uranium news

It is concerning that the uranium industry has used the expression “mild radiation” to describe its radiological environmental impacts, when there is no regulatory basis or definition to use this term, potentially giving the impression that the levels of radiation in the uranium mining industry are without risk to the environment. The evidence is clear and unassailable that this is not correct. Furthermore, it is appropriate that uranium mining continue to be considered a ‘nuclear action’ as specified by the EPBC Act as the radioactivity derives specifically from nuclear decay processes. Tailings from uranium mining are radioactive for millennia, resulting in unique environmental considerations for every uranium mine.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has determined that the dose  coefficient for radon gas, one of the sources of radioactivity from uranium mining, needs to  be doubled, indicating that it is actually thought to be double the previously estimated carcinogenic hazard.1. ARPANSA is currently in the process of revising dose estimates to  workers. It follows that risks to others is doubled and makes it even more essential appropriate mitigation strategies are introduced. It also follows that the environmental risk is also increased.

With regard to human exposure, all radiation regulatory frameworks around the world  support the concept of the ‘linear no threshold’ (LNT) model of carcinogenesis. As the US  appropriate mitigation strategies are introduced. It also follows that the environmental risk is also increased.

With regard to human exposure, all radiation regulatory frameworks around the world  support the concept of the ‘linear no threshold’ (LNT) model of carcinogenesis. As the US coefficient for radon gas, one of the sources of radioactivity from uranium mining, needs to be doubled, indicating that it is actually thought to be double the previously estimated carcinogenic hazard.1

. National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation VII (BEIR-VII) report (2006) summarised:“..the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that, at the low doses of interest in this report, there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced…”

This concept is also supported by all radiation regulators, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations Scientific Committee for the valuation of the Effects of Atomic  Radiation (UNSCEAR) and many others. It follows that there is strong evidence that even at  low doses any additional radiation over background levels increases the risk of malignancies. It logically follows that there are thus risks to non-human biota and the  broader environment, even at low doses of radiation, or as the Australian Uranium Association would perhaps describe it, ‘mild radiation.’……

Given the clear human health and environmental risks of even low dose radiation exposure, it is entirely appropriate that uranium mining and milling remain within the definition of nuclear actions” in the EPBC Act .Internationally radiation regulation is increasing, as the risks to human health and the environment become more apparent. The international emphasis (by the IAEA) is increasingly to consider radiation an environmental (as opposed to just a human) hazard so  it is appropriate that uranium mining be subject to Commonwealth environmental legislation. There is no reason why uranium mining should be exempt from the remit of the EPBC Act.

In conclusion, the uranium mining industry produces radioactive materials that have impacts on both human health and environmental health. It is essential that appropriate environmental and human safeguards remain, and that uranium mining and milling remains within the definition of “nuclear actions” for the purposes of the EPBC Act. There is a clear need for federal oversight to ensure clear and consistent implementation of these measures …http://www.mapw.org.au/files/downloads/2013-04-Productivity-Commission-uranium-submission.pdf

‘[I]t will be ultimately a decision of government of how they want to pursue the relocation of residents, through either an intervention, compensation, or a change to legislation,’ Mr Rosair says.

The death on Sunday of former WA Labor MP, Ernie Bridge, is another tragic reminder of the Wittenoom legacy. Mr Bridge believed he was exposed to asbestos fibres and dust while visiting the town on government and electoral business. He was suing CSR Limited, the Shire of Ashburton, and two of Australia’s richest women, Gina Rinehart and Angela Wright, after recently being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

For Perth-based Slater and Gordon lawyer, Simon Millman, Ernie Bridge’s compensation claim was one of between 100 and 120 asbestos-related cases he sees each year. A growing number of cases involve people who’ve had a lower exposure to asbestos; that includes former Wittenoom residents.

‘People in the industry usually talk about three waves of asbestos exposure,’ Mr Millman says. ‘They talk about the original workers—the mine workers, the mill workers, the manufacturers working in the James Hardie factories. And then the second wave, with the construction workers, electricians, the plumbers, the painters, the plasterers who would in the course of their work come into contact with asbestos on a regular basis—we saw many claims and we continue to see many claims for people in that category. And then the third category are the wives of those workers, whose only exposure was through washing their husbands’ clothes at the end of the day. And the children, as I say, and also the home handymen.’…..http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/asbestos-town/4607938

That third wave, involving exposure in the late-1970s and ‘80s, is on the rise. Alison Reid is an associate research professor at University of

Western Australia and the West Australian Institute of Medical Research. She says that for many children who grew up in Wittenoom and were exposed to the blue asbestos tailings, the effects continue to be felt.

‘We published work last year looking for the first time at the Wittenoom children,’ Ms Reid says. ‘So they’re now roughly 50 years old; we found high rates of mesothelioma—17 per cent of the cohort had died from mesothelioma, which is extremely high. We also found high rates of other diseases compared to the West Australian population, particularly brain cancer, leukaemia in the men, prostate cancer in the men. They had higher rates just of dying from all causes and all cancers.’

Former Wittenoom mine worker, Robert Vojakovic, is president of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia, which is campaigning for more research into asbestos-related diseases. He believes there should also be a Wittenoom fund.

‘They’ve got people who had sufficient exposure, possibly 10,000 people which are at risk to develop disease from Wittenoom alone,’ he says. ‘And they’re in a pretty high category to get cancer or mesothelioma. I’m talking about many persons who just briefly and remotely in time spent, you know, maybe one or two days at Wittenoom visiting beautiful gorges.’

‘So I reckon the focus ought to be on Wittenoom, you know? To start some medical research…to actually do something for the people who develop mesothelioma arising out of their visit to Wittenoom.’

Listen to Catherine Van Extel’s report at RN Breakfast.