... THE Alliance ... THE Alliance ... THE Alliance ...: April 2009

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Uranium mining opponents host forum at Chatham High

The News & Record / April 30, 2009

A public forum, “Who Decides Whether Southside Virginia Will Be Sacrificed for Uranium Mining?” will be held Friday, May 1 at 7 p.m. at the Chatham High School Auditorium, 100 Cavalier Drive, Chatham.

The forum for citizens and public officials is presented by The Alliance and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and will feature remarks by Thomas Linzey, attorney, founder and Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund; Mari Margill, Associate Director of the Legal Defense Fund; and Shireen Parsons, Virginia Community Organizer for the Legal Defense Fund.

Who Decides?

Who decides whether the people of Southside Virginia should have to endure uranium mining and its catastrophic impacts on human health and our environment – the citizens, or the corporate officers of Virginia Uranium Inc., enabled by the Virginia legislature? That’s the question that will be posed to the citizens and elected officials of the Southside communities that would be directly affected by the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County.

Since 1995, the Legal Defense Fund has assisted community groups and local governments in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, the State of Washington and Virginia to draft municipal ordinances that prohibit corporate activities determined by the citizens to be a threat to their health, safety, environment and quality of life. Municipalities that have asserted their right to self-governance by adopting such ordinances have tackled issues including mining, ground water withdrawals, factory farms, land application of sewage sludge and corporate waste dumping.

Just Government Exists Only With the Consent of the Governed

Some who distrust democracy argue that it is “beyond the authority” of communities to make governing decisions and pass laws on such issues. They assert that it is up to the state and the “experts” to decide what’s best for the people, the ecology, and future generations of Virginians. But that’s not the model of decision-making and self-government envisioned by the American Revolutionaries who signed their names to a bold statement of community rights that asserted: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Clearly, when people are governed by powers derived, not from their consent, but from some other force, governing power is separated from justice.

Regulating Is Not Governing

State regulatory agencies issue permits for corporate activities that are detrimental to communities throughout Virginia, and the people in those communities are prevented by their own elected representatives from fending off such corporate assaults. Citizens are told they can regulate the rate of harm by advocating for the strict enforcement of permissive regulations. But to regulate harm is to allow it, while merely attempting to limit the severity. To regulate is not to govern. The people have an inalienable right to self-government, not a limited right to mitigate harms.

The Time Is Now

This presentation will bring the necessity for action to the forefront. Gathering data, writing to legislators, petitioning regulatory agencies, testifying at public hearings — these are not self-governing activities, but grievance procedures.

Attendees will learn about the origins of rights-based community organizing, about the structure of law – including Dillon’s Rule – that prohibits communities from saying “no,” what has been achieved in Virginia and in other states, and the next steps in rights-based organizing in Pittsylvania County and other threatened Southside communities.

There is no hero waiting in the wings to save our communities from ruin. We are the ones we have been waiting for. The time is now.

http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php/news/article/uranium_mining_opponents_host_forum_at_chatham_high/

Uranium subcommittee to meet May 21

Comment: people of this county, wake up, look at the subcommittee's order of business, (1.) Mining first, (2.)Uranium Supply & Demand (3.) People's health last - this is a flaw study, just like the previous Senate Bill 525, which was table because of the same flaw ----PEOPLE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WANTS THE MONEY, IT WILL BE FOUND SAFE IN THEIR EYES, IT HAS NEVER BEEN SAFELY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission subcommittee studying the dangers and benefits of uranium mining will meet Thursday, May 21, in Richmond.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 2:30 p.m. in House Room D, said Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, chairman of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee.

Dr. Michael Karmis will present the National Academy of Science's recommendations for the final scope of the study.

Karmis is a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

He presented the proposed study draft to the subcommittee in March after reviewing information from two earlier public hearings, including one in Chatham.

The National Academy of Science is expected to present its recommendations by May 4.

"Accordingly, these recommendations will be made available for review on the Coal and Energy Commission's Web site well in advance of the meeting," Ware said.

The May 21 meeting also will include time for public comment, the chairman said.

At the subcommittee's last meeting, members voted unanimously to proceed with a tentative draft of the study's objectives.

Once approved, the study is expected to take about two years.

In addition to Ware, members of the subcommittee include Del. Watkins Abbitt of Appomattox, Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, Del. William R. Janis of Glen Allen, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. of Galax, Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell, Del. Clarence E. Phillips of Castlewood, Del. Kristen J. Amundson of Fairfax County, Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach and Harry D. Childress.

Childress, a citizen member on the Coal and Energy Commission, is the former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.

Abbitt was a member of the original commission that studied uranium mining in the 1980s.

The commission's chairman, Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County, also serves on the subcommittee as an ex-officio member.

Pittsylvania County is home to one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, was discovered in the early 1980s.

In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which at that time was worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

Before the deposit can be mined, however, the General Assembly would have to lift Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining, which has been in place since 1982.

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee held a public hearing at Chatham High School in early January to receive input on the study. More than 400 people attended the meeting.

The study objectives are "to assess the scientific and technical aspects of uranium mining, milling and processing in Virginia and associated environmental, human health, safety and regulatory issues."

According to the draft, the study will consider uranium supply and demand trends and projections, worldwide uranium deposits and operations, and uranium mining, milling and processing technologies.

It also will take into account occupational and public health and safety, environmental considerations, social and economic impacts, and security standards and procedures.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news50.txt

Public forum to outline community's right to block uranium mining

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:35 PM EDT

The anti-uranium group The Alliance will sponsor a public forum for residents and elected officials titled "Who Decides Whether Southside Virginia will be Sacrificed for Uranium Mining?" Friday, May 1, at 7 p.m. at Chatham High School.

The forum will be presented by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based community rights organization.

"Who decides whether the people of Southside Virginia should have to endure uranium mining and its catastrophic impacts on human health and our environment - the citizens or the corporate officers of Virginia Uranium Inc., enabled by the Virginia legislature?" said Shireen Parsons, an organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and adviser to The Alliance.

"That's the question that will be posed to the citizens and elected officials of the Southside communities that would be directly affected by the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County," she said.

Presenting the case for decision-making by the people will be attorney Thomas Linzey, founder and executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and Mari Margill, associate director of the Legal Defense Fund.

Since 1995, the Legal Defense Fund has assisted community groups and local governments in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, Washington state and Virginia draft municipal ordinances that prohibit corporate activities determined by the citizens to be a threat to their health, safety, environment and quality of life.

Ordinances have tackled issues including mining, ground water withdrawals, factory farms, land application of sewage sludge and corporate waste dumping.

Last year, Halifax became the first town in Virginia to adopt a chemical trespass ordinance aimed at uranium mining.

Chatham considered a similar ordinance, but abandoned the idea following an attorney general's opinion that the law is unconstitutional.

Friday night's presentation will bring the necessity for action to the forefront, said Parsons, who lives in Christiansburg.

"Gathering data, writing to legislators, petitioning regulatory agencies, testifying at public hearings - these are not self-governing activities, but grievance procedures," she said.

Participants will learn about the origins of rights-based community organizing, about the structure of law - including Dillon's Rule - that prohibits communities from saying "no," what has been achieved in Virginia and in other states, and the next steps in rights-based organizing in Pittsylvania County and other Southside communities.

"There is no hero waiting in the wings to save our communities from ruin," said Parsons. "We are the ones we have been waiting for. The time is now. "

The Alliance is led by Gregg Vickrey, who previously served as chairman of the Chatham-Pittsylvania County Chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens.

Southside Concerned Citizens was formed 30 years ago when one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States was discovered in Pittsylvania County.

The Coles Hill deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

Three years ago, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the land and ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. to explore the possibility of mining uranium.

Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission recently agreed to study the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The study, which is just getting under way, is expected to take about two years.

Last week, The Alliance launched a petition aimed at forcing the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ban uranium mining.

If supervisors refuse, they will have rendered themselves "illegitimate" under the Virginia Constitution, the petition states.

The Alliance then plans to ask residents to elect 11 representatives to draft a constitution for the county that bans uranium mining while recognizing the right to community self-government.

County residents would be asked to ratify the constitution.

If supervisors fail to adopt the constitution, it would "automatically become the new governing law of the county" and a mandate for new elected representatives.

"This is democracy built from the ground up," said Parsons.

The Alliance hopes to get a majority of county residents - at least 30,000 - to sign the petition before presenting it to supervisors.

County Administrator Dan Sleeper called the petition misguided and said there is no such thing as a county constitution.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news46.txt

Powertech fails to answer question

April 30, 2009

On April 23, I attended a Crosscurrents panel discussion titled, "Uranium Mining - To Be or Not To Be." The panel was conducted by the League of Women Voters, was recorded and can be viewed on local cable television.

During the discussion, Richard Clement, CEO of Powertech (USA), Inc., was asked what guarantees Powertech could provide the people of Northern Colorado that their groundwater and environment would not be contaminated by Powertech's proposed in-situ leach mining of uranium within the aquifer in Weld County.

Clement failed to directly answer this question and the request for his company's guarantees by referring to Powertech's being required to comply with state mining regulations. Clement failed to acknowledge that Powertech would have primary and most immediate responsibility for preventing contamination of our groundwater if the company's plans to mine uranium in the aquifer in Weld County are approved.

During the discussion, I wanted, but was unable, to ask Clement to explain what caused exploratory well-drilling for a similar in-situ leach mining project in Goliad County, Texas, to contaminate that county's groundwater. Currently, the Goliad County government is suing the mining company that drilled the wells (Uranium Energy Corp.) for having ruined the county's water.

Perhaps, Clement can explain what caused the contamination of Goliad County's water by writing a letter to this newspaper. In doing so, maybe Clement can publicly offer Powertech's guarantees that any similar contamination will not happen to our water.

