November 26, 2007
Uranium Mining: No Can Du
For the last 50 days, Donna Dillman has been on a hunger strike to protest uranium mining in eastern Ontario. Tomorrow (Tuesday), she brings that fight to the steps of Queen's Park, and she'd like you to join her.
Donna, a grandmother, is concerned about strong scientific evidence that particles released into the air and water during uranium mining and processing contribute to increased rates of cancer and organ damage, especially in children. The CBC recently reported that 4 out of 9 people screened had radioactive chemicals in their bones after living near a uranium processing facility.
On the other side of the argument is the very well-funded nuclear lobby, which spends immense amounts of money trying to convince citizens and government that nuclear is "safe, clean, and affordable," an ironic set of keywords that seem to take nuclear's biggest faults (it's highly risky, produces extremely dangerous waste that lasts for a million years, and costs far more than any other kind of power generation) and sell them as strengths.
Complicating the scenario are recent moves to require exporting countries of uranium (a very small club of which Canada is a member) to take back radioactive nuclear waste once the fuel is spent. So not only would the health of Canadians be compromised during the initial mining process, we'd also be stuck living with the world's supply of what is possibly the most dangerous substance we've ever created for a much longer timeline than we can possibly plan for.
Donna begins her march at 11:00 a.m. this Tuesday at the corner of Orde St. (one block south of College) and University Ave. From there her and her supporters will walk to the main legislative building at Queen's Park to ask the Premier to hold an open public inquiry into the dangers and benefits of uranium. For more information on her hunger strike, visit the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium or follow Donna's blog.
|
Nuclear energy is not without problems, but I still think it is the best option we have after conservation. Ontario already has about as much hydropower as you can eke out of the waterways. Coal is a nightmare, oil is unaffordable, and gas is cheaper and cleaner but still a problem. Solar and wind are great but not yet at the scale we need. Our energy-hungry economy will not change overnight and carefully regulated nuclear power seems the best way to keep the (CFL) lights on while containing or trimming back power needs through green initiatives. More nukes, please.
Don't make the mistake of conflating the issue of new nuclear power plants with new uranium mines. The former is not dependent on the latter. We have more than enough domestic supply of uranium ore, the proposals for mining in eastern Ontario are purely economic for the export market, the price of uranium is going up and mining companies, who have unbelievable powers to run roughshod over the rights of property owners want to dig it up and sell it while the price is good.
Now there are also some serious logic flaws in your defense of the need for more nuclear generation but that's not what's under discussion here.
50 days might seem rather a long time to be on a hunger strike, unless one had seen previous reports that reveal it is a fairly high-calorie one, involving diluted maple syrup as I recall.
Unlike Donna Dillmann, I believe uranium is a benign source of energy, especially in comparison to two much more costly, highly taxed sources: oil and gas.
Suppose she were absolutely not a flake, but willing to fast unto death, Bobby Sands style.
Those who agree with me that nuclear is benign, but support her hunger strike because oil and gas money comes to them in the form of a government cheque, while the oil and gas deaths go randomly to others, would then have in Dillmann a predictable, non-faceless victim.
More nuclear power plants, uranium mines, and spent fuel dumps are welcome over my back fence. I understand it is only big oil and gas money that opposes them, and despise Tindal's stupidity or dishonesty in suggesting the nuclear "lobby" is "well-funded". What a loathesome little petrodollar suckup.
GRLCowan, some clarifications are needed.
Which of the dangers of uranium don't you believe? That its mining is linked to cancer? That it's radioactive?
What would you consider to be a "well-funded" organization, if the CNA does not qualify. How many TV ads with high production value would one have to buy? How much money would one have to spend hiring a president with close ties to the government? How many full-colour mail-outs would one need to send to how many political candidates during how many election campaigns?
And where on earth did you get the bizarre idea that "it is only big oil and gas money that opposes" nuclear? Does Greenpeace have some big oil connections that I'm not aware of? Are the plans to build nuclear power plants to fuel further the expansion of the Athabasca tar sands some kind of clever ruse?
I guess Dillman doesn't know that 'this nuclear enegery pellet (holds one up between thumb and index finger) powers the average home for 6 weeks'.
So does anyone think that stopping uranium mining would be an overall win? What about when the nuclear power plants that use it are closed and replaced with coal burning plants?
Maybe we should look at solutions to reduce the impact of uranium mining. From everything I've ever read on the subject, coal is worse.
Also, why is using nuclear power for extracting oil from tar sands worse than burning half the oil extracted, just to extract it?
spacejack, in August 2005 National Geographic reported that "readily available uranium fuel won't last much more than 50 years." That number can be nudged up by improvements in technology (maybe to 100 years?) but it will be pushed back down if we create an increase in demand. Add to that the fact that it takes 12 years to build a nuclear plant in the first place, and I think we'd be wise to deal with this problem sooner rather than later.
It's also important to note that nuclear cannot exist without coal. They are the only two forms of generation that provide massive base loads, and since nuclear is fundamentally unreliable (between 1990 and 2003, Pickering A delivered only 47% capacity, and Bruce A delivered only 38%, rounding up), only coal can fill the gap. Therefore, our real choice is between investments in efficiency, conservation, demand shifting, and renewables, or spending even more money to continue with both nuclear and coal.
Since some seemed to have missed this point I'll clarify. If we don't mine uranium in Eastern Ontario, no nuke plants will run out of fuel, not one ounce of coal would be burned that wouldn't already be. All that will happen is that the price of uranium might go up a tiny bit more and we won't be spreading the dust around a populated area. This isn't about an actual need for more uranium, this is about a company that thinks they can take market share from the companies that currently mine the stuff because of reduced production costs, in fact there's unlikely to be a net worldwide increase in uranium production as a result, anything dug up in Sharbot Lake means less stuff dug up in North Saskatchewan. Their production costs would be reduced because they are physically close to Port Hope and Deep River, but that also means they are physically close to too many people.
I see the GPO and the GPC have also jumped on this bandwagon. http://greenparty.ca/en/node/3260
But I find the press release quite interesting. You say “For the last 50 days, Donna Dillman has been on a hunger strike to protest uranium mining in eastern Ontario”, the classic NIMBY protest, but the press release posted by ex GPC leader Jim Harris goes well beyond this. According to it: “The protest will be led by Donna Dillman, a grandmother who has gone without food since Thanksgiving Day, October 8, to protest the dangers posed by uranium and its uses in nuclear power.”
Say, didn’t you just have an election in Ontario, roughly around the time when she started her diet? Wasn’t this part of the GPO’s policy in which no members were elected?
So why the stunt? And let’s be honest here. This is no “hunger strike”. It is a calorie enhanced liquid diet. If it truly was a 50 day hunger strike, she’d be bed ridden, or close to death, not leading a protest walk in downtown T.O.
According to wiki:
In the first 3 days, the body is still using energy from glucose After that, the liver starts processing body fat.After 3 weeks the body enters in “starvation mode”. At this point the body “mines” the muscles and vital organs for energy.The estimated limit of resistance is 60 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_strike
Let’s cut with the gimics, OK? If she doesn’t like the idea of a mine, there are plenty of opportunities to have her voice heard in public hearings and environmental assessments. This is how a democracy normally works.
A faux hunger strike in a province that has embraced, and continues to embrace nuclear energy should be below the level of any self respecting political party.
Hay Dot and any one else that has no empathy, don’t be putting down my neighbor. And for your information, there are thousands of Donna Dillman behind her, ready and willing to make the sacrifice needed to end this madness. My family farm and my neighbors farm are in danger of being contaminated by radon gas, there is traces of uranium already in some of our wells, more test drilling for uranium by George White and his lawyer well end up slowly killing us all, so maybe you could gain little sympathy for your fellow Ontario, and maybe if some company down the road decide to dig up your back yard I might be there to help you. . There is thousands of people, wild life, clean water lakes in this area and only one hour to Ottawa or Kingston. We are the people that feed those cities, if some one in power doesn’t see this, we are not doing to good as a society.
So what do you call thousands of people, asking there Government to help them, and they stay silent.? That’s called democracy gone.Peace, love.
Hi Ant Bee,
Yes I have empathy. Mainly for the persons who get caught up in the efforts of anti-nuclear activists, and their deeds in fear mongering in local communities. So now the issue is test wells, and radon gas. Interesting.
While I have a technical background, and have appeared in public hearings, I will not comment on your concerns. These issues are best left to experts in public hearings. Your concerns could also be taken up by ENGOs such as EnergyProbe, Sierra Club, and GreenPeace who are often publicly funded and retain experts of their own to represent the interests of individuals like you and the other "thousands".
I don't condone this type of effort to highjack the political process to serve your narrow concerns. I also don't condone a political party getting involved in this type of cheap publicity. It can taint a political party such as the GPC of which I understand Donna Dillman is a member of council. This could be detrimental to the longterm interests of the party, of which I have a concern. She should have resigned her position when she undertook this ill considered gimmick.
I'm not overly concerned with Donna's health. She seems to have stabilized her weight over the past 21 days of her "hunger strike".
As reported on Nov 6th: "Dillman has been surviving on hot water, maple syrup and organic fruit juice. She's lost 15 pounds and is in good spirits."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2007/11/post_13.html
Today, 21 days later, it is reported "Dillman, a grandmother, said she's lost more than 15 pounds on her hunger strike and is only subsisting on liquids."
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/280347
I have no doubt at this miniscule rate of weight loss, she'll still be in great health if she stays "parked outside the legislature every day until provincial politicians break for the holidays, or until uranium mining is stopped."
A cheap stunt by an anti-nuke activist. Nothing more. Call Guinness World Book of Records. A new standard for longevity of a "hunger strike" is about to be set.
Pitiful.
