|
JULY
7th , 2008 |
|
IN THIS ISSUE: 1) CCAMU AT THE "ART OF BEING GREEN" 2) CONSULTATION PROCESS BEGINS 3) NEW BRUNSWICK INTRODUCES NEW REGULATIONS ON URANIUM MINING 4) STOP CANADIAN LAKES FROM BECOMING MINE WASTE DUMPS! 5) TWO YEARS FOR LIFE ON EARTH 6) MCKAY'S SPEECH AT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY OF PLUM HOLLOW PROJECT 7) ARTICLE: NB TO RESTRICT URANIUM EXPLORATION & MINING 8) ARTICLE: URANIUM FROM IRAQ REACHES CANADA 9) THE AMOUNT OF RADIUM IN URANIUM MINE TAILINGS
1) CCAMU AT THE "ART OF BEING GREEN" We are looking people to "table" at the Art of Being Green in Lanark (Clyde Waterfront Park) Friday July 11th-13th. Friday July 11th - 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Saturday July 12th - Parade at 9:30 a.m. (It would be great to have a CCAMU radioactive crew take part in this.) Festival 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday July 13th - Festival 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 2) CONSULTATION PROCESS BEGINS By Helen Forsey The first of a series of meetings between Shabot Obaadjiwan
community members and Ontario government representatives took place on
Friday evening, July 4th, in Sharbot Lake. Chief Doreen Davis had asked
that two settlers come as observers, and I was pleased to be one of them. 3) NEW BRUNSWICK INTRODUCES NEW REGULATIONS ON URANIUM MINING As reported by the Canadian Press this afternoon, "New Brunswick 's natural resources minister has announced new regulations for uranium exploration and claim staking that he says will address public concerns and protect drinking water. Donald Arsenault says uranium exploration and mining are no longer permitted in designated watersheds, in municipalities, or within 300 metres of residential or institutional buildings." CBC reports that, "New government regulations in New Brunswick will limit uranium exploration and staking of claims. The province announced on Friday that exploration is now banned on municipal land and in watersheds and fields with private wells. Claims will also not be allowed to be staked within 300 metres of private homes. The new regulations are retroactive and exploration in previous claims in areas that are now banned will not be able to continue. Exploration on Crown lands and land privately owned by companies will be allowed to continue." A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE The Telegraph Journal reported earlier today that, "After being battered for months over the contentious issue of uranium mining, the Liberal government is set to announce this morning amendments to regulations for exploration and claim-staking...Within the past year, the uranium issue has rapidly shifted from being essentially off the official radar to being recognized as a key area that could make or break the Liberal government." The CBC adds that, "The announcement comes after months of controversy about whether uranium exploration and mining posed a threat to the province's environment and watersheds." CONTINUED CALLS FOR A BAN The Canadian Press article reports, "(Progressive Conservative) Opposition critic Carl Urquhart says the changes do nothing to help rural New Brunswickers and will allow the mining companies to be covert as they stake their claims." The CBC report adds, "The opposition has called for a moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in the province, while environmental groups and Moncton 's city council have called for a ban. There is concern that uranium mining could affect watersheds and that its long-term impacts would outweigh any short-term economic gain. The Conservatives still want a complete ban on uranium exploration in the province, Urquhart said." GOVERNMENT TRIES TO MUTE CALLS FOR A MORATORIUM The Telegraph-Journal also reports, " In an effort to mute calls for a moratorium on uranium exploration, the government announced in May much tighter regulations that included returning all radioactive materials to drill holes sealed with a clay-like substance called bentonite; testing water wells within 500 metres of a drill site before and after work is done; and keeping liquid waste from drilling operations a safe distance from wetlands. But that failed to quell the public uproar. Recent information sessions with concerned landowners in Fredericton and Moncton turned into boisterous protests, with citizens railing passionately against uranium exploration." To see the "Stop Uranium Mining in New Brunswick
" petition that we have linked to the energy campaign page of our
website, please go to The CBC report can be read at, The Telegraph-Journal report is at, The Canadian Press report is at, We'll have more analysis on this from our Atlantic organizer Angela Giles early next week. Thanks, Brent Patterson Director of Campaigns, Organizing,
According to a recent report by the CBC, the Federal Government is set to 'reclassify' 16 lakes across the country as toxic waste dumps for the mining industry. Under the Fisheries Act, companies are not allowed to place harmful substances into fish-bearing waters - however, there's a provision under the Act known as "Schedule Two" which allows them to redefine any lake as a "Tailings Impoundment Area." Once a lake is redefined it's no longer considered a natural body of water, and a mining company can go ahead and use it as a dumping ground. The CBC notes that, Since the introduction of Schedule Two of mining effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, in 2002, 16 lakes have been proposed for reclassification as tailings dumps. Four of the 16 are already being used as dumps - all in Newfoundland. Two of those are at the Duck Pond Mine and the other two are older mines due to be brought under Schedule Two retroactively. Only one of the 16 - Kemess North in B.C. - has been turned down. Eight are to be decided in the coming year. One of those lakes is located in the northwestern B.C region known as the Sacred Headwaters, within the Traditional Territory of the Tahltan Indigenous People. The company bcMetals (now owned by Imperial Metals) has been trying to get approval to use the headwaters as a tailings dump for it's proposed Red Chris copper and gold mine. Noted last year in the Tyee, the mine would "have two huge open pits and will leave behind approximately 183 million tonnes of toxic tailings and 307 million tonnes of waste rock, which will likely need to be treated for acid mine drainage for over 200 years." The Sacred Headwaters is the birthplace of northern British Columbia's three great salmon-bearing rivers: the Stikine, Nass and Skeena Rivers. For generations, the Tahltan have hunted and trapped in the Headwaters region. The Red Chris mine, along with 19 other development projects (in various stages) are being pursued in the region without the Tahltan's benefit or consent together threatens to lay the Headwaters to absolute waste. As such, the Tahltan have consistently resisted the projects. In 2004, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) leaned an inch toward the Tahltan, announcing they would hold public consultations and conduct a comprehensive study of the Red Chris mine. However, later that year they completely reversed their decision, saying there was now no need for either. Two years later, the DFO along Natural Resources Canada went even further, declaring the mine just didn't pose a danger to the environment. Shortly thereafter, Ecojustice lawyers filed a lawsuit against the government, saying the evasion of the study and consultation was illegal. In September 2007, the Federal Court agreed with Ecojustice,
ordering "that the Red Chris mine be denied any federal permits on
the basis of unlawful environmental assessment." Last week the Federal Court of Appeals reversed this decision, "paving the way" for the government to declare the headwaters and every other lake in Canada a toxic waste dump. On top of that, the government doesn't even have to consult anyone now. It's like a dream come true. The Tahltan have been fairly quiet in recent months, focusing
mostly on Shell's plan to turn the Sacred Headwaters region "into
a coalbed methane gas field scarred by a maze of wells, pipelines and
roads." But now that the Red Chris mine has been effectively approved,
it will only be a matter of time before they gather themselves for the
good of the land. * Out of Respect - The Tahltan, Mining and the Seven
Questions to Sustainability Lakes proposed for use as Waste Dumps * British Columbia: * Manitoba: Bucko Lake. * Newfoundland and Labrador: Duck Pond Mine - Trout Pond and Gill's Brook, Carol Mine - Wabush Lake, Wabush Mine - Flora Lake, Long Harbour - Sandy Pond. * Northwest Territories: Winter Lake. * Nunavut: Doris North Project - Tail Lake, Meadowbank - Second Portage Lake, High Lake. What You Can Do >From Mining Watch Canada: The government needs to hear from Canadians that the use of natural, fish-bearing waters as mine dumps is not acceptable! Please let Loyola Hearn (Fisheries and Oceans Minister), John Baird (Environment Minister) and your local MP know about your concerns for the future of Canada's lakes and streams. Write, e-mail, or fax them and tell them that NO more Canadian lakes and streams should be used for tailing dumps. Please also send a copy of your message to MiningWatch. Contact information and a sample letter can be found below: Honorable Loyola Hearn The Honourable John Baird e-mail:
