Guyana should say no to uranium mining

Comment: Great Letter about No to Uranium mining!

Posted By Stabroek staff On April 2, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Letters

Dear Editor,

During the past few months I have read, with interest, where talks are afoot to commence uranium mining in Guyana.

I find this idea troubling, since Guyana does not consume uranium, and other than a few dollars to be earned, does not need the medical and environmental troubles that are inherent in such an activity.

Scientist Dr Gordon Edwards stated that “Uranium ore bodies are among the deadliest on earth.

They harbour large quantities of dangerous radio-active materials.

Exploration and mining activities liberate these poisons into the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.”

Consideration must be given to the fact that a uranium mine releases radon which blankets the ground hundreds of miles downwind as solid radioactive fallout.

There are many supporters of uranium mining who feel that the profits warrant the cost of mining. Many of these supporters are fully embedded with the mining companies, and are not reluctant to move from country to country once the effects of mining are clearly visible, in terms of the ill health of the miners, and those living in the affected areas of the mining operation.

Others, including myself, feel that once the cost of mining outweighs the benefits then it is unwise to commence mining especially in an agrarian economy that lacks the funds to adequately monitor the mining activity and provide the medical care that is associated with any type of uranium mining.

Currently, the Guyanese economy is very dependent on the land, the rivers and the trees for its simple existence.

Any disruption to this ecosystem will prove detrimental to many of farmers and families that earn a living from the land.

There are three popular types of uranium mining, the Open Pit Mining, Heap Leaching Mining and In-Situ Leaching (www.wise-uranium.org).

Open pit mining is normally engaged in when the ore deposits are located close to the surface.

However, it creates huge lakes of contaminated water and clouds of contaminated dust that blow in any wind direction.

Proponents of this type of mining believe that installing huge dust collectors will solve the problem, but it is impossible to control the direction of the wind, thus failing to prevent further contamination.

Waste rock is produced with open pit mining that contains high levels of concentrated radioisotopes.

Heap leaching is done when the uranium content is too low to be economically processed in a mill. Sulfuric acid is introduced to the low uranium content, allowed to percolate and then the yellow cake-like mix is pumped to the processing plant. This type of processing is used in Canada and in Thuringia, Germany. This processing also contaminates ground water and the contamination lasts for centuries.

IN-Situ leaching is the process of drilling holes into underground uranium, pumping ammonium-carbonate or sulfuric acid into the uranium, and then pumping this liquid mix to a processing plant. This is only done when uranium deposits are found in an aquifer in permeable rock.

Irrespective of the method of mining used, it is almost impossible to restore natural conditions after the mining process is exhausted. Some remnant of uranium remains in the ore, for all the uranium cannot be removed by current processing methods. Also, all the mining operations have tailing deposits or sludge which is dumped and which could leak into the underground water spreading contamination for miles, which without constant monitoring could remain undetected for years.

Over the years there have been many spills, leaks and other releases.

There have been pond leaks and well-casing failures.

In Colorado the Cotter Corp pleaded guilty to poisoning migratory birds.

In Namibia the Langer Heinrich mine was flooded after a rainstorm and there were explosions after a large acid spill.

No one knows when the long-term effects of these spills will be seen because the effects on humans takes years to manifest themselves as cancer and respiratory ailments.

Abandoned mines are also a problem, and even when fenced this does not prevent animals and children from running onto the contaminated soil. In some cases workers have tried digging the remaining ore with the intent to smuggle the ore out.

In China illicit mining continued in a closed uranium mine for months.

In many mines clean-up obligations are not met, and mines are just abandoned as economic conditions dictate.

The best thing is to leave the uranium where it is. (Yes, VA, leave it in the ground!!)

Mining only serves to disturb the radioactive particles of the ore from their relatively safe underground environment and unleash a hazard which is easily dispersed in the environment.

There is no safe way of conducting uranium mining.

What may look as though it is safe could be detrimental after years of undetected exposure and environmental damage.

When the mines close who would bear the cost of monitoring the environment and sharing the cost of the medical fallout that occurs? (Who is watching the Coles Hill, VA now?)

During the 1940s and 1950s uranium was mined on the Navajo reservation, now the area is a cluster of victims with lung cancer and respiratory diseases related to uranium.

The closed mines have become an economic wasteland with no real social value.

(Peter H. Eichataedt If you Poison Us: Uranium and the Native Americans)

Even though this mine was closed in the 1950s, men, women and children continue to be detected with uranium related cancer and other ailments.

The question then is how would Guyana cope with the decades of poisoning after the mine owners have left?

Guyana should say no to uranium mining and leave the uranium deposits buried within their existing protective overburden undisturbed.(VA, Heck No We Won't Glow!!!)

Yours faithfully,
Patrick Barker