Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
I was tired and misremembered what you wrote - and I didn't double check. I appologize.Canyonram wrote:I do have to correct one of your comments. Please re-read my comments posted Jan. 08, 2011. I stated ". . . Here, you appear as an apologist for the uranimium mining indusrty to proceed with plans to operate uranium mines near the Grand Canyon that could have long-term health effects???? Do you work for the mining industry?" I did not accuse you of being a 'shill for the mining company.' I made the observation that you appeared to be apologizing for the uranium mining industry and asked a question if you worked for the mining industry. You made the jump to 'shill.' Trust me, if that is what I wanted to say, I would have said it.
It is the highest in the nation, but it is nowhere near the highest in the world. The level that we're exposed to here on the plateau is low. Page averages about .10-.14 uSv/hr. That's 1230 µSv/yr (microsieverts per year) or 0.00123 Gy/yr. Exceptionally low. 1/14th the dose from a bag of Potassium chloride (salt substitute). Even a serious spot contamination doesn't increase the overall background radiation of the Colorado Plateau (example - Church Rock mill site).As to the background level of radioactivity---the Colorado Plateau has a high natural amount of radioactivity, the highest in the nation. That doesn't give license to increase it by digging up the high-grade ore and milling it so that it is now exposed to air, surface water, soil, and ground water. I doubt if Denison Mines is going to stand accountable for the milling wastes---that can take a million+ years to decay.
And flying and living near power plants, etc. etc. etc. I agree that we shouldn't be piling milling waste all over the place and contaminating the environment - but milling is not what is happening near the Grand Canyon with these ADEQ-permited mines.We experience plenty of sources of exposure, from porcelin dental work to gas camp stoves and lanterns to medical X-Rays, that all increase the burden against the body---no need to increase the exposure by piling tons of milling wastes into the environment.
I did not because I find it highly speculative and also unlikely to work well in mining situations for the same reasons I've already mentioned: the uranium in the ground is already. If you are mining uranium, your mined uranium isotope sample is going to be the same as the water contamination isotope sample, and you would be unable to determine if it was natural or not (unless you sample all aquifers before mining to get a baseline - which the article suggested). The idea of sampling to test material "came from different mines" sounds like sampling and testing along haul routes and at mill sites.You should have mentioned that the companion article 'Contamination hard to trace' final statement was ". . . researchers like Hoffman raise the possibility that they could someday use the uranium's radioactive isotopes to trace what radioactive material came from different mines, versus natural deposits."
If no new mines open, the Arizona 1 mine will be mined out in about a year so Denison won't be mining anything. So I'd guess that Denison gets away scott-free. By the time the paperwork "forest" finally catches up, the mine will be over and done.It will be interesting to see if the Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality (AZDEQ) takes any kind of enforcement action vs Denison. My own experience of having to interface with AZDEQ over the years is that the only thing that will be done will be to pass a forest of paper back-and-forth while the mine continues operation. Note that AZDEQ doesn't have any branch office within the agency to deal with Uranium Mining issues, their inspection team did not go out until months AFTER the mine went in operation, Denison failed to file requested documents, and no one from AZDEQ even bothered to go down into the mine during the inspection process---they will write up items like 'fire extinguishers' and when Dension provides the extinguishers, AZDEQ gives them credit for 'substantial compliance'
Year, singular. The report said the deposit would be played out in early 2012.----in the ensuing years, Dension will continue to operate and add to the 'background' level of radiation---that can't be traced back to them.
According to the Monday edition of the Az. Daily Sun, 20% of the company is owned by a South Korean utility and they will take a corresponding portion of the milled yellowcake. It also said that US utilities will be purchasing the remainder. Not Canadians, not French.We need to be concerned as to where the Uranium is going---Denison is a Canadian company that sells to overseas markets, including Korea and France. How these foreign markets use the uranium and who they then sell it to is of concern---especially with the number of countries that are developing their own nuclear weapon programs.
To be blunt, this is simply the most ludicrous statement in this whole thread. I laughed out loud when I read it.Of course, the US nuclear bomb testing program was conducted pretty close to the Canyon and Las Vegas---so if a nuclear bomb goes off in Las Vegas, we can just write off the resulting nuclear fall-out to the high ambient level already on the Colorado Plateau---put there when Denison released it into the environment.
