‘Governments and Corporations Were Figuring Out a Way to Behave With Impunity When It Comes to Oil’ - CounterSpin interview with Sandy Cioffi on oil in Nigeria view post on FAIR.org FAIR’s Steve Rendall interviewed Sandy Cioffi about oil in Nigeria for the June 25, 2010, episode of CounterSpin—an interview that was reaired for the June 14, 2019, show. This is a lightly edited transcript. MP3 Link Guardian (6/12/19) Janine Jackson: A recent report in the Guardian, based on internal documents from the Mobil Foundation—the philanthropic arm of Mobil Oil Company—shows how the foundation named a certain Dr. David Page in its decision to fund a marine research lab at Bowdoin College, writing that it could “assure rapid response to any possible Mobil spill events.” Five years later, after a Mobil “spill event” in Nigeria, Dr. David Page was being quoted in the New York Times—identified as a professor and “American oil spill expert.” Page offered such pearls as: Between Mother Nature and Mobil’s highly effective and targeted response, the shoreline was spared what could have been a very serious environmental event. Foundation documents stress the benefits of such funding, one of which is to create a “counterpoint to the so-called ‘public interest groups.’” Oil companies in Nigeria are also hoping to “counter” people like filmmaker Sandy Cioffi. Cioffi went to Nigeria to make a documentary about a community library, but came away with Sweet Crude, a hard-hitting look at industry-incurred devastation and violence in the Delta. Nine years ago this month, CounterSpin‘s Steve Rendall spoke with Sandy Cioffi. He asked first for her reaction to the then-ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Image from the film Sweet Crude. Sandy Cioffi: Obviously, my first reaction, like anyone, is emotional. And the emotions run deep for me, because part of my motivation in making the film Sweet Crude was to point out to people that when you see a place like the Niger Delta, it’s not only a current crisis, but it’s also a cautionary tale. I had hoped that my film, along with all the other activism going on around the world, might help to avert a disaster of this kind, not just in the Gulf, but in all of the places around the world. But those disasters are happening and imminent. It’s devastating, is the really simple answer. There are some similarities. And I think those are important to note, particularly one that doesn’t get all that much ink, which is the use of these chemical dispersants as a way of dealing with oil spills. The testing ground for those chemicals, for all these years, has been the Niger Delta. One of the chief complaints of the women who, somewhat famously, in 2002 and 2003 took over oil platforms in the Niger Delta, one of their chief complaints was the devastating health effects of those chemical dispersants on their children, and demanding that oil companies no longer use those as a way to pretend “cleaning up” an oil spill. I think people don’t know that when you hear about something like the chemicals dispersants, you somehow think, this is the first time that they’re being tried. And thinking about the Niger Delta as a sort of terrible and demonic testing ground is a better way to put it. That’s one similarity. Another, of course, is just to see the immediate impact to wildlife. The long-term consequences of those kinds of oil spills aren’t something—you know, I hear biologists being interviewed to say we don’t know those answers—well, we know some of those answers, because they’re sitting right there in Nigeria, unbeknownst to most people. There are, of course, also corporate lack-of-any-kind-of-preparation similarities, lack-of-any-kind-of-government-regulation similarities. I think the distinction is simply that, if it’s in Africa, you don’t hear about it at all. And it’s been aptly pointed out, at least somewhat in the last few weeks, that the media coverage about the Gulf spill is at least happening, and at least you’re seeing some images of the Niger Delta, and oil spills. And the other devastating environmental impacts just aren’t in your head. But it’s like being in Mad Max when you’re there. It’s some strange sort of trip into the future when you’re there. And I just would like to say that I get a little concerned about doing too much pitting one place against another, and saying, “Well, they got no coverage, we get coverage.” That’s part of the story. It’s an important part of the story. But I think if we really go to the next point, it was always a place that governments and corporations together were figuring out a way, under the radar, to behave with impunity when it comes to oil. It’s a terrible continuum all over the world. And there’s far more that the countries who are facing that, including the US, have in common, than they have differences. And I think that the organizations that are finally