John.Baird@ec.gc.ca Find your MP: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx? Because lakes and rivers are fish habitat they are protected by the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is Canada's oldest environmental legislation and prohibits the release of "deleterious substances" into fish-bearing waters, and the alteration or destruction of fish habitat. However, in 2002, a "schedule" was added to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations under the Act. Schedule 2 essentially re-defines any natural water body listed on it as a "Tailings Impoundment Area." Once a lake or river has been put on Schedule 2, it is no longer considered a natural water body (and no longer protected by the Fisheries Act) and a mining company can use it as a dumping ground for millions of tonnes of tailings and waste rock. The first two lakes to be approved for destruction, in 2006, were near Buchans, Newfoundland. These lakes used to contain Atlantic salmon and brook trout and were also home to otters. Since then the requests from the international mining industry to use Canadian waters for their toxic waste disposal have increased at an alarming rate. Under current legislation and policies mining companies are required to compensate for the loss fish habitats that are turned into tailings impoundments. However, even fisheries and oceans experts acknowledge that entire lake eco-systems cannot be compensated for: "As far as I am aware there has been no successful
compensation undertaken for the loss of a fish-bearing lake." "If DFO approves [whole lake destruction] at that point then it is clearly not based on any technical or science-based arguments" (quotes from S.C. Samis, I.K. Birtwell, and N.Y Khan. 2005.) The fate of many of these lakes has yet to be decided, however there is currently a strong bias within the government towards allowing the use of water bodies to receive mine wastes. Environment Canada staff have told MiningWatch that this is not only an appropriate action, but in some cases it is the "best solution" for dealing with mine wastes. It is now critical that Canadians weigh in to stop the destruction of more of our precious water resources. For more information contact Catherine Coumans at (613)
569-3439 or catherine(at)miningwatch.ca or Ramsey Hart (ramsey(at)miningwatch.ca). Dear Ministers Baird and Hearn, Like most Canadians I am very concerned about the conservation of our precious freshwater resources. In a number of public statements you and Prime Minister Harper have said that you share my concern and expressed your commitment to protecting our fresh water and aquatic ecosystems. I find the practice of using natural water bodies as dumping areas from mine wastes a disturbing contradiction of Canadian interests and values, and of the governments stated commitments to environmental protection and sustainable development. Given that alternative methods of dealing with mining waste are available and are currently used in Canada and elsewhere, I would respectfully insist that you fulfil your obligations and stated commitment to protecting our freshwater and aquatic ecosystems by ending the use of natural water bodies as "tailings impoundment areas". Sincerely, http://intercontinentalcry.org/us-moves-to-clean-up-uranium-on-navajo-land/ After more than forty years, the U.S. government is finally moving to clean up the uranium waste on Navajo lands. On June 13, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a five-year plan to start cleaning the radioactive waste left by more than 40 years of mining uranium on Navajo lands. >From 1944 to 1986, companies grabbed more than 40 million tons of uranium, producing 996 pounds of radioactive waste for every 4 pounds of uranium extracted. A great deal of that waste has never been cleaned up. As a result, for three generations now the Navajo "have been breathing uranium-laden dust from mine tailings and drinking from wells tainted with minute traces of radioactive mining waste," explains tomdispatch.com More than a thousand mines were abandoned on the reservation. For every 4 pounds of uranium extracted, 996 pounds of radioactive refuse was left behind in waste pits and piles swept by the wind and leached into local drinking water. In addition to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Navajo miners who sickened and died of cancer and respiratory illnesses - it's hard to say just how many, since nobody in power bothered to keep track - epidemiological studies reveal a terrible ongoing toll. Navajo children living near the mines and mills suffered five times the rate of bone cancer and 15 times the rate of testicular and ovarian cancers as other