Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNative American Uranium Miners Still Suffer, As Industry Eyes Rebirth
ACOMA, NEW MEXICO-On the Navajo Nation, almost everyone you talk to either worked in uranium mines themselves or had fathers or husbands who did. Almost everyone also has multiple stories of loved ones dying young from cancer, kidney disease and other ailments attributed to uranium poisoning.
![[Elsie Mae Begay (bottom second from right) and others at the Indigenous Uranium Forum have testified about the continued effects of uranium mining on their communities. (Photo by Kari Lydersen)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/indigenous_uranium.JPG "indigenous_uranium.JPG")
The
effects aren't limited to uranium miners and millers; whole families
are usually affected as women washed their husbands' contaminated
clothes, kids played amidst mine waste and families even built homes
out of radioactive uranium tailings.
For years the government has had a program to compensate uranium workers (and "down-winders" affected by nuclear weapon testing). And the federal government is slowly cleaning up contaminated land.
But as evidenced at the Indigenous Uranium Forum here this weekend, the uranium industry that flourished in this region from the 1940s through 1980s continues to take a heavy toll on workers and their descendants. (An investigative piece in the LA Times shed light on the situation.)
At the forum, Navajo, Pueblo and other Native Americans remembered family members killed by uranium and lamented that most have still not received any form of compensation, even as many still live on contaminated land that poses an ongoing health risk.
Government compensation is limited to people working before 1971. The idea is that after that date the risks were known and hence the government isn't responsible for poor working conditions that exposed miners excessively to the radioactive heavy metal.
In September, a delegation of grandmothers traveled to Washington D.C. to lobby legislators for compensation for "post 71" miners and their dependents.
"People said you grandmothers can't make it, it's a really long walk," said Elsie Begay, who grew up in a canyon in Arizona downstream of a uranium mine. Her father, a miner, died of cancer and she thinks all her siblings' health is affected by drinking and bathing in contaminated water from the arroyo that ran by their home. "But we did it. We talked to those politicians, and they promised to do something so I think they will."
For many of the women, it was their first time on a plane, subway or escalator. They happily described holding up impatient lobbyists and politicians at government building security checkpoints as they removed all their turquoise and silver jewelry.
Elsie Mae Begay, no relation to Elsie Begay, has brought much attention to the issue by traveling with the documentary Return of Navajo Boy, produced by Chicago-based Groundswell Films. It tells the story of her brother John Wayne Cly, who was taken off the reservation by white missionaries after both parents died of lung cancer, and his return to his family decades later.
It also chronicles the painstaking struggle for miners' compensation, and the tragic catch-22 families like Elsie Mae's are put in knowing their homes are contaminated but having nowhere else to go.
The uranium industry nearly stopped in the late 1980s as prices plummeted, but now many companies are seeking to again mine in the southwest, anticipating rising prices in the near future. (Uranium hit record prices in 2007 but then dropped when the recession hit.)
Uranium company officials say current mining practices are much safer than in the past, and jobs in the area are badly needed. Most Native Americans in the uranium belt are intensely opposed to a resurgence in the industry. (Uranium mining is also being proposed in Alaska, where the environment and health versus jobs argument in terms of resource extraction is a defining feature of the state's economy. Proposed mine sites are near Alaska Native land, and the industry could impact their traditional fishing and other practices.)
Larry King is a post-71 miner suffering breathing and other health problems, but he says he can't get any assistance for expensive tests or treatment. Meanwhile new mining is proposed near his home, an "in situ" process where uranium is sucked out of an aquifer, which industry officials say is much less environmentally disruptive.
King doesn't believe it, and he resents that the company is trying to win support by promising jobs.
"They are dividing families," he said. "They'll promise you big bucks, but they will destroy our aquifer and then leave the community to deal with it."
5 Comments so far
Show AllKnowing what we know, I can't believe that anyone on this planet still considers nuclear energy a good option, and as anyone can see by reading this article, the government no longer takes responsibily for the danger, the pollution, the contamination and the ruin of peoples health and lives.
Bliss,
There is no doubt that uranium mining and processing injured a great number of people, native American and otherwise, during WW2 and the cold war. The government has been slow to redress these injuries. Yes, there was also a lot of sloppy environmental practices from that era as well, the contamination at Hanford is probably the most egregious.
ISL (in situ leaching) mining is more environmentally benign than either underground or open pit mining for uranium. Right now, most of the mining in the US is ISL. It is also becoming more common in Australia. ISL, as well as open pit and underground, mining require rigorous government oversight to assure that further injury is not inflicted on the miners or the environment. We do know how to do it right if we choose to do so.
Injurious as uranium is, there are far more people that have been injured by coal mining. The coal companies are outrageous in their denial of health benefits. The government is slow but at least they no longer deny that injuries have occurred.
It appears that nuclear power is going to expand worldwide, with the US bringing up the rear. In much of the developed world nuclear is going to replace fossil fuel, particularly coal. Those nations with a powerful coal industry, such as the US, Germany and Australia, are going to lag behind but as global warming becomes more obvious and acknowledged it will happen.
Bill
Coal fueled energy being bad does not make nuclear energy good. We need safe, sustainable forms of energy, such as solar, wind, hemp, algae, and all the other possibilities that won't require the mining of dangerous substances and the storage of radioactive waste. You cannot sell me on nuclear energy, though personally I probably can't stop the advance of it.
Much and all as I believe we desperately need the non-combustion technology nuclear power represents, not another hand's turn should be permitted until the people are compensated and their land cleaned up. To exploit them this way is genocidal.
There's no getting clean if one keeps digging the stuff up.
The damage continues all along the line of use - mining, processing, transport, plant use, military use, waste disposal - or indisposal, as the case remains.
Our "need" for nukes remains wildly exaggerated. New construction was scrapped in the 1980's because the owners found it financially impractical. They still fiddle with wind and solar because these can indeed make money at it even though the power companies themselves are poorly adapted to it.
Power spokespeople frequently cite sources for supposed expenses of solar and wind power that include purchasing land to operate windmills and to place photovoltaic cells. That's realistic for major power companies, but not for wind or solar power themselves. Both or either can use land that also fills other functions.
Wind and solar are easier and less expensive to construct and install. If one wants more electricity, one need simply make more. The "impracticality" of all this is that it does not bode will for large monopoly and near-monopoly interests.
The simplest example is that one can install photovoltaic cells from a kit that pay for themselves within a few months. (If one pays a pro, it can take a few years, depending on use).
What are the odds of a nuclear or chemical plant paying for itself within a few months?
..
Another point - conservation need not represent grand sacrifice. Earthen and strawbale houses that need little or no heating in sub-zero weather and no AC in 100+ degree heat not only exist, but often cost significantly less than their traditional counterparts.
Free public transport would sharply reduce emissions in populous areas.
Finally, folks, the tough one --- an even somewhat more egalitarian international economy would make citizens of the rich countries less prone to buy artificially cheap gizmos and tinsel to make up for their economic inability to own a home (instead of a mortgage), care for their elderly (instead of shipping them off), raise their children (instead of parking them in front of a computer or a nanny), receive medical care, or own and guide the work of their own hands.
This is all very doable. Plenty of obstacles exist, but they're mostly institutional and informational. They have nothing to do with a lack of technical options.