Danville, VA to Host Uranium Seminar

Uranium Educational Seminar to be Held in Danville

A free Uranium Mining Educational Seminar will be held for the public at the North Theatre in Danville on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 6:30 pm. The seminar is being sponsored by Southside Concerned Citizens, Inc, a 501C-3 non-profit organization dedicated to environmental issues in Southside Virginia.

Experts on this issue as well as DVD-style presentations will present attendees an opportunity to educate themselves on the possibility of uranium mining in Virginia with its unique climate conditions compared to areas where uranium as previously been mined in the United States. The promise or failure of “new technologies” in uranium mining will also be addressed. The ultimate effect on Virginia’s water, wildlife, crops, livestock, and citizens’ health will be a primary issue discussed.

While actual speakers’ lists are fluid at present, SCC organizers Anne Cockrell and Karen Maute promise an extremely interesting and educational evening.

Title: Uranium Educational Seminar
Place: The North Theater, 629 North Main Street, Danville, Virginia 24540
Date: Wed., April 30, 2008
Time: 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Sponsored by: Southside Concerned Citizens
Admission: Free to the Interested Public
Contact Numbers: (434) 791-4930 or (434) 797-3460

For comments, please contact Gregg Vickrey, Chairman, Chatham/Pittsylvania County Chapter, Southside Concerned Citizens……..434-432-1244 or sccChatham@yahoo.com

Uranium Mining Opponents Meet-Plan Strategy

The ALLIANCE of Groups Opposed To Uranium Mining Hold First Strategy Meeting

The first meeting of a coalition of groups opposed to uranium mining was held Saturday. March 29, 2008 in the town of Halifax, VA. The locale was appropriate as Halifax town is the first local government authority to pass chemical trespass ordinances to protect its citizens against corporate assaults such as uranium mining will pose.

In attendance with key representatives were Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC), Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), Dan River Basin Association (DRBA), Occoneechee Native American Tribe, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDEL), Virginia Conservation Network (VCN), and Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). The meeting was facilitated by SCC's Gregg Vickrey.

Topics of discussion included the history of mining in Virginia, the current mining situation, the challenge in the General Assembly, and the effort to get local governments invoved in protecting their citizens. Plans, strategies, and resources were outlined and agreed upon with assignments made of particular actions.

All agreed that future meetings would be held to continue planning and additional groups would be invited to join The ALLIANCE.

Seven Reasons You Should Be Playing Solar...and They're All $$$'s!

http://www.energyandcapital.net/newsletter.php?date=2008-03-28

Solar Power Stocks

2008-03-28
By Jeff Siegel

I'm not much of a gambler, but I have to say--there's nothing like taking a risk and coming out on top.

Especially when coming out on top means banking fat profits.

A couple of weeks ago, while the Dow was struggling and many stocks were trading at near record lows, the doom-and-gloomers were quick with their "I told you so" arguments regarding solar power stocks.

As if solar was the only sector hit by the market meltdown.

You know the whole song and dance:

· Solar's too expensive!

· Solar's nothing more than a bubble about to burst!

· Solar's a pipe dream!

Blah, blah, blah.

The only good thing about all this nonsense is that when the overall market is down, this kind of refrain has a tendency to support panic selling--thereby leaving exceptional entry points for those with the cojones to go for it.

Here's what I'm talking about:

What's Really Going On With Solar Power Stocks

On March 17, solar stocks got hammered along with the rest of the market.

But while some chose to use this as an excuse to bash one of the most lucrative market sectors most of us will ever see, others were loading up in anticipation of the next big move.

Because, bottom line: solar stocks were trading at unreasonably low levels.

So the smart traders piled in.

In fact, here's an email I sent to our Alternative Energy Trader members the very next day:

Now take a look at the charts for these three solar power stocks since that email was sent:

In just one week...

• Sunpower (SPWR:NASDAQ) has delivered gains in excess of 36%
• Suntech (NYSE:STP) has delivered gains in excess of 32%
• Trina Solar (NYSE:TSL) has delivered gains in excess of 13%

Of course, not everyone has the time to trade stocks like these.

But even those investors that are long on solar have come out way ahead over the past week.

Here are the charts for two solar stocks (still open positions) in the Green Chip Stocks portfolio that also blasted off after hitting unsustainably low levels:

In just one week...

• GCS Solar Stock #1 has delivered gains in excess of 23%
• GCS Solar Stock #2 has delivered gains in excess of 48%

And take a look at these two solar stocks (still open positions) that are in the Alternative Energy Speculator portfolio:

In just one week...

• AES solar stock #1 has delivered gains in excess of 55%
• AES solar stock #2 has delivered gains in excess of 50%

Incidentally, that second stock is one that Nick Hodge recommended on March 17--the very day most were in full-blown panic mode.

Yeah, solar's such a horrible place to be.

Too bad we're making an absolute fortune from it!

Any investor not playing this sector is a fool.

To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth . . .

Jeff

www.energyandcapital.com

Coles" Conservation Easements: Are They Worth Anything?

(The following is an editorial from Gregg Vickrey, SCC's Chatham/Pittsylvania County Chapter Chairman and SCC Executive Board Member in reference to the article immediately following his comments.)"

"Walter Coles may think (with his conservation easements) that he has protected his neighbors and the surrounding communities, but it really depends on exactly how the easement is written (i.e., dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s.).

Giving the man the benefit of the doubt, has he REALLY done what he has set out to do? Who knows?

People are fallible, things change, interpretations of "legalese" can always happen. If Mr. Coles really cared about the land, water, air, and sustainable environment for people and natural communities, would he develop his property for a uranium mine, and worse, a uranium milling operation?

Or is he more interested in the profit from a $10 Billion deposit of uranium? When he is gone, what will his children do? When they are gone, what will their heirs do? Even if we do, as Walter asks us to, "trust him"; then, this project is too far-reaching to agree to such a proposition.

For all intents and purposes, when this ore is mined, it is a "forever" situation. That's how long it takes for the natural decay of the ore (in human terms) and heavy metals to run their course and finally dissipate to the point that the area can safely be habitable by people, animals, and fauna.

