"Landscape Murder" . . . Uranium mining rejections
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:13 pmUranium mining rejected at Iqaluit public forum
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/03/18/
nunavut-uranium-iqaluit-forum.html
Inuit attack Nunavut Tunngavik for supporting development
CBC website, March 18, 2011
- - - -
QUOTE: The Nunavut government is holding another public forum in Baker Lake on March 30 and 31. It will then go to Cambridge Bay on April 12 and 13.
Those who cannot attend the meetings in person can also send in comments online, or by email, phone, fax or postal mail.”
- - - - -
Many Nunavummiut who attended a uranium forum Thursday night said they do not want uranium mining in Nunavut, while some even attacked the territory's Inuit group for supporting uranium development.
More than 120 people in Iqaluit came out to the public forum, which was organized by the Nunavut government as it works on developing its own policy on uranium mining in the territory.
After hearing presentations from eight panellists on the topic, most of those who came up to the microphone made it clear that they want nothing to do with uranium mining.
"For me, there's about four industries that we should never go into, and they're asbestos, uranium, the tobacco industry, and building of weapons," said Madeleine Cole, a family doctor in the city.
The territorial government wants to establish its own position on uranium amid growing interest in Nunavut from mining and exploration companies.
NTI BLASTED FOR OWNING SHARES
Areva Resources Canada wants to build a uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, 85 kilometres west of Baker Lake in Nunavut's Kivalliq region. The company's proposal is currently in the regulatory process.
Some at Thursday's forum berated Nunavut Tunngavik (NTI), the territory's Inuit land-claim organization, for supporting uranium mining and having shares in two companies that are exploring for the heavy metal.
"I did not agree as a beneficiary, as a trust member, to own shares in a uranium company," Iqaluit resident Susan Enuaraq, an Inuit land-claim beneficiary, said during the forum.
Keith Morrison, a senior advisor with Nunavut Tunngavik, told the audience that the organization received shares in exchange for issuing exploration agreements to those companies. No money was paid out for those shares, he added.
Sandra Inutiq, a spokesperson for the advocacy group Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, accused Nunavut Tunngavik of denying its pro-uranium stance and pretending to give out balanced information on the topic.
"The spirit and intent of the land-claim agreement is not being fulfilled," Inutiq said. "We expected, as Inuit, that we would participate in decision-making."
GROUP WANTS PLEBISCITE
Nunavut Tunngavik president Cathy Towtongie recently said she wants to review her organization's uranium mining policy, which since 2007 has supported uranium projects in Nunavut as long as they are environmentally and socially responsible.
Inutiq said her group wants a Nunavut-wide plebiscite so Inuit land-claim beneficiaries can vote on whether the group should support uranium mining.
But Nunavut Conservative Senator Dennis Patterson said a plebiscite would not respect the land claim, particularly for Areva's Kiggavik proposal.
"It would probably not be in good faith for NTI to change the rules for a project that has already begun," Patterson said.
MORE:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/03/18/
nunavut-uranium-iqaluit-forum.html
= = = = = =
An open letter from an Iqaluit physician about Uranium Mining in Nunmavut
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Government of Nunavut
Uranium Consultation
March 15, 2011
Dear Premier Aariak,
Thank you for inviting the opinions of Nunavummiut on uranium.
I am writing to you as a parent, a physician and as someone who cares deeply about the future of Nunavut. I have not been shy to speak out against nuclear energy and specifically uranium mining. Part of my professional role as a doctor is to advocate for the health and well being of the people I care for, and it is definitely my job as a
parent to do this.
While I do understand fully how important it is for us to build job opportunities and revenue, there are few legal industries that are so deeply unethical that I feel Nunavut should never consider getting involved with them and they are uranium, military arms, and the tobacco industry.
As a member of Physicians for Global Survival (the Canadian chapter of the Nobel prize winning group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), being wary of nuclear energy in all it forms comes easily to me. At the PGS website (www.pgs.ca) y you can read about why many physicians are calling for a ban on uranium mining.
The College of Family Physicians of Ontario has called for a ban on uranium mining as has CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment). The provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia have a permanent ban on uranium mining because that is what their voting public has demanded. As you well know, Greenland maintains its ‘No Uranium stand’ while other parts of Inuit Nunaat have current moratoriums or are struggling with the issue.