The Church Rock Mill site is far from being a 'spot' contamination event. The breach of the dam holding the milling wastes in 1979 is considered the largest release of radioactive materials in the US and comparable to other nuclear energy related disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl:PageRob wrote:Even a serious spot contamination doesn't increase the overall background radiation of the Colorado Plateau (example - Church Rock mill site).
It does increase the local radiation level, obviously, and that is a serious concern. But talking about a uranium mine increasing the background level of the Colorado Plateau is simply not true.
According to Wikipedia about TMI:Canyonram wrote:The Church Rock Mill site is far from being a 'spot' contamination event. The breach of the dam holding the milling wastes in 1979 is considered the largest release of radioactive materials in the US and comparable to other nuclear energy related disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl:
From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/t1/Wikipedia wrote:Within hours of the accident the Environmental Protection Agency began daily sampling of the environment at the three stations closest to the plant. By April 1, continuous monitoring at 11 stations was established and was expanded to 31 stations two days later. An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area. The EPA found no contamination in water, soil, sediment or plant samples.
And uranium mining becomes unprofitable if there is not place to mill the ore. Catch 22. My reason for going after mills (and partially supported by your own statements about Church Rock) is that mills are not easy to defend and cause more damage. One mill serves several mines. Shut down a mill and several mines close.You are splitting hairs to separate uranium mines from uranium milling sites----they are part of the same process. You don't get uranium milling sites anywhere unless you have done uranium mining as well.
First, I don't know what exactly you mean by "salvation". Second - I'd like to see your scientific source that says that uranium mines increase the radiation level of the Colorado Plateau (as you stated would happen "the Colorado Plateau has a high natural amount of radioactivity, the highest in the nation. That doesn't give license to increase it by digging up the high-grade ore and milling it so that it is now exposed to air, surface water, soil, and ground water."). I would not (and only a fool would) argue that uranium mines don't have a localized impact on the area around them. We've both seen this. Show me a study that shows how the uranium mines of Marble Canyon increased the background radiation level of Page (let alone Farmington). The Colorado Plateau is huge, 130,000 square miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_plateau) - unless someone can find me a source that shows that the background level across all of the Colorado Plateau was increased solely by mines, I'm going to find that unsupported statement to be questionable.There is no salavation in claiming that uranium mines don't 'increase the background level of radioactivity on the Colorado Plateau
Yes, they absolutely are. But not all of the environment. According to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.html), the Colorado Plateau averages 46mrem/year. That comes to .00126 uSv/day - which is what my Dosimeter that I use daily shows - and far lower than the suggested limit from the dosimeter (an Ecotest Terra-P, if you're interested). I know (from experience in the Canyon near uranium mines) that if you're around a mine, your mSv/day count goes up. Since I'm within the normal range for this region, that indicates that mining contamination does not extend far from the surface of a mine. Obviously if we're talking aquifer pathways, as you've mentioned, the contamination can go further. Again, however, that does not equal the entire Colorado Plateau being contaminated with uranium mining byproducts.the EPA and the Navajo Nation will be glad to hear that since both are currently trying to both identify and mediate the hundreds of abandoned uranium mines that are contaminating Navajo Nation and increasing the background level of radioactivity in the environment.
A mill, to be precise.The Rio Puerco River is forever contaminated---the uranium mining process was the source.
Now imagine if those mines had no place to process their ore on the Colorado Plateau - how many would come in to operation? How many would still remain profitable with increased transportation costs? That's why I keep talking about the mills.Also, the concern for uranium mining near Grand Canyon is not focused solely on a single mining operation---it is the 1,000+ other mining claims in the vicinity around the Canyon. If one mine is given a permit to operate it provides a precedent for all the other mining claims to be developed. With the profit margin for uranium mining increasing, it will become profitable to mine other breccia pipe sites around the Canyon. Now, we are talking about a very large potential impact on the environment.
See my above experiment. I would also like to see your citations (or personal experiment) showing a uranium mine increasing the background level of radiation of the entire Colorado Plateau, not just the local environment.Please provide the literature for the science supporting your statement that "talking about a uranium mine increasing the background level of the Colorado Plateau is simply not true."
