Australian uranium and China (1 Viewer)

[Sonic]

anyone else find irony in having govt restrictions on trade discussed in relation to a country where one of the main criticisms is communism?

well i thats what i set the forum up for...
but why?? does it change the situation (apparently not 4 our government)

 

[Frogurt]

Re: Uranium

i think its retarded because they're selling it to china and not india

i've no doubt that someone has already picked up on this silly error but i felt the need to comment anyway.

India has not Signed the non-proliferation treaty, China has.


now as for my own opinion on this, i think it's important that China explores more eco-friendly power sources. supplying coal to a majority of 1.8Billionish people is a hell of a coal expenditure.

re; the use of nuclear weapons, who in the world would honestly use one of those things? and for those that would who would provide them the capability to deploy? no one that i know of.

North Korea talks a lot and they are unpredictable but they seem more concerned about self containment and survival than nuclear winterland over North Asia.

 

[loquasagacious]

Re: Uranium

And as a technical note China's coal use is more environmentally unfriendly than ours for two reasons:

A) They lack the filtration our plants use.
B) The majority of their coal is 'brown coal' as opposed to 'black coal' which is basically less pure meaning it doesnt burn as clean and yields lower kj per kilo.

 

[The Brucemaster]

As far as i can see it would be economically viable for us to sell uranium to China, however id be concerned about the impact upon the local Aboriginal population and the environment, especially seeing as Kakadu is Heritage land.

As for India, piss off, any nation that has not signed the NPT and requests uranium for "energy" is full of shit. The only reason Howard is considering it is because Bush is and because he loves money.
Oh and India's democracy is probably even less effective then the "democracy" in Australia at the moment so i don't think that has much of an effect on the matter.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

Re: Uranium

i've no doubt that someone has already picked up on this silly error but i felt the need to comment anyway.

India has not Signed the non-proliferation treaty, China has.

now as for my own opinion on this, i think it's important that China explores more eco-friendly power sources. supplying coal to a majority of 1.8Billionish people is a hell of a coal expenditure.

re; the use of nuclear weapons, who in the world would honestly use one of those things? and for those that would who would provide them the capability to deploy? no one that i know of.

North Korea talks a lot and they are unpredictable but they seem more concerned about self containment and survival than nuclear winterland over North Asia.

lets just hope that china uses this uranium to power nuclear power plants. we've already had too many chinese miners die in coal mines, and too much precious land wiped out by the flooding for its massive hydroelectricity power plant. lets just hope another catatrosphe, whether human, environmental or social, doesnt happen this time.

 

[loquasagacious]

Re: Uranium

Does no one else understand that it doesnt matter a damn whether or not Australian uranium is used for nukes or power?

Let us take China as an example they posses themselves an ammount of uranium say X, sufficient to provide for either but not both an energy or weapons programme.

When we sell China 'X' uranium it doesnt matter that we say "no nukes with this uranium" because they can use 'our' X for power and their X for nukes and it achieves an identical outcome to other combinations.

Every kilo we sell them is a kilo freed from energy that they can use to make nukes with, so the net effect of a kilo for their civilian programme is a kilo for their military programme.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

As for India, piss off, any nation that has not signed the NPT and requests uranium for "energy" is full of shit. The only reason Howard is considering it is because Bush is and because he loves money.
Oh and India's democracy is probably even less effective then the "democracy" in Australia at the moment so i don't think that has much of an effect on the matter.

China gets nuclear weapons, then signs a treaty a few years later. India doesn't sign the treaty and gets nuclear weapons a few years after the treaty was signed.

But somehow China are safe to sell shit to, but not India.

ffs.

I also happen to think the democracy in Australia is rather effective.

 

[Frogurt]

As far as i can see it would be economically viable for us to sell uranium to China, however id be concerned about the impact upon the local Aboriginal population and the environment, especially seeing as Kakadu is Heritage land.