Americans. Exposure to uranium has also been linked to kidney damage and birth defects. Recent research indicates that, in addition to being toxic and radioactive, uranium is also an endocrine disruptor and can have a devastating effect on health - even when only scant traces are present in the air we breathe or the water we drink. Uranium's ability to bind to and deceive hormone receptors evidently interferes with cellular communication that governs metabolism, cell production, organ development, and gland function. Dr. Stephanie Raymond-Whish, a Navajo scientist, believes, for instance, that uranium exposure is one explanation for sky-high rates of breast cancer on the reservation. The list of problems and damages brought on by uranium could go on forever, and will unfortunately continue long after the uranium waste has been cleaned - that is, providing the government actually cleans it up. Some Navajo aren't too sure that's going to happen. The Arizona Republic notes, Today, the Navajos say the new federal response effort, which includes testing of water sources and the review of hundreds of homes and buildings for radioactive materials, is a "good step forward." But they also have grave concerns about the proposal, which is short on specifics in several key areas, including funding, estimated costs and detailed remediation plans. "It's a significant step, but there's still a long
road ahead of us," said Steve Etsitty, executive director of the
Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency. "This (plan) doesn't
say anything about how we are going to be cleaning these things up, and
it doesn't say anything about how we are going to be paying for it." Clancy Tenley, EPA associate director for tribal programs in San Francisco, said the work in the plan is within the existing budget and the agency expects to get sufficient appropriations in future budgets. He said the cleanup could take hundreds of millions of dollars, though not all of that would be federal money. In April, EPA sent letters to viable companies who owned or operated multiple mines in an effort to get those companies to pay for some of the cleanup. Tenley said the federal agencies combined have spent about $155 million over the last decade to address the contamination with an overall goal of dealing with the most urgent risks first - people living in contaminated houses and drinking contaminated water. "By the end of the five years, we hope to have addressed the most urgent risks and to have a much better understanding of the scope of the problem," he said.
* Assessment of structures and water sources that are
likely to be contaminated; 5) TWO YEARS FOR LIFE ON EARTH A Call to URGENT Action on Climate Change "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." ~ Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Scientist and Economist, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch Join in! Consider yourself a climate change activist. Simply give as much of your time, energy, talents and/or money as possible over the next two years to help safeguard the future from global warming and climate catastrophe. If you write, write for the Earth. If you make money, make money for tomorrow's children. Be sure to switch any investments you have to renewable energy. If you have soil, grow some food. If you teach, teach to save future generations.
This is a very clear explanation of how nuclear power is favoured by the province over renewables. Paul McKay made this speech at Renewable Energy of Plum Hollow when David Suzuki pulled the switch to attach a solar panel and windmill to Ontario's electrical grid on June 23.
But those seeking to "green" our electric grid and economy are still working between a rock and a very hard place. On the one hand, we have some federal politicians who are so clued out about climate change they think a melted polar ice cap is just a summer drink you get at Tim Horton's. Provincially, we have twin bureaucratic black holes called the Ontario Power Authority and Hydro One, which are descended from the old Ontario Hydro. You remember - the atom-addicted monolith which racked up a $39 billion debt because it lost money on every nuclear kilowatt-hour it sold -- but hoped to make it up in volume. Tragically, we are headed for déjà vu all over again. On June 15, the McGuinty government committed to a 40-year plan to build new nuclear plants at a minimum construction cost of $26 billion. They will require decades of uranium fuel, turn into 20 mausoleums filled with fiercely radioactive reactor components only robots can dismantle, and leave a legacy of long-lived, lethal fuel wastes. The Liberal plan also includes building, at public