Australian uranium and China (1 Viewer)

[Frogurt]

Does it matter how it compares to other communities? The fact still remains and you haven't shown otherwise, that as a result of the uranium mines and the royalties paid to the local Aboriginal population, alcohol and other substance abuse became prominent amongst a significant portion of the community.

well actually it does matter, you've made the assertion that as a result of mining people are abusing substances if you look at this study:

http://www.ruralhealth.org.au/nrhapublic/publicdocs/conferences/8thNRHC/Papers/KN_gray,%20dennis.pdf

and go to page 6 you see a the demographics, the most substance abuse occurs within WA and SA. not NT. i would therefore argue that substance abuse within Kakadu may well be more complex than simple mining.

Maybe they did maybe they didn't, it matters not. I can just as easily put forward a strong argument against nuclear power. The Greenpeace website, along with a report by numerous organisations inc. Greenpeace and the Public Health Association strongly oppose nuclear power.

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/solutions/nuclear.html
http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm

However, nuclear power is not the issue here, it is uranium mining and i still fail to see, apart from income, the benefits to Australia if we increase our uranium exports.

given that the primary purpose of Australian uranium exportation or otherwise is nuclear power then i would argue that it is relevant. benefits include substantially reducing coal emmissions and i for one would argue in favour of nuclear power here in Australia (a benefit would be we would be closer to the 'precious' Kyoto quota's without having actually ratified the thing) if the benefits outweigh the risks then you've successfully completed a risk-benefit assessment

OK, huge misunderstanding here, i was seeing Howard as a representative of the national interest i.e. he wasnt doing it for personal profit but for national profit. Thus, yes, no crime has been committed. I apologise for any confusion.

ah, no worries.

I think in this case we can make a fairly well informed assumption based upon the overwhelming evidence.

what evidence though? we've only seen what the media has shown us do you believe Murdoch News? or Fairfax? or any other number of media sources? i'm skeptical unless i have access to the documents themselves, i'll read them and find them interesting but the information has a slant and hsould be taken with a grain of salt.

i'm reserving judgement until the enquiry is released to the public. until then i'm giving benefit of the doubt, assumptions are dangerous things to make informed or otherwise, that missing piece could make all the difference.

 

[The Brucemaster]

well actually it does matter, you've made the assertion that as a result of mining people are abusing substances if you look at this study:

http://www.ruralhealth.org.au/nrhapublic/publicdocs/conferences/8thNRHC/Papers/KN_gray,%20dennis.pdf

and go to page 6 you see a the demographics, the most substance abuse occurs within WA and SA. not NT. i would therefore argue that substance abuse within Kakadu may well be more complex than simple mining.

I think you have misinterpreted that graph, my friend, it refers to ATSIC expenditure on drug misuse intervention programs and not to actual figures on alcohol abuse.

given that the primary purpose of Australian uranium exportation or otherwise is nuclear power then i would argue that it is relevant. benefits include substantially reducing coal emmissions and i for one would argue in favour of nuclear power here in Australia (a benefit would be we would be closer to the 'precious' Kyoto quota's without having actually ratified the thing) if the benefits outweigh the risks then you've successfully completed a risk-benefit assessment

Yes, i agree nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and is, as far as i can see, environmentally beneficial. However, the issue i am concerned about is the environmental impact of raw uranium mining on the environment.

what evidence though? we've only seen what the media has shown us do you believe Murdoch News? or Fairfax? or any other number of media sources? i'm skeptical unless i have access to the documents themselves, i'll read them and find them interesting but the information has a slant and hsould be taken with a grain of salt.

i'm reserving judgement until the enquiry is released to the public. until then i'm giving benefit of the doubt, assumptions are dangerous things to make informed or otherwise, that missing piece could make all the difference.

True enough, but i tend to think that the media has presented us with a large body of evidence and im willing to draw a conclusion from that. That's just me though.

 

[loquasagacious]

Yes, i agree nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and is, as far as i can see, environmentally beneficial. However, the issue i am concerned about is the environmental impact of raw uranium mining on the environment.

What about the environmental impact of coal mining, or perhaps that you need to dig up a hell of alot more coal to make the same power as uranium???

 

[Frogurt]

I think you have misinterpreted that graph, my friend, it refers to ATSIC expenditure on drug misuse intervention programs and not to actual figures on alcohol abuse.

i think you missunderstood what i was getting at, my point was, if that is where the most money is being spent on prevention then clearly the problem exists beyond the scope of Uranium Mining, furthermore if Uranium Mining was the root cause of the problem then arguably more money would be spent there than anywhere else in preventative measures yet the graphs show that the bulk of expenditure isn't even within the same State.

Yes, i agree nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and is, as far as i can see, environmentally beneficial. However, the issue i am concerned about is the environmental impact of raw uranium mining on the environment.

as Loq said the environmental fall out of Coal Mining is greater than that of Uranium, that's not to say that there aren't risks, of course there are, but the benefits outweigh the risks both environmentally and economically.

True enough, but i tend to think that the media has presented us with a large body of evidence and im willing to draw a conclusion from that. That's just me though.

we will have to agree to disagree on this point then, at least until the enquiry has concluded and released the documents. then this point may resume if you wish.

 

[HotShot]

What about the environmental impact of coal mining, or perhaps that you need to dig up a hell of alot more coal to make the same power as uranium???

and there is no impact of uraniuum, uranium tend to have more lasting effects and thus potential more dangerous. as for simple sulfur oxides, and carbon oxides, they are used to them.

miners get paid heaps? damn i wanaa be miner - 300k per year?