Dear Dot, you seem to be hung up on Donna, not sure why that is your only focus, there are thousands of us working to enact a moratorium on mining uranium in Eastern Ontario, and to change the mining act, I hear no empathy from you at all, I don’t think you care about any of us over here. And for the record for the most part, we are not all anti-nuclear activists. What we are saying is we should not be test drilling or mining uranium close to populated areas. and there is great fear in our local communities. Because we have educated our shelfs with work shops put on by the experts. Maybe you should go do some reading at www.ccamu.ca and see how many people are helping us.
What do you mean you find my comet on the issue about test wells for radon gas. This is a subject of great concern to all of us living on top of uranium rock, were we think it should be keep in the ground.
So you have a technical background, and have appeared in public hearings, good for you, then you no the hazardous effects of uranium mining on human health. Or are you like the big business that tries to cover it up. Is that why you will not comment on your concerns.
We are having experts in public hearings, and our concerns have been taken up by many croups like Sierra Club, and Green Peace and many more. Like I said go read www.ccamu.ca
I don’t see any hijacking of the political process, we are simply acting in our democratic right. I find you very selfish to say are concerns are narrow minded. My farm has dropped in value because of theses prospectors of uranium mining. Canada has the most uranium in the world, there is no need to be digging it up so close to cities, farms.
Donna is only one of thousands working for the same objective and that is to have a moratorium on mining uranium in Eastern Ontario. If Donna and a political party getting involved in this type publicity, more power to them.
Ant Bee,
As I mentioned, I am not going to argue the merits of your cause. I am against the means.
I would be just as vociferous if a member of a political party went on a "hunger strike" against a coal fired plant, higher speed limits, cutbacks on health care spending, the routing of a new highway, etc. etc. etc. and it was actively supported by the political party.
here is what your argument sounds like to everyone:
"if a grandmother is going to go on a hunger strike calling attention to something that jeopardizes the lives of canadians, she should be more reckless with her own health as per my understanding of hunger strikes after reading the wikipedia article.
also, she's a member of a political party and i think members of political parties have a responsibility to restrict the expression of their views to traditional means and never speak outside their capacity within that party. using unconventional means as an individual represents a conflict of interest, though i can't specifically state why."
i'm not sure if that's what you're trying to communicate, but that's what's being received loud and clear. if this is the wrong message, please reconsider your phrasing. otherwise, i would have to conclude that the author of those sentiments is a despicable idiot.
Shorty after E May was elected leader of the GPC, the following comment appeared in the Globe and Mail:
With environmental issues on the ascent among the Canadian public, Mr.[Allan] Gregg [pollster, political strategist] said Ms. May's leadership will certainly help improve the party's electoral position.
And the more she's out there talking about her issues the better, as long as she doesn't back herself into a corner as an "extremist," he said.
I'd say DD's little efforts are going a long way to having the GPC labelled as "extremist".
Btw, I suggested DD disassociate herself from the GPC during her little undertaking. This was based upon a similar effort E May undertook while Director of the Sierra Club of Canada a few years ago. She undertook a "hunger strike" on Parliament Hill against the lack of effort to clean up the Sydney Tar Ponds. The difference is she took an unpaid leave of absence and made it abundantly clear that this was a personal effort, in no way associated with the Sierra Club. Donna Dillman, unfortunately, has done exactly the opposite, exploiting her party connections and position.
You state "here is what your argument sounds like to everyone". I immediately discount much of what someone writes when I see such unfounded statements.
Nevertheless, I have been following this issue for quite sometime. Here's one editorial in a province that has a number of uranium mines (the comments predictably are mainly from GP members across Canada).
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=75751&sc=12
Now, keep in mind that this was written over one month ago when the editors thought like I did that this was a legit hunger strike.
Similar media commentary will come, I predict. It looks like Allan Gregg's concerns were profound, and prophetic.
I'll let others decide who the real "idiot" is.
Dot is a idiot or some punk ass kids, take your pick. I like the line of McGuinty "unaware of those statistics." just like wee Dot.
