Nuclear debate, page-9

I don't dispute that after mining occurs that there will be less radioactivity left at the mine site, I've only said that "for mines in secular equilibrium the tailings contain 57% of the radioactivity originally in the ore". As you would know when ore is crushed and milled the surface area is increased enormously, which although when a portion of the radioactivity is chemically removed, still leaves an enormous amount in a state that makes the material far more reactive and mobile.

As you have also acknowledged ISL has the possibility of material leaching into underground aquifers if not perfectly contained. This, amongst others, makes ISL a dangerous procedure and why it can't be used in many instances.

Your assertion that the EPA conduct regular checks on mines is not correct as the federal body deferred responsibility to the states who in turn have passed the responsibility on to the mine owners via the EA. Having direct experience with this failed procedure I uncovered systemic inaction by our State government body after receiving the water data for 2005-2015, as required to be undertaken by the mine owners, under the EA. The data had been provided by the mine owners, however, no action had been taken after the data had clearly shown exceedences of arsenic, lead, gross alpha, gross beta, mobile U and RA-226. Some of these readings were in the order of 84% of samples taken, with the highest reading of gross alpha 270 times the limit set in the EA. Although these readings were only for 5 years, it would be safe to assume similar exceedences had occurred for the 35 years since the mine closure. On challenging why no action had been taken the reply was that they did not have the resources (personnel) to enforce the conditions of the EA, although the mine owners are required to report what they intend doing about exceedences (which had not occurred).

In 2016 the State Government imposed an Environmental Protection Order on the mine owners to clean up the site which included fence repair where stock had been allowed into the area knocking over steel drums containing radioactive ore as well as the repair of a cracked concrete cover over stockpiled ore and the removal of radioactive material in mine waste that had been used as aggregate for the mine access road. Had there been a tailings dump rather than just ore storage the problems would have been many times worse.

I agree that all mining has problems and uranium is an issue at many, but the far higher concentration of radioactive materials at a uranium mines makes them orders of magnitude more dangerous than mines that are seeking other materials. As present extraction already increases the radioactivity in our environment the safest place to leave uranium ore is in the ground.

I've probably said enough and folk on this forum won't be wanting to hear what I have to say, but it explains my position, so unless anyone else fans my flames I won't say more.