[ RadSafe ] Aussie U dust in Antarctica??
Mark Sonter
sontermj at tpg.com.au
Wed Jul 27 19:29:22 CDT 2016
I find this all a bit weird.
Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) is an underground mine (albeit a damn big
one). The dust (and exhaust air) from underground operations gets a
pretty thorough inadvertent but desirable 'scrubbing' as it comes up the
400 metre unlined ventilation shafts, by virtue of the fairly high
volume of inflowing saline groundwater. The exhaust is thus a high
volume saltwater spray, which gets directed into spray catcher baffles
anyway, and I am pretty sure that virtually no dust remains uncollected
to waft off into the atmosphere and head off to the Antarctic Peninsula
and elsewhere. Now admittedly, that might not apply immediately after
mass blasts...
Surface operations do not produce much dust: there is no surface dry
blending, and no surface crusher, the ore going straight to SAG milling.
So I think OD is an unlikely culprit... but a coincident timeline change
of copper assay would provide corroborative but still not conclusive
evidence..
Mark
Mark J Sonter
Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd,
abn 31 891 761 435
Co-Founder & Director: Mining & Processing, Deep Space Industries Inc.
116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia
Phone/fax: 07 3297 7653; Mobile: 0447 755598
(delete '0' & replace with '61' country code if calling from overseas)
“Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler” - A. Einstein
On 28/07/16 3:00 AM, radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu wrote:
> Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
>
>
> Important!
>
> To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
>
> 1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
> 2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the germane sentences to which you're responding.
>
> Thanks!_______________________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Possession of yellowcake (Rees, Brian G)
> 2. Re: Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ? (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
> 3. Re: Possession of yellowcake (Joseph Shonka)
> 4. Re: Possession of yellowcake (Rees, Brian G)
> 5. Re: Possession of yellowcake (Boomologist at GotHotRocks.com)
> 6. Fwd: Possession of yellowcake (Chris Alston)
> 7. Re: Possession of yellowcake (Franz Sch?nhofer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:54:08 +0000
> From: "Rees, Brian G" <brees at lanl.gov>
> To: "Radsafe " <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Possession of yellowcake
> Message-ID:
> <972ab88047d4479986ba171440372dc6 at EXG13-P-MBX05.win.lanl.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I've heard various things, but what does the law say about possessing yellowcake?
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Rees
>
> P.S. A reference would be appreciated too....
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:55:02 +0000
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ?
> Message-ID:
> <E4F1B81B652DC342A8CD6E11BF16BDA01376EDF4 at WAXMXOLYMB014.WAX.wa.lcl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I agree. Plus, if I were to find an increase in dust, I would be more likely to believe it came from an open pit mine, with blasting and big equipment lifting and dumping HUGE amounts of material every day, rather than believe it came from people driving down dirt roads, if both were a thousand miles away.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:09 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ?
>
> I'm guessing that they're looking at the timing. If (for example) U concentrations in Antarctic ice started rising shortly after they started mining U in Australia - and especially if the rise in U tracks with the increase in mining - then one can infer that dust from the mining activities is responsible for the increased U in glaciers. To make a case for it being from U in surface dirt and dust you'd have to show that weather changed in such a way as to cause elevated levels of dust wafting down to Antarctica at the time in question.
>
> Andy
>
>
> P. Andrew Karam, PhD, CHP
> NYPD Counterterrorism
> One Police Plaza, Room 1109
> New York, NY 10038
> (718) 615-7055 (desk)
> (646) 879-5268 (mobile)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jaro Franta
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:22 AM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ?
>
> OK, but if the background is so high -- as we can see on the map, in the Flinders Ranges, etc. -- then why wouldn't the Antarctic uranium come from dust raised there, rather than the mine, where surrounding region clearly reads lower ?
>
> Sorry, I'm not following the logic.
>
> https://db.tt/pN8fmZNI
>
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:07 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ?
>
> Jaro - the background is probably too high on land to distinguish that. In ice, it would be more distinctive, but probably just trace. That's why t would be important to determine the other associated trace metals. Copper would be dominant.
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
> LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dwmccarn
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Jaro Franta <jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>> Wouldn't they also show up on the Radiometric Map, in the vicinity of RD ?
>> https://db.tt/pN8fmZNI
>> Thnx
>>
>> Jaro
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11:06 PM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ?