expense, more than $1 billion in new transmission lines to deliver this nuclear energy. By contrast, it has silently sandbagged Ontario's fledgling green power industry - and especially small First Nation projects in northern Ontario - by recently putting limits on the size, location, and ownership levels of solar, wind, water, wood and farm biogas projects, and consigning them last place for grid access. So the pattern is clear: to foster nuclear plants and uranium production, the McGuinty government will sign blank cheques, put aboriginal people like Bob Lovelace in jail, promise transmission lines at public expense, and develop self-induced amnesia when it comes to creating lethal nuclear wastes our grandchildren will inherit. And curse us for. But those who want to invest their ingenuity, ethics, and capital into solving environmental problems with green power projects, and First Nations seeking to achieve sustainable economic self-reliance, are literally out in the cold. They must pay extra costs, face extra bureaucratic hurdles, and stand last in line for grid access. Let me give you some scandalous comparisons: The private Bruce Nuclear owners got a 25-year deal which includes: . Cost overrun protection which has so far cost the public
$237 million These generous terms, according to the Ontario Auditor, may add up to $1.5 billion in excess profits. If you can believe this, the Auditor concluded: "Our concern is that Bruce will have a higher profit margin when the plants are not operating than when the plants are operating." In other words, Ontarians will either pay the Bruce Nuclear owners for non-performance, or pay premium prices if it does perform. By contrast, green power developers, under the imperilled standard offer contract, get a 20 year deal with: . base price payments for solar, wind, biomass and water
projects much lower than those paid in Europe Most important, all these green projects are under "pay for performance" contracts: Unlike Bruce Nuclear, if they fail to produce power, for any reason, they simply do not get paid. They will eat the loss, not the public. By contrast, no nuclear plants have ever been built without massive public subsidies, non have measured up to "pay for performance" standards, and no future plant will be built without billions in either upfront or backend public subsidies. No banks, brokers or bond sellers will touch an unsubsidized nuclear deal with a pole shorter than the CN Tower. But - as serious as this is - this is not just a fiscal matter. It is, I must say cautiously, at heart a moral matter. Marshal McLuhan once said "the medium is the message." I would say something similar applies to technology. It can act in a way that's inimical to human health and ecology, or heal like a medicine. The Hummer's character, for instance, is indelibly intertwined with its dismal fuel economy and obscene tailpipe emissions. So is the aptly named SynCrude oilsands project. By contrast, the sailboat, canoe and bicycle have their own elegant personas. In this case, incontrovertibly, nuclear plants produce radioactive wastes which can imperil for centuries. No physicist will deny this. No engineer can change this. This makes them innately, ethically arrogant. It follows that no democratic government has the moral authority to consign such radioactive risks to future generations. By contrast, green power technologies have a moral mission which comes built into their silicone cells, wind charger blades, biomass boilers, and small hydro turbines. Built with care, they can serve people, while respecting ecology. In a time of climate crisis, they offer genuine hope - not a mere trade of one poison for another. And they offer a practical investment for which our grandchildren will bless us. And, we hope Premier McGuinty will finally ask, what counts more than that?" Paul McKay
N.B. government amending rules for uranium mining and exploration July 4, 2008 Canadian Free Press "FREDERICTON - New Brunswick's natural resources minister has announced new regulations for uranium exploration and claim staking that he says will address public concerns and protect drinking water." To read the rest of this article go to, http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqYQh3c
>From the Associated Press July 6, 2008 "MONTREAL -- The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached this Canadian port Saturday, completing a secret U.S. operation that included an airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans." To read the rest of this article go to, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cake6-