John S. Dixon,

Fort Collins

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090430/OPINION03/904300335

Tribes look to Obama for protection of sacred peaks

Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — The Navajo Nation Council has given its approval for the Nation’s attorneys and leaders to meet with the Obama administration in hopes of working out a settlement to protect the sacred San Francisco Peaks from desecration.

The Nation is seeking an expedited meeting prior to May 8, when the U.S. Solicitor General’s response brief is due to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In “Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service,” the Nation and three other tribes challenged the Forest Service’s approval of an expansion of the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort on the San Francisco Peaks near Flagstaff under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The expansion included using reclaimed sewer water to make artificial snow, which in the view of Indian religious practitioners, desecrates the mountain.

In 2008, the 9th Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that the Forest Service’s approval did not violate the tribes religious freedom because the proposal does not place a substantial burden on their exercise of religion by forcing them to act contrary to their religion under the threat of a legal penalty or choose between their religion and the receipt of a government benefit.

Delegate Leonard Tsosie said it is feared that the Supreme Court will take the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the wrong way, “because they’re somewhat not sentimental to Indian cases.” The high court previously has withdrawn or denied First Amendment rights to tribes when it comes to federal land-management decisions.

The San Francisco Peaks, or Dook’o’oosliid, the sacred mountain to the west, is one of four mountains held holy by the Navajo people and 12 other Arizona tribes. Mount Taylor, or Tsoodzil, the sacred mountain to the south, is threatened by uranium mining.

The Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Havasupai, White Mountain Apache, Hualapai and others filed suit in federal court to stop what is viewed as a “government-sponsored desecration of a well-documented sacred and holy site.”

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act represents the last chance for the Navajo Nation and tribes across the country to protect their sovereignty, practice their religions, and to survive as a people, according to the emergency legislation sponsored by Tsosie and passed, 60-2, last week by Council. Edward Jim and Lawrence Platero voted against the measure.

The Nation has turned to President Barack Obama, who during his election campaign committed to honoring the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government, ensuring that treaty obligations are met and that tribes will have a voice in Washington.

“What this does is it allows our lawyers and also our leaders to sit down with the Obama Administration and look at the possibility of settling the San Francisco Peaks (case) in favor of the Navajo Nation because the lawsuit is ‘Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service,’ and the U.S. Forest Service is being represented by the U.S. government lawyers which the U.S. government has control over,” Tsosie said.

Delegate Ervin Keeswood told Council there also is a need to indicate that there are instruments of international law to which the Nation could resort.

“I believe that it’s time to start quoting and also remind the United States’ government of these actions internationally.

At some point in time ... we may have to go to the international community for resolution of some of these matters if they’re not heard as we wish in the United States government,” he said.

Delegate Rex Lee Jim, the Nation’s “international representative” at the United Nations, received approval for an amendment to the legislation.

The amendment cites religious rights contained in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man supported by the Organization of American States, of which the United States is a member. It also refers to religious rights contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, signed by the United States in 1977.

In September 2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by which the international community has made the effort to strengthen partnership with states, indigenous people and civil society as a whole.

The declaration recognized that “indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.”

The United States is one of four states that voted against the declaration.

“Without such commitment by the United States to protect the rights of its indigenous peoples, sadly the protection of holy and sacred sites such as Dook’o’oosliid will continue to yield to commercial interests,” the amendment states.

The Navajo Nation is formally requesting that Obama, on behalf of the United States and its indigenous peoples, sign the declaration without delay and stand firm with its commitment to protect and preserve holy and sacred sites of indigenous people within the United States.

http://www.gallupindependent.com/2009/04April/042709tribeslook.html

BHP to 'dump mine tailings on ground'

Comment: sounds like weak environmental laws in Australia!

Gavin Lower May 01, 2009

Article from: The Australian

BHP BILLITON plans to store radioactive mine tailings from its proposed Olympic Dam expansion on the surface, rather than return the material to the pit as the Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine is required to do, a key environmental group says.

Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear-free campaigner David Noonan said yesterday the company's plan, coming on the eve of the public release of the 3750-page draft environmental impact statement for the expansion, could see the company create the world's largest radioactive tailings pile over the life of the mine.

"I understand the BHP EIS will set out the company plan to accumulate and store the radioactive mine tailings on the surface and to leave those tailings on the surface in perpetuity," he said.

"BHP have told me that what they intend to do with their tailings is not put it back into the pit."

A company spokesman said yesterday he could not comment on the contents of the EIS.

BHP Billiton proposes to turn its Olympic Dam copper, gold and uranium mine, 560km north of Adelaide, from an underground mine into an open-cut operation.

Mr Noonan said the BHP plan would be in contrast to existing regulations governing the Ranger mine and a Labor Party pledge before the last election to follow world best practice for uranium mining.

He said tailings, the waste product of mining operations, at Ranger are required to be returned to the pit at the end of the mine's life, expected to be 2021, and then steps taken to ensure the tailings did not have a detrimental impact on the environment for at least 10,000 years.

According to figures publicly available, Mr Noonan said the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam would produce 70 million tonnes of radioactive mine tailings each year, significantly more than the 10 million tonnes of radioactive tailings now produced each year.

"If they're simply left at the surface, that material would be prone to erosion and spread into the environment," he said.

BHP Billiton stores its tailings above ground at Olympic Dam.

Mr Noonan said the ACF expected the commonwealth to require BHP Billiton to return the radioactive tailings from the expanded Olympic Dam to the pit.

"We'd expect the commonwealth to set at least the same standard (as the Ranger mine) to isolate tailings from the environment for 10,000 years and expect BHP to say through the EIS how to isolate those tailings for 10,000 years to prevent detrimental environmental impacts," he said.

Mr Noonan said the mine tailings were a cocktail of radioactive elements and heavy metals, which have been processed to the consistency of powder.

"Why should the Big Australian be given a special dispensation to dispose of their radioactive tailings and leave it as a hazard for all future generations," he said.

A BHP Billiton spokesman said: "We have been operating safely for 20 years.

"Tailings contain extremely low levels of radiation and they are stored in accordance with very strict licensing conditions and fully regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25411908-5006790,00.html

16 Cattle Drop Dead Near Mysterious Fluid at Gas Drilling Site

Comment: not about uranium mining, mentions the drilling process, instead of gas escaping, it will be the uranium plus all the lead, etc! Plus, notice the EPA & USGS part, the companies tell them what to do!

by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - April 30, 2009 3:00 pm EDT

ProPublica has been reporting for months [2] about how natural gas drilling is affecting the environment, but of all the causes for concern we've reported, here's a doozy.

Sixteen cattle dropped dead in a northwestern Louisiana field this week after apparently drinking from a mysterious fluid adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig, according to Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality and a report in the Shreveport Times At least one worker told the newspaper that the fluids, which witnesses described as green and spewing into the air near the drilling derrick, were used for a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing. But the company, Chesapeake Energy ,has not identified exactly what chemicals are in those fluids and is insisting to state regulators that no spill occurred.

The problem is that both Chesapeake and its contractor doing the work Schlumberger, say that a lot of these fluids are proprietary, said Otis Randle, regional manager for the DEQ. "It can be an obstacle, but we try to be fair to everybody," he said. "We try to remember that the products they use are theirs and they need them to make a living."

Hydraulic fracturing -- a process in which water, sand and chemicals are pumped deep underground at high pressure to break rock and release natural gas -- is controversial because of the secrecy surrounding the fluids and because the process is exempted from protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act and thus from regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress is currently considering legislation to address these issues out of concern that fracturing, and the fluids and waste that are part of the process, may be contaminating drinking water in several states.

Hydraulic fracturing has made drilling more efficient and economical and has helped make vast new reserves of natural gas available across the country, including in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming, Colorado and Louisiana.

Scientists at the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have told ProPublica that it's difficult for them to assess the environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing chemicals because the companies that use them won't release the exact names and amounts of the chemicals. The energy service companies, including Halliburton and Schlumberger, say that disclosing that information would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and they insist the fluids are safe. Some information about the materials is made available through Material Safety Data Sheets, which can provide cursory medical advice for workers exposed to the chemicals.

The drilling companies have given Louisiana's DEQ a large stack of these sheets. Randle said they contain some helpful information, but it will take the agency some time to weed through them. In the field where the cattle died on Tuesday, the DEQ reports finding a white milky substance on the ground, with cattle tracks leading away to the dead animals. Randle said he is almost certain the substance is a drill fluid or fracturing fluid.

A Chesapeake Energy spokesman told ProPublica that the company is cooperating with the state and is waiting for test results to determine how the cows died. Schlumberger did not immediately return calls for comment. If we hear from the company, we'll let you know.

http://www.propublica.org/article/16-cattle-drop-dead-near-mysterious-fluid-at-gas-drilling-site-430

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Stop Uranium Mining

Click here to sign the petition:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/stop-uranium-mining

Target:To Abolish Uranium Mining

Mt. Taylor among endangered places

Sacred site on list of most endangered places

The National Trust for Historic Preservation says Mount Taylor, a sacred site in New Mexico, is one of the nation's 11 most endangered places.

Acoma Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, Zuni Pueblo, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe are seeking to protect Mount Taylor from uranium mining.

The tribes have run into opposition from officials and residents in Cibola County.

The New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee voted to place Mount Taylor on Register of Cultural Properties on a temporary basis.

The designation protects the site from development but it will expire in June without further action.

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/04/mt-taylor-among-endangered-places.html

Ontario cottage owners want moratorium on uranium mining

Comment: hey, local Danville paper, we are not the only ones taking the "so call wrong road", we just want to protect our homes and land by requesting our local gov't to ban the dangerous uranium mining and milling!!!!

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:12 AM ET

Property owners in Haliburton and Muskoka are pressing the Ontario government to ban uranium exploration and mining in cottage country.

They say they're concerned their health, peace and tranquillity will be compromised by prospecting and exploration.

