Jay Fletcher & Emma Murphy4 February 2009
A multinational mining company that has been exposed for leaking uranium into Lake Ontario in North America is now exploring uranium deposits only a few kilometres from a significant Alice Springs water supply.
Canadian resource giant, Cameco, has entered a joint venture with Australian Paladin Energy to explore and potentially mine the Angela Pamela uranium tenement 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs near the old outstation of Owen Springs.
Last year, Cameco was forced to admit to leaking uranium, arsenic and fluorides into Lake Ontario, one of the biggest lakes in North America.
On May 23, ABC Alice Springs reported that the Port Hope refinery plant was closed when contaminated soil was discovered, but during the “clean-up” it is likely that tailings found their way into the harbour.
Moreover, the company has been ordered to pay a C$1.4 million settlement to the state of Wyoming for failing to comply with environmental standards at its uranium mine.
Among the charges were problems with the pace of ground water restoration, according to Canada’s Calgary Herald.Traditional owner Raelene Silverton from Urana Potara community — located on the West Waterhouse station near Owen Springs — told Green Left Weekly in December that mining the site would create serious risk to local and Aboriginal communities.
“There are a lot of people saying not to mine in there”, Silverton said.
“There’s a bore there and Alice Springs communities get their water from there, it would be too dangerous.”Cameco-Paladin were granted an exploration permit by the Northern Territory government in 2007.
A May 27, 2008 media release from the Central Land Council (CLC) said that negotiations were being conducted with traditional owners, yet local owners such as Silverton, who do not want the plans to go ahead, say they have been excluded from the process.
“That’s all my father’s dreaming gone through there, around Owen Springs area”, Silverton told GLW. “That’s a big story.
We are related to that place … There is uranium there and they’re going to mine there. I don’t want that to happen.“It belongs to Central Arrernte people.”
Silverton, who worked as a councillor for the CLC, said that consultation with the Aboriginal population has been either limited or non-existent.“Nobody has talked to us properly”, she said.Alice Springs is surrounded by Aboriginal settlements, previously pastoral outstations.
Environmental groups and anti-nuclear campaigners have expressed grave concerns over the proposed site, with adverse environmental impacts set to affect these groups the most.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC) in Alice Springs has organised against uranium mining, nuclear energy and waste dumping in central Australia since it began in 1980 and has formed the Alice Springs Angela Pamela collective in response to the government’s and Cameco-Paladin’s plans.In the collective’s mission statement, the group argues that exploration and mining will pose a significant threat to water security, human health and the environment.
“Workers, nearby communities and the environment will all be exposed to radioactive materials”, it says.
“Mining uranium is the first step in a nuclear chain which includes: unsafe, expensive, water-intensive energy production; risk-prone transport of radioactive materials; inadequate safeguards against sale of uranium for nuclear weapons and production of radioactive waste which will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years.”
Silverton is also facing challenges under the federal government’s intervention, with her home community one of the 500 being considered for its “economic viability” at the end of last year.
The federal government discussed closing smaller communities and moving the Aboriginal residents to larger stations and towns.
Unsurprisingly, all communities that were considered sit on land rich in uranium.Since federal Labor abolished its “no new mines” policy in April 2007, uranium mining ventures in the NT have increased sharply.
According to ALEC’s website, between January 2007 and April 2008, the NT government granted 386 exploration licences, 193 of which were to companies specifically interested in the exploration and mining of uranium.
From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #781 4
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Uranium Industry is not a cure to Aboriginal Poverty
FEBRUARY 26, 2009.
The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) has dismissed claims by the Australian Uranium Association (AUA) that uranium mining is the solution to systemic Aboriginal disadvantage.
The uranium industry's attempt to promote itself as a cure to Aboriginal poverty is in direct conflict to the reality of the Aboriginal experience.
Extensive research has shown that mining agreements have not improved life for Aboriginal people - uranium mines mean more problems. The main lasting effect of uranium mining for Aboriginal people is radioactive waste on their country - with no resources to clean up the miner's mess, say the ANFA.
Australians are one part of a global assault inflicted by mining corporations and governments who care more about profits than about long term effects on our Nation and our lands."
Aboriginal people have been and remain at the sharp end of resistance to the uranium and nuclear industry in Australia and we are not about to be swayed by an industry PR exercise..."
Formed in 1997, the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance brings together Aboriginal people and environment and public health groups concerned about existing or proposed nuclear developments in Australia, particularly on Aboriginal homelands.
The Alliance provides a forum for sharing of knowledge, skills and experience and an opportunity to come together to protect country and culture from nuclear developments. We provide this service in response to the lack of free and informed consent and decision-making that is gripping the Impact Assessment procedures supposedly in place to regulate mining industries, and the pro-mining position taken by leaders within Native Title and Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia.
The Alliance helped to build the successful campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory, and more recently, a proposed national nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
ANFA Committee member and Kokatha Mula custodian Sue Coleman Haseldine said: "Aboriginal people have been and remain at the sharp end of resistance to the uranium and nuclear industry in Australia and we are not about to be swayed by an industry PR exercise."
Contact:Jillian Marsh 0407 804 423 Sue Coleman Haseldine 0458 544 593 Information about the Alliance is posted at: www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/alliance
The Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) has dismissed claims by the Australian Uranium Association (AUA) that uranium mining is the solution to systemic Aboriginal disadvantage.
The uranium industry's attempt to promote itself as a cure to Aboriginal poverty is in direct conflict to the reality of the Aboriginal experience.
Extensive research has shown that mining agreements have not improved life for Aboriginal people - uranium mines mean more problems. The main lasting effect of uranium mining for Aboriginal people is radioactive waste on their country - with no resources to clean up the miner's mess, say the ANFA.
Australians are one part of a global assault inflicted by mining corporations and governments who care more about profits than about long term effects on our Nation and our lands."
Aboriginal people have been and remain at the sharp end of resistance to the uranium and nuclear industry in Australia and we are not about to be swayed by an industry PR exercise..."
Formed in 1997, the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance brings together Aboriginal people and environment and public health groups concerned about existing or proposed nuclear developments in Australia, particularly on Aboriginal homelands.
The Alliance provides a forum for sharing of knowledge, skills and experience and an opportunity to come together to protect country and culture from nuclear developments. We provide this service in response to the lack of free and informed consent and decision-making that is gripping the Impact Assessment procedures supposedly in place to regulate mining industries, and the pro-mining position taken by leaders within Native Title and Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia.
The Alliance helped to build the successful campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory, and more recently, a proposed national nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
ANFA Committee member and Kokatha Mula custodian Sue Coleman Haseldine said: "Aboriginal people have been and remain at the sharp end of resistance to the uranium and nuclear industry in Australia and we are not about to be swayed by an industry PR exercise."
Contact:Jillian Marsh 0407 804 423 Sue Coleman Haseldine 0458 544 593 Information about the Alliance is posted at: www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/alliance
Friday, February 27, 2009
DNA and Mitochondrial Time Bombs: Uranium and Mercury
Comment: The article below is about medical reviews on ways uranium affect our DNA!
Monday, March 03, 2008 by: Mark Sircus Ac., OMD, citizen journalist
There are three things that determine the toxicity of radioactive materials:
Chemical effects – Uranium is chemically very toxic.
Radioactive effects (includes half-life and energy released) - One gram of DU (1/20th of a cubic centimeter) releases 13,000 alpha particles a second.
One alpha particle can cause cancer under the right conditions and certainly it has the capacity to wreck havoc in beta cells and everywhere else.Particle size - in the nanoparticle range (diameter of 0.1 microns or smaller) the particulate effect (non-specific catalyst or enzyme) is far more biologically toxic than the first two effects.
This is why DU is so devastating (See extensive notes on this in the reference section).
Type Two Diabetes is an increasingly prevalent disease in the world, especially the United States, where the number of new patients grew 49% between 1991 and 2000.
The Chernobyl incident was a major humanitarian disaster, which has resulted in a plethora of health problems that are still far from being fully recognized.
Most studies analyzing the medical consequences of this catastrophe have so far focused on diseases such as thyroid cancer, leukemia, immune and autoimmune pathology, even though an increase in the incidence of Type 1 diabetes mellitus, a disorder involving the immune system, was observed within the residential population of Hiroshima among survivors of the atom bomb detonation. Studies have also shown that thymectomy and a sub-lethal dose of gamma radiation induces Type 1 diabetes in rats.
This is important to our medical review that concludes that toxic exposure to uranium is dangerous and readily provokes diabetes.
In this case, we see that vitamin D deficiency predisposes individuals to type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Vitamin D deficiency has been shown to impair insulin synthesis and secretion in humans! Furthermore, epidemiological studies suggest a link between vitamin D deficiency in early life and the later onset of type 1 diabetes. In studies on diabetic mice, pharmacological doses of vitamin D have been shown to delay the onset of diabetes, mainly through immune modulation. Vitamin D deficiency is very much involved in cancer and the outcome of treatments so again we are seeing how closely tied together are cancer and diabetes.
Dr. Dayna Kowata wrote, "I have noticed an upward trend in uranium toxicity in my pediatric patients and not just those with autism.
The effected patients come from the Temecula/Murrieta area of southern CA.
One of my autistic patients has had an extremely difficult time chelating this metal. We've had success with all other heavy metals but the uranium remains consistently high.
We've used oral DMSA 'and EDTA.
"Nobody with any sense is supporting uranium mining and the kind of activities that turns the earth into a toxic waste dump.
Increasing levels of uranium in people's bodies changes the entire picture of chelation (removal of heavy metals from the body) thanks to the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons that are used abroad but tested at home.
These are the perfect weapons of mass destruction. We are threatened from many sources of ionizing radiation including x-rays and local contamination from leaking nuclear facilities but the threat from the use of depleted uranium armaments is truly frightening.
Uranium pollution is starting to compete with mercury as a major environmental contaminant.
We ignore uranium now at great risk.
The vast majority of doctors do not conceive of removing heavy metals as a form of treatment of disease, so the public is in trouble and is being let down by the medical profession.
Most doctors do not even do a test for heavy metals and those that do are not yet aware of the looming problem with uranium contamination.
Just ask your doctor about diabetes or autism and what is causing these terrible epidemics?
The chances are about zero he or she will tell you that both mercury and uranium and some other poisons are at the heart of it.
Medical scientists have struggled to explain rising rates of cancers, childhood brain disorders, diabetes and neurological conditions in both young and old alike but have fallen short of any kind of understanding that will yield helpful answers.
Something about modern living has driven a steady rise of certain maladies, but they have not been able to figure out what.
Uranium levels 54.6 times the U.S. standard were found in water supplies in a village near Icheon, about 25 miles northeast of Osan Air Base, according to a South Korean government environmental report.
South Korea's Ministry of Environment said it was not ready last week to release its full uranium survey of 93 sites in South Korea, but it issued a news release on its findings.
Uranium levels measured 1,640 micrograms per liter in Janpyeong-ri village near Icheon."A recent analysis of my hair ordered by my physician indicated a uranium level that is about five times the maximum reference range.
How alarmed should I be with respect to this result? I am not exposed to uranium by occupational hazard, as I'm an office manager in a very clean environment.
Past ingestion may have been the result of private well water, but I've not ingested any of this well water for six years now," reports one patient.
Uranium does chelate with DMSA and EDTA chelators but NOT dramatically (Dr. Garry Gordon).The best approaches to both mercury and uranium detoxification and chelation are natural ones.
What is needed today is a radical shift in the community of doctors who do chelation mostly for neurologically damaged children and heart patients.
Before even thinking of using anything that would officially bear the title of chelator of heavy metals, we and our doctors need to understand the nature of minerals (magnesium, selenium and zinc) and what they do for us to protect us from harm and what they do for us in helping us get better.
The removal of heavy metals is impossible without minerals and without a full house of minerals our cells just cannot deal with the poison.
The very first thing one should do if interested in protecting themselves from the harmful effects of uranium and mercury is to start immediately with full mineralization.
Iodine and magnesium are the best places to start but one should also be thinking of zinc and selenium and of course ALA.
When considering children, it is helpful to know that both iodine and magnesium can be easily applied transdermally. Selenium also is vital and is the perfect antidote for mercury toxicity.
Iodine is vital for the protection of our thyroid gland against radiation but in reality, when we supplement properly with this, we are strengthened in ways unimaginable to modern medicine.
The most important question of our times is: what is the safest most effective way to remove uranium,mercury and an army of other toxins in our and our children's bodies?
For more information on the author Mark Sircus Ac., OMD, Director International Medical Veritas Association, go to:(http://www.imva.info)(http://www.magnesiumforlife.com)
yahooBuzzArticleHeadline="DNA and Mitochondrial Time Bombs: Uranium and Mercury";yahooBuzzArticleCategory="health";yahooBuzzArticleType="text";yahooBuzzArticleId=window.location.href;
Comment: This a very long article, go to the link and finish reading: http://www.naturalnews.com/022760.html
Monday, March 03, 2008 by: Mark Sircus Ac., OMD, citizen journalist
There are three things that determine the toxicity of radioactive materials:
Chemical effects – Uranium is chemically very toxic.
Radioactive effects (includes half-life and energy released) - One gram of DU (1/20th of a cubic centimeter) releases 13,000 alpha particles a second.
One alpha particle can cause cancer under the right conditions and certainly it has the capacity to wreck havoc in beta cells and everywhere else.Particle size - in the nanoparticle range (diameter of 0.1 microns or smaller) the particulate effect (non-specific catalyst or enzyme) is far more biologically toxic than the first two effects.
This is why DU is so devastating (See extensive notes on this in the reference section).
Type Two Diabetes is an increasingly prevalent disease in the world, especially the United States, where the number of new patients grew 49% between 1991 and 2000.
The Chernobyl incident was a major humanitarian disaster, which has resulted in a plethora of health problems that are still far from being fully recognized.
Most studies analyzing the medical consequences of this catastrophe have so far focused on diseases such as thyroid cancer, leukemia, immune and autoimmune pathology, even though an increase in the incidence of Type 1 diabetes mellitus, a disorder involving the immune system, was observed within the residential population of Hiroshima among survivors of the atom bomb detonation. Studies have also shown that thymectomy and a sub-lethal dose of gamma radiation induces Type 1 diabetes in rats.
This is important to our medical review that concludes that toxic exposure to uranium is dangerous and readily provokes diabetes.
In this case, we see that vitamin D deficiency predisposes individuals to type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Vitamin D deficiency has been shown to impair insulin synthesis and secretion in humans! Furthermore, epidemiological studies suggest a link between vitamin D deficiency in early life and the later onset of type 1 diabetes. In studies on diabetic mice, pharmacological doses of vitamin D have been shown to delay the onset of diabetes, mainly through immune modulation. Vitamin D deficiency is very much involved in cancer and the outcome of treatments so again we are seeing how closely tied together are cancer and diabetes.
Dr. Dayna Kowata wrote, "I have noticed an upward trend in uranium toxicity in my pediatric patients and not just those with autism.
The effected patients come from the Temecula/Murrieta area of southern CA.
One of my autistic patients has had an extremely difficult time chelating this metal. We've had success with all other heavy metals but the uranium remains consistently high.
We've used oral DMSA 'and EDTA.
"Nobody with any sense is supporting uranium mining and the kind of activities that turns the earth into a toxic waste dump.
Increasing levels of uranium in people's bodies changes the entire picture of chelation (removal of heavy metals from the body) thanks to the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons that are used abroad but tested at home.
These are the perfect weapons of mass destruction. We are threatened from many sources of ionizing radiation including x-rays and local contamination from leaking nuclear facilities but the threat from the use of depleted uranium armaments is truly frightening.
