Greens candidate for Grey, Dr Andrew Melville-Smith rejected the “hysteria” about the party’s uranium mining policy and defended Mr Brown’s comments, saying it had been blown out of proportion.

He explained the Greens’ policy would not close Olympic Dam, as reported in national media, and would not be a threat to mining jobs in Roxby Downs.

“The current media beat-up is completely dishonest and a grubby attempt by a desperate Liberal and Labor machine because they know the scientific evidence supports our position: that uranium mining is a very high-risk venture,” Dr Melville-Smith said.

“From an engineering and medical point, the science is beyond dispute, uranium waste is one of the biggest threats to human health and wellbeing.

“It is toxic for thousands of years and safe disposal is extremely difficult and questionable.

“Having an open-cut uranium mine in the middle of the desert, where dust storms are frequent and have been shown to reach our populated eastern states, is highly irresponsible.”

He pointed out that while the Greens eventually want all uranium mining phased out by 2050, the bulk of Olympic Dam’s income comes from copper and gold, where he says most of the Olympic Dam expansion will be focused.


http://www.roxbydownssun.com.au/news/local/sport/general/candidate-fight-on-expansion-greens-antiuranium-stance-causes-a-stir/1898796.aspx?storypage=0



Do you support forcing the population in the eastern states to breath in, eat and drink uranium dust from open cut uranium mines in Australia?


What Are the Primary Health Effects?   Uranium is a health hazard only if it is taken into the body.  External exposure
is generally not a major concern because uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation.  While
uranium-235 has a much higher gamma component than either uranium-234 or uranium-238, uranium-235 only comprises
about 2% of the total activity of natural uranium.  The primary means of exposure are ingestion of food and water
containing uranium isotopes and inhalation of uranium-contaminated dust.  Ingestion is usually the exposure of concern
unless there is a nearby source of airborne dust, such as a uranium mine or mill.  Because uranium is absorbed much more
readily if inhaled rather than ingested, both exposure routes can be important.  The major health concern is kidney damage
caused by the chemical toxicity of soluble uranium compounds.  That effect can be reversible depending on the level of
exposure.  (Uranium has also been implicated in reproductive effects in laboratory animals and developmental effects in
young animals, but it is not known if these problems exist for humans.)  A second concern is for uranium deposited in bone,
which can lead to bone cancer as a result of the ionizing radiation associated with its radioactive decay products.  

more here
http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Uranium.pdf

Two articles :

Uranium in Antarctic ice may be from Australia

An ice core from the Antarctic bears traces of uranium that may have been carried by the wind from Australian mines in 1995, a glacier expert has told a Chilean newspaper.

The minuscule amounts of the radioactive element "correspond to a year (1995) when Australia increased its uranium production," Ricardo Jana, who participates in an international research effort in the frozen continent, told El Mercurio daily.

He said scientists theorise the uranium particles were carried by the wind from Australia and deposited in the northern part of the Antarctic's Detroit peninsula.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/03/2888354.htm



Uranium mine told to address dust risks


Issues such as dust risks from a planned expansion of BHP Billiton's uranium mining operations in outback South Australia will have to be addressed by the company.

SA's Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway has told the SA Parliament BHP Billiton will need to prepare a supplementary environmental impact statement addressing dust management.

Mr Holloway says dust obviously could be a problem but the issue is able to be resolved.

He says the company will have to give an assurance it can manage dust from proposed open cut mining before permission is given for expansion of its Olympic Dam uranium, copper and gold mine at Roxby Downs.

The minister says there have been more than 4,000 submissions about the likely environmental impact of an Olympic Dam expansion.

Academy Award-nominated documentary maker David Bradbury claimed this week that red dust dumped onto east coast cities was a reason to be concerned about BHP Billiton's proposal to turn its uranium mine into an open cut operation.

He has made four documentaries on nuclear issues and says figures in the company's environmental impact study suggest 70 million tonnes of radioactive tailings will be dumped at the mine site annually.

He says the tailings contain alpha radiation, which is known to be carcinogenic to humans and animals.

Waste pile

The Greens say the dangers of an Olympic Dam mine expansion spreading radioactive dust across wide areas of Australia will be an issue for centuries to come.

SA Greens MP Mark Parnell says a mine expansion would create the biggest radioactive waste pile ever seen.

"What we've seen from this extreme weather in recent days is that dust can go everywhere - it could end up on Eyre Peninsula, it could end up on the eastern seaboard," he said.

"BHP Billiton must be forced by the [SA] Government to manage radioactive waste, stockpiles and their tailings forever."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/25/2696047.htm


Should Australians have a choice in what risk they put themselves in?


I for one do not think bone cancer is a risk I find acceptable ... do you?

____ wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 8:31am:


The only people who do not expose themselves to risk are dead people.

It's always a question of quantifying that risk.  What are the risks associated with not mining Uranium. Are they greater than the risks of burning an equivalent amount of coal ? (in terms of energy generation)  

Do you realise that burning coal poses a much higher radiation risk than nuclear power ever did? (and that includes Chernobyl)

Do you ever fly on commercial flights?

muso wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 8:38am:





It is not a choice between killing ourselves with coal or uranium or both ... its about reducing the risk to Australians.




If you find the risk from uranium pollution acceptable, how about asbestos or tobacco smoke?

and how did we manage without this so call 'vital' nuke reactor?



We didn't, we died a slow painful death from cancer, but with the green's euthansaia policy in place, that should fix any problems that sufferers of cancer should have, hey green?