Prospectors looking for uranium have staked claims to 3,600 hectares of land in the area.

Suzanne Lauten has a cottage on Gull Lake, 19 kilometres from land staked for uranium exploration.

Her group, Cottagers Against Uranium Mining and Exploration, is calling for a moratorium on uranium mining and a cap on all mining in southern Ontario.

Haliburton-area prospector Ken Sibley says if that happens it would be economically devastating.

"When you shut the mining you shut off the jobs. There's silver, there's copper, there's more to mine other than uranium," said Sibley.

Cottage associations point out that the property taxes seasonal homeowners pay to local municipalities will disappear if cottagers are chased away by mining activity.

Robin Simpson of the group Fight Uranium Mining and Exploration says cottagers could have problems selling their properties.

"If you're staked you're screwed. Who would buy it?" says Simpson.

But Sibley says he doubts the price of uranium will justify mining in Haliburton. (why is the local uranium group still behind the mining with uranium prices in the pits!!)

"You have to prove that there's something on there feasible enough to dig a hole," he said

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/04/29/uranium-cottage.html

Uranium mining threatens Australian nature reserve

April 29, 2009

This is a video of a protest against Marathon Resources in Adelaide, Australia.

The uranium mining corporation Marathon Resources threatens to destroy Arkaroola Sanctuary in South Australia. See also here.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://dearkitty.blogsome.com/2009/04/29/uranium-mining-threatens-australian-nature-reserve/trackback/

Mining will bring asthma - GP claims

Comment: now they want to do mt top removal in pretty England countryside plus open pit uranium mining equipment will do the same thing - co2 & dust!

Thousands of Telford children could suffer from asthma due to a double danger of fallout from a proposed opencast coal mine, it was claimed today.

The exhaust fumes from heavy machinery and dust thrown up by excavations would get into the lungs of people living nearby according to Dr Dick van Steenis, a retired GP.

And most at risk would be residents living in a fallout zone around the site, including Wellington, Hadley, Ketley and Dawley, he said.

Dr van Steenis said he would be making the point at the public inquiry which started yesterday at Gray’s Hotel, in Telford town centre, and is set to last several weeks.

UK Coal is seeking the go-ahead to extract 900,000 tonnes of coal from fields and woodland at Huntington Lane, between New Works and Little Wenlock, over three years before restoring the site.

It says the scheme would create 90 jobs, boost the local economy and help to meet Britain’s energy needs.

Opposition is being led by Telford & Wrekin Council, which claims the noise, dust and vibration from blasting would cause disturbance in a quiet, rural area at the foot of The Wrekin.

Dr van Steenis, of Sarn, near Newtown, an international campaigner on clean air issues, will give evidence on May 19 for objectors’ group Friends of the Ercall.

Speaking after listening to yesterday afternoon’s session, he said he would challenge UK Coal’s evidence that the mine would not affect public health.

He added that schools in Telford already had problems with pupils suffering from asthma and that this would “only make things worse”.

The inquiry continues.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/04/29/mining-will-bring-asthma-gp-claims/

Nuclear Espionage: French Spies Vs. Greenpeace

Comment: the nuke people means business at any cost!!

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 04.29.09

It was a fierce game of cat and mouse that played out across international boundaries, between multimillion dollar organizations.

Top secret information on nuclear reactors was snagged by spies—or was it? Things get complicated when it comes to Nuclear Espionage. No, that's not the voice over for the trailer from some spy thriller B-movie.

It's a real life case involving one of the biggest nuclear power companies in Europe, conniving French spies, and the notorious environmental organization Greenpeace. And it could get nasty.

The nuclear industry in Europe—never the most trusted energy sector by any means—has recently seen a buzz of accusations fly back and forth. Why?

According to the New York Times,

French judges last month opened an investigation into allegations that the power company’s executives may have been involved in espionage — including breaking into computer systems at Greenpeace offices.

That power company is Electricite de France, or EDF, one of the biggest nuclear power corporations in Europe.

The company is responsible for supplying France with a whopping 80% of its power.

Evidence has surfaced that the giant company was attempting to hack into Greenpeace computer servers, and two employees have been indicted on the charges.

It wouldn't be the first time companies have spied on environmental groups.

And as with any good spy thriller, there's an emotionally resonant back story giving extra heft to the whole affair:

More than two decades ago, the French secret service bombed and sank a Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, which was being used to protest French nuclear testing in the South Pacific.

One person died in the attack.

Things were never the same. France and Greenpeace sustained a mutual distrust, sizing each other up . . . until now.

Now, Greenpeace has decried the actions of EDF and seeking further legal action against the company—which could spell trouble for the nuclear industry.

If there's any energy industry that needs to keep its nose clean, it's nuclear—with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the fears surrounding nuclear waste, you'd think those trying to expand the industry would tread lightly.

But no, it looks like we're destined for dubious acts of subversion and high stakes international intrigue.

How will the whole thing end? Guess we'll have to wait for the suspects to go to trial to see—or until they make a movie out of all of this.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/nuclear-espionage-spies-greenpeace.php

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Activists pose, answer uranium questions

By Charles Wilborn

Published: April 26, 2009

To the editor:

In response to your excellent editorial, “It’s time for supervisors to take action” (Register & Bee, April 19), I would like to pose the following question — and provide my own answers.

Why does anyone think that “the company” (Virginia Uranium Inc.), the for-profit corporation that’s being purchased by Santoy, a Canadian company, deserves the benefit of the doubt?

Because, VUI/Santoy say that they deserve it!

I say that the Gross family and their neighbors deserve the benefit of the doubt!

It is up to VUI/Santoy to prove that they have nothing to do with poisoning the local water supply. Their drilling through the protective barrier of the uranium deposit is the only factor that has changed (other than the Gross family updates to their plumbing, consisting of PVC pipe — not a lead-causing agent.).

VUI/Santoy drilled 1,500 feet down. At that depth, is there an uphill or downhill? The drilling goes below the surface topography. Their “uphill” argument doesn’t wash! Besides, Gross tells me that he has proof that his property is not uphill!

VUI/Santoy’s knee-jerk reaction — “It’s not my fault” — is a precursor to even more serious issues down the road, if they are allowed to mine and mill uranium. I can see it now:

“It’s not my fault the holding pond dam broke!”

“It’s not my fault that God dumped 3 inches of rain on us, flooding the pits and the tailing piles!”

“It’s not my fault that tornado- and hurricane-force winds blew dust, laden with heavy metals, arsenic and radioactive material into your neighborhood so that you and your children, your animals, and local game breathed it in, creating a cancer cluster in Pittsylvania County and Danville!”

“It’s not my fault that the truck, carrying a full load of yellow cake (the final, highly processed, highly radioactive product of uranium milling — remember, VUI/Santoy wants to mill uranium at Cole’s Hill, as well as mine it) crashed on (take your pick) Virginia 57, Chalk Level Road (also known as Hurt Road, U.S. Route 29), forcing the immediate evacuation of the area while HazMat crews respond and try to clean up the mess. The driver lost control! No way we could have ever seen that coming!”

“By the way, we have insurance for this kind of thing! Your family can take comfort in that.”

“And, it’s certainly NOT our problem, period!”

“It is not our responsibility to keep you and your family safe from harm! That’s up to you!”

“We are here to make money to patriotically keep our economy going! So, good luck with that!”

“It’s not us because WE SAY SO!”

GREGG VICKREY
Chatham

Editor’s note: Vickrey is the founder and chairman of The Alliance

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/activists_pose_answer_uranium_questions/10655/

Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling

Pat Farnelli, top left, Ronald Carter, bottom left, Richard Seymour, top right, and Norma Fiorentino, bottom right, live in Dimock, Pa. A year after Cabot Oil & Gas landmen knocked on their doors to sign drilling leases, they are finding that their drinking water now contains methane, the largest component of natural gas. (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)

Comment: long article but very interesting about the problems of drilling and water wells but the problems lands on the people!

Norma Fiorentino's drinking water well was a time bomb. For weeks, workers in her small northeastern Pennsylvania town had been plumbing natural gas deposits from a drilling rig a few hundred yards away. They cracked the earth and pumped in fluids to force the gas out.

Somehow, stray gas worked into tiny crevasses in the rock, leaking upward into the aquifer and slipping quietly into Fiorentino's well. Then, according to the state's working theory, a motorized pump turned on in her well house, flicked a spark and caused a New Year's morning blast that tossed aside a concrete slab weighing several thousand pounds.

Fiorentino wasn't home at the time, so it's difficult to know exactly what happened. But afterward, state officials found methane, the largest component of natural gas, in her drinking water. If the fumes that built up in her well house had collected in her basement, the explosion could have killed her.

Dimock, the poverty-stricken enclave where Fiorentino lives, is ground zero for drilling the Marcellus Shale, a prized deposit of natural gas that is increasingly touted as one of the country's most abundant and cleanest alternatives to oil. The drilling here -- as in other parts of the nation -- is supposed to be a boon, bringing much-needed jobs and millions of dollars in royalties to cash-strapped homeowners.

But a string of documented cases of gas escaping into drinking water -- not just in Pennsylvania but across North America -- is raising new concerns about the hidden costs of this economic tide and strengthening arguments across the country that drilling can put drinking water at risk.

Near Cleveland, Ohio, an entire house exploded in late 2007 after gas seeped into its water well. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources later issued a 153-page report [1] (PDF) that blamed a nearby gas well's faulty concrete casing and hydraulic fracturing [2] -- a deep-drilling process that shoots millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground under explosive pressure -- for pushing methane into an aquifer and causing the explosion.

In Dimock, several drinking water wells have exploded and nine others were found with so much gas that one homeowner was told to open a window if he planned to take a bath. Dishes showed metallic streaks that couldn't be washed off, and tests also showed high amounts of aluminum and iron, prompting fears that drilling fluids might be contaminating the water along with the gas. In February, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection charged Cabot Oil & Gas with two violations that it says caused the contamination, theorizing that gas leaked from the well casing into fractures underground.

Industry representatives say methane contamination incidents are statistically insignificant, considering that 452,000 wells produced gas in the United States last year. They also point out that methane doesn't necessarily come from gas wells -- it's common in nature and can leak into water from biological processes near the surface, like rotting plants.

The industry also defends its construction technology, saying it keeps gas and drilling fluids -- including any chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing -- safely trapped in layers of steel and concrete. Even if some escapes, they say, thousands of feet of rock make it almost impossible for it to migrate into drinking water aquifers. When an accident happens, the blame can usually be traced to a lone bad apple -- some contractor who didn't follow regulations, they say. Those arguments helped the gas drilling industry win rare exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act when Congress enacted the 2005 Energy Policy Act [3].

But now an exhaustive examination of the methane problem in western Colorado is offering a strong scientific repudiation of that argument. Released in December by Garfield County, one of the most intensely drilled areas in the nation, the report concludes that gas drilling has degraded water in dozens of water wells [4] (PDF).

The three-year study used sophisticated scientific techniques to match methane from water to the same rock layer where gas companies are drilling -- a mile and a half underground. The scientists didn't determine which gas wells caused the problem or say exactly how the gas reached the water, but they indicated with more clarity than ever before that a system of interconnected natural fractures and faults could stretch from deep underground gas layers to the surface. They called for more research into how the industry's practice of forcefully fracturing those deep layers might increase the risk of contaminants making their way up into an aquifer.

"It challenges the view that natural gas, and the suite of hydrocarbons that exist around it, is isolated from water supplies by its extreme depth," said Judith Jordan, the oil and gas liaison for Garfield County, who has worked as a hydrogeologist with DuPont and as a lawyer with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. "It is highly unlikely that methane would have migrated through natural faults and fractures and coincidentally arrived in domestic wells at the same time oil and gas development started, after having been down there ... for over 65 million years."

The Garfield County analysis comes as Congress considers legislation that would toughen environmental oversight of drilling and reverse the exemptions enjoyed by the gas companies. Colorado has already overhauled its own oil and gas regulations, despite stiff resistance from the energy industry. The new rules, which went into effect earlier this month, strengthen protections against, among other things, methane contamination.

Drinking water with methane isn't necessarily harmful. The gas itself isn't toxic -- the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't even regulate it -- and it escapes from water quickly, like bubbles in a soda.

But the gas becomes dangerous when it evaporates out of the water and into people's homes, where it can become flammable. It can also suffocate those who breathe it. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as the concentration of gas increases it can cause headaches, then nausea, brain damage and eventually death.

Under Pressure

The carefully documented accident in Ohio in December 2007 offers a step-by-step example of what can happen when drilling goes wrong.

A spark ignited the natural gas that had collected in the basement of Richard and Thelma Payne's suburban Cleveland home, shattering windows, blowing doors 20 feet from their hinges and igniting a small fire in a violent flash. The Paynes were jolted out of bed, and their house lifted clear off the ground.

Fearing another explosion, firefighters evacuated 19 homes in the small town of Bainbridge. Somehow, gas had seeped into the drinking water aquifer and then migrated up through the plumbing.

Gas had shown up in water in this part of Ohio in the past. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services investigated nearby residents' complaints of "dizziness," "blacking out," "rashes," "swelling of legs" and "elevated blood pressure" related to exposure to methane through bathing, dishwashing and drinking. That study concluded that gas in the area could migrate through underground fractures and said that "combustible gases, including methane, in private well water present an urgent public health hazard."

According to Scott Kell, deputy chief of Ohio's Division of Natural Resources, those earlier instances were determined to have had nothing to do with drilling activity. But by the time the Paynes' house exploded four years later, the Natural Resources Department had begun to aggressively monitor for gas, and this time it suspected a clearer link to drilling. It all had to do with how a well is constructed.

To reach natural gas, a well bore is drilled into the earth through dozens of geologic formations stacked like layers in a cake, until the bore reaches the layer holding gas. In Ohio, gas is produced from almost 3,700 feet, or three-quarters of a mile, below. In Colorado or Pennsylvania, wells can be a mile or two deep -- far below drinking water aquifers.

In many geologic regions, the deeper gas-bearing layers are under extraordinary pressure from the weight of earth and water above, but that pressure normally is contained by thousands of feet of leakproof rock that separate the gas from the surface. When a drill bit sinks down, though, the tight seal of each geologic layer is broken and the pressure is released, forcing water, gas or oil into the newly opened pathway. That’s how an oil well can become a gushing geyser.

To keep the gas and drilling fluids from leaking into the natural environment, drilling companies insert as many as three concentric rings of steel pipes inside the well bore to isolate what flows through them. When the bore passes through areas where extra protection is needed -- such as drinking water aquifers -- concrete is pumped into the gap between the rings of pipe to ensure an impenetrable seal. Most states, including Ohio, require these measures in part to protect drinking water.

"That's pretty much the holy grail, good and proper cementing and casing," said Michael Nickolaus, former director of Indiana's Department of Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Division, and special projects director for the Ground Water Protection Council, a group of scientists and state regulators that studies industries' impacts on water. Nickolaus added that if these zones are properly isolated from one another, the issue of groundwater contamination, whether from gas or hydraulic fracturing, goes away.

The investigation into the explosion at the Paynes' home found that a drilling company working nearby had failed to properly build that protective concrete casing and had continued to process the well despite warning signs that should have alerted it to stop. Six weeks before the explosion, the company, Ohio Valley Energy Systems, pumped concrete into the well casing. But it couldn't fill the gap, evidence that somewhere a crack was allowing the concrete to seep into the space between the pipes, and probably out into the surrounding earth.

If the concrete could leak, then so could drilling fluids -- or the gas itself.

week later, "despite the fact that the cement behind the casing was insufficient by standard industry practice," according to the state's report [1] (PDF), the company began hydraulic fracturing. More than 46,000 gallons of water, sand and chemicals were pumped into the well bore with enough force to crack the rock and release the gas.

Again, the drillers saw signs of a leak in the well. The company tried to recover as much of the leaking fluid as possible, but the state report said at least 1,000 gallons of fracturing fluid, including about 150 gallons of oil, disappeared into the space between the well pipes and possibly out into the ground.

Finally, the company shut down the well. But the underlying pressurized gas formation had already been punctured, and its contents were trying to escape. The gas collected inside the well for the next 31 days, until 360 pounds of pressure built against the valve at the top. It was enough, state investigators wrote, to force the gas out of the well bore by any means it could find.

"This overpressurized condition resulted in invasion of natural gas from the annulus of the well into natural fractures in the bedrock below the base of the cemented surface casing," the report states, adding that it was the first time anything like this had been confirmed in Ohio.

Ohio Valley Energy Systems did not return calls for comment on the state's findings.

On Dec. 12, three days before the Paynes' house exploded, methane was detected in the Bainbridge Police Department's water well, 4,700 feet from the gas well in question. Two days later, nearby residents reported sediment in their water and artesian conditions in their wells, meaning the water was spurting out under pressure. By the next morning the gas -- still seeking an outlet -- had forced its way into Richard Payne's basement, where it reached a flammable concentration. All it needed was a spark.

Science Blames Drilling

As regulators in Ohio struggled to reconcile what was happening there, officials in Garfield County, Colo., were waiting for the results of the three-part, three-year study examining the connections between methane leaks and drilling there.

The report is significant because it is among the first to broadly analyze the ability of contaminants to migrate underground in drilling areas, and to find that such contamination was in fact occurring. It examined over 700 methane samples from 292 locations and found that methane, as well as wastewater from the drilling, was making its way into drinking water not as a result of a single accident but on a broader basis.

As the number of gas wells in the area increased from 200 to 1,300 in this decade, the methane levels in nearby water wells increased too. The study found that natural faults and fractures exist in underground formations in Colorado, and that it may be possible for contaminants to travel through them.

Conditions that could be responsible include "vertical upward flow" "along natural open-fracture pathways or pathways such as well-bores or hydraulically-opened fractures," states the section of the report done by S.S. Papadopulos and Associates [5] (PDF), a Maryland-based environmental engineering firm specializing in groundwater hydrology.

The researchers did not conclude that gas and fluids were migrating directly from the deep pockets of gas the industry was extracting. In fact, they said it was more likely that the gas originated from a weakness somewhere along the well's structure. But the discovery of so much natural fracturing, combined with fractures made by the drilling process, raises questions about how all those cracks interact with the well bore and whether they could be exacerbating the groundwater contamination.

"One thing that is most striking is in the area where there are large vertical faults you see a much higher instance of water wells being affected," said Geoffrey Thyne, the hydrogeologist who wrote the report's summary and conclusion [4] (PDF). He is a senior research scientist at the University of Wyoming's Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute [6], a pro-extraction group dedicated to tapping into hard-to-reach energy reserves.

The report, referred to as the Garfield County Hydrogeologic Study, has been met with cautious silence by the industry and by its regulators.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the state's regulatory body, would not respond to questions from ProPublica because it hasn't thoroughly analyzed the data behind the December report, said its director, David Neslin.

Neither the Colorado Oil and Gas Association nor Encana, the Canadian energy company that drills in the study area, would comment on the Garfield County report. Both referred questions to Anthony Gorody, a Houston-based geochemist who specializes in oil and gas issues and frequently is employed by the energy industry.

Gorody dismissed the report's conclusions as "junk science." (sound familiar?)

"This is so out of whack. There are a handful of wells that have problems. These are rare events," said Gorody, president of Universal Geosciences Consulting. "They are like plane crashes -- the extent tends to be fairly limited. I do not see any pervasive impact."