Uranium pollution is starting to compete with mercury as a major environmental contaminant.
We ignore uranium now at great risk.
The vast majority of doctors do not conceive of removing heavy metals as a form of treatment of disease, so the public is in trouble and is being let down by the medical profession.
Most doctors do not even do a test for heavy metals and those that do are not yet aware of the looming problem with uranium contamination.
Just ask your doctor about diabetes or autism and what is causing these terrible epidemics?
The chances are about zero he or she will tell you that both mercury and uranium and some other poisons are at the heart of it.
Medical scientists have struggled to explain rising rates of cancers, childhood brain disorders, diabetes and neurological conditions in both young and old alike but have fallen short of any kind of understanding that will yield helpful answers.
Something about modern living has driven a steady rise of certain maladies, but they have not been able to figure out what.
Uranium levels 54.6 times the U.S. standard were found in water supplies in a village near Icheon, about 25 miles northeast of Osan Air Base, according to a South Korean government environmental report.
South Korea's Ministry of Environment said it was not ready last week to release its full uranium survey of 93 sites in South Korea, but it issued a news release on its findings.
Uranium levels measured 1,640 micrograms per liter in Janpyeong-ri village near Icheon."A recent analysis of my hair ordered by my physician indicated a uranium level that is about five times the maximum reference range.
How alarmed should I be with respect to this result? I am not exposed to uranium by occupational hazard, as I'm an office manager in a very clean environment.
Past ingestion may have been the result of private well water, but I've not ingested any of this well water for six years now," reports one patient.
Uranium does chelate with DMSA and EDTA chelators but NOT dramatically (Dr. Garry Gordon).The best approaches to both mercury and uranium detoxification and chelation are natural ones.
What is needed today is a radical shift in the community of doctors who do chelation mostly for neurologically damaged children and heart patients.
Before even thinking of using anything that would officially bear the title of chelator of heavy metals, we and our doctors need to understand the nature of minerals (magnesium, selenium and zinc) and what they do for us to protect us from harm and what they do for us in helping us get better.
The removal of heavy metals is impossible without minerals and without a full house of minerals our cells just cannot deal with the poison.
The very first thing one should do if interested in protecting themselves from the harmful effects of uranium and mercury is to start immediately with full mineralization.
Iodine and magnesium are the best places to start but one should also be thinking of zinc and selenium and of course ALA.
When considering children, it is helpful to know that both iodine and magnesium can be easily applied transdermally. Selenium also is vital and is the perfect antidote for mercury toxicity.
Iodine is vital for the protection of our thyroid gland against radiation but in reality, when we supplement properly with this, we are strengthened in ways unimaginable to modern medicine.
The most important question of our times is: what is the safest most effective way to remove uranium,mercury and an army of other toxins in our and our children's bodies?
For more information on the author Mark Sircus Ac., OMD, Director International Medical Veritas Association, go to:(http://www.imva.info)(http://www.magnesiumforlife.com)
yahooBuzzArticleHeadline="DNA and Mitochondrial Time Bombs: Uranium and Mercury";yahooBuzzArticleCategory="health";yahooBuzzArticleType="text";yahooBuzzArticleId=window.location.href;
Comment: This a very long article, go to the link and finish reading: http://www.naturalnews.com/022760.html
Santoy Executes Formal Business Combination Agreement for Merger With Virginia Uranium Ltd.
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - Feb. 27, 2009) -
Santoy Resources Ltd. (TSX VENTURE:SAN) ("Santoy") is pleased to announce the signing of the formal business combination agreement (the "Business Combination Agreement") dated February 26, 2009 among Santoy, its wholly-owned subsidiary BC0846143 B.C. Ltd. ("Subco"), Virginia Uranium Ltd. ("Virginia Ltd."), VA Uranium Holdings, Inc. ("Holdco") and certain shareholders of Holdco to replace the letter of intent dated December 22, 2008, pursuant to which Santoy has agreed to acquire all of the shares of Virginia Ltd. in exchange for shares in Santoy, at the ratio of six shares of Santoy for each one share of Virginia Ltd. and certain shares of Holdco at the ratio of six shares of Santoy for each one share of Holdco as disclosed in Santoy's previous news releases dated December 22, 2008 and February 5, 2009.
Holdco's 100% owned subsidiary, Virginia Uranium, Inc., a Virginia corporation, controls the leasehold development and operating rights of the Coles Hill uranium property in southside Virginia.
Pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, Santoy has agreed to acquire all of the issued shares of Virginia Ltd. pursuant to a plan of arrangement (the "Plan of Arrangement") under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia). Both of Santoy and Virginia Ltd. will continue their jurisdictions of incorporation to British Columbia to facilitate the transaction.
Under the Plan of Arrangement, Subco will be merged into Virginia Ltd. with the merged company becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Santoy and the shareholders of Virginia Ltd. receiving shares of Santoy.
Virginia Ltd. currently holds approximately 12% of the issued shares of Holdco and on closing, Santoy will, directly or indirectly, pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement, acquire additional Holdco shares. In addition, shareholders of Santoy immediately prior to closing will receive 1/4 of one incentive warrant for each Santoy share held, with each whole incentive warrant being exercisable for one Santoy share at a price of $0.12 per share for a period of 12 months following the closing of transaction.
Upon closing of the transaction, it is expected that Santoy will have approximately 245,189,430 issued shares and, directly or indirectly through the wholly-owned subsidiary merged company, will hold a minimum of 20% of the issued shares of Holdco.
Santoy will on closing become a party to a unanimous Holdco shareholders agreement pursuant to which Santoy will have a preferential right to arrange financing for Holdco as well as other rights to maintain or increase its Holdco shareholdings, including certain rights of first refusal, tag-along rights and drag-along rights in respect of a sale by any of the Holdco shareholders of their Holdco shares to a third party. Santoy plans to increase its interest in Holdco to approximately 30% through acquiring additional Holdco shares in connection with financings and additional potential exchanges by certain private shareholders of Holdco of their Holdco shares for shares of Santoy.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit is located in southern Virginia, USA and is considered to be one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the United States. It has an estimated measured and indicated resource of 119 million pounds of U308 (1)(2) at a cut-off grade of 0.025% U308 based on a National Instrument 43-101 technical report on the Coles Hill property prepared for Santoy Resources Ltd. and Virginia Uranium, Inc. by Behre Dolbear and Company, Ltd., Marshall Miller and Associates, Inc., and PAC Geological Consulting Inc. dated February 2, 2009. A copy of the findings of this report is available under Santoy's profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and Virginia Uranium Inc.'s website at www.virginiauranium.com.
The resource estimate can be summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt from Table 1.1 Resource Estimates - June 4, 2008 (MILLIONS OF TONS AND POUNDS IN-PLACE)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured(1) Indicated(1) Total(1) -------------------------------------------------------------------Cutoff % Pounds % Pounds % Pounds%U3O8 Tons(2) U3O8(3) U3O8 Tons(2) U3O8(3) U3O8 Tons(2) U3O8(3) U3O8----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Project Total (South and North Coles Hill Deposits)--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.100 0.755 0.228 3.45 6.27 0.215 26.9 7.03 0.216 30.4--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.075 1.35 0.164 4.44 24.0 0.116 55.9 25.4 0.119 60.4--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.050 2.28 0.124 5.65 35.4 0.101 71.7 37.7 0.103 77.4--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.025 6.62 0.064 8.42 92.1 0.060 111 98.7 0.060 119--------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Total tonnage above cutoff grade and average weight % U3O8 of that tonnage(2) Short tons based on a rock density of 2.56 g/cc(3) Weight %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.
The "Qualified Persons" (as defined in NI 43-101) who prepared the resource estimate were Betty L. Gibbs for Behre Dolbear and K. Scott Keim for Marshall Miller and Associates, Inc.2. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues.
The board of directors of Santoy following completion of the transaction will consist of nominees of Santoy and Virginia Ltd. Santoy expects to have up to seven directors with a minimum of three being independent. Norm Reynolds, currently Chief Executive Officer of Virginia Ltd., is expected to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Santoy. Walter Coles Jr., currently Executive Vice President of Virginia Ltd., is expected to be appointed Executive Vice President of Santoy. Ron Netolitzky, currently Chief Executive Officer of Santoy, will continue his active involvement in the company as a director of Santoy. Mike Cathro will remain as VP of Exploration of Santoy.Mr. Ron Netolitzky, Chief Executive Officer of Santoy, is also a director and a shareholder of Holdco. To increase the number of Holdco shares available to Santoy, Mr. Netolitzky and Santoy have agreed under the Business Combination Agreement that Santoy will acquire his 2,000,0000 Holdco shares in exchange for Santoy shares at the same ratio of six shares of Santoy for each one share of Holdco.
The transaction has been negotiated by an independent committee of the Board of Santoy and has received full Board approval with Mr. Netolitzky abstaining.It is contemplated that Santoy will, subject to regulatory approval, change its name to "Virginia Energy Resources Inc." or such other name as approved by the Santoy Board to reflect the significance of the transaction to Santoy.
At the meeting to approve the transactions, Santoy will seek shareholder approval for the continuance of its jurisdiction to British Columbia, approval of the Plan of Arrangement and approval for a consolidation of the Santoy shares on a one for five basis, such consolidation, if approved, to be effected in the future at the discretion of the Board of Santoy subject to regulatory acceptance. Full details of the transaction, including the terms of the Business Combination Agreement, will be included in a joint management information circular which is expected to be mailed to shareholders of Santoy and Virginia Ltd. by the end of March, 2009.
Each of the companies plan to hold a special meeting of shareholders to approve the transaction and related matters by the end of April, 2009.
In connection with the proposed business combination, Toll Cross Securities Inc. has provided an oral fairness opinion to the special committee of the board of directors of Santoy and Evans & Evans Inc. provided an oral fairness opinion to the board of directors of Virginia Ltd. Legal advice to Santoy is being provided by DuMoulin Black LLP. Legal advice to Virginia Ltd. is being provided by Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.
The completion of the Plan of Arrangement is subject to various conditions, including applicable regulatory and stock exchange approvals, receipt of written fairness opinions by Santoy and Virginia Ltd., requisite approvals by the shareholders of Santoy and Virginia Ltd., the approval by the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the fairness to Santoy and Virginia shareholders of the terms and conditions of the Plan of Arrangement and usual conditions for a transaction of this nature. Santoy and Virginia Ltd. will use their commercially reasonable efforts to complete the transaction by mid May, 2009.
Details of the uranium property holdings of Holdco and further particulars of the transaction are set out in the previous news releases of Santoy dated December 22, 2008 and February 5, 2009.On Behalf of the Board of Directors SANTOY RESOURCES LTD.R. K. Netolitzky, President & CEOThe technical information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Michael S. Cathro, P,Geo., Santoy's Vice President of Exploration, a Qualified Person.This news release includes certain "forward-looking statements".
All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding potential mineralization, exploration results and future plans and objectives of the Company are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations include market prices, exploitation and exploration results, availability of capital and financing, general economic, market or business conditions, uninsured risks, regulatory decisions, regulatory changes, defects in title, availability of personnel, materials and equipment, timeliness of government approvals, unanticipated environmental impacts on operations and other exploration risks detailed herein and from time to time in the filings made by the Company with securities regulators. The Company expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise except as otherwise required by applicable securities legislation.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
For more information, please contactSantoy Resources Ltd.Ron NetolitzkyPresident(604) 669-4799Email: netolitzky@gmail.comorSantoy Resources Ltd.Tony PerriInvestor Relations, Manager(604) 669-4799(604) 669-2543 (FAX)Website: www.santoy.ca
Click here to see all recent news from this company
Santoy Resources Ltd. (TSX VENTURE:SAN) ("Santoy") is pleased to announce the signing of the formal business combination agreement (the "Business Combination Agreement") dated February 26, 2009 among Santoy, its wholly-owned subsidiary BC0846143 B.C. Ltd. ("Subco"), Virginia Uranium Ltd. ("Virginia Ltd."), VA Uranium Holdings, Inc. ("Holdco") and certain shareholders of Holdco to replace the letter of intent dated December 22, 2008, pursuant to which Santoy has agreed to acquire all of the shares of Virginia Ltd. in exchange for shares in Santoy, at the ratio of six shares of Santoy for each one share of Virginia Ltd. and certain shares of Holdco at the ratio of six shares of Santoy for each one share of Holdco as disclosed in Santoy's previous news releases dated December 22, 2008 and February 5, 2009.
Holdco's 100% owned subsidiary, Virginia Uranium, Inc., a Virginia corporation, controls the leasehold development and operating rights of the Coles Hill uranium property in southside Virginia.
Pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement, Santoy has agreed to acquire all of the issued shares of Virginia Ltd. pursuant to a plan of arrangement (the "Plan of Arrangement") under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia). Both of Santoy and Virginia Ltd. will continue their jurisdictions of incorporation to British Columbia to facilitate the transaction.
Under the Plan of Arrangement, Subco will be merged into Virginia Ltd. with the merged company becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Santoy and the shareholders of Virginia Ltd. receiving shares of Santoy.
Virginia Ltd. currently holds approximately 12% of the issued shares of Holdco and on closing, Santoy will, directly or indirectly, pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement, acquire additional Holdco shares. In addition, shareholders of Santoy immediately prior to closing will receive 1/4 of one incentive warrant for each Santoy share held, with each whole incentive warrant being exercisable for one Santoy share at a price of $0.12 per share for a period of 12 months following the closing of transaction.
Upon closing of the transaction, it is expected that Santoy will have approximately 245,189,430 issued shares and, directly or indirectly through the wholly-owned subsidiary merged company, will hold a minimum of 20% of the issued shares of Holdco.
Santoy will on closing become a party to a unanimous Holdco shareholders agreement pursuant to which Santoy will have a preferential right to arrange financing for Holdco as well as other rights to maintain or increase its Holdco shareholdings, including certain rights of first refusal, tag-along rights and drag-along rights in respect of a sale by any of the Holdco shareholders of their Holdco shares to a third party. Santoy plans to increase its interest in Holdco to approximately 30% through acquiring additional Holdco shares in connection with financings and additional potential exchanges by certain private shareholders of Holdco of their Holdco shares for shares of Santoy.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit is located in southern Virginia, USA and is considered to be one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the United States. It has an estimated measured and indicated resource of 119 million pounds of U308 (1)(2) at a cut-off grade of 0.025% U308 based on a National Instrument 43-101 technical report on the Coles Hill property prepared for Santoy Resources Ltd. and Virginia Uranium, Inc. by Behre Dolbear and Company, Ltd., Marshall Miller and Associates, Inc., and PAC Geological Consulting Inc. dated February 2, 2009. A copy of the findings of this report is available under Santoy's profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and Virginia Uranium Inc.'s website at www.virginiauranium.com.
The resource estimate can be summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt from Table 1.1 Resource Estimates - June 4, 2008 (MILLIONS OF TONS AND POUNDS IN-PLACE)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured(1) Indicated(1) Total(1) -------------------------------------------------------------------Cutoff % Pounds % Pounds % Pounds%U3O8 Tons(2) U3O8(3) U3O8 Tons(2) U3O8(3) U3O8 Tons(2) U3O8(3) U3O8----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Project Total (South and North Coles Hill Deposits)--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.100 0.755 0.228 3.45 6.27 0.215 26.9 7.03 0.216 30.4--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.075 1.35 0.164 4.44 24.0 0.116 55.9 25.4 0.119 60.4--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.050 2.28 0.124 5.65 35.4 0.101 71.7 37.7 0.103 77.4--------------------------------------------------------------------------0.025 6.62 0.064 8.42 92.1 0.060 111 98.7 0.060 119--------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Total tonnage above cutoff grade and average weight % U3O8 of that tonnage(2) Short tons based on a rock density of 2.56 g/cc(3) Weight %----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.