We must not mine uranium in Pittsylvania County!Gregg VickreyChairman, SCC, Chatham/Pittsylvania County Chapter"


( What follows is the article that Gregg is commenting on.)



From The Hook, this is the story of the house in Turner Mountain Woods:


by Lisa Provence

Nov. 22, 2007


The neighbors counted a fleet of seven cement mixers headed up the mountain. Clearly, this was a project that was going to need a lot of concrete-- although the lot in question is under a conservation easement that bans any additional houses on the property. Of course, that depends on your definition of "house."


The planned structure-- a whopping 19,500-square-footer-- got hit with a stop-work order September 18 because of fears that clearing for its construction would violate Albemarle County's oldest conservation easement.However, the building permit has been reissued and construction continues.

And that has the original conservation easement grantor, Richard Selden, scratching his head."I think I was a fool," says Selden, who developed the Turner Mountain Woods subdivision in the early '80s and carved 11 parcels out of the original 103 acres.

According to Selden, county planning department staff persuaded him to put the 47-acre parcel in a conservation easement, and he did so in 1992 partly paying homage to his first wife, "ardent conservationist" Martha Selden."With hindsight, I've concluded that our objectives were doomed to fail and that my children and I were foolish to walk away from the wealth we could have reaped by creating extra lots on the 47-acre tract,"

Selden told the Albemarle Board of Supervisors November 7.As far as the county is concerned, however, the massive house planned by John and Amy Harris will not exceed restrictions imposed by the easement, which allows one house and a maximum clearing of two acres of the forested tract.

But what about the existing 4,200-square-foot dwelling?Albemarle spokeswoman Lee Catlin says that the county attorney has already determined that if the 4,2oo-square-foot building is converted into an outbuilding, the new mansion can be built despite the easement.Specifically, the county has determined that removing the stove in the existing house-- a brick neo-Georgian with bevelled granite kitchen counters, hand-wrought stair rail, and oversized bathrooms-- renders it an outbuilding.

"The county verified with a certified plat that the acreage to be cleared is within the two acres permitted," says Catlin. "That resolved that issue."But it's the part about the stove that really raised some eyebrows."There's been some angst about that," Catlin concedes, "but that is the legal definition we have to work within."

"I'm flummoxed by this well-held concept that a house is not a house if it doesn't have a stove," says Supervisor Sally Thomas, who represents the Samuel Miller District, which includes Ivy. She says she's spoken with attorneys from "California to New Jersey," and confirmed that, throughout the country, "without a stove, you don't have a legal house."

Incidentally, the 19,500-square-foot main structure may turn out to be the third largest house in the county, following Patricia Kluge's Albemarle House, with a total of 23,020 square feet (including a 5,100-square-foot basement), and Mark Fried's 22,594-square-foot chateau in White Hall.

Although the Harrises are good to go as far as Albemarle County is concerned, there's one more entity with a say in their project: the Public Recreational Facility Authority, which holds the conservation easement with the county."As a joint holder of the easement, they can take their own look to see if it meets the conditions of the easement," says Catlin.

"We haven't seen an outbuilding that size on an easement," say Authority chair Sherry Buttrick. "There was no consultation with us."Buttrick says the Authority meets December 6 to decide whether it agrees with the county's legal opinion. And if the Authority decides it disagrees, it can either decide to do nothing-- or hire an attorney.

"The Public Recreational Facility should have been brought in a lot earlier because they're co-easement holders," says Thomas. Another thing Thomas says she will do differently in the future is to keep a closer eye on conservation easement properties. "We're so proud of all the easements we have in the county," she says, "but we haven't made it a staff obligation to check on them."

Selden calls the county "seriously negligent" in its management of easements. "If you're going to have conservation easements, by God you have to have the responsibility to enforce them."He believes the Harrises' deep pockets-- John Harris is the former CFO of an A-list private equity firm, the Carlyle Group-- have cowed the county with threats of a lawsuit.

"I can imagine the county people are scared stiff," says Selden. "They don't have the guts to stand up and do the moral thing.""I don't believe anyone is making decisions based on that," counters Supervisor Thomas. "People are aware there might be a lawsuit, so they're making sure, as trite as it sounds, to dot i's and cross t's."

Thomas has met with the Harrises and says there's another option: "They've said they'd hate to tear down the old house," says Thomas, alluding to another way a wealthy couple could work around the easement. The Harrises did not return a phone call from the Hook.Hank Martin believes Albemarle has gone too far in eroding property rights.

"It sounds like Amy and John Harris did everything above board," he says, including obtaining verbal assurances from the county that they could build before buying the property. "After they made a $2.1 million purchase and are issued a building permit, you can't stop it because a bureaucrat doesn't know the rules."Several Turner Mountain residents said they are resigned that the property could contain two houses, despite the easement.

"The neighbors are upset because we moved in here with the feeling this was a preservation tract," says one resident. "I'm very disappointed with the county.""I'm worried about it as a precedent," says another neighbor, "not just for Turner Mountain, but for everyone." This neighbor is sympathetic to the plight of the Harris family. "These are not terrible people," she says. "They were assured it was all right by their lawyer."

Selden is less sympathetic."Lawyers are very clever at figuring out loopholes," he says. "The Harrises, I don't think, are blameless. The Harrises are smart people. I don't think they should be in the dark as to what my intentions are. I don't feel very kindly toward them to run roughshod over my wishes."

When the conservation easement was granted-- "the first in the whole state--" says Selden, "I felt proud of that. Now I feel sorry for the people I sold to who thought they were going to be protected."

http://www.readthehook.com/code/printStory.aspx?StoryURL=/stories/2007/11/29/NEWS-turnermtnEasementMansion-C.rtf.aspx

Toxin Dump Levels Higher Than Reported by Radford Army Ammunition Plant

Shireen Parsons, Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, sends an alarming article from The Roanoke Times. She includes this personal story for perspective:

Back in the 1990s, when I was an information officer at Virginia Tech's Water Resources Research Center, the Radford arsenal invited the public to an open house -- a PR stunt intended to alleviate realistic fears of environmental contamination -- and I drew the short straw in our office and attended. We were given gift bags containing a refrigerator magnet, a coloring book and other absurdities. Then we were taken on a (very) limited tour of the facility.

The highlight for me was when our proud guide showed us the "state of the art" water protection system on the bank of the New River. This consisted of a treatment lagoon that contained the effluent from the explosives manufacturing process. The water was a non-transparent, shimmering, neon-opalescent green.


I asked where the second and third treatment lagoons were (lagoon treatment systems should have at three lagoons, with the liquid passing from one to another before being discharged into surface water). I was told there were no second and third lagoons -- the toxic effluent was discharged directly into the New River.

And this was approved by the Dept of Environmental Quality. It was business as usual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Roanoke Times

The Army plant in Radford discovered it miscalculated the amount of toxins it has released into the environment.

"Even though it released 13.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals -- more than twice the amount of the second-largest polluter -- into the water and air in 2006, the Radford plant is still well within the limits set by the EPA and DEQ for its wastewater emissions, company officials said. .... Statewide, industries released 66.3 million pounds of chemicals on-site, the inventory found."

March 28, 2008
By Laurence Hammack

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/156175

Industries have been dumping more toxins into Virginia's land, water and air than had been thought for years.

That's largely because of recently discovered underreporting by the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, which released about 13 million pounds of chemicals into the New River in 2006 -- by far the largest discharge in the state.

In its annual Toxics Release Inventory report, Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality this week reported a 19 percent increase in the chemicals released on-site by industries statewide.

Much of that increase was attributed to corrections made after a decade of underreporting by the Radford plant and the company that operates it for the Army, ATK Alliant Techsystems.

After discovering last year that it had been using the wrong calculations to report emissions to DEQ, the plant submitted revised numbers this year that more than quadrupled its totals. That in turn reversed a trend of decreased emissions statewide as shown by previous inventories.

"It does raise concerns that overall the numbers are going up," DEQ spokesman Bill Hayden said.

However, officials at the Radford plant stressed that the volume of nitrates and other toxic wastes produced from their manufacture of ammunition has not increased as dramatically as the numbers suggest.

"This is not really an increase in actual emissions to the river," said Phil Lockard, ATK's environmental compliance manager. "It's simply that we've changed the means of our calculations."

The 2006 numbers do reflect an increase of about 20 percent. But plant officials said that was because of a manufacturing process no longer in use.

Lockard said that as soon as plant officials discovered the underreporting through an audit last year, they alerted the DEQ and submitted new data using the correct calculations.

Although the Radford plant had been submitting artificially low numbers since the advent of the TRI in the mid-1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to waive a potential fine of $123,000 because the violations were self-reported.

"EPA appreciates ATK's willingness to identify and disclose its violations," Abraham Ferdas, director of the agency's waste and chemicals management division, wrote in a letter this week to plant officials.

Even though it released 13.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals -- more than twice the amount of the second-largest polluter -- into the water and air in 2006, the Radford plant is still well within the limits set by the EPA and DEQ for its wastewater emissions, company officials said.

Many of the chemicals measured by the TRI are permitted by state regulations. Nonetheless, DEQ director David Paylor expressed concerns about the statewide increases.

"It is imperative that Virginia businesses and industry continue to reduce the amount of chemicals entering the environment," Paylor said.

The 2006 TRI, which contains the most recent data available, relied on self-reported numbers from more than 400 factories, utilities and power plants across the state. They were asked to report the volume of 162 different chemicals or chemical categories that they released into the air through smokestacks, into rivers or streams through discharge pipes, or into the ground through landfills or other methods of disposal.

Statewide, industries released 66.3 million pounds of chemicals on-site, the inventory found. Behind the Radford plant's total of 13.7 million pounds, the Chesterfield Power Station ranked second with 5.4 million pounds.

Other Western Virginia industries in the top 10 list of polluters were the MeadWestvaco plant in Covington and the Clinch River plant in Russell County.

At the Radford plant, complications arose in how the company reported the amount of nitrates that passed through its wastewater treatment plant and then to an underwater pipe in the nearby New River.

ATK discovered last year that it had been measuring just the nitrogen part of the nitrate compounds that were released into the river. Because nitrate is more than four times heavier than nitrogen, not including it in the calculations skewed the annual totals dramatically.

For example, the plant reported to the DEQ in 2005 that it had released 2.6 million pounds of toxins -- an amount that rose to 11.5 million when recalculated correctly. The company has since revised all of its past reports.

"It was a mistake, and it's not a pretty mistake," Lockard said. "But we've done the best we could to correct it."

Although nitrate compounds accounted for 98 percent of the top 10 chemicals released into water that were tracked by the inventory, plant officials noted that other chemicals they don't release -- including lead, zinc and arsenic -- are more potentially harmful.

The TRI tracks only the estimated and self-reported release of certain chemicals; it does not measure the public's exposure to those chemicals or make an assessment of the risks associated with them.

According to the inventory, a statewide total of 769.9 million pounds of chemicals were released on-site, transferred off-site for disposal or recycling, or managed on-site in 2006. That's a 29 percent increase from the year before.

Lt. Col. Jon Drushal defended the environmental record of the Radford plant, a sprawling, 6,900-acre complex that produces propellant and explosives for the U.S. Armed Forces.

"The U.S. Army in conjunction with our partner, ATK, are absolutely committed to being environmentally aware and conscious down here at the plant," said Drushal, commander of the plant. "And that is indicated by our self-disclosure on this issue."

Search this database to see the release amounts and ranks of Alliant and 329 other industries, and locate those polluters on an interactive map:

http://www.roanoke.com/datasphere/wb/156117

Nuclear Is Not a Panacea

CitizenVox.org

Speaking out for the public interest

March 25, 2008 by Joan Claybrook

At the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, a global ministerial-level gathering held in early March in Washington, D.C., President Bush stated “We’ve got to get off oil. … [O]ur dependence on fossil fuels like oil presents a challenge to our environment. When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially.”


That’s pretty amazing, coming from a guy whose administration has scoffed at the notion of conservation and stifles administration staffers who talk openly about the dangers of climate change.

The problem is what Bush said next.

“I believe developing nations ought to be encouraged to use nuclear power,” he said. “I believe it will help take pressure off the price of oil, and I know it’s going to help protect the environment.”

He also claimed that nuclear power is safe and should be expanded in the U.S. with the help of a federal risk insurance program and loan guarantees for nuclear power plant developers.

Bush has been always been bullish on taxpayer giveaways to corporations, especially to energy companies. Congress has pushed them too. In fact, in the 2007 appropriations bill, the nuclear industry got $20 billion in loan guarantees.

The industry has responded enthusiastically. In the past two years, the government has received five applications to build and operate new nuclear power plants in the United States, and the administration expects another 13 applications to be submitted this year. But watch out. The nuclear giants are successfully socializing the costs at your expense and privatizing the profits.

Still, Congress wants to keep feeding the beast.

The latest bone thrown the industry’s way is tucked in a bipartisan global warming bill introduced in October by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.). Called America’s Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), the bill is the first climate change legislation to have a serious shot at being passed. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved it in December 11-8.

The problem is, it shouldn’t pass.

The measure outlines an elaborate cap-and-trade system that would enrich the fossil fuel industry. It also would give $542 billion to “zero and low carbon energy technologies.” Gee. Wonder what that could be? That’s right: nuclear power.

Expanding nuclear power is a terrible idea. Contrary to assertions by the industry, nuclear power pollutes. It requires uranium mining, which contaminates groundwater and exposes workers to radon.

Then there’s the problem of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is so hot that it must be stored on-site at nuclear plants for years before it can be moved anywhere.

Currently, dangerous radioactive waste is sitting at more than 100 plants around the country because there is no place to store it safely in the long term.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been designated as a waste repository, but it is plagued with problems. For one thing, it sits atop a drinking water aquifer in an earthquake zone. For another, if it were open, an unprecedented amount of radioactive waste would have to be shipped from all over the country by rail, road and barge. Radioactive waste would pass through as many as 45 states and the District of Columbia, putting it within half a mile of 50 million people.

Further, more nuclear power means more potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. As more reactors are built around the world, nuclear material becomes more vulnerable to theft and diversion. Sensitive nuclear technology such as uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing are ostensibly employed to create fuel in power reactors, but they can be easily redirected to produce weapons-grade fissile material. Moreover, power reactors themselves produce plutonium, which may be used in bombs. Power reactors have also historically led directly to nuclear weapons programs in many countries.

The bottom line? Nuclear power is not financially sustainable. The industry simply cannot make ends meet without massive taxpayer handouts – we’re talking billions of dollars that could be far better spent to develop sustainable energy solutions.

Some in the progressive community speculate that it would be better for Congress to do nothing this year about climate change and wait until after the presidential elections to tackle it. Others say we cannot afford to wait.

Here’s a quick solution that we can embark on now: Rather than throw more money at the nuclear industry, we should invest in wind, solar and geothermal energy solutions.

We should provide incentives for people to buy energy-efficient appliances and expand mass transit so we can get vehicles off the road and reduce greenhouse gases. And we should initiate a national campaign to make all homes, businesses and manufacturing buildings energy-efficient, which would create millions of jobs.

Public Citizen is doing its part to halt the expansion of nuclear power. We are helping communities in Maryland, Texas and Virginia block new nuclear reactors. And we are pushing hard to direct government funds into sustainable energy.

Please do your part. Call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected with your senators. Tell them not to approve the Lieberman-Warner bill.

The flaws of nuclear power – excessive cost, security threats and long-lived radioactive waste – have not been solved. More nuclear reactors will only exacerbate these problems. We must avoid repeating history by bailing out this 20th century technology and instead focus on 21st century solutions that are clean, safe and sustainable.

http://citizenvox.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/nuclear-is-not-a-panacea/

One Problem with the Proposed Uranium Study

( The following was submitted by an SCC affiliate. The AP article below shows one of the many problems we have identified with the proposed uranium study in Virginia being sponsored/subsidized by the Multi-National and Local corporations that want to mine our pristine lands. The first paragraph contains the thoughts of the submitter.)

"I found this article interesting because it illustrates the problems a study re: an industry, which is funded by the industry, loses credibility...not unlike VUI's paying for a feasibility study on the mining of uranium."

"Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "

Tobacco money taints major lung scan study

By Marilynn Marchione and Stephanie Nano, The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 03/26/2008 08:58:59 PM PDT

The disclosure of hidden tobacco money behind a big study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.

Two medical journals that published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 are looking into tobacco cash and other financial ties that weren't revealed. The studies reported benefits from lung scans, which the Cornell team has long touted.

It's a crucial public health issue: Dozens of groups, including such anti-smoking crusaders as the American Cancer Society, have given the Cornell team money to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can spot the world's most lethal cancer in time to prevent deaths.
The federal government also has given money even though scientists have criticized the Cornell study's design and the government has its own more rigorous study under way.

Many were stunned to learn that a foundation Cornell set up and listed in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2006 as a sponsor of the study actually got $3.6 million from a parent company of cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. The tobacco source was reported in a New York Times story Wednesday.

Liggett, whose owner was the first to break with other tobacco companies and say that tobacco was addictive and deadly, announced its donation to the Cornell foundation in 2000 in a press release.

But the foundation's funding source wasn't disclosed to the journal.
On Wednesday, company spokeswoman Carrie Bloom noted in a statement that the company "had no control or influence over the research."

Scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable," Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in a statement.

Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The problem is avoidable, he added. "There are plenty of people around who are bright and knowledgeable and don't have conflicts of interest. We need to look harder to find these people."

The cancer society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said the society would not have
contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. Still, there is no sign that the study's findings are tainted, and "it is my belief that something can be learned that can be useful," he said.

The chief Cornell researcher, Dr. Claudia Henschke, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Cornell's dean, Dr. Antonio Gotto, said: "The claim that we set this foundation up in order to cover up the money just isn't true. We made a public announcement that we were taking the money from the tobacco company."

In retrospect, Gotto said perhaps the tobacco cash and patents that Cornell researchers hold on related technology should have been disclosed in Henschke's journal articles. Instead, one listed only the Cornell foundation.

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said she contacted Henschke months ago after others pointed out patents not disclosed in a July 2006 study. DeAngelis said Henschke didn't believe the patents were relevant to the research and resisted disclosing them.

"We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology - which is our policy - and to take responsibility," DeAngelis said. "It was not easy to get her to do anything."

Smokers are in dire need of good science on the risk and benefits of lung scans, which are being marketed directly to the public in shopping centers and similar settings.

Dr. Edwards on Uranium Tailings and Radon...some very scary facts.

In 1992, Dr. Gordon Edwards delivered an address at the World Uranium Hearings held in Salzburg, Austria. The title of his address was "Uranium: Known Facts and Hidden Dangers". It is an excellent summary of the issues involved with uranium from the moment it is extracted from the ground until the moment it loses its danger...hundreds of thousands of years from now.

The text of his speech is here: http://www.ccnr.org/salzburg.html

Last week, I received an email from an SCC'er captioned " Who would want radioactive dustblown their way?" Included in the email was this weather report for the day:

"National Weather Service

March 19, 2008

Damaging winds from thunderstorms are possible late this afternoon and this evening in the Danville area, according to Danville Emergency Services.

Showers and thunderstorms are forecast after 2 pm and these storms have the potential to produce damaging winds in excess of 60 mph."

The email author also wrote: "If VUI plans an open pit mining and milling operation, how will they stop radioactive particles from being blown for Lord knows how far and who knows where? This would be just one of the many exposure methods which would have to be carefully examined when researching how contamination could possibly spread outside the mining perimeter."

Consider the email author's words in light of this quote from Dr. Edwards' speech. Very, very frightening, to say the least.

"When we extract uranium from the ground, we dig up the rock, we crush it and we leave behind this finely pulverized material -- it's like flour. In Canada we have 200 million tons of this radioactive waste, called uranium tailings. As Marie Curie observed, 85 percent of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock. How long will it be there? . . . . Well, it turns out that the effective half-life of this radioactivity is 80,000 years. That means in 80,000 years there will be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as there is today.


And as these tailings are left on the surface of the earth, they are blown by the wind, they are washed by the rain into the water systems, and they inevitably spread. Once the mining companies close down, who is going to look after this material forever? How does anyone, in fact, guard 200 million tons of radioactive sand safely forever, and keep it out of the environment?


In addition, as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Radon is about eight times heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. It'll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive byproducts that I told you about, including polonium. So that you actually get radon daughters in animals, fish and plants thousands of miles away from where the uranium mining is done. It's a mechanism for pumping radioactivity into the environment for millennia to come, and this is one of the hidden dangers."


All uranium ends up as either nuclear weapons or highly radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. That's the destiny of all the uranium that's mined. And in the process of mining the uranium we liberate these naturally occurring radioactive substances, which are among the most harmful materials known to science."

The Words and Wisdom of Canada's Gordon Edwards, PhD

Dr. Gordon Edwards is Canada's foremost nuclear critic. He is a prolific writer, speaker and professor. He is also the founder and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). His writings and speech texts are available all over the web. He's very generous in letting people quote him and his works.

This is a nice description of Dr. Edwards and his mission:

http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/edwards.htm

From this site is this quote of Dr. Edwards', one that I believe needs to be re-read every day until it becomes second nature:

»Examine each nuclear problem directly, without fear or denial – because you cannot solve a pro­blem until you understand it. Work to expose the cult of the expert by demystifying nuclear technology. Give real meaning to numbers by using the language of common sense. Ensure that information gets into the public record in a compre­hensible form so that it can have a lasting impact. And cooperate with all interested parties because the essence of activism is interaction – one thing invariably leads to another«.

Beware Uranium Mining - Letter to Editor, The Coloradoan

After attending public hearings on the uranium mining controversy in Colorado here's what I've learned:

The mining industry is salivating over the rising value of uranium. The price has risen because China and India are building nuclear power plants. It is also rising because Dick Cheney and the Bush administration like nukes. I think it is part of Cheney's secret energy plan. Why secret? Nukes can kill a lot of people or make them very sick. Frail memories have faded. The disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island never happened.

Uranium industry lobbyists are in bed with sympathetic politicians because nuclear power plants can't be built without billions in taxpayer subsidies. They are too expensive for private corporations to build and operate.

Looking at the big picture, there are currently 4,000 uranium mine applications pending in Colorado alone. These mines will consume and contaminate millions of gallons of our water per month. Water travels underground for hundreds of miles. It will pass through every crack and crevice in the rock. No mining company can guarantee it won't.

Bloated on the usual propaganda, industry cheerleaders are trying to convince us how safe and wonderful nukes are. It reminds me of the DDT experiment in the 1950s. People were soaking their hair in that poison. This time, with rising cancer rates, most people aren't buying it.

For more information, go to www.nunnglow.com. Help stop this potential disaster.

Jim Vassallo,

Fort Collins

Radon Warning Billboard Near Roxboro

Don't Buy the Nuclear Lie - Stop the push for loan guarantees!

More from Friends of the Earth (the link at the end is worth watching if you're on broadband):

Under the guise of fighting global warming, the nuclear power industry and its allies in Congress are pushing a plan to construct the first new nuclear power plants in the U.S. in decades, and this plan's lynchpin is to pass federal legislation making taxpayers the unwilling financial underwriters of new plants, through federal loan guarantees.

Did you know that experts estimate that we would need to triple our number of nuclear reactors to make a serious dent in global warming? With just over a hundred reactors currently online in the U.S.A., and at a cost of around $5 billion per reactor, that would require at least $1 trillion (assuming we didn't replace aging plants).

Given that cost, and the fact that it takes up to ten years to build a new plant, it would take decades to start meeting the threats of planetary climate change with nuclear power. And that's not even taking into consideration the risk taken by the public with triple the threat of nuclear disaster.

We can fight these provisions and win. Nuclear power's allies got the loan guarantees into the Senate's version of the energy bill, but activists drove them from the final congressional package. Now, nuclear boosters in Congress are looking to other pieces of legislation in which to insert these nuclear loan guarantees.

We can check those efforts if we don't let up. Send a message to Congress telling your members that taxpayers must not be forced to underwrite this bad idea.