Most of the methane in the study area, Gorody said, came from decaying matter near the surface -- not from the deep gas produced by the energy industry. He criticized the report's methodology, saying the way that researchers linked the stray gas with the deep gas formations was speculative at best.

Thyne, standing by his report, said researchers had traced the origin of the gas by conducting the equivalent of a forensic investigation, analyzing its isotopic signature, or molecular fingerprint. The molecular structure showed that most of it was thermogenic, meaning it matched the deeply buried deposit where gas was being drilled, called the Williams Fork Formation. A minority of the samples were difficult to identify by this method, so Thyne used another scientific process to study them. He is confident they, too, were thermogenic in origin.

In most cases, the study couldn't pinpoint the exact pathway the contaminants had used to travel a mile and a half up into the drinking water aquifer. So Thyne could only reason the possibilities.

The methane could be seeping into water wells through natural fractures, he said, or through leaks in the well casings or concrete, or from the well heads.

When a pipe extends 8,000 feet below the earth's surface, he said, "there are numerous potential leak points along the way. So is it leaking at 8,000 feet and coming up a well bore, a natural fault or fracture? Or is it leaking 500 feet from the surface? We don’t know."

The most plausible explanation, Thyne said, is that the same type of well casing and cementing issues that had proved problematic in Ohio were presenting problems in Colorado too.

"The thesis is that because of the way the wells are designed they could be a conduit," said Garfield County's Jordan, who commissioned the report.

Jordan worries that the methane leaks could be a sign of worse to come.

"We suspect the methane would be the most mobile constituent that would come out of the gas fields. Our concern is that it's a sort of sentinel, and there are going to be worse contaminants behind it," she said. "It's not just sitting down there as pure CH4 (methane). It's in a whole bath of hydrocarbons," she said, and some of those "can be problematic."

'You Can't Buy a Good Well'

When landmen from Cabot Oil & Gas came knocking on doors along the rutted dirt grade of Carter Road in Dimock, Pa., last year, they sold a promise many residents in the farming community were eager to hear: Sign a gas lease and the land might finally pay for itself.

Many of Dimock's 1,300 residents had fallen on hard times. Approximately one in seven were out of work, and more than a few homes were perched on the precipice of foreclosure.

Cabot offered $25 an acre for the right to drill for five years, plus royalties when the gas started flowing. To outsiders it might seem a small amount, but it would make an immediate difference to people who owned fields but few other assets.

"It seemed like God's provenance," said Pat Farnelli, whose husband, a farmer, had taken a job as a night chef at a diner on the interstate to pay one more month's mortgage. The day Cabot's man showed up -- with a wide-brim hat and a Houston drawl -- the Farnellis mistook him for a debt collector. "We really were having a rough time right then -- that day. We thought it was salvation. Any ray of hope here is a big deal."

That was more than a year ago, and since then Cabot -- which earned close to a billion dollars in revenue last year -- has drilled 20 wells and is producing $58 million worth of gas there annually. In its annual report, Cabot bullishly called the Dimock field a once-in-a-lifetime "game-changing event" [7] (PDF) for the company and announced it would drill 63 more wells there next year.

The wealth has begun trickling down to the residents of Dimock. A few will earn more than a half-million dollars this year, and bimonthly checks for $6,000 are not uncommon. Cabot and its contractors also support the local economy by hiring local labor and patronizing hotels and restaurants in nearby towns.

But the water contamination is forcing the people who live there to accept a difficult compromise.

"You have to evaluate which is more important, the money or the water," said a Dimock resident who declined to be named because he doesn't want to antagonize Cabot, which he says will pay him more than $600,000 this year for the wells on his property. "The economy is so tough. Suppose you could stop drilling -- no one wants Cabot to go away."

For some, though, the benefits can be easily erased.

Norma Fiorentino, whose well exploded on New Year's morning, got just $97 in royalties in February. Now a part of her monthly $646 Social Security check goes to buy water. "You can't buy a good well," she said.

Down the road, Pat Farnelli spends more than $100 of her monthly food stamp allotment to buy plastic jugs of drinking water. Next door, Ronald Carter paid $7,000 to install two water treatment systems for his family, then learned they won't remove the gas.

Cabot has begun voluntarily supplying water to at least five homes in Dimock, a gesture the company says does not mean it has acknowledged fault. "For now Cabot is simply trying to do the right thing while studies are being performed and data is being obtained," said Kenneth Komoroski, Cabot's spokesman.

Others have yet to get any aid.

"This isn't something that people should be living with," said Craig Lobins, the regional oil and gas manager for Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. "It's serious."

Pennsylvania's DEP places responsibility for the contamination squarely on Cabot.

In January the DEP blamed the company for polluting one water well.

Then in late February it sent Cabot a list of violations [8] (PDF) it said led to methane seepage in other area wells.

Investigators think the seepage was caused by a weakness in the well casing or an improper cementing job, much like what had been reported in Colorado and Ohio. The good news was that they found no evidence that any of the hydraulic fracturing fluids had leaked into well water.

Komoroski, the Cabot spokesman, said it's too early to conclude the company is responsible for contaminating Dimock's wells.

He said Cabot has hired an expert who is still investigating exactly what happened in the case.

"The DEP's letter was premature," Komoroski said, "It is possible that Cabot is responsible. It's possible it is not. That's what we hired a hydrogeologist to help us determine."

Cabot has since cemented the entire length of its well casings in Dimock -- a safeguard similar to what has been prescribed in Ohio and Colorado -- and believes that measure, which is more extensive than state regulations require, will solve the problem.

Yet the DEP sees no need to require such precautions at all the state's wells, because what is happening in Dimock is "an anomaly."

"Last year we permitted 8,000 wells, and this may be the only incident that occurred," said the DEP's Lobins. "You can't cover every possible scenario that you could encounter out there, so when the regulations are crafted it addresses the ones that will be most protective of 99.9 percent of the wells."

Industry spokesmen also oppose making the precautionary cementing practices mandatory.

"For one thing it is very costly," said Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations at the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "At the same time if you try to put in too much cement you can risk collapsing the well. So it's drawing a balance between protecting the groundwater" and "protecting the well that you are constructing."

At the bottom of the hill on Carter Road, Richard Seymour runs a certified natural farm that ships produce across the state. His well is running red and turbid, and bubbles with so much gas that he fears he'll lose that agricultural certification. If there's a technology, like cementing, that can protect his water, then shouldn't it be required in every case, he asks?

"We feel pretty alone on this, pretty frustrated," Seymour said. "I assumed the DEP, EPA, the state -- the government -- would protect our land. We didn't know that as a landowner the burden was on us."

http://www.propublica.org/feature/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426

Obama seeks reversal of mountaintop mining rule

By DINA CAPPIELLO – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is taking steps to reverse a last-minute Bush-era rule that allows mountaintop mining waste to be dumped near streams.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday the administration will ask a federal court to abandon the rule that made it easier for coal mining companies to dump waste near streams. If the court agrees, the Obama administration could start drafting a new regulation that better protects waterways and communities sooner than if it sought to rewrite the measure itself.

Salazar said the rule, finalized with a little more than a month before President George W. Bush left office, was bad policy. Two lawsuits pending in federal court sought to block or overturn the rule. The Obama administration's decision puts the federal government in the rare position of siding with the parties that filed the lawsuits.

"The responsible development of our coal supplies is important to America's energy security," Salazar said in a conference call with reporters. "But as we develop these reserves we must also protect our treasured landscapes, our land, our water and our wildlife."

Earthjustice, which represents the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits, accused Salazar of attempting to spike the litigation.

"This came out of the blue," spokeswoman Joan Mulhern said, adding that no one in the administration talked with Earthjustice before Monday's announcement.

Mulhern also complained that reverting to the status quo is not enough because it won't prevent coal companies from filling valleys with mine waste. "That's not helping the communities concerned with mountaintop removal."

Prior to the change, regulations in place since 1983 have barred mining companies from dumping waste within 100 feet of streams if the disposal would diminish water quality or quantity.

"The Secretary of the Interior's move to undo a seven year rulemaking process is precipitous and will only add to the uncertainty that is delaying mining operations and jeopardizing jobs," National Mining Association Chief Executive Hal Quinn said in a statement. "We trust the Secretary of the Interior does not plan on engaging in a de facto rulemaking, thereby avoiding the transparency integral to a fair and legal regulation."

The action is the latest by the Obama administration to address mountaintop removal for coal, a process in which mining companies remove vast areas to expose coal. While they are required to restore much of the land, the removal creates many tons of rocks, debris and other waste that are trucked away and then dumped into valley areas, where streams flow.

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it was cracking down on mountaintop removal by taking a closer look at 150 to 200 permits.

Kentucky Coal Association President Bill Caylor says it's unclear what the administration's action will mean for the industry. A primary reason for the Bush administration's changes was to clarify whether the 1983 rules covered ephemeral streams that occasionally carry water.

"The original rule was clear that it did not apply to these little, small, dry ditches," Caylor said. "It helped by clarifying it because there was starting to be litigation."

Salazar said he talked to West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin before Monday's announcement. Manchin spokesman Matt Turner said the governor invited Salazar to the state to visit a mountaintop removal mine.

"There has to be a balance and that is what he (Manchin) is looking for," Turner said. "There has to be a realistic understanding of how much energy comes from coal. We just can't instantly wean ourselves from this energy source."

Manchin complained to the administration after the EPA announced it wanted to review permits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was considering for mountaintop removal mines in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.

Associated Press Writer Brian Farkas and AP Business Writer Tim Huber contributed to this report from Charleston, W.Va.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giHtT8Pyma73d73FFOJx-evlk65QD97R0FDG4

British Energy: Hartlepool Nuclear Unit Shut Fri Unexpectedly

LONDON (Dow Jones)--U.K. nuclear power generator British Energy shut down one of its two nuclear reactors at Hartlepool nuclear power station Friday, data from the U.K. power grid operator National Grid PLC (NGG) showed.

