Letters
Times & Transcript, Published Thursday April 3rd, 2008
Appeared on page D7

Info session showed concerns

To The Editor:

It's unfortunate that no one from the Times & Transcript was able to
attend the Information Session on Uranium Exploration and Mining held
March 30 at the Capitol Theatre. Had a journalist been there, it could
have been reported that the theatre was full, and that the mood of the
crowd was calm, friendly and respectful.

There were no shouts of anger or fear, just very concerned people
seeking information and asking questions. It lasted until almost 11
p.m. for those who needed more detailed information specific to their
needs.

There were no MLAs from the governing political party, but there were
a few from the Opposition. The speakers, including a lawyer, a doctor,
and an economist were very informative.

The reportage from this session would have tied in nicely with your
reporter's interview with geologist and employee of the Federal
Department of Natural Resources, Charlie Jefferson. Had your reporter
been at the info session, he could have shared, in that interview,
some of the concerns brought up Sunday evening.

It's true that most people are somewhat concerned about radiation, but
foremost, people have been upset by the antiquated mining laws that
squelch the rights of property owners, and the possibility that a mine
would be set up on their property.

Comparing the consequences of uranium mining with the damage the sun
does to our skin was a trivial comment. People are concerned about
that aspect of uranium mining, but they are also concerned about the
havoc mining wreaks upon the landscape, the ecosystem in general and,
in the Moncton area, the potential damage mining of any sort would do
to our water system.

I would ask, having seen pictures of various lakes destroyed by
uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan and Ontario, how many lakes
has the sun destroyed?

I would also ask these questions of the leaders in this province who
look upon mining as a great way to enrich New Brunswick:

How responsible have mining companies been about cleaning up after
they have finished their business in that area?

How has the uranium mining in northern Saskatchewan benefited the
people of northern Saskatchewan? Has it made them better off
financially? Has it made them healthier and able to enjoy their
environment?

Read about Elliot Lake and see how many people live there now.
(Ironically, it has been billed as a great place to retire, since
child-raising families don't tend to want to live there any more.)

Check out the problems people in Port Hope are having with a uranium
refinery in their town in the March '08 issue of the Canadian
magazine, "The Walrus".

It is essential to give balanced information about this critical
issue, but the timing of the placement of this particular interview
seems manipulative. Sunday evening's exceptionally well-attended
Information Session was newsworthy in and of itself, and should have
been given some coverage.

Helene Robb,
Moncton

Also in today's Times & Transcript:

Uranium poses too much risk

To The Editor:

In response to the article "How Dangerous is Uranium?" in the Times &
Transcript, March 31, thank you for bringing up some important
information in regard to uranium mining.

Every debate should feature both sides of an issue to educate the public.

I found it interesting how it was alluded to that the effects of
exposure to uranium were dismissed as being inconsequential to the
health of the people of southeast New Brunswick.

Yes, we are quite aware that uranium has not suddenly appeared in New
Brunswick by a divine intervention and that it has been here since the
beginning of time.

Yes, we are quite aware that we are exposed on a daily basis and that
radon gas makes up of 50 per cent of the radiation exposure most of us
live with.

Yes, we are quite aware that any drilling, be it a water well or
exploration for any mineral, has the potential of disrupting the
naturally occurring uranium and its progeny and releasing it into the
environment.

What we are debating is the amount (dosage) and type of exposure and
the risk factors that are related by increasing this exposure.

Yes, we know that alpha rays cannot penetrate the skin but it does
enter our body through the lungs (hence radon gas being the number two
risk factor for lung cancer), and is absorbed through our intestinal
wall. I have no plans on eating granite, but I do have plans of eating
food, that has hopefully been grown here in New Brunswick
(self-sufficiency?).

We are debating the need to go ahead with exploration and mining in
sensitive areas such as watersheds that supply 40 per cent of New
Brunswickers with their drinking water.

Numerous government officials have casually, some with a hint of
laughter, stated that the chances of opening an actual mine are very
slim and we should not worry. My question to them is why have
unprotected sex if you don't plan on getting pregnant or contracting
an STD?

You may be surprised to learn that arsenic, a fabled poison, is
naturally present in apples, much of your food and in your drinking
water. As you are probably aware, you will not die of arsenic
poisoning by eating an apple, or even an apple every day and most of
us are exposed to arsenic on a daily basis (along with other "toxic"
chemical compounds). But you are probably not aware that increasing
the dose of arsenic, such as eating a half cup of apple seeds, can
kill you, quite rapidly. In some individuals they may need less than
this, others will need to eat more.

Everyone has a different tolerance dependant on their existing state
of health.

Small exposure to uranium in its natural state won't kill or make you
sick instantly. In some individuals it may have absolutely no effect
on their health. But increasing the exposure (somewhat recklessly
since as a nation we export 85 per cent of the uranium produced here)
will have some effects on the health of the people of southeast New
Brunswick. Some will feel the effect more rapidly than others if their
state of health is already compromised, others will be more resilient.

Is the New Brunswick government retracting to Darwinian idealisms
where only the strong will survive? Is this part of their strategy to
rectify the current health care crisis?

My suggestion is to let the people vote and decide if they want to
gamble with their health, the health of their fellow citizens and of
future generations for the sake of a few dollars. I still believe that
New Brunswick is part of the first world but at times it feels more
like a third world dictatorship.

Lise Fournier,
Manager,
Canadian School of Natural Nutrition,
Moncton