Frontenac would soon be breaking ground—although perhaps not on claims they have staked directly over Algonquin burial grounds. However, Sharbot Lake is also a popular cottage community and tourist destination for prosperous “settlers” from Ottawa, Toronto, and other urban areas of southern Ontario. They too have been actively opposing the mine. (Incidentally, not one settler has been fined or imprisoned for blockading the road to the site, which many have done.)
No one I spoke to in the area, Indian or settler, or later in Ottawa believes that Frontenac, which is rumored to have spent more money on lawyers than on exploration, will ever be able to mine uranium near Sharbot Lake, even if Canadian courts continue to suppress and imprison First Nation opponents, which they have. Six more leaders from a nearby mine site are now serving time in a Canadian prison.
If history is a fair indicator, it will be communities like Sharbot Lake, not Baker Lake, that are able to keep the miners at bay.
CANADA IS THE WORLD’S largest producer of uranium, meeting about one-third of world demand. It is followed closely by Australia and Kazakhstan. Together these three countries produce over half the world’s supply. However, while uranium has been found in every province and northern territory of Canada, the entire Canadian yield currently comes from five large, open-pit mines in northern Saskatchewan, where the ore grade is unusually high (up to 20 percent U3O8 as opposed to 1 to 3 percent in most deposits) and resistance to mining is unusually low.
Some provincial governments, notably those of British Columbia and Nova Scotia, have legislated outright bans on uranium mining. And the Ottawa City Council recently voted eighteen to one to urge the Ontario premier to temporarily ban all uranium prospecting in Canada’s capital city watershed. British Columbia’s ban is particularly surprising, as the provincial government is avowedly pro-business and pro-mining. Moreover, Vancouver, its major city, is headquarters to some of Canada’s largest mining companies and host to the stock exchange where most of the country’s juniors raise their capital. Other provinces, like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the Inuit region of Labrador, have moratoria on uranium exploration and mining presently in place.
Fear of uranium is not unfounded in Canada, as some of the world’s largest public-health catastrophes have occurred near Canadian uranium mines. Take for example Elliot Lake, north of Lake Huron, where uranium mining began in 1955. Home of the Serpent River First Nation of the Anishinaabeg people, the Elliot Lake area once hosted eleven uranium mines—eight of them owned by Rio Algom, a subsidiary of the giant Rio Tinto company of England—as well as a one-product chemical plant that made sulfuric acid to leach uranium from its ore.
In 1975 a power failure at one mine caused a 500,000-gallon radionuclide spill into McCabe Lake. In the years that followed, other mines flooded and were closed down. By 1990 the entire area, including at least ten major lakes, was permanently contaminated with radioactive mining effluvia, 165 million tons of it. The hunting, fishing, and gathering grounds of the Serpent River Anishinaabeg were lost forever, and fifty-five miles of the once pure and bucolic Serpent River waterway was turned into a massive dead zone. As a direct consequence of the spills, a thriving native community of over twenty-five thousand aboriginals has since declined to fewer than one hundred.
Closer to Nunavut, on the east arm of Great Slave Lake, is the remote Dene village of Lutsel K’e. In human terms, Lutsel K’e still deserves its name, which means “small fish.” In 1996 the population was 304; by 2006 it had grown to 318. The people of Lutsel K’e remain widely outnumbered by caribou, which, as with the inland Inuit, are the most important material and spiritual aspect of their culture. But small as it may be, the village of Lutsel K’e is a vital center in the vast Dene First Nation, which reaches from the Mackenzie Valley to the Western Yukon and from provincial borders up to the Arctic.
Male Dene elders around Great Slave Lake have painful memories of the Great Slave uranium mines from which they, as young men, carried radioactive ore on their backs in burlap sacks through long dark tunnels. Not only have scores of former miners since succumbed to cancer and other related afflictions, the caribou they eat still have detectable traces of uranium and other radioactive isotopes in their tissue—partly the fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and partly a consequence of drinking contaminated water and eating lichen that still gets a pretty good buzz from a Geiger counter. And just offshore, in the sediment of the second-largest inland lake in Canada, among other post-mining heavy metals are uraniferous granites, the coarse, sandy radioactive effluvia of uranium extraction. So the Dene are naturally resistant to renewed mining in their area and are vigorously opposing Ur-Energy’s request to begin prospecting for uranium at Screech Lake, about two hundred kilometers east of Great Slave. Michael Vanleeuwan, a thirteen-year-old Screech Lake boy, made a plea before the Dene Tribal Council. “If the caribou die, we die too,” he told his elders who are pondering the project. “If we eat sick caribou, we become sick too.”
Vanleeuwan’s elders are aware of big uranium’s trail of broken promises from Australia to Kazakhstan. Dene representatives have attended two international conferences on the subject of uranium mining on indigenous lands, the first in Salzburg, Austria, in 1992, where delegates exchanged experiences with uranium mining and issued a declaration opposing it on indigenous lands worldwide. The second meeting, held in December 2006 in Window Rock, Arizona, was hosted by the Dine Navajo of New Mexico and Arizona, who are close linguistic (and almost certainly genetic) relatives of the faraway Dene of northern Canada. At Window Rock, where delegates dedicated themselves to a nuclear-free future, the Dene witnessed the devastating health and economic injuries suffered by the Dine as a result of America’s first uranium boom.
From the early 1940s to the late 1970s, during the height of the Cold War, when arming its nuclear arsenal was a high priority for American defense, over eleven hundred small uranium mines were opened on and adjacent to Navajo land in Arizona and New Mexico. Nearly 4 million tons of uranium were extracted by about fifteen thousand Navajo miners. Mining was unregulated then, and mine safety rarely considered. Like the miners of Great Slave Lake, hundreds of Navajo miners contracted cancer, while massive spills left huge tracts of land unlivable for centuries. Today, about five hundred unclosed mine shafts, tailing piles, and storage ponds remain ecodisasters in waiting, and a large section of the reservation is still a massive Superfund site.
In 2005, when they heard the words nuclear renaissance, the Navajo Tribal Council, by a vote of sixty-three to nineteen, passed the Dine Natural Resources Protection Act, forbidding future uranium prospecting or mining on or adjacent to Navajo land. But in May 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI) of Lewisville, Texas, permission to open four in-situ leach mines near Church Rock, New Mexico, site of the worst radionuclide spill in American history, a single event that contaminated every well fifty miles downstream and left one of every four wells on Navajo land radioactive.
Now the Navajo are suing to stop them. It is the first time that any U.S. community has challenged NRC approval of a uranium mine. In May 2008, the case went before the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, where two of the three judges hearing the case expressed open disbelief that a federal agency would approve a project that seemed almost certain to contaminate the sole source of drinking water for almost fifteen thousand people and could release gaseous radionuclides into air that already exceeds federal radiation limits. HRI and the NRC deny the danger. The court is expected to rule on the petition in December 2008.
HRI President Paul Willmott argues that the proposed in-situ leach technology “represents an acceptable and safe alternative to traditional mining methods historically used to recover uranium in New Mexico.” In-situ leach mining never breaks ground. Instead, carbonated water (sometimes accompanied by sulfuric acid) is pumped into the ore body, where it dissolves uranium, which is drawn back up to the surface. There U-235 is separated out in an on-site refinery and the solvent is reprimed and pumped back into the ore body. In-situ recovery is certainly preferable to creating tunnels or an open pit from which radon gas and other radioactive emissions will be released into the air and possibly the water as well. The problem is it doesn’t always work. Some eighty spills have been recorded at an in-situ mine near Douglas, Wyoming, as well as numerous pond leaks, well-casing failures, and “excursions” of radioactive water into drinking-water aquifers. Of over 200,000 gallons of spilled and leaked mining fluids, fewer than 3,700 have been recovered. Similar though smaller-scale events have occurred at in-situ mining sites in Colorado, Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Australia.
At this point it is difficult to argue that any method of mining uranium is completely safe.
ONCE TOUTED as an energy source “too cheap to meter,” nuclear power eventually became, according to The Economist, “too costly to matter.” Wall Street investment bankers long ago backed away from underwriting nuclear energy and still won’t touch it, nor will venture capitalists anywhere in the world. In 1985 Forbes described the nuclear industry as “the largest managerial disaster in history.” That’s not the sort of publicity any industry needs.