A company spokesman confirmed that British Energy's 2,605- megawatt nuclear unit at Hartlepool was shut down Friday morning. The unit was shut down manually, the spokesman said. He added that it wasn't planned.

British Energy is the U.K. nuclear arm of Electricite de France (EDF.FR).

Company Web site: http://www.british-energy.com
-By Alex MacDonald, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9328; alex.macdonald@dowjones.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090427-702595.html

The Downside Of Nuclear Energy

What Washington Won't Tell You About 100 Nuclear Power Plants

By Jeff Siegel
Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

In an effort to offer their own solution to our energy woes, some in Washington are declaring that if we're really committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, then the U.S. should build 100 more nuclear power plants rather than spend billions in subsidies for renewable energy. (nuke does not lower electric bills, people in the Richmond area and Carolina, pay more to electric bills because of nuke plants)

Following this announcement, I received a number of e-mails from folks who wanted to know my thoughts on this. After all, I am an advocate of clean energy generation, and many consider nuclear to fall into this category, as nuclear power plants don't carry the same carbon burden as coal-fired power plants.

Nuclear, however, does carry an environmental burden of uranium mining and of course, nuclear waste. So no, nuclear is not clean. But that's not my purpose for writing this today.

If you're a supporter of nuclear energy, my environmental take on this is not going to sway you. And that's fine. But for investors who continue to believe nuclear is the answer - well, they're going to be sorely disappointed. Because no matter how bad the bureaucrats in Washington want it (on both sides of the aisle), 100 new nuclear power plants will never happen in the U.S. Here's why...

Peak Uranium?

First there is the issue of uranium depletion. As my colleague, Chris Nelder, wrote in the book, Investing in Renewable Energy...

"The best ores of uranium have been mined, leaving mainly low-quality ores left to exploit. To the casual observer, this might seem at first like a ridiculous statement. Uranium is a very common element, found in about the same abundance as tin worldwide, in everything from granite to seawater. Almost all - 99.3 percent - of the uranium found on Earth is uranium-238, an isotope of uranium containing 238 protons per atom. The remaining uranium - 0.7 percent - is uranium-235, and that's what is used as fuel for our 'light water' nuclear reactors."

Nelder also hightlighted a 2006 study that was conducted by the Energy Watch Group. This particular report, "Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy," suggested that under best-case estimates, uranium production could peak before 2050. And that's based on today's rate of use, and doesn't include an additional 100 nuclear power plants.

Even the president and CEO of Cameco Corporation, Gerald Grandey, told reporters at a 2007 press conference that he expects demand to grow at 3 percent annually for the next decade, but doesn't see uranium mining being able to keep pace with demand.

Waste Not, Want Not

There's also the issue of waste disposal.

Certainly by now you've heard about the Yucca Mountain Repository. This is where all of our spent nuclear fuel and waste is supposed to be stored.

Last year, it turned out that the Yucca Mountain repository would cost $96.2 billion (in 2007 dollars), with 80 percent of that cost falling on the ratepayers.

While these bureaucrats sit there and make the claim that we should build all these nuclear power plants instead of spending billions in subsidies for renewable energy, they conveniently forget the $77 billion that ratepayers may already have to shell out just to store 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, that technically still doesn't have a home. Certainly this is a not a cost that consumers or investors should ignore.

And we haven't even gotten to the construction costs on these things.

A 2008 report from the Congressional Budget Office found that on construction costs, you're looking at $144.6 billion (in 1990 dollars) for 75 nuclear power plants. That's $235.3 billion today. And according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the estimated cost on a 1,000 megawatt reactor could run as high as $7.5 billion!

The typical budget for a 20 MW geothermal project constructed by geothermal developer, Ormat Technologies (NYSE:ORA), is around $70 million. Or $3.5 billion for 1,000 megawatts.

Of course, with that geothermal power plant, you also have the added benefit of no waste disposal costs, no uranium costs, and no billion-dollar decommissioning costs. And geothermal power plants, by the way, also have a capacity factor around 90 percent - or about the same as a nuclear power plant.

Bottom line: 100 nuclear power plants is nothing more than a political pissing contest. For the sake of long-term, sustainable growth - nuclear offers little more than high-priced energy, a wealth of environmental headaches, and fat campaign contributions in Washington.

And it sure as hell won't help consumers with electricity costs either.

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

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/nuclear+power-washington-uranium/392

Reeves wants to do WHAT!?, or, nuclear power for Ester

Comment: your garden variety of mini-nuke plants, scary, yeah!!

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Oh good goodness.

Found this first on Fairbanks Open Radio, and now in an article by Dermot Cole in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: John Reeves has applied for a permit to install a portable nuclear power plant on a 4-acre lot near Ester. He makes the following nonsensical claims: that nuclear energy is the "cleanest, safest, cheapest form of energy available" (um, yeah, when it's 93 million miles away).

Before I get into the details of this, here's the date for the public hearing on the permitting:
Tuesday, May 19, 7 pm, FNSB Planning Commission. You can e-mail the entire commission at planning@co.fairbanks.ak.us.

Hyperion Power Generation, the company Reeves would like to work with, is creating small, self-contained modular power plants, rather like the Toshiba company's proposed modular power plant for Galena. (As of last year, this power plant was still scheduled for permitting approval with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

Hyperion's modules are smaller than Toshiba's by quite a bit (only about two meters cubed) and use no weapons-grade material. Here's how the Guardian describes them:
The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory.

Let's see: "clean".

The biggest problem with nuclear power is the waste, both mining waste and power industry waste. The Star (Toronto) describes the problem succinctly:
The fact is the units would still produce nuclear-fuel waste – a football-sized amount for each reactor – and while it would be collected by Hyperion and managed at a central location, a large part of the population believes it immoral to create and leave behind highly toxic waste for future generations.

Can a company like Hyperion be trusted to transport, collect and manage this waste from potentially thousands of sites?
And will Hyperion be around for thousands of years to look after its mess? Will the governments of the countries in which these potential sites are to be located be stable enough to properly regulate the nuclear industry and plants within their borders, again, for thousands of years?

To claim that they are "greenhouse gas-emission free" is nonsensical, just as it is for anything these days. Transporting the module back and forth every 7 to 10 years is going to require something in the way of fuel, and there is no industrial equipment manufactured today that doesn't rely on fossil fuels somewhere in its creation. Mining uranium, of course, has its own set of problems above and beyond greenhouse gas emissions (the uranium mining industry has a lousy health and safety record).

Side note to Alaska's political bloggers: any of you recall the Elim student protest and Palin's mining plans for the Seward Peninsula? The student blog doesn't appear to have been updated since September 2007, but there's some more news items that showed up in 2008. Northwest Alaska isn't he only place that needs to be thinking about this question, though: Bokan Mountain near Ketchikan is described as Ucore Uranium's "flagship property".

[I really don't get why Palin is so pro-mining and so unfriendly toward renewable industries like fishing (which bring in more money than mining!).]

"Safest":

I'm not sure what these companies think they are doing, trying to sell nuclear power plants to people in a state riddled with fault lines and volcanoes and flooding rivers. I read a ludicrous claim somewhere (can't find it now...) that because an item is buried, it would be safe from earthquake. Um, what? the earth moves, and not just on the surface—down for miles! And radioactive material, if it gets loose, is decidedly unsafe. In any quanitity.

There are a couple of big advantages that these small modular-type power generators have over the traditional sort of nuclear power plant. One of them is no mechanical systems: no moving parts, nothing to break down and cause havoc thereby. The other is that the expense in building and maintaining them is considerably less than with a big plant. The uranium hydride used as fuel is far less nasty than the fuel typically used in nuclear power plants. And it's not going to be useful for people intending to make their own nuclear weapons.

Now let's address "cheapest."

Typical large-scale nuclear power has been heavily subsidized. There's no way it could compete with oil, coal, wind. solar, geothermal--any other method. It's the most expensive form of power generation out there, excepting maybe using a gadzillion mice on excercise wheels...and most estimates of cost never even touch the expense of guarding the waste properly from 260,000 years...mostly because the plan is to bury it in the ground and forget about it. The mini-nuke option is cheaper, by a lot, but it still doesn't address this long-term problem and expense.

I'm wondering. The borough didn't have any zoning plans for wireless phone transmitter towers, so they popped up all over and caused a fuss. I'm betting they don't have any zoning in place regarding nuclear power plants, either.
Posted by Deirdre Helfferich at 1:22 PM

http://esterrepublic.blogspot.com/2009/04/reeves-wants-to-do-what.html

More on mini-nuke plants size of a bath tub:http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2008/11/mini-nuke-plants-will-power-20000-homes

Monday, April 27, 2009

Addressing the Uranium Mining Hype

Comment: another great article about uranium mining problems!

(Reader Linda offers this guest post responding to the hype of uranium mining. If you are an activist who cares about this issue, take the time to read this post!)

Mining promotes energy independence.

Energy independence is not a retreat from global economic interdependence, a move that would disrupt free market trade and that would lead America toward economic and politial isolation. Nor is energy 'independence' dependent upon mining. Energy independence means that a search for alternative energies must be a global effort. The point, in my opinion, is to create alternative energy supplies that run on renewable resources. Uranium is not renewable.

It could hold down electric rates.

First, I'm unsure how much uranium is to be mined at Coles Hill, and I doubt anyone knows this amount for certain. Secondly, the assumption - at least the one that this Washington Post story took last year - was that the uranium in this particular project would supply the country's nuclear 140 power plants for about two years.

I'm unsure whether this is a true statement or not, so I won't get into the financial logistics of the cost of the mine and mining compared to two years' worth of nuclear power nationwide, but it seems disproportionate. The real cost behind this mine is the land values, water safety and individual health. While a handful of families plan to make money on their properties, others may lose everything they have. In fact, the mine proposal already has affected home sales and business recruitments in the area. While the statement above seems to provide hope for the immediate future, in the here-and-now just the mere topic of this mine is costing this area money.