The "Qualified Persons" (as defined in NI 43-101) who prepared the resource estimate were Betty L. Gibbs for Behre Dolbear and K. Scott Keim for Marshall Miller and Associates, Inc.2. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, marketing, or other relevant issues.
The board of directors of Santoy following completion of the transaction will consist of nominees of Santoy and Virginia Ltd. Santoy expects to have up to seven directors with a minimum of three being independent. Norm Reynolds, currently Chief Executive Officer of Virginia Ltd., is expected to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Santoy. Walter Coles Jr., currently Executive Vice President of Virginia Ltd., is expected to be appointed Executive Vice President of Santoy. Ron Netolitzky, currently Chief Executive Officer of Santoy, will continue his active involvement in the company as a director of Santoy. Mike Cathro will remain as VP of Exploration of Santoy.Mr. Ron Netolitzky, Chief Executive Officer of Santoy, is also a director and a shareholder of Holdco. To increase the number of Holdco shares available to Santoy, Mr. Netolitzky and Santoy have agreed under the Business Combination Agreement that Santoy will acquire his 2,000,0000 Holdco shares in exchange for Santoy shares at the same ratio of six shares of Santoy for each one share of Holdco.
The transaction has been negotiated by an independent committee of the Board of Santoy and has received full Board approval with Mr. Netolitzky abstaining.It is contemplated that Santoy will, subject to regulatory approval, change its name to "Virginia Energy Resources Inc." or such other name as approved by the Santoy Board to reflect the significance of the transaction to Santoy.
At the meeting to approve the transactions, Santoy will seek shareholder approval for the continuance of its jurisdiction to British Columbia, approval of the Plan of Arrangement and approval for a consolidation of the Santoy shares on a one for five basis, such consolidation, if approved, to be effected in the future at the discretion of the Board of Santoy subject to regulatory acceptance. Full details of the transaction, including the terms of the Business Combination Agreement, will be included in a joint management information circular which is expected to be mailed to shareholders of Santoy and Virginia Ltd. by the end of March, 2009.
Each of the companies plan to hold a special meeting of shareholders to approve the transaction and related matters by the end of April, 2009.
In connection with the proposed business combination, Toll Cross Securities Inc. has provided an oral fairness opinion to the special committee of the board of directors of Santoy and Evans & Evans Inc. provided an oral fairness opinion to the board of directors of Virginia Ltd. Legal advice to Santoy is being provided by DuMoulin Black LLP. Legal advice to Virginia Ltd. is being provided by Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.
The completion of the Plan of Arrangement is subject to various conditions, including applicable regulatory and stock exchange approvals, receipt of written fairness opinions by Santoy and Virginia Ltd., requisite approvals by the shareholders of Santoy and Virginia Ltd., the approval by the Supreme Court of British Columbia of the fairness to Santoy and Virginia shareholders of the terms and conditions of the Plan of Arrangement and usual conditions for a transaction of this nature. Santoy and Virginia Ltd. will use their commercially reasonable efforts to complete the transaction by mid May, 2009.
Details of the uranium property holdings of Holdco and further particulars of the transaction are set out in the previous news releases of Santoy dated December 22, 2008 and February 5, 2009.On Behalf of the Board of Directors SANTOY RESOURCES LTD.R. K. Netolitzky, President & CEOThe technical information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Michael S. Cathro, P,Geo., Santoy's Vice President of Exploration, a Qualified Person.This news release includes certain "forward-looking statements".
All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding potential mineralization, exploration results and future plans and objectives of the Company are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations include market prices, exploitation and exploration results, availability of capital and financing, general economic, market or business conditions, uninsured risks, regulatory decisions, regulatory changes, defects in title, availability of personnel, materials and equipment, timeliness of government approvals, unanticipated environmental impacts on operations and other exploration risks detailed herein and from time to time in the filings made by the Company with securities regulators. The Company expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise except as otherwise required by applicable securities legislation.
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
For more information, please contactSantoy Resources Ltd.Ron NetolitzkyPresident(604) 669-4799Email: netolitzky@gmail.comorSantoy Resources Ltd.Tony PerriInvestor Relations, Manager(604) 669-4799(604) 669-2543 (FAX)Website: www.santoy.ca
Click here to see all recent news from this company
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Concerned Baker Lake residents question public support for Areva proposal
Comment: Local people of Canada are fighting uranium Too, Two articles are listed below:
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:47 PM CT
CBC News
Only a plebiscite can determine whether a proposed uranium mine has public support, according to a group of residents in Baker Lake, Nunavut.
The Baker Lake Concerned Citizens Committee says it wants an investigation into how the Nunavut Planning Commission ruled that Areva Resources Canada Inc.'s proposal to dig a uranium mine meets all stipulations in the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan.
The citizens' committee, which is concerned about uranium mining in the area, argues that Areva's proposal does not fully meet Section 3.6 of the plan — that any uranium mining proposal "must be approved by the people of the region," according to the plan document.
Areva wants to dig an open-pit and underground uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, about 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, a hamlet of 1,728.
The committee acknowledged that the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the hamlet of Baker Lake have passed resolutions supporting Areva's proposal, and said the Nunavut Planning Commission held a workshop with local residents and organizations.
Still, committee spokeswoman Joan Scottie told CBC News, that is not enough to constitute public approval.
"They held a single workshop in Baker Lake on June 5 to 7, 2007. The participants were not told that the meeting was going to be used to justify proceeding with uranium mining in the region," Scottie said in an interview.
"The only mechanism that can implement this term of the Keewatin Land Use plan is [a] public plebiscite."
Reviews look at health, environmental protection
Uranium mining development being proposed in Nunavut's Keewatin region — also known as the Kivalliq region — must be reviewed by the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Those reviews must pay "particular attention to questions concerning health and environmental protection," according to Section 3.5 of the land-use plan.
When the Nunavut Planning Commission referred Areva's proposal to the Nunavut Impact Review Board, it said the proposal met all the requirements set out in the Keewatin Land Use Plan.
"With respect to sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the [Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan], which require review of all issues relevant to uranium exploration and mining by the [Nunavut Planning Commmission], as well as approval of the people of the region, the NPC has concluded that these requirements have been met," read the commission's letter, dated Jan. 16, and signed by Brian Aglukark, its director of regional planning.
Scottie's committee raised their concerns in a Feb. 10 letter to the impact review board, which is now determining whether to conduct a full-scale environmental review of Areva's proposal.
The impact review board gave the public until Wednesday to submit comments.
A lawyer with the Nunavut Planning Commission would not comment on the criteria it used to decide whether Areva's proposal conforms with the land-use plan. The lawyer told CBC News the decision speaks for itself, but added that he was aware that Scottie's group had submitted a letter of concern.
But according to a 2007 communique posted on Areva's website, the planning commission had suggested that Section 3.6 of the land-use plan would be satisfied with resolutions of support from the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the hamlet of Baker Lake and other hamlets in the region.
Scottie said the citizens' committee will forward its concerns on to the federal minister of Indian and northern affairs to investigate.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/02/16/baker-areva.html
Funding encourages Baker Lake residents to comment on Areva proposal
Last Updated: Monday, February 16, 2009 4:00 PM CT
CBC News
Some last-minute funding helped about 70 people in Baker Lake, Nunavut, give a regulatory board their thoughts on a uranium mine proposal in the area.
The proposal by Areva Resources Canada Inc. is undergoing a screening by the Nunavut Impact Review Board. The board has extended its deadline for accepting public comments to Feb. 18, at the request of the territorial government.
Areva wants to develop an open-pit and underground uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, about 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, a hamlet of 1,728.
The board's current screening process will help the board decide whether Areva's proposal should be subjected to a full-scale environmental review.
Six days before the board's original deadline of Feb. 10, the Baker Lake hamlet gave $1,000 to the local hunters and trappers organization (HTO) to help with the process of gathering public comments.
Almost 70 residents came to the HTO's office on short notice and filled out comment forms, said Joan Scottie, who is also part of a local committee of citizens concerned about uranium mining.
Scottie said more than 60 per cent of those people who filled out comment cards opposed Areva's proposal.
"This is the first time in a long time we gave the people [a chance] to participate," Scottie said.
"This is what [most] …of the youth and the elders and the hunters [say]. This is their response."
Scottie said the hamlet money was used primarily for "participation prizes," a practice that she said is in line with what many other organizations and researchers in Nunavut do to attract people.
The HTO was among about 18 groups, government agencies, Inuit organizations and individuals that submitted comments to the review board on the Areva proposal
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:47 PM CT
CBC News
Only a plebiscite can determine whether a proposed uranium mine has public support, according to a group of residents in Baker Lake, Nunavut.
The Baker Lake Concerned Citizens Committee says it wants an investigation into how the Nunavut Planning Commission ruled that Areva Resources Canada Inc.'s proposal to dig a uranium mine meets all stipulations in the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan.
The citizens' committee, which is concerned about uranium mining in the area, argues that Areva's proposal does not fully meet Section 3.6 of the plan — that any uranium mining proposal "must be approved by the people of the region," according to the plan document.
Areva wants to dig an open-pit and underground uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, about 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, a hamlet of 1,728.
The committee acknowledged that the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the hamlet of Baker Lake have passed resolutions supporting Areva's proposal, and said the Nunavut Planning Commission held a workshop with local residents and organizations.
Still, committee spokeswoman Joan Scottie told CBC News, that is not enough to constitute public approval.
"They held a single workshop in Baker Lake on June 5 to 7, 2007. The participants were not told that the meeting was going to be used to justify proceeding with uranium mining in the region," Scottie said in an interview.
"The only mechanism that can implement this term of the Keewatin Land Use plan is [a] public plebiscite."
Reviews look at health, environmental protection
Uranium mining development being proposed in Nunavut's Keewatin region — also known as the Kivalliq region — must be reviewed by the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Those reviews must pay "particular attention to questions concerning health and environmental protection," according to Section 3.5 of the land-use plan.
When the Nunavut Planning Commission referred Areva's proposal to the Nunavut Impact Review Board, it said the proposal met all the requirements set out in the Keewatin Land Use Plan.
"With respect to sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the [Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan], which require review of all issues relevant to uranium exploration and mining by the [Nunavut Planning Commmission], as well as approval of the people of the region, the NPC has concluded that these requirements have been met," read the commission's letter, dated Jan. 16, and signed by Brian Aglukark, its director of regional planning.
Scottie's committee raised their concerns in a Feb. 10 letter to the impact review board, which is now determining whether to conduct a full-scale environmental review of Areva's proposal.
The impact review board gave the public until Wednesday to submit comments.
A lawyer with the Nunavut Planning Commission would not comment on the criteria it used to decide whether Areva's proposal conforms with the land-use plan. The lawyer told CBC News the decision speaks for itself, but added that he was aware that Scottie's group had submitted a letter of concern.
But according to a 2007 communique posted on Areva's website, the planning commission had suggested that Section 3.6 of the land-use plan would be satisfied with resolutions of support from the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the hamlet of Baker Lake and other hamlets in the region.
Scottie said the citizens' committee will forward its concerns on to the federal minister of Indian and northern affairs to investigate.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/02/16/baker-areva.html
Funding encourages Baker Lake residents to comment on Areva proposal
Last Updated: Monday, February 16, 2009 4:00 PM CT
CBC News
Some last-minute funding helped about 70 people in Baker Lake, Nunavut, give a regulatory board their thoughts on a uranium mine proposal in the area.
The proposal by Areva Resources Canada Inc. is undergoing a screening by the Nunavut Impact Review Board. The board has extended its deadline for accepting public comments to Feb. 18, at the request of the territorial government.
Areva wants to develop an open-pit and underground uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, about 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, a hamlet of 1,728.
The board's current screening process will help the board decide whether Areva's proposal should be subjected to a full-scale environmental review.
Six days before the board's original deadline of Feb. 10, the Baker Lake hamlet gave $1,000 to the local hunters and trappers organization (HTO) to help with the process of gathering public comments.
Almost 70 residents came to the HTO's office on short notice and filled out comment forms, said Joan Scottie, who is also part of a local committee of citizens concerned about uranium mining.
Scottie said more than 60 per cent of those people who filled out comment cards opposed Areva's proposal.
"This is the first time in a long time we gave the people [a chance] to participate," Scottie said.
"This is what [most] …of the youth and the elders and the hunters [say]. This is their response."
Scottie said the hamlet money was used primarily for "participation prizes," a practice that she said is in line with what many other organizations and researchers in Nunavut do to attract people.
The HTO was among about 18 groups, government agencies, Inuit organizations and individuals that submitted comments to the review board on the Areva proposal
How to Retrofit Your Home and Receive Big Tax Credits
Comment: Consider using Green Technology, therefore no Nuke Plants, No uranium mining!
Sustainability Tip of the Week:
Stimulus Package-- How to Retrofit Your Home and Receive Big Tax Credits
President Obama's new stimulus package is now signed into law. Here's how it affects the green-minded home owner:
1) New incentives and tax credits are now available for households for energy conservation and alternative energy. Homeowners investing in energy-saving insulation, replacement windows, duct seals, or high-efficiency heating and cooling systems can now receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the upgrade cost (maximum credit value: $1,500). The previous tax credit was 10 percent of an upgrade cost, up to a maximum of $500.
2) If you have been thinking about switching to sustainable energy, now is the time. Solar panels, geothermal heat pumps, and windmills also qualify for a 30 percent tax credit. For example, a $24,000 investment to make a home solar-powered would generate a federal tax credit worth $7,200. Previously, the cap was $2,000 for geothermal and solar; $4,000 for wind. Add state and utility credits to this and consumers will see significant discounts in these purchases.
3) New hybrid cars now qualify for tax credits worth anywhere from $2,500 to $7,500, while plug-in conversion kits for old hybrids, now generate tax credits worth 10 percent of the kit's cost (maximum credit value: $4,000).
For questions about home energy conservation and renewable energy options, you can contact a contractor trained by the federal Home Performance with Energy Star program.
Sustainability Tip of the Week:
Stimulus Package-- How to Retrofit Your Home and Receive Big Tax Credits
President Obama's new stimulus package is now signed into law. Here's how it affects the green-minded home owner:
1) New incentives and tax credits are now available for households for energy conservation and alternative energy. Homeowners investing in energy-saving insulation, replacement windows, duct seals, or high-efficiency heating and cooling systems can now receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the upgrade cost (maximum credit value: $1,500). The previous tax credit was 10 percent of an upgrade cost, up to a maximum of $500.
2) If you have been thinking about switching to sustainable energy, now is the time. Solar panels, geothermal heat pumps, and windmills also qualify for a 30 percent tax credit. For example, a $24,000 investment to make a home solar-powered would generate a federal tax credit worth $7,200. Previously, the cap was $2,000 for geothermal and solar; $4,000 for wind. Add state and utility credits to this and consumers will see significant discounts in these purchases.
3) New hybrid cars now qualify for tax credits worth anywhere from $2,500 to $7,500, while plug-in conversion kits for old hybrids, now generate tax credits worth 10 percent of the kit's cost (maximum credit value: $4,000).
For questions about home energy conservation and renewable energy options, you can contact a contractor trained by the federal Home Performance with Energy Star program.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Panel seeks facts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:24 AM EST
An Altavista Town Council committee asked for more information Tuesday after looking at a proposed resolution on uranium mining in neighboring Pittsylvania County.After hearing from two mining opponents, the Legislative Committee said it wanted to know the state's position on uranium mining. Since 1982, Virginia has had a moratorium on mining.
"Personally, I think we're hearing one side of the story and we should write the state for their intentions," Councilman Mike Mattox said.Town Manager J. Waverly Coggsdale III will contact Del. Kathy Byron, Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant and others for more information, including facts about a study being overseen by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission.
The committee, which also includes council members Rayetta Webb and Bill Ferguson, will report to Altavista Town Council in March.Dr. Francis Carter, who attended the committee meeting, said he was satisfied with the panel's decision to seek more information.
"The state's rather quiet on this," he said.Carter and Deborah Lovelace presented the resolution at the Feb. 10 council meeting that, among other things, supported Altavista being part of the current study on the impact of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.
Councils in Hurt and Gretna have adopted the resolution.At Tuesday's meeting, Carter praised town leaders for money being spent in downtown.
However, he said history has shown that uranium mines pollute in a 20-mile radius."We're within 15 miles of this mine."He said wind will carry radioactive particles and there's a danger of water holding ponds breaking.
Pittsylvania County is home to what is believed to be the largest uranium deposit in the United States, worth an estimated $10 billion. Virginia Uranium Inc. was formed two years ago to explore the possibility of mining the material.
An Altavista Town Council committee asked for more information Tuesday after looking at a proposed resolution on uranium mining in neighboring Pittsylvania County.After hearing from two mining opponents, the Legislative Committee said it wanted to know the state's position on uranium mining. Since 1982, Virginia has had a moratorium on mining.
"Personally, I think we're hearing one side of the story and we should write the state for their intentions," Councilman Mike Mattox said.Town Manager J. Waverly Coggsdale III will contact Del. Kathy Byron, Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant and others for more information, including facts about a study being overseen by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission.
The committee, which also includes council members Rayetta Webb and Bill Ferguson, will report to Altavista Town Council in March.Dr. Francis Carter, who attended the committee meeting, said he was satisfied with the panel's decision to seek more information.
"The state's rather quiet on this," he said.Carter and Deborah Lovelace presented the resolution at the Feb. 10 council meeting that, among other things, supported Altavista being part of the current study on the impact of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.
Councils in Hurt and Gretna have adopted the resolution.At Tuesday's meeting, Carter praised town leaders for money being spent in downtown.
However, he said history has shown that uranium mines pollute in a 20-mile radius."We're within 15 miles of this mine."He said wind will carry radioactive particles and there's a danger of water holding ponds breaking.
Pittsylvania County is home to what is believed to be the largest uranium deposit in the United States, worth an estimated $10 billion. Virginia Uranium Inc. was formed two years ago to explore the possibility of mining the material.
Judge: Nuclear plant's wastewater discharge was wrong
Comment: The State of VA allowed this to happen, where was the NRC?
By Scott HarperThe Virginian-Pilot© February 24, 2009
The state for 30 years has wrongly allowed Dominion Virginia Power to discharge hot wastewater into Lake Anna from its nuclear power plant near Richmond, a judge has ruled.
Environmentalists hailed the decision Friday by Richmond Circuit Court Judge Margaret P. Spencer.
They said it should lead to first-ever regulations of atomic wastewater and cool parts of Lake Anna, a central Virginia landmark known to eclipse 100 degrees on summer days.
"This is huge," said Louis Zeller, science director for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
"We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution."
Such pollution, he said, threatens human health, property values and aquatic life.
The court ruling also could complicate a billion-dollar proposal from Dominion to expand its North Anna nuclear power plant by building a third reactor on Lake Anna in Louisa County.
While Dominion has recommended an air-cooling system for the new reactor, the project still would influence lake levels and temperatures, said Harry Ruth, president of Friends of Lake Anna, a conservation group.
Since 1978, the state has considered a 3,400-acre section of the lake closest to the nuclear plant a "waste treatment facility," not a public body of water. As such, this westerly section, known as "the hot side," has been exempt from state water-quality rules.
Spencer turned this interpretation on its ear. The judge instructed the State Water Control Board to draft a new discharge permit for the nuclear station so that the lake never exceeds 89.6 degrees, said Robert Wise, a Richmond attorney representing the environmentalists.
Bill Hayden, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, said Monday that state regulators soon will meet with the attorney general's office to discuss a possible appeal.
Jim Norvelle, a spokesman for Dominion, the state's largest electric utility, said the court ruling will be challenged to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
"The cooling lagoons are private water bodies," Norvelle said. "The whole reason for building them was to cool the steam that creates electricity at the power station. We wouldn't have built them otherwise."
Dominion sculpted the lake for the North Anna nuclear plant from piney forests between Richmond and Charlottesville in the 1970s. Since then, Lake Anna has grown into a tourist attraction and a popular residential area.
About two-thirds of the lake - "the cool side" - is regulated as a public waterway and hosts a state park. The other third, separated from the main lake by earthen berms, is not.
Wise, the environmental attorney, said federal law exempts small lagoons and flood ponds from water-quality regulations - but not a large body of water such as the "hot side," where people fish, boat and swim.
"We are thrilled the court agrees with us that the 'hot side' of Lake Anna is entitled to and deserves the full protection of Virginia and federal law," said Wise, a partner with Bowman and Brooke LLP.
By Scott HarperThe Virginian-Pilot© February 24, 2009
The state for 30 years has wrongly allowed Dominion Virginia Power to discharge hot wastewater into Lake Anna from its nuclear power plant near Richmond, a judge has ruled.
Environmentalists hailed the decision Friday by Richmond Circuit Court Judge Margaret P. Spencer.
They said it should lead to first-ever regulations of atomic wastewater and cool parts of Lake Anna, a central Virginia landmark known to eclipse 100 degrees on summer days.
"This is huge," said Louis Zeller, science director for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
"We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution."
Such pollution, he said, threatens human health, property values and aquatic life.
The court ruling also could complicate a billion-dollar proposal from Dominion to expand its North Anna nuclear power plant by building a third reactor on Lake Anna in Louisa County.
While Dominion has recommended an air-cooling system for the new reactor, the project still would influence lake levels and temperatures, said Harry Ruth, president of Friends of Lake Anna, a conservation group.
Since 1978, the state has considered a 3,400-acre section of the lake closest to the nuclear plant a "waste treatment facility," not a public body of water. As such, this westerly section, known as "the hot side," has been exempt from state water-quality rules.
Spencer turned this interpretation on its ear. The judge instructed the State Water Control Board to draft a new discharge permit for the nuclear station so that the lake never exceeds 89.6 degrees, said Robert Wise, a Richmond attorney representing the environmentalists.
Bill Hayden, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, said Monday that state regulators soon will meet with the attorney general's office to discuss a possible appeal.
Jim Norvelle, a spokesman for Dominion, the state's largest electric utility, said the court ruling will be challenged to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
"The cooling lagoons are private water bodies," Norvelle said. "The whole reason for building them was to cool the steam that creates electricity at the power station. We wouldn't have built them otherwise."
Dominion sculpted the lake for the North Anna nuclear plant from piney forests between Richmond and Charlottesville in the 1970s. Since then, Lake Anna has grown into a tourist attraction and a popular residential area.
About two-thirds of the lake - "the cool side" - is regulated as a public waterway and hosts a state park. The other third, separated from the main lake by earthen berms, is not.
Wise, the environmental attorney, said federal law exempts small lagoons and flood ponds from water-quality regulations - but not a large body of water such as the "hot side," where people fish, boat and swim.
"We are thrilled the court agrees with us that the 'hot side' of Lake Anna is entitled to and deserves the full protection of Virginia and federal law," said Wise, a partner with Bowman and Brooke LLP.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Uranium Mining
The board takes a big step
To the editor:
On Feb. 17, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution setting forth a zero tolerance standard for negative impacts from uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. That resolution signals a new attitude on the part of the supervisors. It seems that they are finally beginning to realize the seriousness of the highly questionable prospect that Virginia Uranium Inc. has brought to the table.
They should have taken this step much sooner, but the fact that they passed this resolution at all is reason enough to congratulate them — Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis in particular — for standing up to VUI and establishing a precedent of allowing no room for error if uranium mining should proceed. The resolution will send a strong message not only to the uranium study group, but also to the legislators in Richmond.
VUI contends that they, too, want uranium mining to happen without harm to the public or to the environment.
But they are wishing for something that cannot be, because they are limited to mining practices (namely, open pit mining) that have never been done without severe environmental consequences as well as inevitable negative impact on the health of people living within 30 miles or so of such mines.
VUI claims to have knowledge of “new technologies” that would make their mine different from those in other places. But they have not been able to put a name on those new technologies, nor have they been able to cite even one place where uranium has been mined safely. They cannot, because safe uranium mines do not exist anywhere.
VUI has given us no solid reason to believe that uranium mining at Coles Hill would be anything but one huge experiment, with the residents of Pittsylvania County and Southside serving as their lab rats.
And so I say, “congratulations” to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for deciding that uranium mining might not really be the wonderful thing VUI would have us believe.
This resolution is definitely a step in the right direction.
JESSE ANDREWS
Halifax County
To the editor:
On Feb. 17, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution setting forth a zero tolerance standard for negative impacts from uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. That resolution signals a new attitude on the part of the supervisors. It seems that they are finally beginning to realize the seriousness of the highly questionable prospect that Virginia Uranium Inc. has brought to the table.
They should have taken this step much sooner, but the fact that they passed this resolution at all is reason enough to congratulate them — Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis in particular — for standing up to VUI and establishing a precedent of allowing no room for error if uranium mining should proceed. The resolution will send a strong message not only to the uranium study group, but also to the legislators in Richmond.
VUI contends that they, too, want uranium mining to happen without harm to the public or to the environment.
But they are wishing for something that cannot be, because they are limited to mining practices (namely, open pit mining) that have never been done without severe environmental consequences as well as inevitable negative impact on the health of people living within 30 miles or so of such mines.
VUI claims to have knowledge of “new technologies” that would make their mine different from those in other places. But they have not been able to put a name on those new technologies, nor have they been able to cite even one place where uranium has been mined safely. They cannot, because safe uranium mines do not exist anywhere.
VUI has given us no solid reason to believe that uranium mining at Coles Hill would be anything but one huge experiment, with the residents of Pittsylvania County and Southside serving as their lab rats.
And so I say, “congratulations” to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for deciding that uranium mining might not really be the wonderful thing VUI would have us believe.
This resolution is definitely a step in the right direction.
JESSE ANDREWS
Halifax County
Monday, February 23, 2009
Victory in Landmark Clean Water Act ChallengeLeague and Lake Residents Overturn Dominion Nuke Permit
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 20, 2009
CONTACT: Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 or (336) 977-0852
Today a Virginia court in Richmond ruled that state agencies violated federal law and that the water quality permit for Dominion-Virginia Power’s North Anna nuclear station is revoked.
Judge Spencer ruled that Lake Anna water quality is governed by the federal Clean Water Act and that Virginia’s Attorney General was wrong in supporting the state’s water permit.
This landmark decision favored the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and co-plaintiffs residing near Lake Anna by determining that the so-called hot side of the lake is “waters of the United States.”
The Virginia State Water Control Board must now go back to the drawing board to evaluate the adverse impacts of hot water discharges to Lake Anna from the two nuclear reactors.
Louis Zeller, Science Director of the League, said, “We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution; however, we believe that the greatest impact of the Richmond court’s decision is that the Commonwealth and the people must reject the permitting of a third reactor at our endangered Lake Anna.”
The League is conducting research to see how many other power plants will be affected by this decision.
CONTACT: Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 or (336) 977-0852
Today a Virginia court in Richmond ruled that state agencies violated federal law and that the water quality permit for Dominion-Virginia Power’s North Anna nuclear station is revoked.
Judge Spencer ruled that Lake Anna water quality is governed by the federal Clean Water Act and that Virginia’s Attorney General was wrong in supporting the state’s water permit.
This landmark decision favored the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and co-plaintiffs residing near Lake Anna by determining that the so-called hot side of the lake is “waters of the United States.”
The Virginia State Water Control Board must now go back to the drawing board to evaluate the adverse impacts of hot water discharges to Lake Anna from the two nuclear reactors.
Louis Zeller, Science Director of the League, said, “We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution; however, we believe that the greatest impact of the Richmond court’s decision is that the Commonwealth and the people must reject the permitting of a third reactor at our endangered Lake Anna.”
The League is conducting research to see how many other power plants will be affected by this decision.
In Virginia, the Appeal of Uranium Mining
By Rex Bowman / Richmond Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Virginia's scenic, rolling Piedmont is rich in presidential history — Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe all made their homes there. The land is also rich in uranium. But the state has had a moratorium on mining the nuclear fuel since 1982. Now, a group of landowners in rural Pittsylvania County is looking to make a fortune by digging up the ore, and, with talk of nuclear energy making a comeback following last summer's sky-high gas prices, the state is thinking about giving its blessing. The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy is preparing to undertake a study on whether uranium can be extracted without contaminating the air or polluting the water.
The stakes are huge. The 30 or so landowners who formed Virginia Uranium Inc. say the two deposits they want to mine contain up to 120 million pounds of ore, enough to mine for decades. With uranium spot prices hovering around $47 a pound, the ore in Pittsylvania, never mind the rest of the state, is worth billions of dollars.
Only the moratorium stands in the way. The history of the ban begins in 1977, when the Marline Uranium Corp., a subsidiary of the Marline Oil Co., began looking for the ore around the state. (The U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that vast swaths of the Piedmont, between the low-lying Tidewater to the east and the Blue Ridge to the west, potentially hold uranium.) In two years Marline had found the monster deposits in Pittsylvania.
The discovery touched off a hunt for uranium statewide, alarming communities along the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge that didn't want to see horse pastures turned into mining pits. In 1982, the state acted to ease nerves by declaring the moratorium. Then the price of uranium tanked, dropping to $9 a pound at one point. Mining companies had little incentive to challenge the moratorium, so didn't.
Today, most Virginians seem unaware that the fate of the state's uranium mining moratorium is being discussed anew. The state coal and energy commission's study that might persuade the state's General Assembly to lift the moratorium could still take up to two years to complete. But already in rural Pittsylvania, which has one of the state's highest unemployment rates, debate is fierce. Supporters say new mining technology will allow miners to get the uranium safely, the mine would offer much-needed jobs to 300 people, and the uranium would fuel new reactors and help the nation kick its foreign oil habit.
Opponents point out that almost all uranium mining in the United States occurs in arid, sparsely populated places out west that are geologically unlike anything in Virginia. In the water-rich Old Dominion, they argue, radioactive materials from uranium such as thorium-230, radium-226 and radon-222 could shake loose and leach into the groundwater. Meanwhile, the large piles of mining debris known as "tailings" could blow in the wind and contaminate the air.
"It's going to rain down dust like lint," predicts 57-year-old cattle farmer and mine opponent Phillip Lovelace of Pittsylvania.
Virginia Beach and neighboring Chesapeake, two cities with a combined population greater than 600,000 that get part of their water from Pittsylvania streams, are alarmed at talk of lifting the moratorium. Virginia Beach opposes the mining plan outright, while Chesapeake has expressed grave concerns to state officials.
Opponents are also skeptical of the job claims: in all the uranium mines out west, which produced 4.5 million pounds of uranium in 2007, there are fewer than 400 miners employed, according to statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
To settle the issue, the state commission hopes to enlist the help of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study. Meanwhile, opponents have organized and circulated petitions and enlisted the help of environmental groups, including the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.
Virginia Uranium for its part has agreed to merge with a Canadian mining company, Santoy Resources of British Columbia, to ensure it has the capital to press forward with its mining plans. In the end, insists Walter Coles, head of Virginia Uranium, there will be no mining if it puts the environment at risk. "If we're going to do it, it has to be done safely."
