Uranium Mining and Milling Health Problems

Company held liable for uranium clean up costs on Navajo Nation

Tribal officials applaud court decision
By Noel Lyn Smith The Daily Times
Updated:   12/17/2013 09:29:33 PM MST
Uranium mining started on tribal lands in 1944 to provide a source for atomic power. Over the years, that activity left more than 500 abandoned uranium mines, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Kerr-McGee started mining and milling uranium in Arizona's Lukachukai Mountains in 1952 and eventually built a 77-acre uranium disposal cell in Shiprock, which the company operated from 1954 to 1963.
The company also operated numerous businesses that left a trail of contamination across the United States, including radioactive thorium in Illinois, rocket fuel waste in Nevada, and creosote waste in the Midwest, Northeast and South.
The court decision, issued in the Southern District of New York, found that Anadarko and Kerr-McGee acted with "intent to hinder" certain creditors, including the Navajo Nation, when the company fraudulently conveyed assets to Tronox Inc. to evade its debts, which included its liability for environmental clean-up at toxic sites across the country.
Radon and radon progeny:  The Working Level Month (WLM)
The Working Level Month (WLM) has been used as a measure of dose for exposure to radon and in particular, radon decay products. One "Working Level" is approximately equivalent to 3700 Bq/m3 of Rn-222 in equilibrium with its decay products. Exposure to 0.4 WL was the maximum permissible for workers. Continuous exposure during working hours to 0.4 WL would result in a dose of 5 WLM over a full year, corresponding to about 50 mSv/yr whole body dose for a 40-hour week. In mines, individual workers' doses are kept below 1 WLM/yr (10 mSv/yr), and typically average half this.
A background radon level of 40 Bq/m3 indoors and 6 Bq/m3 outdoors, assuming an indoor occupancy of 80%, is equivalent to a dose rate of 1 mSv/yr and is the average for most of the world's inhabitants.
Violations in USA Uranium Mines, On June 26, 2013, Utah DEQ announced it has reached a settlement agreement with Energy Fuels Resources resolving alleged violations of the Utah Water Quality Act at the Rim mine,
Continuing health and safety violations at La Sal Mines Complex
The operators of the La Sal Mine Complex, Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (Beaver Shaft Mine) received 10 citations and 2 orders, Reliance Resources LLC (Pandora Mine) received 5 citations and one order from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for health and safety violations in March. This is in addition to 11 citations in January, . MSHA has not yet assessed the penalties for the March citations.
Two of the March orders were issued because MSHA found hazardous conditions undergr...ound similar to previously identified hazardous conditions that had resulted in sections of the mines being closed off to workers. These included hazardous ground conditions related to scaling and support-the same type of conditions that caused the fatal accident in May 2010-and the need to wear respirators when the radon daughter concentrations exceed 1 Working Level. The mines have previously been cited for these hazardous conditions

Daneros mine to be placed on standby for poor economics

Mine Safety and Health Administration settles with Reliance Resources on penalties for fatal accident at Pandora mine

More worker health and safety violations at La Sal mines: The January 2011 Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspections resulted in 5 worker health and safety violations at the Pandora Mine for Reliance Resources LLC and 6 violations at the Beaver Shaft for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. All MSHA violations were associated with the failure of the mine operators to properly protect the workers from exposure to radon daughters (short lived, highly radioactive particulates from the decay of radon) in the mines.

Both Denison Mines and Reliance Resources were cited for exposure of workers to air with concentrations of radon daughters exceeding 1.0 working level (WL) in active workings and for the failure of workers to wear respirators in areas where the radon daughters exceed 1.0 WL. Reliance Resources was also cited for improper ventilation, not posting inactive workings where radon daughter concentrations are about 1.0 WL, and failure to calculate and record complete individual exposures in active working areas with radon daughter concentrations are more than .03 WL

Just a problems on problems from experience Canadian uranium mining companies who cannot follow simple rules to protect the workers: http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopusa.html#UT

Uranium mill issues:

