Dakar — After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards.
Studies and residents' testimonies have pointed to health and environmental dangers from mining operations owned and operated by both AREVA's subsidiaries and the Niger government.
Salifou Adifou, 67, worked for 40 years as a driller at Niger's SOMAÃèR (Aïr Mountains Mining Company), a public-private venture with AREVA owning 63 percent.
The retiree told IRIN he has undiagnosed health problems. "I have stomach and chest pains, but since retirement [in 1999], I cannot afford health care."
Adifou said his friend who had worked as a miner is now bedridden.
Neither knows the cause of his health problems, Adifou told IRIN.
Air
The AREVA majority-owned mine called COMINAK (Mining Company of Akouta) commissioned an environmental study of its operations in Arlit in 2006, which reported that the number of deaths linked to respiratory infections was twice as high in the mining town (16 percent) as in the rest of the country.
Arlit's population is 110,000.
"The wind carries dust contaminated with the long-lasting radium [time required for it to lose toxicity is more than 1,600 years] and lead...Samples taken from 5km within site...Sandstorms [and] atmospheric waste from mines could be aggravating factors for pulmonary [illnesses] in the region," the researchers wrote in COMINAK's environmental study.
But AREVA dismisses the link between mining and elevated health problems in its January 2009 report on mining activities in Niger. "These problems are typical in desert zones...they are not linked to mining activities."
Nevertheless AREVA directors have agreed to set up health diagnostic centres in all countries where it extracts uranium, starting with Gabon, according to the Paris-based human rights legal association Sherpa.
"It has been two long, difficult years to get to this point with the company to give workers a voice," Sherpa director Yann Queinnec told IRIN.
Plans are still being finalised, said Queinnec, but the agreement is that each centre would have an advisory board with representation from workers, local officials, non-profit organisations and AREVA.
Queinnec said it took years "to craft an agreement that will be different from other accords signed in the name of protecting workers," of which key components, the lawyer said, remain unfulfilled.
Soil
The Paris-based Commission of Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) has written of "serious safety lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger.
In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers said they found locals selling contaminated scrap metal from mining sites and the materials were eventually used in housing construction, kitchen utensils and tools.
In 2003 CRIIRAD had recommended that AREVA identify and dispose of contaminated metals.
Radioactive waste - possibly used in road construction - may be responsible for the abnormally high levels of radiation, according to CRIIRAD. In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers wrote that radiation levels were up to 100 times above average in front of the AREVA-funded hospital near the COMINAK mine.
Water
In response to criticism that mining has contaminated increasingly scarce drinking water in northern Niger, AREVA published a statement in January 2009 that "monthly bacterial, bi-annual radiological, and annual chemical analyses show the absence of [water] contamination."
But environmental studies carried out by CRIIRAD and Sherpa in 2005 in mining communities showed water radiation levels up to 110 times higher than World Health Organization (WHO) safe drinking water standards in industrial areas and 10 times higher in urban areas.
Uranium extraction requires water to clean the mining site, treat the mineral and cover workers' and their families' water needs, according to AREVA.
Pastoralists have also accused AREVA of depleting the region's water.
By AREVA's calculation the company has pumped 270 million cubic metres of groundwater during the past 40 years from its two mines in Arlit, of which 35 percent has been for mining activities and the rest for the town's use.
AREVA spokesperson Yves Dufour said recently in the French media that AREVA's future water needs in Imouraren, 80km south of Arlit, will be only a fraction of the eight billion cubic metres of desert groundwater available in the area.
AREVA is investing US$1.5 billion in Imouraren in what is expected to be the country's largest uranium mine.
Hydrologists estimate that rain-fed groundwater sources - similar to the aquifer AREVA is tapping 150m beneath the desert - can take some 200 years to replenish.
Corporate responsibility
Though the Niger government owns one-third of the uranium mines, Almoustapha Alhacen - head of the Arlit-based environmental NGO Aghir In'Man - told IRIN he holds
AREVA wholly responsible for the north's environmental and health problems. "AREVA is in Canada, but does it exploit uranium as savagely as it does here? Have Canada's cattle also died?"
Pastoralists have blamed a number of cattle deaths on contamination of wells from which animals drink.
AREVA extracted an estimated 3,200 metric tons of uranium in northern Canada in 2007, slightly more than in Niger for the same period. In a May 2007 survey of 1,000 residents living near AREVA's uranium mining operations in Canada, 80 percent responded they supported uranium exploration.
AREVA Resources Canada's spokesperson Alun Richards told IRIN his company rents daily charter planes to transport 350 employees from their remote northern homes to the mining site in Saskatchewan province explaining how workers, mostly nomads, "need to be near their extended family networks". In addition, the Canadian mine gives local communities $80,000 per year to carry out their own environmental impact studies. "People do not read studies. They trust results more if they test their own food and rivers they fish from," said Richards.
Mines in Canada are "heavily regulated" by some 30 government agencies, from fisheries to nuclear safety, he added.
Half the work force is hired from the local community, Richards told IRIN. "It is just as important that we maintain our social obligations and community standing as it is [that we] meet environmental and health regulations," Richards said.
Even though AREVA France invests $1 million a year for community development in northern Niger, according to its records, NGO leader Alhacen said most mining community residents have "generally negative" views about the industry.
When asked why a private company that shares ownership with the Niger government should bear most of the burden of community development, Alhacen said multinationals working in Africa should recognise their corporate responsibility.
Niger's living conditions - as measured by health, education and income - are among the worst worldwide, according to the UN.
AREVA France has said its approach is not to dispense "charity" but rather to engage locals in running projects and to increase coordination with donors.
Alhacen said damages from mining far outweigh the benefits in Niger.
"AREVA [France] publicises that it pays for 200,000 medical visits a year. We do not see that here. Even so, that is admitting that tens of thousands are getting sick every year," said Alhacen.
Government responsibility
Since June 2007 the Niger government has placed more than half the country under a state of alert as a result of a decades-long rebellion that re-erupted in February 2007. Hundreds have died and thousands have been displaced in the last two years as a result of fighting.
Rebels who have attacked military posts and water and electricity plants that feed AREVA operations are demanding more mining profits for community development and more protection from mining's hazards.
They have accused the government of overlooking what they call AREVA's environmental non-compliance in exchange for mining royalties.
The government dismisses the rebellion as a front for smuggling.
Minister of Information Mohamed Ben Omar told IRIN: "The government has made every effort to protect local populations from harmful mining practices.
Just because of profits, we are not looking the other way," he said. "We have ratified every international relevant convention [on mining] and taken all necessary control measures."
But leader of the rebel front that launched the February 2007 attack, Aghaly Ag Alambo, told IRIN that mining communities are still not safe.
"AREVA is not the main problem. It is not AREVA's job to provide for Nigeriens. It is the government that has failed its people."(sounds like a certain state,county)
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Obama signs landmark U.S. conservation bill
WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama signed sweeping land and water conservation rules into law on Monday, setting aside millions of acres as protected areas and delighting environmentalists.
The measure, a package of more than 160 bills, would designate about 2 million acres (809,400 hectares) -- parks, rivers, streams, desert, forest and trails -- in nine states as new wilderness and render them off limits to oil and gas drilling and other development.
The House of Representatives approved the measure on a vote of 285-140 a week after it cleared the Senate, capping years of wrangling and procedural roadblocks.
Opponents, most of them Republicans, complained the legislation would deny access for oil and gas drilling and said House Democrats refused to consider changes.
"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a signing ceremony.
The areas that would be designated as new wilderness are mostly in California, followed by Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, New Mexico and Michigan.
Environmentalists welcomed the move.
"As global warming changes wildlife habitat and food sources, it's more important than ever that we take care of our last remaining wild forests and rivers," the environmental group Sierra Club said in a statement.
"This is the most important lands protection legislation in decades."(let's hope it will protect our County from uranium mining water problems!!)
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Thomas Ferraro, editing by Vicki Allen)
The measure, a package of more than 160 bills, would designate about 2 million acres (809,400 hectares) -- parks, rivers, streams, desert, forest and trails -- in nine states as new wilderness and render them off limits to oil and gas drilling and other development.
The House of Representatives approved the measure on a vote of 285-140 a week after it cleared the Senate, capping years of wrangling and procedural roadblocks.
Opponents, most of them Republicans, complained the legislation would deny access for oil and gas drilling and said House Democrats refused to consider changes.
"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a signing ceremony.
The areas that would be designated as new wilderness are mostly in California, followed by Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, New Mexico and Michigan.
Environmentalists welcomed the move.
"As global warming changes wildlife habitat and food sources, it's more important than ever that we take care of our last remaining wild forests and rivers," the environmental group Sierra Club said in a statement.
"This is the most important lands protection legislation in decades."(let's hope it will protect our County from uranium mining water problems!!)
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Thomas Ferraro, editing by Vicki Allen)
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
Posted on Tue, Mar. 31, 2009
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
By RENEE SCHOOF AND DAVID LIGHTMAN
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday announced a sweeping plan to change how the nation produces and uses energy in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
No environmental legislation in America has ever attempted such wide-reaching changes. The bill - an incomplete draft that will evolve in the months ahead - would provide incentives to boost wind, solar and other renewable energy, would improve efficiency so that homes and businesses need less fuel and would support the development of cars that run on biofuels and electricity. (Nuke Power is not green and is not renewable!!)
It also would make using fossil fuels more expensive - and that will be the central issue of debate in Congress, with armies of lobbyists on both sides.
The measure contains a variety of terms intended to help businesses survive the energy transition, but it leaves open for debate the central question: how revenues from pollution permits would be used. That means the question of how consumers would be helped also remains to be worked out.
The plan calls for a system to limit for the first time the amount of global warming pollution - mainly carbon dioxide from coal and oil combustion - that's permitted from utilities, oil companies and large-scale industries, which make up 85 percent of the U.S. economy. They'd have to buy permits for each ton of emissions.
The total emissions amount would be lowered each year until it was 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. That's the amount that science suggests will be needed as part of a global effort to prevent irreversible problems from steadily increasing warming.
Companies that need more permits could buy them from companies that need fewer of them. This system of a declining cap on overall emissions and a market for permits is known as "cap and trade."
Sponsors declared that their plan would create jobs in clean energy that couldn't be shipped offshore, would reduce dependence on foreign oil and would make the United States an exporter of energy technology, all while making sure that American consumers and coal-dependent parts of the nation are spared from sharp cost increases.
"This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence and cut global warming pollution," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who sponsored the draft along with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.
Waxman and Markey modeled their cap and trade plan on a consensus report that U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of 26 large businesses - including ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP America Inc., Duke Energy, Alcoa and the U.S. automakers - and five environmental groups released in January.
Environmental groups supported the draft.
Democrats are pushing for ambitious climate-change legislation this year before a global conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December that aims to set new goals for reducing the emissions that contribute to global warming.
Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the Waxman-Markey plan a "new national energy tax" and asserted that it would cost households up to $3,100 a year and reduce the number of U.S. jobs.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio attacked the plan with similar arguments and added that AK Steel, which is in his district, would pay more under cap and trade than competitors in places such as China would.
"Their costs will skyrocket and their customers will simply buy cheaper imported steel," Boehner said.
The draft, however, contains provisions to protect businesses from foreign competition and leaves open for debate how consumers will be protected. One idea that has some bipartisan support is returning all or most revenue from pollution permit sales to taxpayers.
Another suggestion is to give permits to companies free in the plan's early years. That also could help hold down costs to consumers if the companies passed the benefits along.
In a sign of the argument to come, Republicans unleashed a series of ads Tuesday aimed at 54 politically vulnerable House Democrats, charging that a cap and trade plan would send energy prices soaring. Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "fiscally irresponsible cap and tax proposal that will increase energy bills, raise taxes and overwhelm the budgets of American families."
Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said he was glad that the draft bill included plans to protect American industries from competitive disadvantage. Still, he said it would take time to analyze the 640-page draft to determine how effective and how costly the bill would be.
The bill's section on global competitiveness calls for some industrial sectors to receive rebates to compensate for additional costs. If the rebates aren't sufficient, the president could impose tariffs on foreign manufacturers and importers to cover the carbon they emitted in making their exported products.
James Mulva, the chairman and chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, said at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday that businesses wanted certainty about energy prices so they could make investment decisions.
He predicted that this issue will be a difficult fight in Congress and called for work toward an "environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair" approach.
Mulva said that a "significant proportion" of the permits should be given free to businesses to help consumers and protect against competition from foreign countries without mandatory controls.
The measure offers other provisions that businesses sought. One is offsets; companies can increase their emissions if they obtain reductions of emissions elsewhere at a lower cost which offsets those increases. Total offsets would be limited.
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
By RENEE SCHOOF AND DAVID LIGHTMAN
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday announced a sweeping plan to change how the nation produces and uses energy in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
No environmental legislation in America has ever attempted such wide-reaching changes. The bill - an incomplete draft that will evolve in the months ahead - would provide incentives to boost wind, solar and other renewable energy, would improve efficiency so that homes and businesses need less fuel and would support the development of cars that run on biofuels and electricity. (Nuke Power is not green and is not renewable!!)
It also would make using fossil fuels more expensive - and that will be the central issue of debate in Congress, with armies of lobbyists on both sides.
The measure contains a variety of terms intended to help businesses survive the energy transition, but it leaves open for debate the central question: how revenues from pollution permits would be used. That means the question of how consumers would be helped also remains to be worked out.
The plan calls for a system to limit for the first time the amount of global warming pollution - mainly carbon dioxide from coal and oil combustion - that's permitted from utilities, oil companies and large-scale industries, which make up 85 percent of the U.S. economy. They'd have to buy permits for each ton of emissions.
The total emissions amount would be lowered each year until it was 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. That's the amount that science suggests will be needed as part of a global effort to prevent irreversible problems from steadily increasing warming.
Companies that need more permits could buy them from companies that need fewer of them. This system of a declining cap on overall emissions and a market for permits is known as "cap and trade."
Sponsors declared that their plan would create jobs in clean energy that couldn't be shipped offshore, would reduce dependence on foreign oil and would make the United States an exporter of energy technology, all while making sure that American consumers and coal-dependent parts of the nation are spared from sharp cost increases.
"This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence and cut global warming pollution," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who sponsored the draft along with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.
Waxman and Markey modeled their cap and trade plan on a consensus report that U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of 26 large businesses - including ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP America Inc., Duke Energy, Alcoa and the U.S. automakers - and five environmental groups released in January.
Environmental groups supported the draft.
Democrats are pushing for ambitious climate-change legislation this year before a global conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December that aims to set new goals for reducing the emissions that contribute to global warming.
Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the Waxman-Markey plan a "new national energy tax" and asserted that it would cost households up to $3,100 a year and reduce the number of U.S. jobs.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio attacked the plan with similar arguments and added that AK Steel, which is in his district, would pay more under cap and trade than competitors in places such as China would.
"Their costs will skyrocket and their customers will simply buy cheaper imported steel," Boehner said.
The draft, however, contains provisions to protect businesses from foreign competition and leaves open for debate how consumers will be protected. One idea that has some bipartisan support is returning all or most revenue from pollution permit sales to taxpayers.
Another suggestion is to give permits to companies free in the plan's early years. That also could help hold down costs to consumers if the companies passed the benefits along.
In a sign of the argument to come, Republicans unleashed a series of ads Tuesday aimed at 54 politically vulnerable House Democrats, charging that a cap and trade plan would send energy prices soaring. Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "fiscally irresponsible cap and tax proposal that will increase energy bills, raise taxes and overwhelm the budgets of American families."
Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said he was glad that the draft bill included plans to protect American industries from competitive disadvantage. Still, he said it would take time to analyze the 640-page draft to determine how effective and how costly the bill would be.
The bill's section on global competitiveness calls for some industrial sectors to receive rebates to compensate for additional costs. If the rebates aren't sufficient, the president could impose tariffs on foreign manufacturers and importers to cover the carbon they emitted in making their exported products.
James Mulva, the chairman and chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, said at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday that businesses wanted certainty about energy prices so they could make investment decisions.
He predicted that this issue will be a difficult fight in Congress and called for work toward an "environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair" approach.
Mulva said that a "significant proportion" of the permits should be given free to businesses to help consumers and protect against competition from foreign countries without mandatory controls.
The measure offers other provisions that businesses sought. One is offsets; companies can increase their emissions if they obtain reductions of emissions elsewhere at a lower cost which offsets those increases. Total offsets would be limited.
Energy Dept. boosts clean up of uranium tailings
The Associated Press
Tue, Mar 31, 2009 (10:27 a.m.)
The U.S. Energy Department has allocated $108 million in economic stimulus aid for removing the 16 million ton radioactive tailings pile on the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said Tuesday the funding commitment shows that the Energy Department is trying to meet a 2019 cleanup deadline. As recently as February, the department maintained the cleanup would not be finished before 2028, he said.
The money will help remove an extra 2 million tons of tailings by 2011 _ the end of the current five-year removal contract. That will be accomplished by adding more rail cars and more rail shipments from the former Atlas Mineral Corp. site near Moab to a disposal site about 30 miles away.
Shipments are set to begin in April.
The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined during 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 of the Colorado River.
Matheson and other lawmakers worked to convince the Energy Department that the massive pile should be moved away from the river's banks, rather than capped. The final environmental impact decision adopting that action was issued in 2005.
The overall cost of the cleanup is estimated at $1 billion.
"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this site is unstable and that the contamination already migrating under the river towards the town of Moab could, with one major flood event, be dumped into the Colorado (River)," Matheson said in a statement.
The river is a source of drinking water for 50 million people, including residents of Arizona, California and Nevada.
Despite the legacy of the Atlas tailings pile, there has been renewed interest in uranium mining and processing, driven by speculation that efforts to combat climate change will reinvigorate the nuclear power industry.(No thank you to Nuke Plants, I do not want my tax dollars going to Nuke Plants, Cost just to start $10 billion, 20 years to build, no to nuke power, No to uranium mining, nuke plants uses too much water too!)
The first application since 1988 for a uranium processing facility was filed in October with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Since then, the NRC has received at least 27 applications for facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Arizona and New Mexico. Utah, Colorado and Texas have their own oversight agencies.
More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within five miles of the Grand Canyon in recent years.(Obama, do not let them mine uranium!!!)
Tue, Mar 31, 2009 (10:27 a.m.)
The U.S. Energy Department has allocated $108 million in economic stimulus aid for removing the 16 million ton radioactive tailings pile on the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said Tuesday the funding commitment shows that the Energy Department is trying to meet a 2019 cleanup deadline. As recently as February, the department maintained the cleanup would not be finished before 2028, he said.
The money will help remove an extra 2 million tons of tailings by 2011 _ the end of the current five-year removal contract. That will be accomplished by adding more rail cars and more rail shipments from the former Atlas Mineral Corp. site near Moab to a disposal site about 30 miles away.
Shipments are set to begin in April.
The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined during 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 of the Colorado River.
Matheson and other lawmakers worked to convince the Energy Department that the massive pile should be moved away from the river's banks, rather than capped. The final environmental impact decision adopting that action was issued in 2005.
The overall cost of the cleanup is estimated at $1 billion.
"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this site is unstable and that the contamination already migrating under the river towards the town of Moab could, with one major flood event, be dumped into the Colorado (River)," Matheson said in a statement.
The river is a source of drinking water for 50 million people, including residents of Arizona, California and Nevada.
Despite the legacy of the Atlas tailings pile, there has been renewed interest in uranium mining and processing, driven by speculation that efforts to combat climate change will reinvigorate the nuclear power industry.(No thank you to Nuke Plants, I do not want my tax dollars going to Nuke Plants, Cost just to start $10 billion, 20 years to build, no to nuke power, No to uranium mining, nuke plants uses too much water too!)
The first application since 1988 for a uranium processing facility was filed in October with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Since then, the NRC has received at least 27 applications for facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Arizona and New Mexico. Utah, Colorado and Texas have their own oversight agencies.
More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within five miles of the Grand Canyon in recent years.(Obama, do not let them mine uranium!!!)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Toohey’s column missed a lot of important facts, problems
Toohey’s column missed a lot of important facts, problems
To the editor:
I would like to respond to some of the comments recently published in your newspaper by Richard E. Toohey, president of the Health Physics Society, “Understanding the benefits, balancing the risks,” (March 8, page A11).
In his column, Toohey makes a number of claims that, while narrowly true, manage to distort a fair discussion of the issues.
The first example is his claim that nuclear energy is “carbon free.” In fact, this is true only if you look at the nuclear reaction itself. The mining, milling and processing of uranium into fuel for use in a nuclear power plant produce plenty of carbon dioxide. So does the building of a nuclear plant. And, of course, the remediation of the mines and mills and the disassembly of the plant itself and long-term disposal and storage of the high-level radioactive waste also consume energy and produce greenhouse gases. The level of this problem is less than with coal, but is not non-existent; and, should we have to mine lower and lower grade ore as we deplete higher grade deposits, the problem could increase dramatically.
A second example is his claim that no new radioactivity will be produced at the site. Technically this is true. The uranium and other isotopes in the ore are already there. If anything, mining will remove some of them. But that is not the real concern. Mining the ore will bring radioactive materials currently underground to the surface and has the potential, as has been the case elsewhere in the United States and around the world, to spread those materials around in the environment to an extent that they would not be if they were left alone. To date I have never seen a mining operation that did not leave copious contamination and environmental impact.
Third, Toohey talks a lot about trade-off of benefits and costs and cites power generation and production using U.S. natural resources as benefits. My understanding is that the nuclear industry has only been viable in the United States because of huge subsidies from taxpayers. But that aside, and addressing aspects I know more about, nuclear power is not clean in the sense of producing no toxic waste. In fact, the biggest problem that nuclear energy currently faces in the U.S. is that there is no approved storage site for the large qualities of high-level waste that are produced already. The Yucca Mountain site may never be approved.
What are we going to do with all this high-level waste we already have, let alone tons more that could be generated? Perhaps we could reprocess it, but there are problems that come with that option, including fears of contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. And, if reprocessing is the answer, then it is an alternative to mining, not an argument for more mining. The bottom line is that nuclear energy has been neither cheap nor clean.
Finally, let me point out, as I did when I gave a talk in Pittsylvania County on the subject, that the focus solely on radiation hazards is misguided.
There are numerous chemical hazards associated with uranium mining, as well as radioactive concerns. While radon is a highly potent lung carcinogen, uranium itself is primarily a heavy metal toxin, more similar to lead or mercury. Perhaps it is not as exotic as radiation, but uranium is quite capable of causing kidney damage, birth defects and possibly estrogenic (feminizing) effects. Uranium ore also frequently contains other highly toxic, though non-radioactive, contaminants.
The upshot, from my perspective, is that the history (which some people want to forget or have you forget) is that uranium mining has left a miserable record of damage to workers, communities and the environment for more than 50 years. The onus is on the proponents of uranium mining to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not continue the legacy from the past into the future.
Arguments such as those ofToohey that seem to play with words to sound reassuring are, if anything, quite the opposite.
DOUG BRUGGE
Associate Professor
Tufts University Boston
To the editor:
I would like to respond to some of the comments recently published in your newspaper by Richard E. Toohey, president of the Health Physics Society, “Understanding the benefits, balancing the risks,” (March 8, page A11).
In his column, Toohey makes a number of claims that, while narrowly true, manage to distort a fair discussion of the issues.
