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 > The ERA of uranium mining is over > Comments

The ERA of uranium mining is over : Comments

By Dave Sweeney, published 9/4/2014

Minutes later came the unforgiving sound of peeling metal followed by a surge of over one million litres of highly acidic uranium slurry from the buckled and broken number one leach tank.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
As you state no one was injured. I'm sure if there was any environmental damage to speak of you would have mentioned it, so I assume that this was non-existent or minimal too.

This is just all emotion and empty rhetoric from someone with a preconceived ideological position.
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 7:52:02 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
Have to agree with Stezza! Same old same old fear-mongering!?
No ivory tower dwelling, wishful thinking greenie, is saying the era of gold mining is over, yet the contaminants that regularly leach from old gold workings, or new ones, could be far more dangerous!
It's really more about rolling back progress and or industrialization?
Or not allowing the traditional land holders anything like a measure of self determination, let alone economic self sufficiency!?
Or fully informed consent?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 8:47:18 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
Well, I can agree with the first two critics of this article - about one point, anyway. It is true that gold mining is also harmful to health. Coal mining even worse.

But that doesn't make uranium mining safe.

The nuclear lobby always trots out that line about "nobody killed, nobody sick" - knowing full well that the harmful after effects of exposure to ionising radiation will take perhaps decades to appear.
Very like the old arguments about smoking being OK for health. Lung cancer doesn't kill you until 20 or 30 or more years later.
Posted by Noel.Wauchope, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 9:47:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well nuclear power has been around around 60 years, how many decades do you want? I suppose after 80 or 90 years of exposure you may be correct that people may start to die!

Nothing is safe, but if you want to wait until a completely safe power source is available, turn of the lights and computer and we'll let you know when the time comes. Until then pick your favourite!

http://assets2.motherboard.tv/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/d75936b917b5dbe2376ac949a9a0acf9.jpg
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 10:18:32 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
I disagree with all the cobberatti above. Keep Uranium in Australia's ground, until the price is made to double AND there are more efficient and safer nuclear reactors actually working - not just long term planned.

Its no use selling Uranium early and at rock-bottom prices - see these charts http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/uranium-oxide/

As Australia has the largest Uranium reserves of any country. Instead of selling now cheap and dirty we could control the world Uranium market in a couple of decades - becoming a Saudi Arabia of Uranium.

Therefore Australia's Uranium miner should close down or go slow for a few years.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 1:36:20 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
Value adding a a finished ready to use product would enable us to command premium prices!
Having said that, I prefer Thorium, which we have even more of, can't be used to create weapons, and almost exactly opposite to oxide reactors, consumes up around 95% of its fuel, has very little waste, which is suitable as long life space batteries, and therefore, doesn't present with any of the usual problems that beset uranium.
The only oxide reactor we should accept, given all the advantages of cheaper than coal thorium, is the pebble reactor.
And then only where a very much hotter thorium reactor is inherently impossible, like say on ocean going vessels and submarines.
But particularly, where sheer raw speed is a critical harm avoiding necessary characteristic.
Pebble reactors are a bit more than just fanciful untried theory, [as claimed by those who just want to keep the stuff in the ground?] with a few working waterless prototypes, around the world.
Pebble reactors can be mass produced, then trucked on demand to the field, connected to the grid or local users and operating in just days?
A factor which also makes them cheaper to install, operate or decommission than current nuclear technology, or coal.
Hence the resistance/obfuscation by current conventional patent holders/manufacturers/coal miners/anti nuclear Establishment etc?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 9 April 2014 3:59:05 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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