McGuinty meets with Uranium Protesting Grandmother in Effort to Have Her End Hunger Strike November 28, 2007 On Wednesday afternoon, immediately following the election of the speaker, Premier Dalton McGuinty met with Donna Dillman, who has been without food for 52 days in an effort to stop uranium exploration and mining in Eastern Ontario. Until Tuesday she has been living on the side of the road near Sharbot Lake, north of Kingston, where Frontenac Ventures, a uranium exploration company plans to begin drilling by February, 2008. The site is just 1/2 hour from her home and 1 1/2 hour west of Ottawa on the Mississippi River System. With over a million people, including most of her family, living downstream, Dillman is concerned that pristine Frontenac and Lanark Counties will be turned into a tailings dump similar to that in the Elliot Lake area. On Tuesday she brought her protest to Queen's Park, asking Premier McGuinty to step in and call a moratorium. In the meantime, two Algonquin Nations are about to begin negotiations with the Ontario and Federal Governments over unceded land claims that include the 30,000 acres that have been staked. Dillman had been scheduled to meet with Honourable Michael Gravelle, Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who had called her earlier in the day, and was surprised and pleased when the Premier joined the meeting. “I found the Premier to be very personable. Both expressed their sincere desire to see me resume eating," stated the 53 year old grandmother. She continued, "Although the Premier was clear from the outset, as was Gravelle, that he would not be calling a moratorium, I came away feeling optimistic about the conversation.” When McGuinty stated that he could not end uranium mining because he was committed to maintaining the present level of 14,000 megawatts of electricity generated by nuclear, Dillman advised him that, according to her information, 80% of Canada’s uranium is exported and that the country has stockpiles estimated to last for 40 years at current levels of use. She added that, with this in mind, and in light of the danger, there should be no need for continued exploration. Both McGuinty and Gravelle seemed unaware of those statistics and the Premier committed to researching the issue. Dillman will continue refusing food until she hears back from him. The Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium
I like the line of McGuinty "unaware of those statistics. Just like wee Dot"
Say, did Donna have enough time to also point out that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), and the International Energy Agency(IEA)in recent independent reports both called for increasing use of nuclear energy worldwide to help deal with the effects of global warming?
No? Didn't think so. Most NIMBYs don't.
Some idiots. Some punk ass kids.
Dillman advised him that, according to her information, 80% of Canada’s uranium is exported and that the country has stockpiles estimated to last for 40 years at current levels of use. She added that, with this in mind, and in light of the danger, there should be no need for continued exploration. Both McGuinty and Gravelle seemed unaware of those statistics and the Premier committed to researching the issue.
Maybe Dot should take the same advice.
well good for the IPCC and the IEA.
And I'm sure they would love to live by a uranium mining operation, and then live by radioactive tailing pits for million of years, as they see there children, grandchildren and if they don't get caner of some sort them selfs, they could see there great grandchildren suffering from the effects of uranium exposures.
Dot you are totally missing the point of the protest, you and all you consuming hors can keep building more nuclear plants, to power all your city lights , dishwasher, hire dryers etc but we are not having a uranium mine in North Frontenac and Lanark Highlands, so feel to rant on with your supper name dropping and unproductive unfocused opinions.
ps to Dot, you may have notice that in the Frontenac and Lanark Highlands the Conservative government was elected, you just seem to go on alot about the Green part.
Ant Bee,
It seems that you've been stuck in your hive for too long. You should get out more often. There's a whole world and climate outside of North Frontenac and Lanark Highlands. And many people are concerned with climate change. Have you heard? Some people have actually blogged on this. Check out these blogs (of course they neglect to mention the nuclear part of the reports because they are both anti-nuke):
http://greenparty.ca/en/node/3186
http://www.christindal.ca/2007/11/22/running-to-win/
Now, why is it important what the IPCC and IEA are saying concerning the increased use of nuclear energy? Because the uranium has to come from somewhere. So, when a special interest person like DD says " the country has stockpiles estimated to last for 40 years at current levels of use" one has to question what this is based upon.
Being familiar with the spin techniques of activist groups, I would hazard to guess that this is based on a very narrow analysis and unrealistic assumptions(such as Canada's current rate of consumption - not taking into account in what direction the world demand is heading), or some other such biased approach.
You know, cars generate GHG's, and there is an overcapacity of automobile production. So why don't we shut down auto production in Ontario as well? Same with trees, gold mines, nickel, etc. etc.
I'm sure Dalton would go for those ideas equally as well.
I think its time to go collect some honey, Ant Bee. The maple syrup is running low.
I don't no were Donna got that fact, but I well find out for you. heres a fact, that Easter Ontario has the most off grid home in Ontario and organic farms, why because we have know for some time about global warming, hay Dot go read this
http://www.ccnr.org/nfb_uranium_0.html
The British Columbia Medical Association
URANIUM INDUSTRY: PUBLIC EXPOSURES
Uranium tailings will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and will require such expensive long-term surveillance and maintenance by government and the local citizenry as to make statements about uranium mining providing revenue very misleading
And I love this report by The British Columbia Medical Association * Radon contamination of ground water may be a health risk in pincushion drilling typical of advanced exploration, yet under present AECB regulations, a couple of hundred drill holes can be made without obtaining a license. AECB admitted to having no scientific data to show this is safe; the regulation was based on an arbitrary administrative decision.
Ant Bee,
Look, I'm going to give you and your cause some advice.
DD has been successful in meeting with the Premier and getting some media coverage over the past 7 weeks. Some has been positive. Some neutral, The one I provided above earlier was quite negative.
McGuinty has told her specifically that there will be no moratorium. He was just elected with a majority. The next provincial election is four years away. The PC party, the official opposition, actally ran on a platform of developing nuclear energy at a quicker pace than the Liberals. The PCs are your local representatives.
DD's chances of success are ZERO with this hunger strike. Be realistic.
