New uranium mines: no simple answers

Disir

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2011
28,003
9,605
910
A town on the edge of the Navajo Nation that unknowingly drank uranium-tainted water for at least 12 years.

Navajo babies showing increasing uranium concentrations during their first year of life.

Children swimming in natural pools near Cameron they later learned had been filled with water from abandoned uranium mines.


The stories about the impacts of Cold War-era uranium mining on the Navajo Nation became highly personal during a forum hosted at the Museum of Northern Arizona Wednesday night.

Four decades later, the subject has come to the fore again as a grandfathered uranium mine moves forward with operations south of Tusayan and a new president stokes fears about the reopening of 1 million acres of the Grand Canyon watershed outside the national park to new mining.

“The 20-year mineral withdrawal is now up for grabs under the current administration,” the Grand Canyon Trust’s Roger Clark said Wednesday night.

Among most at the forum, the thinking was obvious: Allowing more mining around the Grand Canyon is opening the door to repeating past mistakes.

But as it stands, researchers haven’t yet determined if data from soils, waters and living inhabitants largely supports or refutes such a fear. They are still nailing down possible sources of high uranium measured in a handful of waters in the watershed, are just starting to understand how water travels through rock layers that surround the breccia pipe uranium mines and have completed only an initial set of studies on how surface operations could impact nearby plants and animals.

What is clear, however, is that modern mining in the Grand Canyon isn’t simply a repeat of the past. Different mining methods, more rigorous regulations and a better understanding of underground water and geology make evaluation of the current risks its own, complicated beast.
New uranium mines: no simple answers

Let's not repeat past mistakes.
 
We don't need the uranium, nor new nukes. We can supply our entire energy needs with wind, solar, and geothermal. And do it at less cost than nuclear, and at far less risk.
 
A town on the edge of the Navajo Nation that unknowingly drank uranium-tainted water for at least 12 years.

Navajo babies showing increasing uranium concentrations during their first year of life.

Children swimming in natural pools near Cameron they later learned had been filled with water from abandoned uranium mines.


The stories about the impacts of Cold War-era uranium mining on the Navajo Nation became highly personal during a forum hosted at the Museum of Northern Arizona Wednesday night.

Four decades later, the subject has come to the fore again as a grandfathered uranium mine moves forward with operations south of Tusayan and a new president stokes fears about the reopening of 1 million acres of the Grand Canyon watershed outside the national park to new mining.

“The 20-year mineral withdrawal is now up for grabs under the current administration,” the Grand Canyon Trust’s Roger Clark said Wednesday night.

Among most at the forum, the thinking was obvious: Allowing more mining around the Grand Canyon is opening the door to repeating past mistakes.

But as it stands, researchers haven’t yet determined if data from soils, waters and living inhabitants largely supports or refutes such a fear. They are still nailing down possible sources of high uranium measured in a handful of waters in the watershed, are just starting to understand how water travels through rock layers that surround the breccia pipe uranium mines and have completed only an initial set of studies on how surface operations could impact nearby plants and animals.

What is clear, however, is that modern mining in the Grand Canyon isn’t simply a repeat of the past. Different mining methods, more rigorous regulations and a better understanding of underground water and geology make evaluation of the current risks its own, complicated beast.
New uranium mines: no simple answers

Let's not repeat past mistakes.


Often people have valid concerns but not the CONTEXT of the problem. That's where the science comes in. To FOCUS the concern and the actions.

Turns out that ground-water contamination by Uranium mining is the LEAST of the problems with "radioactive groundwater". The far LARGER PROBLEM is the effect of farming and nitrate runoff that "mobilizes" the NATURAL Uranium by making it soluble. THIS -- rises far above the transient effects of mining the stuff.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150817132508.htm

The study reports that 78 percent of the uranium-contaminated sites were linked to the presence of nitrate, a common groundwater contaminant that originates mainly from chemical fertilizers and animal waste. Nitrate mobilizes naturally occurring uranium through a series of bacterial and chemical reactions that oxidize the radioactive mineral, making it soluble in groundwater.

UNL researchers Karrie Weber and Jason Nolan found that the High Plains aquifer contains uranium concentrations up to 89 times the EPA standard and nitrate concentrations up to 189 times greater. The uranium and nitrate levels of the California-based Central Valley aquifer measured up to 180 and 34 times their respective EPA thresholds.

The High Plains aquifer -- the largest in the United States -- provides drinking water and irrigation for an eight-state swath that stretches from South Dakota through Nebraska and into northern Texas. As California's largest reservoir, the Central Valley aquifer sits beneath some of the state's most fertile agricultural land. According to a 2012 census from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the two aquifers irrigate cropland that accounts for one-sixth of the annual revenue generated by U.S. agriculture.

The researchers also determined that only one of the six wells located near a former or current mining site was contaminated. This finding counters the notion that uranium contamination stems primarily from mining operations or spent nuclear fuel, Weber said
 
We don't need the uranium, nor new nukes. We can supply our entire energy needs with wind, solar, and geothermal. And do it at less cost than nuclear, and at far less risk.
iu
 
52,000 large wind turbines in the US by August, 2017.

New map shows where wind farms are spreading rapidly across US

Solar power in the United States includes utility-scale solar power plants as well as local distributed generation, mostly from rooftop photovoltaics. As of the end of 2016, the U.S. had 40 gigawatts (GW) of installed photovoltaic capacity, having almost doubled in capacity from the previous year.
Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia
Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia

Solar energy had a big moment in the U.S. in 2016

U.S. electric generating capacity increase in 2016 was largest net change since 2011
main.png

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual and Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory
More than 27 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity was added to the U.S. power grid during 2016, the largest amount of added capacity since 2012. These additions more than offset the retirement of roughly 12 GW of capacity, resulting in a net capacity gain of nearly 15 GW, the largest change since 2011. These net additions follow a 4 GW net capacity decrease in 2015—the largest net drop in capacity recorded in the United States.

U.S. electric generating capacity increase in 2016 was largest net change since 2011 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Nuclear Power in the USA. The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity. The country's 99 nuclear reactors produced 805 billion kWh in 2016, almost 20% of total electrical output. There are two reactors under construction.
Nuclear Power in the USA - World Nuclear Association
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/.../usa-nuclear-power.aspx
us_nuclear_map.jpg


Nuclear accounted for about 20% of the power in 2016. In the first half of 2017, renewables accounted for 10% of the power produced in the US. Nuke power is going down, renewable are increasing at double digit compound rates. We don't need nuclear, period.
 

Forum List

Back
Top