Good...sorkar wanrah surok rong noh hangne...tangba wat tih ia u uraniom....wan rah ka ioh ka kot ruh...hynrei te ia pha ko sorkar n niew ka bmler.....ai award ia I to I meirad ruh....
Lada phi hiar na wahkaji Sha tynniaw ter ter phin poi Sha nongpungskei bad nongmer ka shnong u sohniamtra nang phi lah poi Sha duh kohtyllaw ka jaka shnong Jong ki mrad khlaw lane ki wild animal.. ka kohtyllaw la tip Kum ka wildlife conservation park. Hangta phin Shem ki mrad ba im ha khlaw Kum u hati ki huleng.. ki sniang khlaw ki skei ki khiat bad kiwei2...
Shnong ba nga ieid eh lait na pha ngam ioh shuh ym don shuh ki wei pat ba pyn i bang ia ngi tang ma pha ko shnong kyndong ba sngew pynngad bad ba ithiang ban peit
It is almost certain that uranium mining would cause far greater environmental destruction than charcoal. But is it certain that many of the local people would even be economically enriched by uranium mining? How many families would benefit from the sale of a mining lease? The mining company would most likely bring in its own workforce. So how many jobs would there actually be for local people? And what sort of work/life would those jobs entail? How would the health of the local people be impacted? What other destruction would accompany the mines? The veto on mining was not just by the elderly landowner but many other local people. The two-lane motorway of which the presenter spoke was contingent on the mining going ahead; once that was vetoed, the road development was abandoned. But it demonstrates how much money is slushing about in corporate hands. The presenter seems somewhat disingenuous - the choice of economic development is surely not binary - charcoal or uranium? Here's hoping other routes ca be found.
Ngi ruh ngi nang ban kren ki ktien phareng ne ktien dkhar namar ngi lah im hangne shilling naduh dang rit haduh kine ki sngi,wat shabar jylla ruh ngi lah shang.te sngewbha ban kren daka khasi para khasi
