Talk:Uranium mining in Kakadu National Park

NPOV
I have tagged this article with. I don't think it's done intentionally, but the tone of the article at the moment appears to strongly support the anti-mining side of the debate. Most of the claims are not referenced. Probably all it needs is exposure to a wider range of contributors. I will list it on new articles (Australia). Someone else could propose it for WP:ACOTF if they wished to get help to improve it. --Scott Davis Talk 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Information
This article contains pertinent new information that should be considered for inclusion: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/13/1183833772710.html?from=top5 Caseyh 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dangers of Uranium
I feel that the part about the dangers of Uranium is based on incorrect scientific assumptions and gives the wrong idea. Uranium ore in itself is not actually particularly dangerous. This is because it is mostly the stable U235 isotope and only has very small amounts of the radioactive U235. Uranium ore is not enriched on site - or indeed anywhere in Australia for that matter. The workers falling ill due to consumption of uranium contaminated water is not due to the radioactivity as implied in the article, but in fact due to the toxicity of Uranium. Whilst this is obviously a serious issue, it is not a problem that is unique to uranium mining, as is implied in the article. I propose cleaning up to give a NPOV.Hyperdrunk83 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: for the record, U235 is not "stable" - it is radioactive. since it has a shorter half life than U238, it is a less 'stable' isotope. U238 is more useful for nuclear power precisely because it is more stable (decays slower) but all uranium isotopes are radioactive. Uranium ore, securely locked underground, is relatively safe, so long as you don't spend too long. But once they dig it up, and pulverise it into sand-like particles which are free to blow in the wind and wash in the rain, that same material does represent a hazard to human health and the environment. Yes the workers fell ill because of chemical toxicity of the uranium and other elements in the process water. Any affects from the radioactivity of that poisoned water may not be evident for another decade. I propose telling both sides of the story to give a NPOV. ---LarryKin — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryKin (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Title
The title of this article is misleading as there is not actually any uranium mining in the park. Yes, there are many showings and anomalies within the park, but these have not been assessed since the establishment of the park. Mining leases for the big 3 deposits, Ranger, Jabiluka, and Koongarra, were excluded from the park when it was established in 1981, so they have never been part of the park. Therefore, to say there is mining in the park is incorrect. Turgan Talk 22:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a longstanding discussion (not particularly on WP, but whenever the topic gets discussed). Unfortunately there is not a better way to put it that might not, in some other way, be misleading. The mining is 'in' the Park in the sense of fully surrounded by it, and it represents the simplest title summary for the purpose. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Procon?
Not sure if the split into risks and benefits of mining violates the guideline against having pro/con lists? Quark1005 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Section 3 'Potential danger and controversy regarding uranium mining'
Text reads '... remaining radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.' Perhaps it should be noted that U-238 has a half life of 4.47 Billion years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium2602:306:37FF:9450:9CC5:FEB9:B90E:258D (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uranium mining in Kakadu National Park. 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/20080219035748/http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/116 to http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/116
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605041424/http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/uranium/report/e07.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/uranium/report/e07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)