Talk:Uranium mining in the Bancroft area

Hi User:GeoWriter and with reference to the over quotation tag:

1 - (I'm kinda new and still learning, so this is a sincere question) I did read into the guidance for how much I can quote stuff and I understood for that for technically complicated things, it was appropriate to use longer quotes. With that in mind, do you still think changes are needed?

2 - If it's a "yes" to the above, do you have any tips for how to get someone technically competent to summaries the geology aspects? Sherlock CT55555 deduces you might have some better insight into that than me :-) 19:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to summarise the content of all the geological block quotes and therefore I have also removed the over quotation tag. I hope it is a improvement. GeoWriter (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GeoWriter! You have done a fantastic job. I am very grateful. This is exceptionally good timing as the over quotation issues was a pain for the "do you know?" process. CT55555 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to have been of assistance. I await the "do you know". GeoWriter (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAN review to be forthcoming. I'd appreciate it if you could hold any edits to the article while I'm reviewing it, which will probably take me a few days. I did a light copy edit of the article. If you disagree with any of my changes, we can discuss it as part of the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all your copy edits to be good. Before seeing this I did make a couple of quite minor and non controversial copy edits to improve reading clarity. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking me a bit longer than I expected. I'm about halfway through the sources, then I'll do a copyvio check and go through the images and a few other things. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. CT55555 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, full review posted. It's on the long side; please receive it constructively. I've used a checkmark icon () for material which I verified; let me know if you have trouble seeing this or other icons and I'll find another way to mark them. Please continue any further general discussion in the section General discussion at the bottom. This is a bit long so take it a bit at a time. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass review now posted. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third pass was 18 April, fourth pass now posted. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth pass, all good. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

   WP:MEDRS

   issues resolved.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No content disputes detected

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The most-illustrated GAN that I have reviewed. Excellent work with historical pictures.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passed! Thanks for your hard work and perseverence!

Review comments

Layout

I feel that layout is the most apparent issue with the article and one which should be tackled first. It is part of GA criteria 1b, adherence to

• Section Ancient history is speaking in geologic time, I feel that this section should be combined into the top of section Geology and mineralogy. (Also, ancient history usually refers to about 5000 years ago, not one billion years.)

Agreed. Done. 20:26, CT55555 (talk) 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Cheddar granite, Cardiff plutonic complex and Faraday granite: I feel that these short sections would be better presented as a bulleted list (see 'Children' lists at
  MOS:EMBED
  ).

Agreed. Done. CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Section title Mining history before uranium was discovered (1886 to 1922) is rather long. Maybe change it to 'Early mining efforts'. I would tend to remove the year range from the section header but leave them in for now, they can always be removed later.

Agreed. Done, with years left in for now. Also I'm agreeable to remove then, I assume you'll consider that and give advice in the coming days. CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC) (This was moved to the top of section Gems and other resources.)[reply]

Towards the end of the review I removed them CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Section Gems and other resources, at least the first and third subsections, could probably be incorporated into the early history. The gold rush part might be best first, as that brought interest, surveying, and infrastructure. (I'll make a specific suggestion under Prose, below.)

I agree. I've combined parts one and three. I've not moved it into history yet, I'm open to do so, I suggest I do this for now, see how it looks overall and I'll take your advice after I've done one pass at the review, I'm assuming I'll act on all comments and then you might give more advice. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have now brought the gold paragraph to the start of that section. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Discovery of uranium – I was wondering if some of the survey/discovery background and associated biographical information from the later sections on the mines might fit better here. Generally speaking, when the article first mentions a person or entity, it's good to give their names in full, with linking or acronyms if appropriate, and a bit of information to establish who or what they are. On the other hand, it might be better to keep the mine information together, especially if parts are ultimately going to be moved to other articles (see Breadth and Focus below).

All the old sources I've got seem to often never give anyone's full name. So many are just A. B. Smith etc. The red linked Arthur Shore, I expect to become blue soon, I'm waiting on AfC to approve

Draft:Arthur_H._Shore and it's taking a long time. So basically I don't have full names for people. So that said, I'm not sure if there is anything else I can do here. Please tell me if I've missed something? CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Reading again, I think you wanted me to mention their profession, i.e. they are all prospectors, so I've added that in CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Uranium mining (1952 to 1982) I would suggest expanding the little introductory text before the sections on each mine. The mine sections are fairly long, and in case the reader doesn't want to go through all of that, the introductory part could serve as a summary and also gather any common elements to avoid repetition. I would suggest also incorporating the year range into the text so that it isn't only in the header. Another way might be to have a little table to summarize some of the key information about the mines (perhaps years of operation, the name of the feature they are on [Cheddar, Cardiff, etc.] tons of ore processed, U3O8 produced). For the text, maybe something like: "Uranium mining operations in the Bancroft area were conducted at four sites, beginning in the early 1950s and concluding by 1982. Each of these used underground hard-rock mining methods to access and collect uranium ores from the surrounding granite and gneiss. The mines were:" All of this should be cited.

Edited in your proposed text, and cited it. I've started the table, I'll need to save things and make sure I get it all correct, I'll make sure it's right before sending you a signal to look. Should I add citations into the table? CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::Update: I've gone back to government sources to make sure the uranium ore/oxide states are correct. Note there is contradiction between the academic paper and the numbers in the paper are not credible, the government numbers are credible and official. So I'm confident in the numbers in the table. CT55555 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Table is done, it's cited, will need the metric<>imperial thing. I therefore didn't add a sentence to the start of each mine's section. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mine sections – I feel that if we tighten up the prose (addressed below), we could probably do away with the subsection headers for each of the mines (e.g.: Bicroft mining operations, Bicroft mine geology). But let's take care of the other issues first and see if this seems necessary.

I'm open to that, assuming we'll come back to this issue. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think later in the review or your comments below you went back on this, so leaving it for now. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) (okay, good)[reply]

• The influence of global economics, politics and local infrastructure This heading is a bit long. Perhaps change it to 'Economic growth and collapse' or 'Economic effects'? Similarly with the second subsection which might be shortened to 'Decline in demand'.