The current map of Uranium mines in Saskatchewan matches fairly closely with rural Aboriginal communities, who like Nunavut communities were looking for ways to foster economic independence.
But why is it okay for such a toxic industry to be accepted on Aboriginal land, when the Canadian mainstream in BC and Nova Scotia and everywhere else in the country have said ‘no way, not on our land’?
Is uranium safe for human health? As defenders of the industry with their glossy brochures will also demonstrate, one can find a study to support any argument. A study in India called the “Jadugoda Uranium Study” found statistically significant increases in the rates of birth defects, cancer deaths and premature deaths near the uranium mine.
The isotopes in the tailings of any uranium mine developed in Nunavut could well add to our already high rates of cancer. Can we say it will definitely cause more cancer deaths? No. But one of the guiding ethical principles in medicine is : first, do no harm. It is a precautionary approach that should be taken with all forms of development in Nunavut.
It is not possible to prove that uranium is safe for the environment, and it is not possible to prove that uranium mining, or nuclear power generation are safe for human health.
Just look to Fukushima. A Japanese physician friend of mine in Tokyo wrote me this week, from his country which is reeling after the tsunami from the additional unfolding nuclear disaster, and finished his email with “I hope you do not have nuclear power in your city”.
There is also NO WAY to be sure that plutonium, one of the breakdown products of uranium, will not be diverted for illegal means and used to develop nuclear weapons. It is true that there are huge poorly safeguarded stores of plutonium in Russia but just because Canadian plutonium (from uranium) is less likely to be stolen or sold illegally, does not mean it could not happen.
It is important to think about the motivations of the groups being given a voice at the Nunavut uranium consultations (and the funding behind them). If you are a mining company or lobby group, the motivation is money (= uranium mining IS safe). If you are a physician, your motivation is health (= uranium mining IS NOT safe).
I hope that you are hearing from many Nunavummiut on this important issue. For many who are struggling with literacy, keeping their children safe and fed, and many other challenges, being able to take the time to become informed and voice opinions about uranium is neither possible nor a priority. It is up to you and other elected officials to make decisions in the best interest of future generations. It is an incredible opportunity to speak truth to power, and there is no doubt that your government will be remembered for the decision that is made.
Please, say no to uranium in Nunavut.
Madeleine Cole
Iqaluit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/03/18/
nunavut-uranium-iqaluit-forum.html
Inuit attack Nunavut Tunngavik for supporting development
CBC website, March 18, 2011
- - - -
QUOTE: The Nunavut government is holding another public forum in Baker Lake on March 30 and 31. It will then go to Cambridge Bay on April 12 and 13.
Those who cannot attend the meetings in person can also send in comments online, or by email, phone, fax or postal mail.”
- - - - -
Many Nunavummiut who attended a uranium forum Thursday night said they do not want uranium mining in Nunavut, while some even attacked the territory's Inuit group for supporting uranium development.
More than 120 people in Iqaluit came out to the public forum, which was organized by the Nunavut government as it works on developing its own policy on uranium mining in the territory.
After hearing presentations from eight panellists on the topic, most of those who came up to the microphone made it clear that they want nothing to do with uranium mining.
"For me, there's about four industries that we should never go into, and they're asbestos, uranium, the tobacco industry, and building of weapons," said Madeleine Cole, a family doctor in the city.
The territorial government wants to establish its own position on uranium amid growing interest in Nunavut from mining and exploration companies.
NTI BLASTED FOR OWNING SHARES
Areva Resources Canada wants to build a uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, 85 kilometres west of Baker Lake in Nunavut's Kivalliq region. The company's proposal is currently in the regulatory process.
Some at Thursday's forum berated Nunavut Tunngavik (NTI), the territory's Inuit land-claim organization, for supporting uranium mining and having shares in two companies that are exploring for the heavy metal.
"I did not agree as a beneficiary, as a trust member, to own shares in a uranium company," Iqaluit resident Susan Enuaraq, an Inuit land-claim beneficiary, said during the forum.
Keith Morrison, a senior advisor with Nunavut Tunngavik, told the audience that the organization received shares in exchange for issuing exploration agreements to those companies. No money was paid out for those shares, he added.
Sandra Inutiq, a spokesperson for the advocacy group Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit, accused Nunavut Tunngavik of denying its pro-uranium stance and pretending to give out balanced information on the topic.
"The spirit and intent of the land-claim agreement is not being fulfilled," Inutiq said. "We expected, as Inuit, that we would participate in decision-making."
