The fight over Ghana’s illegal gold rush exposes election risks
The environmental damage has triggered a wave of protest in the capital Accra demanding a ban on all small-scale mining operations in places like Tarkwa.
A recent surge in uranium concentrations in the Antarctic can be linked to increased mining activity in Australia, researchers from the University of Maine have found.
According to the team, which will publish the results of their research in the upcoming issue of the Atmospheric Environment Journal, ice core data revealed a significant increase in uranium concentration that coincides with open pit mining in the Southern Hemisphere, particularly in Australia.
Australia has about 40% of the world’s uranium reserves and exports nearly 7,000 tonnes of yellow cake annually.
“Uranium concentrations in the ice core increased by as much as 102 between the 1980s and 2000s, accompanied by increased variability in recent years,” lead researcher Mariusz Potocki, a doctoral candidate and research assistant with the Climate Change Institute, said in a statement.
Australia has about 40% of the world’s uranium reserves and exports nearly 7,000 tonnes of yellow cake annually. But according to an IBISWorld report of March 2015, the industry is not a major employer. Only 987 people worked in the sector last year and the industry accounted for less than 0.01% of all the jobs in Australia.
A recent nuclear cooperation agreement with India, however, could boost the sector, as the treaty allows Australian companies to begin commercial uranium exports to the Asian giant.
Potocki noted that it’s crucial for scientists to better understand the impact of more mining and the airborne distribution of uranium, as exposure to the radioactive element can result in kidney toxicity, genetic mutations, mental development challenges and cancer.
Exposure to the radioactive element can result in kidney toxicity, genetic mutations, mental development challenges and cancer.
Until World War II, most of the uranium released into the atmosphere came from natural sources, the team said.
But since 1945, increases in Southern Hemisphere levels have been linked to industrial sources, including uranium mining in Australia, South Africa and Namibia.
“Since other land-source dust elements don’t show similar large increases in the ice core, and since the increased uranium concentrations are enriched above levels in the Earth’s crust, the source of uranium is attributed to human activities rather atmospheric circulation changes,” they wrote.
The study, carried out during the first high-resolution continuous examination of a northern Antarctic Peninsula ice core, also counted with the collaboration of Penn State University’s academics as well as Australian, Brazilian and Chilean scientists.
16 Comments
Eric
Mining dot com should have waited for the research to be peer reviewed and published before writing this story.
Mining Matters
The article, whether we like it or not, was peer reviewed already and also accepted for publication. There is a link in the article to the journal where the paper will appear.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016304423
Jaro Franta
Looking closely at a Radiometric Map of Australia, I see that the region around Roxby Downs, the town next to Olympic Dam mine (producers of both uranium & copper) has a low surface concentration of uranium.
Certainly lower than the Flinders Ranges to the east, or other areas to the south.
That being the case, how can lead researcher Mariusz Potocki reasonably expect readers to believe his claim that uranium found in Antarctica comes from Australian uranium mines ?
Does he propose some sort of magical transport mechanism that avoids the regions where mines are located, going directly to Antarctica ?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11686324/SA_Radiometric_map.JPG
Obama IS-A-POS
Good data and response. The fact that this doctoral candidate is with the Climate Change Institute says it all. Just another attempt by global communists to kill good-paying jobs that provide a living for the middle class. If they can also shake-down the industry for a payout in the process, that’s even better for them, they figure.
If his data is contrived and levels did rise in the antarctic, I would think that indicates a pocket of uranium present in the near vicinity? Although, who wants to chase that when you have easier pickings in Australia, etc.. If this clown is actually awarded a doctorate, I would look with suspicion at anything he puts out in the future.
Mart
Not quite correct. The uranium-bearing primary rocks are locally buried under younger sediments, but are still actually present in the subsurface (the top of Olympic Dam is at ~ 450 metres under cover). Radiometric data represents the top few centimetres only. Note the natural elevated levels draining off exposed uranium-bearing basement rocks in channels in the vicinity of the Beverley deposit – which itself is concealed by a 100 or so metres of younger rocks. Ranger is also subsurface. The authors are arguing the exposure during mining is the culprit. However, it is a moot point – the levels they report are so low that they are not “contamination” and can be accounted for by many other factors – as pointed out correctly by many others here. Hopefully somebody will take the time to write a comment to the Journal about their very shaky inferences and assumptions.
jimhopf
If it’s true at all, the uranium concentrations in question clearly must be negligible. Any suggestion that this could be having health impacts on animals in Antarctica, or on humans elsewhere in the world, is clearly junk science.
