Radiation exposure to workers at Ranger uranium mine – sloppy controls
Running amok at Ranger Mining Australia, 5 May, 2014 Ben Hagemann“…….The job was to clean out one of the CCD (Counter-Current Decantation) tanks, ready for inspecting and repairing the rubber lining, and to change pump impellers underneath the tank.
A CCD tank is like an enormous, open-topped butter churn, but rather than mastitus-ridden, bovine squeezings, the tank is filled with a mixture of milled ore, water, some kind of flocculant (guar gum, maybe) and of course, sulphuric acid.
If I remember correctly, the acid comes from the leach tanks where the ore sits for a while so that the uranium can dissolve into solution, then that solution is decanted in the CCD tank where the flocculant is frothed up so that it can bond with the uranium and float to the surface, turning the whole lot into one big, bubbly, radioactive milkshake.
Of all the tanks only one of them was shut down so that we could do maintenance, and judging by the look of them, we were the first guys to take on this job in a very long time.
Once drained, the tank was one or two feet deep in the extremely heavy ore slurry and the arms were piled with sulphur sediment, hard as sandstone. We needed to disconnect the pumps below and hose all the sludge down the drainhole in the middle, a task that we were instructed to do with process water.
Now, process water… little did I know that’s the water that was used to “process” the ore… duh.
This means the water contained traces of the uranium in solution, fully dissolved and ready to soak into porous, human skin. Although we wore gumboots, long gloves and faceshields, naturally we wound up completely soaked after a few minutes of waving a two inch fire hose on high pressure, trying in vain to get the dense rock sediment to lift up and go down the drain.
It took four weeks to clean one tank, and that included digging out the gutter around the top of the tank from a scissor lift, as well as smashing all the piled up sulphur residue off the enormous arms of the churn (crawling around the lattice structure with a gympie hammer, bashing our way through and getting covered in the yellow muck).
If this sounds like a horrifying degree of physical contact with some very noxious material, you’d be right. It was about two weeks into the job that management finally got around to giving us our radiation inductions.
There I learned that the water with which I’d been soaking myself was actually radioactive, and you shouldn’t let it get on your skin!
We couldn’t know the degree of radiation we faced, as we weren’t issued with personal radiation monitors (not necessary for shutdown crews, we were told) but workers would reassure us that it wasn’t much.
The next week I took myself to the radiation lab during lunch, where the radiation officers expressed bemusement, then horror when I told them that the grey material all over my shirt was ore.
A quick sweep with the scintillometer revealed slow ticking over my body, which was reassuring, but my leather boots crackled like static on a black and white TV.
They were, as they say in the uranium game, “hot”, and were promptly discarded and replaced with a fresh pair from the stores, along with a full complement of new socks……..
Leaving alone the forgetfulness of management when it came to educating a shutdown crew about the full extent of radioactive hazards, Ranger’s production plant was in pretty bad shape, even to my uneducated eye – It was like the mine that time forgot. There was gridmesh rusted out, full of holes in some spots, so you really had to watch your step on the stairs and catwalks, not to mention the rotted-out, RSJ beams, steel nearly two inches thick you could push a screwdriver through.
I guess that’s what happens when you have sulphuric acid fumes mixing with the sultry, jungle atmosphere- It rots the steel away from under you.
I don’t know whether the site was under-maintained or not, but the fact that a leach tank actually busted open and spilled a full load of radioactive acid slurry last year is a pretty bad sign.
It’s good that ERA is replacing the baffle supports in all the leach tanks, but that kind of corrosion incident points to the prospect that the Ranger plant will be up for a lot more maintenance than that.
It makes me wonder what could happen if ERA were allowed to start a new mine expansion?
Would they look after it? Or would it simply rot away over the years, mismanaged and scraping by on the barest minimum of maintenance?
What do I know? I’m just a simple rigger.
Current research evidence about health problems from radiation
Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH , Medical Association for the Prevention of War, May 2014
Executive Summary
- Even at low doses of radiation there is clear evidence of increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease. There is no safe lower dose.
- The risk of increased cancers has been clearly shown in studies with very large numbers of people: Workers in the nuclear industry, children having CT Scans, survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, mine workers and householders exposed to raised levels of radon gas and in unborn children when their mothers had had abdominal X-rays.
- The risk of death from cardiovascular diseases is similar to that of dying of cancer, and the role of radiation causing other types of illness is currently being researched. As a result the overall excess risk of dying from exposure to low doses of radiation may be twice (or more) than that currently assumed from cancer alone.
- The trend in research over the last couple of decades, as each bit of new evidence emerges, is that the risks are greater than previously thought. There is now clear evidence that low dose exposures are harmful, and the greater the exposure the greater the risk.
South Australian State govt aiming for uranium enrichment !
South Australia digs deep on future of uranium http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/south-australia-digs-deep-on-future-of-uranium/story-fnii5yv7-1226905247217 SHERADYN HOLDERHEAD MILES KEMP THE ADVERTISER MAY 04, 2014
THE State Government’s mining department has continued to explore uranium enrichment, despite the minister saying there is no business case for it. Documents released under Freedom of Information also show the State Government wants to ship the uranium ore already mined in SA through eastern ports to make it more cost effective.