The first example is his claim that nuclear energy is “carbon free.” In fact, this is true only if you look at the nuclear reaction itself. The mining, milling and processing of uranium into fuel for use in a nuclear power plant produce plenty of carbon dioxide. So does the building of a nuclear plant. And, of course, the remediation of the mines and mills and the disassembly of the plant itself and long-term disposal and storage of the high-level radioactive waste also consume energy and produce greenhouse gases. The level of this problem is less than with coal, but is not non-existent; and, should we have to mine lower and lower grade ore as we deplete higher grade deposits, the problem could increase dramatically.
A second example is his claim that no new radioactivity will be produced at the site. Technically this is true. The uranium and other isotopes in the ore are already there. If anything, mining will remove some of them. But that is not the real concern. Mining the ore will bring radioactive materials currently underground to the surface and has the potential, as has been the case elsewhere in the United States and around the world, to spread those materials around in the environment to an extent that they would not be if they were left alone. To date I have never seen a mining operation that did not leave copious contamination and environmental impact.
Third, Toohey talks a lot about trade-off of benefits and costs and cites power generation and production using U.S. natural resources as benefits. My understanding is that the nuclear industry has only been viable in the United States because of huge subsidies from taxpayers. But that aside, and addressing aspects I know more about, nuclear power is not clean in the sense of producing no toxic waste. In fact, the biggest problem that nuclear energy currently faces in the U.S. is that there is no approved storage site for the large qualities of high-level waste that are produced already. The Yucca Mountain site may never be approved.
What are we going to do with all this high-level waste we already have, let alone tons more that could be generated? Perhaps we could reprocess it, but there are problems that come with that option, including fears of contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. And, if reprocessing is the answer, then it is an alternative to mining, not an argument for more mining. The bottom line is that nuclear energy has been neither cheap nor clean.
Finally, let me point out, as I did when I gave a talk in Pittsylvania County on the subject, that the focus solely on radiation hazards is misguided.
There are numerous chemical hazards associated with uranium mining, as well as radioactive concerns. While radon is a highly potent lung carcinogen, uranium itself is primarily a heavy metal toxin, more similar to lead or mercury. Perhaps it is not as exotic as radiation, but uranium is quite capable of causing kidney damage, birth defects and possibly estrogenic (feminizing) effects. Uranium ore also frequently contains other highly toxic, though non-radioactive, contaminants.
The upshot, from my perspective, is that the history (which some people want to forget or have you forget) is that uranium mining has left a miserable record of damage to workers, communities and the environment for more than 50 years. The onus is on the proponents of uranium mining to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not continue the legacy from the past into the future.
Arguments such as those ofToohey that seem to play with words to sound reassuring are, if anything, quite the opposite.
DOUG BRUGGE
Associate Professor
Tufts University Boston
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Searching for connections
Comment: Rivers can flow North, the New River starts in North Carolina and flows north to West VA, dah!!! The people of county must demand a study of the water problem or contact the EPA!By Published by The Editorial BoardPublished: March 29, 2009
Uranium mining opponents scored a victory of sorts this week when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would study and review up to 200 applications for surface coal mines, including controversial mountaintop removal mines.
The EPA wants to know if the proposed mines will harm streams and wetlands.
To those opposed to uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, mountaintop removal mines are an example of what can happen when something that is legal and done within the framework of government rules and regulations still causes problems for people, their communities and the environment.
By extension, those opposed to uranium mining believe a similar thing could happen if Virginia eventually lifts its moratorium. Virginia Uranium Inc. could follow state and federal rules and regulations and still wind up creating problems for local people and the environment of the Dan River Region.
Virginia Uranium Inc. is years away from being able to mine the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County and it’s already being accused of causing environmental problems.
Sheva resident Allen Gross believes that the company’s exploratory test drilling has caused lead levels in his well water to rise.
The test drilling has been used to “map” the underground deposits of uranium at Coles Hill, helping VUI determine the quantity and quality of the underground ore deposit.
“Wells with reported lead levels in the water are all in geologically and hydrologically isolated areas that are unaffected by activities conducted by our company,” said VUI geologist and spokesman Patrick Wales.
He pointed out that VUI’s test drilling and the Gross family well were separated by creeks and ridges of land. (This dude is not a water expert, have VUI had somebody to study the reason people's wells are having water problems")
“Water doesn’t flow uphill,” Wales said. (the New River flows up hill, it flows North, dah!!!)
It certainly doesn’t, and it’s unfair to blame VUI for something that it hasn’t done wrong.
At the same time, though, the company shouldn’t miss an opportunity created by this accusation.
Since VUI believes that it’s not responsible for increased lead levels in the Gross family well, it should call on the state to find the source of the pollution — if that can be determined.
That would allow Virginia Uranium to publicly exonerate its test drilling program using a third-party investigation, and to teach the community that a lot of different things can affect the quantity and quality of well water.
Virginia Uranium should ask the state to study rising lead levels in a nearby water well.
The company certainly shouldn’t have to bear the burden of bad publicity and negative perceptions for something it did not do.
Contact the EPA for Water Problems: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/sdwa/index.html
Greenpeace Launches Nuclear Free Vermont Tour
Solar Truck tours Vermont to Promote Clean, Safe Renewables
March 25, 2009
Brattleboro, Vermont, United States — This Saturday, March 28th, the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island, marks the kick-off of a month-long Vermont tour of the Rolling Sunlight, Greenpeace’s solar truck, starting in Brattleboro.
Partnering with VPIRG and Citizen’s Awareness Network, the Rolling Sunlight will visit farmer’s markets and universities, film screenings and galleries, to talk to Vermonters about the energy they want in their state.
The Rolling Sunlight will demonstrate the practical uses of solar energy by powering the sound systems for events, and making solar-powered hot chocolate and other treats.
Vermonters have the unique opportunity to close down Entergy’s aging reactor, Vermont Yankee, and to choose clean, safe renewable energy for the future of their community.
The Vermont legislature has given itself the authority to reject the relicensing of the reactor in 2012.
“Fortunately for Vermonters, we're in a unique position to choose our own energy future," said James Moore of VPIRG.
"Vermonters are telling their legislators loud and clear that we want an energy future based on local, renewable power.
If our leaders listen to the people, we'll have a cleaner energy future.
If they listen to Vermont Yankee's corporate owners, we'll get 20 more years of dirty and dangerous power we can't afford."
“Thirty years ago today, at Three Mile Island, we saw one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and Pennsylvania is still seeing the effects of that radiation.
The Public Oversight Panel's report released last week detailed the extent that Entergy Nuclear management is neglecting maintenance and repair.
We don't want Vermont to be the next Three Mile Island.
We have great renewable alternatives available to us that put Vermont’s safety first,” said Ed Anthes from Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012.This is a critical year for Vermont.
The NRC’s re-licensing process has become nothing more than a rubber stamp that does not adequately reflect the safety concerns of Vermonters.
When Entergy took over Vermont Yankee in 2002, they began running it harder than ever before. Over the years, we have seen the effects of inadequate maintenance, and an aging reactor that is ready for retirement.
The collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 was a direct result of Entergy pushing the reactor beyond its limits without the necessary maintenance.
“We don’t need Entergy here in Vermont: the people don’t want it, and a clean energy future, based on renewables like wind and solar, small hydro and efficiency, is possible,” said Chris Williams from Vermont Citizens Action Network.
“This 30th anniversary of the meltdown at Three Mile Island is a timely reminder that there is nothing safe about splitting atoms.
The Rolling Sunlight will tour the state and rally Vermonters to shut down Vermont Yankee.
The people of Vermont, not the corporate CEO's or some federal bureaucrat, can choose clean and renewable energy sources that don't threaten the state with the prospect of a nuclear accident and radioactive contamination," says Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s Nuclear Policy Analyst.(Tell the State of Virginia, we want clean & renewable energy, not Nuke Power or Uranium mining!)
Contact:Molly Dorozenski, Greenpeace Media Officer, mdorozen@greenpeace.org,646-862-1509Ben Walsh, Greenpeace, bcwalsh.vt@gmail.com, 802-223-8421 x6383
March 25, 2009
Brattleboro, Vermont, United States — This Saturday, March 28th, the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island, marks the kick-off of a month-long Vermont tour of the Rolling Sunlight, Greenpeace’s solar truck, starting in Brattleboro.
Partnering with VPIRG and Citizen’s Awareness Network, the Rolling Sunlight will visit farmer’s markets and universities, film screenings and galleries, to talk to Vermonters about the energy they want in their state.
The Rolling Sunlight will demonstrate the practical uses of solar energy by powering the sound systems for events, and making solar-powered hot chocolate and other treats.
Vermonters have the unique opportunity to close down Entergy’s aging reactor, Vermont Yankee, and to choose clean, safe renewable energy for the future of their community.
The Vermont legislature has given itself the authority to reject the relicensing of the reactor in 2012.
“Fortunately for Vermonters, we're in a unique position to choose our own energy future," said James Moore of VPIRG.
"Vermonters are telling their legislators loud and clear that we want an energy future based on local, renewable power.
If our leaders listen to the people, we'll have a cleaner energy future.
If they listen to Vermont Yankee's corporate owners, we'll get 20 more years of dirty and dangerous power we can't afford."
“Thirty years ago today, at Three Mile Island, we saw one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and Pennsylvania is still seeing the effects of that radiation.
The Public Oversight Panel's report released last week detailed the extent that Entergy Nuclear management is neglecting maintenance and repair.
We don't want Vermont to be the next Three Mile Island.
We have great renewable alternatives available to us that put Vermont’s safety first,” said Ed Anthes from Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012.This is a critical year for Vermont.
The NRC’s re-licensing process has become nothing more than a rubber stamp that does not adequately reflect the safety concerns of Vermonters.
When Entergy took over Vermont Yankee in 2002, they began running it harder than ever before. Over the years, we have seen the effects of inadequate maintenance, and an aging reactor that is ready for retirement.
The collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 was a direct result of Entergy pushing the reactor beyond its limits without the necessary maintenance.
“We don’t need Entergy here in Vermont: the people don’t want it, and a clean energy future, based on renewables like wind and solar, small hydro and efficiency, is possible,” said Chris Williams from Vermont Citizens Action Network.
“This 30th anniversary of the meltdown at Three Mile Island is a timely reminder that there is nothing safe about splitting atoms.
The Rolling Sunlight will tour the state and rally Vermonters to shut down Vermont Yankee.
The people of Vermont, not the corporate CEO's or some federal bureaucrat, can choose clean and renewable energy sources that don't threaten the state with the prospect of a nuclear accident and radioactive contamination," says Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s Nuclear Policy Analyst.(Tell the State of Virginia, we want clean & renewable energy, not Nuke Power or Uranium mining!)
Contact:Molly Dorozenski, Greenpeace Media Officer, mdorozen@greenpeace.org,646-862-1509Ben Walsh, Greenpeace, bcwalsh.vt@gmail.com, 802-223-8421 x6383
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Lights out Saturday night!
Vote for the Earth by turning off the lights at 8:30 p.m., March 28, 2009, for one hour--Earth Hour--to raise awareness and take action to fight climate change. U.S. Activists: Tell your federal and state elected officials to shut off their lights too!
Medical Doctors, Physicians Address Public Health Threats in Upper Peninsula
Comment: UP of Michigan, has experience and pollution of mining!
By Gabriel CaplettMarch 20, 2009
Marquette, Michigan - Current pollution from past chemical, mining and military operations were addressed alongside the potential for continued public health threats posed by coal power generation and mining activities, Thursday, at the Women’s Federated Clubhouse, in Marquette.
The event, organized by the Great Lakes Health and Environment Action League (HEAL), featured presentations by area health professionals, toxicologists and university professors.
Event moderator, Gene Champagne, said the event was significant for many because public health concerns are “universal.”
“No one wants to be ill,” said Champagne. “We’re talking about the health, our own health, our parents, our children. That matters to everyone.”
Heavy Metals a Concern in Water and AirDr. Lisa Long, a family practitioner in Negaunee, discussed various heavy metals and their potential to affect human health.
According to Long, metals such as arsenic, lead, chromium, thallium and cadmium are commonly associated with mine-related pollution. Cadmium, which is also contained in sewage sludge fertilizers, as well as medical and household incinerated waste, is also commonly found in cigarettes.
