Glow of Uranium Boom Attracts U.S. Miners

Thanks to Karen Maute!

by Ted Robbins

Enlarge

Ted Robbins/NPR

Joe Lister has managed the Mt. Taylor mine — pretty much alone — since it closed 17 years ago.

Enlarge

Ted Robbins/NPR

The gate leading into the Mt. Taylor mine in northern New Mexico. It's the country's largest uranium mine.

More on U.S. Mines

• Environmental Working Group

All Things Considered, May 29, 2008 · Since the 1980s, the world has had huge stockpiles of uranium ore as a result of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race and little interest in new nuclear power plants.

But now, there's money to be made in mining uranium.

The price of uranium ore has shot up 10-fold in the past three years because demand has outstripped supply.

Countries like China and India have plans to open dozens of new nuclear power plants, which require enriched uranium for fuel. Major producers — like Australia, Canada, Russia and Namibia — are the major suppliers.

And now the U.S. uranium industry wants to get in on the boom.

Mining companies have staked tens of thousands of claims in five Western states. Those who are in charge of established mines, such as the Mt. Taylor mine in northern New Mexico — the country's largest — want to reopen them.

Since Mt. Taylor closed 17 years ago, Joe Lister has been managing it pretty much alone. He says he'd like to have his 450 colleagues back and working.

But startup costs — up to $150 million for the mine — are an inhibiting factor.

So are federal and state rules regulating the radioactive mineral. Regulations on mine safety, uranium waste and environmental impact are tough and numerous.

Plus, after decades of little activity, the glut of new applications has overwhelmed officials who regulate the industry. The situation is even worse because many of the officials who knew the regulations have retired, according to Patrick Donnelly, a mining analyst with Salman Partners in Toronto.

"And now you're seeing a new generation of scientists and bureaucrats, and ... dealing with these permits and licenses, and these people are inexperienced," Donnelly says. "They're going to be a lot more careful, a lot more rigorous in the permitting process. No one wants to make a mistake."

There are plenty of nuclear industry opponents watching.

But why aren't more mines open in the U.S.?

"When we say uranium, when we say nuclear, what are your first thoughts?" Mt. Taylor's Lister says. "What is the first thing you think of? Do you think atomic bomb? Do you think Three Mile Island? Most people do."

There have been no reported nuclear power plant incidents that threatened public safety since the accident at the nuclear power plant Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania 29 years ago.

There is an issue of what to do with spent fuel, but with petroleum prices soaring and carbon-emitting coal plants under scrutiny, Donnelly says more mines will open. The need for energy is just too big and there's too much money to be made supplying it.

"You will see a uranium mining renaissance in the U.S.," Donnelly says. "Are you going to see it this year? A little bit. Next year, a little bit more."

Concerns Continue over Nuclear Proliferation

by Mike Shuster

View an interactive map of nuclear proliferation.

Lindsay Mangum, NPR

Enlarge

Sean Gallup

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (from left), German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were among those who met in January in Berlin to discuss Iran's nuclear program. Getty Images

Enlarge

Andy Wong

Russia's Alexander Losyukov (from left), South Korea's Chun Yung-woo, North Korea's Kim Gye Gwan, China's Wu Dawei, the United States' Christopher Hill, and Japan's Kenichiro Sasae attended the six-nation talks in September 2007 in Beijing aimed at bringing about the disarmament of nuclear weapons in North Korea. Getty Images

NPR.org, February 28, 2008 · The world first learned of nuclear weapons in 1945 when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in an effort to bring about the swift end of World War II.

Then came the shock of the Soviet Union's first nuclear test, in 1949, far more quickly than experts in the United States had predicted.

The nuclear arms race was born.

The Quick Acquisition of Weapons

Britain began to acquire a small nuclear arsenal in the 1950s. In the early 1960s, France and China followed with nuclear tests.

It took less than 20 years from the first atomic blasts for five nations to acquire nuclear weapons. And by the mid-1960s, America's leaders feared that in another 20 years, the number of states with nuclear weapons could grow to 20 or more.

By that time, too, the combined nuclear arsenals of just the United States and the Soviet Union had grown to more than 20,000. In 1962, the two superpowers nearly launched the world's first nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.

So President John F. Kennedy — and then President Lyndon B. Johnson after him — decided that the world needed some mechanism to slow the rush to global nuclear armageddon.

Creation of the NPT

In 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was created with the hope that all nations of the world would sign it and abide by its essential bargain — that the five nations with nuclear weapons would give them up, if the rest of the world's nations pledged not to acquire them in the first place.

Now, 189 nations have signed the NPT. It has become the international standard by which nations are judged on their commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Its categories still stand — the five "official" nuclear weapons states and the rest, which all pledged to remain non-nuclear weapons states.

Abiding by the Treaty

But the NPT has not had a perfect record. Three states — India, Pakistan and Israel — have never signed the treaty and have acquired nuclear weapons. Another, North Korea, signed the treaty but cheated and developed a nuclear weapons program in secret. In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the treaty. The country exploded a nuclear weapon in 2006.

Others have joined the treaty but also cheated — Iraq, Iran and Libya among them. Iraq was forced to give up its nuclear weapons program in the 1990s, and Libya in 2004. Iran's possible pursuit of nuclear weapons is one of the flashpoints in international relations today.

A few states acquired nuclear weapons but willingly gave them up. South Africa dismantled its small nuclear stockpile in 1993 and then joined the treaty. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan found themselves with nuclear weapons on their territory after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. They all chose to become non-nuclear weapons states and returned the weapons to Russia.

Successful Disarmament?

Over the years, some states began research in nuclear technology that could lead to weapons, but ended those programs. Many more nations possess non-military nuclear technology — such as civilian nuclear energy programs — that give them the potential to develop nuclear weapons.

The five nuclear weapons states recognized under the NPT have not yet fulfilled their end of the bargain. They have not given up their nuclear weapons, although the United States and Russia have been engaged for nearly 20 years in reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles. Each still possesses several thousand nuclear weapons that could be ready to launch in very little time.

The prediction nearly a half-century ago that the world would soon see 20 or more states with nuclear weapons has not come to pass. That fear, though, still remains.

Colombia Reflects Rising Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Thanks to SCC Member Barbara Thompson for sharing this article!

Documents on Terrorism

NPR

by Tom Gjelten

April 21, 2008 · The Colombian government revealed last month that the country's FARC rebels were seeking to acquire enriched uranium. The rebels may have been more interested in trading the uranium to a terrorist group than in developing it into nuclear arms for their own purposes.

A stash subsequently uncovered in Colombia proved to be harmless. But the case shows that the danger of terrorist or insurgent groups acquiring nuclear materials on the black market could be a looming threat.

Terrorism experts say it points to a danger that's greater than many people realize.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries have sought to penetrate nuclear smuggling networks through sting operations and other counter-terrorism measures but so far with limited success.

A rash of nuclear smuggling came in the 1990s, following the breakup of the Soviet Union, when many nuclear facilities weren't secure. Since then, security at those facilities and others has been greatly tightened.

But there has been an increase in threatening rhetoric from the al-Qaida leadership, directed specifically against Western Europe and the United States. And some of the nuclear material that was lost 10 years ago might only now be turning up in the black market.

Louise Shelley, who directs the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption at George Mason University, says there is a potential threat.

"I mean, when Osama bin Laden says, 'We're going to get at you,'" Shelley said, "this is the kind of point where you think that the rhetoric is escalating to something that may make sense to use this."

Much of the nuclear material, or alleged nuclear material, moving through the black market, however, involves scams. The uranium for which the Colombian rebels were reportedly willing to spend more than $2 million was useless.

Christian Ethics and Nuclear Power

The following article was submitted by SCC Member, Karen Maute. Although it was written in 1979, it still pertains today. VUI has said many times that we should exploit the hazardous uranium deposit that "God has provided". This article by a respected United Methodist minister and trustee of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. where he also served as the chairman of their alternative energy committee at the time that he wrote this, would beg to differ with VUI's position. GV

by J. George Butler

Mr. Butler, a retired United Methodist minister, is a trustee of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc., and chairman of its alternative energy committee. This article appeared in the Christian Century April 18, 1979, p. 438. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

---

Christian ethics has as its frame of reference Jesus’ idea of God. God is creator of heaven and earth, a loving God concerned about human beings -- the children of God who are of infinite worth in his sight. We must reverence all of his creation: humanity as well as the earth. The psalmist sang: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Nearly 500 years ago Martin Luther questioned the distinction between the sacred and the secular: all life is sacred. And long before Luther, the creeds of Christendom spoke of God as “maker of all things visible and invisible.

From this perspective, Christian ethics has a great deal to say about nuclear power -- its potential to destroy life and to poison the earth. Christians often use the word “stewardship,” but most often in a narrow sense, in connection with the practice of tithing one’s worldly goods. True Christian stewardship embraces the larger meaning found in the ancient creeds: all of life, “the world and they that dwell therein.

“Christianity,” wrote Anglican Archbishop William Temple (Nature, Man and God, 1935), “is the most avowedly materialist of all the great religions”: it is concerned with daily bread as well as things spiritual, for the two are inextricably interrelated. Because of this materialism, Christian ethics must examine nuclear power in broad perspective. From the standpoint of stewardship of life as well as stewardship of the earth.

The Rasmussen Report

Let us consider nuclear power first in its relation to life. What dangers does it pose? Nuclear advocates assure us that the risk of catastrophic accident is negligible. For example, the public-relations department of the Illinois Power Company puts out an attractive brochure which quotes from a government report, the Rasmussen Reactor Safety Study: “Assuming 100 operating reactors . . . the chance of a nuclear accident involving 1,000 fatalities [is] in the same class as that of a meteor striking a U.S. population center, causing the same number of deaths.

But the Rasmussen report is not the scientific document it purports to be. Henry Kendall of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists, took advantage of the Freedom of Information Act to pry from a reluctant Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) some material heretofore suppressed. His objective review of the Rasmussen document says simply that Americans have been deceived by it. Using the government records to which he finally gained access, Kendall concluded:

That federal, officials .suppressed the results of an internal review of the “Reactor Safety Study,” made prior to its release, that found major flaws in the study’s methods, assumptions and data base. One reviewer called the study’s concept of accident probability “gibberish”; another reviewer labeled some of its estimates “suspiciously low.

That the “Reactor Safety Study” abandoned its review of certain sensitive safety issues because study officials feared “the facts may not support our predetermined conclusions” and because it was “not known in advance” that the results would “engender confidence” in the reliability of reactor safety systems.

That the basic plan of the “Reactor Safety Study” was written by two MIT nuclear engineers; one was a director of the Atomic Industrial Forum, the nuclear industry lobbying group; the other, a nuclear industry consultant, was misrepresented as being a specialist in nuclear reactor safety.

That the basic plan of the “Reactor Safety Study” was to produce a report that would have “significant benefit for the nuclear industry.” The study outline also stated: “The report to be useful must have reasonable acceptance by people in the industry.”

That, despite the claim that the study was “independent” of the industry, the nuclear industry actually carried out important parts of the actual safety analysis reported in the study.

That the government suppressed the report of another special task force of government nuclear safety experts which concluded that “it is difficult to assign a high degree of confidence” to the type of risk estimates being made by the “Reactor Safety Study” The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety Study (Union of Concerned Scientists, 1977)

Prodded by the work of the Union of Concerned Scientists and by Congressman Morris K. Udall (D., Ariz.), chairman of the House subcommittee on energy and the environment, the NRC finally issued a report on January 19, 1979, repudiating major portions of the Rasmussen document. As the January 20 New York Times reported: “The decision [by the NRC] to reject totally the Rasmussen Study’s summary was based on a finding that the summary ‘is a poor description of the contents of the report.

But the nuclear industry proceeded to step up its lobbying to counteract the damage. General Electric has ordered its nuclear-division executives to seek out at least one congressperson or administration official on each trip to Washington to spread the pro-nuclear gospel; the company is even considering awarding prizes to those who manage to reach particularly important officials. Whether such efforts will succeed is anybody’s guess. Udall believes that the fate of nuclear power is “hanging in the balance.” Should Congress decide that no new fission plants may be built until the waste-disposal problem is solved, the future of nuclear power may well be sealed.

Though nuclear advocates contend that reactors are safe, the American insurance industry apparently does not agree. There is not one homeowners’ insurance policy written in America which does not have a nuclear-exclusion clause. Further, no private group of insurance companies would consider writing nuclear-insurance coverage for the civilian nuclear power industry. Congress was forced to pass the Price-Anderson Act, guaranteeing $560 million of government insurance, before the civilian nuclear power program could begin operations.

Read the rest of the article here: Unforeseen Risks

Calculating the Environmental Cost of Uranium Mining

From Environmental Expert.com Calculating the environmental cost of uranium mining

Source: European Commission, Environment DG Published May 30, 2008 Nuclear power is receiving growing attention from governments seeking ways to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, there is little detailed analysis of the true carbon costs of the nuclear industry. A new analysis suggests that eco-efficiency of uranium mining and milling, a key aspect of the efficiency of nuclear power generation, depends on the amount of uranium in the rocks being mined. Nuclear power could be used as an alternative to fossil fuels to meet Europe's growing energy needs. But debate rages over how carbon friendly the industry really is. Uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel manufacture all contribute to GHG emissions and need to be taken into account when weighing up the potential for nuclear power in climate change mitigation strategies. A detailed analysis of the environmental costs of uranium mining and milling in terms of energy, water and chemical consumption, as well as GHG emissions, was conducted. The study used company sustainability and technical reports and historical records of uranium finds. The results show that the environmental costs of uranium mining and milling are highly dependent on ore grade (the concentration of uranium), with more heavily concentrated, richer deposits of rock typically consuming fewer resources. Energy consumption was calculated based on direct energy input, for example diesel and electricity consumption and was typically in the region of 200-400 GJ/t U3O8. This is around two and a half times the amount of energy used by the average EU citizen each year. The researchers point out that this fails to take account of other sources of energy consumption, such as the energy needed to produce the chemicals used in mining and milling. They point out that full sustainability reporting needs to include reagents (substances used to cause a chemical reaction) with major embodied energy costs, which they calculate could add a further 6 per cent to the energy consumed in nuclear fuel production. Analysis showed significant differences in water consumption, depending on the type of mining operation and particularly on the quality of the ore grade. This ranged from under 50 to over 8,000 KL/t U3O8. Carbon dioxide emissions also varied from 10 to 50 t CO2/t U3O8 and there is a gradual increase of CO2 emissions over time. It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium to feed such a plant would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year. This is similar to the total CO2 emission from the Falkland Islands in 2004. Exploiting uranium reserves suggests that these environmental costs will increase over time as high grade ore deposits decline and the industry turns to lower grade ore or deeper deposits. Extracting uranium from lower grade ore not only means higher energy costs and greater CO2 emissions, but is likely to increase pressure on water resources. Nuclear power already contributes 30 per cent of Europe's electricity and the EU 27 are home to 152 nuclear reactors. However, planned phase-out of nuclear reactors in some member states may see the share of energy provided from nuclear sources drop in future.

New life for decades-old lawsuit blaming nuclear plant for cancers

Kiski Valley residents continue to pursue legal action

Sunday, April 27, 2008

By Torsten Ove

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A forlorn stretch of fenced-in grass along the Kiskiminetas River in Apollo is all that's left of a Cold War relic.

The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Co., which once made nuclear fuel for ships and submarines, is a bad memory for many residents who say the facility gave them cancer and ruined their property values.

Now their dormant class-action suit over its legacy, 16 years old and millions of documents long, is about to start all over.

Texas tort king Fred Baron, the lawyer for Karen Silkwood in the Oklahoma radiation case made famous by the 1983 movie "Silkwood," represents hundreds of Kiski Valley people who claim they or their relatives developed 32 kinds of cancer related to the Apollo plant and a subsidiary in nearby Parks Township.

In addition to 240 personal injury complaints, the suit contains 60 wrongful death complaints and another 120 property damage claims arising from home values that have dropped to almost nothing.

The plaintiffs got a boost last month when one of the corporate defendants, Atlantic Richfield Co., settled for $27.5 million, which includes payments of up to $600,000 to each of a half-dozen families.

But the second defendant, Babcock & Wilcox, has dug in its heels and is headed to trial again, even though it already settled part of the case 10 years ago before a judge overturned the $37 million verdict.

Atlantic Richfield owned NUMEC's stock from 1967 to 1971, when Babcock & Wilcox bought it and began operating the two plants until they shut down in 1983.

The legal action has such a convoluted history that it's hard to keep track of it all without a flow chart.

First filed in 1994, the suit has also been delayed at every turn, most recently by the seven-year Babcock & Wilcox bankruptcy case in New Orleans that itself was disrupted when Hurricane Katrina flooded the bankruptcy court.

The whole thing has been further complicated by a separate proceeding in a New York state court in which American Nuclear Insurers, the insurance company for both corporations, has balked at paying damage awards.

In fact, ANI previously blocked a global settlement for $87 million, according to court papers.

But with Babcock & Wilcox emerging from bankruptcy last year, the case is finally moving forward again here.

Read the rest of this lengthy but fascinating article here

Where Are the Farmers?

Danville

Where are the farmers?

To the editor:

Why has our local Farm Bureau been silent on the issue of uranium mining? Why would some local farmers invest in Virginia Uranium Inc., knowing that they will contribute to the demise of farming — the largest industry in Pittsylvania County?

A Jan. 20, 1985, (Marline era) newspaper article quotes former Delegate Glenn McClannan, D-Virginia Beach, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, as stating he felt uranium could be mined safely but “concerns about it, unfounded or not, could damage the state’s farming business.”

I disagree with his opinion that uranium can be mined safely largely because no one anywhere in the world has proven mining, milling and tailings storage/disposal to be “safe.” I do agree that there is great potential to irreparably damage the farming industry if mining, milling and tailings storage occurs.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so I invite you to view a picture on the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy’s Web site at http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMM/UraniumFig5.pdf

Here you will see an aerial view of Virginia Uranium Inc.’s exploration footprint. Keep in mind, this depicts only the area of exploration. It will not show the actual areas that will be open-pit mined or shafts that may be tunneled under “protected areas.” You will not see the surrounding acres of family-owned farms and the town of Chatham only a few miles away.

You will see farmland that will be lost for decades, if not forever. How might uranium mining, milling and tailings storage affect farmers around, downwind and downriver? A “study” will not be able to determine the impact that uranium mining will have on Virginia’s farming industry. Where are the spokespersons for Pittsylvania County’s largest industry? Where are the farmers?

KAREN MAUTE

Mount Cross

Banister River: Nature, History, and Prehistory - Exploring Outdoor Virginia

The beautiful, historic Banister River

Our friend Karen has forwarded a link to a wonderful site with tons of information about the Banister River...pictures, history, flora and fauna, etc....with the suggestion that we take a serious look at what could be lost should uranium mining contaminate this treasure.

http://www.victorianvilla.com/sims-mitchell/local/nature/river/banister/index.htm

On Cancer’s Trail [Uranium - Estrogen Link]

(Note: I am sending this article to blogmasters of U-related blogs everywhere. It's chilling. Since I've known men who've suffered breast cancer, the information here should be of interest to everyone.)

The women in Stefanie Raymond-Whish’s family have a history of breast cancer. Now the young Navajo biologist is asking why.

May 26, 2008

HIGH COUNTRY TIMES

by Florence Williams

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Stefanie Raymond-Whish was 9 years old when her grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer. A traditional Navajo who raised 15 children after her husband died in a car wreck, Raymond-Whish’s ama’ sa’ ni seldom spoke about her illness. Even after her surgery, when she lived with the grandchildren and their mother, she always acted strong around the kids. It became a pattern: When Raymond-Whish was 13, her 38-year-old mother, Nellie Sandoval, was also diagnosed with breast cancer. And Sandoval was equally reserved on the subject. "My mother was really good about not appearing sick in front of us," says Raymond-Whish, now 32. "As a little girl, I knew about cancer, but didn’t understand the impact of it at the time."

She understood it better by the time she was in college, in Flagstaff, Ariz., when a new tumor appeared in her mother’s other breast. "When my mom had her recurrence, that’s when it really hit me ... it was really upsetting. I went home to Farmington for her lumpectomy." Sandoval survived the disease, but not without a long struggle that included chemotherapy, radiation, and finally a double mastectomy. "My breasts were pretty mangled," says Sandoval, now 58. "So I said, ’Just get rid of them.’ " Both Sandoval and her daughter have made breast cancer and its impact on Navajos the focus of their lives. Sandoval became an activist and filmmaker, working out of her papaya-colored home in Farmington, N.M. Raymond-Whish has taken her mission a step further: She works as a molecular biologist at the University of Northern Arizona, searching for breast cancer’s root causes. "Is there any difference in how breast cancer develops in Native Americans and non-Native Americans?" she asks. One possible - and provocative - answer is emerging from her lab at the university: uranium.

Scientists have long known that uranium damages human cells. But in over six decades of atomic health testing, no one had ever noticed that uranium, at low doses, can act like an estrogen. No one, that is, until recently, when Raymond-Whish and her coworkers observed some unusual effects in lab animals.

(...)

The lab’s discoveries have already demolished the conventional wisdom on the properties of uranium. Not only does the heavy metal appear to alter mammary cells at very low doses, but it also seems to interfere with normal hormonal signals. Sometimes the uranium follows the same pathways as estrogen, but sometimes it doesn’t, which means it’s triggering other endocrine responses as well. "We don’t yet know the mechanism of how uranium is affecting these cells," Raymond-Whish says, "but we do know an estrogen receptor is involved. We see it in both animals and MCF-7 cells." (Emphasis mine...SB)

Read the full article here in High Country News

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS COMPLETE SURVEY STUDY OF URANIUM MINING CONCERNS

For Immediate Release
Thursday, May 22, 2008

Contact for Reporters:
Kimberly Sorensen
(970) 491-0757

Note to Editors: The survey results do not reflect the views of Colorado State University.

FORT COLLINS - Colorado State University students conducted a survey this spring to gauge citizen concern and insights about the uranium mining operation proposed in northern Colorado.

During the 2008 spring semester, students in Colorado State's Journalism and Technical Communication course, Communication and Evaluation Research Methods, undertook a class project to examine citizen concerns about the uranium mine proposed for the area between Nunn and Wellington, Colo.

The mail survey focused on details concerning how people perceive potential risks and benefits associated with the proposed mining operation. It also focused on how people view information that has been provided through the media and other channels by two high-profile sources on the issue, the Canadian company Powertech (USA) Mining Corp. and the citizen's group, Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction.

Results showed that awareness of the proposed mining operation is nearly universal in the survey area. Of the 205 survey responses from 450 randomly selected individuals, only 5 percent indicated that they had never heard of the issue. When asked if individuals had made their minds up on the issue one way or another, very few respondents were in favor of the mining operation, at 5 percent; about 20 percent reported they were undecided, while a majority, or 74 percent, said they were against it. (Emphasis mine...SB)

More than half of the respondents agreed that they need more information about the issue and cited newspapers has the most important source of information. Respondents also stated that they thought Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction was more credible and trustworthy than Powertech.

For the full article, click here

(A copy of the study has been requested. We'll keep you posted...)

Cameco testing for uranium leak in Lake Ontario

by Unnati Gandhi

The Globe and Mail

May 23, 2008

The world's largest uranium producer is looking into whether the element,along with arsenic and fluorides, might have leaked into Lake Ontario fromits Port Hope processing plant. A spokesman for Cameco Corp. said that computer modelling in recentweeks shows that "small amounts of contaminated groundwater maybe entering the harbour," but it's still unknown whether that is actually the case. Lyle Krahn said that 22 monitoring wells are being installed along the water to confirm that data. "We're continuing to monitor the situation," he said, adding that more information will be available once the drilling is completed in a few weeks. The work is part of an investigation following the plant's shutdown last July, when uranium hexafluoride operations were suspended after the discovery of contaminated soil under the facility. The company notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission about the finding last week. Meanwhile, Cameco maintains that water quality in the area has not changed and that uranium, arsenic and fluoride levels in the harbour have been consistent for the past nine years. "The fact that there haven't been any changes in the water quality is a good sign," but the company is taking the tests and test results very seriously, Mr. Krahn said. Cameco said it spent $18-million last year to address this situation, and cleanup costs this year are expected to be as much as $20-million. Production is expected to restart in the third quarter of 2008 "at the earliest," a company statement said. http://www.waterkeeper.ca/content/drink/cameco_testing_for_uranium_lea.php

State [Texas] Approves Radioactive Waste Dump

Company seeks additional license for site in far West Texas; groups say site would pose health hazards.

By Asher Price

AMERICAN-STATESMAN

Thursday, May 22, 2008

The state environmental agency Wednesday approved a proposal to build a radioactive waste dump in West Texas.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality decided to issue a license for Waste Control Specialists to build a dump near the border with New Mexico for the disposal of radioactive waste related to Cold War-era uranium processing. Waste Control has applied for a second license, which it hopes to receive next year, for another radioactive waste dump on the same property to bury low-level radioactive material such as medical waste. Eventually, the company also could bury radioactive byproducts from uranium mining on the site.

The dump will be the first of its kind in Texas. Currently, uranium mining operations in Texas send the radioactive byproduct for burial in Utah and Wyoming.

The dumping of the waste could begin as early as spring 2009, said Rodney Baltzer, president of Waste Control Specialists.

(...)

The Sierra Club requested another hearing on the license, and Commissioner Larry Soward said one was warranted, in part "to clear the air" about suggestions in the media that the commission had repressed information relating to the application. In March, the American-Statesman reported that the agency refused to release some internal memos about the waste dump application. The state attorney general's office ordered some of the material to be released.

Soward was outvoted by the environmental agency's two other commissioners.

Waste Control Specialists is owned by investor Harold Simmons, the third-largest contributor to Gov. Rick Perry in the 2006 election cycle. All three environmental commissioners were appointed by Perry.

Read the full article here

Natives Speaking Out on Uranium

May 18, 2008

By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer

BRATTLEBORO — The recent spate of advertisements promoting the electric power generated at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant as "clean and green" doesn't tell the true story, said two Native Americans whose native lands are severely affected by the nuclear power industry.

Lorraine Rekmans, of the Northern Ojibwa people from Elliot Lake, Ontario, and Ian Zabarte, from Mercury, Nev., secretary of state of the Western Shoshone National Council, spoke in Brattleboro Monday night, their last stop in a weeklong visit to Vermont organized by the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance and Citizens Awareness Network.

Rekmans' home, which is located on the north shore of Lake Huron, was devastated by the pollution from 11 different uranium mines, which she said had turned 10 lakes in the area into radioactive waste sites.

For every pound of uranium, she said, there is a ton of mine waste, and the waste was dumped into lakes.

"People who get their power from nuclear plants should know that uranium doesn't just fall out of the sky," she said.

"Do Vermonters want their prosperity based on the abuse of other people?" said Zabarte, whose tribal council has gone to the United Nations to try and settle its dispute with the U.S. government.

Much of the Western Shoshone's tribal lands are now operated as the Nevada test site, and Zabarte said that it is increasingly polluted. "Safe? Clean? Reliable?" he asked.

Rekmans, whose father worked for the mining companies, is a Green Party candidate for the Canadian parliament. Her father died six years ago from exposure to the radioactive waste, she said. Her family got the $30,000 survivor benefit for her father's death from the government.

The uranium from the Elliot Lake mines was originally used for nuclear weapons for the United States, she said. The mines were opened in the early 1950s, and eventually closed in 1990, with an environment assessment by the government only launched in 1996.

"There was a boom in the 1950s, a bust in the '60s. A boom in the 1970s, and a bust in the 1980s," she said. She said the mines were operated by Denison Mines Ltd. of Toronto, and Rio Algom, of London.

Since the mines have been closed, much of the population moved away, and Elliot Lake has been turned into a low-cost retirement center.

Since the health and environmental effects of uranium mining have become better known, she said, only one Canadian province — Saskatchewan — still allows uranium mining and there are five mines there. British Columbia and New Brunswick have outright bans against such mines.

"Uranium mining causes cancer and silicosis," said Rekmans, who is the Green Party of Canada's aboriginal affairs critic. She now splits her time between Ottawa, the Canadian capital, and the Serpent River Reserve near Elliot Lake. She is a former news reporter and the former executive director of the Northern Aboriginal Forestry Association.

The uranium mining tailings look like desert sands, she said, and were a big attraction for recreation. The tailings need to be under water, to keep from becoming airborne and contaminating a bigger area, she said.

"We were never told 'don't hang out there,'" she said.

As a result, her region has a high level of health problems, and Elliot Lake is a community of 11,000 people, with 10 doctors.

The burden for nuclear power is falling disproportionately on native people, she said.

"We're bearing a disproportionate share; small remote communities," said Rekmans. "It's environmental racism. We were not aware of the risks. We were powerless to stop it."

Uranium mining was celebrated, she said. "Elliot Lake had a uranium festival. There were Radon Daughters," Rekmans said.

Rekmans said that she and Zabarte, a Western Shoshone Indian, were well-received in their talks throughout Vermont.

"Indigenous people are being exploited and victimized by this industry," she said. "But it was not in the forefront of their minds."

Zabarte, the secretary of state for the Western Shoshone National Council in Austin, Nev., said that the national nuclear waste repository proposed for Yucca Mountain is on Shoshone land, and is not part of the United States.

"It's called trespass," said Zabarte, who cited a 1850s agreement, the Ruby Valley Treaty, between the Shoshone and the U.S. government as proof that the Shoshone maintained ownership of their lands. "It's called occupation. How did Hitler do it?" he asked. "We did not cede land to the US. We did not abandon our rights. Why would be give up our sovereignty?"

Zabarte said the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe of Death Valley, which is close to Yucca Mountain, has recently been certified under the Nuclear Waste Power Act as an affected party and would receive funding, the same as the state of Nevada, to investigate the Yucca Mountain proposal.

"People just forget about us — out of sight," said Zabarte, who visited the Vermont Yankee reactor Monday afternoon.

The Shoshone's land claim includes much of the eastern half of Nevada, and spills over into California, Utah and Wyoming.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.

The Only Energy Resource That Can Power The Entire Globe Forever!

The following is excerpted from Energy & Capital:

The Only Energy Resource That Can
Power The Entire Globe...Forever!

Next to solar, the largest source of energy on the planet is ocean energy - the motion of waves and tides. Both sources are inexhaustible, but unlike solar (or really any other energy source on the planet), ocean energy is constant. Day or night, 24/7...it's always working. And it's always free!

Yet today, it's our largest untapped energy source.

In fact, compared to other renewable and non-renewable technologies, it's still very much in its infancy.

But that's all changing, thanks to a very real energy crisis and improved technology that has now enabled ocean energy to compete with every other energy resource in existence.

Just look at what is already being said about wave energy:

"Generation of electricity from wave energy will be economically feasible in the near future." - Science Daily

"Wave Power can produce electricity equal to all the dams that we have in the US right now." - Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition

"The technology has only been available for a few decades, yet we could meet almost 10% of our energy needs from wave power." - The Guardian

"Wave energy is more predictable than solar and wind energy, offering a better possibility of being dispatchable by an electrical grid." - Science Daily

"Wave energy is an emerging energy source that may add a viable generation option to the strategic portfolio." - Electric Power Research Institute

In fact, Matt Simmons is so bullish on energy from the ocean, he's now organizing a facility in Rockland, Maine called the Ocean Energy Institute.

Already, a venture capital fund has been set up to seed commercialized ocean energy ventures.

Based on Simmons' overwhelming success in the energy sector, you can be sure insiders are already set to make a nice chunk of change here.

And you can get a piece of this early action, too.

But time is definitely short.

The World Energy Council just recently released new estimates showing how ocean energy could supply twice as much electricity as the world now consumes.

And now, the big money's starting to pour in.

One company alone has already raised more than $80 million since that announcement.

But compared to what we'll soon see, that $80 million is peanuts.

Because this is, without a doubt, the biggest disruption the energy markets will ever see.

It'll rival the automobile and internet combined.

And the reason is simple...

Aside from water, there is absolutely nothing more crucial to the safety and security of the entire world than robust supplies of cheap energy. We are reliant upon it for our transportation, our food, our medicine, our clothing, our agriculture... it's everything that keeps the world moving.

And as we've already begun to see with oil, it is also the one thing that can bring the global community to its knees, if there isn't enough of it.

So needless to say, any energy resource that's infinite and inexpensive is an energy resource that will shape the next evolution of our energy economy.

And the few ocean energy companies that are producing power right now?

Well, let's just say that these are the companies that will usher in a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth.

Just like those who staked their claim to solar and wind back in the earlier part of this decade have made millions, those who stake their claim to ocean energy now will be in line for similar rewards in just a few years.

In fact, there's one company in particular that we believe could deliver gains in excess of 353% in less than two years.

Read the Entire Article By Clicking Here

Renewables and Clean Energy Sources

THE FOLLOWING WAS SENT TO US FROM SCC MEMBER BARBARA THOMPSON. IT'S FROM THE GERMAN EMBASSY WEB SITE. Why would the Germans want to phase out nuclear energy?

I believe it's because they have wisely determined that true renewable energy resources are less expensive, less harmful, and faster to bring on line that nuclear. I think they are right! Let us know what you think by leaving a comment at the end of this post. Can we learn from the Germans and offer some REAL SOLUTIONS to our energy crisis? GV

Germans are getting creative and at the same time going back to the basics when it comes to developing and harnessing new energy sources. Grass, trash and manure are on the same list as wind and sun as viable and even profitable energy sources. The burgeoning industries in renewable energy sources are getting help from public financing and price guarantees to ensure that "bioenergy" will take off. And among the industries taking seriously the challenge to protect the environment is the German auto industry which is developing clean-burning cars.


Serious Incentives

Germany aims to double the portion of electricity generated by renewable energies from 5 percent to 10 percent by 2010. A further goal is to increase that share to fully 50% by the year 2050. One serious incentive to this goal is the phasing out of nuclear power in Germany. The federal government last year adopted the law phasing out nuclear power within three decades. That will eliminate an energy source that currently provides about one third of the electricity in Germany.

Promoting renewables is just one part of a multi-faceted plan to bring climate and environmental protection requirements and the needs of a competitive power industry in line with one another. The approach also includes ecological tax reform, promotion of combined heat and electricity systems and a broad set of measures to promote energy conservation technologies. Not only will a new energy mix be developed, but the demand for energy will be reduced.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THEIR WEB SITE AND READ MORE

Cut all funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead

Shireen Parsons of CELDF sent us the following:

Support nuclear disarmament by stopping a new generation of nuclear weapons

The Bush administration and the Department of Energy are asking Congress to fund a new generation of nuclear weapons, the so-called “Reliable Replacement Warhead.” Under the guise of concern about the reliability of our aging stockpile, the Bush administration is pushing for more than $40 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Yet, this reasoning conveniently ignores independent scientists and the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, who have all consistently certified that our nuclear stockpile is in good shape. Additionally, an extra $53.6 million could be used to “develop the processes and equipment to manufacture the RRW pit.” A plutonium pit is the “trigger” of a nuclear weapon.

Click on the link below to ask your member of Congress to cut funding for this dangerous program. The US needs a new nuclear weapons policy, not new nuclear weapons.

http://capwiz.com/peaceactionwest/issues/alert/?alertid=11331981

State issues byproduct waste disposal license

By BETSY BLANEY Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

May 21, 2008

LUBBOCK, Texas — State environmental regulators on Wednesday gave approval for a Dallas-based company to dispose of Cold War-era radioactive waste at a site in West Texas where it is now being stored.

Waste Control Specialists worked for four years to secure the license, which was approved by a 2-1 vote of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Austin.

(...)

"As it stands right now the public may never know why former members of the TCEQ science team looking at the application considered it one of the worst in the agency's history and if the geology is as they believe, residents of Eunice, N.M., will face the consequences."

In April 2005, Waste Control won a $7.5 million contract from Fluor Fernald, the U.S. Department of Energy contractor cleaning up the site of a shuttered weapons plant in Ohio, to store the waste.

Two months earlier, state officials granted the company a license amendment that expanded the Andrews County site's storage capacity to 1.5 million cubic feet — nearly five times its current size. That expansion made the site eligible to accept the Ohio waste, which totals 750,000 cubic feet.

Waste Control has an application pending with the commission for a low-level radioactive disposal license.

Read the complete article here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5794756.html

Group opposed to nuke license to rally

By BETSY BLANEY Associated Press Writer
© 2008 The Associated Press

May 19, 2008

LUBBOCK, Texas — Rose Gardner lives just a few miles from a West Texas site that could soon be a permanent dumping ground for radioactive waste. The prospect worries her.

But, the 50-year-old Eunice, N.M., resident and flower shop owner said, it's not just her future that concerns her.

"If we bury this stuff we're all going to be in trouble," Gardner said Monday, a day before she and others rally in Austin against a license that would allow Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists to dispose of radioactive byproduct wastes. "We could all be victims of this contamination. I think it will happen."

(...)

The site, about 30 miles from the town of Andrews, is not well suited geologically because of a nearby aquifer, she said.

"There is water there in that clay and water is going to move that waste around," Bobeck said. "It's going to cause problems and there's no way around that."

In 1997, the company's radioactive waste treatment and storage plant opened. There is also a hazardous waste landfill on the acreage.

Eunice, N.M., is the closest town to the site and there is a uranium enrichment plant being built nearby.

(...)

If commissioners grant Waste Control its license, the company still has about nine months of construction before it can begin burying the Cold War era radioactive material trucked to West Texas from a shuttered weapons processing plant in Ohio a couple of years ago, Andrea Morrow, an agency spokeswoman said.

Commission personnel would monitor the additional construction before the waste could be buried, she said.

Opponents could appeal commissioners' decision to grant the license.

Waste Control also is seeking a disposal license for low-level nuclear waste, which would dwarf the byproduct's radioactivity.

In March, the company agreed to pay the state $151,000 in penalties for self-reported violations in 2005 — for radioactive materials, including Plutonium-239 and Americium-241, that got into an administration and laboratory septic system; and in 2006 — for elevated amounts of metal contamination in the railcar unloading area.

Read the entire article here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5791160.html

Read the article above for the outcome...

Solar power plant to be built in Davidson County

(Credit: Photo courtesy of SunEdison and Zinn Photography)

From Wire, Staff Reports

Wednesday, May. 21, 2008

CHARLOTTE — Duke Energy Corp. says it plans to buy all the power generated at a massive solar power plant to be built in Davidson County.

The Charlotte-based utility said Wednesday it will purchase more than 16 megawatts of power from SunEdison, a Maryland company. The company will build the nation's largest photovoltaic solar farm in Davidson County. No financial details were disclosed.

The Davidson County Board of Commission approved about $2 million in incentives for the project during a meeting last week. The company is looking at three sites in the county, including one that is near a proposed 2,400-acre megasite off Interstate 85. SunEdison is still evaluating a specific location for the plant.

SunEdison will own and operate the facility, which is expected to provide enough power for 2,600 homes. Construction on the site will begin in late 2009, and energy from the site is expected to begin flowing by the end of 2010, Duke said.

A North Carolina law passed last year requires Duke and other utilities to get 12.5 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as the solar by 2021. Solar power has to account for two-tenths of 1 percent of company sales by 2018.

Duke's agreement with SunEdison will run for 20 years.

SunEdison Photovoltaic Solar Power Farm Fact Sheet

Aggregate Capacity: 18 MW (AC), or 21.5 MW (DC), is the nameplate combined size of facilities making up the PV Solar Farm.

The expected capacity delivered to Duke Energy customers is 16.1 MW (AC).

Total Output: 16.1 MW of photovoltaic (PV) solar capacity produces approximately 28,210,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) in its first year, the equivalent ofpowering 2,647 homes for one year.

Over 20 years, 16.1 MW of PV solar capacity will produce an estimated513,685,000 kWh, the equivalent of powering 48,206 homes for one year.

Characteristics: Solar PV power plants are independent of fossil fuel use, use little to no water in operation, and produce no noise.

Photovoltaic, literally 'Photo' (light) and 'voltaic' (electricity), means theuse of sunlight (photons) to generate electricity. Most solar photovoltaic systems use solar panels to create solar electricity. Photons from sunlight elevate electrons into a higher state of energy, creating electricity.

Location: Davidson County, North Carolina

Project Timeline: The PV solar farm will consist of 36 individual solar PV facilities, located at a single site.

Construction is anticipated to start early 3rd Quarter, 2009

Targeted commercial operation date is December 31, 2010

Capital Costs: Zero. Under this project, Duke Energy pays no upfront capital costs.

SunEdison will develop, finance, build, operate, monitor and maintain the clean solar power plant under a solar power services agreement (SPSA) with Duke Energy. There are no up-front capital costs to Duke Energy or rate payers.

Environmental Impact: In one full year of production, 16.1 MW of PV solar power offsets 32,328,660 lbs of C02. This is the equivalent of taking 3,168 cars off the road for one year.

Over 20 years, the project would offset 598,026,392 lbs of C02, which is the equal to taking 58,607 cars off the road for one year.