You have done some research and identified areas of concern. Work within the system. If pincushion drilling and radon gas is a concern, deal with the ministry/regulatory body that issues licenses to drill, and bring it to their attention. Ensure that qualified geologists/hydrologists are involved to ensure the geology of your area is a not a candidate for this issue. If it is, ensure that conditions are imposed upon the exploration company to eliminate this problem (of course, as a layperson, I wonder why drilling for water wells would not also cause this problem).
If, after doing the exploratory work, and evaluation, the mining company wishes to proceed with developing the mine, be represented at every phase and make your concerns be heard.
Your case is not being advanced by arguing the merits/downsides of nuclear energy on a blog such as this, and certainly not sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere, nor on a Toronto sidewalk.
The 15 minutes of fame have elapsed. Celebrate your victories. End the DD show. And move on to the next phase.
The alternative of continuing on with this "hunger strike" can only be negative. It wouldn't take much effort for a non sympathetic columnist to pursue the issues I have raised throughout my postings. In this event, it can only hurt the credibility of the GPC and its leader.
Thanks Dot for that, McGuinty is in need of education, he is only being fed info by the nuclear industry, but when he finds out his own children down stream in Ottawa will be effected he will do the right thing and have a moratorium on mining uranium in Eastern Ontario.
And yes drilling for water wells is a concern, thats why we don't need any more holes put in the ground. but as I have said we are doing all that plus more, and what Donna does is her effort to stop the madness of uranium drilling and mining close to large city's, farm, and world heritage sight.
Apparently you have no idea how big are numbers are. Hum, "sitting in a trailer in the middle of nowhere" that no where is were we live, and also my very good neighbors land the Algonquins. so this will be my last post, I hope you learn something on being human, and keep looking for us in the news because we are not going away, its life or death, what would pick. peace Ant Bee
Hay Dot, one last read for ya.bye, come see us at nowhere land.
Dr. Gordon Edwards is a well-known and highly respected authority on the long-term hazards of nuclear facilities, and the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibilty (www.ccnr.org) . He has acted as a consultant to many governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Auditor General of Canada, the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, and the Siting Task Force for Radioactive Wastes.
Dr. Edwards has assessed the impact that a uranium mine at Sharbot Lake could have on the City of Ottawa and surrounding regions, and has outlined his assessment in the following public statement:
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
As a scientist, educator, and citizen, I fully support the Algonquin peoples for blockading the Sharbot Lake site in order to prevent uranium exploration and mining. The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, of which I am President, also supports this action.
The brave men and women who are blockading the Sharbot Lake site are not only protecting their own land, they are also protecting the Ottawa river and the entire Ottawa region from radioactive contamination.
Uranium ore bodies are among the deadliest mineral deposits on earth. They harbour large quantities of dangerous radioactive materials. Exploration and mining activities liberate these poisons into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.
Uranium ore contains not only large quantities of uranium, but equally large inventories of the radioactive “decay products” of uranium, including radium, radon gas, polonium-210, and dozens of other radioactive poisons.
In the 1920’s radium sold for $100,000 per gram. By the 1940’s the market for radium had dried up. Too many people had died from bone cancer, anemia, leukemia and head cancers caused by microscopic quantities of radium. The British Columbia Medical Association has described radium as “a superb carcinogen”.
Yet mining companies routinely discard large quantities of radium in their radioactive dumping grounds called uranium tailings piles. From there the radium can migrate into the food chain and the ground water over periods of thousands of years. By the late 1970’s, the entire Serpent River system stretching 55 miles downstream from the Elliot Lake uranium mines was contaminated with radium from abandoned mines.
Polonium-210 is also left over from uranium mining. It is dumped into the tailings piles in quantities whose radioactivity is equal to that of the uranium itself. The deadliness of polonium-210 was revealed through the gruesome murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London, England last year. It is billions of times more toxic than cyanide. It attaches itself to the red blood cells and targets all the soft organs of the body.
During uranium exploration and mining, huge quantities of radon gas are also released into the air, and dissolved in surface waters. The US Surgeon General has determined that radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoking; tens of thousands of Americans die every year from exposure to radon gas.
When radon gas is released from a uranium mine, it deposits solid radioactive fallout – including polonium-210 – on the ground for hundreds of miles downwind from the mine site. Even during exploration, each drill-hole acts as a chimney which vents radon gas into the air from deep underground.
I salute the Algonquin peoples for trying to do what the government should have been doing all along – protecting the health and safety of the people of the Ottawa region by prohibiting uranium exploration and mining in this beautiful region of the province.
Ant Bee,
Dr. Gordon Edwards ia a Mathematics professor at Vanier College. He was one of the founders of the organization you cite, not a nuclear scientist or something related to the areas of concern.
As I mentioned earlier "Yes I have empathy. Mainly for the persons who get caught up in the efforts of anti-nuclear activists, and their deeds in fear mongering in local communities."