“If you smoke, you’ve got twice the exposure as somebody who doesn’t,” said Long.
Although highly toxic, particularly to children and pregnant women, lead is also fairly common in everyday life.
“The only metal with more commercial uses is iron,” said Long.
According to Long, lead has a “sweet” taste and was commonly used by ancient Romans to sweeten cheap wine.
It is that sweetness that makes the metal attractive to young children exposed to the metal. Children absorb roughly fifty percent of lead they ingest, compared to only ten to fifteen percent for adults. The absorption rate is higher with airborne exposure to lead.
Dr. Alan Olson said that, for metals like lead, “zero tolerance should be the rule.”
Dr. Scott Emerson explaining how much lead the human body requires
Shawn Devlin, of Chocolay Township, disagreed. “When you argue for zero you lose credibility,”
Devlin said. “There are natural levels of all these things.”
Dr. Scott Emerson, a toxicologist and emergency room physician at Marquette General Hospital, responded that lead has no positive function in the human body and is only found in unsafe amounts as a result of industrial activities.
“There is no safe level for lead, period,” Emerson said.
Emerson also discussed the role of mercury in affecting public health near mining operations.
According to Emerson, high sulfate levels in water can assist in increasing concentrations of methyl mercury, a potential problem at Kennecott Mineral’s proposed Eagle Project mine and Humboldt milling facility, both in Marquette County.
Emerson describes methylated mercury as “the most dangerous neurotoxic form of mercury.
You get a very aggressive toxin that can go right into the brain and is very readily absorbed.”
According to Dr. Gail Griffith, professor emeritus of Northern Michigan University’s (NMU) chemistry department, coal-fired power plants are another source of mercury, which bio-accumulates in fish tissue and can cause serious human health problems, particularly in young children.
Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Clayton Peimer cautioned that exposure to “micro-particulates” can be hazardous even if the substance does not contain toxic elements like lead.
“If someone says to you “micro-particles,” go get a mask,” warned Peimer.
Dr. Emerson agreed, maintaining that air pollution “is much more dangerous and has much more impact on health than even the water pollution does”
This surprised Negaunee resident Laura Royea.
“The environmental concerns, the airborne pollutants were very important, the particulate matter,” said Royea. “I had not considered that. I always thought of runoff into the streams and, you know, I didn’t think of the things that become airborne and travel much farther.”
Audience Members at Your Water Your Health
Public Health Threats in the UPDr. Griffith discussed ongoing contamination at a number of sites throughout the Upper Peninsula, including the former Cliffs-Dow site that produced charcoal and wood distillate chemicals in the City of Marquette. The company’s dumps closed in the 1960s and eventually became federally-listed Superfund sites.
“You could always tell when they were cleaning out the stills because you could smell it,” said Griffith
For over fifty years, Cleveland Cliffs International (now Cliffs Natural Resources) released mercury from it’s Ishpeming laboratories into the city’s wastewater. That mercury found its way to Deer Lake.
“Some fish of some types from some bodies of water you should never ever eat and that is Deer Lake, for example,” said Griffith.
Griffith explained current public health threats posed by other sites, such as Torch Lake, near Houghton, and the former K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, northeast of Gwinn. Although the air force complex was closed in the early 1990s, underground storage tanks, landfills, munitions testing areas and fuel spills continue to threaten groundwater quality.
“As we speak there is still a plume of jet fuel headed for Silver Lead Creek,” Griffith said.
Griffith also discussed problems associated with radioactive materials. Republic is considered a “hotspot” for radon, the second major cause of lung cancer, after smoking.
In the 1990s, a survey of Republic homes showed that eighty-four percent exceeded maximum exposure levels for the dangerous gas.
A different radioactive element, uranium, has been found in residential wells along the Keweenaw Peninsula, prompting exploration companies to explore for the substance near Lake Gogebic.
“So far they’ve found a little sniff of it but not very much,” said Griffith.
According to NMU sociology professor, Dr. Patricia Cianciolo, new uranium and metallic mining proposals have received some support due to the potential for increased job creation.
“People leave this area when they are young because there is a lack of jobs,” said Cianciolo.
Cianciolo said the lack of regional mine employment pales when compared to the potential threat to residential wells and aquifers from metallic sulfide and uranium mining projects in the western UP.
“It’s just profound to see how close the potential mine sites would be to our major water supplies,” said Cianciolo.
Flambeau Mine Still PollutingMining was also a strong theme in Dr. Emerson’s presentation.
Emerson explained that Kennecott Mineral’s closed Flambeau copper mine, in Wisconsin, polluted the nearby Flambeau River and continues to discharge high levels of unregulated heavy metals.
“The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,” Emerson explained. “Kennecott, in general, has not left a good footprint when they have had past mining.”
Emerson said that high levels of manganese have been of particular concern at the Flambeau site. Chronic exposure “basically causes a schizophrenic type psychotic illness which can progress to motor abnormalities and Parkinson’s-type disease,” Emerson said.
“Although they did test the Flambeau River all the testing was done above where the most contaminated stream was in confluence with the Flambeau River,” said Emerson.
“There seems to be some real regulatory failure on the part of the State of Wisconsin on this.”
Marquette resident Brenda Hershey said that the information on Flambeau made her “more concerned.”
“When the research showed they were above levels they just stopped the research,” said Hershey. “How can we base decisions about Marquette [County] on information that is not complete?”
According to Emerson, despite high levels of “indicator” metals, such as copper and zinc, studies for lead and other heavy metal contamination at the Flambeau mine site were not presented to the public.
Studies conducted by Colorado-based Stratus Consulting showed that, based on Flambeau results, Kennecott’s proposed Eagle mine could have lead levels nine times what is allowed in the mining permit issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as well as high levels of cadmium, which can cause kidney damage.
“This is at best regulatory incompetence and, at worst, highly unethical shenanigans on the part of the DEQ,” said Emerson.According to HEAL’s website, the group “is an information warehouse focused on water and air quality and related environmental health topics in the Great Lakes Basin” and sees it’s role as a facilitator of “user-friendly” information between the citizens and science and health professionals.
This entry was written by savethewildup and posted on March 25, 2009 at 1:26 pm and filed under Health, News, Science. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« Kennecott and Trans Superior to Explore in the Ottawa National Forest
NWF Mining documentary wins 2009 Telly Award »
P
By Gabriel CaplettMarch 20, 2009
Marquette, Michigan - Current pollution from past chemical, mining and military operations were addressed alongside the potential for continued public health threats posed by coal power generation and mining activities, Thursday, at the Women’s Federated Clubhouse, in Marquette.
The event, organized by the Great Lakes Health and Environment Action League (HEAL), featured presentations by area health professionals, toxicologists and university professors.
Event moderator, Gene Champagne, said the event was significant for many because public health concerns are “universal.”
“No one wants to be ill,” said Champagne. “We’re talking about the health, our own health, our parents, our children. That matters to everyone.”
Heavy Metals a Concern in Water and AirDr. Lisa Long, a family practitioner in Negaunee, discussed various heavy metals and their potential to affect human health.
According to Long, metals such as arsenic, lead, chromium, thallium and cadmium are commonly associated with mine-related pollution. Cadmium, which is also contained in sewage sludge fertilizers, as well as medical and household incinerated waste, is also commonly found in cigarettes.
“If you smoke, you’ve got twice the exposure as somebody who doesn’t,” said Long.
Although highly toxic, particularly to children and pregnant women, lead is also fairly common in everyday life.
“The only metal with more commercial uses is iron,” said Long.
According to Long, lead has a “sweet” taste and was commonly used by ancient Romans to sweeten cheap wine.
It is that sweetness that makes the metal attractive to young children exposed to the metal. Children absorb roughly fifty percent of lead they ingest, compared to only ten to fifteen percent for adults. The absorption rate is higher with airborne exposure to lead.
Dr. Alan Olson said that, for metals like lead, “zero tolerance should be the rule.”
Dr. Scott Emerson explaining how much lead the human body requires
Shawn Devlin, of Chocolay Township, disagreed. “When you argue for zero you lose credibility,”
Devlin said. “There are natural levels of all these things.”
Dr. Scott Emerson, a toxicologist and emergency room physician at Marquette General Hospital, responded that lead has no positive function in the human body and is only found in unsafe amounts as a result of industrial activities.
“There is no safe level for lead, period,” Emerson said.
Emerson also discussed the role of mercury in affecting public health near mining operations.
According to Emerson, high sulfate levels in water can assist in increasing concentrations of methyl mercury, a potential problem at Kennecott Mineral’s proposed Eagle Project mine and Humboldt milling facility, both in Marquette County.
Emerson describes methylated mercury as “the most dangerous neurotoxic form of mercury.
You get a very aggressive toxin that can go right into the brain and is very readily absorbed.”
According to Dr. Gail Griffith, professor emeritus of Northern Michigan University’s (NMU) chemistry department, coal-fired power plants are another source of mercury, which bio-accumulates in fish tissue and can cause serious human health problems, particularly in young children.
Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Clayton Peimer cautioned that exposure to “micro-particulates” can be hazardous even if the substance does not contain toxic elements like lead.
“If someone says to you “micro-particles,” go get a mask,” warned Peimer.
Dr. Emerson agreed, maintaining that air pollution “is much more dangerous and has much more impact on health than even the water pollution does”
This surprised Negaunee resident Laura Royea.
“The environmental concerns, the airborne pollutants were very important, the particulate matter,” said Royea. “I had not considered that. I always thought of runoff into the streams and, you know, I didn’t think of the things that become airborne and travel much farther.”
Audience Members at Your Water Your Health
Public Health Threats in the UPDr. Griffith discussed ongoing contamination at a number of sites throughout the Upper Peninsula, including the former Cliffs-Dow site that produced charcoal and wood distillate chemicals in the City of Marquette. The company’s dumps closed in the 1960s and eventually became federally-listed Superfund sites.
“You could always tell when they were cleaning out the stills because you could smell it,” said Griffith
For over fifty years, Cleveland Cliffs International (now Cliffs Natural Resources) released mercury from it’s Ishpeming laboratories into the city’s wastewater. That mercury found its way to Deer Lake.
“Some fish of some types from some bodies of water you should never ever eat and that is Deer Lake, for example,” said Griffith.
Griffith explained current public health threats posed by other sites, such as Torch Lake, near Houghton, and the former K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, northeast of Gwinn. Although the air force complex was closed in the early 1990s, underground storage tanks, landfills, munitions testing areas and fuel spills continue to threaten groundwater quality.
“As we speak there is still a plume of jet fuel headed for Silver Lead Creek,” Griffith said.
Griffith also discussed problems associated with radioactive materials. Republic is considered a “hotspot” for radon, the second major cause of lung cancer, after smoking.
In the 1990s, a survey of Republic homes showed that eighty-four percent exceeded maximum exposure levels for the dangerous gas.
A different radioactive element, uranium, has been found in residential wells along the Keweenaw Peninsula, prompting exploration companies to explore for the substance near Lake Gogebic.
“So far they’ve found a little sniff of it but not very much,” said Griffith.
According to NMU sociology professor, Dr. Patricia Cianciolo, new uranium and metallic mining proposals have received some support due to the potential for increased job creation.
“People leave this area when they are young because there is a lack of jobs,” said Cianciolo.
Cianciolo said the lack of regional mine employment pales when compared to the potential threat to residential wells and aquifers from metallic sulfide and uranium mining projects in the western UP.
“It’s just profound to see how close the potential mine sites would be to our major water supplies,” said Cianciolo.
Flambeau Mine Still PollutingMining was also a strong theme in Dr. Emerson’s presentation.
Emerson explained that Kennecott Mineral’s closed Flambeau copper mine, in Wisconsin, polluted the nearby Flambeau River and continues to discharge high levels of unregulated heavy metals.
“The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,” Emerson explained. “Kennecott, in general, has not left a good footprint when they have had past mining.”
