• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Joe K
    April 04, 2011 - 17:15

    Ya and what's the alternsative, Coal! maybe wind and solar, everyone forgets about the electrolites in the batteries, or the cost, maybe increase property taxes to those who want alternative energy, Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of providing alot of power. Don't even start me on wind energy, what do you think their made of? Ya metal and you need electricity to make metal. Maybe we can flood couple thousand kms of land with dams? Build big dams in the northern hemisphere and the weight of all the water might screw up the earths rotation. Complainers kill me, they want an alternative to urainium but want it for free and like ostriches stick their head in the ground pretend there is no devastaion on the evironment from construction of batteries etc.....

  • Dave Quirt
    April 04, 2011 - 16:02

    First, Uranium City is in northern Saskatchewan, not northern Alberta. Second, uranium mining in the Uranium City area has not had a devastating effect on health, water system, and fish habitat. Yes, there was some environmental impact, but nearly all the effects on the environment were due to the historical, environmentally-unregulated mining activities of the 1950s and early 1960s, which can not be compared to current mining practices.

  • Dangerous to me
    April 04, 2011 - 13:33

    What this company isn't telling us, that uranium is really dangerous to our health, the water system, and the ocean and the fish habitat!! Think of Uranium City in Northern Alberta - it had a devastating affect on all of the above. Many places are demanding the government disallow the mining of this production, like BC Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should do the same. Count me in the opposition.