As for India, piss off, any nation that has not signed the NPT and requests uranium for "energy" is full of shit. The only reason Howard is considering it is because Bush is and because he loves money.
Oh and India's democracy is probably even less effective then the "democracy" in Australia at the moment so i don't think that has much of an effect on the matter.

Firstly you can't mine Heritage land, because it's Heritage ie: protected, the Government hasn't the legal or political power to just start mining it so your fear is unfounded.

as for the Aboriginal communities how do you forsee it impacting them exactly?

with regards to India i don't recall Howard ever Saying that he would sell it to them, only that negotiations are possible, for all you know part of the negotiation would involve them having to sign the NPT as a requisite. it is far more politically prudent to enter things with an open mind then to come out swinging, you will be in a better position to get results that way....but then i'm sure you are already aware of this yes?

furthermore what evidence have you got to substantiate the claim that Howard is going to be engaging in embezzlement, fraud and breaking of an International Trade agreement?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The government should give themselves the ability to mine heritage land and make a deal with India to begin exporting large quantities of Uranium as soon as possible.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Firstly you can't mine Heritage land, because it's Heritage ie: protected, the Government hasn't the legal or political power to just start mining it so your fear is unfounded.

as for the Aboriginal communities how do you forsee it impacting them exactly?

with regards to India i don't recall Howard ever Saying that he would sell it to them, only that negotiations are possible, for all you know part of the negotiation would involve them having to sign the NPT as a requisite. it is far more politically prudent to enter things with an open mind then to come out swinging, you will be in a better position to get results that way....but then i'm sure you are already aware of this yes?

furthermore what evidence have you got to substantiate the claim that Howard is going to be engaging in embezzlement, fraud and breaking of an International Trade agreement?

Firstly, where are our uranium mines located. Kakadu National Park thats where. Kakadu National Park is a World Heritage site and it is ALREADY being mined. There have been numerous leaks of uranium in to the local water system and increasing production to export uranium to china would increase the risk of this happening.

Secondly, Aboriginal communities inhabit the regions occupied by the mines. As has already been seen with the local Aboriginal communities surrounding the Ranger and Jabiluka mines they are payed royalties by the Government. This money is often but not always spent on illicit substances, mainly alcohol which has a drastic effect on the health and wellbeing of the Aboriginal community. Howard said that in order to supply uranium at a reasonable level to China it is a POSSIBILITY that a third mine would have to be opened, thus this impact would be spread.

Thirdly, Howard stated that he would consider selling uranium to India if it was economically viable, thats almost a direct quote. Sure its a possibility that signing the NPT may be a pre-requisite but personally i dont see it being very likely.

Finally i don't quite no what you're referring to when you talk about embezzlement, fraud and the breaking of International Trade Agreements but i would draw your attention to the AWB scandal where the Howard Government has done an excellent job of doing all three without even remembering it.

 

[Bendent]

i think the older ppl likes to link everything with communistic crap but younger ppl are more nicer to china so thats good

 

[loquasagacious]

Secondly, Aboriginal communities inhabit the regions occupied by the mines. As has already been seen with the local Aboriginal communities surrounding the Ranger and Jabiluka mines they are payed royalties by the Government. This money is often but not always spent on illicit substances, mainly alcohol which has a drastic effect on the health and wellbeing of the Aboriginal community.

Perhaps given the obvious negative impacts you can see of giving aboriginals money we should stop. No more royalties.

Or even more particularly no more welfare of any kind.

How do you like them apples?

 

[The Brucemaster]

I don't. Im not saying that monetary support for Aboriginals is bad im pointing out the fact that this support is abused by many of them.

 

[Frogurt]

Firstly, where are our uranium mines located. Kakadu National Park thats where. Kakadu National Park is a World Heritage site and it is ALREADY being mined. There have been numerous leaks of uranium in to the local water system and increasing production to export uranium to china would increase the risk of this happening.

Secondly, Aboriginal communities inhabit the regions occupied by the mines. As has already been seen with the local Aboriginal communities surrounding the Ranger and Jabiluka mines they are payed royalties by the Government. This money is often but not always spent on illicit substances, mainly alcohol which has a drastic effect on the health and wellbeing of the Aboriginal community. Howard said that in order to supply uranium at a reasonable level to China it is a POSSIBILITY that a third mine would have to be opened, thus this impact would be spread.

Thirdly, Howard stated that he would consider selling uranium to India if it was economically viable, thats almost a direct quote. Sure its a possibility that signing the NPT may be a pre-requisite but personally i dont see it being very likely.

Finally i don't quite no what you're referring to when you talk about embezzlement, fraud and the breaking of International Trade Agreements but i would draw your attention to the AWB scandal where the Howard Government has done an excellent job of doing all three without even remembering it.

ah but loquasagacious why stop there? any member of the community could use money given to them from the government to obtain illicit and/or harmful substances perhaps Bruce is suggesting that we stop welfare alltogether for everyone in order to protect people from the dangers of free will?

also can you tell me why a new mine would have to occur at Kakadu? why not at Olympic Dam? or any of the other deposits around australia? Kakadu is not the only source of Uranium.

and as for you seeing things or not seeing them, unless you have fact to back it up speculation is meaningless, you would do well to remember that i think.

you said that Howard loved money, and that would be a reason for him signing a deal. that also suggests that he'd be taking money which would constitute embezzlement since the money is not his,

fraud since what you are suggesting falls under the legal definition of fraud "Inducing a course of action by deceit or other dishonest conduct, involving acts or omissions or the making of false statements, orally or in writing, with the object of obtaining money or other benefit from, or of evading a liability to, the Commonwealth"

and a breach of the treaties since we are signatories of the NPT and supplying to India would be a breach of Article III subsection 2 of the treaty.

"2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article."

http://beta.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1973/3.html that is the full treaty if you'd care to view it yourself.

as for AWB i'd be more than happy to discuss that in a relevant thread but we are talking about a specific instance here, so unless you have an arguement to put forward please don't try to distract it with red herrings

 

[The Brucemaster]

Ok you've clearly not understood a word of what ive said so im going to attempt to make it simple for you.

Fact 1: Both our uranium mines are located in Heritage Listed territory.

Fact 2: Uranium mines pose a reasonable threat to the environment as can be seen from the leaks that have occurred in the past.

Fact 3: Aboriginals who occupy the land are payed royalties in order for the Government to mine their once sacred land.

Fact 4: These royalties have a severe negative effect on the community.

Further justification for this "speculation" can be seen at the following websites:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/227/227p28.htm
http://www.sea-us.org.au/blackuranium.html
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jabiluka.html#problem

As for Howard, my point is that Howard has already shown a total disregard for international agreements. The ignorance of the UN in regards to the oil-for-food program is what I am mainly referring to here.

Embezzlement: Well, i think the paying of kickbacks by an Australian organisation that is using Australians money fits in nicely here.

Fraud: I think the general cover up of the above by AWB constitutes "Inducing a course of action by deceit or other dishonest conduct, involving acts or omissions or the making of false statements" and seeing as the Howard Government was perfectly aware of it then they too are equally responsible.

Breaking of International Trade Agreements: I think the above case demonstrates fairly well the breaking of the terms of the oil-for-food program (An international agreement made with the UN).

That should do for now.

 

[loquasagacious]

Hahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahaha you refer to greenleft as a source.....

I'll respond more in full when I have more time.

 

[Frogurt]

Ok you've clearly not understood a word of what ive said so im going to attempt to make it simple for you.

Fact 1: Both our uranium mines are located in Heritage Listed territory.

Fact 2: Uranium mines pose a reasonable threat to the environment as can be seen from the leaks that have occurred in the past.

Fact 3: Aboriginals who occupy the land are payed royalties in order for the Government to mine their once sacred land.

Fact 4: These royalties have a severe negative effect on the community.

Further justification for this "speculation" can be seen at the following websites:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/227/227p28.htm
http://www.sea-us.org.au/blackuranium.html
http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jabiluka.html#problem

As for Howard, my point is that Howard has already shown a total disregard for international agreements. The ignorance of the UN in regards to the oil-for-food program is what I am mainly referring to here.

