Two snips from the Project overview put out by the company which owns the mine
The uranium concentrate, commonly known as yellowcake, will be transported by road from the mine site to the Port of Adelaide in South Australia for export
Uranium ore bodies are mined and processed to extract the uranium metal. The resulting uranium concentrate has a relatively low volume, is non-toxic, non-flammable and is classified as a low level radioactive product.
I always thought that Yellowcake, was not good for humans, and either the mine owners had made a misprint, or Yellowcake had suddenly become much safer for humans
Snip from an article below (which was the first that Mr Google sent me)
Is it dangerous? Scientists say it doesn't pose a high risk to human and animal health if stored and handled properly. However, it is a radioactive substance, which means merely standing close to yellowcake without protective clothing can cause organ damage. The level of damage, which includes cancer, depends on how much pure uranium there is in the yellowcake and how long you've been exposed to it. Ingesting or inhaling the dust of yellowcake is the most serious form of exposure.
Probably no worse than (or less due to tighter regulations) or dangerous as lead, fuel, explosives etc. My understanding is the transport containers will contain the product even in an accident. Even exit signs are radioactive.
Neil
dorian said
03:00 PM Apr 26, 2019
I wonder how the native animals have adapted to living in a radioactive environment. Are there greater instances of genetic deformity in the local populations?
It would be interesting to see the results of an environmental impact study.
Knight said
03:44 PM Apr 26, 2019
I spent a few years in my early business career buying radio isotopes for commercial and medical purposes for export market customers, the source being what was then the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights Sydney nuclear reactor. That facility has operated safely since the 1950s and is today close to housing estates.
Yellow cake uranium concentrate is not dangerous. During the Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq some people were horrified to read that depleted uranium was used as armour piercing attack helicopter weapon ammunition, depleted means no longer dangerously radioactive.
Tell that the people in Serbia , NATO bombed the s... out of the place, cheers
Olive Oil said
07:30 PM Apr 26, 2019
dorian wrote:
I wonder how the native animals have adapted to living in a radioactive environment. Are there greater instances of genetic deformity in the local populations?
It would be interesting to see the results of an environmental impact study.
Apparently the local Possum population glows in the dark so there's no real problem.
Knight said
09:59 PM Apr 26, 2019
Studies in 2005 and earlier have concluded that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects.
A 1999 literature review conducted by the Rand Corporation stated: "No evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to depleted or natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses," and a RAND report authored by the U.S. Defense department undersecretary charged with evaluating DU hazards considered the debate to be more political than scientific.
A 2001 oncology study concluded that "the present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction". Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson stated in 2001 that "the existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited, and limited to very specific circumstances".
A 2002 study from the Australian defense ministry concluded that "there has been no established increase in mortality or morbidity in workers exposed to uranium in uranium processing industries... studies of Gulf War veterans show that, in those who have retained fragments of depleted uranium following combat related injury, it has been possible to detect elevated urinary uranium levels, but no kidney toxicity or other adverse health effects related to depleted uranium after a decade of follow-up." Pier Roberto Danesi, then-director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Seibersdorf +Laboratory, stated in 2002 that "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat".
The IAEA reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." The IAEA concluded that, while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that it has been carcinogenic in humans.
A 2005 study by Sandia National Laboratories' Al Marshall used mathematical models to analyze potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall's study concluded that the reports of cancer risks from DU exposure are not supported by his analysis nor by veteran medical statistics. Marshall also examined possible genetic effects due to radiation from depleted uranium. Chemical effects, including potential reproductive issues, associated with depleted uranium exposure were discussed in some detail in a subsequent journal paper.
-- Edited by Knight on Friday 26th of April 2019 10:00:44 PM
dabbler said
11:05 PM Apr 26, 2019
Depleted uranium and yellowcake are substantially different. The dangers of depleted uranium chemical toxicity far outweigh it's radioactive danger and that has been a cause for concern for both the Royal Army Medical Corps and the US VA (and presumably others). Yellowcake is also considered relatively safe radioactively in small amounts but not truckloads, however it too is a highly toxic chemical.
Whenarewethere said
06:49 AM Apr 27, 2019
Decades ago I heard a program on ABC of ancient stories of Aboriginal peoples, said that they avoided various areas of country.
Sick country it was called where they would get sick but didn't actually know why.
Turned out that these areas of country had higher levels of radioactivity.
