Our Benefits, Your Costs

November 26th, 2009

Views: 292

Posted by ChrisG at 2:47 pm

On the subject of the imposition of risk – and matters of consent – check out this post from Justin McKeating over at Greenpeace’s Nuclear Reaction blog.

The negative impacts of uranium mining – through the impact of tailings and other forms of waste on watercourses, and other forms of contamination – on the (generally impoverished) communities near mining operations have long been pointed to by activists. Wherever uranium is mined, these impacts are felt – from Africa to Central Asia to Australia.

For the industry, the risks of such impacts are externalities, i.e. costs which others are made to bear. Managing the risks of power generation by redistributing them – in space and in time – so that those who gain the benefits never have to worry about running the risks, is a structurally necessary element of centralised approaches to energy provision, and piggybacks on the legacy of imperialism to boot.

This is what we must accept if we are to continue using nuclear power for our energy needs. The uranium from Niger is used to keep the lights on in France. Nuclear reactors must have uranium. To obtain that uranium it seems that people must suffer.

AREVA has a track record of making others pay for the energy security of France – villagers who live near to the mines in Niger as Justin points out, and also the workers who extract the uranium in the first place: [PDF]

The French state-owned company mines uranium in northern Niger under scandalous conditions: Mine workers are not informed about health risks, and analysis shows radioactive contamination of air, water and soil. In his address, Almoustapha Alhacen, president of the local organization Aghirin’man that represents those affected, spoke of “suspicious deaths among the workers, caused by radioactive dust and contaminated groundwater.”