Very well:I've provided numerous citations available on the web to support most of my comments---I'd appreciate that you do the same, especially when you make declarative statements.
Source: http://hikearizona.com/photoset.php?ID=13000&start=45 http://hikearizona.com/photo.php?ZIP=162792 http://hikearizona.com/photo.php?ZIP=162793 and your posts about Horseshoe Mesa in this same thread.PageRob wrote::roll: There's already enough radioactive stuff actually in the canyon (not on the plateaus surrounding the rim) to keep you from getting a good night's sleep if you think too hard about it.
USGS report referenced in AZ Daily Sun article previously discussed in this threadPageRob wrote:If it was going to contaminate the aquifer, its had hundreds of millions of years to do so.
Source is, as I say, Uranium Frenzy. Inspectors had a much easier time accessing BIA mines because they were already controlled by the federal government - no companies worried about scaring off workers. I will admit that I intend to spend a bit more time researching this, so I will update with more information and sources as they become available.PageRob wrote:The stuff I have read indicates that the US government implemented air quality standards in reservation mines years before non-reservation mines. Source for that is "Uranium Frenzy."
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... itle1.htmlPageRob wrote:It was a mill accepting ore for processing, not a waste-remediation dump.canyonram wrote:there are dump sites in Tuba City that accepted the Orphan Mine wastes
Source: Strat column in Az Daily Sun showing mine breccia pipe, personal knowledge of the geology of the Colorado Plateau (minored in Geology), Glen Canyon Dam Technical Record of Construction (the most detailed minute analysis of one cross section of Navajo Sandstone I have ever seen).PageRob wrote: Which is a different rock type all together than the ones being mined at the proposed sites - Navajo Sandstone is highly porous. In addition this was a mill site - where ore was refined, not a mine.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... itle1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epa (EPA began operating in 1970).PageRob wrote:Also, this site was in operation before the EPA existed so the retention ponds were not lined with impermeable materials to prevent exactly what we are talking about.
Everything we have both posted supports this, but here's a couple examples: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... itle1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Roc ... mill_spill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab_TailingsPageRob wrote:Historically the biggest environmental disasters associated with uranium mining have been mills, not mines.
Status: Still in progress...PageRob wrote:I can conduct an experiment this week to determine who is correct here, actually. "Watch this space."
Source: Personally monitoring my radiation exposure level with EcoTest Terra-P personal dosimeter/Geiger counter. Also look at: http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/29/ ... C9DCB88.c2PageRob wrote:It is the highest in the nation, but it is nowhere near the highest in the world. The level that we're exposed to here on the plateau is low.
See above statements.PageRob wrote:But talking about a uranium mine increasing the background level of the Colorado Plateau is simply not true.
Moab Tailings - $720 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab_TailingsPageRob wrote:they do the most damage and cost the most to clean up. An individual mine simply cannot do the same sort of damage that these mills can.
Source: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.htmlPageRob wrote:And flying and living near power plants, etc. etc. etc
Saying that a nuclear detonation would be discounted as natural cannot be described as anything else. I know we've been at loggerheads here and managed to keep things civil, but that statement seems designed to provoke a certain reaction in people. Maybe you have a source that you can cite that shows that ADEQ and others have plans in place to discount fallout from nuclear bombs as naturally occurring. Otherwise it is just your opinion or speculation, or perhaps a use of words intended to bring out certain emotions in the reader.'ludicrous' which has been difficult since there are many that deserve that label and more.
It is a deposit of ore. One needs to make a claim with the county recorder's office and the land management agency. Why would I sell off such an awesome asset to someone else?You mentioned that you have discovered a mining claim up near the Four Corners region. When did you make this discovery? Do you plan to develop this dig yourself or will you sell the development rights to a company such as Denison?
Probably nothing.How much do you anticipate earning from your discovery?
This seems contrary to your previous claim of "With the profit margin for uranium mining increasing". So their stock is falling while profits are rising? Sounds like it might be time to buy!Stock in uranium mining operations such as Denison peaked a few years ago but then went into a downturn.
Not that HAZ is a scientific forum that requires financial disclosures in any way shape or form, and since we've already been over this in another form when you asked if I worked for a mining company...Current standards for scientific papers requires that authors reveal their funding source and if they have any vested interest in their sponsors or source of their funding. I will state my current affiliation in regard to Uranium Mining operations: I do not own stock, will not invest in Uranium mining, do not go looking for mining claims, and have no vested interest in seeing Denison (or any other Uranium mining operation) get their permits.
