And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Source: http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/06/09/timfeamam01001.html?999 ======================================================== June 9 1999 Unesco is planning to put an Australian national park on its "in danger" list if mining goes ahead. Julia Hinde reports Uranium mine threatens heritage site As Australia looks forward to hosting next year's Olympic Games, the country's Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage Site famous for its wetlands and wildlife, can expect a tourist bonanza. But only months before the Olympic year, Australia faces an embarrassing environmental problem that could see Kakadu, in the Northern Territory, placed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's (Unesco) World Heritage "in danger" list. According to a Unesco report last November, plans to open a huge new uranium mine just upstream of the park pose serious threats to the natural and cultural values of Kakadu. Australia has until July to convince Unesco otherwise. The dispute hinges on scientific interpretations of risk: different groups of scientists and environmentalists disagree as to the long-term dangers of the mine. The proposed new mine at Jabiluka will open up one of the world's largest and purest uranium reserves. If, as predicted, these are used in Europe, Asia and America as the raw material to provide nuclear energy to power homes and businesses, the uranium at Jabiluka is said to be worth A$4 billion (£1.6 billion) to the Australian economy. The mine - approved by the Australian Government after an assessment by the mining company Energy Resources of Australia - will be largely underground with just a few new buildings on the surface, while much of the processing will take place about 14 miles away at an existing mine. An estimated 20 million tonnes of radioactive waste will be buried underground. But a report submitted to Unesco by a group of Australian scientists, led by Professor Bob Wasson, of the Australian National University in Canberra, highlights a number of environmental threats to Kakadu if mining at Jabiluka goes ahead. As well as pointing out "serious flaws" in the design of the mine, the scientists say that expected climate change over the next few thousand years, driven by global warming, is likely to change the hydrology of the site. Increased rainfall and flooding will make it impossible to guarantee the safe containment of radioactive tailings - rock left over after the pure uranium has been removed - and other waste. "We simply do not know if the designed structures can withstand the major rainfall events of the future, so the integrity of the Kakadu National Park cannot be guaranteed with any probability." Others are also concerned. Dave Sweeney, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, says: "There is no question of the damage if this mine goes ahead. There will be site specific damage, including vegetation clearance, degradation of surface water, fumes and dust. But the main concern is the long-term radiological hazard, with large volumes of low level radioactive waste." Mr Sweeney adds that the uranium tailings will, on average, contain 80 to 85 per cent of the radioactivity of the original ore, and could be subject to erosion and leaching, potentially contaminating the park. "The main danger with uranium is its movement through air, ground and water flows," he explains. "By mining you take the uranium ore out of its underground cocoon, and grind it as fine as beach sand. During the mining process, you increase enormously the potential of radioactivity to blow away in the wind or be taken up by water. We believe it has the potential to cause significant environmental impact and could build up in the food chain in the wetlands." Others are concerned that water used at the mine - and potentially contaminated with uranium - may be released into the environment. Unesco's World Heritage Committee has recommended calling a halt to work at Jabiluka. It noted "the serious concerns and preoccupations expressed by some of Australia's most eminent scientists as to the unacceptably high degree of scientific uncertainties" in relation to the Jabiluka mine design, the effectiveness of the chosen means of storing the tailings in the mine void, and possible impacts on catchment ecosystems. But, so far, the Australian Government has been unmoved and work on the mine has commenced. In response to the World Heritage Committee, the scientists advising the Government are clear that "the natural values of Kakadu National Park are not threatened" and "the degree of scientific certainty that applies to this assessment is very high". Although they agree that there are a number of weaknesses in the original modelling and mine plan, they add that had the original plan been implemented, the risk to the Kakadu wetlands and radiation exposure to the Aboriginal people would be extremely low, even if the water retention ponds holding radioactive waste water failed. This is because "uranium is not a particularly toxic substance for aquatic animals. It has been well established that the toxicity of uranium is much lower than that of many more common substances such as copper, cadmium and lead." The report does, however, note a small but quantifiable risk of persistent adverse effects to aquatic animals over a 20-square-kilometre area if the retention ponds fail. "It is the perception of the public that uranium is a very dangerous substance, and the failure of the scientific community to persuade the public otherwise has led to the adoption of extreme measures to ensure that no amount of uranium should leave the site of a uranium mine," they say. The report implies that the public has been led, wrongly, to believe that uranium is extremely dangerous. However, a 1990 report by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states that "animals that ate food, drank water, or breathed air that had high levels of uranium dust have developed kidney damage", while "animal studies suggest that uranium may affect reproduction and the developing foetus". In addition, the high levels of radon gas formed when uranium decays are thought to cause cancers. Paul Walton, lecturer in chemistry at York University, says uranium is probably "not all that dangerous from a radioactive point of view, but there is always a poisoning risk. It is a heavy metal and generally toxic to life. Unless the mining company takes a lot of precautions, I would feel unsafe locating a mine near a World Heritage Site." The difference in scientific opinion has led to accusations that the Australian Supervising Scientist's Office, which was responsible for the positive advice given to the Government, is not as independent as it should be. "In the past ten years, it has said that there is absolutely no impact from uranium," says John Hallam of Friends of the Earth. However, the environmental risks to Kakadu form only one part of the case for labelling the World Heritage Site "in danger". Also at risk, says Unesco, is the park's cultural heritage. The park is a traditional home for the Mirrar Aboriginal people, and the mine allegedly passes through Aboriginal sacred sites associated with the dreaming serpent Boiwek-Almudj. If the threat to the Kakadu's natural ecosystems and plant, bird and marine life cannot protect the park, perhaps the dreaming serpent can. Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