Patrick
What a terribly written article. Environmental uranium is very weakly radioactive; more concerning is its toxicity if ingested and even then it’s less problematic than mercury or lead. There is no chance in hell the uranium found in Antarctica is anywhere near levels that could be considered “pollution”.
JH
I notice in the article headline only one country, yet in the article there are three named!!
The Mining.com editor I guess is Frik Els, so I would not be surprised why others are complaining her about the article.
Mining Matters
The press release put out by the University of Maine also names only Australia in the headline. https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2016/06/29/climate-scientists-australian-uranium-mining-pollutes-antarctic/
James Sullivan
What a load of of hogwash…a typical misaligned and jingoistic piece of diatribe on Uranium and Uranium mining…shame on Mining news for a reckless report and an Editorial piece no less!?!
I think you should consider your position if you value your readers and Industry. Or have you been hacked?
Mr Potatohead
Well the paper is an interesting read and there seems to be some merit in what they are saying.
HOWEVER, the concentrations of U measured in the ice cores is in the order of PICOGRAMS per litre.
These are extremely tiny, barely detectable numbers to be making alarmist comments about “pollution” from. Much, thousands of times smaller than the standard measurement values used for water quality analysis (for example).
The major flaw in the paper is that they make no attempt to try and quantify how statistically significant the measured levels are in terms of actual effects on the environment, especially around the source area in Australia. The increases measured are probably insignificant from a practical standpoint and will in all likelihood not translate to any measurable changes in health effects in humans or animals.
This will only add fuel to alarmist anti-nuclear propaganda from the environmental fanatics.
Chris Becker
So, is the author implying that the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Ibaraki nuclear disasters during the 80’s and 90’s have not contributed at all? And that the approximate 1,500 nuclear bomb tests between 1961 and 1998 have not contributed at all? So these things are clean and digging a hole in the ground is filthy? Hmmmm.
Mike Failla
Once again the global cooling/warming crowd is at work here with more “junk science”. I suspe4ct this has been inserted as a hack. ……and you bought it? Hope not but then again you did print it did you not?
Ray M
How can it be that this researcher is apparently unaware of the 200 atmospheric and underground nuclear test detonations by the French including on and about Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific about 6,000 km from the antarctic. Extensive pollution was recorded in the islands area and the main island was used as a nuclear waste dump that was eroded and exposed in storms. After its last nuclear test in 1996, the French government requested the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to conduct a study to assess the radiological impact of the tests. This study was carried out between 1996 and 1998, and a full report was published in 1998 under the title The Radiological Situation at the Atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. Others have also collected contaminated sediments, marine species from the contaminated areas. Australia protested loudly about these arrogant French who continued atmospheric and unstable atoll drill hole tests. The last test was in 1996. Olympic Dam ore from
underground is handled carefully and wetted down. Processing is done wet to stop dust and all personnel are monitored. No mention it seems of the obvious sources of contamination by the French pricks who also sank the Rainbow Warrior, murdering one seaman as their agents blew it up in harbour to reduce protests of their nuclear tests. A so called scientific paper!!
Marpy
Only 987 people worked in the sector last year and the industry accounted for less than 0.01% of all the jobs in Australia. And how much in taxes did Uranium contribute to Australia? I suspect it was substantial as the authors neglected to mention it. Also – what about the spin of jobs – mining generates 4-6 good paying spin off jobs for each direct job.
Chris Pritchard
With all that is going on in the world, this is what we have to worry about? We are spending research $ here? If they were serious about identifying health hazards, they would examine other existing areas with high or comparable uranium concentrations and educate us on problems experienced there. But of course, they do not, only adding unknowns and alarm to further their agenda. Sad piece of work.