Virginia's scenic, rolling Piedmont is rich in presidential history — Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe all made their homes there. The land is also rich in uranium. But the state has had a moratorium on mining the nuclear fuel since 1982. Now, a group of landowners in rural Pittsylvania County is looking to make a fortune by digging up the ore, and, with talk of nuclear energy making a comeback following last summer's sky-high gas prices, the state is thinking about giving its blessing. The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy is preparing to undertake a study on whether uranium can be extracted without contaminating the air or polluting the water.
The stakes are huge. The 30 or so landowners who formed Virginia Uranium Inc. say the two deposits they want to mine contain up to 120 million pounds of ore, enough to mine for decades. With uranium spot prices hovering around $47 a pound, the ore in Pittsylvania, never mind the rest of the state, is worth billions of dollars.
Only the moratorium stands in the way. The history of the ban begins in 1977, when the Marline Uranium Corp., a subsidiary of the Marline Oil Co., began looking for the ore around the state. (The U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that vast swaths of the Piedmont, between the low-lying Tidewater to the east and the Blue Ridge to the west, potentially hold uranium.) In two years Marline had found the monster deposits in Pittsylvania.
The discovery touched off a hunt for uranium statewide, alarming communities along the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge that didn't want to see horse pastures turned into mining pits. In 1982, the state acted to ease nerves by declaring the moratorium. Then the price of uranium tanked, dropping to $9 a pound at one point. Mining companies had little incentive to challenge the moratorium, so didn't.
Today, most Virginians seem unaware that the fate of the state's uranium mining moratorium is being discussed anew. The state coal and energy commission's study that might persuade the state's General Assembly to lift the moratorium could still take up to two years to complete. But already in rural Pittsylvania, which has one of the state's highest unemployment rates, debate is fierce. Supporters say new mining technology will allow miners to get the uranium safely, the mine would offer much-needed jobs to 300 people, and the uranium would fuel new reactors and help the nation kick its foreign oil habit.
Opponents point out that almost all uranium mining in the United States occurs in arid, sparsely populated places out west that are geologically unlike anything in Virginia. In the water-rich Old Dominion, they argue, radioactive materials from uranium such as thorium-230, radium-226 and radon-222 could shake loose and leach into the groundwater. Meanwhile, the large piles of mining debris known as "tailings" could blow in the wind and contaminate the air.
"It's going to rain down dust like lint," predicts 57-year-old cattle farmer and mine opponent Phillip Lovelace of Pittsylvania.
Virginia Beach and neighboring Chesapeake, two cities with a combined population greater than 600,000 that get part of their water from Pittsylvania streams, are alarmed at talk of lifting the moratorium. Virginia Beach opposes the mining plan outright, while Chesapeake has expressed grave concerns to state officials.
Opponents are also skeptical of the job claims: in all the uranium mines out west, which produced 4.5 million pounds of uranium in 2007, there are fewer than 400 miners employed, according to statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
To settle the issue, the state commission hopes to enlist the help of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study. Meanwhile, opponents have organized and circulated petitions and enlisted the help of environmental groups, including the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.
Virginia Uranium for its part has agreed to merge with a Canadian mining company, Santoy Resources of British Columbia, to ensure it has the capital to press forward with its mining plans. In the end, insists Walter Coles, head of Virginia Uranium, there will be no mining if it puts the environment at risk. "If we're going to do it, it has to be done safely."
Friday, February 20, 2009
Utah's Dirty Mining Legacy
Comment: Comment: Utah has an unhealthy uranium mining experience and according to (NIOSH) report concluded that the current radiation exposure standard "does not provide an adequate degree of protection for underground miners.
During the uranium boom of the 1940s and 50s, thousands of uranium mines were claimed in Utah. When the uranium boom went bust in the 1970s, Utah was left with over 5,000 abandoned uranium mines. The cleanup cost of closing those mines is estimated at $125 million taxpayer dollars.
But the impact of the uranium mining industry isn’t limited to our land; it also affected the health of those laboring in the mines. As early as the 1950s, the federal government had secretly studied the health of uranium miners and knew there were significant health impacts. In order to gain access to miners to do the study, the US Public Health Service agreed not to warn uranium miners of the radiation hazards of their work.
They found uranium miners had increased risk for lung cancer, respiratory disease, and diseases of the blood.
Now, the nuclear industry will tell you that we’ve learned from our past and things will be different this time. And to their credit, there have been improvements.
However, the truth is that uranium miner health standards have remained unchanged since 1971, and so there is no question that a new generation of miners will be exposed to some of same health impacts as the last.
In fact, a 1980 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report concluded that the current radiation exposure standard "does not provide an adequate degree of protection for underground miners exposed to radiation when it is evaluated over their exposure lifetime."
Although this information has been conveyed to Congress, the antiquated standard remains in place.
During the uranium boom of the 1940s and 50s, thousands of uranium mines were claimed in Utah. When the uranium boom went bust in the 1970s, Utah was left with over 5,000 abandoned uranium mines. The cleanup cost of closing those mines is estimated at $125 million taxpayer dollars.
But the impact of the uranium mining industry isn’t limited to our land; it also affected the health of those laboring in the mines. As early as the 1950s, the federal government had secretly studied the health of uranium miners and knew there were significant health impacts. In order to gain access to miners to do the study, the US Public Health Service agreed not to warn uranium miners of the radiation hazards of their work.
They found uranium miners had increased risk for lung cancer, respiratory disease, and diseases of the blood.
Now, the nuclear industry will tell you that we’ve learned from our past and things will be different this time. And to their credit, there have been improvements.
However, the truth is that uranium miner health standards have remained unchanged since 1971, and so there is no question that a new generation of miners will be exposed to some of same health impacts as the last.
In fact, a 1980 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report concluded that the current radiation exposure standard "does not provide an adequate degree of protection for underground miners exposed to radiation when it is evaluated over their exposure lifetime."
Although this information has been conveyed to Congress, the antiquated standard remains in place.
Nuclear power knocked out of renewable-energy bill
Comment: We need to tell VA Government that our County wants True Green Power, Not Nuke Power, therefore, no uranium mining. Remember, Utah is tired of uranium mining!
By Robert Gehrke
02/20/09
Salt Lake Tribune
A measure aimed at bolstering the state's production of renewable energy cleared the Legislature on Thursday after twice staving off attempts by conservative lawmakers to include nuclear power as a renewable resource.
"It's amazing to me the same crowd that says the world is coming to an end due to [carbon-dioxide] emissions is the same group that is running away from the one source of energy with zero emissions," Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, said during debate Wednesday.
The House, however, rejected Daw's amendment on a voice vote. A similar effort failed in the Senate.
Holladay Democratic Sen. Pat Jones' nonbinding resolution asks the state to craft model ordinances that municipalities can use if they want to develop renewable power.
In addition to the fight over the inclusion of nuclear power, the bill was voted down in the House, but then revived after much of the language, which some members felt was disparaging to the state's coal industry, was stripped out.
The Senate agreed to the House's changes, and Jones said it makes it a better bill. The measure now goes to the governor for his anticipated approval.
By Robert Gehrke
02/20/09
Salt Lake Tribune
A measure aimed at bolstering the state's production of renewable energy cleared the Legislature on Thursday after twice staving off attempts by conservative lawmakers to include nuclear power as a renewable resource.
"It's amazing to me the same crowd that says the world is coming to an end due to [carbon-dioxide] emissions is the same group that is running away from the one source of energy with zero emissions," Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, said during debate Wednesday.
The House, however, rejected Daw's amendment on a voice vote. A similar effort failed in the Senate.
Holladay Democratic Sen. Pat Jones' nonbinding resolution asks the state to craft model ordinances that municipalities can use if they want to develop renewable power.
In addition to the fight over the inclusion of nuclear power, the bill was voted down in the House, but then revived after much of the language, which some members felt was disparaging to the state's coal industry, was stripped out.
The Senate agreed to the House's changes, and Jones said it makes it a better bill. The measure now goes to the governor for his anticipated approval.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
Letter to Editor:
Pittsylvania County must position itself to be the final determinant as to whether or not we agree with the findings of any and all studies regarding uranium mining and milling in our region. Neither the Coal and Energy Commission nor legislators who do not represent us should decide our fate.
Pittsylvania County's Zoning Ordinance which was enacted "for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public" states that the Code of Virginia gives the governing body of any county the authority to regulate "the excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources." It appears that the authority exists for the governing body to ban mining and milling of uranium in the county until studies are completed and we (citizens and local representatives) decide if benefits outweigh the risks. If we are not satisfied that the results of the studies assure community health and well-being we can continue the ban. It does not appear that the Dillion Rule applies here. Supervisors should take the initiative to find out.
I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for their recent resolution which states “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages but we can do more.
We are not powerless, unless we choose to be so. ENACT A BAN!
A call for a ban on uranium mining and and milling is a seperate issue from a revue of the mineral tax. The ban will give us an opportunity to decide if uranium mining/milling will be a detriment to health and economy. Exploring options regarding the county's mineral tax is altogether different.
I am not a proponent of uranium mining in Pittsylvania county.
However, Pittsylvania County is undergoing assessment.
The Code of Virginia allows mineral lands to be "specially and seperately assessed". Areas in the state and around the country levy taxes on undeveloped and/or improved mineral lands, mineral reserves, excavated ore and as mineral rights .
Mineral rights can be bought and sold, like your personal property, without an ounce of ore leaving the ground.
Neither Virginia Uranium nor Santoy, an international entity, in which is invested millions, and sits on top of billions in assets has not paid a penny in taxes to the county.
If Walter Coles, Jr. wants to "spread the wealth" he can begin entertaining the notion of taxing (VUI/Santoy's/Bowen Minerals LLC/ Coles Hill LLC, and others) mineral rights . If that proves a hardship, we can allow VUI and others a free pass on taxes if we ban the mining and milling of uranium.
That being said, I'm sure VUI will put a "happy spin" on this as well.
Karen B. Maute
Pittsylvania County must position itself to be the final determinant as to whether or not we agree with the findings of any and all studies regarding uranium mining and milling in our region. Neither the Coal and Energy Commission nor legislators who do not represent us should decide our fate.
Pittsylvania County's Zoning Ordinance which was enacted "for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public" states that the Code of Virginia gives the governing body of any county the authority to regulate "the excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources." It appears that the authority exists for the governing body to ban mining and milling of uranium in the county until studies are completed and we (citizens and local representatives) decide if benefits outweigh the risks. If we are not satisfied that the results of the studies assure community health and well-being we can continue the ban. It does not appear that the Dillion Rule applies here. Supervisors should take the initiative to find out.
I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for their recent resolution which states “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages but we can do more.
We are not powerless, unless we choose to be so. ENACT A BAN!
A call for a ban on uranium mining and and milling is a seperate issue from a revue of the mineral tax. The ban will give us an opportunity to decide if uranium mining/milling will be a detriment to health and economy. Exploring options regarding the county's mineral tax is altogether different.
I am not a proponent of uranium mining in Pittsylvania county.
However, Pittsylvania County is undergoing assessment.
The Code of Virginia allows mineral lands to be "specially and seperately assessed". Areas in the state and around the country levy taxes on undeveloped and/or improved mineral lands, mineral reserves, excavated ore and as mineral rights .
Mineral rights can be bought and sold, like your personal property, without an ounce of ore leaving the ground.
Neither Virginia Uranium nor Santoy, an international entity, in which is invested millions, and sits on top of billions in assets has not paid a penny in taxes to the county.
If Walter Coles, Jr. wants to "spread the wealth" he can begin entertaining the notion of taxing (VUI/Santoy's/Bowen Minerals LLC/ Coles Hill LLC, and others) mineral rights . If that proves a hardship, we can allow VUI and others a free pass on taxes if we ban the mining and milling of uranium.
That being said, I'm sure VUI will put a "happy spin" on this as well.
Karen B. Maute
By PUBLISHED BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: February 19, 2009
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors has made its strongest statement yet on a proposed uranium mine and mill.
Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution that “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages … ”
With those 35 words, supervisors said they want what the county has today. While they are certainly willing to accept the jobs, tax dollars and the resulting economic rollover effect a successful uranium mine would bring to Pittsylvania County, they don’t want those benefits at the cost of losing what Pittsylvania County has right now.
No damage is a much higher standard than simply weighing the costs versus the benefits of a project or accepting a small amount of damage.
The no-damage motion was pushed by Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis. It followed a previous board motion — and the community’s consensus — that the proposed project should be studied by the state.
That study is already being developed, and one of the proposed motions before supervisors Tuesday would have thanked the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee for meeting in Chatham to hear citizen comments.
But that could be handled with a lovely note written on county stationary and dropped in the mail.
Resolutions don’t have the force of law, but they do speak loudly about intentions, motivations and concerns.
Clearly, a lot has changed in the past year on the uranium mining issue to convince the Board of Supervisors that they needed to do more than simply support the state study.
The Board of Supervisors has set a high standard for what it will accept from a uranium mine and mill. Davis and the other board members should be congratulated for taking a tough, proactive stance on an issue of community concern.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors has made its strongest statement yet on a proposed uranium mine and mill.
Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution that “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages … ”
With those 35 words, supervisors said they want what the county has today. While they are certainly willing to accept the jobs, tax dollars and the resulting economic rollover effect a successful uranium mine would bring to Pittsylvania County, they don’t want those benefits at the cost of losing what Pittsylvania County has right now.
No damage is a much higher standard than simply weighing the costs versus the benefits of a project or accepting a small amount of damage.
The no-damage motion was pushed by Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis. It followed a previous board motion — and the community’s consensus — that the proposed project should be studied by the state.
That study is already being developed, and one of the proposed motions before supervisors Tuesday would have thanked the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee for meeting in Chatham to hear citizen comments.
But that could be handled with a lovely note written on county stationary and dropped in the mail.
Resolutions don’t have the force of law, but they do speak loudly about intentions, motivations and concerns.
Clearly, a lot has changed in the past year on the uranium mining issue to convince the Board of Supervisors that they needed to do more than simply support the state study.
The Board of Supervisors has set a high standard for what it will accept from a uranium mine and mill. Davis and the other board members should be congratulated for taking a tough, proactive stance on an issue of community concern.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
EPA doesn't think uranium is 'harmless'
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:34 AM EST
A most interesting letter to the editor was published in the Feb. 11, 2009, issue of the Star-Tribune from someone describing himself as having worked for a number of years as an inspector of uranium ore at Babcock and Wilcox.
He pronounced uranium mining to be safe and that the opposition to uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is merely "people are jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property."
On the Internet site of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency one finds this statement:
"Since 1879 when uranium mine workers began being diagnosed with lung diseases, such as cancer, regulators have gradually tightened controls.
Recently, officials also have become concerned with the broader impacts of uranium mining on public health and the environment."EPA further states: "The greatest health risk from large intakes of uranium is toxic damage to the kidneys, because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.
Uranium exposure increases your risk of getting cancer because of its radioactivity. Uranium concentrates in specific locations in the body, thus risk of cancer of the bone, liver cancer, and blood diseases such as leukemia are increased. Inhaled uranium increases the risk of lung cancer.
"EPA also stated that "a small amount of the uranium in the bloodstream will deposit in a person's bones, where it will remain for years."Concerning uranium mining, EPA says: "Mines and mining wastes can release radionuclides, including radon, and other pollutants to streams, springs, and other bodies of water."
According to EPA, "You should never drink water from streams and springs near abandoned uranium mines.
"If this mining takes place, one day Coles Hill will be an abandoned uranium mine site.
