Environmental and Health Consequences of Uranium Mining
Tailing deposits can cause landslides, air contamination, and wildlife exposure. Uranium tailings contain small particles that are picked up and transported by the wind. The radioactive particulates in the air can be concentrated enough to cause health issues including lung cancer and kidney disease. [6] These particles also contaminate soil and water. Furthermore, growing piles of mining debris become unstable and can result in fatal landslides, such as the 1966 landslide of Aberfan, which resulted in the death of 144 people. [7] Tailing ponds pose serious hazards to the environment as well through leaks, in which underground water becomes contaminated with heavy metals. [5] This can lead to the pollution of lakes and rivers. Local ecosystems, too, are harmed and destroyed by waste piles and ponds. Rain can interact with tailings and introduce sulfuric acid in aquatic ecosystems, similar to in-situ leaching. Wildlife exposure can also occur directly through interaction with tailing ponds. In particular, waterfowl often land and use tailing ponds, resulting in dire consequences. In 2008, 1600 ducks flew into a tailing pond and died in Alberta, Canada. [8] Evidently, the repercussions of uranium mining are far-reaching. Certain groups of people, however, are at greater risk of exposure to associated hazards.
The United States has a history of environmental inequity in which people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately subjected to environmental risks and consequent health hazards. Uranium mining is no different. Navajo Nation land, for example, is littered with tailing piles, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has mapped 521 abandoned uranium mines on the reservation. [5,9] In this regard, uranium mining serves as an avenue for continued environmental racism, and the issue demands close examination and public awareness.
thank you for this, but keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer. nuclear power has FAR more energy per mass unit, which means FAR less mining than coal to get equivalent output.
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer
What half is missing in your opinion?
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
I oppose both though, fossil and nuclear, because both are harmful. The world has enough energy as it is now, so why invest huge sums in transition technologies like nuclear instead of going fully renewable plus storage right away?
The part that I wrote immediately after that. You don’t need as much mining to get an equivalent amount of nuclear energy, by several orders of magnitude.
I oppose both though.
Yeah I just wasn’t aware of your position since your top comment was just a big quote. I’m with you, sorry for coming in harder than was necessary.
I’d just say, when I say I “oppose both” I oppose nuclear in a very minor sense in comparison to my vehement opposition to fossil fuel. In a situation where a region or country finds it more cost effective to build nuclear plants in order to replace coal in the short term? I’d never describe myself as “anti-nuclear” in that case.
I think a lot of comments here are equivocating being “anti-nuclear” (NIMBY style, which is what OP actually wrote) with being concious of nuclear’s downsides. The reality is is that current gen renewables cannot keep up with certain demands, such as peak loads, in the same way nuclear can. Which means that *for now, in some cases and areas*, going full nuclear energy is a very healthy option in comparison to waiting it out on coal fumes until one day renewables hopefully get better.
tldr, Do both at once. Ditch fossils always. Renewable > nuclear, except when experts find that it is more cost effective in the short term.
Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/radzyminski2/
thank you for this, but keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer. nuclear power has FAR more energy per mass unit, which means FAR less mining than coal to get equivalent output.
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
What half is missing in your opinion?
I oppose both though, fossil and nuclear, because both are harmful. The world has enough energy as it is now, so why invest huge sums in transition technologies like nuclear instead of going fully renewable plus storage right away?
The part that I wrote immediately after that. You don’t need as much mining to get an equivalent amount of nuclear energy, by several orders of magnitude.
Yeah I just wasn’t aware of your position since your top comment was just a big quote. I’m with you, sorry for coming in harder than was necessary.
I’d just say, when I say I “oppose both” I oppose nuclear in a very minor sense in comparison to my vehement opposition to fossil fuel. In a situation where a region or country finds it more cost effective to build nuclear plants in order to replace coal in the short term? I’d never describe myself as “anti-nuclear” in that case.
I think a lot of comments here are equivocating being “anti-nuclear” (NIMBY style, which is what OP actually wrote) with being concious of nuclear’s downsides. The reality is is that current gen renewables cannot keep up with certain demands, such as peak loads, in the same way nuclear can. Which means that *for now, in some cases and areas*, going full nuclear energy is a very healthy option in comparison to waiting it out on coal fumes until one day renewables hopefully get better.
tldr, Do both at once. Ditch fossils always. Renewable > nuclear, except when experts find that it is more cost effective in the short term.
I agree with that as long as nuclear is used as transition tech and phased out asap.