Without finance capital the entire global nuclear industry has become reliant on government support. In some countries, like France and China, the government underwrites the entire nuclear program, whereas in less socialist countries like the U.S., government support comes in the form of generous subsidies, loan guarantees, and tax incentives to for-profit companies like Westinghouse, Bechtel, Exelon, Entergy, and the Shaw Group, along with direct government investment in research and development, insurance, and fuel processing.
The American nuclear industry, which now supplies about 20 percent of U.S. electrical energy, has already received over $145 billion in direct and indirect subsidies. That number will look small if the U.S. government commits itself to a full nuclear renaissance, as the cost of nuclear construction is now three times what it was in 2001 when The Economist called nuclear power “too costly to matter”—and that’s a conservative estimate. An Areva-designed Evolutionary Power Reactor (the current rage) sells for between $3 and $4 billion, twice the price of a coal plant producing the same kilowatts. But throw in American construction costs, delays, overruns, and interest, and American taxpayers are looking at something closer to $8 or $9 billion per plant.
Never mind, said President Bush, who authorized $50 billion in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry, while the Energy Policy Act of 2005 offered an additional $13 billion in new subsidies.
MEANWHILE, SENTIMENTS HAVE been shifting in the vast, open expanses of Nunavut, where opposition to uranium mining is not nearly as loud or intense as it was in 1990. In September 2007, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the corporation created following the land settlement to manage Inuit-owned lands and subsurface rights, effectively overturned the ban on uranium mining. Both its president, Paul Kaludjak, and first vice president, James Eeetoolok—once a stanch opponent of uranium prospecting—now wholeheartedly support the idea of opening the territory to uranium miners, as do the rest of the directors. When land-use or economics are at issue, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., known to most Inuit as NTI, is arguably more powerful than the government of Nunavut.
The allure is real and almost irresistible. An economic analysis of Areva’s Baker Lake project, prepared by NTI, shows that revenues from “a low-profit mine might pay royalties of $35 to $40 million and a high-profit operation would be expected to pay royalties of up to $80 or $90 million over the life of the mine.” To thousands of Inuit facing hard times, that kind of money sounds good. And this is just one of what could be a dozen or more large uranium mines operating in the region.
There are other factors contributing to the shift among the Inuit. Urangesellschaft, the private, German-based company that first sought to mine the Kiggavik-Sissons deposit, had been a public-relations disaster. In dealing with the Baker Lake community, the company’s representatives were rude, condescending, and dismissive. The Inuit disliked them immensely. Areva, on the other hand, is French, government-owned, and has cordial, longstanding relationships with mining communities in northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere around the world. In 2004 the company opened a community-relations office in Baker Lake and has made generous donations to the regional caribou defense group, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, to survey and monitor the Beverly herd. In its literature, Areva consistently repeats the sentiment that if the community does not support a uranium mine, it won’t happen. And that could still be the outcome.
Today, the most outspoken opposition to uranium mining can still be heard in the Baker Lake area, where the Caribou Inuit continue to fear disruption of their food supply and leaders fear that the long-term consequences of radioactive contamination are not being considered. The people with whom I spoke seemed confused and uncertain about Areva’s assurance that the caribou would be protected. “We feel rushed,” said Joan Scottie, who voted against Urangesellschaft in the 1990 plebiscite and remains skeptical of Areva’s claims of newer, worker-safe, eco-friendly mining technologies. “We’re not as opposed to the mine as we were back then, but we don’t want to be forced by our leadership to accept something that could endanger the health of our caribou. If something happens to them, we’ll have nothing left but welfare.”
For its part, NTI has gone beyond mere approval of new projects. In January 2008 it negotiated a partnership with Vancouver-based Kaminak Corporation for a uranium mine proposed at Angilak, along the Thelon River west of Baker Lake. If U3O8 is mined at Angilak—and there is an estimated 11.6 million pounds of high-grade ore under its claims—NTI will receive one million shares of the mining company and its choice of either a 25 percent interest in the mine or 7.5 percent of the profits. Either way, if that deposit proves out and Kaminak breaks ground, NTI, which was created to protect the land claims of the Inuit, will become a de facto mining company, one that will suddenly be reaping millions in royalties from the mining of uranium beneath tribal lands. Like Areva and other companies, NTI has assured the Inuit people that nothing will be done without their approval.