Emails between Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy Department executives shows they planned a meeting in December with a University College London Master’s graduate whose thesis showed the State Government should invest in uranium enrichment.
The emails suggested the graduate give a talk to the Olympic Dam Task Force and attached a summary of the paper, which stated that the SA Government should invest in uranium enrichment company URENCO.
The summary states a strategic investment would provide access to profits without the risk of developing a new technology and leaving options open for Australia to construct a future uranium enrichment facility.
Another report prepared for the State Government into how to make the state’s uranium industry more profitable and allow new mines to open suggests eastern states be lobbied to allow shipment from higher-traffic ports such as Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. Its report says found government should take a leadership role in lobbying for improvement which included a “discussion document around options for addressing access to east coast shipping ports”. Adelaide and Darwin are the only ports from which uranium shipping is now permitted.
A spokeswoman for Queensland Premier Campbell Newman said there were no plans to export uranium from Queensland ports. A Victorian Government spokesman said that “the proposal is not something that has been considered … Any proposal would need to be assessed to consider environmental implications, port handling and also transport arrangements’’.
In 2011, Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis, publicly backed by then treasurer Kevin Foley, called for change from the traditional approach of simply mining uranium and sending it offshore.
“We’ve got to value add here in SA. Down the track, I would like to see some form of enrichment, some sort of value add. We have to go out and passionately support the uranium industry,’’ he said at the time.
But in April last year, he said there was no case for it “any time in the near future” because it was not commercially viable.
Mr Koutsantonis said the department was not “investigating” uranium enrichment but that it was “keen to foster relationships between universities” and was often approached to discuss a range of policy issues.
He said that SA Government has not been presented with a viable business case for enrichment, and had not approached the eastern states to use their ports.
Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire said the government needed to “come clean” with their plans for uranium. “They’ve tricked their way back into office and it’s no longer acceptable for them to sidestep important issues on alternative energy sources,” he said.
“Why are they doing secret work, what are their intentions? And if they’re not considering it, then why allow the department to look at options?”
Some Australians are finding Joe Hockey’s opinion on wind energy offensive and silly
Joe Hockey’s turbine huff stokes coals of discontent WA Today, 4 May 14 Simeon Glasson Mr Hockey is right. As a lover of nature I agree with him 100 per cent. Wind farms are an offensive blight on nature’s beauty. As are open-cut coal mines, gold mines, uranium mines, and iron ore mines. The buildings around Sydney Harbour including the Opera House and Harbour Bridge surely spoil the sublime beauty of what must have been a pristine environment before white man arrived. LNG terminals on the (no longer so) Great Barrier Reef? Say no more. I suggest we do away with human civilisation altogether – leave the planet in all its original glory. Hmmm – maybe it’s too late for that.
So unless Mr Hockey wants to live in the Dark Ages let’s keep the wind farms – they look at least as good as some of the alternative sources of energy without the enormous environmental cost.
Andy Royal Joe Hockey is entitled to dislike wind turbines and hold other foolish opinions but he should not try to ram his “ideas” down other people’s throats or, worse, threaten to withdraw government support for green power initiatives designed to help secure a safe and secure future for our children.
Kevin Atkins Joe Hockey, of North Sydney, the epicentre of ugly concrete and steel monstrosities, is offended by a few scattered wind turbines in country Australia which are a “blight on the landscape”. Astonishing.
Doug Steley Joe Hockey says wind farms are “utterly offensive” and “a blight on the landscape”. I did not see him in Morewell when it was covered in toxic choking smoke and ash from the brown-coal-fired power station mine fire recently.
If he thinks a coal-fired power station is more attractive than wind turbines then I would suggest he moves and chooses to live closer to one of them.
Mona Finley Mr Hockey’s opinion of wind farms as ‘‘a blight on the landscape’’ could well go down as one of those ‘‘silly chump’’ statements that will have future generations spluttering with disbelief. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and every time I have caught sight of wind turbines, whether in Europe, New Zealand, or Australia, they appeared to me like art installations or sculpture – gleaming white, so tall and graceful, vanes turning in a meditative manner – and on top of all that, they’re producing lovely pollution-free energy. What’s not to like?
Anne Cooper I see the wind farms on the road to Canberra and am transfixed by their clean lines and simple efficiency. Conversely, a drive through the blighted Hunter Valley coal region is truly offensive. Get some perspective, Mr Hockey. Wind turbines are just big versions of the iconic Aussie windmills.