Emerson said that high levels of manganese have been of particular concern at the Flambeau site. Chronic exposure “basically causes a schizophrenic type psychotic illness which can progress to motor abnormalities and Parkinson’s-type disease,” Emerson said.
“Although they did test the Flambeau River all the testing was done above where the most contaminated stream was in confluence with the Flambeau River,” said Emerson.
“There seems to be some real regulatory failure on the part of the State of Wisconsin on this.”
Marquette resident Brenda Hershey said that the information on Flambeau made her “more concerned.”
“When the research showed they were above levels they just stopped the research,” said Hershey. “How can we base decisions about Marquette [County] on information that is not complete?”
According to Emerson, despite high levels of “indicator” metals, such as copper and zinc, studies for lead and other heavy metal contamination at the Flambeau mine site were not presented to the public.
Studies conducted by Colorado-based Stratus Consulting showed that, based on Flambeau results, Kennecott’s proposed Eagle mine could have lead levels nine times what is allowed in the mining permit issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as well as high levels of cadmium, which can cause kidney damage.
“This is at best regulatory incompetence and, at worst, highly unethical shenanigans on the part of the DEQ,” said Emerson.According to HEAL’s website, the group “is an information warehouse focused on water and air quality and related environmental health topics in the Great Lakes Basin” and sees it’s role as a facilitator of “user-friendly” information between the citizens and science and health professionals.
This entry was written by savethewildup and posted on March 25, 2009 at 1:26 pm and filed under Health, News, Science. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« Kennecott and Trans Superior to Explore in the Ottawa National Forest
NWF Mining documentary wins 2009 Telly Award »
P
Senators Alexander and Cardin introduce bill to end the dumping of mining waste into streams
Comment: We need strict laws to protect our water!!!
March 27, 8:52 PM
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) today (March 25) introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the dumping of mining waste into streams, effectively ending the practice known as mountaintop mining.
The Appalachia Restoration Act would amend the Clean Water Act to prevent the dumping of what is known as “excess spoil” from mountaintop mining into streams and rivers.
Mountaintop mining is a method of coal mining in which the summit of a mountain is removed to expose the coal beneath, and the resulting millions of tons of waste rock, dirt and vegetation are dumped into nearby stream and river valleys.
More than 1 million acres of Appalachia have already been affected.
An estimated 1,200 miles of headwater streams have been buried under tons of mining wastes.
More than 500 mountains have been impacted, and homes have been ruined and drinking water supplies contaminated.
“My goal is to put a stop to one of the most destructive mining practices that has already destroyed some of America’s most beautiful and ecologically significant regions,” said Senator Cardin, Chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
“This legislation will put a stop to the smothering of our nation’s streams and water systems and will restore the Clean Water Act to its original intent.”
Coal is an essential part of our energy future, but it is not necessary to destroy our mountaintops in order to have enough coal,” said Senator Alexander, a member of the Water and Wildlife
Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works which has jurisdiction over this issue.
“Millions of tourists spend tens of millions of dollars in Tennessee every year to enjoy the natural beauty of our mountains -- a beauty that, for me, and I believe for most Tennesseans, makes us proud to live here.”
Mountaintop mining produces less than five percent of the coal mined in the United States. This bill does not ban other methods of coal mining, but instead would prevent this particular type of coal mining.
Contact Wendy Jacksonat SmokiesExaminer@yahoo.com
March 27, 8:52 PM
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) today (March 25) introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the dumping of mining waste into streams, effectively ending the practice known as mountaintop mining.
The Appalachia Restoration Act would amend the Clean Water Act to prevent the dumping of what is known as “excess spoil” from mountaintop mining into streams and rivers.
Mountaintop mining is a method of coal mining in which the summit of a mountain is removed to expose the coal beneath, and the resulting millions of tons of waste rock, dirt and vegetation are dumped into nearby stream and river valleys.
More than 1 million acres of Appalachia have already been affected.
An estimated 1,200 miles of headwater streams have been buried under tons of mining wastes.
More than 500 mountains have been impacted, and homes have been ruined and drinking water supplies contaminated.
“My goal is to put a stop to one of the most destructive mining practices that has already destroyed some of America’s most beautiful and ecologically significant regions,” said Senator Cardin, Chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
“This legislation will put a stop to the smothering of our nation’s streams and water systems and will restore the Clean Water Act to its original intent.”
Coal is an essential part of our energy future, but it is not necessary to destroy our mountaintops in order to have enough coal,” said Senator Alexander, a member of the Water and Wildlife
Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works which has jurisdiction over this issue.
“Millions of tourists spend tens of millions of dollars in Tennessee every year to enjoy the natural beauty of our mountains -- a beauty that, for me, and I believe for most Tennesseans, makes us proud to live here.”
Mountaintop mining produces less than five percent of the coal mined in the United States. This bill does not ban other methods of coal mining, but instead would prevent this particular type of coal mining.
Contact Wendy Jacksonat SmokiesExaminer@yahoo.com
More Mineral Exploration in the Upper Peninsula
Posted by Ed Cutlip on Friday, March 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Save the Wild UP--an environmental group organizing opposition to a proposed sulfide mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula--is reporting that Kennecott Minerals (who is pursuing the sulfide mine) and another company, Trans Superior Resources, are currently looking for uranium and metallic minerals in the Ottawa National Forest.
Save the Wild UP writes:
"Kennecott is pursuing three separate project areas located within the Ottawa. According to a Forest Service scoping letter, the company is looking for "all base and precious metals and other precious and semi-precious minerals".
The 640-acre "Watersmeet" parcel is located roughly four miles southeast of Watersmeet; the 200-acre "Haight" parcel is located roughly 8 miles northwest of Watersmeet; and the 395-acre "Bates" parcel is located on Perch Lake, roughly 20 miles north of the town of Iron River.
Trans Superior is also pursuing three parcels, totaling 920 acres in an attempt to locate "nickel, copper, cobalt, platinum, palladium and associated minerals."
All are located just east of Prickett Lake and roughly 8 miles southwest of the town of Baraga. The company had previously obtained federal uranium prospecting permits from the Ottawa for exploration activities adjacent to the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness as well as for locations east and northeast of Lake Gogebic. The new Prickett Lake projects are immediately to the northeast of the Sturgeon Wilderness."
Both companies have been heavily involved in mining projects in the Upper Peninsula.
Trans Superior's parent company, Bitterroot Resources, has a joint venture agreement with the uranium mining company Cameco.
Public comment is currently being accepted and will be accepted indefinitely during the current "scoping" period. Once the forest service completes an environmental assessment for the projects, there will be another 30-day comment period.
Save the Wild UP--an environmental group organizing opposition to a proposed sulfide mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula--is reporting that Kennecott Minerals (who is pursuing the sulfide mine) and another company, Trans Superior Resources, are currently looking for uranium and metallic minerals in the Ottawa National Forest.
Save the Wild UP writes:
"Kennecott is pursuing three separate project areas located within the Ottawa. According to a Forest Service scoping letter, the company is looking for "all base and precious metals and other precious and semi-precious minerals".
The 640-acre "Watersmeet" parcel is located roughly four miles southeast of Watersmeet; the 200-acre "Haight" parcel is located roughly 8 miles northwest of Watersmeet; and the 395-acre "Bates" parcel is located on Perch Lake, roughly 20 miles north of the town of Iron River.
Trans Superior is also pursuing three parcels, totaling 920 acres in an attempt to locate "nickel, copper, cobalt, platinum, palladium and associated minerals."
All are located just east of Prickett Lake and roughly 8 miles southwest of the town of Baraga. The company had previously obtained federal uranium prospecting permits from the Ottawa for exploration activities adjacent to the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness as well as for locations east and northeast of Lake Gogebic. The new Prickett Lake projects are immediately to the northeast of the Sturgeon Wilderness."
Both companies have been heavily involved in mining projects in the Upper Peninsula.
Trans Superior's parent company, Bitterroot Resources, has a joint venture agreement with the uranium mining company Cameco.
Public comment is currently being accepted and will be accepted indefinitely during the current "scoping" period. Once the forest service completes an environmental assessment for the projects, there will be another 30-day comment period.
Is uranium DOA?
Comment: Do we want jobs that are tied to an unstable market? No!!!
Official: HRI’s Churchrock uranium project on hold
Copyright © 2009Gallup IndependentBy Kathy HelmsDiné Bureau
CHURCHROCK — A proposed in-situ leach uranium mining project near Churchrock is on hold, according to Rick Van Horn, chief operating officer of Uranium Resources Inc.
With spot uranium prices down, Uranium Resources Inc., parent company of HRI-Churchrock Inc., is still awaiting a decision from the 10th Circuit Court in Denver regarding an underground injection control permit.
On Dec. 5, 2006, Hydro Resources Inc, or HRI, entered into a joint venture with a wholly owned subsidiary of Itochu, one of Japan’s largest trading companies, to develop its Churchrock property in New Mexico. Under terms of the joint venture, both parties had until April 2, 2007, to make a preliminary investment decision and over the past two years, mutually agreed to extend the date for the decision.
However, earlier this month URI received notification that Itochu had terminated the joint venture.
“We decided mutually that it was in both of our best interests for them to, at this time, pull out. Uranium prices are depressed, we’re still awaiting the court decision, and right now the project is on hold until we get that decision,” Van Horn said Wednesday.
“It basically gives us the whole project back.
Instead of having a partner in there, we’ve got the whole thing back and we look at it as a positive,” he said. The company could seek other investors.
Asked whether uranium prices and the lawsuit were factors in Itochu’s decision, Van Horn said,
“It might have, but I can’t speak for them. I think the big thing is that it was not going anywhere, mostly because of the uranium prices and the general malaise in the market, and the inability of anybody to get financing for anything.
“The only two industries that are going well are Walmart and McDonalds,” he said jokingly.
Approximately 70 million pounds of uranium reserves are known to exist on the Navajo Reservation, Van Horn said.
“Right now, it’s a very valuable asset for the Nation.
The thing that we have to get around is the ban that the Nation has on uranium mining.”
Through legislation sponsored by Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, the Navajo Nation imposed a ban on uranium mining and milling within Navajo Indian Country in April 2005.
The same year, New Mexico Environment Department received a request from HRI for an underground injection control permit to operate a uranium in-situ leach mine in Section 8.
As a result, NMED formally requested U.S. Environmental Protection Agency make a decision on the Indian Country status of Section 8 land, with the underlying issue being which was the appropriate agency to consider the permit application.
On Feb. 6, 2007, EPA found that Churchrock Chapter, which includes Section 8, is a “dependent Indian community” and that EPA was the proper authority to issue the permit.
The case was appealed to the 10th Circuit in Denver, which has yet to rule on oral arguments heard last May from attorneys for HRI and attorneys for Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining.
According to URI’s year-end report for 2008 released March 10, revenue for the fourth quarter was $2.2 million, a $6 million decrease compared with $8.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2007, as significantly fewer pounds of uranium were sold at a lower price per pound. The net loss for the fourth quarter was $7.5 million.
During the quarter, URI sold 38,700 pounds of uranium, a 65.8 percent decrease from the 113,000 pounds sold in last year’s fourth quarter. URI received an average selling price per pound of $56.76 in the fourth quarter, down from an average per pound price of $72.72 in the 2007 quarter.
Uranium spot prices, or short-term, were at $42.50 Wednesday.
“There’s also a long-term price and that’s at $70 right now. It depends on what your contracts are like.
We have no contracts for New Mexico. We are currently producing in Texas and we produce into an average of the long-term and short-term price,” Van Horn said.
“We are only producing at the Kingsville site. Rosita has been shut in and is under restoration, and Vasquez has been shut in and is under restoration. All three are in Texas.
Kingsville, we are currently producing out of some well fields and restoring in others.”
URI has closed an exploration office in Corpus Christi, Texas, and has consolidated it into the Kingsville operation.
The company’s Albuquerque office also has been closed.