“We will support a mine only if the uranium is used for peaceful purposes, and only if it will benefit the Inuit,” promises James Eeetoolok. “No unacceptable impacts will be permitted,” says Areva Project Manager Barry McCallum. And “Nunavummuit [the Inuit people of Nunavut] will be consulted during the development of our uranium mining plan,” assures Nunavut’s Economic and Transportation Minister David Simailak.
Despite such assurances, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board’s stated concerns about potential adverse effects on the caribou and their calving grounds have been ignored. In fact the management board was deliberately left out of the loop when NTI’s revised uranium policy was circulated for community approval. So the Caribou Inuit naturally wonder whether the corporation that represents their economic interests can also fairly represent their environmental interests, or for that matter their very survival. Or they wonder, as one elder whispered to me in confidence, whether “NTI has placed itself and the people it represents in an untenable conflict of interest.”
TO GET A BETTER SENSE of what is at stake for the Inuit, I visited Sheila Watt-Cloutier, former president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize won by Al Gore. Because she has traveled the world, she has a unique perspective on the environmental injustice being inflicted upon her people by the resource-hungry, energy-driven economies south of the circumpolar region.
Her modest Iqaluit home is perched on the shoreline of Frobisher Bay, still frozen solid in May. As we chatted about Inuit culture and circumpolar politics, I watched hunters and fishermen heading down the sparkling, sunlit Frobisher ice field in dog sleds and snowmobiles. One was driven by her son-in-law, Qajaaq Ellsworth, who was taking her only grandson hunting. Sheila beamed with pride, but was apprehensive about the future of Inuit culture, as technology and industry offer their alluring enticements. She is opposed to neither, but is concerned about the speed of their approach, as her people experience the jarring transition, shared by so many natives around the world, from a traditional, land-based culture to a modern, wage-based economy.
“As someone who was raised in a dog-team culture who now flies to Africa in jumbo jets, I know firsthand the effects of technological culture—something which your folk had four hundred years to adapt to—on people being asked to absorb the same experience in less than a generation. It’s very disrupting—shocking in fact. Add to that a ruined economy in a society plagued by substance abuse and suicide, and even uranium mining begins to seem appealing.”
She is reluctant, at first, to speak out against uranium, even though the Inuit Circumpolar Conference advocates a nuclear-free Arctic. It is the younger generation, she tells me, along with the elders, who are most concerned about the impact of uranium mining on Inuit society. “My generation, which was educated in government schools, is more assimilated than the generations before and after us, and in some respects too open to outside influence.”
Eventually she agrees to discuss, ever so cautiously, what is clearly a sensitive topic in Nunavut. “Mining is the easy way out,” she says. “And we’re moving too quickly to embrace it. It could run counter to everything we are trying to recover in our culture. We need to step back and ask ourselves what kind of society we are hoping to create here. Will we lose awareness of how sacred the land is, and our connection to it? And what will become of our hunters? Hunting is how Inuit men build character. How is character built in a mine? How do we train skilled hunters to adjust to menial work?” She pauses for a moment and watches the hunters headed down to Frobisher Bay, then turns back for one last question: “Do we want to lose the wise culture we have relied on for generations?”
The answers to these questions are of vital consequence to not just the Inuit but the whole world. Even if the expansion of the U.S. nuclear industry is delayed by economic troubles here at home, that won’t likely stop China, India, and other developing nations from expanding their nuclear programs. No matter what form it takes, one thing seems clear: if the nuclear renaissance is going to happen, indigenous people will bear a considerable proportion of its ill effects.
Support for this article was provided by the Lintilhac Foundation.
Uranium Mining, Native Resistance, and the Greener Path
The impact of uranium mining on indigenous communities
by Winona LaDuke
Published in the January/February 2009 issue of Orion magazine
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.
The evil came. Over one thousand uranium mines gouged the earth in the Dine Bikeyah, the land of the Navajo, during a thirty-year period beginning in the 1950s. It was the lethal nature of uranium mining that led the industry to the isolated lands of Native America. By the mid-1970s, there were 380 uranium leases on native land and only 4 on public or acquired lands. At that time, the industry and government were fully aware of the health impacts of uranium mining on workers, their families, and the land upon which their descendants would come to live. Unfortunately, few Navajo uranium miners were told of the risks. In the 1960s, the Department of Labor even provided the Kerr-McGee Corporation with support for hiring Navajo uranium miners, who were paid $1.62 an hour to work underground in the mine shafts with little or no ventilation.