bringing 40 nations together to look at, whether you live in an oil-run state or state-run oil, you’re facing some of the same kinds of consequences. Steve Rendall: We think of the US regulatory system as being weak, or even in the tank for the oil companies. Is it fair to say that the Nigeria story shows us what oil companies will do with virtually no restraints when they can pretty much do as they please, with government support? SC: It’s more than fair, it’s a perfect way to look at it. And that’s what I mean by continuum. I mean, if you look at the most abusive days of the Nigerian situation, you have full-on, flat-out military dictators, both supported by American foreign policy and supported by oil companies. You have Chevron and Shell guilty of actually arming young men against each other in a sort of pit-enemies-against-one-another strategy to keep chaos, and prices of oil fluctuating. You, in fact, had two fairly famous cases, in the last two years, of people actually being able to sue Chevron and Shell in American courts for their participation in what were very violent situations in the Niger Delta. So you can take the Niger Delta as an extreme, and unfortunately classic, situation of a full-on kleptocracy, of an oligarchy that is completely in place as an oil state. And then if you look on another end of the spectrum — some people would say Norway, although that’s not all a bed of roses, either — but if you look at that entire continuum of how to deal with oil, the United States might be somewhere in the middle, but it’s certainly, at this point, an oil-run state. SR: Among your experiences in Nigeria, you had occasion to see how ABC’s Brian Ross tried to cover the Nigerian opposition movement. Ross wasn’t exactly focused on the predations of big oil, or the environmental and safety threats, or a peaceful resolution to the conflict over these issues. Tell us a little bit about what you think that says about US coverage of Nigeria, and perhaps Africa at large. Sandy Cioffi: “It’s an actual strategy among oil companies…that if you can fearmonger enough, you can get a public that says, “Fine, even though the safety measures are not in place, we’ll drill 10 miles in the ocean if you don’t go to foreign oil.” (image: PBS) SC: At its most benign, African coverage is nonexistent. At its most problematic, the coverage is either about a group of people who are victims, huddled by the side of the road waiting for aid, or brutal people who just don’t value life, and are at each other’s throats and brewing terrorism. ABC News’ report chose the latter characterization, of an armed movement that has grown out of decades of unarmed resistance, which met with virtually a silent world paying no attention to them. And their decision in 2006, to begin to kidnap oil workers, guess what? It yielded media coverage. So they were reinforced in the notion that if they pick up arms, they’re going to see CNN and ABC. Unfortunately, on CNN and ABC, particularly ABC, what they saw was classic, sensationalist, just incendiary reports of young men with guns. And they used as their sources an unnamed email address, rather than an unmasked interview that I delivered for them, while working as a freelance person for them; they left it on the cutting room floor. It’s probably true that there could be an explanation about the ways in which they have not enough time and not enough research associates, but there’s something more important at play. The idea that you fearmonger as a way to get viewers, and you speak about the “new African terror threat.” And you imply a relationship to Al Qaeda, which a pesky detail of fact is that the young men of the Niger Delta would never be in association with Al Qaeda, because they’re deeply Christian and quite anti-Muslim, which is, in and of itself, a concern for people in Nigeria. But aside from that fact, there’s plenty of evidence and sources to prove that they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. But he went to air with a story that implied there might be an association of coordinated attacks. And to my mind, the connection of that, and what happened in the Gulf, is that part of that fearmongering has led to deeper and deeper ocean exploration for oil. It’s an actual strategy among oil companies, and all of the geopolitical considerations, that if you can fearmonger enough, you can get a public that says, “Fine, even though the safety measures are not in place, we’ll drill 10 miles in the ocean if you don’t go to foreign oil,” because we keep saying “foreign oil,” “foreign oil” in this way, that’s all about a level of racism and fearmongering, rather than looking at the question of our relationship with oil in general. Janine Jackson: That was filmmaker Sandy Cioffi speaking with CounterSpin in June of 2010 . You can learn more about the film Sweet Crude at her website, SandyCioffi.com.

FAIR/Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York NY 10001
USA

Global Warming: Ya got SNOOKERED! [RSN] It wasn’t just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet.

Almost All Major Oil Companies Have Known About Global Warming Since the 1970s 
Lauren McCauley, Common Dreams 
McCauley writes: "It wasn't just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet. New investigative reporting by Neela Banerjee with Inside Climate News revealed on Tuesday that scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company may have for decades known about the impacts of carbon emissions on the climate." 
READ MORE


Between 1979 and 1983, the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's most powerful lobby group, ran a task force for fossil fuel companies to 'monitor and share climate research.' (photo: Felipe Sasso/Albert Mock/Mike Mozart/Kristian Bjonard)

t wasn’t just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet.

New investigative reporting by Neela Banerjee with Inside Climate News revealed on Tuesday that scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company may have for decades known about the impacts of carbon emissions on the climate.

Between 1979 and 1983, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry’s most powerful lobby group, ran a task force for fossil fuel companies to “monitor and share climate research,” according to internal documents obtained by Inside Climate News.

According to the reporting:

Like Exxon, the companies also expressed a willingness to understand the links between their product, greater CO2 concentrations and the climate, the papers reveal. Some corporations ran their own research units as well, although they were smaller and less ambitious than Exxon’s and focused on climate modeling, said James J. Nelson, the former director of the task force.

“It was a fact-finding task force,” Nelson said in an interview. “We wanted to look at emerging science, the implications of it and where improvements could be made, if possible, to reduce emissions.”

The “CO2 and Climate Task Force,” which changed in 1980 its name to the “Climate and Energy Task Force,” included researchers from Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco and Sohio, among others.

One memo by an Exxon task force representative pointed to 1979 “background paper on CO2,” which “predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt,” noting that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily.

And at a February 1980 meeting in New York, the task force invited Professor John A. Laurmann of Stanford University to brief members about climate science.

“In his conclusions section, Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with ‘major economic consequences,'” Banerjee reports. He then told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with ‘globally catastrophic effects,'” Banerjee reports.

The documents show that API members, at one point, considered an alternative path in the face of these dire predictions:

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered “for consideration” the idea that “an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980.

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a “potential area” for research and development that called for it to “‘Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements.”

“Yet,” Banerjee notes, “by the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change.”

The lobby group teamed up with Exxon and others to form the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which successfully lobbied the U.S. to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

The damning revelations are the latest in an ongoing investigation into what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and then suppressed for decades—all while continuing to profit from the planet’s destruction.

Reports that Exxon, specifically, lied about climate change were published early October in the Los Angeles Times, mirroring a separate but similar investigation by Inside Climate News in September. Those findings set off a storm of outrage, including a probe by the New York Attorney General.

Nelson, a former head of the API task force, told Banerjee that with the growing powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1980’s, API decided to shift gears.

“They took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, which was primarily lobbyists,” he said. “They weren’t focused on doing research or on improving the oil industry’s impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in how to make it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry. That’s not meant as a criticism. It’s just a fact of life.”

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/34261-almost-all-major-oil-companies-have-known-about-global-warming-since-the-1970s

The Secret Fukushima Poisoning The Bread Basket Of The World

Although the catastrophe explained below has been publicized elsewhere and largely ignored, this is the legacy of the Nuclear Industry.....invisible, concealed by the Nuclear Industry.

The Secret Fukushima Poisoning The Bread Basket Of The World

By Margaret Flowers & Kevin Zeese

09 June, 2013
Truth-Out

Early in the morning of July 16, 1979, a 20-foot section of the earthen dam blocking the waste pool for the Church Rock Uranium Mill caved in and released 95 million gallons of highly acidic fluid containing 1,100 tons of radioactive material. The fluid and waste flowed into the nearby Puerco River, traveling 80 miles downstream, leaving toxic puddles and backing up local sewers along the way.

Although this release of radiation, thought to be the largest in US history, occurred less than four months after the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown that sent radioactive gases and iodine into the air, the Church Rock spill received little media attention. In contrast, the Three Mile Island accident made the headlines. And when the residents of Church Rock asked their governor to declare their community a disaster area so they could get recovery assistance, he refused.

What was the difference between the Church Rock spill and the Three Mile Island partial meltdown? Church Rock is situated in the Navajo Nation, one of the areas in the US sacrificed to supply uranium for the Cold War and for nuclear power plants. That area and many others in the Navajo Nation are contaminated to this day. Another sacrifice area is the Great Sioux Nation where thousands of open uranium mine pits continue to release radiation and heavy metals into the air, land and water.

This poisoning of the people in the Navajo and Great Sioux Nations has been going on for decades and has had serious effects on their health. Even today, it is unknown what the full effects are and what the impact is on the rest of the nation because the contaminated air and water are not limited by borders. Most Americans are unaware of the story of uranium mining on tribal lands because it is a difficult story to accept. It is a story that includes the long history of human rights abuses by the US against native Indians and recognition of the full costs of nuclear energy – two stories the government and big energy have suppressed.

Many people think of nuclear power as a clean source of energy. It has been promoted as part of the transition from fossil fuels. But the reality is that nuclear power comes at a heavy price to the health of people and the planet. Like other forms of extractive energy such as coal, oil and gas, uranium needs to stay in the ground. Radiation and heavy metal poisonings are a hidden environmental catastrophe that is ongoing and must be addressed. But rather than studying the health effects and cleaning up the environment, private corporations are pushing once again to lift the ban on uranium mining.

Is Uranium Mining Poisoning the Bread Basket of America?

Thousands of open uranium mines excavated beginning in the 1950s continues to release radiation today. There have been inadequate measurements but the limited measures done show ongoing leaks larger than Fukushima. How did we get here?

It is estimated that 60 to 80 percent of uranium in the US is located on tribal land, particularly in the lands of the Navajo and Great Sioux Nations. After WWII, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created so that the US could obtain uranium for weapons production domestically. The AEC guaranteed that it would purchase all uranium that was mined. A uranium boom ensued. Private corporations jumped in and, in areas of South Dakota, individuals started mining for uranium on their private lands unaware of the dangers.

Private corporations set up thousands of underground and open pit uranium mines on tribal lands and hired local native Indians at low wages . Other than jobs, the uranium mines brought little benefit to these nations because the lands were given to non-Indian companies such as Kerr-McGee, Atlantic Richfield, Exxon and Mobil. Native Indians had little control over what took place.

Two Acts in the 19 th century took the rights of self-determination away from the native population. The Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 allocated money to move Indians onto reservations, ostensibly to protect them from white settlers, but more likely to give settlers access to natural resources. The reservations are also known as prisoner of war camps. In fact, the reservation in Pine Ridge, SD is registered as POW Camp 344 .

A second Indian Appropriations Act in 1871 changed the legal status of native Indians to wards of the Federal government, stripping them of recognition as sovereign nations and the right to make treaties.

 

In order to make contracts for uranium mining on tribal lands, the Bureau of Indian Affairs created Tribal Councils to conduct negotiations. But the resulting contracts were not made in the best interests of the tribes.

The native Indians who worked in these mines were not protected from exposure to radiation, nor were they adequately warned about the dangers. Though it was clear that radiation exposure was linked to cancer in the early 1950s, around the same time that the US Public Health Service also started studying the health of uranium miners, it was not until 1959 that lung cancer was mentioned as a risk in pamphlets given to the workers. In an unpublished doctoral dissertation, A.B. Hungate writes that the reasons for this are: “The government had two interests. First, it needed a steady supply of domestic uranium, and it felt that warning the workers of the hazards would result in the loss of the workforce. Secondly, it wanted an epidemiological testing program to study the long term health effects of radiation.”

Don Yellowman, president of the Forgotten Navajo People , described the extent of exposure to radiation and toxic metals. Native Indian miners would drink radioactive water that had contained heavy metals, dripping off of the walls deep in the mines. Some of the miners had to travel long distances to the mines, so their families would come with them. Children would play in the area around the mine and family members would prepare and eat meals there. Other reports state that workers, primarily non-whites, were ordered into the mines shortly after explosions were set off to gather up rocks and bring them out for processing. Also, miners would go home at night covered in toxic radioactive dust, exposing their families to health risks.

Uranium mining started in South Dakota on land included in the original treaties with the Great Sioux Nation in the 1960 and 70s. The Sioux were not included in negotiations for the mining and are still refusing to settle with the US government over land in the Black Hills that was mined. During the boom, the land was mined without regard for contamination as “large mining companies [were literally] pushing off the tops of bluffs and buttes.”

A few decades after uranium mining began in the Navajo Nation, increased numbers of cancer cases, lung cancer in particular, began to show up in the miners. A 2008 literature review in New Mexico found that the “Risk of lung cancer among male Navajo uranium miners was 28 times higher than in Navajo men who never mined, and two-thirds of all new lung cancer cases in Navajo men between 1969 and 1993 was attributable to a single exposure — underground uranium mining. Through 1990, death rates among Navajo uranium miners were 3.3 times greater than the U.S. average for lung cancer and 2.5 times greater for pneumoconioses and silicosis.”

Though the health effects of radiation exposure were known, it took decades before steps were taken to protect workers. The mines were operated under lax laws established in the 1872 Mining Act. Health and safety regulation of the mines, such as requirements for ventilation, was not passed in Congress until the late 1960s. But even once they were law, the regulations were not enforced.

Beginning in the 1970s, miners and their families began to pursue legal solutions through the courts and Congress so they could be compensated for the effects of their radiation exposure. Many court cases failed and native Indians were excluded from hearings in Congress on the miner safety. Finally, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) passed Congress in 1990.

RECA is desperately inadequate and restrictive . Until 2000, RECA only covered miners, not mill workers, and it does not cover families and others who lived near the mines. It also requires a very strict application process which is impossible for some to complete. A summary of RECA by academics Brugge and Goble states: ” We believe that it is not possible to simultaneously apologize, set highly stringent criteria, and place the burden of proof on the victims, as did the 1990 RECA.”

Uranium Mine Pits Continue to Leak Radiation Today

Radiation and heavy metals from uranium mines continue to pollute the land, air and water today and very little action is being taken to stop it.

In the upper great plain states of Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, there are 2,885 abandoned uranium mines that are all open pits within territory that is supposed to be for the absolute use of the Great Sioux Nation under the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty with the US. These open mines continue to emit radiation and pollutants that are poisoning the local communities.

According to a report by Earthworks , “ Mining not only exposes uranium to the atmosphere, where it becomes reactive, but releases other radioac­tive elements such as thorium and radium and toxic heavy metals including arsenic, selenium, mercury and cadmium. Exposure to these radioactive ele­ments can cause lung cancer, skin cancer, bone can­cer, leukemia, kidney damage and birth defects.”

There are currently 1200 abandoned uranium mines in the Navajo Nation and 500 of them require reclamation. The greatest amount of radioactive contamination on Navajo land comes from solid waste called ‘tailings' which sit in large open piles, some as tall as 70 feet high, and were incorporated into materials used to build homes. Dust from these piles of waste blows throughout the land causing widespread contamination.

A 2008 study found that “ mills and tailings disposal sites caused extensive groundwater contamination by radium, uranium, various trace metals and dissolved solids. One estimate is that 1.2 million acre-feet of groundwater (or enough to fill Elephant Butte Reservoir more than twice ) have been contaminated in the Ambrosia Lake-Milan area from historic mine and mill discharges, and less than two tenths of 1 percent has been treated to reduce contaminant levels.” It is estimated that 30 percent of people living in the Navajo Nation lack access to uncontaminated water.