::Have changed to "economic and political effects". I'm not sure it's the perfect title, but agree it's an improvement. Changed to "decline in demand" also. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed it to "Economic and political influence" CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The legacy of uranium mining (1982 to present day) This header is a bit long. The article title is 'Uranium mining in the Bancroft area' so much of this can be assumed. I would shorten it to 'Legacy (1982–present)' and possibly cut the date range later.

  Have changed to "Mining legacy". Have left date for now, open to changing it later. CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have changed it to "Legacies" CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Some of the subsections are quite short. I would suggest combining the first and second, the third and fourth. The fifth, health legacy, is quite a bit longer and might be moved out to its own L2 section.
• I also feel that the image galleries might break up the flow of the text. Perhaps consider moving them to the end of their L4 sections (where the headers have four equal signs).

Have combined 1+2, 3+4, I feel that health needs to fit under "legacy" otherwise I need to name "legacy" something like "Non health legacy issues", which would be weird. Or do you have a suggestion? For now, leaving "health" under "legacy". CT55555 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing & verifiability

I went through the references one by one, and was unable to verify a few things. In some cases the source material is quite long and you may be able to point out the relevant passages for me. In others better sources may be required or the material removed. In particular, the Wikipedia community has placed higher standards on sourcing for medical information than other subjects (

• Nila Reynolds, Bancroft: A Bonanza of Memories. Seems reliable enough, and not used for anything controversial. Assume good faith for offline source.

Thanks. I bought the book to write this. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Raymond McDougall, "Mineral Highlights from Bancroft..." Rocks & Minerals, peer reviewed journal.
• A.S. Bayne, Report on Wilson Uranium Property..., professional report, used for quotation only.
• Canadian Institute for Radiation Safety "Radioactive and toxic waste from the Bancroft...". RSS. This pdf does not seem to be searchable, so page numbers would help (in {{rp}} following citations). Verified three citations in the article from page 12 of this source; I didn't spot the one from the lead, perhaps you can find that? Following I will note the parts in the article and in the source, for verification and to check for copyvio.

  See reply below, hope that addresses it? CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm wondering if RSS means RSS (i.e. presumably bad) or Reliable Secondary Source (i.e. presumably good)? I'm assuming the later, and that RSS means good. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes,

  WP:Reliable secondary sources

  . Reliable in that they are expert and trustworthy, and secondary in that they are independent of the primary source and objective. This is somewhat a note to myself; if the source is not an RSS, then I'd have to be extra careful checking for neutrality and accuracy.

  • In Ontario, other than the Bancroft area, uranium is also found in mineable quantities around Elliot Lake and Agnew Lake. I did not spot this in the source.

    I swapped it for two searchable sources just to make everyone's life easier. Hope that's cool. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1929–1931 attempts were made to extract radon from the uranium ore. is covered by page 12: "Various attempts to recover radium from the uranium ore were made in the 1920's and 1930's."
  • in the aftermath of World War II, global interest in mining uranium escalated also page 12: "Following World War II, there was considerable interest in the mining of uranium."
  • [in combination with another source] Madawaska Mines Limited was formed in 1975 and purchased the mine, as well as the Faraday Mine. Mining operations restarted in 1976 and continued until 1982. I did not spot this in the source.

    The info on Grehawk mine is (confusingly) in the paragraph titled Madawaska Mine. That's on page 12 if you follow the page numbering at the top of the page, or page 15 if you are using Acrobat PDF reader.CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The
    Atomic Energy Control Board
    (AECB) issued licenses for uranium mines and mills in Canada, and began regulating uranium mines in 1977. As a result of this, mines that closed prior to 1977 (i.e. Bicroft and Dyno Mines) were able to abandon the sites without any regulatory oversight. Faraday Mine/Madawaska Mine and Greyhawk Mine both resumed mining from 1976 until 1982, so their operation and closure had AECB oversight. also page 12: "Although these mines were licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (a Federal agency), the Atomic Energy Control Board did not regulate the operations of the uranium mining industry directly until 1977. [pp] Consequently, two of the uranium mines (Bicroft and Dyno) which ceased operations in the 1960's were allowed to abandon their mining and milling operations without any effort being made to minimize the radiation hazards emanating from the abandoned wastes. [pp] The other two uranium mines in the Bancroft area (Faraday and Greyhawk) were also abandoned int the 1960's but reactivated in 1976 by Madawaska Mines Ltd. That mining operation ceased in 1982."
• Bancroft Historical Timeline This does not appear to be the town website. It says "We are a privately owned and operated website built by the community; for the community." It accepts advertisers and has a mission "to promote local tourism and business development". This may not be a reliable source. It is used for the following statement:
  • As a result of the uranium mining at four mine sites throughout the 1950s, Bancroft experienced rapid population and economic growth. Not verified by this source but will assume it is covered by the offline source also cited; I think a number of the other sources in the article could be used. I would suggest removing this reference from the article.

I've removed it, it's clearly covered in the book, citation 1. AGF

• Canadian Deposits of Uranium and Thorium Griffith, Geological Survey of Canada. High-quality source. About 20 citations to this 357-page report. Although not required at GA, it might not be bad to add page numbers.

  I've never done the page number thing before, so I'll wait for your signal if the way I did it before was correct before doing this. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried the page numbering thing on another article I wrote, but it looked weird, could you add one just as an example and I'll copy that? CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a couple different ways of doing it. A couple sources up, "Radioactive and toxic waste from the Bancroft..." only uses page 12 so you can add |page=12 within the citation template. Using {{rp|12}} right after the ref tag(s) is another simple way, and works better if different citations are using different pages of the same source. A third way, which is more complicated but is more organized if an article uses a multiple pages from multiple text books, is to use {{sfn}} with separate footnote and reference sections.

  • By 1958, Canada had become one of the world's leading producers of uranium; the $274 million of uranium exports that year represented Canada's most significant mineral export. page 1 (introduction)
  • [Bancroft] is one of only a few places in the world and the only area in Canada where uranium is extracted from pegmatitic rock. Source page 11: "The first deposit of this kind [pegmatitic] to be developed successfully was the Bicroft, near Bancroft, Ontario. Production began there in 1956 followed shortly afterwards by production at the Faraday mine, and later by two others, all in the same area." and page 175 "The Bancroft region is the only part of Canada where uranium is produced from deposits of the general pegmatitic class, and is one of the few such places in the world." However, the source is from 1962 and may be outdated. Suggest changing: only area → first area, or adding a citation from a more recent source.

    Well that was fun, I looked it up and found a 2009 source saying that Bancroft is actually the only place in the world where uranium was mined from pegamite rock and it lists the other places where uranium was mined from intrusive rocks (which pegamite is a sub set of) so I now have a more up to date citation and a more powerful statement. I should have known this when this the Do You Know! CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Good work![reply]

  • The Cheddar, Cardiff plutonic and Faraday granites are discussed pages 177–178.
  • Prior to the 1922 discovery of uranium, mica, feldspar, and other minerals were mined on a small scale in the Bancroft area. page 175
  • at a location first called "the Richardson deposit" and later known as "the Fission property".[6] Between 1929 and 1931 [attempts were made to extract...] also page 175
  • In 1943 [...] the government sent geologists to Bancroft, who concluded at the time that all known uranium despots were unviable due to accessibility, size and uranium concentration. also page 175
  • 1948 saw an increase in private staking of claims for uranium, but due to the difficulties in extracting uranium from lower grade ore, none developed into mines. In 1953 "intelligence prospecting and excellent preliminary explorations" by G. W. Burns and R. J. Steele discovered the Central Lake deposits (which later were developed into Bicroft Mine) and Arthur Shore (whose prospect became the Faraday Mine) led the way successful prospecting. pages 176–177. The quote should be "intelligent prospecting and excellent preliminary exploration" which is applied to all three figures.

    I've made the correction to the quote, did I need to do anything else - i.e. does it seems like I've not applied to quote to all three of them? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) will address the phrasing under Prose comments[reply]

  • Much of the mine history from pages 177 and 179–186.
    • After borrowing a Geiger counter from a Mr Robbert Steele in Peterborough, he confirmed radioactivity and immediately started staking land claims. His slow careful staking disadvantaged him → He brought the samples to Robbert Steele in Peterborough who used a Geiger counter to confirm their radioactivity. The two then formed a partnership and immediately began staking land claims. Their slow and careful staking disadvantaged them ... their work ... they started, etc.

      Have made the corrections CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done Please check this again.[reply]

That's weird. Sorry about that. Have done now. CT55555 (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

• • started diamond drilling, mostly to 100 feet, sometimes to 50 feet. I first thought this was depth (which is rather shallow) but it's actually the intervals at which holes were drilled. So: at intervals of 100 feet, sometimes 50 feet.

    I've made it clearer CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • All other citations of this source for Bicroft Mine section are good.
  • 1957 production or uranium was 405,271 pounds of ore that was 0.0859% U3O8. This differs from page 183 of source "Mill feed for 1957 averaged 0.0859 per cent U3O8, and 405,271 pounds of U3O8 were produced from the Faraday mine in that year." The pound figure is for the refined U3O8; the ore total would have been on the order of 230,000 tons. Suggest: Production in 1957 was 405,271 pounds of U₃O₈ from ore with a grade of 0.0859%. or Ore mined in 1957 had an average grade of 0.0859%, from which 405,271 pounds of U₃O₈ was produced.

    I took your first suggestion. Thanks for suggesting an answer! CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • All other citations of this source for Faraday Mine are good.
  • an ore treatment plant with 1,000 tons-per-day capacity was started in 1956 Source, page 184 says the capacity was 1,100 tons per day.

Good catch, have corrected. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done I believe you changed a similar passage in Bicroft mine, not Dyno mine. Please check this.[reply]

Sorry about that, fixed now. CT55555 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

• • All others for Dyno mine checked
  • Thompson and Card found exposed rock in a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area. The source, page 186, doesn't say that this was the size of the rock exposure but that this area was found to be radioactive. Suggest: They found exposed rock to be radioactive across a 60-by-300-foot (18 by 91 m) area. or They found a radioactive area of exposed rock which was 60 by 300 feet (18 by 91 m).

    Good catch, have corrected. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A shaft was sunk in 1956 and three levels created. The source says only that they began the shaft in 1956. Suggest: An exploration shaft was begun in 1956 and three levels created.

    I have made the correction. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ownership subsequently shifted to Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited. I think this is backwards. Ownership changed from Goldhawk Porcupine Mines Limited to Greyhawk Uranium Mines Limited. Also, the source seems to say that ownership was transferred in 1955... so maybe place this somewhere between the discovery and the shaft.

Yeah, that makes sense, it already was porcupine. I've changed it and made things chronological. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • The rest for Greyhawk checks
  • BTW, there are nice maps on page 70 and 176 of this source.

    Now that is interesting. I'm a bit too new to Wikipedia to understand how to get them in, it's over 50 years old, I did get this document into Wiki... something. Would love to get good maps into this article. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I figured it out and added it. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, will check it under Media.

• Ontario Geological Survey Mineral Deposits Circular 25. Uranium and Thorium Deposits of Northern Ontario Robertson, Gould, IAEA. RSS. Found this online at http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/pub/data/imaging/MDC025//mdc025.pdf and added link to reference.

  Thanks for the collaboration (and the multiple rounds of copy edits you did!) CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reidgreg (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • By 1962 and 1963 the government was buying more than $1,500 million of uranium from Canadian producers for export, but soon thereafter the global supply of uranium increased, prices fell and the government cancelled all contracts to buy. I'm not finding this in the source.

