The debate over uranium mining in northern Arizona continues to focus on fears of uranium entering the Colorado River. The Las Vegas Sun today editorialized, "Republicans should quit trying to roll back uranium mining moratorium."
"Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions of people’s drinking water at risk." The presumption seems to be that the river is uranium-free now.
However, a U.S. Geological Survey report issued in 2010, provided data showing that the river carries an average of 120,000 lbs (a range of 40-80 tons) of uranium down the Grand Canyon every year. The uranium is apparently eroded from normal crustal concentrations over the large drainage area of the Colorado River basin.
Do water managers fear that millions of people's drinking water is currently at risk from the tons of uranium being carried naturally by the Colorado River?
Ref: Hydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona, Edited by Andrea E. Alpine, USGS SIR 2010-5025
The Las Vegas Sun should be informed about the USGS report and the quantities of uranium already in the Colorado River due to natural causes. On the basis of that information, the City of Las Vegas should be encouraged to no longer use Colorado River water.
ReplyDeleteHow much uranium gets into the Colorado at the Moab millsite?
ReplyDeleteThe Las Vegas Sun editorial is yet another example of how insidious the Big Lie can be. The anti-mining forces have told the lie that uranium mining would or could pollute the Colorado River and have spread this lie so thouroughly via the internet and news-scape that the lie is taken for thruth.
ReplyDeleteShamefull really.
Since they have used this lie to solicite funding, I think that a charge of fruad should be leveled against them. Since various conservation groups have coordinated their efforts, a RICO suit should follow.
My first thought after reading this blog was that somewhere along the line science education failed the Las Vegas Sun writer. Then I began to realize that those with an agenda refuse to be bothered by facts. Agenda trumps education.
ReplyDeleteIs Arizona Geology suggesting that it is okay to risk polluting the Colorado River with more uranium because it already contains some uranium?
ReplyDeleteAnd what about Grand Canyon's seeps and springs? Is it okay to risk seeps and springs to aquifer pollution and depletion? Nobody can guarentee against that pollution and if it did happen it would be impossible to clean up. Those springs harbor incredible biological diversity in Grand Canyon. Is Arizona Geology's position that it is okay to risk those springs and that diversity to the uranium industry too?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, are you aware that northwestern Arizona has hundreds of vertical, pencil-shaped geological features (breccia pipes), many of which have been mineralized with uranium, copper, and other elements? Are you aware that because of this the soil, dust, shallow groundwater, including seeps and springs, and even the Colorado River, which flows into and through the area, have slightly elevated levels of uranium and other elements that have come from the underlying rocks?
ReplyDeleteIf I had a deep concern about "polluting" the Colorado River, seeps, and the springs that "harbor incredible biological diversity" I'd want to have a basic understanding of the natural geologic setting, including background water quality.
Are you suggesting that uranium mining will somehow "pollute" the Colorado River with more uranium? If so, please explain the specific processes by which you think that would happen.
The Arizona Geological Survey recently released Open-file Report 11-04 (Breccia-pipe uranium mining in the Grand Canyon region and implications for uranium levels in Colorado River water.) to address that issue. The report was summarized in this blog April 30, 2011. You might find that to be an interesting read.
Anonymous, your posts, including your questions about Arizona Geology's reason for posting the Las Vegas Sun article, suggest to me that you are a)someone who has been frightened into believing that the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon are somehow threatend by uranium mining, b)opposed to mining and/or nuclear energy, or c)both of the above.
First - A source of radioactivity in drinking water is uranium, radon, or U+radon.
ReplyDeleteA gross alpha test is the first step in determining the type and level of radioact......the levels in radon are?
Anonymous, are you aware that northwestern Arizona has hundreds of vertical, pencil-shaped geological features (breccia pipes), many of which have been mineralized with uranium, copper, and other elements? Are you aware that because of this the soil, dust, shallow groundwater, including seeps and springs, and even the Colorado River, which flows into and through the area, have slightly elevated levels of uranium and other elements that have come from the underlying rocks?
Heavy metals are in elevated levels in drinking water or the american's have procedures to remove a significative %?
"Republicans in Congress should quit trying to repeal the moratorium and should instead work to protect the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. It makes no sense to put millions of people’s drinking water at risk." The presumption seems to be that the river is uranium-free now.
However, a U.S. Geological Survey report issued in 2010, provided data showing that the river carries an average of 120,000 lbs (a range of 40-80 tons) of uranium down the Grand Canyon every year. The uranium is apparently eroded from normal crustal concentrations over the large drainage area of the Colorado River basin.
and the extra U amount if the mining activity resumes is?
the concentration factor ppm of U/ m3?
lack of information n'est pas?
no free pdf i s'pose....
ReplyDeleteHydrological, Geological, and Biological Site Characterization of Breccia Pipe Uranium Deposits in Northern Arizona, Edited by Andrea E. Alpine, USGS SIR 2010-5025