The local concerns were ignored

Published: March 22, 2009

The local concerns were ignored

To the editor:

When I read, “Understanding the benefits, balancing the risks,” (March 8, page A11), my initial reaction was to not respond to it.

As the entire half-page column was based upon and in response to my earlier letter to the editor, “Let’s put uranium mining to a vote,” (Jan. 28, page A10), however, I felt compelled to do so.

The author, Richard Toohey, stated that some of my comments “reveal the need for factual information,” although the majority of his column merely countered my opinions with those of his own.

My greatest issue with Toohey’s column is in the manner in which it seems to downplay the potential radiation exposure of uranium mining.

He writes, “What about the radioactivity? It already exists at the site. No extra radioactivity will be put there.”

This implies that the radiation risk is the same wherever the uranium is, whether it be in the ground or on the surface.

This is patently untrue, which I’ll support with “factual information.”

Radiation exposure in relation to distance follows the inverse square law, which states that the intensity of radiation exposure is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the radiation source.

For example, when the distance from a localized radiation source is doubled, the intensity of the radiation is reduced by a factor of four. If the distance is increased by a factor of 9, the radiation dose is decreased by a factor of 81 (nine squared), and so on.

This means that a small increase in the distance from a radioactive source results in a huge decrease in your radiation exposure.

The radiation exposure from the uranium deposits resting deep underground is incredibly smaller than if it is mined and brought to the surface at ground level. In addition to creating and maintaining distance, the overlying soil and earth may further reduce radiation exposure due to shielding (by means of absorbing radiation).

Toohey addresses the risks of mining by stating that “for normal operations, there is little or no downside.”

I just don’t see how one can claim this in a geographic region such as ours where uranium mining has not been extensively performed.

It is my opinion that Toohey downplays the issue of radiation exposure, leading one to wonder if this half-page response to my brief letter was submitted on behalf of or at the request of Virginia Uranium Inc.

I doubt that Toohey is a regular reader of the Danville Register & Bee or that he just came upon my letter to the editor by chance.

In regard to his recommended reading of, “Exposure of the Pregnant Patient to Diagnostic Radiations,” I am aware that the amount of radiation related to medical diagnostic studies is in general very low, and more importantly, the dose is unknown.

This cannot be definitely said in relation to uranium mining and milling.

I should add that I am a proponent of nuclear energy.
Although it’s not the issue here, I would actually be more in favor of a nuclear power plant in Pittsylvania County compared to the mining of uranium, as I feel it would be safer and give much greater long-term benefit. My position is that the nuclear fuel should be obtained from either a sparsely populated area or one where the citizens understand and accept the potential dangers (informed consent) of the mining.

I would repeat my suggestion that mining in Pittsylvania County be put to a referendum, because it would seem that there is a lot of money behind this issue to push it forward.

The only way for the true desire of our citizens to be met is by direct vote.

Better yet would be that Virginia’s decades-old moratorium that bans uranium mining should remain intact.

I thank you for your interest in having read this opinion.

RANDOLPH NEAL, M.D.
Danville