The groups have met for a roundtable discussion in Canberra about the health implications of mining, and burning coal and coal seam gas.

Climate and Health Alliance convenor Fiona Armstrong outlined the major concerns of this week’s discussions.

“By any measure, the risk posed to us by burning coal and coal seam gas to climate change is really the overriding concern,” she said.

“Trying to develop policy in the area looks at what those drivers are, and choices around our energy policy and our energy supply system are really the main topic of concern.”

Armstrong said the main area that needs to be looked at was government legislation.

“The termination of fossil fuel subsidies − the $10 to $12 million that are currently being directed towards fossil fuels – seems to us a no-brainer,” she said.

“Those [resources] should be redirected towards safer, more sustainable, healthier fuel sources.”

According to a recent report quoted by Armstrong, the costs of the industry were adding up.

“Burning coal in Australia carried health impacts of 2.6 billion dollars and if you add to that the environmental consequences, it rises to $8 billion, so that’s $12 billion a year that we’re spending on fossil fuel.”

National Toxics Network senior adviser Mariann Lloyd Smith told Energy News the full effects of CSG exploration on health were unknown.

“We don’t have the data to base any assessment, but what we do have is some risk assessments that have been done in the US looking at proximity to wells and people’s health,” she said.

“It was found that if you lived within a kilometre of a well you’re at a much greater risk of urological respiratory problems and a greater cancer lifetime risk, and that was based on exposure to air.

“Here in Australia we have none of those studies, so we are very much dependent on community surveys, data coming from “opportunistic sampling” taking a sample here and there and we certainly know residents are being exposed to air pollutants from the industry and through water.”

Smith said the companies involved were not co-operating in the search for answers.

“We don’t get a lot of assistance from [the companies involved], they’re not required to do any health impact assessments before they undertake a project,” she said.

“They’re not required to do any baseline data, so any of the data scientists collect after they can dismiss because they can say ‘oh well there’s nothing to compare it to’.”

Public Health Association of Australia chief executive officer Michael Moore told Energy News the organisation made an appeal to the New South Wales government to take in to account human health in approving permits concerning mining coal and coal seam gas.

“We don’t expect any response at this stage except acknowledgment of our submission, which we did get,” he said.

Moore said the main problem with extractive industries was the impact they had on climate change, which ultimately had the power to affect human health.

This comes hot on the heels of federal environment minister Tony Burke’s approval of AGL Energy’s Gloucester project in New South Wales, where he cut the state out of negotiations on conditions after a letter was leaked to The Australian suggesting Burke “was likely” to approve the project.

Burke said he had been intending to consult with AGL Energy about conditions for the approval, but instead decided to give approval.

Smith had clear feelings on the issue.

“I am just stunned that the government will continue to approve projects when there is no requirement for baseline, there is no requirement for health impact assessment. So to me, to go ahead blindly and commit to this industry when you have none of those safeguards in place is folly to start off with, and I would suggest it’s downright criminal,” she said.