CCNR is an ideology based anti-nuclear group. I am sure they support your efforts wholeheartedly, as you are putting forward their ideology.
Does this group condone hunger strikes? It would be unfortunate if his note of support was the basis for DD to undetake her efforts three weeks later. If he was the member of a legitimate professional association (such as professional engineers or professional geologists) I would ask them to review any involvement of his in promoting this approach.
As far as I know, Mathematics Profs are not subject to the ethical and professional standards of such groups, so they are at liberty to say and do just about anything they like.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071203.MACGREGOR03/TPStory/TPComment/?query=
Dear Dot, hope you appreciate my time finding you someone with more credit.
You don’t seem to think professors of Mathematics good enough to speak for the down side of uranium mining. Have you looked at www.ccamu.ca yet?
Maybe you will feel more hopeful from Dr Brownstein words.
Dr. Syd Brownstein graduated from the University of Saskatchewan in 1952 with a BA Honors Chemistry, and from the University of Chicago with a PhD in Chemistry in 1955.
He worked at the Argonne Cancer Research Hospital (US Atomic Energy Commission), then became a post-doctoral fellow and honorary staff member at University College, London. In 1958, Dr. Brownstein became an instructor at Cornell University, a position he held for 2 years.
In 1959, he joined the National Research Council of Canada, where he worked until 1991. During his time at NRC, Dr. Brownstein was a member of the Ontario Hydro Safety Committee on Nuclear Fusion Reactors.
Dr. Brownstein has undertaken joint projects from NRC with Atomic Energy Canada (AECL), Eldorado Nuclear and the Atomic Energy Commission of France.
Dr. Brownstein has more than 130 publications in refereed journals, 3 patents and 1 book.
Syd Brownstein Statement
September 18, 2007
Uranium occurs in nature in pitchblend or uranite ore. The uranium is present in a compound in combination with oxygen.
Uranium is not very soluble in neutral water but its solubility increases rapidly in acidic or alkaline water.
Uranium is only mildly radioactive and its toxicity to humans is primarily as a heavy metal, like arsenic and cadmium.
The big danger is that when uranium undergoes radioactive decay, highly radioactive elements such as radium and polonium are produced. These elements, which are always associated with naturally occurring uranium, are held within the ore body as long as it is undisturbed. These elements are released to the environment when the ore body is entered by mining or exploratory drilling.
Radium is a dangerously radioactive element that is in the same chemical family as calcium and magnesium. Radium has similar chemical properties to calcium and magnesium, and if introduced into groundwater, cannot be removed by normal water treatment facilities. It can also concentrate in the human body by preferentially replacing the calcium in our bones.
Polonium, recently in the news as a terrible KGB poison, is also a very dangerous radioactive element. It is in the same chemical family as sulfur and would be carried in our water in the same manner as naturally occurring sulfates are at present. Polonium also cannot be removed by conventional water treatment facilities. It concentrates in the internal organs of our body and can result in a most unpleasant death.
If a uranium ore body is disturbed in its natural geological setting, radium and polonium will inevitably be released into our environment. The consequences of such a release in an inhabited area would be very serious.
In my opinion, exploratory drilling, with its associated risk of exposing uranium and its radioactive products, is irresponsible except for instances of great national importance. It is not justified for mere short-term financial gain. The long-term consequences are far too serious.
Ant Bee,
I hope you appreciate my efforts to get your story in the G&M noted above. :) Now, when will DD call off her ill considered and fake hunger strike?
Your newest expert is speaking in generalities, and not specifically related to your situation as did the mathematician. In a public hearing, or using expert testimony, I would expect that the impact of increased drilling at Sharbot Lake would be compared to the current situation (ie if there is already a great deal of existing wells, or the geology has a lot of fissures etc. releasing radon gas already - and btw this is not abnormal)
An answer I certainly am not qualified to answer, nor is the mathematician.
Btw, here are the letters to the editor in response to Monday's G&M column on the protest and issues surrounding it:
Smoke and radon
NEIL WILLOUGHBY
December 4, 2007
Scarborough, Ont. -- Radon gas is a product generated by the radioactive decay of uranium, a naturally occurring radioactive element. If there's uranium in the subsurface rocks, radon gas is already being produced, now. For it to be emitted, you don't need to mine.
In fact, exploration geologists test the radon content of soils, streams and lakes in order to look for minable concentrations of uranium. The mining of uranium may result in cleanup of the radon threat.
....
CYNTHIA CALLARD
executive director, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
December 4, 2007
Ottawa -- Roy MacGregor (Settlers And Natives, United Against The Government - Dec. 3) tells a compelling story on the concerns of the Sharbot Lake community about uranium mining and radon exposure. If radon is, as he says, the "No. 1 cause of lung cancer after smoking," it is a very distant second. Even the vast majority of radon deaths result from the tragic synergy between smoking and radon exposure.
It is ironic that the protesters are supporting their protest by selling unlicensed, untaxed and improperly packaged cigarettes from a "smoke-shack" beside the Trans-Canada Highway.