“The good news is we’re still here. We have cash enough to last for two years without any additional infusions of cash and to continue the restoration activities we are conducting here in Texas.
We are also working with Navajo EPA to do some work on Section 17 in Churchrock as far as some characterization of possible legacy contamination,” Van Horn said.
T
hough HRI/URI did not put the contamination there, “We are funding a study to see what is there. I think that’s an important thing with all of these legacy issues. There are a lot of numbers that are flying around and a lot of supposed facts. We need to get out and get the facts: What is the contamination? What is critical? What needs to be done to protect the health and safety of the people in community, and the people in New Mexico in general.”
Van Horn said HRI applied for and was issued the permit by the state, but the project can’t proceed until they get a court decision on who has the authority to issue the permit, the state or EPA, based on whether the proposed site is in Indian Country or not Indian Country.
“We have our NRC license. The only permit we’re lacking right now is the underground injection control permit. We have been issued one but we couldn’t act on it,” he said
Official: HRI’s Churchrock uranium project on hold
Copyright © 2009Gallup IndependentBy Kathy HelmsDiné Bureau
CHURCHROCK — A proposed in-situ leach uranium mining project near Churchrock is on hold, according to Rick Van Horn, chief operating officer of Uranium Resources Inc.
With spot uranium prices down, Uranium Resources Inc., parent company of HRI-Churchrock Inc., is still awaiting a decision from the 10th Circuit Court in Denver regarding an underground injection control permit.
On Dec. 5, 2006, Hydro Resources Inc, or HRI, entered into a joint venture with a wholly owned subsidiary of Itochu, one of Japan’s largest trading companies, to develop its Churchrock property in New Mexico. Under terms of the joint venture, both parties had until April 2, 2007, to make a preliminary investment decision and over the past two years, mutually agreed to extend the date for the decision.
However, earlier this month URI received notification that Itochu had terminated the joint venture.
“We decided mutually that it was in both of our best interests for them to, at this time, pull out. Uranium prices are depressed, we’re still awaiting the court decision, and right now the project is on hold until we get that decision,” Van Horn said Wednesday.
“It basically gives us the whole project back.
Instead of having a partner in there, we’ve got the whole thing back and we look at it as a positive,” he said. The company could seek other investors.
Asked whether uranium prices and the lawsuit were factors in Itochu’s decision, Van Horn said,
“It might have, but I can’t speak for them. I think the big thing is that it was not going anywhere, mostly because of the uranium prices and the general malaise in the market, and the inability of anybody to get financing for anything.
“The only two industries that are going well are Walmart and McDonalds,” he said jokingly.
Approximately 70 million pounds of uranium reserves are known to exist on the Navajo Reservation, Van Horn said.
“Right now, it’s a very valuable asset for the Nation.
The thing that we have to get around is the ban that the Nation has on uranium mining.”
Through legislation sponsored by Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, the Navajo Nation imposed a ban on uranium mining and milling within Navajo Indian Country in April 2005.
The same year, New Mexico Environment Department received a request from HRI for an underground injection control permit to operate a uranium in-situ leach mine in Section 8.
As a result, NMED formally requested U.S. Environmental Protection Agency make a decision on the Indian Country status of Section 8 land, with the underlying issue being which was the appropriate agency to consider the permit application.
On Feb. 6, 2007, EPA found that Churchrock Chapter, which includes Section 8, is a “dependent Indian community” and that EPA was the proper authority to issue the permit.
The case was appealed to the 10th Circuit in Denver, which has yet to rule on oral arguments heard last May from attorneys for HRI and attorneys for Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining.
According to URI’s year-end report for 2008 released March 10, revenue for the fourth quarter was $2.2 million, a $6 million decrease compared with $8.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2007, as significantly fewer pounds of uranium were sold at a lower price per pound. The net loss for the fourth quarter was $7.5 million.
During the quarter, URI sold 38,700 pounds of uranium, a 65.8 percent decrease from the 113,000 pounds sold in last year’s fourth quarter. URI received an average selling price per pound of $56.76 in the fourth quarter, down from an average per pound price of $72.72 in the 2007 quarter.
Uranium spot prices, or short-term, were at $42.50 Wednesday.
“There’s also a long-term price and that’s at $70 right now. It depends on what your contracts are like.
We have no contracts for New Mexico. We are currently producing in Texas and we produce into an average of the long-term and short-term price,” Van Horn said.
“We are only producing at the Kingsville site. Rosita has been shut in and is under restoration, and Vasquez has been shut in and is under restoration. All three are in Texas.
Kingsville, we are currently producing out of some well fields and restoring in others.”
URI has closed an exploration office in Corpus Christi, Texas, and has consolidated it into the Kingsville operation.
The company’s Albuquerque office also has been closed.
“The good news is we’re still here. We have cash enough to last for two years without any additional infusions of cash and to continue the restoration activities we are conducting here in Texas.
We are also working with Navajo EPA to do some work on Section 17 in Churchrock as far as some characterization of possible legacy contamination,” Van Horn said.
T
hough HRI/URI did not put the contamination there, “We are funding a study to see what is there. I think that’s an important thing with all of these legacy issues. There are a lot of numbers that are flying around and a lot of supposed facts. We need to get out and get the facts: What is the contamination? What is critical? What needs to be done to protect the health and safety of the people in community, and the people in New Mexico in general.”
Van Horn said HRI applied for and was issued the permit by the state, but the project can’t proceed until they get a court decision on who has the authority to issue the permit, the state or EPA, based on whether the proposed site is in Indian Country or not Indian Country.
“We have our NRC license. The only permit we’re lacking right now is the underground injection control permit. We have been issued one but we couldn’t act on it,” he said
Numeric Power to enter solar panel assembling biz
The company will buy solar cells from suppliers in Japan and Germany and configure panel modules and assemble them
The company is planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where it has a 1.5-MW windmill farm
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, Numeric Power Systems
R. Ravikumar
Chennai, March 27 Chennai-based Numeric Power Systems Ltd, a major player in
uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems, is planning to enter solar panel assembling business.
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, said the company will buy solar cells from suppliers in Japan and Germany and configure panel modules and assemble them.
“We are also toying with the idea of foraying into the precision air-conditioning space with a strategic partner,” he said.
The company offers total solar power solutions and LED lighting solutions, besides offering products including solar PV panels (currently imported as panels), under amorphous and crystalline cell-based technologies, solar charge controllers and grid-tied inverters.
It has executed three solar power projects with total generation capacity of 200 kKWp for captive consumption at its facilities in Chennai, Puducherry and Salem, besides over 100 installations for many banks and other clients.
“We are now planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where we have a 1.5-MW windmill farm,” he said. The company has chalked an investment budget of Rs 25 crore for the purpose. “We may require another Rs 5 crore to set up a panel assembling facility there.”Market share
The Rs 430-crore Numeric Power has 20 per cent share of the market in UPS systems. Of this, Mr Chellappan said, 20 per cent comes from the small office, home office and SME segments; 30 per cent from the banking, financial services and insurance sector; 30 per cent from corporate clients, while the high-capacity segment such as healthcare, IT and telecom sectors fetch 20 per cent.
Last year, Numeric grew over 40 per cent. However it may not grow more than 10 per cent this year “due to slowdown”.
The company is a major player in powering ATMs. “In India, close to 80 per cent of the total 32,000 ATMs installed is powered by us,” he said.
On the LED lighting systems front, Numeric offers products for indoor and outdoor applications, including solar street lighting systems and decorative lighting systems.
HCL tie-up
Besides, Numeric has teamed up with HCL to power Pan-African e-networking project for linking hospitals and educational institutions in the continent with their counterparts in India for telemedicine and distance education, in addition to various other e-connectivity projects there.
The company is planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where it has a 1.5-MW windmill farm
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, Numeric Power Systems
R. Ravikumar
Chennai, March 27 Chennai-based Numeric Power Systems Ltd, a major player in
uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems, is planning to enter solar panel assembling business.
Mr R. Chellappan, Managing Director, said the company will buy solar cells from suppliers in Japan and Germany and configure panel modules and assemble them.
“We are also toying with the idea of foraying into the precision air-conditioning space with a strategic partner,” he said.
The company offers total solar power solutions and LED lighting solutions, besides offering products including solar PV panels (currently imported as panels), under amorphous and crystalline cell-based technologies, solar charge controllers and grid-tied inverters.
It has executed three solar power projects with total generation capacity of 200 kKWp for captive consumption at its facilities in Chennai, Puducherry and Salem, besides over 100 installations for many banks and other clients.
“We are now planning a 1-MW solar project at Palladam in Coimbatore, where we have a 1.5-MW windmill farm,” he said. The company has chalked an investment budget of Rs 25 crore for the purpose. “We may require another Rs 5 crore to set up a panel assembling facility there.”Market share
The Rs 430-crore Numeric Power has 20 per cent share of the market in UPS systems. Of this, Mr Chellappan said, 20 per cent comes from the small office, home office and SME segments; 30 per cent from the banking, financial services and insurance sector; 30 per cent from corporate clients, while the high-capacity segment such as healthcare, IT and telecom sectors fetch 20 per cent.
Last year, Numeric grew over 40 per cent. However it may not grow more than 10 per cent this year “due to slowdown”.
The company is a major player in powering ATMs. “In India, close to 80 per cent of the total 32,000 ATMs installed is powered by us,” he said.
On the LED lighting systems front, Numeric offers products for indoor and outdoor applications, including solar street lighting systems and decorative lighting systems.
HCL tie-up
Besides, Numeric has teamed up with HCL to power Pan-African e-networking project for linking hospitals and educational institutions in the continent with their counterparts in India for telemedicine and distance education, in addition to various other e-connectivity projects there.
Friday, March 27, 2009
UN Secretary General Urges Citizens To Join WWF's Earth Hour
THIS SATURDAY 28 MARCH AT 8.30PM YOU CAN VOTE EARTH BY SWITCHING OFF
YOUR LIGHTS FOR ONE HOUR - EARTH HOUR.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged citizens around the world to join WWF's Earth Hour to demand action on climate change.
In a video-taped address, the Secretary-General said that Earth Hour – which takes place on Saturday 28th March – promises to be “the largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted.”
“Earth Hour is a way for the citizens of the world to send a clear message.
They want action on climate change.” said Secretary-General Ban.
Speaking just a week before Earth Hour rolls out across thousands of towns and cities across the globe, Ban underlined the seriousness of climate change and the need for a global climate deal to be agreed when the world's leaders meet in Copenhagen this coming December.
“People will be telling their representatives to seal a deal in Copenhagen.
A deal at the climate change talks that will protect people and the planet.
We need an ambitious agreement. An agreement that is fair and effective. An agreement based on sound science.”Secretary-General Ban went on to underline the seriousness of climate change and the scale of the task ahead.
“We are on a dangerous path. Our planet is warming. We must change our ways,” he said.
“We need green growth that benefits all communities.
We need sustainable energy for a more climate-friendly, prosperous world.
This is the path of the future. We must walk it together.”
WWF's Earth Hour is being hailed as the biggest ever global movement – a vote for the future of planet earth.
Hundreds of millions of people are expected to take part by switching off non-essential lighting for an hour.
Cities from Las Vegas to Sydney, from Cape Town to Beijing will go dark for an hour.
Ban said that the United Nations would be doing its bit for Earth Hour.
“In New York, we will switch out the lights at UN Headquarters.
Other UN facilities around the world will also take part.”And he concluded:
“I urge citizens everywhere to join us.
Please send a strong message on climate change. Together we can find a solution to this most serious of global challenges.”
Nuclear Is Being Touted as a “Green” Energy Source
Comment: Canadians do not want Nuke Power or Uranium Mining, they want true "Green Energy too and so does the US!!!!
One could be forgiven for thinking we’ve overcome the problems associated with nuclear power.
Everywhere you turn, nuclear is being touted as a “green” energy source and a solution to global warming.
