“It is Siumut's clear opinion that mining that is in the vicinity of inhabited areas must have very special and stricter requirements regarding public health and the natural cycles in the area and that part must be carried out in complete understanding with the surrounding residents.”
https://dk-siumut-gl.translate.goog/minedrift-og-fossile-braendstoffer/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=enThe Kuannersuit project fails in this regard.
I would also question the companies plan to dump millions of tons of radioactive waste with radioactivity levels multiples higher than background levels, in a lake and build 40 - 60m high embankment walls, leaving it for future generations to deal with. While it may be an accepted means of water storage, it’s risky, not sustainable and it’s certainly not industry best practice. In fact, due to a number of high profile wet tailing storage facility failures over the years, this practice is frowned upon.
The locals have legitimate concerns about the tailings storage facility, and rightfully so. The issue is further compounded by the companies alternative plan to dump all the uranium into the lake, greatly increasing the radioactivity of the waste.
This is an issue that folks who don’t live within the vicinity of the radioactive waste dump will ever understand and certainly don’t have the right to comment. It’s entirely the local folks choice and their approval must be sought. ETM has failed to gain the support of locals, who are majority against the project. The election results made that clear and there’s been a number of opinion poles conducted on uranium mining, posted on this forum, with majority against it.
Greed masked as good intentions will never change that fact.
There’s no logical argument that any reasonable individual could make against the locals concerns.