EPA also says never take home from the site samples or rocks as souvenirs.
About milling of uranium, EPA stated: "Milling wastes or tailings contain several naturally-occurring radioactive elements, including uranium, thorium, radium, polonium and radon. They also contain a number of chemically hazardous elements, such as arsenic.
"The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency administers several Acts with the purpose of controlling these contaminants.
One is the Safe Drinking Water Act, which has established standards for combined radium 226/228; beta emitters; gross alpha standard; and uranium.The Clean Air Act, obviously, covers contaminants in the air, termed "Hazardous Air Pollutants," which lists radionuclides (including radon).
I think I believe the EPA on the dangers of uranium instead of the assertion by the gentleman about its harmlessness.
I will confess that I am jealous of the fact Mr. Coles owns this property because, if I owned it, I would tie it up in such a way that no mining of any kind whatsoever could ever take place on or under that land as long as the planet Earth existed.
A few billion dollars would never compensate my sense of guilt at destroying the lives of so many people and ruining a section of the country.
Also, to save the gentleman any possible embarrassment, let me say that though we share the same surname, there is no kinship and I have never met the gentleman.
Hildred C. Shelton
Danville
A most interesting letter to the editor was published in the Feb. 11, 2009, issue of the Star-Tribune from someone describing himself as having worked for a number of years as an inspector of uranium ore at Babcock and Wilcox.
He pronounced uranium mining to be safe and that the opposition to uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is merely "people are jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property."
On the Internet site of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency one finds this statement:
"Since 1879 when uranium mine workers began being diagnosed with lung diseases, such as cancer, regulators have gradually tightened controls.
Recently, officials also have become concerned with the broader impacts of uranium mining on public health and the environment."EPA further states: "The greatest health risk from large intakes of uranium is toxic damage to the kidneys, because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.
Uranium exposure increases your risk of getting cancer because of its radioactivity. Uranium concentrates in specific locations in the body, thus risk of cancer of the bone, liver cancer, and blood diseases such as leukemia are increased. Inhaled uranium increases the risk of lung cancer.
"EPA also stated that "a small amount of the uranium in the bloodstream will deposit in a person's bones, where it will remain for years."Concerning uranium mining, EPA says: "Mines and mining wastes can release radionuclides, including radon, and other pollutants to streams, springs, and other bodies of water."
According to EPA, "You should never drink water from streams and springs near abandoned uranium mines.
"If this mining takes place, one day Coles Hill will be an abandoned uranium mine site.
EPA also says never take home from the site samples or rocks as souvenirs.
About milling of uranium, EPA stated: "Milling wastes or tailings contain several naturally-occurring radioactive elements, including uranium, thorium, radium, polonium and radon. They also contain a number of chemically hazardous elements, such as arsenic.
"The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency administers several Acts with the purpose of controlling these contaminants.
One is the Safe Drinking Water Act, which has established standards for combined radium 226/228; beta emitters; gross alpha standard; and uranium.The Clean Air Act, obviously, covers contaminants in the air, termed "Hazardous Air Pollutants," which lists radionuclides (including radon).
I think I believe the EPA on the dangers of uranium instead of the assertion by the gentleman about its harmlessness.
I will confess that I am jealous of the fact Mr. Coles owns this property because, if I owned it, I would tie it up in such a way that no mining of any kind whatsoever could ever take place on or under that land as long as the planet Earth existed.
A few billion dollars would never compensate my sense of guilt at destroying the lives of so many people and ruining a section of the country.
Also, to save the gentleman any possible embarrassment, let me say that though we share the same surname, there is no kinship and I have never met the gentleman.
Hildred C. Shelton
Danville
God put uranium in safe place
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:34 AM EST
Dear Mr. Melvin (Doc) Shelton.
I would like to answer some of your questions you asked in the Star-Tribune in the Feb. 11, 2009, Letters to the Editor.
You apparently don't know anything about mining and milling of uranium, you just worked with the finished product.
You didn't work with the dust that contaminates the air, water, and the soil, or the chemicals and acids that will contaminate the soil and water.Both of these things can harm and kill humans, animals, fish, birds, and any living things.
When you stated God created heaven and earth and everything on it, you told the truth.He created man and woman and gave them a brain, so that they could think.
He created thorns and man found out they hurt him if touched. So he used his brain to stay away.
He created cliffs, but man knew he could be hurt or killed if he jumped or fell.
God did create uranium and he put it in a safe place where it could not harm all of his creations.
You gave us a quote from the Bible; now let me give you one. Timothy, Chapter 6, Verse 9 and 10: "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves though with many sorrows."
Mr. Shelton, we the people are not jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property.
We just love God's creation and want to save it.Don't you?So use your God-given brains people and put a stop to this uranium issue.
Allen E. Gross
Sheva
Dear Mr. Melvin (Doc) Shelton.
I would like to answer some of your questions you asked in the Star-Tribune in the Feb. 11, 2009, Letters to the Editor.
You apparently don't know anything about mining and milling of uranium, you just worked with the finished product.
You didn't work with the dust that contaminates the air, water, and the soil, or the chemicals and acids that will contaminate the soil and water.Both of these things can harm and kill humans, animals, fish, birds, and any living things.
When you stated God created heaven and earth and everything on it, you told the truth.He created man and woman and gave them a brain, so that they could think.
He created thorns and man found out they hurt him if touched. So he used his brain to stay away.
He created cliffs, but man knew he could be hurt or killed if he jumped or fell.
God did create uranium and he put it in a safe place where it could not harm all of his creations.
You gave us a quote from the Bible; now let me give you one. Timothy, Chapter 6, Verse 9 and 10: "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves though with many sorrows."
Mr. Shelton, we the people are not jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property.
We just love God's creation and want to save it.Don't you?So use your God-given brains people and put a stop to this uranium issue.
Allen E. Gross
Sheva
NBers still concerned over uranium
Comment: Sounds like our problem and our county!
Low prices, new regulations, public backlash have reduced exploration
FREDERICTON - Uranium exploration in the Metro Moncton area is all but dead and buried, according to high-ranking officials in the Department of Natural Resources.
But roughly one year after the public backlash over uranium exploration hit a fever pitch, the implementation of tougher regulations and tumbling uranium prices haven't washed away the concerns of people living in southeastern New Brunswick.
Indeed, local stores in Cocagne and Grande-Digue sold out of anti-uranium exploration lawn signs as recently as last week.
The combination of a public backlash, plummeting mineral prices and new government regulations have cooled the uranium exploration that was taking place last year throughout the province.
According to the Department of Natural Resources' assistant deputy minister responsible for minerals, Cecil Freeman, another spike in mineral prices could bring a rush of mining companies back to the province, as it did a quarter of a century ago and again last year.
Natural Resources officials told a committee of MLAs yesterday that uranium prices reached as high as $136 a pound in 2007, which represents a significant increase over the 2002 price of $10 a pound. In October of last year, prices had dropped to $48 a pound.
But even if and when mining companies do return en masse, Freeman says dense population levels around Metro Moncton, which have virtually crippled potential exploration activities in this area, will likely discourage mining companies from focusing on setting up in this area.
"There is no exploration right now in the Moncton area," said Freeman, noting that there are only three areas still being actively explored for uranium in the province: northeastern New Brunswick, and the Plaster Rock and Harvey areas.
"The closer you get to the City of Moncton, if you take the watershed out, and you take the towns and cities and villages out, and you put a 300-metre circle around every house, there isn't much land except very awkward pieces."
But Kent South Conservative MLA Claude Williams said citizens are still concerned.
"There is still the same level of concern today as there was one year ago," said Williams.
"People are just as vigilant."
Williams said he was concerned by comments made by deputy minister Tom Reid who said uranium is "just another mineral" in the eyes of his department.
"When we hear the deputy say that uranium is just another mineral, it raises concerns," said Williams. "If the officials of this government have information that suggests New Brunswickers shouldn't be concerned about uranium, they can come out and tell New Brunswickers."
Reid said he did not intend to suggest his department doesn't take uranium exploration seriously, but didn't back away from his comments. "I apologize if we are giving that impression that we are not concerned about uranium and New Brunswickers and the environment. Uranium is just another mineral."
Reid said his department is comfortable with the regulations that are currently in place. He said the current process provides government with enough information to make a decision that is in the public's interest.
Freeman said there was an important element missing in the debate over uranium mining that raged over much of last year because there was no proposed site that could provide solid data and answers to public questions.
He said the public's negative response to mining exploration discouraged many mining companies from continuing their activities in the province.
However, he said the mining industry is still aware that New Brunswick is open for business.
"Some of those would have been hurt by this who put up money and feel they can't go where they thought they could go, but generally we were just at a national show, and they are not talking bad about us," said Freeman.
Freeman said mining companies could have calmed public sentiment toward uranium exploration if they had faced the New Brunswickers at public meetings instead of leaving the task to government officials.
But Williams said it is the government's responsibility to answer public questions because it licenses and regulates the mining industry.
Low prices, new regulations, public backlash have reduced exploration
FREDERICTON - Uranium exploration in the Metro Moncton area is all but dead and buried, according to high-ranking officials in the Department of Natural Resources.
But roughly one year after the public backlash over uranium exploration hit a fever pitch, the implementation of tougher regulations and tumbling uranium prices haven't washed away the concerns of people living in southeastern New Brunswick.
Indeed, local stores in Cocagne and Grande-Digue sold out of anti-uranium exploration lawn signs as recently as last week.
The combination of a public backlash, plummeting mineral prices and new government regulations have cooled the uranium exploration that was taking place last year throughout the province.
According to the Department of Natural Resources' assistant deputy minister responsible for minerals, Cecil Freeman, another spike in mineral prices could bring a rush of mining companies back to the province, as it did a quarter of a century ago and again last year.
Natural Resources officials told a committee of MLAs yesterday that uranium prices reached as high as $136 a pound in 2007, which represents a significant increase over the 2002 price of $10 a pound. In October of last year, prices had dropped to $48 a pound.
But even if and when mining companies do return en masse, Freeman says dense population levels around Metro Moncton, which have virtually crippled potential exploration activities in this area, will likely discourage mining companies from focusing on setting up in this area.
"There is no exploration right now in the Moncton area," said Freeman, noting that there are only three areas still being actively explored for uranium in the province: northeastern New Brunswick, and the Plaster Rock and Harvey areas.
"The closer you get to the City of Moncton, if you take the watershed out, and you take the towns and cities and villages out, and you put a 300-metre circle around every house, there isn't much land except very awkward pieces."
But Kent South Conservative MLA Claude Williams said citizens are still concerned.
"There is still the same level of concern today as there was one year ago," said Williams.
"People are just as vigilant."
Williams said he was concerned by comments made by deputy minister Tom Reid who said uranium is "just another mineral" in the eyes of his department.
"When we hear the deputy say that uranium is just another mineral, it raises concerns," said Williams. "If the officials of this government have information that suggests New Brunswickers shouldn't be concerned about uranium, they can come out and tell New Brunswickers."
Reid said he did not intend to suggest his department doesn't take uranium exploration seriously, but didn't back away from his comments. "I apologize if we are giving that impression that we are not concerned about uranium and New Brunswickers and the environment. Uranium is just another mineral."
Reid said his department is comfortable with the regulations that are currently in place. He said the current process provides government with enough information to make a decision that is in the public's interest.
Freeman said there was an important element missing in the debate over uranium mining that raged over much of last year because there was no proposed site that could provide solid data and answers to public questions.
He said the public's negative response to mining exploration discouraged many mining companies from continuing their activities in the province.
However, he said the mining industry is still aware that New Brunswick is open for business.
"Some of those would have been hurt by this who put up money and feel they can't go where they thought they could go, but generally we were just at a national show, and they are not talking bad about us," said Freeman.
Freeman said mining companies could have calmed public sentiment toward uranium exploration if they had faced the New Brunswickers at public meetings instead of leaving the task to government officials.
But Williams said it is the government's responsibility to answer public questions because it licenses and regulates the mining industry.
NRC ISSUES FINAL RULE ON NEW REACTOR AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Comment: I wonder how much more money will be added to the $10 billion to build a Nuke Plant that can with stand an jet?
NRC NEWSU.S. , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
February 17, 2009
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact.
“This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein, adding that some of the credit for resolving the issue is due to the efforts of the late Commissioner Edward McGaffigan. “Without the energy he devoted to this effort every day, up to the week he died, the Commission may never have been able to come to common ground on this very important issue. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.”
Nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as Abeyond-design-basis events.@
Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. These design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.
The NRC has already taken several steps to improve security at existing nuclear power plants, including adopting a rule in March 2007 that requires both existing and potential new reactors to defend against a more realistic threat.
The agency also issued a February 2002 Order requiring all existing nuclear power plants to develop and adopt mitigative strategies to cope with large fires and explosions from any cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts.
The NRC voted in December 2008 to codify these requirements in a separate rule for all existing and future nuclear power plants.The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government.
The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule.
NRC NEWSU.S. , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
February 17, 2009
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact.
“This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein, adding that some of the credit for resolving the issue is due to the efforts of the late Commissioner Edward McGaffigan. “Without the energy he devoted to this effort every day, up to the week he died, the Commission may never have been able to come to common ground on this very important issue. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.”
Nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as Abeyond-design-basis events.@
Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. These design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.
The NRC has already taken several steps to improve security at existing nuclear power plants, including adopting a rule in March 2007 that requires both existing and potential new reactors to defend against a more realistic threat.
The agency also issued a February 2002 Order requiring all existing nuclear power plants to develop and adopt mitigative strategies to cope with large fires and explosions from any cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts.
The NRC voted in December 2008 to codify these requirements in a separate rule for all existing and future nuclear power plants.The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government.
The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
County takes mining stance
Comment: The County needs to ban uranium mining forever, it has never been mine safely!
By John CranePublished: February 17, 2009
CHATHAM — Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper and Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis each had a resolution on uranium mining on the table Tuesday night for the Board of Supervisors to choose.
The board picked Davis’ more strongly worded and comprehensive resolution in a unanimous vote.
Davis’ resolution requests that a study finds no harm to the county, “its businesses, institutions, environment, and citizens by uranium, as opposed to a cost/benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages.”
Sleeper’s version thanks the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee for holding a public hearing at Chatham High School and reiterates the county’s 2007 resolution calling for an independent study.
It also states the county’s “highest concern that the safety and welfare of the people and property in Pittsylvania County remain unharmed and undamaged by uranium mining.”
Davis said he wanted a resolution that addressed more than just safety concerns, but how the county will be perceived if uranium mining is approved.
Supervisors rejected, by a 4-3 vote, a substitute motion by Dan River Supervisor James Snead to combine the two resolutions.
A uranium mining opponent, Karen Maute, asked supervisors to consider banning uranium mining in the county, and requested they explore updating and enforcing the county’s minerals tax.
Virginia Uranium Inc. hopes to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit six miles northeast of Chatham.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has approved a study on uranium mining.
By John CranePublished: February 17, 2009
CHATHAM — Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper and Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis each had a resolution on uranium mining on the table Tuesday night for the Board of Supervisors to choose.
The board picked Davis’ more strongly worded and comprehensive resolution in a unanimous vote.
Davis’ resolution requests that a study finds no harm to the county, “its businesses, institutions, environment, and citizens by uranium, as opposed to a cost/benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages.”
Sleeper’s version thanks the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee for holding a public hearing at Chatham High School and reiterates the county’s 2007 resolution calling for an independent study.
It also states the county’s “highest concern that the safety and welfare of the people and property in Pittsylvania County remain unharmed and undamaged by uranium mining.”