We may feel like we are playing "whack-a-mole" with these loan guarantees in the coming months, as they keep popping up in different pieces of legislation -- but it's worth the effort. Industry experts say that new plants won't get built without the loan guarantees, so the stakes couldn't be higher for all sides.

If you or your friends want to know more about why nuclear power is a bad idea, and why we must fight the loan guarantees, take a tour through our interactive overview of nuclear power's drawbacks below:

http://www.foe.org/Nuclear_Tool/#interactive

Don't Buy the Big Nuclear Lie- -Don't Pay for a Mistake

While activists have gotten Congress to pull loan guarantees from the major energy package, allies of the nuclear industry are already working other legislative avenues to get the loan guarantees written into law.

Under the guise of fighting global warming, the nuclear power industry and its allies in Congress are pushing a plan to construct the first new nuclear power plants in the U.S. in decades, and the plan's lynchpin is to make taxpayers the unwilling investors through federal loan guarantees.

In fact, nuclear industry experts agree that new plants won't get built unless taxpayers underwrite their loans, so we need to be loud and clear to Congress.

Please join us in keeping up the pressure. Millions of Americans don't want to underwrite a massive expansion of nuclear power, but they will need to make themselves heard if we are to defeat these loan guarantees and prevent new construction.

When you fill out the form below, you will be sending a message to your U.S. Senators and Representative urging opposition to any loan guarantees for nuclear power. Friends of the Earth will also deliver all of your signatures and messages to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Click here to go to Friends of the Earth's Call to Action site where you can complete a webform stating your position against tax-payer funded nuclear expansion.

http://action.foe.org/dia/organizationsORG/foe/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21836

Nuclear Expansion is a Pipe Dream, Says Report

• John Vidal, Environmental Editor
• The Guardian,
• Wednesday July 4 2007

A worldwide expansion of nuclear power has little chance of significantly reducing carbon emissions but will add dangerously to the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade materials and the potential for nuclear terrorism, says a leading research group that has analysed the possible uptake of civil atomic power over the next 65 years.

The Oxford Research Group paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, says that the worldwide nuclear "renaissance" planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth. Although global electricity demand is expected to rise by 50% in the next 25 years, only 25 new nuclear reactors are currently being built, with 76 more planned and a further 162 proposed, many of which are unlikely to be built. This compares with 429 reactors in operation today, many of which are already near the end of their useful lives and need replacing soon.

For nuclear power to make any significant contribution to a reduction in global carbon emissions in the next two generations, the paper says, the industry would have to construct nearly 3,000 new reactors - or about one a week for 60 years.

"A civil nuclear construction and supply programme on this scale is a pipe dream, and completely unfeasible. The highest historic rate [of build] is 3.4 new reactors a year," says the report.

The paper - Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power - comes as the UK government consults on a new generation of nuclear power stations and at a time of increased terrorist activity. It argues that worldwide stocks of high-grade uranium are expected to have run dangerously low within 25 years and that a significant increase in nuclear power beyond then will require a new generation of "breeder" reactor.

Though this will reduce the need for high-grade uranium, it says, it will also add immensely to the amount of weapons-grade plutonium being produced. "Even a small expansion in the use of nuclear power for electricity generation would have serious consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now have them and for nuclear terrorism," it says.

The researchers say that nuclear proliferation is inevitable in the next decade. If all the reactors planned today are built, a further seven countries will have nuclear power. Nine more potentially volatile Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, have expressed interest in civil nuclear power, says the paper.

In addition, future demand for electricity will come from the world's poorest countries, which are expected to add nearly 3.5 billion to their populations in the next 60 years. "If nuclear power is to play more than a marginal role in combating global warming, then nuclear power will have to be operated in countries like Bangladesh, Congo, Indonesia, Nigeria and Pakistan, which at present have no nuclear reactors", it says.

"According to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, within 30-40 years at least 30 countries are likely to have access to fissile materials from their civil nuclear power programmes that can be used for nuclear weapons and competent nuclear physicists and engineers who could design and fabricate them.

"Future breeder reactors will be fuelled with plutonium and only a small input of uranium. The plutonium will be of a type suitable for use in the most efficient nuclear weapons. The normal operation of these reactors will, as a matter of course, multiply the amount of weapons-usable plutonium available across the world.

"If the decision to go with nuclear power is taken, then the UK will implement a flawed and dangerously counter-productive energy policy.

"The question is whether in the 21st century the security risks associated with civil nuclear power can be managed, or not? Society has to decide whether or not the risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism in a world with many nuclear power reactors are acceptable."


( This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday July 04 2007 on p22 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 15:13 on December 19 2007.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jul/04/nuclearindustry.greenpolitics

Some Pictures of Open-Pit Mining...The Future of Pittsylvania County?

Just click on the links...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/65/Oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg

http://www.onlineminerals.com/admin/my_documents/my_pictures/BC3_1PMC_Pit.JPG

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/report/Images/chapter3_clip_image002_0000.jpg

http://www.wma-minelife.com/uranium/mining/graphics/swtste6b.jpg

Explanation of Open Pit Uranium Mining

(The following was submitted by an SCC affiliate. It is copied from www.nunnglow.com )


Open Pit Mining



Regardless of what they call it:
---Open Pit
---Conventional Mining
---Surface Mining
It all means the same thing: A Deep Hole in the Ground.


Open pit mining is planned for the south area of the Centennial Project, the area closest to Fort Collins, Greeley, and Wellington. Powertech estimates the Centennial Project holds 9.7 million lbs of uranium. Over half the uranium, 5.9 million lbs, lies in shallow deposits within the southern area of the Centennial Project, the conventional (open-pit) mining area (see page 32 of http://www.powertechuranium.com/i/pdf/Centennial43-101.pdf).


Open pit mining is used when deposits of uranium are considered close to the surface. Uranium deposits in the Centennial Project's south area are at a depth of 80 to 120 feet with an average thickness of 9 feet. Mining to that depth would create a 129 foot hole in the ground, equivalent to a 12-story building. The average grade of the uranium in Centennial Project's south area is only 0.1 %. This means 2.9 million tons of rock must be mined to remove the uranium.


The predicatable result is something like the Big Eagle Pits near Jeffrey City, Wyoming where uranium mining left a ghost town and three super fund sites.