 

[loquasagacious]

Oh and as a fun side note coal power plants release MORE radioactive material than nuclear ones (in the form of radioactive trace elements in the coal which emerge as soot).

 

[HotShot]

Oh and as a fun side note coal power plants release MORE radioactive material than nuclear ones (in the form of radioactive trace elements in the coal which emerge as soot).

wat they release alpha rays - woo scary...

 

[loquasagacious]

Trace radioatctive elements are found in coal eg miniscule ammounts of uranium, huge piles of coal is burnt, the uranium does not burn and is expelled in the form of soot.

The concentration in the coal is very small but the sheer volume of coal means a fair ammount of uranium...

 

[HotShot]

Trace radioatctive elements are found in coal eg miniscule ammounts of uranium, huge piles of coal is burnt, the uranium does not burn and is expelled in the form of soot.

The concentration in the coal is very small but the sheer volume of coal means a fair ammount of uranium...

and....

u want mine uranium from the soot? its possible but not worth it.

 

[loquasagacious]

No as you say its not worth it I was merely pointing out as an interesting aside that day to day a coal fired plant releases more radioactive material than a nuclear one.

 

[HotShot]

No as you say its not worth it I was merely pointing out as an interesting aside that day to day a coal fired plant releases more radioactive material than a nuclear one.

will that lead to mutation in the future> then will be become like the x-men?

 

[loquasagacious]

We've been burning coal for a long time with no sign of x-men so I'm prepared to say no it won't happen.

 

[HotShot]

We've been burning coal for a long time with no sign of x-men so I'm prepared to say no it won't happen.

hm....
mutation is gud?

 

[The Brucemaster]

hm....
mutation is gud?

Yes thank you HotShot for your intelligent contribution.

However, on the matter of uranium from coal I wasnt aware of that at all. Where did you get your information from as i cant be bothered trawling Google to verify it?
So much for that, it seems all my major concerns have been allayed now, as long as the mine wasn't placed on Aboriginal land.

 

[loquasagacious]

The first place I came across it was a Dr Karl book, which is basically a thought experiment eg oversimplified we take what we know:
*Uranium in coal
*We burn coal
*Uranium does not burn

Therefore uranium is released into the atmosphere so on and so forth.

Its such a non-issue that it has never cropped up as a concern in the industry itself (my father is a mechanical engineer whose specialty area is power plants).

 

[melb22]

wat the npt states is that only 5 weapons country - usa, china, russia, france and uk can have nuclear weapons and no one else and the member nations cannot exchange the nuclear weapons knowledge to other countries. When this treaty was actually signed india did not have nuclear weapons yet. So it refused to sign the treaty since they had plans for a nuclear weapons program and did not want to break the treaty by signing it first and then acquiring nuclear weapons.

Since then china has already given the technology to pakistan, which has then give some of the technology to nth korea and iran. So actually india has never received or given the technology to any other country which is not the case for china and pakistan.

The reason for the historic shift of USA towards india are- China is growing fast economically and militarily. By 2040 china's economy in terms of total gdp would surpass that of united states and militarily china would be strong enough to have real global clout. So usa needs a counter weight which would be india and hence they are helping india to meet it's future energy needs which will help india grow faster and creat freindly relations with india, which historically have not been the case since usa was close to pakistan and india having closer ties with russia.

According to Goldman and sachs and other economist, india will be the third largest economy by 2040 in terms of total GDP(it is already the 3rd largest if u take purchasing power parity), and will become bigger then usa in year 2060 in terms of total GDP.

world is right now unipolar with usa the sole superpower. By 2040 world would be bipolor, the two large economies being china and usa. By 2060 it will become tripolar with the emergence of india.

 

[HotShot]

wat the npt states is that only 5 weapons country - usa, china, russia, france and uk can have nuclear weapons and no one else and the member nations cannot exchange the nuclear weapons knowledge to other countries. When this treaty was actually signed india did not have nuclear weapons yet. So it refused to sign the treaty since they had plans for a nuclear weapons program and did not want to break the treaty by signing it first and then acquiring nuclear weapons.

Since then china has already given the technology to pakistan, which has then give some of the technology to nth korea and iran. So actually india has never received or given the technology to any other country which is not the case for china and pakistan.

The reason for the historic shift of USA towards india are- China is growing fast economically and militarily. By 2040 china's economy in terms of total gdp would surpass that of united states and militarily china would be strong enough to have real global clout. So usa needs a counter weight which would be india and hence they are helping india to meet it's future energy needs which will help india grow faster and creat freindly relations with india, which historically have not been the case since usa was close to pakistan and india having closer ties with russia.

According to Goldman and sachs and other economist, india will be the third largest economy by 2040 in terms of total GDP(it is already the 3rd largest if u take purchasing power parity), and will become bigger then usa in year 2060 in terms of total GDP.

world is right now unipolar with usa the sole superpower. By 2040 world would be bipolor, the two large economies being china and usa. By 2060 it will become tripolar with the emergence of india.

i think u got that all wrong, the main purpose of the npt was to:
-get all countries who currently have nuclear weapons, to dispose them and stop production.
-other countries should not develop produce nuclear weapons, essentially all countries should have any nukes.

2060- is along long long time. it is difficult to make such grand predictions, consdiering scientists saying australia will be flooded by 2020 because of global warming...