Davis said he wanted a resolution that addressed more than just safety concerns, but how the county will be perceived if uranium mining is approved.
Supervisors rejected, by a 4-3 vote, a substitute motion by Dan River Supervisor James Snead to combine the two resolutions.
A uranium mining opponent, Karen Maute, asked supervisors to consider banning uranium mining in the county, and requested they explore updating and enforcing the county’s minerals tax.
Virginia Uranium Inc. hopes to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit six miles northeast of Chatham.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has approved a study on uranium mining.
Uranium project near Moab ahead of schedule
Comment: 120 Jobs, 6 days a week, sounds good, well maybe not?
By Mike Stark
Associated Press WriterSalt Lake Tribune
Posted:02/13/2009 02:27:01 PM MST
The first rail cars hauling uranium tailings away from a huge pile near Moab could move sometime in April.
Work is about a month ahead of schedule to begin rail shipments, said Don Metzler, the project's director for the federal Department of Energy. Managers are hoping to ship the first load April 20, but Metzler says that date is only a target at this point and not firm.
"It's getting more intense, and we're getting more excited," Metzler said Friday.
The 16 million tons of radioactive sludge are being taken to Crescent Junction as part of a $1 billion project to deal with the waste.
The tailings are leftovers from a former uranium mill about three miles northwest of Moab.
The 130-acre site along U.S. 191 leaches contaminants into the river, which provides water for some 25 million people downstream.
Crescent Junction -- about 30 miles north -- is meant to be a safe long-term disposal site for the waste.
Federal officials decided in August to transport the tailings primarily by rail, not truck, to Crescent Junction.
Since then, crews have been working to prepare the rail line and make sure the disposal site is ready.
Metzler said about 120 people are working six days a week to complete preparations, including thousands of feet of rail spurs and roads for hauling the waste from the pile to the rails.
In the coming weeks, excavation will begin on the north side of the tailings pile for the first shipments.
Once the shipments begin, Metzler expects one train -- each with 22 rail cars containing a total of 88 specially designed containers for the tailings -- to run five days a week.
Meanwhile, disposal cells for the waste are nearly ready at Crescent Junction. Crews have excavated nearly 2 million cubic yards to make room for the first shipments.
Work was also completed in December to reduce the amount of rain water that flows through the tailings pile and increases the risk of contaminating the Colorado River during heavy storms.
Despite the aggressive schedule, Metzler said DOE and EnergySolutions, the contractor on the project, don't want to sacrifice safety or workmanship.
"We want to be smart about this," he said.
The goal is to have the Moab site cleaned up by 2028, but that could be moved up to 2019 if more money is available.
The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined in the 1950s for nuclear weapons. The Atlas Minerals Corp. bought the mill in 1962.
It closed in 1984 but left behind the heap of tailings on the banks for the Colorado River.
By Mike Stark
Associated Press WriterSalt Lake Tribune
Posted:02/13/2009 02:27:01 PM MST
The first rail cars hauling uranium tailings away from a huge pile near Moab could move sometime in April.
Work is about a month ahead of schedule to begin rail shipments, said Don Metzler, the project's director for the federal Department of Energy. Managers are hoping to ship the first load April 20, but Metzler says that date is only a target at this point and not firm.
"It's getting more intense, and we're getting more excited," Metzler said Friday.
The 16 million tons of radioactive sludge are being taken to Crescent Junction as part of a $1 billion project to deal with the waste.
The tailings are leftovers from a former uranium mill about three miles northwest of Moab.
The 130-acre site along U.S. 191 leaches contaminants into the river, which provides water for some 25 million people downstream.
Crescent Junction -- about 30 miles north -- is meant to be a safe long-term disposal site for the waste.
Federal officials decided in August to transport the tailings primarily by rail, not truck, to Crescent Junction.
Since then, crews have been working to prepare the rail line and make sure the disposal site is ready.
Metzler said about 120 people are working six days a week to complete preparations, including thousands of feet of rail spurs and roads for hauling the waste from the pile to the rails.
In the coming weeks, excavation will begin on the north side of the tailings pile for the first shipments.
Once the shipments begin, Metzler expects one train -- each with 22 rail cars containing a total of 88 specially designed containers for the tailings -- to run five days a week.
Meanwhile, disposal cells for the waste are nearly ready at Crescent Junction. Crews have excavated nearly 2 million cubic yards to make room for the first shipments.
Work was also completed in December to reduce the amount of rain water that flows through the tailings pile and increases the risk of contaminating the Colorado River during heavy storms.
Despite the aggressive schedule, Metzler said DOE and EnergySolutions, the contractor on the project, don't want to sacrifice safety or workmanship.
"We want to be smart about this," he said.
The goal is to have the Moab site cleaned up by 2028, but that could be moved up to 2019 if more money is available.
The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined in the 1950s for nuclear weapons. The Atlas Minerals Corp. bought the mill in 1962.
It closed in 1984 but left behind the heap of tailings on the banks for the Colorado River.
Extracting a disaster
The effects of uranium mining are disastrous. To minimise the risks, the nuclear supply chain needs independent auditing
David Thorpe ,guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 December 2008 18.30 GMT
Article history
The increased sourcing of raw uranium that will arise from nuclear new build is an ethical and environmental nightmare currently being ignored by the government.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the trade body for companies that make up 90% of the industry, admits that in "emerging uranium producing countries" there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring. It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing principles of uranium stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement.
Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency's safety guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores (pdf) are not legally binding on operators.
The problem is that transparency is not a value enshrined in the extractive or the nuclear industries. Journalists find themselves blocked. Recently, to tackle this issue, Panos Institute West Africa (IPAO) held a training seminar for journalists in Senegal which highlighted that only persistent investigation – or, in the case of the Niger's Tuareg, violent rebellion – has a chance of uncovering the truth.
The co-editor of the Republican in Niger, Ousseini Issa, said that only due to local media campaigns was there a revision of the contract linking Niger to the French company Areva. "As a result of our efforts, the price of a kilogram of uranium increased from 25,000 to 40,000 CFA francs," he said. The local community hopes now to see more of the income from the extraction of its resources.
IPAO has much evidence that in Africa the legacy of mining is often terrible health, water contamination and other pollution problems. IPAO would laugh at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – an Orwellian creation launched by Tony Blair in 2001.
What is the effect of uranium mining? Nuclear fuel from fresh uranium is cheaper than from recycled uranium or recycled plutonium (MOX), which is why there is a worldwide uranium rush.
To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites.
To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.
These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas.
The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the World Information Service on Energy.
No one can convince me that the above process is carbon-free, as politicians claim. It takes a lot of – almost certainly fossil-fuelled – energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed.
And what of the other costs? Over half of the world's uranium is in Australia and Canada.
In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.
In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land's Aboriginal owners.
The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a "blank cheque licence for pollution". Groundwater specialist Dr Gavin Mudd has examined the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and called for it to be "independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry" (The Epoch Times September 2 2008).
Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, BHP Billiton plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013.
This will increase production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is a vast open cast mine, from which the wind can carry away radioactive dust.
Not far away locals are fighting a new uranium mine 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs. At the Ranger mines, Energy Resources of Australia – 68.4% owned by Rio Tinto – expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of ore in the Ranger 3 Deeps area. In October it agreed to supply uranium oxide to a Chinese utility, signing a safety accord.
This is how safe the mine in fact is – and you won't find such records at African mines: almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then further leaks ranging from 50 to over 23,000 litres have been reported.
The list goes on.
The bottom line is this: UK ministers are blind to the consequences of their pro-nuclear evangelism.
Carbon credits under the Kyoto mechanism have to be independently audited by a global body to ensure that new renewable energy is unique, additional and lives up to its claims.
At the very least there should be an independent, global body verifying the ethics, health and long-term safety of the nuclear supply chain.
Better, just leave it in the ground.
David Thorpe ,guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 December 2008 18.30 GMT
Article history
The increased sourcing of raw uranium that will arise from nuclear new build is an ethical and environmental nightmare currently being ignored by the government.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the trade body for companies that make up 90% of the industry, admits that in "emerging uranium producing countries" there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring. It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing principles of uranium stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement.
Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency's safety guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores (pdf) are not legally binding on operators.
The problem is that transparency is not a value enshrined in the extractive or the nuclear industries. Journalists find themselves blocked. Recently, to tackle this issue, Panos Institute West Africa (IPAO) held a training seminar for journalists in Senegal which highlighted that only persistent investigation – or, in the case of the Niger's Tuareg, violent rebellion – has a chance of uncovering the truth.
The co-editor of the Republican in Niger, Ousseini Issa, said that only due to local media campaigns was there a revision of the contract linking Niger to the French company Areva. "As a result of our efforts, the price of a kilogram of uranium increased from 25,000 to 40,000 CFA francs," he said. The local community hopes now to see more of the income from the extraction of its resources.
IPAO has much evidence that in Africa the legacy of mining is often terrible health, water contamination and other pollution problems. IPAO would laugh at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – an Orwellian creation launched by Tony Blair in 2001.
What is the effect of uranium mining? Nuclear fuel from fresh uranium is cheaper than from recycled uranium or recycled plutonium (MOX), which is why there is a worldwide uranium rush.
To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites.
To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.
These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas.
The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the World Information Service on Energy.
No one can convince me that the above process is carbon-free, as politicians claim. It takes a lot of – almost certainly fossil-fuelled – energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed.
And what of the other costs? Over half of the world's uranium is in Australia and Canada.
In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.
In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land's Aboriginal owners.
The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a "blank cheque licence for pollution". Groundwater specialist Dr Gavin Mudd has examined the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and called for it to be "independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry" (The Epoch Times September 2 2008).
Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, BHP Billiton plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013.
This will increase production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is a vast open cast mine, from which the wind can carry away radioactive dust.
Not far away locals are fighting a new uranium mine 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs. At the Ranger mines, Energy Resources of Australia – 68.4% owned by Rio Tinto – expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of ore in the Ranger 3 Deeps area. In October it agreed to supply uranium oxide to a Chinese utility, signing a safety accord.
This is how safe the mine in fact is – and you won't find such records at African mines: almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then further leaks ranging from 50 to over 23,000 litres have been reported.
The list goes on.
The bottom line is this: UK ministers are blind to the consequences of their pro-nuclear evangelism.
Carbon credits under the Kyoto mechanism have to be independently audited by a global body to ensure that new renewable energy is unique, additional and lives up to its claims.
At the very least there should be an independent, global body verifying the ethics, health and long-term safety of the nuclear supply chain.
Better, just leave it in the ground.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Taking a stand
SCC Chairman response to: Taking a stand
By Published by The Editorial Board Published: February 15, 2009
"Resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium”… “Unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
The resolutions are so many words - worth nothing! What is a "reasonable degree of certainty"? Define "significant"! Is this something that will kill only a predetermined number of people?
What we have now in Pittsylvania County, VA is "NO HARM" Currently, the mother lode of uranium is producing "no harm" to the people affected by this deposit. Or is it? Some folks are having their water tested. This has begun since before exploratory drilling began in the Coles Hill area. Their results are horrendous when it comes to human drinking water!
What will be the "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
Who will decide what these "degrees" will be?
What about the other considerations: Social & economic institutions, both public and private? What "study" will address this? Who will determine the study parameters?
Currently, the uranium in this area causes only as much harm as the drilling and testing. This harm is approved by the state (of Virginia) without any regulations what so ever. This "exploration" cares not if the environment and/or people are harmed! It is not within the purview of the state licensing committee to question such things!
Resolutions need to be MUCH STRONGER! They need to accept nothing less than "NO HARM"! Even then, they are non-binding to the state and federal legislature.
So, to go on record with all concerned parties, nothing less than a permanent ban of uranium mining & milling in the Commonwealth of Virginia must be enacted by the representatives elected to protect the people!
From local towns and cities, to County Boards of Supervisors, and our State Legislature, this is what MUST be done to protect the people! Nothing else will do!
Why, because we do not currently have to worry about this plague except what might occur naturally in the environment.
Nothing less will than a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …” is what the politicians ask for. Nothing less than nature, the way things currently are, no harm from man made interference, no harm from mining & milling is what the people should, and do, demand of our elected and appointed officials throughout the Commonwealth!
Comments in BOLD are Shireen Parson’s comment to Editorial
Taking a Stand,
Uranium mining and milling is one of the biggest issues facing Pittsylvania County’s political leaders. But it’s also an issue over which they have little direct control. Richmond has the power, not the town councils in Chatham, Gretna and Hurt or the Board of Supervisors.
Oh really? The Declaration of Independence and the US and Virginia constitutions DO NOT declare that "Richmond has the power." On the contrary, those documents declare that the governing authority belongs to the people, and that governments at all levels act with the consent of the governed.
Still, that hasn’t stopped discussions, debates and even the passage of non-binding resolutions.
He got that right -- the resolutions are not laws -- they have no power. In essence, instead of standing up and exercising their governing authority to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their communities and their environment, the municipal governments are begging the state legislature to do the right thing. And the state will NOT do the right thing.
What good is a non-binding resolution? Those resolutions will help to speak
for the people who live closest to the proposed mine and mill. "Help to speak..."? The people can speak for themselves, and they're saying NO URANIUM MINING. And they're demanding that their local elected officials stand up and do the will of the majority.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is developing the state’s official study of uranium mining and milling. What? No mention of the fact that every member of the CEC is on the take from VUI?
But the uranium ore locked in the rocks beneath Coles Hill can’t be mined today because of a moratorium put in place by the General Assembly a quarter-century ago. The state study is important because it’s the first important step toward trying to get that moratorium lifted. The study is simply a rubberstamp to OK the development of a regulatory program for uranium mining in the state, which will be approved by the legislature, and the moratorium disappears -- poof!
So, where do local governments come in? They are closest to the people, and they are their constituents’ voice on this issue. Their discussions, debates and resolutions have already yielded some surprises. Local governments are not the people's "voice" -- they're the people's SERVANTS. They're only job is to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the people and their environment.
The town councils in Gretna and Hurt not only want to be included in the state study, their resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium “… unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …†A "reasonable degree of certainty"? Certainty is not a variable -- it's an absolute. Something is either certain, or it is not. "No significant release"? ANY release of heavy metals, toxic chemicals and radioactive materials is significant and unacceptable, and uranium mining ALWAYS releases those contaminants into the environment. These resolutions are meaningless.
Chatham Town Council is being asked to go beyond that by detailing what kinds of plans it would have for an emergency at Coles Hill, as well as the operation’s impact on the community’s history and heritage and Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall.
"What kinds of plans" the town council would have for an "emergency"? Like a hurricane? Or flooding? Or an earthquake? Or an explosion gone wrong? Or a truck full of ore overturning into a local creek or river? Like the plans the county had for ensuring that its landfill wasn't leaking?
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,†said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. Really? "Something more"? Like, maybe something that will actually protect the citizens and their environment? How about chemical trespass ordinances and a county ordinance banning corporations from mining uranium?
The Board of Supervisors, at the request of Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis, could take another look at their previous work on this issue. Davis is concerned about what a uranium mining operation would do to real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions. "Their previous work on this issue?" What have they done? Nothing! "Real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions" ? If they don't ban uranium mining, they can kiss them all goodbye.
“I think the Board of Supervisors needs to make a statement or two about how it feels about uranium mining,†Davis said this week.. The board of supervisors must do the will of the majority of citizens who elected them and who pay their salaries. They must exercise their governing authority and ban uranium mining.
Eventually, most local people will take a side in the uranium mining and milling debate. But for today, most Pittsylvania County residents appear willing to wait out the state’s study.
That’s a luxury their elected leaders don’t have.
