The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Radiating risk and undermining public health > Comments

Radiating risk and undermining public health : Comments

By Peter Karamoskos, published 13/12/2010

Miners are at increased risk of developing cancer when working in uranium mines.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Without detracting from these concerns they need to be put in perspective. Mining is inherently bad for respiratory problems including inhalation of coal dust, sharp silica particles, asbestos and poisoning from copper, nickel and lead compounds. When the coal is burned at the power station some metals and radioactive compounds are released to the atmosphere and others find their way into the fly ash used in cement. On radon specifically it is also found in the steam from granite geothermal experiments. Therefore both coal and 'clean' geothermal energy have radioactivity issues. Musty old buildings made from granite blocks must have some radon release.

On the no-threshold theory there seems to be contradictory evidence. For example the better health of granite exposed residents of Colorado compared to those of Florida, albeit compounded by other factors. At this point we have to take the word of one researcher against another. It's not going to stop me handling my tube of yellowcake for example.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 13 December 2010 8:56:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Radon, dust etc are all present in underground mining of any mineral. The figure of cancer caused of 1/700 is less that the occurrence of cancer in non smoking, non miners, and is thus impossible to prove.

I suspect that this is more motivated by politics than by health concerns.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 13 December 2010 12:11:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with that there is a certain political spin to the article,

"there is insufficient evidence to overturn the no-threshold model but also states that there is "no evidence" of harmful health effects of annual exposures of 1.5-3.5 mSv"

If there was sufficient evidence of harmful health effects from this level of radiation, what could we do about it? As exposure to the earth and atmosphere results in apx. 2.4mSv dose per year, we either have to insulate the earth, or walk around in insulated biosuits.

"It is estimated that around 50 per cent of underground uranium miners in Australia do not use their masks and are thus at greater risk of lung cancer."

Well this is an OH&S issue, unrelated to uranium.

From my experience dealing with radiation in a work environment, uranium miners probably closely monitor their radiation dose and have greater safeguards than miners of other minerals. This argues against the authors mains points in the article and thus one has to ask, why target uranium mining?
Posted by Stezza, Monday, 13 December 2010 12:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't doubt that radon gas poses an increased risk of cancer to underground uranium miners. They need to be told of the dangers associated with removal of their face masks and should face the sack if they don't follow the rules. But to use the problems of uranium miners not following guidelines to justify the closure of such mines is the same as saying that we should ban all motor vehicles on our roads since a small proportion of drivers don't follow road rules and some have crashes causing injury or death. If the world as a whole believes that uranium mining and nuclear energy are desirable, then we need to work harder to make sure that miners do not unnecessarily expose themselves to elevated risks of cancer.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 20 December 2010 11:14:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy