The contents of the Peak uranium page were
merged into
Uranium mining on 30 November 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see
its talk page.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Uranium mining article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative
project to organize and improve articles related to
mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the
project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the
discussion, or
join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ShanPitt. Peer reviewers:
JazChapman,
Mickinahan.
Both sections, "Rise, stagnation and renaissance of uranium mining" and "Risks of uranium mining" are plagiarised from this source: www.australianuranium.com.au/about-uranium.html This desperately needs at least paraphrasing, as plagiarism is not permissible.
Trappleton04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Huh? Quote that link: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on Uranium."
Femto13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Why is the US split into states when it is no longer a significant supplier of uranium? This article comes off as very Americo-centric just from its table of contents.
US is split into states for the convenience of readers interested in uranium mining activity in a particular area. The cure for the article appearing Americo-centric would be for you to add more detail to uranium mining in other countries.
Plazak13:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Why is Kazakhstan mentioned twice in the "mine location" section? —Preceding
In the History section, the following sentence: "From 2000 the new Canadian mines increased it again, and with Olympic Dam it is now 37%" implies the Olympic
Dam mine is in Canada. It is in Australia
152.120.54.57 (
talk) 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC).
unsigned comment added by
131.165.177.65 (
talk)
13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Uranium Extraction via Coal Gasification?
I recall once reading that coal gasification allows not just for non-coal impurities such as arsenic, lead, and mercury to be separated from the coal, but sold for a profit. What is normally a contaminant becomes valuable. A liability becomes an asset. Uranium concentrations in coal are similar to those other elements, so is coal gasification a viable method of uranium extraction? Google searches turn up nothing, suggesting it isn't, but surely there must be some uranium extracted, suggesting that it could be used, though not economical enough alone to be the impetus for coal gasification, just a side benefit. It's funny, when it comes to electrical power generation, coal and uranium are traditionally thought of as competitors, but they may compliment each other if coal uranium extraction is possible. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
4.254.112.31 (
talk)
16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)reply
hello! im reading a book by Laznicka "giant metallic deposits: future sources of industrial metals" and he says something like there are two ways to get metals from coal, 1) those seperable during mining (like pyrite) and 2) when the conc. of metals in coal is economical enough to remove the ore for the metals and not the coal. im pretty sure this is how the uranium in the 60's in some soviet, czech and east german mines were taken... i think its "command economy" when the demand for U was greater than Coal ... is that helpful?
Propose adding mention of National Research Council report on Uranium Mining in Virginia, USA
I'd like to add the following text that describes a recent National Research Council report that looked at uranium mining in Virginia:
In February 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia contracted the National Research Council and Virginia Polytechnic Institute to oversee a National Research Council study of potential environmental and economic effects of uranium mining in Virginia. The National Research Council study, funded indirectly by a $1.4 million grant from Virginia Uranium to the Commonwealth, resulted in a report released in December 2011. Uranium mining and processing carries with it a range of potential health risks to the people who work in or live near uranium mining and processing facilities. Some of these health risks apply to any type of hard rock mining or other large-scale industrial activity, but others are linked to exposure to radioactive materials. In addition, uranium mining has the potential to impact water, soil, and air quality, with the degree of impact depending on site-specific conditions, how early a contaminant release is detected by monitoring systems, and the effectiveness of mitigation steps.
Some of the worker and public health risks could be mitigated or better controlled through modern internationally accepted best practices, the report says. In addition, if uranium mining, processing, and reclamation were designed, constructed, operated, and monitored according to best practices, near- to moderate-term environmental effects should be substantially reduced, the report found. [58]
However, the report noted that Virginia’s high water table and heavy rainfall differed from other parts of the United States — typically dry, Western states — where uranium mining has taken place. Consequently, federal agencies have little experience developing and applying laws and regulations in locations with abundant rainfall and groundwater, such as Virginia. Because of Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining, it has not been necessary for the Commonwealth’s agencies to develop a regulatory program that is applicable to uranium mining, processing, and reclamation.
The report also noted the long-term environmental risks of uranium tailings, the solid waste left after processing. Tailings disposal sites represent potential sources of contamination for thousands of years. While it is likely that tailings impoundment sites would be safe for at least 200 years if designed and built according to modern best practices, the long-term risks of radioactive contaminant release are unknown.
The report’s authoring committee was not asked to recommend whether uranium mining should be permitted, or to consider the potential benefits to the state were uranium mining to be pursued. It also was not asked to compare the relative risks of uranium mining to the mining of other fuels such as coal.
