Future storms may contain radioactive dust, if mine proposal goes ahead—Environmentalist
An Australian documentary maker says that future dust storms in the country may contain radioactive materials, if the mining company BHP Billiton’s proposal to turn a uranium mine into an open-cut mine goes ahead.
David Bradbury, a renowned filmmaker and environmental activist, who has made four documentaries on nuclear issues, says an environmental impact study suggest that about 70 million tons of radioactive tailing would be deposited at South Australia’s Olympic Dam uranium mine grounds each year.
The tailings are contaminated with alpha radiation, he says, which is proven to be carcinogenic to all animals, including humans.
“My grave concern is that with the open-cut mine expansion that BHP Billiton wants permission from state and federal governments to go ahead with, that the radioactive tailings left behind will blow over the eastern coast centres of the most populated cities of Australia,” he said.
Bradbury concerns came amid last Wednesday worst ever dust storm in the Sydney and Brisbane areas as red dust blown in from the outback shrouded the region, causing problems for people, especially those with asthma, and others with heart and lung conditions.
“[Since] the dust storms… originated from Woomera, and which is right next door to the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs, these [storms] could blow those tailings across the face of Australia,” said Bradbury.
However, Australian scientists are playing down fears, assuring the public that there is nothing to worry about [sic.]
Barry Noller an Associate Professor from the University of Queensland, whose research projects include Risk Assessment of Mined Land, was quoted as saying that most of the particles from the uranium mines in the outback are simply too heavy to be carried by the wind over long distances.
“In a big dust storm, the dust is not going to come from one isolated site, it is going to be mixed in with dust from a [wide] area and diluted considerably,” said Noller.
FEWW Comments:
Come again? What if the storms were stronger and blew more sand more frequently, say, twice more, perhaps five times, or ten time as much every year? The recent atmospheric trends and new patterns set by climate change certainly suggest such extreme scenarios as highly probable!
That’s the most ridiculous comment an Associate Professor could possibly make, even one from the University of Queensland, without quantifying the extent of the problem. The stronger the storms the more dust they carry over populated areas, and with it goes more of the heavier particles.
Here’s what the Aussies, even their corporate media, should demand to know:
How much stronger must the storms be, and how frequently must they below before they pose, (i) some risk, (ii) significant risk to the public health, threatening human and animal well being?
Should this professor make similarly stupid, biased and unqualified remarks again, the Moderators will have to investigate his role and function as a government scientist with regulatory bias.
Related Links:
Additional Related Links:
Fire Earth 