This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
67.160.133.226 ( talk) 22:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The primary document for this section should be the EPA Report [1] 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. [2] 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." [1]
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." [3] This is reasonably close to what the article in question says, but bias has been introduced by editing.
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:
I suggest the addition of the following:
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 {{Main}} tag. 67.160.133.226 ( talk) 21:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
67.160.133.226 ( talk) 22:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The primary document for this section should be the EPA Report [1] 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. [2] 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." [1]
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." [3] This is reasonably close to what the article in question says, but bias has been introduced by editing.
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:
I suggest the addition of the following:
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 {{Main}} tag. 67.160.133.226 ( talk) 21:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper=
(
help)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)