• Flying SquidM
    link
    English
    14 hours ago

    Are you claiming uranium mining no longer causes environmental and health problems on a local level? That’s quite a claim.

    It’s also not true.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3653646/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201047/

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020320626

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201052/

    I admit, I am only smart enough to understand the abstracts of the papers and I did not read every link in its entirety, but this does not sound like a solved issue by any means.

    I just went to the conclusion of this long paper, which essentially says “we just don’t know enough to assess how bad it could be, but it could be bad,” and I think the final sentence is especially prescient:

    Our engineered solutions may well become the contaminated sites of the future.

    https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1228_web.pdf

    Now, if your argument is that it is necessary to cause damage to the local environment and cause a lot of early, painful deaths, I would again say that is not a good argument.

    • AwesomeLowlander
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 hours ago

      I did not make any claim. As I said in my first comment, I have no idea what the environmental impact of uranium mining is. My point in the previous comment is merely that using an example from the 1950s is useless as we can find similar environmental disasters for any mineral we were mining in that era.

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        04 hours ago

        Okay, well now you have a lot more evidence that mining uranium is a really bad idea. Do you agree?

        • AwesomeLowlander
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 hours ago

          Will get back to you once I’ve had a chance to read through them, but I have no reason to think you’re mistaken.