Talk:Moab uranium mill tailings pile

Some people claiming that the Moab tailings are not radioactive
I hear people claim all the time that the Moab tailings are not radioactive. Most of the time it is people that have never even been to the area. I can contest that. My dad works for the construction company in Moab that worked on preparing the area for the movement of the tailings. Over the phone he was telling me that the other day he drove an inch across a pre-set line and they would not let the truck move until they checked it for radiation. As well, they walk across that thing every day with measurement tools every day and turn up an astonishingly large amount of radiation. I do realize that this can not be put in the article because it is controversial and has no verifiable source so I said it on the discussion page instead of putting it in the article. Crashedata 09:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the tailings are radioactive. This is a uranium mine. The extraction process did not remove all the uranium, so there is some still in the tailings. But there is less than in natural uranium ore that comes out of the ground.19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Doc327hank (talk)

Article seems a little out dated
The article seems a little out dated, especially in the DOE Plan For Re-location section. I think the DOE has changed the plan sense this was written. Can we get confirmation that this is still the current plan, and if it is not, details on the new or current plan for re-location? Crashedata (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

4/27/2011 Added the lon/lat of the tailings pile plus a link to Googlemaps. Pragmatic74 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.166.176.190 (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

2/15/2014 Updated the progress based on latest posting by Grand County. Didn't remove the out of date tag because I'm not sure exactly the details of the extraction plan, but at least it is closer to correct.Ercannon (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that Energy Solutions lost the contract upon expiration, and the new contract was given to another company as they were able to increase efficiency to get the project done faster. However, unfortunately, while it was in the local paper when this happened, it is no longer on the papers website, and I don't still have a copy of the paper. If someone can find a Wikipedia appropriate source to verify this, and then update the article accordingly, I think the info will be accurate enough to remove the out of date tag. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap a lot of tourists there
We stayed like across the street. Almost a billion dollars to move this pile 30 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.15.165 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)