    Sorry, I did the wrong recite, it's in the Geological Survey doc that Yukon Uni hosts, I've corrected the citation. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Found on page 11 of that source. However, the phrasing led me to think this was not an annual purchase figure but rather the total purchases to date (or projected, with the years being the years the purchase contracts ended). Also, was all of this for export? (The National Research Universal reactor and Nuclear Power Demonstration would have used a small amount of this.) Suggest: was buying → had bought and remove "1962 and" and "for export". Not done

I missed this earlier. Sorry. I've changed it as you suggested and you make a good point about Canadian use. I'd guess a tiny fraction was used locally, but I can't write this based on guesses, so I just dropped the "for export" part as the surrounding article strongly suggests it's for export and the reader can draw their own conclusions, I think. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC) (slight problem when I proposed a lead rewrite, see below)[reply]

• • After mining, the uranium ore was treated in acid leaching plants located at the mines. The leaching process produced yellowcake high-grade uranium compounds which were either processed further at the Port Hope refinery or sold to the US government for processing in that country. Processing uranium ore in Bancroft cost $3.00 per ton. I'm not finding this in the source, though I believe at least part of it might have been in the previous source.

    You are correct, I've added the correct citation. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For the last sentence, the $3.00 figure is estimated in the source. I would suggest either adding "an estimated" or removing the ".00" so that it is a round figure of $3 rather than the implied precision of $3.00  Not done

    The rest of that passage has now been cited to Proulx (next below), where I found it on page 61.

• The Uranium MIning Industry of the Bancroft Area Proulx, 1997. This is a master's thesis. Per
  WP:SCHOLARSHIP
  , "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So I'd prefer a better source for the following:

  Google Scholar gives four examples where peer reviewed scientific papers cite it, which I think is uncommon for a masters thesis, I've seen PhDs with less influence than that. Does that extra info change your mind? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Update, as I worked to get all the uranium data, I updated other pages, removing citations to this masters thesis. That prompted someone to object, pointing out that the author of the masters thesis is a credible source and works for the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada. This is easy to verify. CT55555 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FLAGGING THIS AS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE

  Thanks for your further research on this; apologies if it got you into a conflict on the other article. Just doing my due diligence on this one, per that content guideline. From what you've discovered it sounds more reliable than your average master's thesis, though it doesn't seem like she was employed or sponsored by the Ministry at the time she wrote it. Could you link your Google Scholar search results?

Here is my link https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=The+Uranium+Mining+Industry+of+the+Bancroft+Area

And the four things that cite it are: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971732154X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X16301588 https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403374/ https://search.proquest.com/openview/c65c823b5613d79b21f402b3e36db7ff/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

The last two of those are theses as well, but I think you've made your case. I appreciate your changing some of them to higher quality sources and I am satisfied to approve the use for those remaining. Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief, thanks. CT55555 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Bancroft today is known for gems and mineralogy, and has three abandoned mines and one that is being rehabilitated. This is also covered by the Reynolds source, but Reynolds is 1979 and I'd prefer a more recent source for 'today'.

    It would be easy to get more on this, but my easy solution is to cite the 2019 gem paper plus the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (all mines but Greyhawk) and then the government citation on Greyhawk. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The success of the mine was due to a combination of factors, and not simply because of Arthur Shore's discovery of uranium. The factors that resulted in economically viable mines were Bancroft's geographical proximity to industrial centers (Port Hope), a good road and rail network I'm pretty sure that there are some other sources which would cover this, if you could add another citation.

    I may struggle with this. I found her analysis excellent, and in the ton (or tonne?) of reading I did, I did not see that anywhere else. If you don't accept my earlier comments about the influence of her paper, this is the first unfixable problem I've found so far. And yet it's an important details. I'll research this thoroughly if you don't think her masters thesis is punching above its weight. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FLAGGING THIS AS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE

    Update, it's partly resolved, as I found sources for all tonage, but she is the only source I've found that points out (the very credible) point that proximity to port hope and the road and rail network were factors CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Any chance that you could provide a page number for this?

https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=mq21696&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=1006832496 end of page 56 and start of page 57 as printed in the document (PDF reader will show pages 63 and 64

• • The combination of a global decline in demand for uranium [...] combined with the more efficient extraction occurring in Ontario near Elliot Lake

    Reynolds book is clear about the dip in global demand, so I've added that. If you don't accept the masters thesis, I can change to quote the Yukon hosted geological survey docuemnt that describes Elliot Lake as the leading uranium field and describes how rapid and low cost methods of extraction were adopted. But it doesn't compare or mention Bancroft. So maybe I could find words that say the globel dip in demand, coinciding with new low cost extraction methods being found in elliot lake....or I could just drop the elliot lake thing, it's not important, again, depends if you'll reconsider the thesis. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm open to accepting the thesis if I can confirm it has been cited by reputable sources. Again, I could use a page number.

    I've since found an old newspaper article that added more content now. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ontario Uranium Miners Cohort Study Report 2015. RSS
  • Former miners have exhibited a twofold increase in lung cancer development likelihood and mortality rate. introduction page iii
  • A 2015 report on study commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and undertaken by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre at Cancer Care Ontario tracked the health of 28,959 former uranium miners over 21 years and found a two-fold increase in lung cancer mortality and incidence. table 4 page 35
  • This source has some background on uranium mining in Ontario,
• Geology of the Canadian Sites according to the introduction page here, this was "originally published in the May 1988 issue of the
  Journal of Geological Education as "Gentry's Tiny Mystery". If this can be confirmed, it may be a good idea to reformat the reference citation to reflect this. I found it republished here
  in another journal, winter 1988.

  Sorry, you've lost me here. I don't know what you'd like me to do, or how to verify this, please note I don't have access to any scientific paper/library/university sources. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FLAGGING AS UNRESOLVED

  Sorry, I've come back to this a second time, but remain confused, I'm a bit of a wikipedia newbie, so I'm not disagreeing with anything, just literally confused by what you're saying/asking. CT55555 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (see following)

  • Verified for dates. You might use this source to flesh out some of the other entries, like the Fission/Richardson mine

    I'm confused here still. I should use the http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/canada.htm source to add content where?

    FLAGGING AS UNRESOLVED

    Let's see if I can explain about the website vs journals. https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm is a page someone has hosted on a back page of the website of California State University Northridge. It is a reprinting (of uncertain editorial oversight) and may have introduced copying errors or have actually edited or revised the material (perhaps to suit use as class material). (It's also possible that it was reproduced on the website without permission, and Wikipedia has a rule against linking to copyright violations, though we could AGF.) A version published in a reputable journal will have had objective editorial oversight and been checked for errors. Although they appear to have the same origin, a version from a journal would be considered more reliable. So what I'm suggesting is to rework the {{cite web}} as {{cite journal}} and note a journal where it was published. I spent a little more time comparing them, and the website has substantially different phrasing from https://ncse.ngo/gentrys-tiny-mystery-unsupported-geology (journal of the National Center for Science Education) though the content is remarkably similar. Wakefield may have rewritten the article for this publication's readership a few months after it appeared in Journal of Geological Education. Here is the relevant passage from either source:

    • CSU: The Faraday Mine pegmatites have been dated at between 992 Ma and 1088 Ma by several methods (Easton, 1986a,c). The Faraday Batholith, just to the north, was dated at 1190 Ma. Though no dating of the Faraday gabbro has been done, other gabbros of similar composition, (like the Tudor Gabbro just to the south) in the area have been dated at 1180 Ma (Easton, 1986a). The Silver Crater deposit has been dated at 1000 Ma (R. Gait. Mineralogist, Royal Ontario Museum, personal communication, February 1987), and the Fission mine is closely related to the Silver Crater in age.
    • NCSE (page 21): The Faraday Mine pegmatites have been dated at between 992 million years to 1,088 million years by several methods (Easton, 1986a; 1986b). Though no dating of the Faraday gabbro has been done, other gabbros in the area of similar composition, such as the Tudor Gabbro, have been dated at 1,240 million years (Easton, 1986a). The Silver Crater deposit has been dated at 1,000 million years (Galt, 1987) and the Fission Mine is closely related in age.

    Either supports the material in the article. I feel that NCSE would be sufficient, though the Journal of Geological Education version may be a bit more formal, scientifically.

    So, long story short, I would recommend changing the article source to the NCSE version, after you have read that passage and are satisfied that it supports the material in the article and is reliable. I'd suggest placing a wikicomment with the citation template noting the earlier paper in May 1988 Journal of Geological Education. (Volume 36 no 3 pages 161–175, DOI 10.5408/0022-1368-36.3.161 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315480397_The_Geology_of_Gentry's_Tiny_Mystery ) If you are confident that the website is faithfully reproducing this article, then you can use this as your source. I'm not confident enough to recommend this.

Actually upon reading the original, saying it's about 1,000 years old is too much of a simplification, as other parts are understood (but not confirmed) to be around 1,200. I've changed the source and the words. CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added parameters to the citation template.

• • Oh, the second part about fleshing out some of the background... the full journal paper (or the adjoining website pages) have a little bit on the Fission/Richardson, Silver Crater and Faraday Mines.

Ah, fantastic, I get you know. I've added in some details about exact locations and early 1950's history that were missing. Thanks! CT55555 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Uranium mines and mills waste CNSC. RSS. Verified 2 citations.
• Uranium Citizens Inquiry This seems to be from the group Environmental Haliburton! and published by Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium. This source seems to be leaning toward activism but what it's used for doesn't seem controversial or biased. Might want to look for another source at some point in the future.

  The masters thesis actually says Bicrot mine employed up to 619 people at peak and cites the Ontario Department of Mines, so I've put a manual citation in, although that's assuming the masters thesis is in good faith, it's published on the federal government of Canada's website, so I'm assuming yes? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mine [Bicroft] employed up to 500 people at its peak.
• Controls on Uranium... Geological Survey of Canada/Natural Resources Canada. RSS. Verified one citation.
• Characterization of uranium and rare earth element mobility This is available without watermarks at Libraries and Archives Canada here. It was also used in a second reference with this url; I've harmonized the two as a single reference. This is another master's thesis. However, it is part of a Geological Survey of Canada study. The Co-Authorship at the beginning notes that parts were intended for journal publication. If this came to pass and the journal can be found, that would be a higher-quality source than the thesis (as the journal gets additional peer review), though I would tend to consider all of this RSS.

  Sorry, what does RSS mean? CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Reliable secondary sources

  . GA criteria 2b requires reliable sources (and depending on the nature of the material secondary sources are generally preferred). Sort of the same thing as website vs journal above, only this is thesis vs journal. The journal publication is more reliable, a higher quality source. If you go to FAC, they'll want all sources to be of high quality. Here, I would consider both to be reliable but maybe leave a wikicomment at the citation template if a future editor can find the journal.

  FLAGGING AS UNRESOLVED

  I'm satisfied with this for GA criteria; just saying that if it was published in a journal, and if you can find and cite it, that'd be better. But that'a a lot of ifs, and not required.

  • 2,284,421 tonnes of tailings remain on site [at Bicroft] in two impoundments. Verified. Page 86 attributes this figure to (Griffith, 1967; Proulx, 1995). I believe that this is good enough for GA, but ideally, for FA, you might want to find the Griffith source which is higher quality. In the references section of the thesis it is identified as Griffith, J.W. (1967). The Uranium Industry – Its History, Technology and Prospects. Mineral Report #12. Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
  • The site [Bicroft] is now a wetlands.
• Halburton Echo
• Independent Environmental Monitoring Program Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
• Subsurface Investigations and Condition of Dams Golder Associates Ltd, Consulting Engineers
  • The three sources above are used to cite Repairs to the decommissioned site, included adding vegetation over the tailings, were completed in 1980. Subsequent upgrades of the dams was completed in the 1990s. Checks from the first and second is sufficient; I didn't spot it in the third, where a page number would be useful.

Upgrade of dam is mentioned here https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/maps-of-nuclear-facilities/iemp/dyno-bicroft-madawaska-mines.cfm in the "Bicroft section" quotinn: "...and upgrading of dams in 1990s."

• The CNSC source above is also cited for:
  • 2019 sampling found radioactive and hazardous contamination in two of several water samples
  • Since inspections found improper surface protection of tailing in 2015, the mine has been undergoing rehabilitation Not finding this first part in the source.

    Fair. Probably I didn't cite this well enough, I guess I was thinking if the source said they were fixing it, it implies it was broken. I'm adding in this citation: https://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/the-commission/meetings/cmd/pdf/CMD21/CMD21-M34.pdf , hopefully that clarifies...it may not...it's not clear to the lay reader. But it says on page 133 that there are upgrades to the tailings (TMA) cover and improvements to the stability of the spillway. I guess it could be argued that just because they are fixing it, doesn't necessarily mean it's broken, but for that to be a credible alternative explanation, we'd need to imagine that the regulator required a company to improve something that was already fine and I guess that's close to impossible. I recognise maybe I'll need to change the words to "the regulator reported improvements"? What do you think? CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It says "rehabilitation/maintenance work on the [tailing management areas]". Rehabilitation could mean the ongoing planting of shrubs and trees, while maintenance could mean preventative maintenance (which I hope would be common with nuclear safety). So it doesn't really say to me that something was wrong, let alone that an official inspection found a problem.

If I cited page 76 of Proleux, would that back this up? Here's a quote (optical character recognition is poor, so many errors

"In 1987. MadawaSka concluded in its Annual Report: "No. 2 Tailings Area has been stable for thirty years and is considered to have retuned to the

typical background levels of radiation for the area (MML 1988 2-40}. At that time. the AECB undertook a gamma survey along two transects and the readings of 800 to 900 R/hr demonstrated minimal cover on some parts of the tailings area in 1988, its refusal to grant approval to abandon the property- the AECB referred to Locations on the tailings with high gamma readings and sinkholes indicating ongoing stabilization (MML 1989 Appendix 2). In L989. MML resisted assuming responsibility for remedial work on tailings Area No. 1, citing thirty years of growth of indigenous vegetation and placement of cover only on parts of the tailings am as requested by the AECB. In 1990, Madawaska agreed to undertake

remedial work on the No 2 Tailings area. This was contracted to to Break Consultants who removed existing vegetation and placed cover in 1991. In 1993. Red pine seedn,gs were planted on the site and no further work was planned"

CT55555 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'd be great! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that now. CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing this citation.?

• • [greyhawk] Mining operations stopped in 1959. Source does not mention Greyhawk or 1959.

    Oops, sorry, deleted that source, Reynold's book cites that, but also added Ministry data so that 99.99% of world who don't own book can verify, lol. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AGF for Reynolds, but not finding "Greyhawk" or "1959" in second source.

My bad. Page 192 of Reynolds "Greyhawk running from 1957 to 1959". CT55555 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) AGF for offline source[reply]

• • Dyno, Greyhawk, and Madawaska Mines are now managed by E.W.L Management Limited[18] [a subsidiary of Ovintiv[35]]. Bicroft Mine is owned by Barrick Gold; the owners of all legacy tailing sites at former mines are responsible for the ongoing management of the sites.[18] Okay except for Greyhawk, which is not mentioned.

    Yes, good catch, because there are no tailings at Greyhawk (all ore went to Madawaska) it's not reported on by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Comission. The source that EWL manage that is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20220105051738/https://gnssn.iaea.org/RTWS/rsls-public/Shared%20Documents/Meetings/2nd%20Workshop,%202014,%20Canada/Presentations/David%20Lye,%20CNSC%20EWL%20-%20May%201,%202014.pdf I've added that in  Not done Not seeing this new source in article.

Hmmm, I guess I had a save error. I've added it in now. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

• data from Geological Survey of Canada Miscellaneous Report 39 -- mindat.org This seems to be a RSS and came up in some of my searches; it has an article at Mindat.org. I'm not sure where the title came from; I put it in a citation template with the |title=Madawaska Mine (Faraday Mine).
  • it reopened as the Madawaska Mine in 1975 and production continued to 1982. The shaft into the uranium-bearing pegmatite reached a depth of 473 metres (1,552 ft).
• Cyrtolite at Mindat.org
• Ontario MIneral Inventory - Greyhawk Geology Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry. RSS, first two citations checked.
  • 200,000 tons of ore, averaging 0.065% U3O8, remain in the ground at Greyhawk Mine. I feel that this should reflect that the mineral reserves are an estimated figure. That's a statistical figure, an estimate based on explorations, but you can't say for certain how much ore at what quality until you take it out of the ground. Suggest preceding it with "An estimated" or "
    Reserves
    of".

    Thanks, I took your second suggestion. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

Have fixed. Assume a save error from before. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

• Greyhawk Mine, Faraday Township, Hastings County, Ontario, Canada Mindat.org. used as a second citation for the statement Faraday Uranium Mines Limited purchased the site in 1962. However, I don't see where this source says anything about "faraday uranium mines" or "1962". It's not needed, so I would suggest removing it unless you find it useful to cite something else in the article.

OK easy fix, I've removed it. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

I've tried again. CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Ontario Mineral Inventory Record MDI31D16NE00166: Kemp Single source for Kemp Uranium Mine.
  • Located at latitude: 44° 59′ 53.22″, longitude: −78° 9′ 42.15″, the Kemp Uranium Mine, sometimes called the Kemp Property or Kemp Prospect, produced uranium and a world-class specimen of thorite between 1954 and 1955. Good except for the underlined part, which I did not find in the source.

    "Kemp Prospect" seems to be the name that the mineral collectors use and it's in widespread use in low quality sources. I found this today, so added that in, but using a better url. I deleted reference to kemp property. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I may have been too picky about that; things which are generally verifiable don't need to be cited unless they're likely to be challenged. (I prefer that they are cited, but it's not in the criteria.) I wonder if this nomenclature simply signifies the activity on the property, whether it's a claim, a mine, or a decommissioned mine/rehabilitated land?

