By Pr. Many Camara
The Municipality of Faléa is located in the Western part of Mali and borders Guinea and Senegal. The population is estimated at 17,000 inhabitants. Most of the population is young (between 15 and 35 years old) and female (approximately 62%), comprising the ethnic groups: Djalonke, Mandinka, Fula and Diakhanké.
The Berlin conference held in 1884/1885 drew the borders and organized the distribution of the African continent as we currently know it. Today multinational corporations hold the rights to exploit and collect the riches of Africa’s arable land and resources, including the uranium of Faléa.
About 20 years ago the French multinational COGEMA – later known as AREVA and today Orano – discovered deposits of uranium, copper and silver in Faléa. In 2007 the government of Mali concluded an agreement with the Canadian company Delta Exploration, now Rockgate Capital Corp, and afterwards Denison Mines concerning the future exploitation of its primary resources. The conditions of the contract were not made public.
Locals were neither informed nor consulted. The Council of the Wise, the “modern” municipal council, in place since 1999, and the local population were all left out of the process. Then, in 2008 an airstrip was suddenly built within 50 meters of the primary school.
Do people really understand what uranium is or how it is used to generate electricity? The Uranium Network decided to produce a short film — Uranium Mining — what are we talking about? — that explains it, step by step. A booklet of the same name is now also available to accompany the film.
From The Uranium Network:
When in 2007 / 2008, the price of uranium skyrocketed from around US$ 20 per pound to nearly US$ 140 per pound, mining companies from all over the world set out to find uranium – a new uranium rush had started.
Local populations were unprepared for the onslaught of the mining companies – and for the most part, people were unaware of what uranium is, let alone knowing about its uses or impacts from mining.
Africa became a major target for uranium exploration.
The general public in the vast majority of African countries had no experience or knowledge about uranium or its exploitation; thus, it was easy for interested companies to veil their intentions when exploring for uranium; Governments instead emphasized the jobs which would be created, and the energy that might be generated, rather than the risks and dangers associated with uranium and its exploitation.
By Cindy Folkers
“Whatever I do, all pleasure has disappeared from my life…we are living with a narrow range of activities.”
Akemi Shima was a resident of Date (duh-tay) City when the reactors at Fukushima exploded, spewing radioactive particles into the air, across the land, and into the waters. (She tells her story in her own words this week as well. See here.)
Her family had moved there years earlier to live closer to nature. It was supposed to be healthy. But for residents of Date City, still blanketed nine years later by radioactive contamination, the struggle for protection of health continues amid accusations of scientific error, betrayal and abandonment.
Shima, now 50, has been living through these accusations and her children’s health issues, while trying to keep her family safe in a contaminated land that has caused fractures within her community. Her experience is not only shared by other victims of Fukushima, but is a cautionary tale for any communities that have nuclear reactors in their midst. We share pieces of her story here for the first time in English.
“The victims have been unable to talk about the damage. … I don’t want to cry. I don’t want to be dismissed… Let me say that something is wrong.”
Instead of establishing mandatory evacuation zones based on contamination level, the government of Japan limited mandatory evacuation to 20 km from the destroyed reactors. Date City had highly contaminated areas but was 60 km away. Therefore, the residents were left to their fate as the City, under direction from the national government, had decided to recommend specific “spots” for evacuation. “Spots” actually meant individual houses and the recommendation to evacuate was based on a number of inconsistent and confusing criteria. This caused division among residents because a “recommended spot” (house) was eligible for evacuation aid, while a house that was often next door received none.
By Akemi Shima
This is a statement of opinion that I, a resident of the city of Date, Fukushima Prefecture, presented to the Tokyo Regional Court as part of an on-going lawsuit.
“We had the desire to raise our children in an environment close to nature and enriching. That’s why we moved from Fukushima City to buy land in the town of Date, where we currently live, to build a house. Loan repayments were heavy but, we lived simply and we were happy.
“Eight years after the construction of our house, on March 11, 2011 the accident of the power plant occurred, and our family life was turned upside down. My husband and I were 42 years old, my son was in elementary school 4th grade (12 years old) and my daughter was in elementary school 3rd grade (10 years old).
“At that time, I had no knowledge about nuclear or radioactive substances. If I had had some knowledge in this area, by running away from it we probably could have avoided being irradiated. I am burdened by this regret. Without any financial leeway, with my sick children and my parents who are here, I could not resolve myself to get away from Date.
“From the 11th of March all life lines were cut and I had to go to the water stations where I took the children. To find food we had to walk outside sometimes soaked in the rain. After several days as we still had no water, we had to go to the town hall to use the toilet, where the water was not cut. It was then that I saw a group of people dressed in white protective suits entering the town hall. We thought that they were probably coming to help the victims of the tsunami. But now, I understand that the radioactive pollution was such that protections were necessary and we, without suspecting anything, were exposed.
By Lawrence Wittner
Although today’s public protests against nuclear weapons can’t compare to the major antinuclear upheavals of past decades, there are clear indications that most Americans reject the Trump administration’s nuclear weapons policies.
Since entering office in 2017, the Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the nuclear agreement with Iran, scrapped the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, and apparently abandoned plans to renew the New START Treaty with Russia.
After an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations agreed on a landmark UN Treaty on the Prohibitions of Nuclear Weapons in July 2017, the Trump administration quickly announced that it would never sign the treaty.
The only nuclear arms control measure that the Trump administration has pursued―an agreement by North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program―appears to have collapsed, at least in part because the Trump administration badly mishandled the negotiations.
Moreover, the Trump administration has not only failed to follow the nuclear arms control and disarmament policies of its Democratic and Republican predecessors, but has plunged into a renewed nuclear arms race with other nations by championing a $1.7 trillion program to refurbish the entire U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Perhaps most alarming, it has again and again publicly threatened to initiate a nuclear war.
These policies are quite out of line with U.S. public opinion.
By Linda Pentz Gunter
Jay Inslee staked his whole presidential campaign on one issue: climate change. His campaign began on March 1, 2019. By August 21, 2019, it was over.
Whatever the merits or not of Inslee as a candidate, the Democratic governor of the State of Washington was right about one thing. Climate change — or, more accurately, the climate crisis — is the single most important issue of our time. (Alongside the potential for instant annihilation under nuclear war.)
The presidential debates tussle endlessly and repetitively over health care, racial equality and immigration. Of course these issues are not unimportant, or at least they weren’t under normal conditions.
Nevertheless, we can argue until the cows come home about Medicare-For-All and gun control, but if we don’t address our climate emergency right away, none of that will matter. We will be in chaos, damage control and survival mode.
Widespread gun ownership will make climate chaos more dangerous. Lack of access to affordable health care means that the poor — who are already disproportionately impacted by climate change — won’t have the same access to the ensuing care needed as the climate emergency spawns its own health crisis.