Short response: Nothing personal but this is not credible.
Longer response: There are 2 basic isotopes of natural Uranium- U235 and U238. The difference is 3 neutrons (235+3=238) in the nucleus of the atom. 3 might not sound like a big deal but is is BIG in terms of making a nuclear explosion. In very high level general terms (the only level I really understand) there are two ways of getting such a nuclear explosion: using "Enriched" 235 or Plutonium. When God made the earth, Uranium ore ended up being deposited with the same proportion of U238 to U235, no matter where it was deposited in the earth. Roughly 0.7% of the ore is U235 with almost all of the remaining being U238(with a trace amount of other isotopes). This is the heart of where the term "Enrichment" is mostly used. The 0.7% of U235 must be enriched to somewhere above 95% to be weapons grade. This is no easy process and Iran and others try to hided their elaborate facilities way under the ground... But it is not a tunnel. Russia and perhaps others have another tack to the same purpose of destroying their ideological enemies, Plutonium based fission. A Uranium reactor can be designed to fertile and then fission U238. When this happens Plutonium is produced. Hence, these are often said to be "breeder" reactors. They are breeding Plutonium. They may also be called fast reactors because the U238 can absorb a neutron at high speed where as the U235 has require the neutron to be slowed down before it will normally fission. What happened at Chernobyl was tragic but it was not a 'nuclear explosion', it was a thermal explosion that blasted radioactive debris around the world. Granted, if you were killed by radioactive debris, it would make little difference to your loved ones that it was not an actual nuclear explosion but technologically there is a huge difference. Different subject but, as huge of a disaster that Chernobyl was, it does not match the commonly held beliefs of the general public of massive loss of collateral life and injuries. Similar with Fukashima. Tens of thousands of people were wiped out in a matter of minutes.... From a title wave... But no one from radiation. Are there places that can not be accessed by the public because of radioactivity? Yes but people should have a high level of skepticism on many of the claims that come out of any tragedy. There is a supringly wide range of normal background radiation around the world and people have been living just fine in some of the very "high" radiation areas. Do I want my loved ones to be exposed to "high" levels of radiation? Not unless it is for required medical procedures but defining "high" is not as easy as some experts whould have you believe. I am not an expert on this but I do know using children to transport tons and tons of Uranium ore is not credible. On top of this is the fact that US ore is not high 'quality'. It still holds 0.7% U235 and >98% U238 but to get the same amount of Uranium that you might get from one scoop of dirt in Canada or Africa might take 10 scoops in a mine field near Grants NM or in Utah or Texas. All right thinking people understand everything is bigger in Texas, but that does not apply to Uranium ore. 😄 The above may not be 100% technologically 'true', but I believe it is accurate (as said in a famous movie once).
Unreadable. Take a little pride in your work.