Our prime minister (Canada) recently sang the benefits of both nuclear power and uranium mining in a speech to a business crowd in London, England.
“As the largest producer of uranium, we can contribute to the renaissance of nuclear energy, a no-emissions source that will be expanding here in Britain and around the world,” Stephen Harper said.
If only it were so easy.
Those of us old enough to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island also remember a time of concern about nuclear waste, nuclear-weapons proliferation, accidents at nuclear power plants, pollution from uranium mining…
Have those problems gone away? Has science found a way to deal with them?
Unfortunately, the answer is no – and those aren’t the only problems.
Nuclear power is also expensive and heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ money, and it isn’t even totally emissions-free.
Although nuclear energy’s ability to provide large-scale continuous power makes it tempting, we have better ways to deal with our energy needs.
To start, waste from uranium mining and nuclear power plants is a serious issue, especially considering that much of that waste is highly radioactive.
Although we can recycle some waste from power production, we still haven’t really figured out what to do with most of it.
One method for large-scale storage is to bury it, but that’s basically a policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind – we don’t yet know the full consequences.
It’s also expensive and the waste has to be transported over long distances where the probability of a mishap is very real.
And although nuclear has a relatively good safety record compared to some other large-scale energy technologies, the consequences of an accident can be far worse – as we learned when a reactor at a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Russia, exploded in 1986. It sent radioactive fallout into the air over Russia, Europe, and even parts of North America and led to an increase in cancers in the areas with the highest concentrations of fallout.
If nuclear energy really does expand “around the world”, as Prime Minister Harper predicts, the dangers of weapons proliferation will continue to grow.
Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build and are incredibly expensive – and are notorious for going massively over budget. Canada has subsidized the nuclear power industry to the tune of $20 billion over the past 50 years.
Just think of what we could have done by putting that kind of money into renewable energy.
Nuclear energy isn’t even all that green when it comes to global warming.
If you look at the life cycle of nuclear power, the technology produces greenhouse gases at every step, from energy-intensive uranium mining and transportation to constructing and decommissioning power plants. (Looking at the life cycle of energy technologies hasn’t been always been a common practice, but it’s an important step that has allowed us to identify problems with energy sources that look attractive at first glance, such as corn-based biofuels.)
If we were to look forward instead of backward, Canada(and US) could become a leader in energy technology and innovation.
As costs for renewable energy go down, costs for old-school technologies like nuclear power and fossil fuels continue to rise.
Advances have also been made in power-grid management, meaning renewable sources can be more easily integrated into energy systems.
The government of B.C. has recognized that nuclear energy isn’t a panacea; in April, it banned uranium mining in the province.
Keep in mind that uranium is a limited resource.
The European Commission estimated in 2001 that global supplies of uranium could last as few as 12 years if capacity increases substantially and will only last from about 40 to 70 years with current usage rates.
Prices have already been skyrocketing as uranium becomes scarce.
As we rethink our energy future in light of the dangers of further increasing greenhouse gases, we have an enormous opportunity.
I believe that rather than putting all of our faith in big technology (big dams, coal plants, nuclear), investing in a decentralized grid of diverse, small-scale renewable energy sources would be far more resilient and reliable.
We should all get behind renewable energy in order to avoid the dangers and expense of an expanding nuclear industry.
But there’s something else we can do: use less energy.
Conservation means we could avoid having to build expensive power plants, and we’d also have cleaner air and some real solutions to global warming.
Many people have already switched to more energy-efficient appliances, as well as finding other ways to reduce energy consumption. (Like hanging clothes outside, cutting back your heat, insulate your homes)
All of those small things add up to make a big difference. People really do have the power.
Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
One could be forgiven for thinking we’ve overcome the problems associated with nuclear power.
Everywhere you turn, nuclear is being touted as a “green” energy source and a solution to global warming.
Our prime minister (Canada) recently sang the benefits of both nuclear power and uranium mining in a speech to a business crowd in London, England.
“As the largest producer of uranium, we can contribute to the renaissance of nuclear energy, a no-emissions source that will be expanding here in Britain and around the world,” Stephen Harper said.
If only it were so easy.
Those of us old enough to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island also remember a time of concern about nuclear waste, nuclear-weapons proliferation, accidents at nuclear power plants, pollution from uranium mining…
Have those problems gone away? Has science found a way to deal with them?
Unfortunately, the answer is no – and those aren’t the only problems.
Nuclear power is also expensive and heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ money, and it isn’t even totally emissions-free.
Although nuclear energy’s ability to provide large-scale continuous power makes it tempting, we have better ways to deal with our energy needs.
To start, waste from uranium mining and nuclear power plants is a serious issue, especially considering that much of that waste is highly radioactive.
Although we can recycle some waste from power production, we still haven’t really figured out what to do with most of it.
One method for large-scale storage is to bury it, but that’s basically a policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind – we don’t yet know the full consequences.
It’s also expensive and the waste has to be transported over long distances where the probability of a mishap is very real.
And although nuclear has a relatively good safety record compared to some other large-scale energy technologies, the consequences of an accident can be far worse – as we learned when a reactor at a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Russia, exploded in 1986. It sent radioactive fallout into the air over Russia, Europe, and even parts of North America and led to an increase in cancers in the areas with the highest concentrations of fallout.
If nuclear energy really does expand “around the world”, as Prime Minister Harper predicts, the dangers of weapons proliferation will continue to grow.
Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build and are incredibly expensive – and are notorious for going massively over budget. Canada has subsidized the nuclear power industry to the tune of $20 billion over the past 50 years.
Just think of what we could have done by putting that kind of money into renewable energy.
Nuclear energy isn’t even all that green when it comes to global warming.
If you look at the life cycle of nuclear power, the technology produces greenhouse gases at every step, from energy-intensive uranium mining and transportation to constructing and decommissioning power plants. (Looking at the life cycle of energy technologies hasn’t been always been a common practice, but it’s an important step that has allowed us to identify problems with energy sources that look attractive at first glance, such as corn-based biofuels.)
If we were to look forward instead of backward, Canada(and US) could become a leader in energy technology and innovation.
As costs for renewable energy go down, costs for old-school technologies like nuclear power and fossil fuels continue to rise.
Advances have also been made in power-grid management, meaning renewable sources can be more easily integrated into energy systems.
The government of B.C. has recognized that nuclear energy isn’t a panacea; in April, it banned uranium mining in the province.
Keep in mind that uranium is a limited resource.
The European Commission estimated in 2001 that global supplies of uranium could last as few as 12 years if capacity increases substantially and will only last from about 40 to 70 years with current usage rates.
Prices have already been skyrocketing as uranium becomes scarce.
As we rethink our energy future in light of the dangers of further increasing greenhouse gases, we have an enormous opportunity.
I believe that rather than putting all of our faith in big technology (big dams, coal plants, nuclear), investing in a decentralized grid of diverse, small-scale renewable energy sources would be far more resilient and reliable.
We should all get behind renewable energy in order to avoid the dangers and expense of an expanding nuclear industry.
But there’s something else we can do: use less energy.
Conservation means we could avoid having to build expensive power plants, and we’d also have cleaner air and some real solutions to global warming.
Many people have already switched to more energy-efficient appliances, as well as finding other ways to reduce energy consumption. (Like hanging clothes outside, cutting back your heat, insulate your homes)
All of those small things add up to make a big difference. People really do have the power.
Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
NRC to hold public meetings on nuclear plants
Comment: The people need to tell NRC and Dominion VA Power we want to become a Nuke Free State!
By the Associated Press
March 25, 2009
RICHMOND, Va. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding public meetings to discuss safety assessments for the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants in Virginia.
The agency will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the plants, as well as the NRC's role in ensuring safe plant operation.
Both plants are operated by Dominion Virginia Power.
An open house meeting regarding the Surry plant is scheduled for April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Surry Government Center's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The meeting about the North Anna plant is scheduled for April 7 at 6 p.m. at the North Anna Nuclear Information Center in Mineral.
By the Associated Press
March 25, 2009
RICHMOND, Va. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding public meetings to discuss safety assessments for the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants in Virginia.
The agency will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the plants, as well as the NRC's role in ensuring safe plant operation.
Both plants are operated by Dominion Virginia Power.
An open house meeting regarding the Surry plant is scheduled for April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Surry Government Center's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The meeting about the North Anna plant is scheduled for April 7 at 6 p.m. at the North Anna Nuclear Information Center in Mineral.
Norfolk needs a lobbyist free of distractions
Comment: VUI, has another lobbyist!!!
The Virginian-Pilot© March 27, 2009
A $3.5 billion proposal to privatize the state's port operations could have a far-reaching impact on many of the region's local governments and businesses. That's provoked questions about how a lobbying firm with close ties to many of the key players in the deal will sort out its potential conflicts of interest.
Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim is correct to broach the issue now, before his city finds itself at a disadvantage in delicate financial negotiations.
Kemper Consulting represents Norfolk on issues before the legislature and state agencies. But CenterPoint Properties, the Illinois company seeking to take over operations of the state's three port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News, is also a client.
CenterPoint's proposal is likely to be one of several pitched to the state this year. State officials will compare the merits of all bids, while also weighing whether Virginia would be better off maintaining control of its most valuable asset.
Norfolk's desires can't and won't be the only factor in the negotiations, but as the host city for the largest terminal it can't afford to get lost in the jockeying. It must have an advocate whose interests are in complete alignment.
CenterPoint is offering to pay Norfolk $3 million annually to cover lost tax revenues, road repairs from truck traffic and other services. That's nearly triple the pittance now paid by the state, but well short of the costs now borne by the city.
Fraim is reasonably giving Kemper time to propose a solution that could satisfy his concerns, but a resolution could be complicated by other clients of the firm. Kemper also represents the Virginia Maritime Association, a group of more than 400 companies that promotes commercial growth at the port.
In an unrelated matter, Kemper has taken on a new client in Virginia Uranium, a company seeking state approval to mine in Pittsylvania County. Virginia Beach opposes the mine until it receives assurances that the project will not contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's primary source of drinking water.
Norfolk has taken no position on the matter but is monitoring the issue because it stores and treats Beach water supplies.
The port is properly Norfolk's top concern. Strong commercial growth at the waterfront could assure the city's economic prosperity, but hasty deals will bring high costs and years of regret.
Given those stakes, city officials must demand a lobbyist free of distractions
The Virginian-Pilot© March 27, 2009
A $3.5 billion proposal to privatize the state's port operations could have a far-reaching impact on many of the region's local governments and businesses. That's provoked questions about how a lobbying firm with close ties to many of the key players in the deal will sort out its potential conflicts of interest.
Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim is correct to broach the issue now, before his city finds itself at a disadvantage in delicate financial negotiations.
Kemper Consulting represents Norfolk on issues before the legislature and state agencies. But CenterPoint Properties, the Illinois company seeking to take over operations of the state's three port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News, is also a client.
CenterPoint's proposal is likely to be one of several pitched to the state this year. State officials will compare the merits of all bids, while also weighing whether Virginia would be better off maintaining control of its most valuable asset.
Norfolk's desires can't and won't be the only factor in the negotiations, but as the host city for the largest terminal it can't afford to get lost in the jockeying. It must have an advocate whose interests are in complete alignment.
CenterPoint is offering to pay Norfolk $3 million annually to cover lost tax revenues, road repairs from truck traffic and other services. That's nearly triple the pittance now paid by the state, but well short of the costs now borne by the city.
Fraim is reasonably giving Kemper time to propose a solution that could satisfy his concerns, but a resolution could be complicated by other clients of the firm. Kemper also represents the Virginia Maritime Association, a group of more than 400 companies that promotes commercial growth at the port.
In an unrelated matter, Kemper has taken on a new client in Virginia Uranium, a company seeking state approval to mine in Pittsylvania County. Virginia Beach opposes the mine until it receives assurances that the project will not contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's primary source of drinking water.
Norfolk has taken no position on the matter but is monitoring the issue because it stores and treats Beach water supplies.