The intense mining required to move and process 2.9 million tons rock and ore to bring this low grade uranium to market comes with a significant carbon footprint. In her book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, Dr. Helen Caldicott writes:
"The largest unavoidable energy cost associated with nuclear power relates to the processes of mining and milling uranium fuel. Variable grades of uranium ore exist at different mines around the world. A greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from a mine containing a low-grade uranium concentration of 0.1% than from another mine containing a uranium concentration of 10%-ten times more. . .The energy used to mine the uranium is fossil fuel . . ."
The Sierra Club concurs with Dr. Caldicott and writes "Uranium mining is among the most carbon-dioxide-intensive operations in the world" (SierraClub.org).


Since uranium was first located within the Centennial Project in 1980, the primary focus has been to surface mine the south area. Rocky Mountain Energy Company (RME), a subsidiary of Union Pacific Railroad and the original owner of the Centennial Project, not only planned to surface mine the south area, a plan still outlined in Powertech's Centennial's Projects Technical Report (43-101), RME also investigated vat leaching to extract uranium from surfaced mined ore as well as building an on-site uranium processing mill. RME dropped its plans for the Centennial project when market prices for uranium fell in 1982.


At that time, it was also determined a gravel quarry would be an additional economic resource for moving the 7.9 million cubic yards of gravel that overlay the shallow uranium deposit. Powertech has already marked out their gravel pit in this same south area. There is no U.S. regulatory agency that watches over gravel pit mining.


Open pit mining produces huge piles of waste rock. Waste rock from uranium mines will typically contain concentrations of radioisotopes (radioactive isotopes) higher than the undisturbed surface. Uranium left geologically isolated from our environment by layers of earth and rock is not harmful. In an undisturbed uranium deposit the activity of all decay remains unchanged for hundreds of millions years. This changes when the uranium deposit is mined and the unstoppable and deadly series of radioactive decay begins. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years before it finally reaches a stable form of lead.


"Uranium mill tailings are the residual waste from the process of uranium extraction from the uranium ore. Since only uranium is extracted, all other members of the uranium decay chains remain in the tailings at their original activities. In addition, small residual amounts of uranium are left in the tailings, depending on the efficiency of the extraction process used." (From WISE Uranium Project: Uranium Radiation Properties.)


The most serious health hazard associated with uranium mining is lung cancer due to inhaling uranium decay products. Uranium mill tailings contain radioactive materials, notably radium-226, and heavy metals (e.g., manganese and molybdenum) which can leach into groundwater. Near tailings piles, water samples have shown levels of some contaminants at hundreds of times the government's acceptable level for drinking water. (From Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards.)
Radioactive tailings from uranium mines are exposed to wind and rain where they are spread miles outside the mining operation. Scientist Dr. Gordon Edwards writes in a December 2007 article "When radon gas is released from a uranium mine, it deposits solid radioactive fallout - including polonium-210 - on the ground for hundreds of miles downwind of the mine site." Those radioactive particles may travel even further from the Centennial site since Colorado has a ranking of 11th for best place in the nation to generate energy from the wind and Weld County ranks first in the United States for having the most tornados (www.coopext.colostate.edu). Colorado's most populated areas of the state lie downwind from the proposed Centennial uranium mining project.


Peter Diehl writes in Uranium Mining and Milling Wastes: An Introduction: "All these piles threaten people and the environment after shut down of the mine due to their release of radon gas and seepage water containing radioactive and toxic materials."


Mounds of mine tailings left from uranium's last boom which ended in the 1980s continues to plague the United States. Because mining companies pulled out without sufficient cleanup and restoration, billions of dollars of taxpayers money has been spent in an attempt to do the impossible: return uranium mills and mining sites to a somewhat environmentally healthy state. An infamous example is Moab Utah's Atlas uranium mill.


The cleanup of the 9.5-million-ton Atlas Corp. uranium mill tailings site at Moab (Utah, US) has continued to be discussed controversially. The pile is located immediately on the bank of the Colorado River, a drinking water resource for millions of Americans. The NRC approved the in-place reclamation of the tailings pile in spite of concerns raised for the water quality of the Colorado River. However, the funds available from Atlas are not even sufficient for the in-place reclamation. In addition, bankrupt Atlas Corp. now is to be released from the liability for the tailings cleanup: the NRC has selected a trustee, to whom the license will be transferred. (Uranium mining in 1999: Hard times continuing)


Downstream from most of America's uranium mines and mills sits Lake Mead, a huge reservoir that supplies drinking and irrigation water for southern California, Las Vegas, and parts of Arizona. The 40-year-old Atlas mill tailings pile at Moab, Utah, located 750 feet from the Colorado River, covers 130 acres and leaks on average 57,000 gallons per day of contaminated fluids into the river. The radioactive isotopes that are released in the mining and milling process have very long half-lives and are slowly making their way downriver into the sediments and water of the lake. The implications of a contaminated western water system are catastrophic.
Surface water is not the only threatened resource. Seepage from tailings ponds and "direct injection" of wastes into the subsurface contribute to ground water contamination. Wells that tap into these aquifers provide much of the drinking and irrigation water for the arid Colorado Plateau. Both people and livestock are affected by drinking this water and eating plants that are irrigated with it. ("Leetso," the Yellow Monster: Uranium Mining on the Colorado Plateau)
Polonium-210 is left over from uranium mines and found in tailings piles in concentrations where its radioactivity equals the uranium. Polonium-210 is a billion times more toxic than cyanide (http://pacificfreepress.com).


Concentrated levels of selenium, vanadium, radium, molybdenum, nickel, cadmium and arsenic are also found in the tailings. While trace amounts of these heavy metals are not harmful, accumulation over time can cause serious illness in humans and animals. Plants that grow on uranium tailings show a high uranium uptake and have been determined to be a significant factor in the spread of radioactive material from these sites. Radium whose link to head and bone cancers and leukemia earned it the label of Superb Carcinogen from the British Columbia Medical Association, can leak from uranium tailings into the food chain and ground water for thousands of years (http://pacificfreepress.com).