Charmaine White Face of Defenders of the Black Hills describes the situation in the Great Sioux Nation as “ America's Chernobyl .” She says, “A private abandoned, open-pit uranium mine about 200 meters from an elementary school in Ludlow, SD, emits 1170 microRems per hour, more than 4 times as much as being emitted from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. “ In addition, “ Studies by the USFS show that one mine alone has 1,400 millirems per hour (mR/hr) of exposed radiation, a level of radiation that is 120,000 times higher than normal background of 100 millirems per year (mR/yr)!” Cancer rates in Pine Ridge, SD are the highest in the nation.

This contamination escapes into the air which blows to the East and South and seeps into the water, reaching the Cheyenne and Missouri Rivers. It poisons grain grown in these areas that is fed to cattle that provide milk and beef for the rest of the nation. As White Face explains , “In an area of the USA that has been called ‘the Bread Basket of the World,' more than forty years of mining have released radioactive polluted dust and water runoff from the hundreds of abandoned open pit uranium mines, processing sites, underground nuclear power stations, and waste dumps. Our grain supplies and our livestock production in this area have used the water and have been exposed to the remainders of this mining. We may be seeing global affects, not just localized affects, to the years of uranium mining.”

Uranium also contaminates coal that is mined in Wyoming for power plants in the East. Defenders of the Black Hills report that “Radioactive dust and particles are released into the air at the coal fired power plants and often set off the warning systems at nuclear power plants.”

People in the Navajo and Great Sioux Nations have been fighting for decades for the US Government to perform studies on the extent of contamination and to clean up both current contamination and prevent future contamination. As wards of the federal government, the US is responsible for the health and safety of native Indians. The Forgotten Navajo People have put forth a resolution which states “that all people have the inalienable right to clean air, clean water, and the preservation of sacred lands and that immediate action must be taken to Fund the Ongoing need for Remediation of Radioactive Contamination in our Air, Water, and Homelands to ensure our survival and that the named parties will Support the People's Uranium Radiation Activity Data Collection Network.” The resolution also asks that the US uphold the ban on further uranium mines. They have also sought equipment that would allow them to measure radiation on their reservations, as simple request that has not been acted on.

Defenders of the Black Hills have written legislation, the Uranium Exploration and Mining Accountability Act, calling for study and remediation, but according to White Face, no members of Congress are yet willing to sponsor the bill. She explains that state and federal legislators want to hide the fact that this ongoing contamination exists because it will hurt the states economically. Just 40 miles South of Mount Rushmore, there are 169 abandoned open mines. And there are mines in the areas of National Parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. These mines likely contaminate water and air in those areas visited by thousands of tourists.

The Chain of Environmental Damage from Nuclear Energy Begins with Excavation

During the energy crisis of the 1970s, President Nixon called for the US to become more energy independent and to pursue renewable sources of energy through Project Independence 1980. This included increasing the use of nuclear power and resulted in the building of nuclear power plants throughout the nation. Some of those power plants, 23 currently in use, were built using the same flawed plan as Reactor One which failed at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant in Japan. And many of them are reaching their 40 year lifespan and are applying for renewed permits to continue operation.

In addition, because of the reduced availability of fossil fuels and the climate crisis, nuclear power is back on the table as part of President Obama's, who has been well-funded throughout his career by Excelon Energy , “All of the Above” energy strategy. Earthworks reports that “ According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are currently 26 pro­posals to start, expand or restart in situ projects in the states regulated by the commission (Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, New Mexico). Of these, nine will be new operations.”