Cited source uses manufactured quote to underpin argument
The final two statements in the article introduction are supported using a citation from an anti-nuclear campaigner; this campaigner in turn uses what strongly appears to be a quote manufactured by misrepresenting the content of an interview of John Borshoff, an 'unofficial' transcript of which is located here:
http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2006/s1606504.htm
The article cited does not produce sources to back its claim that low uranium prices are leading mines to seek out countries with weak governance. In fact, uranium mines often have unusual oversight and worker protection compared to other extractive industries, as detailed in this academic article by an
anti-nuclear Professor of Technology Studies at University of Michigan:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hechtg/articles/HechtJAH11.pdf
This indicates no clear pattern, and certainly does not support the assertion that "uranium companies worldwide are reducing costs, cutting corners, and limiting operations" and that "[uranium companies worldwide] are now looking more to traditional areas of low costs and poor governance (such as Africa) as the location for any new uranium mines". Perhaps this is true; however, the biased source cited does not make this argument convincingly. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.118.48.120 (
talk)
22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I highly suspect that this means one of several small towns in the
Erzgebirge of
Thuringia and not the
Black Forest, therefore I'm removing the Link to
Schwarzwald. Maybe someone can check with the quoted source... --12:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Uranium mining. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, attempted to extract uranium from seawater. Their attempts were successful and the findings were published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science by the Royal Society of Chemistry. (source:
indiatoday.in) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.38.88.7 (
talk)
18:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but why is mining in the main article pollution? Almost looks like a negative framing. Why wouldn't you call it resource extraction to use a more neutral phrase?
I'm very sorry, I often donate to Wikipedia and read so much on it, but it seems to me Wikipedia gets more and more left leaning vibes, I would like for Wikipedia to be as objective as possible.
Also, Uranium mining is very much needed to decrease air pollution and CO2 reduction, so then how can be more pollution cause less pollution?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
We can definitely start moving some text. Most of the content in peak uranium should be in this article instead. After moving the relevant text, we can have a better idea of how much content specific to peak uranium is left. --
Ita140188 (
talk)
09:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I am not entirely convinced a merge helps -- in that "peak x" around minerals and resources is a really common rhetorical issue in policy and academic analysis -- and maintaining a subpage for that kind of analysis in particular makes a lot of sense to me for most topics,
Sadads (
talk)
15:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I think these days “peak x” is about a peak in demand for x rather than a peak in supply. The
Peak uranium article says little about when or why or at what level nuclear uranium fission power will peak. So I suspect after merging most of the content could be deleted or severely summarized. As it is I suspect it is almost useless to readers as it is so long and waffling. I understand the problem with uranium supply to US and Europe these days is replacing Russia as a supplier not any kind of “peak” in overall supply. So I suspect at least 90% of the article is out of date.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
18:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Chidgk1: How is this discussion resulting in a merge? All opinions seemed to favor changes before a final decision. This should have been closed with no consensus (which means no merge) --
Ita140188 (
talk)
16:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Ita140188: I was just trying to tidy up this encyclopedia a little after I came across this article by chance as I believe "peak uranium" is a waste of reader's time. Feel free to rollback everything if you wish and I won't look at this article any more as I am not that interested in it.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
That's not really nice though, now we have a Uranium mining article which has a huge amount of duplicated material and is so messy to be almost unreadable. Unfortunately I don't have time to rollback all the changes which is not trivial without creating more problems. We could have worked first on removing duplication here over time without polluting the Uranium mining article.
Ita140188 (
talk)
17:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)reply
You are correct that “We could have worked first on removing duplication here over time without polluting the Uranium mining article.” but I do not want to spend time doing that.
It should not take you more than 5 minutes if you want to rollback. Just go to the versions of the pages and talk pages before I started and click “restore this version”. Then I will go away and not edit any uranium articles.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose for now. We need to first cleanup the articles before considering further merging. I am also planning to split the peak uranium section again from this article. As long as a topic is well-defined and there is enough information, it's better to have a separate article rather than having a huge article with everything inside, which is difficult to read and maintain. --
Ita140188 (
talk)
15:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support these debate and controversy articles are just content forks that push all the social issues into another article that no one ever reads. Compare the pageviews: this article gets 300 views/day and
Uranium mining debate gets seven. I'm not even sure it was linked in this article until today.
Larataguera (
talk)
04:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.