Frogurt
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 19
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2003
well actually it does matter, you've made the assertion that as a result of mining people are abusing substances if you look at this study:The Brucemaster said: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.
http://www.ruralhealth.org.au/nrhapublic/publicdocs/conferences/8thNRHC/Papers/KN_gray,%20dennis.pdf
and go to page 6 you see a the demographics, the most substance abuse occurs within WA and SA. not NT. i would therefore argue that substance abuse within Kakadu may well be more complex than simple mining.
given that the primary purpose of Australian uranium exportation or otherwise is nuclear power then i would argue that it is relevant. benefits include substantially reducing coal emmissions and i for one would argue in favour of nuclear power here in Australia (a benefit would be we would be closer to the 'precious' Kyoto quota's without having actually ratified the thing) if the benefits outweigh the risks then you've successfully completed a risk-benefit assessmentThe Brucemaster said: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.
ah, no worries.The Brucemaster said: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.
what evidence though? we've only seen what the media has shown us do you believe Murdoch News? or Fairfax? or any other number of media sources? i'm skeptical unless i have access to the documents themselves, i'll read them and find them interesting but the information has a slant and hsould be taken with a grain of salt.The Brucemaster said:I think in this case we can make a fairly well informed assumption based upon the overwhelming evidence.
i'm reserving judgement until the enquiry is released to the public. until then i'm giving benefit of the doubt, assumptions are dangerous things to make informed or otherwise, that missing piece could make all the difference.