I get the impression that in the early days of all mines, people were quite casual about calling them "XXXX property, XXXX prospect" and that things got written down later. I assume not much uranium was produced, otherwise there would be more records, and so I assume there wasn't much to decommission, I've been able to find so much more about the others. I consider the name in the article not controversial - but have made an edit to just call it "Kemp" which covers all bases, I think. CT55555 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about this, Kemp Uranium Mine is fine. Reidgreg (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines 1976. Would it make sense for the citation template to have |author=Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines? Page numbers would also be useful for the 376-page source, which can be a bit awkward to search. Cited 6 times.

  Sorry, my wikipedia skills are holding me back here, I'm part confused. James Ham is the engineer who led the commission and wrote the report. So I'm not sure what change you want, he is the author. Did I do the citation wrong? Or are you saying the commission is the author? Also, I've still not figured out how to do the page numbers, is it a double{} thing after each citation? CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  James Ham is the commmissioner of the RCHSWM. I thought that the report is the work of the commission, written collectively by the seven people on its first page (and possibly others). (I mention page numbers above; may do this myself.)

  I see your point now. I have always considered (and I created the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines article) him to be the author, but I never really critically reflected on why. I think it's because page 10 of the archive of it has a cover letter in which he describes it as "my report" and I've read a lot of health and safety documentation that always referred to him as the author, and the architect of modern health and safety legislation in Canada. OF course, that could all be wrong. So I'm not sure. I see no problem with changing the author to the commission, I doubt we could find anything that would explain the division of duties between the team. What is relevant (or at least interesting) is that Canadian commissions tend to be known by their nickname, I think always the name of the author, and this one is known as "The Ham Commission" [[7]] CT55555 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I doubt there's going to be any confusion about it.

  • Before going into verification, I should point out the
    WP:MEDRS
    issues. Medical claims should either (a) be cited to a high-quality medical source, preferably from the last ten years or so, or (b) cited to another high-quality source with clear inline attribution, e.g.: "According to the 1974 Royal Commission study...". Here are the medical claims in question:
    • Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore.

      I've rewritten this, quoted a <10 years old Nature paper that is explicitly clear about this CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done[reply]

      That's annoying, but I've redone it now and saved it. CT55555 (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay, this is the British Journal of Cancer, accessed via the website Nature. Done

    • Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine. For this I changed: attributable → attributed to make it clear that this was in the past, at the time of the study.

      Thanks CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks. If you don't want to search for a recent medical source, a rephrase would probably suffice.

      I added a good source (and maybe figured out the page thing, will edit above comments soon) CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done[reply]

I've re-added it. CT55555 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• • Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited was the crown company that purchased all uranium oxide in Canada and it entered into contracts with mine owners at fixed prices. page 85
  • Employment of miners in Bancroft started in 1955, peaked in 1958 at around 1,600 jobs. Is this taken from the chart on page 34? Maybe mark the citation with^{: 34 chart}. It looks about right.

    Yes, that was my source, added that. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done[reply]

I think you kindly added it for me since then CT55555 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• • In the 1970s, the scientific community was making connections between uranium mining and silicosis in miners. Uranium mining produces silica-laden dust and the health risk to miners is correlated to the amount of free silica in the uranium ore. Whereas the uranium mines in Elliot Lake produced ore with a free silica rate of 60 to 70%, the dust from the miners around Bancroft had 5 to 15% free silica, thus presenting some risk to miners, but much less than that of the Elliot Lake's uranium mines. In 1974, the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board studied 15,094 people who worked in uranium mines in Bancroft and around Elliot Lake for at least one month, between 1955 and 1974. Of those 15,094 people, 94 silicosis cases were found in 1974, of which one was attributable to working a Bancroft mine, i.e. the other 93 were attributable to working in an Elliot Lake mine. I found some of this from page 18 of source. I did not spot (a) the correlation of the amount of free silica to miners' health risk, or (b) the study of 15,094 people. Page 43 talks a bit about dust levels but I don't see it making that connection. Page 62 footnote 23 mentions "some fifteen thousand" persons with a month exposure in Ontario uranium mines.

    I've added a peer reviewed paper linking silica exposure and lung cancer (note I changed "dust" to "exposure" to make this more bullet proof, noting the higher bar you mentioned. Not done

    Page 108 of the document (or page 126 in PDF reader) talks about the 15,094 people Good, should add that page number.

    I've redone this section. Note to self: It may need more work CT55555 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is fixed and saved now. CT55555 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm satisfied that this meets the GA criteria now. Done

  • Mines produce radon gas which can increase lung cancer risks. Miners' exposure to radiation was not measured before 1958 and exposure limits were not enacted until 1968. Risks to miners at Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines were investigated and the official report of that investigation quotes a miner: I didn't spot this.

    I've added new content, Note to self: It may need more work CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done[reply]

    Fixed now CT55555 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

  • "We have been led to believe through the years that the working environment in these mines was safe for us to work in. We have been deceived." Page 77
  • The aforementioned 1974 study of 15,094 Ontario uranium miners found 81 former miners who died of lung cancer. Factoring in predicted lung cancer rate for men in Ontario, led to the conclusion that by 1974 there were 36 more deaths than expected attributable to both Bancroft and Elliot Lake mines, with the additional risk being twice as high for Bancroft miners compared to Elliot Lake miners Page 84 states "There is statistical evidence based on samples that for persons who ever worked in the Bancroft area mines the risk of lung cancer has been 2.2 times that for persons who never worked at Bancroft." I'm not sure if that means 2.2 times greater than those who worked at Elliot Lake or 2.2 times greater than the general population. Page 324 states: "it appears that men with any period of employment at Bancroft have experienced a lung cancer risk about twice as great as that for men who have worked only at Elliot Lake." I feel that "appears" isn't strong enough for a conclusion of the study. I'm not sure if the numbers of miners were pulled from the table on that page or elsewhere.