All told, more than three thousand Navajos worked in uranium mines, often walking home in ore-covered clothes. The consequences were devastating. Thousands of uranium miners and their relatives lost their lives as a result of radioactive contamination. Many families are still seeking compensation. The Navajo Nation is still struggling to address the impact of abandoned uranium mines on the reservation, as well as the long-term health effects on both the miners and their communities, many of which suffer astronomical rates of cancer and birth defects.
As a college student, I worked for Navajo organizations, trying to inform their people about the uranium-mining industry and the large corporations—EXXON, Mobil, United Nuclear—that proposed to mine their lands. It was a humbling experience, seeing some of the richest corporations in the world faced by courageous peoples who fought for the two things that mattered to them more than money: their land and their identity. The Navajo people joined with many others across the country who felt that there was a much better way to make energy. In the end, the people did prevail—new mining proposals evaporated as tribal resistance and legal and administrative battles merged with economic forces. Eventually, contracts for uranium were canceled by utilities, which no longer sought to build unpopular nuclear power plants.
Now I feel like I am having very bad déją vu—only this time nuclear power is seen as the answer to global climate destabilization. In 2005, the Navajo Nation passed a moratorium on uranium mining in its territory and traditional lands, which was followed by similar moratoria on Hopi and Havasupai lands, where mines are proposed adjacent to the Grand Canyon. “It is unconscionable to me that the federal government would consider allowing uranium mining to be restarted anywhere near the Navajo Nation when we are still suffering from previous mining activities,” Joe Shirley Jr., Navajo Nation president, explained at a congressional hearing on opening uranium mines in the Grand Canyon area. To the north, the Lakota organization Owe Aku (Bring Back the Way) is an intervener in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing to allow the Canadian corporation Cameco to expand its Crow Butte uranium mine, just over the Nebraska border from the reservation.
I recently traveled to Australia, the country with the largest known uranium reserves in the world. In my Sydney hotel room the television broadcaster summarized Australia’s economic strategy: “We dig it up, and they buy it.” The mining industry, in a world bent upon combusting and consumption, looks to be very healthy. Australia’s uranium mines include the Beverley Mine, which is in the territory of the Kuyani and Adnyamathanha peoples. Olympic Dam (operated by BHP Billiton—the largest mining corporation in the world) is the country’s second-largest uranium operation and is in the traditional territory of aboriginal people as well. In fact, most major mining operations in Australia are within aboriginal territory. These are some ancient civilizations—resilient in the face of a deep history of genocide and destruction, which continued well into the twentieth century. Aboriginal people did not even get the right to vote until 1967. Due to their relative isolation in the outback, many of these tribes have had few interactions with outsiders. That is, until recently.
Kakadu is the longtime home to the aboriginal Mirrar people, as well as a recent intruder: British-based Rio Tinto. In the 1970s, Kakadu’s Alligator River System became the focal point of Europe’s uranium demands. Built right in the center of the Mirrar homeland, the Ranger Uranium Mine is one of the largest uranium mines in the world. But the Ranger mine is also in the center of Kakadu National Park, one of just twenty-five UNESCO World Heritage sites in the world designated on the basis of both cultural and ecological significance. Kakadu includes over 190 major aboriginal rock-art and sacred sites.
The Ranger Uranium Mine opened in the early 1980s, after much protest from the Mirrar people, who made it clear that they opposed the mine. Rio Tinto has assured Australians, UNESCO, and the aboriginal owners that it is operating under “world’s best practices” of uranium mining, a term some would argue is an oxymoron. Meanwhile, radioactive groundwater contamination is reported to be spreading through the park. A 2004 incident allowed a number of workers to drink, ingest, and shower in heavily contaminated water, with a large amount spilling out of the site itself. And in 2006, Cyclone Monica delivered extreme rainfall, causing the radioactive containment ponds to fill. The company responded by lifting tailings dams, redirecting runoff into streams, and using the contaminated water for irrigation.