Friends: Bill Adamson wrote to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission asking about the radioactive inventory in uranium tailings that are deposited in the JEB pit in Northern Saskatchewan. The answer that he received from Tom Gates, a Professional Biologist with the CNSC, is reprinted below, after my letter to Bill. Because CNSC did not know the answers to Bill's questions they solicited an answer from Dr. John Rowson of Areva, the huge French nuclear company that manages the JEB pit. The JEB pit is a mined-out rocky pit which has been turned into an artificial lake into which the uranium tailings are deposited as they come from the uranium mill by means of a barge that floats on top. I thought this correspondence would be of interest to others so I am forwarding it to you. Gordon Edwards. Hello Bill Adamson: This exchange of correspondence (see below) is a good example of how CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) chooses to abdicate its responsibility to provide objective information to the public. According to law, the CNSC has an obligation to provide "objective scientific and technical information" to the public about the nature of the hazards associated with licensed materials and licensed facilities. Yet when you asked the CNSC about the radium that is left over in the uranium tailings deposited in the JEB pit, CNSC simply asked the proponent (hardly an objective party!) to provide information, which consisted of a self-serving guesstimate (hardly scientific!) and used incorrect arithmetic to arrive at misleading conclusions -- all of this without incurring any criticism or correction from the CNSC. Either CNSC staff are incompetent or they are in violation of their mandate to serve the public. (1) First of all, in reference to the maximum long-term levels of radium predicted in nearby Fox and Pat Lakes, Dr. Rowson of Areva makes a serious arithmetic mistake. He adds an increment of 0.1 becquerels per liter (due to the predicted long-term seepage of radium from the tailings) to 5.0 millibecquerels per liter (the ambient level of radium in Fox lake) and arrives at an incorrect total of 5.1 millibecquerels per liter instead of 105 millibecquerels per liter for Fox Lake. This is because 0.1 becquerel = 100 millibecquerels. His figure is 20 times too low due to faulty arithmetic. Similarly, Dr. Rowson gets a total of 6.1 instead of 106 mBq per liter for Pat Lake. (Here, his figure is 17 times too low.) Of course, all of this is assuming that the mathematical models used to predict the future seepage from the tailings will remain correct for many centuries into the future, which (as a mathematician) just makes me laugh. A prediction provided by an oversimplified mathematical model is not a scientific conclusion but an optimistic guess, based on idealized assumptions. Just because it is expressed in mathematical language does not mean that it is necessarily correct. The calculation, even if it were correct, ignores the fact that higher levels of radium will be carried downstream to other lakes and rivers in the same watershed for centuries, and that radium can be concentrated by orders of magnitude -- in some cases up to 100,000 times -- by aquatic organisms. Strange that a professional biologist with CNSC would not choose to offer you any pertinent biological information or insights. Is it due to ignorance or an uncaring attitude? (2) Secondly, Dr. Rowson miscalculates the amount of radium in the tailings. By "guessing" at the average grade of the ore he is simply obfuscating. Surely Areva knows exactly how much uranium they have extracted from the ore -- that, after all, is what they make their profits from. So why the fancy footwork over different grades of ore? In any event 2% seems ridiculously low given the high grade ore that is being mined -- in the 20% range. Using the 2% figure. Dr. Rowson estimates that there were 20,715 tonnes of uranium extracted. If the average grade were 10%, which seems more likely, the amount of uranium extracted would be five times larger -- 103,575 tonnes of uranium. But the amount of radium in the tailings depends only on the amount of uranium extracted, and has nothing to do with the grade of the ore. So why guess at the amount of uranium extracted? Why not use the actual figure? Ask Areva! Even based on this silly guesswork, and assuming for the sake of argument that the amount of uranium extracted as stated is correct, Dr. Rowson's calculation of the amount of radium in the tailings is still low by about 2 percent due to another arithmetic mistake. The specific activity of uranium-238 is 12,445 becquerels
per gram, while that of radium-226 is 36.6 billion becquerels per gram,
so the ratio is 2,940,000 to 1, not 3 million to 1 as Dr. Rowson claims.
