Drinking to nuclear power
A thought experiment:
You live within 20 kilometres of a uranium mine. Tests have shown that your drinking water contains up to seven times the World Health Organisation’s limit for uranium contamination. The company running the mine have tested the water themselves but have not informed you of the findings. They have not properly implemented health monitoring for the mine’s workers or local residents. Documents show that the company knew from the outset that contamination of the water supply was a risk. The local hospital is not accredited to diagnose or treat cancer.
Posted on October 17th, 2008 at 8:35 am
| See also • Taken for a fluoride • Bye bye buy-to-let • Water, water everywhere |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Nuclear: power and weapons |
• |
While agreeing with the first measures - the immediate health measures - that Greenpeace has asked for, I might also ask if there’s any research to say what the level of uranium is in drinking water in general areas of high rock uranium contents, before rushing to blame the mine itself.
I might ask whether aquifers and water tables passing through a country with pretty much the highest natural levels of uranium in the world would have naturally high level of dissolved uranium.
I might ask if Greenpeace sampled water in an similar area with known high uranium levels elsewhere in Brazil, but without an operational mine.
I might ask why Greenpeace’s headline shouts that the contamination is around the mine, implying it is responsible, when the text of the article specifically states that the research does not answer the question of whether the mine is the source.
I might ask why the Greenpeace article makes claims about numbers without actually publishing the numbers themselves.
Also why it warns about cancer, when no human cancer has ever been recorded from natural uranium.
This isn’t support for a poorly run uranium mine - of course I want mines to be run safely - its more a complaint about Greenpeace’s ability to campaign about the sky falling on Chicken Little before the numbers are actually known - cf. its claims about the oil contamination of decommissioned oil platforms, which were later shown to be nonsense.
I support Greenpeace’s *general* aim for a clean safe environment, but they must stop crying wolf, because it just loses them support in the long term.