It’s really disheartening, as a Queen’s mining engineer, to read an article calling for people to “question the fall-out from uranium mining” when the questioning done is solely based on ill-informed arguments.
I have been following the campaign in Ontario against uranium and uranium mining and it’s clear those opposed to uranium mining have been using scare tactics and poorly sourced information to spread doubt about uranium and the safety of Ontario’s mining industry, which I believe is one of the safest industries in Ontario.
Their initial concern’s with exploration drilling, which they claim releases “much higher” concentrations of radon gas into the air than does surface water. But according to the Frontenac News, the view of Jamie Kneen of Mining Watch Canada, a non-profit organization that monitors mining operations throughout the country, is that “as long as the drill holes are capped, diamond drilling does not pose a risk.” I would really like to see where the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium (CCAMU) gets its information; which highlights an entirely different problem: their lack of credible sources.
Donna Dillman wrote that “more than one million people stand to be affected” by the fallout from the Sharbot Lake project in the March 7 Journal. At this stage of development for any mine, there’s simply nowhere near enough information available to be able to make these kinds of claims. Perhaps this number was arrived at by approximating what would happen if the Elliot Lake mine happened in Sharbot Lake. The older standards for releasing milled uranium ore—“tailings”—were significantly more lax when Elliot Lake was founded in the 1950s. Some of the tailings ending up on surface, potentially uncontained. Today, Canadian mining companies have set the world standard for tailings management. It has been engineered to a point where no groundwater ever comes into with mine tailings. But, they say, look at all the atrocities of uranium mining in the past! Look at the horrible cancer rates! Thankfully, nobody would deny these claims, but the very point is, they’re in the past. Mining today is considerably different in of the degree of ventilation modern mines have and the amount of constant monitoring taking place. In order to be properly informed about the real risks and dangers of uranium mining today—and they do exist—it would benefit the
coalition’s cause to consider some of the information presented by Canadian Nuclear Association (cna.ca) or even by Cameco Corporation, which produces most of the uranium in Canada (cameco.com).
The core of the problem is that although there are ways to reduce the risk to people and the environment, no mine will be impact-free. People should understand that nothing in the world, no matter what subject you are talking about, is risk-free. We have to ensure the risks are manageable and low enough that the potential for any impacts on the environment or people are contained and treatable. CCAMU should be looking at the current state of uranium mining and considering the real risks. Asking for a moratorium on uranium mining based on their arguments is like demanding we ban cars completely because of the horrible effects leaded gas has on the environment and public health.
The point may be raised that just because we can mine safely and environmentally, doesn’t necessarily mean we will. But thankfully, because of past environmental disasters, mining companies are under tremendous scrutiny, facing intense legal and even internal pressure to become as environmentally friendly as they can. Morals aside, the extremely high cost of environmental disasters alone, however small the area affected, translates into companies going to great lengths to ensure they’re being as environmentally conscious as possible. Before a mine even begins to be developed in Ontario, the developers have to not only have an environmental assessment completed and prove land reclamation, to the land’s original state or better after mining, is possible, but that they have sufficient funding in place to ensure the process is carried out.
I agree that concerned citizens should be asking questions about the risks associated with uranium mining. They should be fully informed about what might be moving in next door. I do believe companies such as Frontenac Ventures should be making an honest effort to educate the community about the real risks and dangers of uranium mining and should listen to the community’s concerns. This goes a long way to allowing the residents to make informed decisions about whether they will fight or accept a uranium mine. But the use of misinformation to spread fear of all things uranium is simply deplorable. I’m in no way debating the issue of First Nations’ claims to the land; I simply want people to be more informed of the effects of uranium mining and exploration.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].