Where do you stand in regards to your financial interest in Uranium mining?
The reason you do not "sell off such an awesome assest to someone else" is because it is not something of yours to either own, sell or make a profit. Developing yet another uranium mine may put some cash into your bank account but you are opening Pandora's box to reach in a greedy hand. Perhaps you can name your mine the "Fred C. Dobbs Memorial Mine?" after the lead character in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre.'PageRob wrote:It is a deposit of ore. One needs to make a claim with the county recorder's office and the land management agency. Why would I sell off such an awesome asset to someone else?
You say that like its a bad thing. Just another way to experience more of the world.Canyonram wrote:I do not go hiking with a geiger counter
What is your source for humans being able to destroy the Earth? We certainly have the ability to destroy most life on earth, but the earth as a planet will survive until the sun swells to swallow it in its thermonuclear grasp.Canyonram wrote:My vested interest is the planet that we live upon and the legacy that will be left behind for future generations. I believe that all living things share this Earth and, as one of the members of the human race that has the power to destroy the planet, feel it a duty to speak and act toward the protection of our home and the other creatures who share our Earth.
I assume you don't own a house or any other real estate, or plan to donate to charity when it comes time to leave? Nowhere did I say "I plan to develop this claim into a full-scale mine".Canyonram wrote: The reason you do not "sell off such an awesome assest to someone else" is because it is not something of yours to either own, sell or make a profit.
Did you read at all what I read. First of all, you are putting words into my mouth by saying that I was going to "develop" the claim. Second of all, when asked directly how much I expect to earn from the claim, I answered "probably nothing." You are stickler for facts, so let's stick to that and not fabricate statements.Canyonram wrote:Developing yet another uranium mine may put some cash into your bank account but you are opening Pandora's box to reach in a greedy hand. Perhaps you can name your mine the "Fred C. Dobbs Memorial Mine?" after the lead character in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre.'
The distinction is this: The mines are like leaves in a tree. The mills are like the branches. The trunk is bifurcated - nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. You're trying to chop down the tree by hacking off the leaves. They are the smallest and most numerous part of the operation. If you truly want to stop nuclear power (which you say you do), why are you working against the thing that has the least impact on the whole system?Canyonram wrote:I honestly don't know where you stand---you seem intent on drawing some artifical distinction between uranium mines (and their impact) and uranium milling operations. I see both as connected parts of the whole process and draw no distinction. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if uranium mines are 'clean' but the processing at the mill creates the environmental problem and health concerns that will persist for millions of years.
First of all, I'm not sure what straw-man arguments you're referring back to (quote please), unless it is your "nuclear explosion in Vegas is just background radiation" statement. Second, what you might view as splitting hairs may represent a large difference to others or might simply might be correcting a factual error (equating Chernobyl with Three Mile Island, stating Tuba City was a dump for waste - both cited in my previous post). Or it might be to correct sweeping generalizations.Canyonram wrote: I'm weary of this individual debate and trying to deal with the straw-men and 'Yes, but . . . ' arguments. So, where do you stand? Do you or do you not support Uranium Mining/Grand Canyon??? Pretty simple question requiring a simple response.
Rather than asking uranium mining near the GC, to me the bigger question is: Are you for or are you against uranium mining ANYWHERE?Canyonram wrote:Are you for or are you against Uranium mining near Grand Canyon?
In addition to stored food and a meager garden, I've got a fishing pole and a hunting rifle. Plenty of places to get fresh meat up here. Plenty of water to drink up here.Jim_H wrote:I interpret that to mean food, but there is nothing to eat up there.
Weren't you off-the-grid in Hawai'i? That's a far cry from doing the same thing in Arizona. I can't imagine doing the same here in Northern California, especially because my firearms still live in Arizona.azbackpackr wrote:Off the grid rarely has anything much to do with food. It usually refers to "off the power grid." Most off the grid people do have some kind of garden, but if you have ever tried to live off what you can get out of a garden you will know it is pretty hard. I have tried it, and I have lived off the grid in the primitive fashion, with no solar or wind power.