>>
>> Those same dusts, if they are from Roxby Downs (Olympic Dam), would
>> also have elevated levels of copper, silver, & gold.
>>
>> Dan W McCarn
>> 108 Sherwood Blvd
>> Los Alamos, NM 87544 USA
>> +1-505-670-8123
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jul 25, 2016, at 12:55, KARAM, PHILIP <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess one question to ask is how uranium is mined in Australia. If
>>> it's
>> largely open-pit mines (or some other process that generates a lot of
>> airborne dust) then it's certainly plausible. Ice cores from Greenland
>> have been shown to have elevated lead concentrations in strata
>> corresponding to the Roman Empire and are interpreted as reflecting
>> the processing of lead ore and the use of lead by the Romans. And we
>> know (as someone else mentioned earlier) that African dust has been
>> tracked across the Atlantic, as has Chinese dust across the Pacific.
>> So the thought that Australian dust might make its way to the
>> Antarctic Peninsula is certainly reasonable - if the uranium is mined
>> or
> processed in such a way that generates dust.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> P. Andrew Karam, PhD, CHP
>>> NYPD Counterterrorism
>>> One Police Plaza, Room 1109
>>> New York, NY 10038
>>> (718) 615-7055 (desk)
>>> (646) 879-5268 (mobile)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jaro
>>> Franta
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:46 PM
>>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>> List'
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Australian Uranium in Antarctic Ice ?
>>>
>>> Or, to be precise, Uranium from Australian MINES is claimed to be
>>> found
>> in
>> Antarctic ice.
>>>
>>> What do you make of it ?
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016304423
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> My thoughts:
>>>
>>> Looking closely at a Radiometric Map of Australia (
>> https://db.tt/pN8fmZNI
>> ), I see that the region around Roxby Downs, the town next to Olympic
>> Dam mine (producers of both uranium & copper) has a low surface
>> concentration of uranium.
>>> Certainly lower than the Flinders Ranges to the east, or other areas
>>> to
>> the south.
>>> That being the case, how can lead researcher Mariusz Potocki
>>> reasonably
>> expect readers to believe his claim that uranium found in Antarctica
>> comes from Australian uranium mines ?
>>> Does he propose some sort of magical transport mechanism that avoids
>>> the
>> regions where mines are located, going directly to Antarctica ?
>>>
>>> It seems that, if anything, the Uranium found in Antarctic ice must
>>> be dust from the erosion of the Flinders Range and other large
>>> geological features that standout in the Radiometric Map of
>>> Australia ( https://db.tt/pN8fmZNI )
>>>
>>> Is there similar experience elsewhere in the world, such as dust
>>> blowing
>> off the Sahara desert, from U-loaded phosphate deposits ?
>>> How much is from mining, and how much from general soil erosion ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jaro Franta
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>>
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>>> settings
>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>>
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>>> settings
>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:23:51 -0400
> From: Joseph Shonka <jjshonka at shonka.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Possession of yellowcake
> Message-ID:
> <CAMf45xXBUVRLMTLcjB7Lt6jfg9dHMSrtfgfmO9wqr6uspes5jQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Brian
>
> I assume you mean under no license or under a general license, and for the
> US. I would think that an inquiry to the NRC could provide the
> authoritative answer (rather than RADSAFE).
>
> However, from my experience, in Georgia, I believe that you could purchase
> ~1 lb of natural uranium and possess up to ~30 pounds under a general
> license. 10CFR40.22 defines a general license for "small quantities of
> source material." The upper limit on the quantity of uranium considered
> "small quantity" depends on the chemical form. 1.5 kg for a liquid or
> powder and 7 kg for a solid piece such as a DU penetrator (sabot) round
> (although most people have small rounds << 1 kg). The general license may
> still require you to disclose how the uranium was disposed of. For
> example, I think the general license for 1 uCi of Am-241 in a residential
> smoke detector is that you should mail the old smoke detector back to the
> manufacturer, although I don't know what fraction of smoke detectors are
> disposed of that way. The general license scope depends on the use of the
> material.
>
> So to answer, I think you can posess 1.5 kg of yellowcake under a general
> license per 10CFR40.22 since it is a powder. A licensed facility can
> possess quantities that are permitted in their license.
>
> Joe Shonka
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Rees, Brian G <brees at lanl.gov> wrote:
>
>> I've heard various things, but what does the law say about possessing
>> yellowcake?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian Rees
>>
>> P.S. A reference would be appreciated too....