    I've redone this section, made everything more robust. CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done[reply]

    I've cited it better. I note the "it appears" from the source, so I've replicated that through to the article. Hope that's OK? CT55555 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

• Report on The Caring for Kids on Cardiff Research Hospital I'm not sure about this. It looks like an independent research project by a doctor of education, prepared for the Point in Time Centre. It isn't used for anything controversial. It has a list of references but I'm not sure which might be used for the information below.

  Do you need me to do something about this? I think the Reynolds book also covers this, but in less detail.CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's sufficient.

  • Housing for miners was quickly established around the mines and in nearby Bancroft village, which extended to cover four square miles. Other construction quickly followed, including, two single-men's bunkhouses, a canteen, an eleven-room school, an ice-curling rink, and a recreation center. In 1957 a swimming pool was started. Page 10 of source: "A section of bush was cleared in 1956 to build 200 homes for a new wave of ‘settlers’. In the late 1950’s two ‘suburbs’ were added: Bicroft Heights on Inlet Bay on Paudash Lake where the Bicroft mine executives lived and Dyno Estates near Hwy #28 south of Cardiff for the executives of the Dyno mine [...] When the mines were in operation Cardiff contained 2 bunkhouses for single men, a food preparation center, a large curling rink with 4 surfaces, a legion hall and recreation centre. The municipal office was located in the basement of one of the homes. In 1957 a heated swimming pool was built partly with labour and materials furnished by the mines and partly by volunteer labour. An 11-room school opened in the fall of 1956."
  • Dyno Mine ran out of uranium ore in 1960. Page 10 of source: "The Dyno mine closed in 1959 when it ran out of ore."  Not done Ah, I didn't actually say to do anything, but either you should have the article match the source or else find another source.

Have updated CT55555 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Done[reply]

• Mineral Deposit Inventory Record MDI31F04SW00037: Faraday, Madawaska" Ontario Geological Survey
• "Record of Proceedings. Request for Exemption from Licensing the Greyhawk and Agnew Lake Closed Uranium Mines without Tailings" CNSC.
  • Greyhawk Mines tailings were processed at the mill located at Madawaska Mine, leaving no tailings on site. As a consequence of this, the primary hazards that are regulated are present only at Faraday/Madawaska Mine, and resulted in ongoing environmental monitoring by AECB's successor organization, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The first sentence is on page 3 point 10 of source. I'd allow the next clause for following it logically. But the underlined part (that the tailings at Madawaska were monitored) needs another source.

    I wrote it in a confusing way, I've tweaked it and and think the change will make it clearer and make it clearer that it's in the source, I added the page number. Not done YResolved

• Rockhound Gemboree Bancroft Township website. Primary source but non-controversial.
  • After the closure of the mines, the various tailing sites attracted mineral collectors, especially to an annual "gemboree" in which tourists travelled to Bancroft in search of gems and minerals. I would probably change an annual "gemboree" → the annual Rockhound Gemboree.

    Thanks, I've done that CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

Done now !!!! Done (I removed the italics)

• • If you want to add a RSS for the above sentence, I found the following: {{cite news|title=Three festivals in the Kawarthas among top 100 festivals in Ontario|date=1 March 2019|work=Kawartha Now|location=Peterborough, Ontario|url=https://kawarthanow.com/2019/03/01/three-festivals-in-the-kawarthas-among-top-100-festivals-in-ontario/}} which I think gives a good indication that it's a prominent festival.

    Thanks, I've done that. CT55555 (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Not done Done[reply]

• Uranium exploration plan stirs health fears The Globe and Mail
• A Study of Uranium in Ground Water... N This is a bachelor's thesis and generally no good per
  WP:SCHOLARSHIP
  .

  I've looked at a little further into this source and on page 20 it references other, more reliable studies:

  • Ontario Water Res. 1965, found Greyhawk mine groundwater discharging SW to a stream contained about 106 pCi/l of Ra-226.
  • Norse, 1971, found this water had 90–250 pCi/l of radon and 1.6–2.7 ppb uranium.
  • Ministry of Environment, Bentley Creek, further downstream, contained 1–50 ug/l (microgram/l = ppb by mass) uranium and 1–7 pCi/l radon.

  I would find it acceptable to cite the bachelor's thesis for the above information, if that is of any help (there is fuller detail on them in the references section at the end of the thesis). – Reidgreg (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Origin and subsurface migration of radionuclides... Atomic Energy Control Board report. I think the url should be changed to the source itself at https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/16/041/16041292.pdf?r=1 rather than the introduction page; this works better for archival purposes. The source is 314 pages so page numbers would also be useful. It (along with the above source) are cited for the following:

  • I've made the change, but created an error (sorry, still learning wikipedia here) Note to self, fix this link CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like you fixed it.

  • 1978 and 1980, studies found that the natural weathering of the granite and gabbro rocks left at Greyhawk Mine has caused uranium leaching into the aquifer at concentrations ranging between 1.2 to 380 parts per billion, with higher concentrations measured deeper in the water table and in sediments. Perhaps a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, but I did not spot this in the source.

    FYI, this also mentions previous studies beginning page 22

• 3 decommissioned uranium mines near Bancroft, Ont. seemed protected Global News
  • Subsequent inspections in 2020 from nearby locations reported no contamination. Not according to the source: "The study concluded that samples were within accepted government guidelines. Sediment samples indicated “little to no” environment impact and were within screening guidelines. There were just two water samples that were above guidelines. // The study said results were “slightly above” the Ontario provincial drinking water standard (20 micrograms per litre) but were “well within” the range of safety margins incorporated into the development of the standard."

    Sorry, you are correct. I have changed the article to say "....reported water quality to be within provincial standards" CT55555 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Cancer incidence and mortality from exposure to radon progeny among Ontario uranium miners
  WP:MEDRS
  • The BMJ (journal of the British Medical Association) reported an increase of lung cancer risk; miners who have worked at least 100 months in uranium mines have a twofold increased risk of developing lung cancer.
• "Are Canadian uranium workers still more likely to die from lung cancer?" Canada's National Observer.