Dear Dot your just bound and determent to bring negative aspects to this call for a moratorium on mining uranium in Eastern Ontario, why is that?, well your life be better off, do you work in the nuclear industry. ? I’m just wondering if other people are reading this, and there thoughts on the subject.
Roy MacGregor is a disgrace to the clan. A child could do better reporting then he.
Did Mr MacGregor stop in at that smoke shop and ask them if the money was supporting the protest, because if he had, the answer would have been no.
As a matter of fact for the record we have had fund raisers going on from day one. Thanks to all the wonderful people who care about this planet. We have four juno winners that live up this way that I know of that have put alot of time in helping to educated fellow Ontario's. Two up and coming shows. One on the Dec 15 in McDonald Corners, and this one posted below.
As for your post from Neil Willoughby, he makes my point, why would we wont more radon gas released into the environment. Radioactive decay of uranium happens when the top soil is removed. If there's uranium in the subsurface rocks, radon gas is product when it is mixed with air for it to be emitted, you don't need to mine. So why on Earth would we wont it disturb more of the uranium rock by test drilling.
THE 1st ANNUAL CCAMU CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY CONCERT
FEATURINGTERRY TUFTSKATHERYN BRIGGSNEVILLE WELLS
BYTOWN BLUEGRASSFRANK MORRISONSPECIAL GUESTS
JENNY WHITELEY &JOEY WRIGHTFolks WE GUARANTEE this Concertis gonna get you in the Christmas Spirit Or your money back !Along with the songs you love to hear these great performers sing,
They’’ll also be singing your favorite Christmas songs……and so will YOU!We’’ll be serving steaming cups of Hot Chocolate & Mulled Cider PLUS specially prepared Christmas treats.And Last (and some people think rightly so) A legend in his own mind, DWAIN SCUDDER He has a story about Christmas shopping and a real good foot stompin’’ song.So, come on out. We’’ll get you in the Spirit, and you’’ll be helping STOP the uranium mine that threatens all of us. CCAMU is the landowners & concerned citizens group that, along with our Algonquin neighbors, are defending the land……our land…… yours & mine. –– FRANK MORRISON
ADMISSION $20 –– REFRESHMENTS INCLUDED
2 p.m. SUNDAY DECEMBER 16TH
PERTH CIVITAN HALL NEAR 3M
THE REAL COST OF POWER
Excerpt from: The real cost of power
Published: Nov 24, 2007
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=633521
See the source of the quote at: http://www.stormsmith.nl/
In his latest nuclear report last month, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, senior scientist at the Netherlands-based Ceedata Consultancy, said nuclear power systems were not an option as they produced more carbon dioxide than fossil-fuelled power stations.
"More uranium ore has to be processed each year to feed one nuclear power plant than the annual coal tonnage of coal consumed by a coal-fired power plant to generate the same amount of electricity," he said.
Once started, a nuclear reactor also generates unavoidable and very large amounts of radioactive waste, posing immeasurable risks to man and society, he said.
Roy MacGregor is a disgrace to the clan. A child could do better reporting then he.
Did Mr MacGregor stop in at that smoke shop and ask them if the money was supporting the protest, because if he had, the answer would have been no.
Ant Bee,
It is rather apparent you haven't read his column, have you? If you have, what specifically are you against? The fact that he didn't focus on your neighbour, Donna Dillman? The letters above were in response to his column.
And by the way, I did visit your site. I saw a picture of Donna standing in front of the legislature building, holding her card, her "wheelchair" filed with posters etc. Isn't it about time she shut down this scam?
Here's his column:
THIS COUNTRY: ONTARIO: URANIUM EXPLORATION
Settlers and natives, united against the government
ROY MacGREGOR
December 3, 2007
Let us head down Snow Road on this morning when the plowed banks are higher than they have been any Dec. 3 for some time.
Let us visit on a bitter weekend when Environment Canada has predicted the coldest winter in 15 years.
And here let us talk about global warming - and the hints of heat to come in at least the next 15 years.
Snow Road is not far from the Sharbot Lake standoff between the Ardoch and Obaadjiwan Algonquin First Nations - joined by an increasing number of white neighbours - and Frontenac Ventures Corp. over uranium exploration in Eastern Ontario.
It is also the way to reach John and Sheila Kittle, a conservative, middle-age retired couple - he a math and physics graduate who worked in computers, she a registered nurse - who say they have never before considered themselves "activist" but who today are key members of a grassroots rebellion.
"We believe," says John Kittle, "that we are making Canadian history."
What they and hundreds of other white neighbours are doing is standing with the aboriginals who first set up a blockade back in June.
Together, they are up against big business, legislation, the courts, a provincial government and, to some extent, a widespread impatience with native blockades that, in the case of Sharbot Lake, has also set whites against whites.