Knight said
07:59 AM Apr 27, 2019
Uranium is a naturally-occurring element in the Earth's crust. Traces of it occur almost everywhere, although mining takes place in locations where it is naturally concentrated. To make nuclear fuel from the uranium ore requires first for the uranium to be extracted from the rock in which it is found, then enriched in the uranium-235 isotope, before being made into pellets that are loaded into assemblies of nuclear fuel rods.Mining Uranium mines operate in some twenty countries, though about half of world production comes from just ten mines in six countries, in Canada, Australia, Niger, Kazakhstan, Russia and Namibia.At conventional mines, the ore goes through a mill where it is first crushed. It is then ground in water to produce a slurry of fine ore particles suspended in the water. The slurry is leached with sulphuric acid to dissolve the uranium oxides, leaving the remaining rock and other minerals undissolved, as mine tailings.However, nearly half the world's mines now use a mining method called in situ leaching . This means that the mining is accomplished without any major ground disturbance. Groundwater with a lot of oxygen injected into it is circulated through the uranium ore, extracting the uranium. The solution with dissolved uranium is pumped to the surface.Both mining methods produce a liquid with uranium dissolved in it. This is filtered and the uranium then separated by ion exchange, precipitated from the solution, filtered and dried to produce a uranium oxide concentrate, which is then sealed in drums. This concentrate may be a bright yellow colour, hence known as 'yellowcake', or if dried at high temperatures it is khaki.The uranium oxide is only mildly radioactive. (The radiation level one metre from a drum of freshly-processed uranium oxide about half that - experienced from cosmic rays - on a commercial jet flight.)
pipes said
08:12 AM Apr 27, 2019
Back in the mid sixties, we were carrying 44 gallon drums of yellow cake from the mine east of Pine Creek, NT. We just belly roped the drums on open trailers. Prime mover and three trailers with a value of three million POUNDS. We reckoned that we carries the most expensive loads in the country without signs or escorts. They were off loaded onto the rail in Alice Springs.
Pipes
Whenarewethere said
08:21 AM Apr 27, 2019
If only these companies cleaned up after themselves, but they don't, they externalize these costs to Australians. We have 50,000 mines in Australia which need cleaning up.
Knight said
08:58 AM Apr 27, 2019
Whenarewethere wrote:
If only these companies cleaned up after themselves, but they don't, they externalize these costs to Australians. We have 50,000 mines in Australia which need cleaning up.
I did some research on that 50,000 mines claim and discovered that the political party pushing the figures counted the numerous shafts leading to gold and opal mines, mostly on privately owned land, and ignored the open cut mines where the overburden removed to access the coal is returned into the mine area as the coal seam is removed. And on top grasses and other vegetation planted. During the 1970s I visited open cut mines in the NSW Hunter Valley and interstate, Queensland, and today I have driven past former open cut mine sites and if I did not know better I would believe it was natural landscape.
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 08:59:33 AM
Izabarack said
10:31 AM Apr 27, 2019
dorian wrote:
Are there greater instances of genetic deformity in the local populations?
Without bringing Peter Parker into the discussion, native animals do not have the life span long enough to display the negative effects of living in "Sick country". Sick country was identified and avoided by our indigenous population, years ago.
Iza
Izabarack said
10:38 AM Apr 27, 2019
Knight wrote:
......... Queensland, and today I have driven past former open cut mine sites and if I did not know better I would believe it was natural landscape.
A drive from Ipswich to Willowbank raceway and a look west will dispel that idea. A quick look at the Swanbank land fill site is another example of massive, huge, widespread environmental degradation. A casual discussion with a friend of mine specialised in mine site rehabilitation will also tell you that maybe a couple of hundred years is required to return the sites to anything like what they were.
Iza
Knight said
02:40 PM Apr 27, 2019
Izabarack wrote:
Knight wrote:
......... Queensland, and today I have driven past former open cut mine sites and if I did not know better I would believe it was natural landscape.
A drive from Ipswich to Willowbank raceway and a look west will dispel that idea. A quick look at the Swanbank land fill site is another example of massive, huge, widespread environmental degradation. A casual discussion with a friend of mine specialised in mine site rehabilitation will also tell you that maybe a couple of hundred years is required to return the sites to anything like what they were.
Iza
There are several former open cut mine sites around the NSW Hunter Valley and I would challenge you to drive with me and identify them. It's the same as forestry areas on Fraser Island Qld, go for a drive and point out the logged areas, almost impossible.
Of course rehabilitated open cut mines are not returned to the same as before mining but they are rehabilitated. Which leaves the original claim of so many mines ignored, mostly holes in the ground on private lands.
No landscape remains the same forever, as I pointed out here recently the now Gulf of Carpentaria was 18,000 years ago a lake during the last major Ice Age. Many other examples. However the things we now take for granted would not have been so without progress and humans taking advantage of natural resources. The indigenous people wee here from at least 65,000 years ago and they lived with nature, they also lived rather short lives more than less.
Knight said
02:48 PM Apr 27, 2019
Izabarack wrote:
dorian wrote:
Are there greater instances of genetic deformity in the local populations?
Without bringing Peter Parker into the discussion, native animals do not have the life span long enough to display the negative effects of living in "Sick country". Sick country was identified and avoided by our indigenous population, years ago.