Selenium is an element commonly found in northern Colorado, often occurring in association with uranium. In areas were selenium is found in the surface soils, plants and grasses can become toxic to livestock due to the plants uptake of selenium. Selenium accumulator plants such as loco weed will move in and thrive in these soils and are know for acute poisioning and death to livestock (See Selenium Contamination). Uranium mining will concentrate selenium on the soils surface, either in open pit or in-sit leaching, making hot spots of selenium enriched plants, which can often be seen as greener than natural surroundings.


The western United States has mountains of toxic uranium tailings exposed and unprotected from the environment. While restoration is a contracted requirement made before mining operations begin, there simply is no way to return a uranium-mining site to pre-mining conditions. It has become the norm for uranium mining companies to ask their required standards of reclamation be amended and lowered before they complete site restoration.
Sites where these issues have occurred includes, but is not limited to: Bear Creek (Wyoming); Boots/Brown, (Texas); Bruni (Texas); Burns/Moser (Texas); Cañon City uranium mill (Colorado); Christensen Ranch (Wyoming); Clay West (Texas); Cotter (Colorado); Crow Butte (Nebraska); Highland (Wyoming); Irigaray (Wyoming); Hobson (Texas); Holiday - El Mesquite, Duval County (Texas); Kingsville Dome (Texas); Mt. Lucas (Texas); O'Hern (Texas); Palangana (Texas); Rosita (Texas); Smith Ranch (Wyoming); Tex-1 (Texas); West Cole (Texas); Western Nuclear Split Rock uranium mill site (Wyoming); Zamzow (Texas).

Virginia Uranium May Have an Undisclosed Plan

(It appears that VUI may actually have a plan for its mining of uranium in Virginia, but is just holding it close to prevent opposition. The following was submitted by an SCC affiliate.)

"....the Coles Hill Deposit may be appropriate for open pit mining"


Though VUI has not laid out its mining plans, here's something worth noting:

In its preliminary prospectus (Nov. 2007), documents state the management of Virginia Uranium Ltd. and Holdco believe the Coles Hill property has attractive project potential, noting "Most of the historic resource is near the surface and, if current resources and reserves can be estimated, the Coles Hill Deposit may be appropriate for open pit mining." It further states Holdco will, however, "explore the use of other recovery techniques such as in-situ recovery (ISR) as deemed appropriate."

ISR is the same thing as in-situ leaching (ISL) but uranium companies like to refer to it as "recovery" instead of "leaching." But one of the keys to ISL is determining the permeability of the uranium ore body. (The process also uses a LOT of water, which is something to seriously examine if the region is prone to drought conditions - seasonal or not.)

ISL is often labeled by uranium companies as the most "benign" method to mine uranium.

Did you know the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not regulate conventional mines (including open pit); however, NRC does regulate the mills that work alongside the mine (and process the ore into yellow cake). The agency does regulate in-situ leach recovery operations. But Virginia also is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the NRC under which it would license and regulate radioactive materials in the Commonwealth; So, depending on the scope of that agreement and its timing, the NRC could possibly never be involved with a uranium recovery operation in Virginia, according to an agency spokesman.

Well-water Contamination-A Regulatory Failure

(The following was submitted by an SCC affiliate. Her statement precedes the article.)

"The more I read, the more I want to get our well water tested here in NC. Another thing we need to look into is how private well owners in Pittsylvania County – and across Virginia -- would be protected. Who would be responsible for monitoring those wells for years down the road if mining was ever allowed? I wonder if SCC can secure a grant to help homeowners in the proposed mining area get their water tested? Just thinking out loud…., but this is scary stuff!"

A right to know, a responsibility to act

by Hope Taylor

One by one, North Carolina communities are learning about the vulnerability of those who trust in the safety of the groundwater they use and officials who must protect their health and safety.

The Observer’s recent series on well contamination is perhaps the most comprehensive picture of the vulnerability of one county’s well users ever drawn out of agency files and into the public eye. From the failure to disclose contamination, to letting polluters off the hook for cleanups, to underfunded staff and programs for testing and monitoring, the experience of each impacted neighborhood shows how little protection current laws provide.

Clean Water for North Carolina, working statewide with communities near groundwater contamination, confirms what your reporters found: Some agency officials avoid notifying folks on wells near contamination, unless they have funds for a fix. That deprives well-users of information they have a right to.

Even our state’s wealthiest, most urbanized counties have tens of thousands of private wells and dozens of contaminated sites that aren’t cleaned up. The Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund resulted from years of advocacy for a law to require notification of well users close to contamination, help test wells, and provide cost-effective replacement water.

We’re excited about working with Cumberland County’s new task force to call for much-needed changes to address the statewide failure to ensure safe water for over 2.7 million North Carolina well users.

With dozens of long-contaminated sites across the state waiting for help — including the Rim Road and Trimble Lane sites in your articles — even the small 2006 appropriation of $300,000 could have provided life-saving information to residents. It could have refocused regulatory efforts and alerted legislators and the public to the scope of the problem. That didn’t happen.

Instead, state officials spent the $300,000 on a two-mile line extension in an undeveloped area near Sylva, after finding contamination in a new well serving four mobile homes. The family using that well deserves to be in line to get help.

Calling this an “urgent situation,” officials placed this newly contaminated well and a high-cost “solution” ahead of notification and testing, or helping people impacted by long-neglected sites. Regulators knew about contamination near these homes for 15 years but never required a clean-up or notified nearby well-users.

This precedent for public spending shocked advocates, local officials and communities that had waited years for help. Long water line extensions are bad spending in sparsely populated areas, as they are expensive per household and encourage new sprawl and environmental impacts.
Advocates who worked hard to create the Bernard Allen Fund are pleased it is starting to be used at sites in Cumberland County and elsewhere. But $550,000 still remains of last year’s $615,000 appropriation, a worrying sign when the need is great.

Agencies need more staff to monitor contamination, provide door-to-door notification and develop a comprehensive statewide groundwater database. We need a larger fund to test wells near contamination, install new wells and hook up folks to public water or provide filtration systems until public lines are close.

North Carolina urgently needs a program that treats well users as though they have the right to safe water, too.

Hope Taylor, executive director of Clean Water for North Carolina, can be reached at hope@cwfnc.org or (919) 401-9600