Seems awfully close, doesn't it? So what difference does that make? Consider, if you will, the difference between these two calculations -- 146 grams of radium. That amount of radium would have cost $14.6 million dollars in 1920, when radium was selling for $100,000 per gram. You can be sure that if Dr. Rowson had been in the radium business instead of the uranium business he would not be so careless with his numbers! Put it another way. Since the maximum permissible body burden of radium-226 (for humans) is 0.1 micrograms, this small discrepancy in arithmetic (146 grams of radium) would be enough to overdose almost one-and-a-half billion human beings. As for the 6.9 kilograms that Dr. Rowson (mis)calculates,
that would be enough to overdose almost 69 billion humans. Or the corrected
amount -- 7.046 kilograms of radium would be enough to overdose 70.46
billion humans. So, you might say, in light of these staggering numbers,
what's another one-and-a-half billion humans more or less? If the average ore grade were 10% rather than 2%, the figures cited above would all have to be multiplied by 5 (e.g. 352.3 billion people rather than 70.46 billion people). It is typical of professionals in the nuclear establishment, whether in the industry itself or in the regulatory agency, to concentrate on purely physical measurements like kilograms and micrograms rather than on the real issue: toxicity. Thus errors in calculation are made to seem unimportant, because they are not expressed in terms of potential biological damage. In this way the professionals routinely desensitize themselves and the public and the decision-makers as to what level of risk, exactly, they are dealing with. Both the industry and the regulatory agency have a vested interest in keeping the public in the dark about the really important things, it seems. (3) As noted above, the MASS or VOLUME of a radioactive substance is largely irrelevant to the question of TOXICITY. Nevertheless the nuclear establishment always prefers to express quantities in the somewhat irrelevant units of mass or volume, because it obscures the true nature of the hazard associated with radioactive materials. The regulators are indistinguiishable from the proponents in this regard. When dealing with radioactive materials, a much more relevant PHYSICAL unit is the becquerel or the curie. One becquerel refers to one radioactive disintegration per second, whereas one curie is equal to 37 billion becquerels, indicating that 37 billion radioactive disintegrations are taking place every second. One gram of radium-226 has a radioactivity of one curie (by definition!) . So one kilogram of radium has a radioactivity of 1000 curies = 37,000 billion becquerels = 37 trillion becquerels. Dr. Rowson likes to point out that there is almost 3 million times more uranium than radium in the ore, without observing that the RADIOACTIVITY of the uranium and of the radium are EXACTLY THE SAME. Thus from the PURELY PHYSICAL point of view of disintegrations per second, there is no difference between 20,715 tonnes of uranium and 7.046 kilograms of radium. They both correspond to about 7,046 curies = (7,046) x (37 billion) becquerels = 260 trillion becquerels = 260 trillion radioactive disintegrations EVERY SECOND. Now, 260 trillion becquerels is an enormous amount of radioactivity. That's why those who want to mislead the public prefer to use the irrelevant unit of 7.046 kilograms of radium, which sounds much less alarming. [The total radioactivity of the uranium tailings would be about 6 times greater than this amount, that is 1,564 trillion becquerels in all, because radium is notthe only radioactive material left behind in the tailings. By comparison, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) estimates that the total amount of radioactive material released into the environment from the Chernobyl accident was about 50 million curies = (50 million) x (37 billion) = 1,850 trillion becquerels. This is pretty close to the radioactive inventory of the JEB pit, even using Dr. Rowan's low estimate for the grade of the ore! If the true grade averages to 10%, say, then the inventory in the JEB pit is very much greater than the radioactive releases from Chernobyl as estimated by the IAEA.] (4) But, just because the 20,715 tonnes of uranium are PHYSICALLY equivalent to 7.046 kilograms of radium in terms of becquerels or disintegrations-per-second, this does not mean that they are BIOLOGICALLY equivalent, for radium is a much more effective radiological poison than uranium is. In the human body, radium is a much more avid bone-seeker than uranium is, and hence is very effective in causing bone necrosis, bone sarcomas, rapid anemia, and various types of leukemias. Also, as was seen in the case of the radium dial painters, the internal creation of radon gas by the alpha decay of radium lodged in the skeleton leads to a dissolution of radon gas in the blood which is then pumped to the head where radon accumulates in the sinus and mastoid cavities, laying down a deposit of radioactive lead, bismuth, and polonium isotopes in these delicate tissues, and thereby provoking head cancers and other diseases. Using the "maximum permissible body burdens" of