Iza
The indigenous tribes had very short lives too.
I was aware of "sick country" story and have travelled in Kakadu National Park many times, including regular visits when the highway and bridges were constructed to service the mine during the early 1970s. In those days the highway was a bush track and I was involved in bridge construction.
The fact is that many dreamtime stories are modern stories, sometimes based on tribal legend but not necessarily so, like "secret womens business" claim to stop construction of a bridge in SA. Like the legend of the giant pigeon that laid eggs (rocks) at a sacred site where a mining venture was proposed. In frustration the mine project people invited indigenous complainants to travel in a chartered bus to locate the sacred site. It was was never found. I am not claiming that the claimants are necessarily deliberately attempting to deceive, maybe just somewhat confused?
Natural uranium without being processed is not harmful to life.
"The uranium oxide is only mildly radioactive. (The radiation level one metre from a drum of freshly-processed uranium oxide about half that - experienced from cosmic rays - on a commercial jet flight)."
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 02:49:54 PM
hako said
02:49 PM Apr 27, 2019
I'm not worried about the yellowcake or the miner financed scientific assurances, I'm concerned about this paragraph from the news article:
"It is also approved to cause groundwater levels to drop by 50cm, and they would not completely recover for 200 years, according to Cameco's environmental reports."
Is this part of the Great Artesian Basin?
Good Luck.
Knight said
02:51 PM Apr 27, 2019
hako wrote:
I'm not worried about the yellowcake or the miner financed scientific assurances, I'm concerned about this paragraph from the news article: "It is also approved to cause groundwater levels to drop by 50cm, and they would not completely recover for 200 years, according to Cameco's environmental reports." Is this part of the Great Artesian Basin?
Good Luck.
How much water is being pumped from the Basin weekly right now?
Artesian Bores are a very important water resource so over the lifetime of the mine recovery over 200 years does not make sense, it suggests that the Basin water level is static.
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 02:55:10 PM
Ger08 said
07:14 PM Apr 27, 2019
I dont want to be political - but .....
Bicyclecamper said
03:00 PM May 7, 2019
I have 10 kilos of thorium ore, sitting in my shed, and some days I pick up a piece and roll it around in my hands, just to look at it, it is very hard to distinguish from iron ore, of which where I got it from, as it is a by-product of iron ore mining and harmless. When it is refined it has an Half Life of 150 years, so still relative harmless, but what I don't like having in my house and everyone has them, is a smoke detector - it has an half life of 430 years and most people throw them out in the bin when they give up the ghost. Should not do this!.
Not trying to be political or anti establishment
Just advising to be careful, if you come across a semi in an accident, with a radiation sign
The Federal Government of the day, just before calling the election, has approved a Uranium mine in Western Australia.
Link below
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-26/government-approved-uranium-mine-day-before-election/11047252
Two snips from the Project overview put out by the company which owns the mine
Link below for the above two snips above
http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets-us-west-2/microsites/australia/Yeelirrie_Project_Information_booklet.pdf
I always thought that Yellowcake, was not good for humans, and either the mine owners had made a misprint, or Yellowcake had suddenly become much safer for humans
Snip from an article below (which was the first that Mr Google sent me)
Link below
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/yellowcake-explained-1.703864
Probably no worse than (or less due to tighter regulations) or dangerous as lead, fuel, explosives etc. My understanding is the transport containers will contain the product even in an accident. Even exit signs are radioactive.
Neil
I wonder how the native animals have adapted to living in a radioactive environment. Are there greater instances of genetic deformity in the local populations?
It would be interesting to see the results of an environmental impact study.
I spent a few years in my early business career buying radio isotopes for commercial and medical purposes for export market customers, the source being what was then the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights Sydney nuclear reactor. That facility has operated safely since the 1950s and is today close to housing estates.
Yellow cake uranium concentrate is not dangerous. During the Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq some people were horrified to read that depleted uranium was used as armour piercing attack helicopter weapon ammunition, depleted means no longer dangerously radioactive.
This link is helpful;
www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-ore-made-into-nuclear-fuel.aspx
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 03:21:46 PM
Barnaby, Dutton, Abbott to name a few!
Tell that the people in Serbia , NATO bombed the s... out of the place, cheers
Apparently the local Possum population glows in the dark so there's no real problem.
Studies in 2005 and earlier have concluded that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects.
A 1999 literature review conducted by the Rand Corporation stated: "No evidence is documented in the literature of cancer or any other negative health effect related to the radiation received from exposure to depleted or natural uranium, whether inhaled or ingested, even at very high doses," and a RAND report authored by the U.S. Defense department undersecretary charged with evaluating DU hazards considered the debate to be more political than scientific.