Radon emission exceeds standard at Tailings Cell 2 of White Mesa mill

The 2012 Annual Compliance Report external link for the emission of radon from the White Mesa Mill tailings impoundments reported that the radon flux for the 66-acre [27 ha] Cell 2 exceeded the standard in 2012. The Cell 2 emission of radon is 1.59 times the 20 pico Curie per square meter per second (pCi/m2/sec) [0.74 Bq/m2/sec] requirement for a tailings impoundment that exceeds 40 acres. Energy Fuels Resources Inc. (EFR) concluded that the increase in radon-222 flux from Cell 2 was caused by dewatering, and was unavoidable. In 2011 and 2012 EFR adopted an accelerated dewatering program, based on the Ground Water Discharge Permit requirements. Cell 2 must also be dewatered to settle the tailings

State regulator approves remediation plan for nitrate in groundwater at White Mesa Mill: The proposed Order is being issued to approve a corrective action plan for remediation of ground water contaminated with nitrate at the Denison Mines

Number 1, how can they claim safest little u mine in the world, you cannot mine uranium in VA, it is against the law plus VUI has not mention which uranium mine which has never ruin the water throut the world 2. KTB, has lots of science behind , Medical Society of Virginia, NAACP, Virginia State Conference, National Wildlife Federation, North Carolina Water Resources Congress. Ecological Working Community of Tidewater Sowers of Justice, all river people have army c of eng., all types of water scientists plus we talk to people all over the world about their problems with u mining. KTB states facts, VUI states dreams without true science, just nuke and uranium mining science. Please visit BCC video, the miner on the Billboard, needs mud on his face, licking uranium mud plus background radiation is so high, hear the Geiger Counter in the background, Deep down an Arizona uranium mine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11353457


The anti-science about ionizing radiation

 Some people would have you believe that low level ionising radiation is perfectly safe; this is a sinister and troubling fallacy, says Noel Wauchope.
(Image via About.com)
DENIAL OF THE HEALTH EFFECTS of ionising radiation is the latest of the lies against science.
And it’s the most difficult one to grapple with, as I will explain later. Denial of science is not new — it goes back to Flat Earth and beyond. It has to do with complex psychological issues. These include resentment and jealousy of the respected position of scientists, fear of change and a kind of helplessness in the face of challenging circumstances.
There are other motivations, such as the desire to be famous and important — as being someone “brave enough to oppose the mainstream”. Then there’s the “libertarian” idea ‒ so strongly believed by people such as Rupert Murdoch ‒ that government must not interfere with personal freedom. This idea would include the freedom to promote smoking to young people, to get a job as an asbestos miner, to refuse to vaccinate children against fatal diseases and to accept that low level irradiation of one’s children is okay.
But none of these motivations would get “airplay” ‒ would prevail, if it were not for the money motive, that’s the impetus behind public relations people, consultants, journalists, commentators, TV producers, film-makers, and so on who are paid by think tanks that are fronts for polluting industries and billionaires like the Koch Brothers. And don’t let’s forget the scientists and science media who are paid by governments that are financially beholden to polluting corporations and to the military industrial complex.
There is extensive literature in books and on the Internet about the campaigns of science denial regarding asbestos, tobacco and climate change. These are global campaigns, but Australia is well represented.
The climate sceptic campaign has followed the model of the tobacco lobby.
The 2009 WHO report Tobacco Industry Interference in Tobacco Control summarises the various tactics:
They include:
  • Public Relations: To mould public opinion, using the media to promote positions favourable to the industry.
  • Consultancy programme: To recruit supposedly independent experts critical of tobacco control measures.
  • Funding research—including universities: To create doubt about existing evidence of the health effects of tobacco use.
  • Creating alliances and front groups: To mobilise farmers, retailers, advertising agencies, the hospitality industry, ‘grass roots’ and anti-tax groups with a view to influencing legislation.

The pro-tobacco campaign in Australia has been well documented, for example by Ann Davies in Big Tobacco hired public relations firm to lobby. There is a comprehensive outline of Australia’s many tobacco lobbyists at The Tobacco Industry:  who are they?
When it comes to the climate change denialists, it is hard to know where to start.
A very recent publication ‘Dealing in Doubt’ provides a 2013 Australia update. After giving the history of climate scepticism in Australia, it states 
‘Fast forward to today and Australian denial remains a major force.’
‘Dealing in Doubt’, while covering the global science denialism campaign, pays tribute to Australia’s outstanding climate sceptics. A previous publication, Doubting Australia  gives details of these people — Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Alan Moran, and the denialist front groups, such as The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Australian Environment Foundation, Australian Climate Science Coalition and the Lavoisier Group.
Independent Australia has covered several facets of climate denialism, as well as the anti-science campaigns against renewable energy — especially wind power.
But neither the “old” nor the “new” media are properly addressing the issue of anti-science about ionising radiation.
This is understandable given that, in Australia, the menace of climate change is apparent and, for now, the menace of ionising radiation is limited. Also apparent is the reality ‒ indeed the urgency ‒ of successful anti-science campaigns against climate change action and the development of renewable energy.
Another reason is confusion, and lack of understanding, about radiation and genetics.
Sadly, Australians have become conditioned to the idea that engineers and nuclear physicists are the experts in these fields. Australians, in general, know little about genetics. As for radiation, most Australians would be hard put to explain the differences between the various types of radiation, of which ionising radiation is only one.

Meanwhile, below the radar, the global anti-science campaign about radiation goes on with particular force as the Fukushima disaster continues.
Plenty of funding is available. The USA’s Department of Energy funds programs worldwide, (including in Australia) to research dodgy science about the safety ‒ even alleged benefits ‒ of low level ionising radiation. Nuclear physicists and others, quite inexpert in this field, pronounce solemnly about non-hazardous nature of low dose radiation. Nuclear proponents from the nuclear lobby, the Breakthrough Institute, contributed funding to the nuclear advertising film ‘Pandora’s Promise, which has just hit the screens in Australian cinemas. Bill Gates, with his nuclear reactor company Terra Power, is prominent among these.
Of all the anti science campaigns, the current one about ionising radiation is the most sinister and troubling in a procession of science denials going back over a century and beyond.
Why “sinister”? 
Well, I say sinister, because health the effects of “low level” ionising radiation are hidden, not apparent and may take decades to appear — indeed, not only decades, but perhaps generations.
Low level radiation affects body cells and triggers changes in the genetic code, which may appear in later generations. These effects will “creep up” on the human species if ionising radiation is allowed to spread around the world via nuclear accidents, nuclear bombs and the general operations of the uranium and nuclear industries.
The harmful effects of low level radiation are not clear cut when compared with, for example, the effects of asbestos.
With asbestos, people develop specific asbestos diseases, such as mesothelioma and asbestosis. Even tobacco’s harm has been shown, by mice experiments and epidemiological research to assist the development of lung cancer. Even climate change, though much disputed, can be shown through observation of global temperatures, the level of C02 in the atmosphere and through melting glaciers.
Why is it “troubling”?
This is also because the effects of radiation are not clear cut. There’s no “marker”, as there is with mesothelioma and, while cancers are the best known effects, there are others ― heart disease, lowered immunity, birth defects, genomic instability. There are the differences between external and internal exposure to radiation.

Importantly, unlike the case of asbestos and climate science, science’s nuclear “deniers” are, in the words of Charles Perrow in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
‘…not a tiny minority but rather are respected members of the scientific community who specialize in radiation effects. Most of these experts no longer contend that there is zero harm in low-level radiation, but rather that the range of uncertainty includes zero: In other words, low-level health effects may exist, but they are too small to measure.’
Unlike asbestos and cigarettes, low level radiation poses a considerable problem to epidemiologists, due to the time lapse, the size of the population needed and the plethora of other disease causes.
For example, in the normal course of events, some 40 per cent of the Fukushima population would get cancer, even if no nuclear accident had occurred. Thus, it is going to take a concerted effort by the many scientists of integrity ‒ doctors, geneticists, epidemiologists, radiation scientists world-wide ‒ to explain the complexities of ionising radiation and health and to get a truly impartial message out. The World Health Organisation, for instance, is going to have to cut itself off from its contracted subservience to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sadly, asbestos and cigarettes are still wreaking their sickness havoc in Asian countries.
Climate change is en route to work its global havoc.
Ionising radiation is waiting in the wings.
Anti-science seems to be winning.


Black Hills Pioneer ‎- 3 hours ago

23 letter to Dr. Kelley thanking him for drafting the proposal, Dr. Heinemann stated that “research indicates that in areas where uranium mining ...

Anti-uranium doctors renew threat to resign - Montreal - CBC News


Mar 22, 2010 - The province decided against a moratorium before hearing from a provincial panel researching the health effects of uranium mining, said 

Canadian doctors renew threat to resign over uranium - Mines and ...

Mar 31, 2010 - 2 posts
Anti-uranium doctors renew threat to resign ... The province decided against a moratorium before hearing from a provincial panel researching 

nunnglow.com - Medical society prescribes against uranium mining

www.nunnglow.com › Reference

Nov 9, 2007 - Medical society prescribes against uranium mining, Print ... Doctors have a sworn duty to do no harm, and in Larimer County that's extending to 

Medical Effects of Uranium Mining on Population & Native Peoples ...


Mar 11, 2013 - Doug Brugge on the medical effects of uranium mining and how mining particularly ... Brugge and Dr. Caldicott cover how they both started their ... articles Australia's aboriginal communities clamour against uranium mining
by Pat McNamara

Take a moment and list off the nuclear issues in Canada you are aware of: radioactive waste, medical isotopes, radioactive leaks and new nuclear reactors will come to mind. The media reports on little more. Few Canadians know how many communities and environments have been contaminated forever by the nuclear industry. Even fewer know the number of radiation-induced illnesses and premature deaths the Canadian Government has knowingly caused through its actions and inactions.
These papers list a wide range of nuclear issues and situations that have been caused and, for the most part hidden, by the Canadian Government since their involvement in nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity generation began 65 years ago. The government's current attempt to expand their involvement into all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle is particularly frightening.


Danville Doctors Sign Petition Opposing Uranium Mining - WSET.com


Dec 21, 2012 - Danville, VA - A number of medical professionals in Danville are taking a stance against uranium mining. Danville's Vice Mayor Dr. Gary Miller 

National Research Council. Committee on health risks of exposure to radon (BEIR VI). Health effects of exposure to radon. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.

Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining

Authors: Dr. Cathy Vakil M.D., C.C.F.P., F.C.F.P.

Dr. Linda Harvey B.Sc., M.Sc., M.D.


Uranium mining, in particular open pit mining, , involves digging thousands

of tons of radioactive rock out of a giant hole. Large quantities of

this rock are dumped onto the earth’s surface. The ore is then transported to

a milling facility, usually nearby, and crushed to a fine sand-like consistency,

creating radioactive dust and finely ground mill tailings. The uranium is

separated out, usually with strong acids or alkalis. The sand-like tailings,

containing about 85% of their original radioactivity, and often the chemicals

used in the extraction process, are deposited in large tailings ponds or

containments nearby.

Dust containing uranium and its progeny is produced in large quantities by

rock-crushing operations. This particulate matter, containing long-lived

radioactive isotopes, can leave the site on wind. Wind erosion of tailings piles

can be significant as long as these remain exposed to weather. Radon gas is

continuously produced by the decay of thorium 230, a radioactive decay

product of uranium 238, through radium into radon. Thorium 230 has a halflife

of 76,000 years, and will produce radon gas unabated for millennia.

Groundwater and surface water in the vicinity of uranium mining operations

frequently become contaminated (31). At the advanced exploration stage of

mine development, holes about 1-2” in diameter and up to 1200 feet deep

are drilled into rock, usually into the most concentrated deposits. A hole of

this depth is almost certain to penetrate aquifers, giving water access to

radioactive rock surfaces. Many uranium compounds and decay products are

soluble, toxic and radioactive. In an area of fractured granite bedrock, as

found in some uranium bearing areas of Ontario, many of the aquifers

interconnect and contamination quickly becomes widespread.

Uranium is a heavy metal which means that it is toxic in addition to its

radioactivity. In drinking water, at levels in excess of the safe drinking water

standard of .02 mg/L or 20 ppb, it is principally toxic to the kidney, in

particular the proximal tubules (32). Uranium can also affect fertility, fetal

growth and postnatal viability (33). It may cause malformations in fetuses

and might be associated with reproductive cancers. It concentrates in bone

and may interfere with the activity of osteoblasts, possibly contributing to

bone cancers and osteoporosis (32).

What are the risks from these tailings? According to the CAIRS study, a

person walking over a typical tailings pile for 1 hr every day will absorb a

gamma radiation dose of, on average, 0.73 mSv/yr (41). This would be in

addition to the ~1.0 mSv/yr of background gamma radiation we all receive.

Consider that doubling a person’s exposure will in general double his/her

cancer risk, and that this person will also be exposed to higher than normal

levels of radon gas near the tailings.


Title of Resolution: Global call to action for a ban on uranium mining

Submitted By: Helmut Lohrer

Affiliates: IPPNW Germany and PSR/IPPNW Switzerland

Date Submitted: August 18, 2010

Uranium ore mining and the production of uranium oxide (yellowcake) are irresponsible and represent a grave threat to health and to the environment. Both processes involve an elementary violation of human rights The International Council of IPPNW therefore resolves that:

IPPNW call for appropriate measures to ban uranium mining worldwide.

Reasons for Above:
Uranium mining contaminates groundwater and radioactivity remains in the heaps, tailings and

evaporation ponds. Uranium and its radioactive decay elements are highly toxic. They attack inner

organs and the respiratory system. Scientific studies have shown that the following diseases are caused by exposition to radon gas, uranium and uranium’s decay elements: Bronchial and lung cancer; cancer of the bone marrow, stomach, liver, intestine, gall bladder, kidneys and skin, leukemia, other blood diseases, psychological disorders and birth defects.
Approximately three!quarters of the world’s uranium is mined on territory belonging to indigenous

peoples. The inhabitants of affected regions are (for the most part) vulnerable to exposure from
radioactive substances that threaten them with short! and long!term health risks and damaging genetic effects.

As well as the direct health effects from contamination of the water, the immense water consumption in mining regions is environmentally and economically damaging – and in turn detrimental for human health. The extraction of water leads to a reduction of the groundwater table and thereby to desertification; plants and animals die, the traditional subsistence of the inhabitants is eliminated, theexistence of whole cultures are threatened.


Makita: Open Letter from an Iqualuit physician (2011, en)

Government of Nunavut
 Uranium Consultation:  physicians are calling for a ban on uranium mining.

March 15, 2011
Dear Premier Aariak,
Thank you for inviting the opinions of Nunavummiut on uranium.
I am writing to you as a parent, a physician and as someone who cares
deeply about the future of Nunavut. I have not been shy to speak out
against nuclear energy and specifically uranium mining.

Part of my professional role as a doctor is to advocate for the health and well
being of the people I care for, and it is definitely my job as a
parent to do this.

While I do understand fully how important it is for us to build job
opportunities and revenue, there are few legal industries that are so
deeply unethical that I feel Nunavut should never consider getting
involved with them and they are uranium, military arms, and the
tobacco industry.

As a member of Physicians for Global Survival (the Canadian chapter of
the Nobel prize winning group International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War), being wary of nuclear energy in all it
forms comes easily to me.

At the PGS website (www.pgs.ca) you can read
about why many physicians are calling for a ban on uranium mining.

The College of Family Physicians of Ontario has called for a ban on
uranium mining as has CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the

The provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia have
a permanent ban on uranium mining because that is what their voting
public has demanded.

As you well know, Greenland maintains its ‘No
Uranium stand’ while other parts of Inuit Nunaat have current
moratoriums or are struggling with the issue.
The current map of Uranium mines in Saskatchewan matches fairly
closely with rural Aboriginal communities, who like Nunavut
communities were looking for ways to foster economic independence.

But why is it okay for such a toxic industry to be accepted on
Aboriginal land, when the Canadian mainstream in BC and Nova Scotia
and everywhere else in the country have said ‘no way, not on our

Is uranium safe for human health? As defenders of the industry with
their glossy brochures will also demonstrate, one can find a study to
support any argument. A study in India called the “Jadugoda Uranium
Study” found statistically significant increases in the rates of birth
defects, cancer deaths and premature deaths near the uranium mine.

The isotopes in the tailings of any uranium mine developed in Nunavut
could well add to our already high rates of cancer. Can we say it
will definitely cause more cancer deaths? No. But one of the guiding
ethical principles in medicine is : first, do no harm. It is a
precautionary approach that should be taken with all forms of
development in Nunavut.

It is not possible to prove that uranium is safe for the environment,
and it is not possible to prove that uranium mining, or nuclear power
generation are safe for human health.

Just look to Fukushima. A Japanese physician friend of mine in Tokyo
wrote me this week, from his country which is reeling after the
tsunami from the additional unfolding nuclear disaster, and finished
his email with “I hope you do not have nuclear power in your city”.
There is also NO WAY to be sure that plutonium, one of the breakdown
products of uranium, will not be diverted for illegal means and used
to develop nuclear weapons. It is true that there are huge poorly
safeguarded stores of plutonium in Russia but just because Canadian
plutonium (from uranium) is less likely to be stolen or sold
illegally, does not mean it could not happen.

It is important to think about the motivations of the groups being
given a voice at the Nunavut uranium consultations (and the funding
behind them).

If you are a mining company or lobby group, the
motivation is money (= uranium mining IS safe).

If you are a physician, your motivation is health (= uranium mining IS NOT safe).
I hope that you are hearing from many Nunavummiut on this important

For many who are struggling with literacy, keeping their
children safe and fed, and many other challenges, being able to take
the time to become informed and voice opinions about uranium is
neither possible nor a priority.

It is up to you and other elected officials to make decisions in the best interest of future
generations. It is an incredible opportunity to speak truth to power,
and there is no doubt that your government will be remembered for the
decision that is made. Please, say no to uranium in Nunavut.

Madeleine Cole


Health Risks of Nuclear Power (Study)
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen
Independent consultant
Chaam, The Netherlands
22 November 2010
This study starts with a physical assessment of the quantities of the radioactivity being generated and mobilized by the entire system of related industrial processes making civilian nuclear power possible. It assesses the actual and potential exposure of the public to natural and human-made nuclear radioactivity, and it discusses empirical evidence of harmful health effects of these exposures. The biomedical effects of radionuclides in the human body are briefly discussed.

Unsafe at any Dose (Article, New York Times)

Hazards of Uranium

by Inge Lindemann, Oct / Nov 2008 / April 2010
A comprehensive compilation of the basics and the latest findings in regard to the health hazards of uranium, the diseases it may cause, the effects on environment, water, air etc., with links to the relevant scientific studies.

Advanced Biochemical and Biophysical Aspects of Uranium Contamination

by Dr. Chris Busby and Prof. Dr. Ewald Schnug, Nov 2009
Latest scientific findings of Prof. Schnug and Dr. Busby in regard to uranium contamination.

Indications for Contamination of Water Bodies with Uranium through Fertilization

F. Knolle, S. Haneklaus and E. Schnug, 2009
Institute for Crop and Soil Science, Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Braunschweig, Germany
Proceedings from 17th International Symposium of the International Scientific Centre of Fertilizers (CIEC), Plant Nutrient Management Under Stress Conditions,November 24-27, 2008, Egypt. El-Zaiem Press, Cairo-Giza 2008 Egyptian National Library Legal Deposit No. 13730/2009, ISBN: 977-5041-61-9

Cohort study - description and results

Wet drillingMining has a tradition over many centuries in Saxony and Thuringia.
Radiation measurementsIn the southern region of the Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) mining yielded copper, nickel and tin, silver, cobalt and bismuth. After World War II, also the production and processing of uranium took place on a mayor scale.
This occurred in the beginning on orders of the soviet military administration who needed the uranium for its A bomb program.
From the start on, the whole operation was kept top secret.

Manifest für die Unabhängigkeit von der WHO

Die Kontroverse um das Management der Schweinegrippe-„Pandemie“ A(H1N1) durch die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) wirft ein krasses Licht auf das Vorgehen dieser UNO-Agentur. Die Parlamentarische Versammlung des Europarats hat auf Vorschlag von Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, ehemaliger Präsident des Unterausschusses für Gesundheit, beschlossen, einen Bericht zur Frage eines etwaigen heimlichen Einverständnisses zwischen Impfstoffherstellern und bestimmten WHO-Experten auszuarbeiten.

Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation (Study)

Dr. Cathy Vakil M.D., C.C.F.P., F.C.F.P.
Dr. Linda Harvey B.Sc., M.Sc., M.D.

May 2009
This paper will examine the health risks associated with the nuclear power industry at all stages - from uranium mining, to the fission process in reactors, to radioactive waste, and will comment on the risk of nuclear war, which we regard as the ultimate public health issue. Uranium mining contaminates air, water and soil.

BfS - Wismut Uranbergarbeiter- Kohortenstudie

Die Deutsche Uranbergarbeiter-Kohortenstudie („Wismut Kohorte“) ist die weltweit größte Kohortenstudie an Bergarbeitern, die Radon und seinen Zerfallsprodukten ausgesetzt waren. Die Studie wird seit mehreren Jahren vom Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS) durchgeführt und umfasst die Daten von knapp 59.000 männlichen Bergarbeitern, die im Uranerzbergbau der Wismut in der ehemaligen DDR zwischen 1946 und 1990 beschäftigt waren. Das zweite Mortalitäts-Follow-up ist abgeschlossen und erste Ergebnisse dazu sind publiziert. Es ist beabsichtigt, den Datensatz interessierten Wissenschaftlern zur weiteren Analyse zugänglich zu machen.

Radiological hazards from uranium mining (article)

by Bruno Chareyron, 2008

A brief article about the hazards from radiation from uranium mining


published in:
Broder J. Merkel and Andrea Hasche-Berger

Uranium, Mining and Hydrogeology
2008, page 451-458

Strahlenschutzkommission bestätigt Kinderkrebsrisiko in der Nähe von AKWs

Pressemitteilung zur "Kinderkrebsstudie", Umweltinstitut München, 10. Oktober 2008
... read more

Radiation Protection Commission confirmed child cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants

Munich Environmental Institute calls the shutdown of nuclear power plants as a consequence

Munich, October 10 - the Commission on radiological protection (SSK) yesterday presented the assessment requested by Federal Environment Minister Gabriel of the childhood cancer study (KiKK study). The study confirms the result: the closer children under five years of age at a nuclear power plant, the higher is her risk of developing leukemia.

According to the radiation protection Commission, the study is unsuitable, however, to establish a connection with the radioactive pollution by nuclear power plants. From strahlenbiologischer point of view, other factors would have to provide the explanation for the outcome of the study. Alfred Körblein, formerly a physicist at the Munich Environmental Institute and initiator of the KiKK study contradicts: "in determining the radiation risk is assumed implied that the radiation effect is proportional to the dose. As well, the effect but also disproportionately increase the dose, and risk will be considerably underestimated. The emissions from nuclear power plants are subject to strong fluctuations. It briefly high radioactive charges can be made, that determine the risk of cancer." This is one possible approach to the policy gap between the results of the previous study and the current state of radiobiologischen knowledge for Körblein.

Because even the SSK can not explain the reason for the increased rates of children cancer, she calls for the review of other possible factors. Those are for example the building materials or radon exposure, the use of pesticides in agriculture or chemical and microbiological impact of cooling towers. Christina Hacker, Director of the environmental Institute of Munich: "the thesis that the cooling towers eligible as a cause, is adventurous. There are a number of nuclear power plants, which have even no cooling towers. Others if their cooling towers only temporarily, about the rivers carry little water." The SSK would distract with such statements only the hard facts.

To understand the results of the previous study, the SSK calls among other things more basic to the arises the question of how leukemia in children. The Munich Environmental Institute requires, however, immediate consequences. Christina Hacker: "instead of waiting for more studies, nuclear power plants must be switched off now, so that no more children will develop cancer."

Information about the environmental Institute Munich, see under: www.umweltinstitut.org/ self portrait

For more information, please contact that:
Environmental Institute Munich e.V.
Christina hacker, Karin Wurzbacher
Tel. (089) 30 77 49 11
ch@umweltinstitut.org This E-Mail address is against spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Alfred Körblein
Tel. (0911) 23 58 134
Mobile: (0176) 23 73 26 16
Alfred.koerblein@gmx.de This E-Mail address is against spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it