It was a white, actually, who first sounded the alarm here. Frank Morrison, who owns a large tract of management forest, found disturbing signs of prospecting activity - including provincial-issued tags - on what he thought was protected land. When Morrison complained, he discovered he had no say in the matter. Ontario legislation more than a century old gave mining operations free entry onto his land to explore, with the landowner having no claim whatsoever on the mineral rights that lie below the surface.
The Algonquins also discovered similar activity on territory for which they had a massive land claim - land that stretched all the way from Sharbot Lake to Parliament Hill and beyond.
The aboriginal groups moved quickly to protest, the non-natives less quickly. The whites toyed with calling themselves some variation of "Frontenac Uranium Committee" but abandoned this when a member suggested the acronym might prove embarrassing. Instead, they began calling themselves the "Mississippi Watershed Settlers" and now claim to number around a thousand.
Settlers and natives against the government.
The potential area for exploration, they discovered, covered a vast watershed that included the nearby Mississippi, Madawaska, Ottawa and Gatineau rivers - essentially the Algonquin land claim - as well as the entire Rideau River/Canal system that was recently named a UNESCO World Heritage site.
John Kittle was worried about more than what some other locals accused him of - a predictable not-in-my-backyard reaction to needed development - in that he had once worked in a laboratory investigating the mysterious properties of uranium. It bothered him that the legislation that permits such exploration predated any real understanding of uranium's potential powers and health threats.
Frontenac Ventures was well within its rights to explore, according to the law of the land. After the blockade went up, the prospector turned to the courts to gain an order that would put an end to the blockade. The provincial police, however, perhaps unwilling to tempt another standoff incident, chose to use discretion and not fully execute the order. Lawsuits flew back and forth, a Mohawk Warrior flag continued to fly at the site, one of the settlers went on a dramatic hunger strike, and everything more or less ground to today's standstill.
The desire to find uranium is obvious in that its price at times makes oil look a slacker. The natives, however, say mining companies have no rights on a land claim that has yet to be settled. And the settlers say there is simply no need for more Canadian uranium, given the mines in northern Saskatchewan and current stockpiles.
They also warn about threats to health, saying mining will produce tailings, cause the release of radon gas - identified by Health Canada as the No. 1 cause of lung cancer after smoking - and possibly endanger area water tables.
The curious thing is that John Kittle, the reluctant activist, isn't even a fanatical opponent of nuclear energy, which so many in the global warming debate see as the best possible solution when it comes to eliminating the burning of fossil fuels for energy needs.
"I'm a 50-per-cent supporter," he says. He considers nuclear energy "dirty from end to end," from mining to disposal, but he also knows it might be a necessary evil if society is going to be able to move from traditional sources to cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar power.
"The thing is," he says, "no matter what your views, you don't have to mine this uranium."
Increasingly, he is finding agreement among area municipal councils, including the City of Kingston. This week, his group will launch its own legal action against the province of Ontario.
It is all enough to make you think that, despite Environment Canada's frigid predictions, things are only starting to heat up.
Dear Dot, there’s just no pleasing you, I could have God state some facts on the pit falls of uranium mining and you would find fault in it.
We seem to be the only people reading this and I think I’ve spent enough time on this, and you seem not to want to answers my points only coming back to Donnas personal effort to get a moratorium on mining uranium in Eastern Ontario.
I do feel its important to educate you that the Mohawk flag is not a warrior flag at all, it’s a unity flag and can be use by any one under distress when Mother Earth is in jeopardy.
So if it wasn’t Mr MacGregor slanders remark about the smoke shop. I guess it was yours, or are you MacGregor?
Or are you just assuming that because people selling cigarettes on the hwy are natives and part of the protest.
That’s to bad I missed you when you came up to site I could have shown you around. I’ve enjoyed are little tattle.
Peace, love and all the best. Ant Bee
Dear Ant Bee,
What I am trying to suggest to you (and I don't think that it is getting through) is that you have a legitimate cause. I have not taken exception to it.
What is hurting your cause, however, is the risk that you or your cause is not credible. Donna Dillman's efforts are not credible. So, as I have suggested, she should stop them. But, unfortunately, she continues. Why? Does she really think this is helping your cause? Or is she just caught up in the attention?
You're all too easy slander a journalist because you feel he is against your position, without knowing precisely what he wote. This is typical behaviour of extremist groups - and is indicative of the emotional and irrational positions your group is taking.
You're not credible. And the fact that you support DD's fraud only adds weight to my opinion. Why should the public take you seriously on anything else your group claims?
Think about it. This is the wrong approach. Can you accept such critiism? Is it possibe there is a better approach? Or does your group believe you have the "truth" and the rest will join in once they get "educated", like your diatribe against McGuinty.
Sounds rather insular to me. There is even disagreement within your community, based upon the column written.
And a message you can pass onto your friend, DD.
The media is increasingly becoming aware of her faux campaign, especially as she approaches the longevity of the legitimate Bobby Sands hunger strike.
So, take some good advice from me, and get her to stop this fraud.
Now seems like a good time to me!