A 2001 oncology study concluded that "the present scientific consensus is that DU exposure to humans, in locations where DU ammunition was deployed, is very unlikely to give rise to cancer induction". Former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson stated in 2001 that "the existing medical consensus is clear. The hazard from depleted uranium is both very limited, and limited to very specific circumstances".
A 2002 study from the Australian defense ministry concluded that "there has been no established increase in mortality or morbidity in workers exposed to uranium in uranium processing industries... studies of Gulf War veterans show that, in those who have retained fragments of depleted uranium following combat related injury, it has been possible to detect elevated urinary uranium levels, but no kidney toxicity or other adverse health effects related to depleted uranium after a decade of follow-up." Pier Roberto Danesi, then-director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Seibersdorf +Laboratory, stated in 2002 that "There is a consensus now that DU does not represent a health threat".
The IAEA reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage." The IAEA concluded that, while depleted uranium is a potential carcinogen, there is no evidence that it has been carcinogenic in humans.
A 2005 study by Sandia National Laboratories' Al Marshall used mathematical models to analyze potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall's study concluded that the reports of cancer risks from DU exposure are not supported by his analysis nor by veteran medical statistics. Marshall also examined possible genetic effects due to radiation from depleted uranium. Chemical effects, including potential reproductive issues, associated with depleted uranium exposure were discussed in some detail in a subsequent journal paper.
-- Edited by Knight on Friday 26th of April 2019 10:00:44 PM
Decades ago I heard a program on ABC of ancient stories of Aboriginal peoples, said that they avoided various areas of country.
Sick country it was called where they would get sick but didn't actually know why.
Turned out that these areas of country had higher levels of radioactivity.
Pipes
If only these companies cleaned up after themselves, but they don't, they externalize these costs to Australians. We have 50,000 mines in Australia which need cleaning up.
I did some research on that 50,000 mines claim and discovered that the political party pushing the figures counted the numerous shafts leading to gold and opal mines, mostly on privately owned land, and ignored the open cut mines where the overburden removed to access the coal is returned into the mine area as the coal seam is removed. And on top grasses and other vegetation planted. During the 1970s I visited open cut mines in the NSW Hunter Valley and interstate, Queensland, and today I have driven past former open cut mine sites and if I did not know better I would believe it was natural landscape.
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 08:59:33 AM
Without bringing Peter Parker into the discussion, native animals do not have the life span long enough to display the negative effects of living in "Sick country". Sick country was identified and avoided by our indigenous population, years ago.
Iza
A drive from Ipswich to Willowbank raceway and a look west will dispel that idea. A quick look at the Swanbank land fill site is another example of massive, huge, widespread environmental degradation. A casual discussion with a friend of mine specialised in mine site rehabilitation will also tell you that maybe a couple of hundred years is required to return the sites to anything like what they were.
Iza
There are several former open cut mine sites around the NSW Hunter Valley and I would challenge you to drive with me and identify them. It's the same as forestry areas on Fraser Island Qld, go for a drive and point out the logged areas, almost impossible.
Of course rehabilitated open cut mines are not returned to the same as before mining but they are rehabilitated. Which leaves the original claim of so many mines ignored, mostly holes in the ground on private lands.
No landscape remains the same forever, as I pointed out here recently the now Gulf of Carpentaria was 18,000 years ago a lake during the last major Ice Age. Many other examples. However the things we now take for granted would not have been so without progress and humans taking advantage of natural resources. The indigenous people wee here from at least 65,000 years ago and they lived with nature, they also lived rather short lives more than less.
The indigenous tribes had very short lives too.
I was aware of "sick country" story and have travelled in Kakadu National Park many times, including regular visits when the highway and bridges were constructed to service the mine during the early 1970s. In those days the highway was a bush track and I was involved in bridge construction.
The fact is that many dreamtime stories are modern stories, sometimes based on tribal legend but not necessarily so, like "secret womens business" claim to stop construction of a bridge in SA. Like the legend of the giant pigeon that laid eggs (rocks) at a sacred site where a mining venture was proposed. In frustration the mine project people invited indigenous complainants to travel in a chartered bus to locate the sacred site. It was was never found. I am not claiming that the claimants are necessarily deliberately attempting to deceive, maybe just somewhat confused?
Natural uranium without being processed is not harmful to life.
"The uranium oxide is only mildly radioactive. (The radiation level one metre from a drum of freshly-processed uranium oxide about half that - experienced from cosmic rays - on a commercial jet flight)."
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 02:49:54 PM
"It is also approved to cause groundwater levels to drop by 50cm, and they would not completely recover for 200 years, according to Cameco's environmental reports."
Is this part of the Great Artesian Basin?
Good Luck.
How much water is being pumped from the Basin weekly right now?
Artesian Bores are a very important water resource so over the lifetime of the mine recovery over 200 years does not make sense, it suggests that the Basin water level is static.
-- Edited by Knight on Saturday 27th of April 2019 02:55:10 PM