 Conservation Page
We are conservationists.
We prefer our electricity to be produced by solar or wind power if possible.
No trees are killed in the production of this onlinezine.
For this month we tried to find out about the nuclear reactor being built over a section of land in South Australia where Artesion Waters comes close to the surface, then continues on to replenish and supply the rest of Australia’s great underground artesion waters supply for every State in the country.
This obviously would not be a good idea (depending on your interpretation of good and bad) of putting a nuclear reactor over this nations purest water supply, to have a chance at polluting it.
We know if able to self regulate and report on itself, the Nuclear Industry would indicate that there are no nuclear accidents so safety reports would be unneccessary, radioactive substances are safe, etc.(even though still not able to safely dispose of wastes)
Couldn’t find out much about that so we present these transcripts from the ACF.
11th December 1998 ACF Media Release
Key Report hidden as Government makes uranium decision.
Senator Hill is withholding a key report by a US expert commissioned by Government to advise on the Beverely mine, while in private talks exercising his legal obligation to today inform US nuclear corporation General Atomics of his recommendations on their mining application. The ACF has countered by taking legal steps to enforce public accountability on Senator Hill over the Commonwealth's assessment of the Beverley mine in the far north of SA, the first in the western world to use sulphuric acid in-situ leach uranium mining.
The ACF has placed orders on the Commonwealth and SA Governments under Freedom of Information legislation to force release the consultancy report by US based expert Ms April Lafferty. Senator Hill had sought approval from General Atomics to extend the assessment period by 4 weeks to commission the report advising both Commonwealth and SA Governments on the mine and its environmental impacts.
"Once again the Australian public are the last to know the plans of US nuclear industry corporations for the Australian environment. Recent plans by Pangea Resources for importing radioactive waste, the toxic legacy of the uranium mining industry, only became public through the conservation movement. Why does Senator Hill continue this pattern by failing to release the consultancy report on the impacts of the Beverley mine?" said Dave Sweeney Uranium Campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation.
"Private negotiations between Government and the nuclear industry are unacceptable. Whether its the talks held mid year at the Ministerial level with Pangea Resources over their intention to own and operate the proposed National Radioactive Waste dump in SA, or the current talks between Senator Hill and General Atomics over the Beverley mine."
"Senator Hill's failure to release the Lafferty report before making his recommendations smacks of an attempt to prevent an informed public debate on Beverley, the sort of debate that would go against the interests of the nuclear industry and favour protection of our environment. As is now happening with the rejection of Pangea's radioactive dump. These issues have very real impacts and deserve full and open scrutiny".
"ACF contend that with full disclosure of the impacts and risks to our environment from the sulphuric acid in-situ leach uranium mine at Beverley the public would reject the mine. In the public interest ACF will pursue legal means to force release of the Lafferty consultancy report and lead that informed public debate" said David Noonan of the ACF.
For comment contact: David Noonan, ACF Campaign Officer PH 08-82322566.
Dave Sweeney, ACF Uranium Campaigner (m) 0408317812.
Note: The Australian Government saw fit to sign this bill on the 22nd January 1999 with no apparent mention to the public. No mention of environmental impact statements. When asked about environmental impact statements, Senator Hill more or less changed the subject. (Question/Answer Time, 15/2/99)
Media Release: Immediate Release. Monday 14 December
Unpopular and Unprofitable: Kakadu Uranium Mine in Trouble.
Energy Resources of Australia continues to face growing criticism and difficulties in relation to its operations at the Ranger mine and the controversial Jabiluka site in Kakadu. ERA has today formally confirmed to the Stock Exchange what environment groups have maintained for months – that both the global uranium market and the ERA Directors are deeply depressed. ERA has announced that they will be indefinitely closing a new milling facility at Ranger from March 31 1999 because of "weaker market conditions".
The news follows a renewed round of speculation that ERAs parent company North Ltd is the target of a possible takeover bid in part because of continuing environmental protests and a negative report from UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee on the proposed uranium mine at Jabiluka.
"This declaration by ERA strips away the rhetoric and puts some reality into the Kakadu context – this is not a boom industry. ERA finds it makes more sense to be a uranium broker rather than a producer", declared ACF uranium campaigner Dave Sweeney. "There is a global oversupply of uranium and this situation will continue for at least two decades according to a recent report by the London based Uranium Institute, the nuclear industry’s peak body. ERA’s share value has dropped by around 65% in just 34 months. It is increasingly clear that not only is this industry unclean, unwelcome and unsafe it is also unprofitable."
The news comes as anti-uranium activists from around Australia are preparing to target Westpac, ERA’s transactional banker, in a national day of action set for Tuesday December 15. The day is part of an escalating corporate campaign aimed at highlighting those companies engaged in activities that are causing daily damage to the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park.
"ERA are in real trouble, they are behind schedule and are facing serious cost overruns. They have no approval to use the Ranger mill to treat any Jabiluka ore, staff morale is low and turnover has increased by 50% in the past year and now the market is collapsing," stated Dave Sweeney. " Two thirds of Australia is saying no, the international community is saying no and now the invisible hand of the market is raising its digit to ERA as well. There is no longer one shred of credibility or one compelling argument for this project. Construction works at Jabiluka should stop immediately."
Contact : Dave Sweeney on 03 9926 6708 or 0408 317 812
Well, there’s some hopeful news from ACF.
Interesting to see World Heritage Rulings being acknowledged, (one way or the other).
Recent reports of logging and woodchipping of old growth native forests persist from the Franklin River and Tasmania. Only for export to Japan.
The initial motives for Conservation would be an essential essence needing to be reviewed for definement or re-definement.
If there is no need for Conservation Practices, why would there be Conservationists?
The answer is:
There IS a REAL situation(s) and reasons for Conservation to have credibility in this day and age. This is why so many prominent people as well as masses of environmentalists from all walks of life can see the need for conservation issues to be adherred to.
Why then, would the Governments and Parliamentarians persist in infringing these concessions?
Is there valid reasons for continual persistance to create destructive situations environmentally?
In most societies, money is The Prime Mover. Could money solicit over rational, practical, sane decisions on Environmental issues?
Answer: Unknown. (%#@&$^*)
For what motives? Answer: Energy (nuclear), Money.
These Environmental issues would invariably affect the families and children of Politicians and Law Makers and Keepers as well as Industrialists etc. for approximately the same amount of time that Conservationists have already established.
By looking forward in time (statistically) to establish forward-planning answers on populations, resources and environment would indicate rational thinking.
Having these statistics and answers would then give you reasons for valid concessions to be made in advance of disastrous environmental situation(s) to try to prevent these disasters from polluting or unbalancing the environment too much.
Links to Environmental Sites.
Next Month we will cover ..
* Franklin River and Tasmanian World Heritage infringements!
* Australia's Artesian Water under Direct threat NOW!
|