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/NRSTAFF/946189986

Banks Comments on Nuclear Power Funding

The following shows that the nuclear power industry can not survive financially on it's own:

July 2, 2007
Mr. Howard G. Borgstrom
Director, Business Operations Center
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
U.S. Department of Energy
Mailstop CF-60, Room 4A-221
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20585

RE: Comments in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Loan Guarantees for
Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies (RIN 1901-AB21), 72 Federal Register
27471 (May 16, 2007)

Dear Mr. Borgstrom:
Last March, five major U.S. banking institutions (Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley) provided Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman a consensus summary of the major structural elements necessary to implement the Title XVII loan guarantee program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Since then we have met with officials at the Department of Energy, the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget to discuss our views, and we are pleased to share our comments on the above-referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR or Proposed Rule).

The six financial institutions below are convinced that loan guarantees are an important tool, along with supportive state government policies, to enable the financing in the credit markets of new nuclear power plants in the United States. We are concerned that the Proposed Rule is not workable, and are providing our perspective in the hope that it will assist the Department of Energy in developing final regulations to implement this essential program. We regard the attached comments as a set of minimum conditions necessary to secure project financing from lenders and from investors in the fixed income markets.

Mr. Howard G. Borgstrom
U.S. Department of Energy
Reference RIN 1901-AB21

Page 2

We remain committed to working with the Department of Energy in structuring a workable financing instrument to support construction of new nuclear power plants in the United States, while protecting the U.S. taxpayer.

Respectfully submitted,

Mini Roy, Managing Director
Export and Agency Finance Group
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Joseph Sauvage
Managing Director
Lehman Brothers Inc.

Steven Greenwald, Managing Director
Jonathan Baliff, Managing Director
Alex Kroner, Director
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

Sylvia K. Barnes, Managing Director
Christopher Fink, Managing Director
Merrill Lynch & Co.

H. John Gilbertson Jr.
Managing Director
Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Ray Spitzley
Managing Director
Global Power and Utilities Group
Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated

Please read the above bankers comments by clicking here

CLICK HERE TO READ A RELATED REPORT

Uranium Link to Kidney Ills Studied

By Kathy Helms-Dine

Preliminary modeling and statistical analysis of the first 400 people participating in the Navajo Uranium Assessment and Kidney Health Project has shown two significant factors linking environmental exposure to uranium and kidney disease. Chris Shuey of Southwest Information Research Center in Albuquerque said the study, which is evaluating kidney health in 20 chapters of the Navajo Nation, is something of a replication of studies done in Canada, Finland and Russia, however, the Navajo project is by far the largest. “There's none that have come close to 1,300 in the pool of people,” he said. So far, information from the first 400 people surveyed, coupled with soil and water data, has turned up six factors that are seen as statistically significant. “A couple of them are pretty easy to explain * existing disease status and body mass index. But two of them are environmental. One of them is living within .8 kilometers of a waste dump, which we are here,” Shuey said, speaking in front of the home of Teddy Nez in Northeast Churchrock, “and having a history of coming in contact with uranium waste.” Shuey spoke of the survey results during a tour of former uranium mine sites Friday with New Mexico Lt. Gov. Diane Denish. This is the first time that any population-based epidemiological study has shown a relationship between environmental exposures and kidney disease, according to Shuey. “We can separate the damage caused by heavy metals like uranium from the damage caused by lifestyles.” The first results were discussed in an American Public Health Association meeting last November. There are two papers awaiting publication in peer-review journals. “This is all going to come out sometime later this year,” Shuey said. Johnnye L. Lewis, Ph.D., director of the Community Environmental Health Program, University of New Mexico, is the lead investigator on the project. Shuey and Thomas Manning Sr. of DiNEH Project, Eastern Navajo Health Board, are co-principal investigators. Uranium mining operations in Eastern Agency have left a legacy of environmental exposures that, when coupled with naturally occurring uranium, has raised concerns that significant exposures may be occurring through the use of unregulated drinking water. The prevalence of kidney disease in the region is substantially greater than nationally and occurs in younger members of the community than expected nationally, according to information presented to APHA. Shuey told Denish that the Northeast Churchrock community was used as a pilot, with SRIC Navajo community liaison Sarah Adeky, and cancer survivor and community resident Teddy Nez among those administering the 10-page survey. Questions asked included where they got their water, where they worked, how often had they been in contact with waste dumps such as the one approximately 500 feet from Nez's residence, did they eat sheep or animals that had gone across waste dumps, and do they have anything in their homes that came from the mines. “We tested waters, we used soil data that we've gathered to put into a sophisticated exposure assessment,” Shuey said. Out of the 1,300 people to be surveyed, roughly 450 will be invited to participate in the full-scale blood and urine medical portion. Participation in the kidney study, which extends to 2011, is voluntary. Soil sampling at the Nez residence turned up a high concentration of Radium-226, the most radio-toxic of all the uranium decay products, Shuey said. “It is a bone-seeker, causes leukemia and bone cancer in people.” Before U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came in under the “imminent and substantial endangerment clause of the Superfund law” to remove the soil, Shey said, “concentrations of this contaminant in soils throughout this mine site and over here where we're standing now ... if it had been down at the tailings site, it would have been a violation of federal law.” Edith Hood, a community member who testified last October before U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman's committee in Washington at a hearing on legacy waste, told Denish she is a survivor of lymphoma. “I've already gone through chemo, and I don't want to go through it again. “A lot of our children of the miners * I'm talking about young kids * they have a lot of asthma problems with the lungs that we think may be linked to this (exposure),” Hood said. Adeky told Denish that the children living in the area today feel they are being punished. “The kids told us that they are deprived of playing outside like their parents did and being able to do these things that their parents did before. When their parents were younger, they did everything outside. If livestock got lost, they'd be up there walking the mines.” But now parents are concerned and cautious, she said. “There are some families that have moved out from here and other participating chapters. They're very concerned about the health of their relatives up here and they just don't want to move back in here because of the high contamination that is within this area. “There are a lot of concerns and a lot of education that still needs to be done,” said Adeky, who has been involved in her grassroots advocacy role for the last three years. She said it's difficult to translate the scientific language of the study, but “it's very important that we translate this into our Navajo language for the people, and that there's accuracy, and we are on the same page when we are communicating this information. “All they know is that they have suffered from the previous mining and that the cleanup has not happened to their satisfaction. I don't think it will ever be to where cleanup is going to show that everything has been returned back to normal.”