In 1999, Jacqui Katona, a Djok aboriginal woman, and Yvonne Margarula, a Mirrar woman, won the Goldman Environmental Prize for their struggle to oppose development at Jabiluka, another mine proposed for Kakadu National Park. Yvonne explained that an agreement to open the mine “was arranged by pushing people, and does not accurately reflect the wishes of the aboriginal people who own that country.” In 2005, after a long and heated battle, the Mirrar people fought off the proposal to open a uranium mine at Jabiluka. But now, with demand for uranium on the rise, the threat is once again looming on the horizon.
With some 16 percent of Australian land controlled by aboriginal people and with many of the mine sites in the aboriginal heartland, the upcoming pressure on communities to buckle to the largest mining companies in the world will be daunting. Coinciding with the proposed ramp-up of the nuclear industry is the negotiation of land settlements for a number of these aboriginal first nations. If history is any indicator, many of these land-rights settlements will mirror what happened in Alaska, where the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act—promoted by oil companies that deemed it necessary to negotiate some agreements between themselves and aboriginal people—established Alaskan Native corporations, which today create a complex set of divided loyalties and communities. This is perhaps best illustrated by the case of the Gwich’in people, who find themselves not only opposing oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but also Alaskan Native corporations, whose income has derived from the exploitation of the land and its resources.
There is another prophecy that is relevant to this story, though. Ojibwe legends speak of a time when our people will have a choice between two paths: one path is well worn and scorched, but the second path is not well traveled and it is green.
There is an alternate economic future for indigenous peoples, and it too is green. In order to stabilize carbon emissions in the United States, the country will need to produce around 185,000 megawatts of clean new power over the next decade, which could mean up to 400,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. The Intertribal Council on Utility Policy estimates that tribal wind resources alone represent 200,000 megawatts of power potential. In fact, Native American nations are some of the windiest places in the country.
The Rosebud Lakota put up the first large native-owned windmill in 2003, a 750-kilowatt turbine right in the middle of the reservation. The Turtle Mountain Ojibwe just erected a 660-kilowatt wind turbine; ten more megawatts are planned for Rosebud; and the White Earth Anishinaabeg have several projects under way in Minnesota. Proposals for up to 800 megawatts of power for northern Plains states are being put forth by the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy. There’s also a 50-megawatt project on lands held by the Campos and Viejas bands of Kumeyaay people in Southern California, and a 500-megawatt project in which the Umatilla Tribe of Oregon is a partner. Boston-based Citizens Energy is working with a number of tribal communities in the U.S. and Canada to bring green power from the reserves to the grid.
In the U.S., native communities have an opportunity to lead the way to a green future. We have a chance to create a just energy economy in the most wasteful and most destructive country in the world. We need help, though. Insuring that climate-change legislation does not reboot the nuclear industry will be a critical part of supporting native struggles to choose the green path over the scorched one.
1. This 10 week walk will travel 1,250 kilometers by foot from Wiluna to Perth urging the public to reinstate the ban on uranium mining in Western Australia and stop company Toro Energy from building a uranium mine in Wiluna (The Lake Way project*) (56)
2. Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the world’s largest uranium mining corporations, looks to new mines in Australia, the United States, and Kazakhstan to fuel pending and projected reactors in China, and possibly the US. (49)
Window above from: http://www.worldometers.info/ watch how fast pollution numbers rise and how fast coal gas and oil is consumed and how fast the population is rising.
Most Linked Keywords (35): peak oil, try peak everything 10.0%) OpEd News-Banned Oathkeepers Article (10.0%) OpEd News-Banned Fukushima Plumegate article (5.0%) OpEd News-Banned Fukushima Plumegate article-2 (5.0%) Post Peak Sanity (10.0%) OpEd News’s Censorship (10.0%) Author's Page For Tracy Turner (10.0%) Orwell vs. Huxley - 1 (10.0%) Will You Die from Fukushima? (10.0%) NSA Judaic Crime Cabal: Organized Harassment (10.0%) Olive BioDiesel Alternative News (10.0%)
Filed under: uranium mining radiation river water navajo nuclear energy land people coal mines native lands world miners inuit other nunavut government time lake thousand brandon radioactive caribou chris hedges israel war american universities tracy turner
Censored and Blacklisted News