In situ uranium mining is being promoted as a safer method of extracting uranium. In this type of mining process, deep holes are drilled into the Earth's surface and fluids are injected into them to dissolve the uranium so that it can be collected. This method of mining is certainly less destructive to the surface of the Earth than open pit mining, but the report also states that “Any in situ operation risks spreading ura­nium and its hazardous byproducts outside the mine, potentially contaminating nearby aquifers and drink­ing water sources. This has been a major problem with almost all in situ projects in the U.S.”

Current uranium mines have a history of noncompliance with regulations. There continue to be spills. Mining corporations do not clean up areas that they are required to clean up. They do not pay fines. And they influence local governments to loosen requirements once they receive a mining permit.

In addition to contamination of land, air and water, uranium mining, particularly in situ mining requires large amounts of water. In the current environment with extended droughts and reduced aquifers, in situ mining places greater strain on the water crisis.

Nuclear power is another form of extractive energy that is not only extremely unsafe but is also more expensive than safer forms of energy. Beyond the human and environmental costs, the cost of building new nuclear reactors has quadrupled since 2000 to an average of $13 to 15 billion each. Physicians for Social Responsibility report that “New reactors are estimated to cost homeowners and businesses between 12 cents and 20 cents per kilowatt hour on electric bills—more than cleaner, safer alternatives.”

And the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War passed a resolution in 2010 calling for a ban on all uranium mining worldwide, which states that “As well as the direct health effects from contamination of the water, the immense water consumption in mining regions is environmentally and economically damaging – and in turn detrimental for human health. The extraction of water leads to a reduction of the groundwater table and thereby to desertification; plants and animals die, the traditional subsistence of the inhabitants is eliminated, the existence of whole cultures are threatened.

Expose the Truth and Create a Carbon Free Nuclear Free Energy Economy

Uranium mining in the US and worldwide is a hidden environmental catastrophe that must be exposed. It is not acceptable to ignore the ongoing poisoning of communities, particularly of indigenous communities. Three fourths of all uranium mining worldwide is on indigenous land.

Yellowman speaks of the practice of uranium mining as a form of structural violence. Structural violence occurs when a social structure or institution harms people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. There is no doubt that widespread contamination of the air, land and water from seventy years of uranium mining has violated the basic rights of indigenous peoples to clean air and water and to live healthy lives.

It is not known at present to what extent the ongoing contamination is affecting the health of our nation. Despite the obvious need, there have not been, to date, any comprehensive studies of radiation and heavy metal contamination in the US. Uranium that is ingested by cattle and other livestock through water and feed concentrates in muscle. We do not know how safe our air, water and food are. And it is likely that the government and the nuclear industry do not want us to know.

It is becoming clearer that nuclear power is another dirty extractive source of energy that has high costs to human and environmental health. We must see through the energy industry propaganda and realize that there are clean and safer alternatives that are less costly. beginning with ending the massive energy waste through efficiency and conservation. It is time to move quickly to a carbon and nuclear free energy economy .

The first step is the ending the secret Fukushima, providing testing equipment to Native Indians, and conducting studies on the effects of radiation and other toxins on the soil, air and water in the Mid-West. Then, it is time to move quickly to a carbon and nuclear free energy economy beginning with ending the massive waste of energy through improved efficiency and conservation; then changing the American way of life by putting in place land use planning, 21 st Century mass transit and dispersed energy so every home and business can become an energy producer. The call of Native Indians to restore the Earth, for the right to clean water and air, should be a rally cry taken on by all of us.

You can “ The Toxic Effects of Uranium Mining on Tribal Lands with Don Yellowman and Charmaine White Face” on Clearing the FOG .

This article was first published on Truthout and any reprint or reproduction on any other website must acknowledge Truthout as the original site of publication.

Kevin Zeese JD and Margaret Flowers MD co-host Clearing the FOG on We Act Radio 1480 AM Washington, DC and on Economic Democracy Media , co-direct It's Our Economy and are contributors to Popular Resistance an outgrowth of the Occupy Movement. Their twitters are @KBZeese and @MFlowers8 .

http://www.countercurrents.org/zeese090613.htm