The port is properly Norfolk's top concern. Strong commercial growth at the waterfront could assure the city's economic prosperity, but hasty deals will bring high costs and years of regret.
Given those stakes, city officials must demand a lobbyist free of distractions
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Environmental Benefits of Using Solar Panels As An Energy Source
By SolarByTheWatt.com on March 26, 2009
You probably know the sun generates more than 10,000 times the amount of energy the entire world consumes annually. Yet, this “free” energy has remained greatly untapped. Conversely, the environment is being degraded by our current energy choices. The positives for using solar panels are obvious, but what few know is how it also helps our environment.
First lets look at what we are using currently to meet our energy needs, coal and nuclear energy, and how ecologically damaging they are.
To start, most existing coal plants release many different toxins directly into the air we breathe, from sulfur to lead and mercury. Even the newer plants coming on line, which reduce toxins dramatically, still produce massive quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas and a direct cause of global warming. Natural gas is far more benign but still produces large quantities of CO2 when used to produce electricity. How much CO2 is released - a 5-kilowatt solar system will prevent the release of nearly 10,400 pounds of CO2 every year for the life of the system. The average home uses 8,000-kilowatt hours per year. A coal power plant producing that much electricity emits about 18,000 pounds of CO2 per year.
When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released. For that reason, coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released. Mining, cleaning, and transporting coal to the power plant generate additional emissions. For example, methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is trapped in the coal, is often vented during these processes to increase safety.
Secondly, large quantities of water are needed to remove impurities from coal at the mine. These large quantities of water are used for producing steam and for cooling systems. When coal-fired power plants remove water from a lake or river, the fish and other aquatic life can be affected, as well as animals and people who depend on these aquatic resources. At the same time, pollutants build up in the water used by the power plant boiler and cooling system. If the water used in the power plant is discharged to a lake or river, the pollutants in the water can harm fish and plants.
Last, the burning of coal creates solid waste, called ash, which is composed primarily of metal oxides and alkali. On average, the ash content of coal is 10 percent. Solid waste is also created at coal mines when coal is cleaned and at power plants when air pollutants are removed from the stack gas. Much of this waste is deposited in landfills and abandoned mines, although some amounts are now being recycled into useful products, such as cement and building materials.
So, you may say, what about nuclear power? While nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides - fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant.
Nuclear power plants also use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling.
When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river, fish and other aquatic life can be affected.
Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems.
These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.(I have seen fish kills in a certain state's Beaches)
Waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.
Every 18 to 24 months, nuclear power plants must shut down to remove and replace the “spent” uranium fuel.
This spent fuel has released most of its energy as a result of the fission process and has become radioactive waste.
All of the nuclear power plants in the United States together produce about 2,000 metric tons per year of radioactive waste. Currently, the radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear plants at which it is generated, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in above-ground steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters.
This waste will remain radioactive for many thousands of years.
As you can see, the more solar power is used, the more it helps our environment.
By investing in solar today you are investing in your future and your children’s future and you do this by combating global warming and reduce our nation’s dependence of foreign energy sources.
And, you are helping in the reduction of CO2 emissions and protecting clean water sources.
It’s amazing how such a small change in one’s life can do so much.
ARI Green Energy is a manufacturer of wind generator technologies. Visit them today for a full line of wind turbines and solar technology solutions. Think green.
Article Source: http://www.articlealley.com/article_830778_45.html
About the Author: Author: Robert Bell
You probably know the sun generates more than 10,000 times the amount of energy the entire world consumes annually. Yet, this “free” energy has remained greatly untapped. Conversely, the environment is being degraded by our current energy choices. The positives for using solar panels are obvious, but what few know is how it also helps our environment.
First lets look at what we are using currently to meet our energy needs, coal and nuclear energy, and how ecologically damaging they are.
To start, most existing coal plants release many different toxins directly into the air we breathe, from sulfur to lead and mercury. Even the newer plants coming on line, which reduce toxins dramatically, still produce massive quantities of CO2, a greenhouse gas and a direct cause of global warming. Natural gas is far more benign but still produces large quantities of CO2 when used to produce electricity. How much CO2 is released - a 5-kilowatt solar system will prevent the release of nearly 10,400 pounds of CO2 every year for the life of the system. The average home uses 8,000-kilowatt hours per year. A coal power plant producing that much electricity emits about 18,000 pounds of CO2 per year.
When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released. For that reason, coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released. Mining, cleaning, and transporting coal to the power plant generate additional emissions. For example, methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is trapped in the coal, is often vented during these processes to increase safety.
Secondly, large quantities of water are needed to remove impurities from coal at the mine. These large quantities of water are used for producing steam and for cooling systems. When coal-fired power plants remove water from a lake or river, the fish and other aquatic life can be affected, as well as animals and people who depend on these aquatic resources. At the same time, pollutants build up in the water used by the power plant boiler and cooling system. If the water used in the power plant is discharged to a lake or river, the pollutants in the water can harm fish and plants.
Last, the burning of coal creates solid waste, called ash, which is composed primarily of metal oxides and alkali. On average, the ash content of coal is 10 percent. Solid waste is also created at coal mines when coal is cleaned and at power plants when air pollutants are removed from the stack gas. Much of this waste is deposited in landfills and abandoned mines, although some amounts are now being recycled into useful products, such as cement and building materials.
So, you may say, what about nuclear power? While nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides - fossil fuel emissions are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant.
Nuclear power plants also use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling.
When nuclear power plants remove water from a lake or river, fish and other aquatic life can be affected.
Water pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems.
These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.(I have seen fish kills in a certain state's Beaches)
Waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.
Every 18 to 24 months, nuclear power plants must shut down to remove and replace the “spent” uranium fuel.
This spent fuel has released most of its energy as a result of the fission process and has become radioactive waste.
All of the nuclear power plants in the United States together produce about 2,000 metric tons per year of radioactive waste. Currently, the radioactive waste is stored at the nuclear plants at which it is generated, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in above-ground steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters.
This waste will remain radioactive for many thousands of years.
As you can see, the more solar power is used, the more it helps our environment.
By investing in solar today you are investing in your future and your children’s future and you do this by combating global warming and reduce our nation’s dependence of foreign energy sources.
And, you are helping in the reduction of CO2 emissions and protecting clean water sources.
It’s amazing how such a small change in one’s life can do so much.
ARI Green Energy is a manufacturer of wind generator technologies. Visit them today for a full line of wind turbines and solar technology solutions. Think green.
Article Source: http://www.articlealley.com/article_830778_45.html
About the Author: Author: Robert Bell
Chesapeake residents to file $1 billion lawsuit over fly ash
Comment: Coal-ash poison the wells of homeowners and they are suing LLC's plus was approved by local gov't!!!!
By Robert McCabeThe Virginian-Pilot© March 26, 2009
Attorneys representing nearly 400 people who live near the Battlefield Golf Club at Centerville say they will file a lawsuit Friday in Chesapeake Circuit Court seeking a jury trial and damages in excess of $1 billion.
The defendants named in the suit include Dominion Virginia Power, which supplied 1.5 million tons of fly ash used to contour the golf course; CPM Virginia LLC, the developers of the course; and VFL Technology Corp., described as Dominion’s coal-ash management consultant.
The suit’s demands include the removal of all fly ash from the site; installation of public water and sewer; the cleaning of the aquifer under the course; compensation for lost property values and personal injury; and the establishment of a fund for medical monitoring and treatment costs.
Last fall, Dominion committed to pay up to $6 million to extend city water to residences near the golf course.
Fly ash is a powdery residue left from the burning of coal for electricity. It contains heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury that can pose environmental threats through groundwater and air.
The City Council unanimously approved a conditional-use permit for the golf course in June 2001, after assurances by Dominion that there were no environmental concerns the council needed to be made aware of and that the project met all federal and state requirements.
The golf course opened in the fall of 2007.
The suit describes the development as a “toxic waste site masquerading as a 'golf course.’”
It alleges that the defendants knew that coal ash and the chemicals it contains were harmful if leached into the water and that the site “was inappropriate for coal-ash placement.”
For more details, return to PilotOnline.com later and read tomorrow's Virginian-Pilot
By Robert McCabeThe Virginian-Pilot© March 26, 2009
Attorneys representing nearly 400 people who live near the Battlefield Golf Club at Centerville say they will file a lawsuit Friday in Chesapeake Circuit Court seeking a jury trial and damages in excess of $1 billion.
The defendants named in the suit include Dominion Virginia Power, which supplied 1.5 million tons of fly ash used to contour the golf course; CPM Virginia LLC, the developers of the course; and VFL Technology Corp., described as Dominion’s coal-ash management consultant.
The suit’s demands include the removal of all fly ash from the site; installation of public water and sewer; the cleaning of the aquifer under the course; compensation for lost property values and personal injury; and the establishment of a fund for medical monitoring and treatment costs.
Last fall, Dominion committed to pay up to $6 million to extend city water to residences near the golf course.
Fly ash is a powdery residue left from the burning of coal for electricity. It contains heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury that can pose environmental threats through groundwater and air.
The City Council unanimously approved a conditional-use permit for the golf course in June 2001, after assurances by Dominion that there were no environmental concerns the council needed to be made aware of and that the project met all federal and state requirements.
The golf course opened in the fall of 2007.
The suit describes the development as a “toxic waste site masquerading as a 'golf course.’”
It alleges that the defendants knew that coal ash and the chemicals it contains were harmful if leached into the water and that the site “was inappropriate for coal-ash placement.”
For more details, return to PilotOnline.com later and read tomorrow's Virginian-Pilot
Yes, it’s important
Coles Hill as it appears today
Future Coles Hill?
Does it matter how much uranium sells for today — or what its future price may be? Sure it does, if Virginia eventually lifts its 1982 moratorium on uranium mining.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine what’s believed to be 119 million pounds of uranium from a deposit located beneath Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.
On Tuesday, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study of uranium mining, a critical first step that could eventually overturn the state’s moratorium and allow the company to move forward with its plans.
The study’s approval was a foregone conclusion, but the economic issues are important. “I think we have to ensure there is a market for it (uranium),” said Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach.
Virginia Uranium Inc. estimates that its mining and milling operation could create 300-500 new jobs here in the Dan River Region.
But what if those jobs are caught in a boom-bust cycle as uranium prices fluctuate on the world market?(at this time, according to the Mining Reports, uranium miners are being laid off because the uranium prices are down, price goes down, mines are shut down, not a stable job!)
During the 1980s, falling uranium prices did as much as anything to kill the first proposed uranium mining operation in Pittsylvania County.
Today, though, the world may be on the cusp of a “nuclear renaissance” that would increase worldwide demand for nuclear power — and with it, demand for uranium. The big reason for that is nuclear power plants don’t emit greenhouse gases, a critical concern in this time of global warming.
But nuclear power has many unresolved issues. The plants are complex, expensive to build and plagued with cost overruns. Waste disposal remains a long-term problem.
The pollution problems that local opponents of the Coles Hill project have voiced are part of the total cost of nuclear power.
It’s also not clear if the fuel demands of new nuclear power plants will be offset by retiring nuclear reactors, cutting demand for uranium in the United States. But even if that happened, there could be more demand for uranium on the world market, and we’re not aware of any requirement that uranium from Coles Hill has to be used exclusively in American nuclear power plants.
Finally, Americans are more interested than ever in solar, wind and geothermal power and may not want to make new investments in nuclear power until they learn more about whether those renewable energy sources would be better choices.
Add it all up, and it’s clear that the safety of a uranium mine and mill are only part of the equation — albeit the most important part.
The Coal and Energy Commission is right to put every possible issue on the table for this study that so many people and politicians are looking at to decide the future of this project.
But the Dan River Region doesn’t need to have another dying industry. (SouthSide wants high Tech jobs, just like Northern & Tidewater, VA, we do not want to grow up to be Uranium Miners!!!!!
That’s why the economics of uranium mining must be studied by the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