radium and uranium as a rough (very rough!) guide to their relative toxicities, we see that radium is at least 1000 times more toxic than uranium per millibecquerel, so the 7.046 kilograms of radium that is left behind in the tailings is at least 1000 times more toxic (to humans) than the 20,715 tonnes of uranium that is extracted and sold by Areva. Note that the much smaller mass of radium is a lot more toxic than the much larger mass of uranium. The bio-concentration factors of radium are also quite different from those for uranium, making radium a much more insidious pollutant in many ways than uranium is. Bio-concentration means that as you go up the food chain, the concentration of radium increases, sometimes quite dramatically. This is the reason why cattle has to be slaughtered down-river from the Churchrock (New Mexico) uranium tailings dam which suffered a catastrophic collapse in 1979. Incidentally, the amount of radiation released into the environment from the Churchrock uranium tailings dam failure was the second largest radioactive release in human history to date, after the Chernobyl accident. (5) Of course radium is only one of the many radioactive poisons left behind in the tailings. If we focus on polonium-210, which is also equal, in terms of becquerels, to the radium and the uranium, we find that for each tonne of uranium extracted, there is only about 73 micrograms of polonium-210 left behind in the tailings. But that tiny mass of polonium-210 gives off just as many alpha particles per second as the one tonne of uranium from which it was derived! In terms of toxicity, however, we find from the Los Alamos Laboratories web site (or the web site of the Australian Uranium Association) that polonium-210 is about 250 billion times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide, one of the deadliest fast-acting poisons known to science. So if we multiply 73 micrograms of polonium-210 by 250 billion, we find that this tiny mass of polonium-210 is equivalent in toxicity to 18 tonnes of hydrogen cyanide. To summarize: for every tonne of uranium extracted, an amount of polonium-210 is left behind in the tailings that is equivalent to 18 tonnes of cyanide in toxicity. And that's just one of the many disintegration products of uranium that is left behind in the tailings. Thus, using Dr. Rowson's figure of 20,715 tonnes of uranium extracted, the polonium-210 in the tailings in the JEB pit would be equivalent in toxicity to 372,870 tonnes of cyanide. If the ore grade is closer to 10% then the Po-210 would be equivalent in toxicity to almost 2 million tonnes of cyanide. (6) Dr. Rowson says that the radium in the tailings "will continue to decay giving off alpha particles until depleted" but he neglects to say when that time will come. When, in fact, will the radium in the tailings be "depleted"? Does Dr. Rowson know, or does he not? Speaking as a scientist, why is he not more quantitative? Someone has hand-written a note attached to this sentence of Dr. Rowson's, saying "...with a radioactive half-life of 1600 years! " (referring to the text-book figure of 1600 years as the half-life of radium-226). In general, the half-life of a radioactive element is the time it takes for half of its atoms to disintegrate. Radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years. Thus if we start with one gram of radium, in 1600 years we will have half-a-gram of radium left, and half-a-gram of the so-called "decay products" of radium. If we wait another half-life, that is another 1600 years, we will have a quarter of a gram of radium left, and three-quarters of a gram of decay products. And so on. After 10 half-lives, or 160,000 years, we will have only one-thousandth of a gram of radium left, and 999 milligrams of decay products. Mind you, a milligram of radium is still enough, in principle, to overdose 10 thousand people. But the situation in the context of uranium tailings is much different. In fact, the half-life of radium-226 in the tailings is not just 1600 years, but 76,000 years, Thus we would have to wait for 760,000 years before one gram of radium in the tailings would be reduced to 1 milligram. The reason for this is that while the radium is disintegrating, it is also being re-created by the disintegration of thorium-230, which has a half-life of 76,000 years. Thus the depleting stock of radium is being constantly replenished, and the time it takes for half the radium to disappear is dictated by the time it takes for half of the thorium-230 atoms to disappear. And that time is 76,000 years. (The same logic applies to polonium-210, which is one of the decay products of radium. It will take 76,000 years for the amount of polonium-210 in the tailings to be reduced by half, even though the half-life of polonium-210 by itself is only 138 days!) So if we start with 7.046 kilograms of radium in the tailings, after 760,000 years we will still have 7.046 grams, and after 1,520,000 years we will still have about 7.046 milligrams -- enough in principle to overdose 70,460 people. By comparison, the pyramids of Egypt are about 5,000 years old. And Cro-Magnon man first emerged about 50,000 years ago. Hope this helps to clarify the situation. Gordon Edwards |