Legalized murder: Miners allowed to poison people

Martyn Namorong

About these ads

7 Comments

Filed under Environmental impact, Human rights, Papua New Guinea

7 responses to “Legalized murder: Miners allowed to poison people

  1. Bill Jenkins

    Facts people…who’s been poisoned?

  2. Wesely

    Has some one been murdered by a mining company through the administration of poison?

  3. Ken the Miner

    More garbage from Martyn Namorong. No facts just unsubstantiated rot.

  4. Bill Jenkins

    I’d suspect that this person (if this is the Bulolo or Watat River) in the photo has probably been responsible for poisoning his own people through the illegal use of mercury!

  5. John Igua

    Martin, thanks for expressing your concern. People, this is really true about mining activities. If you look at the Kutubu mind in the North Solomon, no one has been murdered during the times the mining was still operating. But now what had happened to the natural habitat surrounding the mining area. Nothing benefecial to the Panguna people. The mining has tried to murdered them indirectly by polluting the water bodies and cease an existence to their hunting ground. Adversely, many bougainvillians have been murdered physicalyl because of their right on their own land trying to stop the operation on the Panguna mine. Also murdering by mining activities is not immediate. This is a long process that chemical waste produce from mining processess caused chronic and acute effects to the human health. Stop saying such to the local people. This is not because you are not doing the right thing about the use of posisonous chemicals. All you do is just use the chemicals and satisfy your demand from our mother nature and get lost leaving us sufering behind with all the negative impacts on our environment and our health.

  6. This is a link to an ABC story on Tolukuma mine incident where a helicopter dropped a tonne of cyanide on its way to Tolukuma http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s113011.htm

    Here is a journal article from James Cook University. Note the last sentence of the paragraph:
    “PNG’s experience of mining and the environment

    The rural communities of PNG depend heavily on nature to sustain their livelihood. Introduction of mining activities in remote areas of PNG affects a lot of people. Waste disposal from process plants and sediment runoffs from open cut mines are dumped into rivers and oceans. Smothering of riverbeds and ocean floors, heavy metal contamination and acid mine drainage are consequences of mine waste disposal into the environment. Toxicity of heavy metals is generally chronic rather than acute, so diseases associated with them are evident only over a long period of time. ”
    Link http://www.jcu.edu.au/jrtph/vol/v01mackinnon.pdf

    I understand arguments about me having to present facts are valid. Obviously due to the fact that the above graphic is intended as a poster I didn’t include necessary links, etc…

    I understand that debates about the direction my country takes must be objective and evidence based. The above evidence including others I have not included highlight the detrimental nature of mining in PNG

  7. Wesely

    Martyn
    Well said and all true.
    But the evidence of the fact of these events is not in issue, surely, they are simply notorious fact.
    As I see it there is far too little focus on how these events have occurred.
    Why is there no EPA in PNG?
    There is a profound concern that the direction of PNG is all down hill and the eventual outcome will be a state of disaster.
    How will this present seeming inevitability be deal with?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s