GROUP WANTS PLEBISCITE
Nunavut Tunngavik president Cathy Towtongie recently said she wants to review her organization's uranium mining policy, which since 2007 has supported uranium projects in Nunavut as long as they are environmentally and socially responsible.
Inutiq said her group wants a Nunavut-wide plebiscite so Inuit land-claim beneficiaries can vote on whether the group should support uranium mining.
But Nunavut Conservative Senator Dennis Patterson said a plebiscite would not respect the land claim, particularly for Areva's Kiggavik proposal.
"It would probably not be in good faith for NTI to change the rules for a project that has already begun," Patterson said.
MORE:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/03/18/
nunavut-uranium-iqaluit-forum.html
= = = = = =
An open letter from an Iqaluit physician about Uranium Mining in Nunmavut
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:33 AM
Government of Nunavut
Uranium Consultation
March 15, 2011
Dear Premier Aariak,
Thank you for inviting the opinions of Nunavummiut on uranium.
I am writing to you as a parent, a physician and as someone who cares deeply about the future of Nunavut. I have not been shy to speak out against nuclear energy and specifically uranium mining. Part of my professional role as a doctor is to advocate for the health and well being of the people I care for, and it is definitely my job as a
parent to do this.
While I do understand fully how important it is for us to build job opportunities and revenue, there are few legal industries that are so deeply unethical that I feel Nunavut should never consider getting involved with them and they are uranium, military arms, and the tobacco industry.
As a member of Physicians for Global Survival (the Canadian chapter of the Nobel prize winning group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), being wary of nuclear energy in all it forms comes easily to me. At the PGS website (www.pgs.ca) y you can read about why many physicians are calling for a ban on uranium mining.
The College of Family Physicians of Ontario has called for a ban on uranium mining as has CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment). The provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia have a permanent ban on uranium mining because that is what their voting public has demanded. As you well know, Greenland maintains its ‘No Uranium stand’ while other parts of Inuit Nunaat have current moratoriums or are struggling with the issue.
The current map of Uranium mines in Saskatchewan matches fairly closely with rural Aboriginal communities, who like Nunavut communities were looking for ways to foster economic independence.
But why is it okay for such a toxic industry to be accepted on Aboriginal land, when the Canadian mainstream in BC and Nova Scotia and everywhere else in the country have said ‘no way, not on our land’?
Is uranium safe for human health? As defenders of the industry with their glossy brochures will also demonstrate, one can find a study to support any argument. A study in India called the “Jadugoda Uranium Study” found statistically significant increases in the rates of birth defects, cancer deaths and premature deaths near the uranium mine.
The isotopes in the tailings of any uranium mine developed in Nunavut could well add to our already high rates of cancer. Can we say it will definitely cause more cancer deaths? No. But one of the guiding ethical principles in medicine is : first, do no harm. It is a precautionary approach that should be taken with all forms of development in Nunavut.
It is not possible to prove that uranium is safe for the environment, and it is not possible to prove that uranium mining, or nuclear power generation are safe for human health.
Just look to Fukushima. A Japanese physician friend of mine in Tokyo wrote me this week, from his country which is reeling after the tsunami from the additional unfolding nuclear disaster, and finished his email with “I hope you do not have nuclear power in your city”.
There is also NO WAY to be sure that plutonium, one of the breakdown products of uranium, will not be diverted for illegal means and used to develop nuclear weapons. It is true that there are huge poorly safeguarded stores of plutonium in Russia but just because Canadian plutonium (from uranium) is less likely to be stolen or sold illegally, does not mean it could not happen.
It is important to think about the motivations of the groups being given a voice at the Nunavut uranium consultations (and the funding behind them). If you are a mining company or lobby group, the motivation is money (= uranium mining IS safe). If you are a physician, your motivation is health (= uranium mining IS NOT safe).
I hope that you are hearing from many Nunavummiut on this important issue. For many who are struggling with literacy, keeping their children safe and fed, and many other challenges, being able to take the time to become informed and voice opinions about uranium is neither possible nor a priority. It is up to you and other elected officials to make decisions in the best interest of future generations. It is an incredible opportunity to speak truth to power, and there is no doubt that your government will be remembered for the decision that is made.
Please, say no to uranium in Nunavut.
Madeleine Cole
Iqaluit