Talk:Uranium mining

message: 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. Trappleton 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Quote that link: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on Uranium." Femto 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, insert foot in mouth. Thanks for catching that, and the revert. Trappleton 08:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, www.australianuranium.com.au is part of a linkspam operation and as such cannot be considered a reliable source.  See www.intaanetto.com/our-domains.html.  Moondyne (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I added South Dakota to the list of States with former Uranium mining operations.
Sbednar 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Plazak 13:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mine Locations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uranium Extraction via Coal Gasification? 

message: Asia (except India) is not in this article, but mines uranium, while every other continent is represented. And seeing that Kazakhstan has a quarter of the world's unranium supply, I think it's a gigantic omission. Quick Source http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/ciscentralasia/99/kazakhstan/7.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.166.62 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have easy access to this info, please feel free to add sections related to those countries.  Turgan (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Asia?

message: A graphical map would be ideal to display the (strategic) locations of Uranium mines in the world. 130.89.165.44 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Map of uranium mining locations 

message: I think that this page needs to be merged with the List of uranium mines which is in a table instead of a list. -- eiland (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with List of uranium mines 

message: 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.
Does this look OK? Earlgrey101 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose adding mention of National Research Council report on Uranium Mining in Virginia, USA 

message: 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
In the period 2010-2013, the four primary uranium-producing countries of Africa (South Africa, Malawi, Namibia, and Niger) produced the following share of globally mined uranium: 18.5% (2010), 16.9% (2011), 18.4% (2012), 17.6% (2013), with data available here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Mining-of-Uranium/World-Uranium-Mining-Production/
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)
thread_title:  Cited source uses manufactured quote to underpin argument 

message: 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)
thread_title:  reports of pitchblende 1763 in [[Schwarzwald]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Uranium mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081122042631/http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20071013/partD.pdf to http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20071013/partD.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came here to learn about uranium yield from typical ores but found nothing.  What is known about yield?  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yield? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: From seawater

message: 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?
Might call it entropy. Elyos92 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

text: deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mining in Pollution? 

message: I propose merging Uranium mining debate into Uranium mining. I think the content in Uranium mining debate can easily be explained in the context of Uranium mining, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Uranium mining.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Please put your proposal to split in a new talk section otherwise comments will get confused with this merge proposal thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal