Talk:Church Rock uranium mill spill

Add section on ongoing activities
Add section on ongoing activities. such as http://www.nuclearactive.org/ ...July 16 Commemorative Events in New Mexico 2010 ... uly 16th is a historic day in New Mexico because it was the day in 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated at the Trinity Site and it was the day in 1979 when the Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill took place. To commemorate these events, prayer walks, candlelight vigils and community education events will be held.

First, to remember the communities affected by the Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill 31 years ago, the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment will hold events in the Red Water Pond Road Community. From 7 to 9 am there will be a Prayer Walk on Highway 566 in remembrance of the communities affected by the spill. There will be a Commemoration Proclamation and Reaffirmation of the Navajo Nation's Uranium Mining Ban that was set forth in the Dine' Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005. A luncheon will begin at noon.

On the morning of July 16th, an earthen tailings dam at the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Uranium Mill failed, spilling large amounts of liquid radioactive waste into the Puerco River in New Mexico, which eventually flowed downstream into Arizona. The Church Rock spill is second only to the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown for the amount of radiation released from an accident.

and excerpts from US social forum ... video is available at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7887536 —Preceding unsigned comment added by YakbutterT (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sections
It appears the current sections were placed as a guideline for a logical flow of the article. However, the content which already existed does not match the section headings; this is somewhat confusing. I propose either removing the sections (easy fix), or rewriting the article so the headings make sense. -  Steve3849 talk  15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and reorganized the content to fit the headings. -  Steve3849 talk  16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

International Nuclear Event Scale
What is the rating of this accident on the International Nuclear Event Scale? I would guess 5, since it leaked more than Three Mile Island.  Randall Bart    Talk   17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 5 would be my assessment as well, given the amount of radiation leaked and the consequent environmental and health effects. Karmos (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're putting too much faith in popular press, or you haven't read the actual scientific findings. 46 curies worth of radionuclides dispersed among 96 million gallons of water is not enough to cause any damage to humans. Even if it were concentrated into a solid mass you would only be in danger of slightly higher cancer risk, not burns. At peak readings, "Comparison of this sample with prespill data showed that the concentrations of many radionuclides, metals and common salts increased by factors of ten or more." This incident is very clearly a level 2. The effects were detectable above background levels for a short time, but far below the EPA's levels for danger to humans. If the waste had been radioactive enough to cause burns when diluted by a river, it would have been a severe danger in the relatively high concentration of the tailings pond, and since the point of mining uranium is to remove it from the ore, this would be a bizarre reversal.
 * As is typical, especially for radiological incidents, the popular press is incredibly alarmist. Wikipedia should not report unsubstantiated claims uncritically when those claims run counter to scientific findings. This article should be rewritten to emphasize what is empirical fact and what is hearsay. Do note that all claims of harm specific to this incident fall into the latter category. However, that said, the long history of mining in the region seems to have resulted in elevated levels of selenium, lead, and other heavy metals, close to or exceeding EPA guidelines. The following seem to be the best sources for scientific data on the subject, but the AmJPH article (which cites these) is correct in observing the relative paucity of studies of the incident.
 * http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/newmexico/united_nuclear/06-1000720.pdf
 * http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1984/07000/The_Assessment_of_Human_Exposure_to_Radionuclides.2.aspx

67.160.133.226 (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Effects section
The primary document for this section should be the EPA Report The reference for "7000 times that of the allowable level of drinking water" is of low quality, it does not provide a source for that number, and appears to be incorrect. Figure 3.1 in the EPA report shows a level of approximately 8000 picocuries/L, and the EPA's limits for radionuclides are 15 picocuries per liter. The number cited by Johansen has no source and is contradicted by EPA measurements, however replacing it with the more accurate figure of 500 times the allowable limits is a little too much analysis for Wikipedia. I therefore recommend replacing it with a quotation from the EPA report, "the concentrations of many radionuclides, metals and common salts increased by factors of ten or more."

Next we have "Residents who waded in the river after the spill went to the hospital complaining of burning feet and were misdiagnosed with heat stroke." This is reasonably close to what the article in question says, but bias has been introduced by editing.
 * "People started complaining about their feet getting hot," Nez said. Some residents went to the hospital but were released with a diagnosis of simple heat stroke, Nez said.

It might be worth attributing this to Nez, e.g. "A local resident claimed...". Alternately, one could use the "Tainted Desert" source, which makes it more clear that the acidity of the tailings was the cause of the burns. That the diagnosis was wrong is a reasonable inference, but we have no information as to whether it was; the author did not make that claim explicitly. We just have the fact of the diagnosis, so we should report that, and leave it to the reader to draw whatever conclusion they wish. It would be nice to find a source that cited something other than hearsay for this, or gave a more exact number than "some".

There is a remarkable lack of reporting about what the physical effects of the spill were. Some quotations from the EPA report:
 * "As the spill traveled downstream the acid waste was neutralized and concentrations of many dissolved substances decreased. Prolonged contact with alkaline soils and sediments caused the acidity of the spill to abate by the time it reached the Arizona border on the evening of July 16."
 * "Acidity, salinity and radioactivity at low flows were thus returned to prespill levels by about mid-August (Figure 3.2). Only in subsequent runoff events in 1980 were traces of spill contaminants noted in surface water".

I suggest the addition of the following:
 * As the highly acidic spill traveled downstream, alkaline soils and clays neutralized the acid and adsorbed much of the contaminants. The contaminated sediments were gradually dispersed by the river and diluted by "clean" sediment. In parts of river system with higher concentrations of contaminants, yellow salt crystals precipitated onto the arroyo bed. These salts, containing metals and radionuclides, were washed away during subsequent rainstorms. Approximately one month after the spill, the Puerco River had regained normal levels of salinity, acidity, and radioactivity at low flow levels, with contaminants only being detectable after heavy rains. The EPA reported no long-term effects of the spill, but noted that contaminant levels from uranium mine effluents and natural sources were "environmentally significant".

Citing the EPA report for all of the above, of course. It may be a good idea here to refer once more to the CRUMP project's report ("The long-term effects of past mine-water discharges to the Puerco River, coupled with the onetime shock loading of the stream in the July 1979 tailings spill, remain uncertain"). However, it may be better to develop the subsequent section more, instead of leaving it with the scare quote "Its May 2007 report found that significant radiation remaining in the area," which is fairly disingenuous. The region certainly does have issues with mining contamination and radioactivity, but the groundwater is mostly clean, mostly not contaminated with uranium or other radionuclides when it isn't clean (iron and selenium were more common contaminants), and it's extremely difficult to trace any of that damage to this spill specifically—so we shouldn't imply otherwise. I believe there is a more specific article which deals with the general effects of uranium mining, which should probably be linked to by this article, perhaps with a &#123;&#123;Main&#125;&#125; tag. 67.160.133.226 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes a ton of sense to me. If you think the radiation was bad, wait until you hear about the effects of the metals and acid. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The size of the release is stated as "43 trillion picocuries." Wouldn't "43 curies" be a better way to state this number? Tarantulas (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * that's reasonable. How about making the change yourself? The "trillion picocuries" style is how the cited ref gives it, but that doesn't mean we can't convert it to something better:) Though I changed it from 43 to 46 because that's what the ref actually says. DMacks (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks. Tarantulas (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Church Rock uranium mill spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110531070826/http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/newmexico/united_nuclear/nm_united_nuclear_2nd-5yr_review.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/newmexico/united_nuclear/nm_united_nuclear_2nd-5yr_review.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)