Thankfully, this statement uses the word, "could." Any time that word is used, it means that no one knows the answer.

It complements existing nuclear design and construction operations in Lynchburg and Newport News.

I'm of the opinion that nuclear power is no safer than it was two decades ago, because uranium mining and depleted uranium - or, the before- and after-products of nuclear power - are the "dirty" parts of this picture that have changed little since this country began to use nuclear power. If Virginians want to mine uranium, then Virginia also should create an enrichment plant and plan to store depleted uranium so populations in other states won't be affected by Virginia's decision to mine and transport yellowcake.

The Coles Hill mining project is expected to produce yellowcake (also called urania). The uranium ore is mined and then milled on the mine site to separate the uranium oxide from other substances. This yellowcake is then put into containers and shipped off to be enriched - but, sometimes the yellowcake simply is stored at other facilities in hopes that prices will increase on this commodity. Yellowcake is owned by various business entities and governed by U.S. and international laws. That uranium from the Coles Hill project could end up anywhere. Take, for example, Lehman Brothers' ownership of 450,000 lb of uranium stored in Canada.

Currently, the only enrichment plant in the U.S. is located in Paducah, Kentucky - however, some yellowcake also is shipped to a plant across the Kentucky River from Paducah at Metropolis Illinois, and other enrichment plants are planned (such as the one at Lea County, New Mexico, five miles east of Eunice). Other enrichment plants are located in Canada.

To understand more about how the market sees yellowcake, please read this Forbes article written in 2007 - this article was written just when the market began to see a possibility that nuclear reactors might make a comeback. However, pricing uranium is another story - previous to twenty years ago, uranium was not privitized. Therefore, pricing uranium is a risky business. This is not stopping many risk-takers in their efforts to mine, mill, enrich and store depleted uranium products and byproducts in this country. Uranium, to these folks, is an investment opportunity rather than a source of energy.

Uranium mining further complements this state's lack of renewable energy resources (But, customers can purchase "green" energy through renewable energy certificates (RECs), which Virginia's power companies purchase from other resources).

Mining is potentially hugely profitable, and, by extension, a potent source of local and state tax revenue. A mine would generate jobs in a region rapidly losing them to the collapse of manufacturing.

Uravan, Colorado, a mining town that was shut down in the early 1980s when the demand for uranium and vanadium waned, is uninhabitable even after the Superfund cleanup (which lasted twenty years at a cost of $120 million). The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) plans to turn a portion of the Uravan area into a campground with a museum focused on the history of uranium mining in Colorado. Yet, more than 13 million cubic yards of mill tailings, evaporation pond precipitates, water treatment sludge, contaminated soil, and debris from more than 50 major mill structures on the site and from a nearby abandoned mill in Gateway, Colorado, and mill tailings from the Naturita, Colorado, millsite are contained in the ground at Uravan.

Why a campground? Because homes cannot be built there. Granted, Uravan was a major project that lasted almost five decades. And, because of that project and others, a special program was set up just for uranium miners who worked with radioactive substances. If uranium was not a health problem, why was this program developed?

Outside of total depletion of land values with uranium mining, I've never met a rich miner, no matter the substance he or she was mining. So the question I would ask here is, "hugely profitable" to whom? As I mentioned previously, uranium prices are subject to fluctuation and have no historic bearing to help determine the actual price of yellowcake on the market. To state that yellowcake is a "potent source of local and state tax revenue" is making a promise based upon a theory.

Uravan consisted of about 800 people, and that number included wives and children of the miners. That town was involved with active mining with no other income from businesses that would sustain that town outside the mining. If the Coles Hill mine is expected to carry the county with the loss of manufacturing businesses, it sounds to me that Coles Hill is about to become another Uravan.

While I've never met a rich miner, the cost to the miner is high. Here's another link to the RECA, or the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. If you scroll down the page, you'll see that a miner isn't eligible for a claim on this act unless the claimant worked in a uranium mill for at least one year beginning January 1, 1942 and ending on December 31, 1971. What I find interesting is the information in the first paragraph, which shows that uranium miners from this era actually receive higher compensation than anyone who was exposed to a nuclear weapons test. This attests to the fact that long-term exposure (at least one year) to uranium mining and milling is, indeed, hazardous.

The time frame mentioned in the RECA compensation is important, because it means that this compensation may not apply to miners who work at the Coles Hill project. Taxpayers have granted $1,396,375,620 [PDF] as of 23 April 2009 for radiation exposure claims through this program and taxpayers may still pay the Navajo Nation for the deaths, birth defects and diseases caused by uranium mining on their lands. But, this latter struggle is now ten years old. What would a miner expect from a private company, if previous uranium miners still are fighting for compensation for illnesses from the U.S. government?

Finally, at the end when all mining is done, who cleans up the site? Although most contracts for uranium mining put this onus on the mining company, the first story I've seen about a company that has been forced by the government to clean up a mining site was published just this April. Atlantic Richfield Co. has agreed to spend $10.2 million for future and past cleanup efforts at an old copper mine in Yerington, Nevada. This was not a uranium mine, but it was a mine that produced a uranium byproduct, which contaminated the site along with arsenic and other heavy metals. Other than this site, taxpayers pay for remediation for sites such as those on Navajo land. Other sites are now claiming funds for cleanups that have been decades in the making. These cleanup operations now are paid by Superfunds or stimulus funds (such as Moab, Utah).

What makes me think that a private company would do a better job than the government at protecting their workers and cleaning up - which was a lousy job at best when done by the U.S. government? What could make me believe that this project may cost local, state and national taxpayers more than it proposes to benefit those taxpayers? I don't have the answers, but it appears that many government entities, geologists and others who want this Coles Hill mine are repeating many of the same things that the government told the Navajo Nation and the Uravan workers fifty years ago.

How does repeating history make uranium mining dramatically different and far safer today than it was when it was run by the government?

http://dembones-dembones.blogspot.com/2009/04/addressing-uranium-mining-hype-guest.html

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Coal Ash: 130M Tons of Waste

FACT: Uranium mining & milling produces tailings and dust that contain the same deadly heavy metals and arsenic as coal ash. Coles Hill is on the Banister River, just like the coal ash spill in Kentucky polluted their river. The plan in Virginia is to develop "regulations" to keep us "safe" from the uranium industry just like they (politicians and the corporations that are motivated solely by profit) have kept the people "safe" from the coal plant industry. When you watch this film, every time you hear COLE ASH, think URANIUM TAILINGS and DUST!

Watch CBS News Videos Online

A Call to Action!

Sunday, September 6, 2009

A CALL TO ACTION!

An Editorial by Gregg Vickrey, Chairman, The Alliance
September 6, 2009, concerning the:

U.S. Uranium and Nuclear Power Outlook: 2008 - 2030
Presented to:National Research Council of the National Academies
Presented by:Tom Pool Chairman, International Nuclear
November 18, 2008

Although I could point out all of the obvious errors in this completely bias report BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL of the NATIONAL ACADEMIES (NAS?), I will only address the section entitled: "Opposition"

This one section of the report serves to prove that the pro nuke, uranium mining & milling bunch, are frightened of, no, TERRORIZED by, the rational people that oppose their for profit slaughter of human beings (including children), animals and fish, and the environment all over the world. This section is a deliberate attempt to subliminally effect the emotions of the reader.
It attempts to make anybody opposed to nuke power, uranium mining and milling, seem like a group of paranoid fanatics. It is meant to gain pro-nuke, pro-uranium mining & milling followers by deliberately creating the mind set: "if I oppose this, I will be labeled and vilified. Worse, I will be considered stupid (remember the old story: "The Emperor's new clothes"?). It is marketing and public relations at it's best. In professional terms, it's called "branding". Although typical branding is done to create positive "top of mind awareness" in the mind of the consumer - in this case, the NRC of the NA (NAS?) - this marketing, PR drive is determined to create a negative impression of anyone that dares oppose the for profit corporations as represented by Tom Pool, Chairman, International Nuclear.

So, without further ado, please let me address the picture that he paints of the "opposition":

In Tom's own words: "Most opposition can be Characterized as":

– Lack of Understanding (Fear of the Unknown) This is true. Based on the problematic history of nuclear power, uranium mining and milling world wide, the current problems and issues (more are discovered every day), the lack of any new technology that significantly improves the probability of successful nuclear power generation, uranium mining and milling, and the fact that uranium mining and milling has never been done any where in the world with the climate and population density of Virginia, creating a HUGE UNKNOWN that can NEVER be addressed, except as theory - making Virginia the biggest potential experiment in nuke energy fuel production EVER in the history of the United States - we , the people that rationally oppose this boondoggle, proudly lay claim to NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, IN OFFICE TO LOOK AFTER OUR WELL BEING, NOT THE PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS HELL BENT TO TAKE OVER OUR LANDS AND TRAMPLE ON OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, PUSH THE AGENDA OF FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS (even foreign corporations) INSTEAD OF LOOKING OUT FOR THE PEOPLE THEY WERE ELECTED TO, AND ARE PAID TO, REPRESENT.

Yes, we are fearful that our elected officials are so beholding to for profit (even foreign) corporations that they will NEVER listen to the will of the people. They (the politicians) claim that this is "business" as usual (taking money from corporations to pay for their election campaigns). I say IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS!

We, the opposition, do not need to look very hard to find all of the reasons that nuke power, uranium mining and milling, should not be done! OUR POLITICIANS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT UP TO THEM TO DECIDE IF NUKE POWER, URANIUM MINING & MILLING SHOULD BE DONE. This decision is up to the people. Their ONLY job is to implement the will of the people. If they cannot handle this simple task, it is time for us - THE PEOPLE - to vote them out of office! We need politicians that KNOW they do not work for corporations, domestic and/or foreign! They need to understand, they work for us! Just because WE elected them to office, WE did not give them Carte' blanch to do whatever they want to do. WE also did not agree to serve THEM.