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 20:08:30 +0000
> From: "Rees, Brian G" <brees at lanl.gov>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Possession of yellowcake
> Message-ID:
> <57a84b8b022149d9a3ab9461a58b1c9d at EXG13-P-MBX05.win.lanl.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Joe,
>
> Thank you, and now I understand why I've heard different things too!
>
> Brian
>
> ________________________________
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu <radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu> on behalf of Joseph Shonka <jjshonka at shonka.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:23:51 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Possession of yellowcake
>
> Brian
>
> I assume you mean under no license or under a general license, and for the
> US. I would think that an inquiry to the NRC could provide the
> authoritative answer (rather than RADSAFE).
>
> However, from my experience, in Georgia, I believe that you could purchase
> ~1 lb of natural uranium and possess up to ~30 pounds under a general
> license. 10CFR40.22 defines a general license for "small quantities of
> source material." The upper limit on the quantity of uranium considered
> "small quantity" depends on the chemical form. 1.5 kg for a liquid or
> powder and 7 kg for a solid piece such as a DU penetrator (sabot) round
> (although most people have small rounds << 1 kg). The general license may
> still require you to disclose how the uranium was disposed of. For
> example, I think the general license for 1 uCi of Am-241 in a residential
> smoke detector is that you should mail the old smoke detector back to the
> manufacturer, although I don't know what fraction of smoke detectors are
> disposed of that way. The general license scope depends on the use of the
> material.
>
> So to answer, I think you can posess 1.5 kg of yellowcake under a general
> license per 10CFR40.22 since it is a powder. A licensed facility can
> possess quantities that are permitted in their license.
>
> Joe Shonka
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Rees, Brian G <brees at lanl.gov> wrote:
>
>> I've heard various things, but what does the law say about possessing
>> yellowcake?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian Rees
>>
>> P.S. A reference would be appreciated too....
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:44:51 -0700
> From: <Boomologist at GotHotRocks.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Possession of yellowcake
> Message-ID: <0BE5C49C6E444E31801FDB3E47656F18 at RonLaptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> It's sometimes difficult to determine which part of the rules apply to what.
> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/part040-0013.html
>
> ? 40.13 Unimportant quantities of source material.
> (b) Any person is exempt from the regulations in this part and from the
> requirements for a license set forth in section 62 of the act to the extent
> that such person receives, possesses, uses, or transfers unrefined and
> unprocessed ore containing source material; provided, that, except as
> authorized in a specific license, such person shall not refine or process
> such ore.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:01:21 -0400
> From: Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Possession of yellowcake
> Message-ID:
> <CAADHP=OgtdDzowDHF-OsRypoFLMyqA7a--2oEr0tx=rQPSd+iw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Mr Boom
>
> In general, I agree with you. However, this case is not a good example of
> such. "Yellowcake" is the very definition of *refined* and *processed*
> ore. That is, it's ore-concentrate, the rest of the ore stays at the mill,
> as "tailings".
>
> Cheers
> ca
> -------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <Boomologist at gothotrocks.com>
>
> ?*?
> It's sometimes difficult to determine which part of the rules apply to what.
> ?"*
>
> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/part040-0013.html
> ? 40.13 Unimportant quantities of source material.
> (b) Any person is exempt from the regulations in this part and from the
> requirements for a license set forth in section 62 of the act to the extent
> that such person receives, possesses, uses, or transfers unrefined and
> unprocessed ore containing source material; provided, that, except as
> authorized in a specific license, such person shall not refine or process
> such ore.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:41:39 +0200
> From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Possession of yellowcake
> Message-ID: <A6E25CEBAB3D473F916FE206A67AABA9 at FranzPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> Dear collegues, dear friends,
>
> Mr or Ms Boomologist wrote: "It's sometimes difficult to determine which
> part of the rules apply to what....." I agree more than fully (possibile?).
> As a happily retired Austrian government employee I had this problem
> at innumerable cases, because our old outdated Austrian legislation did not
> really give any reasonable hint on how to handle such cases. We hoped for
> the European Union Legislation to make matters clearer and easier to
> handle -
> what a disappointment! Your US method to have split your legislations to all
> your states, so do not be astonished that you have to take into account so
> many different legislations!
> Do not forget that this secures the employment of numerous lawyers........
>
> Best regards,
>
> Franz
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht---,
>
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list