It seems significant that the Mega website talks of the financial potential of the mining lease, but makes no reference to environmental risks or previous rejection of the lease on environmental grounds. Only financial gain seems to be on the radar for the Canadian company involved. It could be argued that the company is only interested in its shareholders, and if there any concern for the residents of the Townsville region, this a secondary consideration. A distant second at that.
Some facts about the Ben Lomond mine and the activities which are proposed to occur there (not mentioned by Mega):
- Open cut mining will produce radioactive dust which will be spread over neighbouring areas (how far will depend on weather and wind conditions)
- Risks associated with the transport of processed Uranium yellowcake will expose a far greater number of locals to potential exposure, and the risk of contaminated groundwater will likely expose many thousands more
- Local processing will produce radioactive tailings which can not be protected from the weather, and in our tropical wet season have a high likelihood of leaching into ground water
- Application for a mining lease on Ben Lomond was rejected in 1981 due to public and environmental health concerns
- Ben Lomond mining activities led to contamination of Keelbottom creek in 1981, elevating radiation levels 10,000 times higher than accepted safe levels (source - Bob Katter parliamentary speech 1/11/05)
- the risk that heavy rainfall will lead to a repeat of the 1981 incident cannot be mitigated, and given that the scale of activity will be much greater than in 1981, the scale of contamination is also likelty to be significantly larger
- some of the radioactive elements left behind in the tailing will remain active (and hazardous to human health) for over 100,000 years.
- the future of uranium is similar to coal - in the short term there will be a market but this will diminish over time so mining activity is likely to be fast and furious in order to take advantage of this brief window.
Vern Veitch from the Council spoke of the council's unanimous rejection of development of this mine or transport of yellowcake through our area.
Jenny Stirling, the Greens' candidate for Hinchinbrook spoke of the indigenous stories of the area of the mine being 'sickness country' establishing that the risks of uranium (and the further risks of mining it) have not just been estabished by science but have been recorded over 50,000 years of indigenous experiences as well.
Scientific experts have indicated that the risks associated with exploiting this resource cannot be managed and are unacceptable. Many stand behind the 1981 ruling and have asked the mines minister, Andrew Cripps (member for Hinchinbrook), what has changed since that ruling. But no clear or meaningful comment has been forth-coming.
The unanimous mood of the vocal crowd was... 'Renewables not Reactors'.
The only people not present (despite being invited), were the LNP members from the local area. They won't (or perhaps they can't) back up their actions with their words, and they weren't willing to face a group of people who were well informed of all the issues surrounding this mine. It seems it's just to hard to lie to people who already know the truth.
The group behind Sunday's march was Citizens Against Mining Ben Lomond (creating the ironic acronym that sounds very much like Campbell.. the architect of reopened Uranium mining in Qld).
- writing to state and federal MPs in your area
- write a letter to the editor of your local paper
- follow and share CAMBL's facebook page
- discuss your concerns about this mine with family, friends, neighbours and colleagues.
And we (at the blog) would add, only give your support to candidates who are willing to stand against a mining project which will create very few jobs, which will see all the profits go offshore, which will carry great great environmental and health risks and which will carry that same risk for close to 100,000 years after the mine closes and the miners disappear.
And for those who support such an enterprise... demand clear answers about why they do? And when they don't answer... ask again.
If you really want to see how much the Newman government is listening... voice your concerns to LNP MPs about Ben Lomond, and see what reaction you get.
At the end of the day... re-opening Ben Lomond is indefensible and if the Newman government want to continue to support it, they are not listening, and they are putting vested interests above the interests of Queenslanders.