County leaders have to lead on the uranium mining issue.
The majority of local citizens have already decided that they refuse to suffer the catastrophic effects of uranium mining. Their leaders must act in accordance with will of the people and ban uranium mining.
^. .^ >^..^< \/ >^..^<
Shireen Parsons,
Christiansburg, Virginia
By Published by The Editorial Board Published: February 15, 2009
"Resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium”… “Unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
The resolutions are so many words - worth nothing! What is a "reasonable degree of certainty"? Define "significant"! Is this something that will kill only a predetermined number of people?
What we have now in Pittsylvania County, VA is "NO HARM" Currently, the mother lode of uranium is producing "no harm" to the people affected by this deposit. Or is it? Some folks are having their water tested. This has begun since before exploratory drilling began in the Coles Hill area. Their results are horrendous when it comes to human drinking water!
What will be the "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
Who will decide what these "degrees" will be?
What about the other considerations: Social & economic institutions, both public and private? What "study" will address this? Who will determine the study parameters?
Currently, the uranium in this area causes only as much harm as the drilling and testing. This harm is approved by the state (of Virginia) without any regulations what so ever. This "exploration" cares not if the environment and/or people are harmed! It is not within the purview of the state licensing committee to question such things!
Resolutions need to be MUCH STRONGER! They need to accept nothing less than "NO HARM"! Even then, they are non-binding to the state and federal legislature.
So, to go on record with all concerned parties, nothing less than a permanent ban of uranium mining & milling in the Commonwealth of Virginia must be enacted by the representatives elected to protect the people!
From local towns and cities, to County Boards of Supervisors, and our State Legislature, this is what MUST be done to protect the people! Nothing else will do!
Why, because we do not currently have to worry about this plague except what might occur naturally in the environment.
Nothing less will than a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …” is what the politicians ask for. Nothing less than nature, the way things currently are, no harm from man made interference, no harm from mining & milling is what the people should, and do, demand of our elected and appointed officials throughout the Commonwealth!
Comments in BOLD are Shireen Parson’s comment to Editorial
Taking a Stand,
Uranium mining and milling is one of the biggest issues facing Pittsylvania County’s political leaders. But it’s also an issue over which they have little direct control. Richmond has the power, not the town councils in Chatham, Gretna and Hurt or the Board of Supervisors.
Oh really? The Declaration of Independence and the US and Virginia constitutions DO NOT declare that "Richmond has the power." On the contrary, those documents declare that the governing authority belongs to the people, and that governments at all levels act with the consent of the governed.
Still, that hasn’t stopped discussions, debates and even the passage of non-binding resolutions.
He got that right -- the resolutions are not laws -- they have no power. In essence, instead of standing up and exercising their governing authority to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their communities and their environment, the municipal governments are begging the state legislature to do the right thing. And the state will NOT do the right thing.
What good is a non-binding resolution? Those resolutions will help to speak
for the people who live closest to the proposed mine and mill. "Help to speak..."? The people can speak for themselves, and they're saying NO URANIUM MINING. And they're demanding that their local elected officials stand up and do the will of the majority.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is developing the state’s official study of uranium mining and milling. What? No mention of the fact that every member of the CEC is on the take from VUI?
But the uranium ore locked in the rocks beneath Coles Hill can’t be mined today because of a moratorium put in place by the General Assembly a quarter-century ago. The state study is important because it’s the first important step toward trying to get that moratorium lifted. The study is simply a rubberstamp to OK the development of a regulatory program for uranium mining in the state, which will be approved by the legislature, and the moratorium disappears -- poof!
So, where do local governments come in? They are closest to the people, and they are their constituents’ voice on this issue. Their discussions, debates and resolutions have already yielded some surprises. Local governments are not the people's "voice" -- they're the people's SERVANTS. They're only job is to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the people and their environment.
The town councils in Gretna and Hurt not only want to be included in the state study, their resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium “… unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …†A "reasonable degree of certainty"? Certainty is not a variable -- it's an absolute. Something is either certain, or it is not. "No significant release"? ANY release of heavy metals, toxic chemicals and radioactive materials is significant and unacceptable, and uranium mining ALWAYS releases those contaminants into the environment. These resolutions are meaningless.
Chatham Town Council is being asked to go beyond that by detailing what kinds of plans it would have for an emergency at Coles Hill, as well as the operation’s impact on the community’s history and heritage and Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall.
"What kinds of plans" the town council would have for an "emergency"? Like a hurricane? Or flooding? Or an earthquake? Or an explosion gone wrong? Or a truck full of ore overturning into a local creek or river? Like the plans the county had for ensuring that its landfill wasn't leaking?
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,†said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. Really? "Something more"? Like, maybe something that will actually protect the citizens and their environment? How about chemical trespass ordinances and a county ordinance banning corporations from mining uranium?
The Board of Supervisors, at the request of Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis, could take another look at their previous work on this issue. Davis is concerned about what a uranium mining operation would do to real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions. "Their previous work on this issue?" What have they done? Nothing! "Real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions" ? If they don't ban uranium mining, they can kiss them all goodbye.
“I think the Board of Supervisors needs to make a statement or two about how it feels about uranium mining,†Davis said this week.. The board of supervisors must do the will of the majority of citizens who elected them and who pay their salaries. They must exercise their governing authority and ban uranium mining.
Eventually, most local people will take a side in the uranium mining and milling debate. But for today, most Pittsylvania County residents appear willing to wait out the state’s study.
That’s a luxury their elected leaders don’t have.
County leaders have to lead on the uranium mining issue.
The majority of local citizens have already decided that they refuse to suffer the catastrophic effects of uranium mining. Their leaders must act in accordance with will of the people and ban uranium mining.
^. .^ >^..^< \/ >^..^<
Shireen Parsons,
Christiansburg, Virginia
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER
Comment: We do not need new nuclear power plants, we do not need uranium mining, use "True Green" energy.
Eurpope's anti-Nuclear Plants will help everyone against uranium mining plus some companies uses France as a model Nuclear Power power, well France is polluting the water, land & air!
Don't forget to tell your grandchildren tomake sure they let their grandchildren knowhow to instruct their grandchildren to showtheir grandchildren how to clarify to theirgrandchildren in what way their grandchildrencould enable their grandchildren to look afterour nuclear waste.
Europe must stop wasting taxpayers' money to protect a dangerous and expensive technology. 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power, despite its widespread use also in Europe, remains the most dirty and dangerous form of energy.
Instead of nuclear power, Europe needs massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies. Any sensible energy policy must have these two elements at its heart.
The nuclear industry hopes for a nuclear come-back -- despite its dangers, despite its astronomical costs. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace, and since Chernobyl, there were 22 serious nuclear accidents around the world..
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. And, globalised terrorism makes nuclear power stations and the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear material a serious security hazard.
And nuclear power is economically insane. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is also no solution to climate change: each Euro invested in nuclear energy would save ten times more greenhouse gases if it was invested in energy efficiency measures instead.
Despite this, and despite the fact that many EU Member States and the majority of their citizens are not in favour of nuclear energy, the so-called EURATOM Treaty officially obliges all EU countries to promote nuclear power.
Clearly, this treaty must be abolished, it being an old relic that has no role to play in a modern Europe.
Read on: 6 reasons against nuclear power
1. Nuclear power is dangerous, safety is a myth
Nuclear power remains the most dangerous form of energy. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace. The history of the Nuclear Age is a history of accidents.
20 years after Chernobyl, people are still suffering from health problems caused by the accident. An accident can occur at any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Transports of large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes are also increasing the risks to populations.
Although nuclear power is a hazardous business, the nuclear industry hardly has any financial liability. In the case of a nuclear disaster, most of the damages will be paid by society and not the companies' insurances. None of the various international conventions on nuclear damage currently in force are designed to make operators, or owners, of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause.
2. Nuclear power is a deadly legacy for our children
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Highly radioactive spent fuels need to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds and thousands years. Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and reactors to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds and thousands of years and radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects.
There is not a single safe disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations worldwide. In almost all countries waste is stored in bunkers, below surface or above ground, while the world desperately researches ways to safely store it for thousands of years to come. These 'intermediate' storages are expensive and require safety measures that are not comparable to any other waste or industrial process. As there is no safe way to store these wastes for the necessary periods of time, this alone should be enough reason to abandon nuclear power as a viable energy source.
3. Nuclear power is financially insane
If the European energy market was a level playing field, where energy pricing would reflect the true costs of producing energy from different sources, nuclear power would be economically insane.
All countries using its technology have seriously underestimated the full costs of nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Also, nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe's electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Over the last 30 years, the EU's governments spent more than €45 billion for nuclear research.
As already said, Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator's insurance.
There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan (the decommissiing costs alone could be as high as 500 billion Euro for the power stations currently operating within the EU) and provisioning for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, and will result in a massive burden on future economies and generations.
4. Nuclear power is no solution to climate change
In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, the world will have to cut back its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by around 50% by 2050. Since by far the most of emissions happen in the energy sector, the nuclear industry hopes to use the climate crisis to stage a nuclear revival, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing low-emissions supply of energy.
But nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. It has been calculated that for example in the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, doubling capacity would cut emissions by no more than 8% . Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios -- one plant every two weeks -- have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic.
Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption (and emissions) the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out in a "Green Paper" on energy efficiency. Also, nuclear power comes with high opportunity costs (since every Euro can be spent only once): Every Euro invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper.
5. Nuclear weapons are the flip side of nuclear power
Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. The global expansion of nuclear power could well contribute to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. So far India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course the five official nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China), have developed arsenals of nuclear weapons using their "peaceful' nuclear facilities.
Nuclear power reactors have produced enough plutonium to build 160,000 nuclear weapons or an even wider range of radioactive materials for use in 'dirty bombs'. The spread of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Smuggling of nuclear material, including from civil nuclear programs, also presents a significant challenge. The International Atomic Energy Association has recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. In 2004 alone almost a hundred such incidents occurred.
6. Nuclear power dependent on limited & dirty resources
Nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel. And uranium - like oil, gas and coal - is a finite resource that will only last a few more decades, at most 50 years (with the current level of use). A significant increase in the use of nuclear power will quickly result in a shortage of nuclear fuel.
The reprocessing of spent fuels has already been proven to be no solution. Reprocessing is a complicated and hazardous chemical process that creates an enormous amount of radioactive waste. Besides that, reprocessing is a very uneconomical technology, as past examples have clearly demonstrated.
Nevertheless there are two reprocessing units in Europe: Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (France).
Both are known to be the biggest sources of radioactive pollution in the European environment through the release of huge quantities of radioactive liquid effluents into the sea and gaseous discharges into the air.
And last but not least, the production of weapons from plutonium separated in reprocessing facilities is relatively simple, dramatically increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Eurpope's anti-Nuclear Plants will help everyone against uranium mining plus some companies uses France as a model Nuclear Power power, well France is polluting the water, land & air!
Don't forget to tell your grandchildren tomake sure they let their grandchildren knowhow to instruct their grandchildren to showtheir grandchildren how to clarify to theirgrandchildren in what way their grandchildrencould enable their grandchildren to look afterour nuclear waste.
Europe must stop wasting taxpayers' money to protect a dangerous and expensive technology. 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power, despite its widespread use also in Europe, remains the most dirty and dangerous form of energy.
Instead of nuclear power, Europe needs massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies. Any sensible energy policy must have these two elements at its heart.
The nuclear industry hopes for a nuclear come-back -- despite its dangers, despite its astronomical costs. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace, and since Chernobyl, there were 22 serious nuclear accidents around the world..
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. And, globalised terrorism makes nuclear power stations and the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear material a serious security hazard.
And nuclear power is economically insane. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is also no solution to climate change: each Euro invested in nuclear energy would save ten times more greenhouse gases if it was invested in energy efficiency measures instead.
Despite this, and despite the fact that many EU Member States and the majority of their citizens are not in favour of nuclear energy, the so-called EURATOM Treaty officially obliges all EU countries to promote nuclear power.
Clearly, this treaty must be abolished, it being an old relic that has no role to play in a modern Europe.
Read on: 6 reasons against nuclear power
1. Nuclear power is dangerous, safety is a myth
Nuclear power remains the most dangerous form of energy. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace. The history of the Nuclear Age is a history of accidents.
20 years after Chernobyl, people are still suffering from health problems caused by the accident. An accident can occur at any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Transports of large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes are also increasing the risks to populations.
Although nuclear power is a hazardous business, the nuclear industry hardly has any financial liability. In the case of a nuclear disaster, most of the damages will be paid by society and not the companies' insurances. None of the various international conventions on nuclear damage currently in force are designed to make operators, or owners, of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause.
2. Nuclear power is a deadly legacy for our children
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Highly radioactive spent fuels need to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds and thousands years. Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and reactors to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds and thousands of years and radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects.
There is not a single safe disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations worldwide. In almost all countries waste is stored in bunkers, below surface or above ground, while the world desperately researches ways to safely store it for thousands of years to come. These 'intermediate' storages are expensive and require safety measures that are not comparable to any other waste or industrial process. As there is no safe way to store these wastes for the necessary periods of time, this alone should be enough reason to abandon nuclear power as a viable energy source.
3. Nuclear power is financially insane
If the European energy market was a level playing field, where energy pricing would reflect the true costs of producing energy from different sources, nuclear power would be economically insane.
All countries using its technology have seriously underestimated the full costs of nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Also, nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe's electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Over the last 30 years, the EU's governments spent more than €45 billion for nuclear research.
As already said, Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator's insurance.
There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan (the decommissiing costs alone could be as high as 500 billion Euro for the power stations currently operating within the EU) and provisioning for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, and will result in a massive burden on future economies and generations.
4. Nuclear power is no solution to climate change
In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, the world will have to cut back its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by around 50% by 2050. Since by far the most of emissions happen in the energy sector, the nuclear industry hopes to use the climate crisis to stage a nuclear revival, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing low-emissions supply of energy.
But nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. It has been calculated that for example in the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, doubling capacity would cut emissions by no more than 8% . Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios -- one plant every two weeks -- have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic.
Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption (and emissions) the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out in a "Green Paper" on energy efficiency. Also, nuclear power comes with high opportunity costs (since every Euro can be spent only once): Every Euro invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper.
5. Nuclear weapons are the flip side of nuclear power
Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. The global expansion of nuclear power could well contribute to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. So far India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course the five official nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China), have developed arsenals of nuclear weapons using their "peaceful' nuclear facilities.
Nuclear power reactors have produced enough plutonium to build 160,000 nuclear weapons or an even wider range of radioactive materials for use in 'dirty bombs'. The spread of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Smuggling of nuclear material, including from civil nuclear programs, also presents a significant challenge. The International Atomic Energy Association has recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. In 2004 alone almost a hundred such incidents occurred.
6. Nuclear power dependent on limited & dirty resources
Nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel. And uranium - like oil, gas and coal - is a finite resource that will only last a few more decades, at most 50 years (with the current level of use). A significant increase in the use of nuclear power will quickly result in a shortage of nuclear fuel.
The reprocessing of spent fuels has already been proven to be no solution. Reprocessing is a complicated and hazardous chemical process that creates an enormous amount of radioactive waste. Besides that, reprocessing is a very uneconomical technology, as past examples have clearly demonstrated.
Nevertheless there are two reprocessing units in Europe: Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (France).
Both are known to be the biggest sources of radioactive pollution in the European environment through the release of huge quantities of radioactive liquid effluents into the sea and gaseous discharges into the air.
And last but not least, the production of weapons from plutonium separated in reprocessing facilities is relatively simple, dramatically increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