Thos Puckett Given his tilt at “utterly offensive” wind farms is the Treasurer the Joe Quixote of the 21st century?…….http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/smh-letters/joe-hockeys-turbine-huff-stokes-coals-of-discontent-20140504-zr4ae.html#ixzz30sXmyRE3
Denmark on the way to 100% renewable energy, with energy storage
Carbon Dioxide and Denmark’s Plan for 100 Percent Renewable Energy by 2050 http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/carbon-dioxide-and-denmarks-plan-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-by-2050/ by Sara Watson on May 3, 2014. Studies have shown that levels of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere are at an all time high. The time for change regarding energy choices is now. One nation has already taken up the charge to change the way we create and use energy. Denmark is leading the world in making changes regarding energy sources. The nation has a plan to be 100 percent dependant on renewable sources by 2050. This will create new jobs, decrease dependency on international resources and increase their exports to other nations. Continue reading
Tiny Marshall Islands take on the nuclear establishment in a legal suit
Nuclear WMD states sued – by the Marshall Islands http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2383793/nuclear_wmd_states_sued_by_the_marshall_islands.html Robert Dodge 4th May 2014
The US threatens to attack Iran if it tries to build a nuclear bomb, yet the US and other nuclear WMD states have ignored their treaty obligation to work toward nuclear disarmament, writes Rober Dodge. Now the Marshall Islands has gone to court to enforce compliance.
Historic lawsuits have been field by the tiny Republic of the Marshall Islands against the US and the eight other Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to meet their treaty obligations to disarm.
Since 1970, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has obligated nations to negotiate in good faith for complete disarmament – a world without nuclear weapons.
Forty-four years later, with no negotiations in sight, the world has become a more dangerous place with stockpiles of more than 17,000 nuclear weapons.
$1 trillion to spent on nuclear WMD over the next decade Four more nations now have nuclear weapons, and the original five continue to invest in and modernize their nuclear forces with expenditures expected to be in excess of $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
But one small nation has stood up to say “enough is enough”. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has taken action in the International Court of Justice and in the US Federal District Court to compel the nine nuclear weapons nations to comply with their obligations, under the NPT and customary international law, and begin negotiations for nuclear zero.They suffered a 12-year blitz of nuclear bomb tests
The Marshallese people know first-hand about the destructive consequences of living in a world with nuclear weapons. From 1946-1958, the US conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands, the equivalent explosive power of one-and-a-half Hiroshima bombs detonated daily for 12 years.
They seek no compensation through these legal actions. Rather they act for the seven billion of us who live on this planet, to end the nuclear weapon threat hanging over all humanity.
For the past year, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) has served as a consultant to the RMI in support of this courageous initiative to fulfill the world’s nuclear disarmament obligation.
They understand, as do the people of the Marshall Islands, that the only way to keep our loved ones safe is to relentlessly strive for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
The issue is human survival
This is not a partisan issue, it is a survival issue. As a variety of world leaders have made clear, including former US Secretary of State George Shultz:
“The nuclear club should be abolished and anybody who has a nuclear weapon is the enemy of mankind.”
And Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate:
“The failure of these countries to uphold important commitments and respect the law makes a more dangerous place. This is one of the most fundamental moral and legal questions of our time.”
As a physician, I recognize nuclear weapons pose the greatest existential and public health threat to our world. There is no adequate response to nuclear war. Prevention is essential and abolition of these weapons is the only way to accomplish that goal.
As South Australia’s utilities raise electricity prices, solar panels are looking good
South Australians Face Another Electricity Price Hike http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4288 4 May 14 Power bills for South Australians have reportedly risen by 160 per cent since 2002 – and more pain may be on the way on July 1.
A proposal (PDF) from SA Power Networks lodged with the Australian Energy Regulator seeks to increase the average residential bill (5,000 kWh annual consumption) by 5.1% ($95 annually) from July 1 this year. For households consuming 4,000 kWh annually; the increase will be 4.4% ($66 annually).
“The South Australian climate has led to lead to an extraordinary demand for air conditioning. Over 90% of homes are air conditioned with the air-conditioned floor space of these homes increasing each year. The consequent high peak network demand occurs for only a small part of the year,” says SA Power Networks.
“Extremely ‘peaky’ conditions such as these heatwaves require network assets and capacity that is under-utilised during much of the year, driving distribution costs higher on a per unit of energy served basis than comparable interstate networks.”
According to SA Opposition spokesman for Energy, Martin Hamilton-Smith, South Australian households already face the highest electricity prices in the country, with the average annual bill in SA at $2335.
South Australia already has very high solar uptake – more than 29% of eligible dwellings in Adelaide have solar panels installed. The news of this latest sting will likely push more households towards generating their own electricity.
Energy Matters’ Australian Solar Index indicates solar power installations in South Australia are one of the state’s best investments. An installation in Adelaide provides an estimated internal rate of return of 19.1%.
A 4.5kW system installed in Adelaide can provide electricity bills savings of between $1,312 and $2,150 annually. Under Energy Matters’ zero deposit Save As You Go initiative, the monthly repayments can be less than what would be paid during the same period for mains grid supplied electricity.
One of the other many benefits of going solar is that it helps to reduce the “peaky” conditions described by SA Power Networks as power is generated at the point of consumption. Without the influence of solar, price rises may be even higher. At one point during a heatwave in January this year, the state’s solar panel systems contributed over 9% to meeting power demand.
1 This month
7 April – WEBINAR – Australia and the Doomsday Clock – Preventing nuclear war through NoFirstUse and other policies
Online | Tuesday April 7, 4:00-5:30pm, Australian Eastern Time / 8:00-9:30am Central Europe Time
– Access the registration link
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 