Embezzlement: Well, i think the paying of kickbacks by an Australian organisation that is using Australians money fits in nicely here.

Fraud: I think the general cover up of the above by AWB constitutes "Inducing a course of action by deceit or other dishonest conduct, involving acts or omissions or the making of false statements" and seeing as the Howard Government was perfectly aware of it then they too are equally responsible.

Breaking of International Trade Agreements: I think the above case demonstrates fairly well the breaking of the terms of the oil-for-food program (An international agreement made with the UN).

That should do for now.

alright as a 4u english student you should be aware of a few things,

1) internet is hardly a credible source unless it provides full listings of where it is or is a primary source.

greenleft is hardly this and even when they do source it's on shaky foundations at best,

Sea Us doesn't even source or provide anything to substantiate the claims made

UMIC is the only one that bothers to provide adequate sources to substantiate the claims but even then
you'd be better of with academic journals my son.



2) whilst i do not dissagree that current mines are on Heritage land, my statement if you look closer said that future mines do not necissarily have to be in the same location. there are other sources of Uranium not all of which are on Heritage land. again look before you leap.

3) I do not dissagree that they are paid Royalties, but you suggested that the Royalties were a hindrance to their society due to how some of them tend to apply the royalties(ie to drugs and petrol and other things), i reject this on the grounds that free will dictates how they spend that money not the government.

4) With regards to environmental concerns it might interest you to look up the works of James Lovelock(proponent of Gaia theory) and Patrick Moore( Former President of GreenPeace) both are advocates of the use of Nuclear Power(hence Uranium) given the environmental benefits that it provides over alternative fuels as it emits no Carbon Dioxide and is a safe working power source.

finally as i've said, i'm more than happy to debate the AWB and Oil for Food Programs in another thread, simply set it up show me the link and i'll debate it, but it has no merit here as we are discussing the use of Uranium, your comment as unsubstantiated as it is was clumsy and backhanded, but rather than admitting that you seem to want to try and play the badger in the corner, i recommend you either admit this or attempt to steer the debate in a different direction.

 

[The Brucemaster]

alright as a 4u english student you should be aware of a few things,

1) internet is hardly a credible source unless it provides full listings of where it is or is a primary source.

greenleft is hardly this and even when they do source it's on shaky foundations at best,

Sea Us doesn't even source or provide anything to substantiate the claims made

UMIC is the only one that bothers to provide adequate sources to substantiate the claims but even then
you'd be better of with academic journals my son.

Green Left, yeah ill pay that, biased to the BS, Sea Us, however, was written by the Chairperson of the Northern Territory National Aboriginal Conference, ill take it as authoritative and UMIC, as you said makes detailed source references and was commissioned by the Universtity of Michigan. Im pretty sure we can use that one as a reliable source.

2) whilst i do not dissagree that current mines are on Heritage land, my statement if you look closer said that future mines do not necissarily have to be in the same location. there are other sources of Uranium not all of which are on Heritage land. again look before you leap.

Ok, my mistake.

3) I do not dissagree that they are paid Royalties, but you suggested that the Royalties were a hindrance to their society due to how some of them tend to apply the royalties(ie to drugs and petrol and other things), i reject this on the grounds that free will dictates how they spend that money not the government.

The reason why they spend the money the way they do is irrelevant. The fact remains that this IS the way they are spending their money and this is creating a problem. If we were to open further mines in the area (which as you say is unnecessary but just for arguments sake) then the detriment to the Aboriginal community would be significantly increased.

4) With regards to environmental concerns it might interest you to look up the works of James Lovelock(proponent of Gaia theory) and Patrick Moore( Former President of GreenPeace) both are advocates of the use of Nuclear Power(hence Uranium) given the environmental benefits that it provides over alternative fuels as it emits no Carbon Dioxide and is a safe working power source.

It might interest you also to search Google for all the nuclear power plants that exist in Australia. When you've found one come back and tell me id be interested to know where it is.
In the meantime it is not nuclear power plants that i am concerned with it is the mining of raw uranium that cause numerous hazards to the environment.

finally as i've said, i'm more than happy to debate the AWB and Oil for Food Programs in another thread, simply set it up show me the link and i'll debate it, but it has no merit here as we are discussing the use of Uranium, your comment as unsubstantiated as it is was clumsy and backhanded, but rather than admitting that you seem to want to try and play the badger in the corner, i recommend you either admit this or attempt to steer the debate in a different direction.

Yeah OK thats just stupid. You claimed that the Howard Government wouldnt sell uranium to India because it constituted a violation of a certain International Agreement. You also claimed the Howard Government would be engagin in embezzlement and fraud by doing this.
I was merely using the example of the AWB scandal to illustrate the fact that the Howard Government has already done all three and as such im sure would have no trouble doing it again.
Your verbosity here only serves to illustrate your failure to deal with my argument.

 

[Frogurt]

Green Left, yeah ill pay that, biased to the BS, Sea Us, however, was written by the Chairperson of the Northern Territory National Aboriginal Conference, ill take it as authoritative and UMIC, as you said makes detailed source references and was commissioned by the Universtity of Michigan. Im pretty sure we can use that one as a reliable source.

yeah i'll accept the UMIC as legit, the NAC one without sourcing i won't accept as there is no possible means to verify how he came to those specific conclusions and the methods employed to create those conclusions

The reason why they spend the money the way they do is irrelevant. The fact remains that this IS the way they are spending their money and this is creating a problem. If we were to open further mines in the area (which as you say is unnecessary but just for arguments sake) then the detriment to the Aboriginal community would be significantly increased.

my point wasn't so much that uranium is the cause but rather the cultural problems within that society, how does substance abuse in those communities compare to other isolated communities for example?

It might interest you also to search Google for all the nuclear power plants that exist in Australia. When you've found one come back and tell me id be interested to know where it is.
In the meantime it is not nuclear power plants that i am concerned with it is the mining of raw uranium that cause numerous hazards to the environment.

i'm aware that there aren't any plants here but if plants do open where do you think the fuel will come from? do you think that these advocates would have accepted this as the best alternative without having first considered this?

Yeah OK thats just stupid. You claimed that the Howard Government wouldnt sell uranium to India because it constituted a violation of a certain International Agreement.

Yes i did.

You also claimed the Howard Government would be engagin in embezzlement and fraud by doing this.

no i said that embezzlement and fraud would occur if Howard was doing it for personal benefit like you suggested when you said he was doing it to follow bush and because he loved money. if he does not personally profit from it or if he does not mislead the people as to the reasons behind the move then no crime has been commited.

I was merely using the example of the AWB scandal to illustrate the fact that the Howard Government has already done all three and as such im sure would have no trouble doing it again.
Your verbosity here only serves to illustrate your failure to deal with my argument.

you are pointing to an alleged crime until a verdict has been reached we must presume innocence until proof of guilt. it is what our nations Justice system is based on.

 

[The Brucemaster]

yeah i'll accept the UMIC as legit, the NAC one without sourcing i won't accept as there is no possible means to verify how he came to those specific conclusions and the methods employed to create those conclusions

I'm happy to leave that there.

my point wasn't so much that uranium is the cause but rather the cultural problems within that society, how does substance abuse in those communities compare to other isolated communities for example?

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.

i'm aware that there aren't any plants here but if plants do open where do you think the fuel will come from? do you think that these advocates would have accepted this as the best alternative without having first considered this?

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.

no i said that embezzlement and fraud would occur if Howard was doing it for personal benefit like you suggested when you said he was doing it to follow bush and because he loved money. if he does not personally profit from it or if he does not mislead the people as to the reasons behind the move then no crime has been commited.

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.

you are pointing to an alleged crime until a verdict has been reached we must presume innocence until proof of guilt. it is what our nations Justice system is based on.

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