THE CORPORATIONS and THEIR PUPPETS, our elected officials, HAVE GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO STIFLE THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM. They call us names, they emotionally and defensively challenge our facts without providing any new or better information. Our politicians hide behind questionable "studies" so that they can justify serving their corporate masters. They make stop overs and declare that a proposed, potentially lethal to millions uranium mine & mill is "far away from everything"! They (the politicians) expect you to accept this declaration as an item of fact. Never mind that a look at any map will give truth to their lies! They refuse to take a stand on the most important issue that Virginia has ever faced. There has not been an assault like this on the people's rights since the war of Northern Aggression! Our politicians have become the "bully" on the beach.

• Connection With Nuclear Weapons DUH! Uranium is processed into weapons grade material to create nuclear bombs! Depleted uranium (the spent, or used up uranium power rods from domestic nuclear power plants) is used to coat bombs and the ordinance used in conventional weapons (riffles, hand guns, etc.). These depleted uranium bunker busters, and gun ordinance that our soldiers carry, have been reported to have been, and continue to be, used extensively in the USA's middle east wars - Iraq & Afghanistan. Our military is coming home with the effects of this low level radiation poisoning as we speak. That is, if they're lucky enough to come home at all. If we should be fighting these wars or not is a subject for another discussion. As for a "connection with nuclear weapons", there can be no doubt.

Our Federal, State, and Local Governments (our elected servants) would like for us to believe that there is no danger from the nuke industry at any phase of it. Do the minimum of research and you will find that this is absolutely not true, A LIE! They (the politicians that work for the foreign and domestic corporations) would like for us to believe that we need nuclear energy to solve our domestic energy problems in terms of production of energy, and cost for that energy. They tout nuke energy as renewable, clean and affordable. This is THE BIGGEST LIE! Our existing nuclear energy production facilities (nuke plants) are at, and/or, reaching the end of their safe operating life cycles. There are new nuke plants on the table, but none of them are in, or anywhere close, to the beginning of construction. Why? (1) Private banks will not finance them because of the risks (financially, environmentally, and long term return on investment) without 100% loan guarantees from OUR federal government. That would be TRILLIONS of DOLLARS, our (the tax payers) dollars, invested in a non-renewable, 20 year max resource. (2) Although the industry has tried, there is no "cookie cutter" physical plant plan to mass produce nuclear power generation plants. ALL nuke plants must be individually engineered (meaning no economy of scale = MORE DOLLARS TO BUILD, including the inevitable cost over-runs) per location. Of the 30 or so plans currently under consideration, none of the future nuke plant blueprints have been approved. They simply do not meet the requirements of the authorizing governmental agencies.

So, if our existing nuke plants will all be shut down in a very few number of years, and new nuke plants, even if authorized to be built starting today, cannot come on line for at least 10 - 30 years, providing that they can get financing (which they can't - that's why some power companies in the USA are increasing their prices for electricity - they need to build a fund), why do we need uranium mining and milling at Cole's Hill or any other place in America? Why is the USA selling off excess uranium? We know why the USA imports uranium! It's to keep the bad guys from getting it. This is why Russia has such a lucrative deal with the USA to provide us with around 20% of our uranium needs. We need to corral their uranium stock piles to keep them from going to unfriendlies (to the United States) that will use the uranium to develop nuke and depleted uranium weapon capabilities. This is our (our government, not necessarily representing the people) nuke power problem with countries like Iran. They claim to want a domestic source of nuke energy, but do they? We (our government) claims to want a domestic nuke energy program, but do we (them, the corporation's paid for politicians)? In light of all of the other, truly sustainable, truly "green" Tree Hugger options for domestic energy - including the idea of pouring the nuke trillions of dollars into decentralizing our power supplies by investing in property by property energy independence through solar, wind, etc., that could then provide excess power into our centralized grid - why would we (the people) put up with the archaic, so yesterday, anti people and environment methods of power production that will give us they same old, same old? Sounds like a recipe for functional obsolescence. The same functional obsolescence that killed our auto industry. Something is NOT right. But, I'm sure that, as Tom promotes, we are too stupid to figure it out. After all, a bunch of ignorant rubes should not have anything to do with running the country. Leave that to the governmental experts!

• Chernobyl & Three Mile Island More "Lack of Understanding" and "Fear of the Unknown"? You bet! The ignorant masses, otherwise known worldwide as the "Opposition", do not understand how Chernobyl & Three Mile Island could have happened in light of governmental and corporate assurance that all was well, that melt downs could not possibly happen! In the case of Three Mile Island, the corporate lackeys (otherwise known as our elected government officials) led us to believe that there couldn't possibly be any danger because Three Mile Island was/is extremely well regulated and controlled. Inspections would/will surely find any potential problem(s) and make sure that it never causes any serious situations. Less serious problems, based on what is allowed to be a problem by regulations, will (and do) happen, but these problems will only effect a small number of people, lands, and water ways. If these people are scared, they can move - nobody is stopping them. Nobody is forcing them to live in the proximity of a major life threatening catastrophe waiting to happen. The people living in the area knew the risks - there was plenty of debate with the stupid opposition - why did they stay? I'm sure (as Walter Coles Jr. said to me in one of VUI's private presentations) that there was a boom in the real estate prices when uranium, I mean, nuke industry people moved in to fill well paying jobs. Why didn't they sell then? Idiots! I guess they just didn't understand! Guess they're not afraid enough of what "they don't know" to do the smart thing and leave. Because information about Three Mile Island, and every other nuke power plant and uranium mining and milling operation all over the world is readily available to anyone that really wants to know the truth. The pro nukers, miners & millers are not responsible for the ignorance of the masses! Their ignorance is proof as to why corporations, through their elected governing officials, should rule.

– Prejudice BRAVO! What a GREAT MARKETING, PUBLIC RELATIONS WORD to label the "Opposition" with! The word "prejudice" brings to mind ignorant people that are racist and more. Think "Neo-Nazis, Rednecks, Hicks, Stupid, Country Bumpkins, Politically Incorrect (OH NO! NOT POLITICALLY INCORRECT!), etc.

The pro nuke, uranium mining and milling people will try to convince you that anyone opposed to them, you know, the prejudice people that do not want nuke power, and by extension uranium mining and milling, and because, for some reason we are opposed to progress, are just, well, prejudice. Wish I would have thought of this for our opposition campaign! But then, I don't have a Million Dollar Plus (provided by foreign corporations) PR and Marketing budget. If I had thought of this label, I would have said that the pro folks are prejudice against truly sustainable, healthy electric power generation. Oh well! They thought of it first. Guess I'll just try to convince folks to be "discerning" when looking at the issues.

– Mysticism I am indeed mystified! I think it's "magic" the way the pro-nuclear, pro-uranium mining and milling folks twist and ignore the facts. I find it fascinating that they always come up with the money to get their way. I must suspend my disbelief when watching the slight of hand that happens when their lobbyists lobby (that's what they do. A lobbyist's job is to get an elected public servant to do a corporations will) OUR elected officials. Perhaps the corporations have hired an untold number of hypnotists? I can see it now... the room is dark, all eyes are on the lobbyist/hypnotist... the smell of money is wafting through the room (you know, for ambiance), and the lobbyist/hypnotist says: " You are all very greedy..., you all love money and power (rumor has it that you can't hypnotize someone to do anything that they are not already inclined to do)... you will all vote for a "study"..., you will all vote for uranium mining and milling in Virginia... When you awake at the count of three, you will not experience any remorse... You will not worry or think about your lack of personal fact finding... despite the fact that you have many personal aides that could do this for you... at tax payer expense..., Tax payers are only there to provide money for your wants and needs ..., You will be relaxed, happy, and rich... 1.., 2..., 3.....

– Political Positioning You are smart people, despite what Tom thinks! Need I say anything more on this topic? If your answer is yes, I still think that you're smart, but a glutton for punishment.

– Over Reaction I know that many people wrestle with this. What is the "proper" amount of reaction? How should it be expressed? When is it "under reaction"? How can we possibly know in this age of "blip" communication, where we might be misunderstood? What is the "proper" means to react? Who will give us the answers to these profound questions? Are the pro-nuke, uranium mining & milling folks causing us to "react"? If not, who is? Why have I never thought about these issues until VUI/Santoy/Virginia Energy Resources, INC. (whatever they call themselves this week) expressed the desire to make Billions of Dollars by mining and milling uranium in Pittsylvania County? Do the pro-uranium mining & milling folks have the answers? Didn't Walter Cole's say that HE would decide if uranium is mined and milled in Pittsylvania County (and the rest of VA by extension) publicly when he was quoted in many newspapers throughout Virginia as saying "if it can't be done safely, it won't be done"? Did I get short changed on information regarding Walter's qualifications to make this decision for the rest of us? Henry Hurt is quoted as saying: "If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can figure out how to safely mine (and mill) uranium (in the Commonwealth)". I know Henry is smart, but isn't this two different things? Isn't Tom's presentation to the NRC to the NA (NAS?) full of opinion and hyperbole, designed to discredit anyone with questions, never mined opposed to, nuke power, uranium mining & milling? Somebody! Please help me to react appropriately to this demeaning, paid for by the nuke industry, presentation! I'm at a loss... of knowledge as to the correct amount of reaction I should have to this insulting presentation, and the lack of indignation from MY elected officials, and... money to present real facts by people that are rightfully opposed to nuke energy, uranium mining and milling (STRONG PRESENTATIONS WITHOUT APOLOGY!).

I don't have a Million Dollar Plus marketing & Public Relations budget. I only have this one little blog and the goodwill (if I become a "story") of the media. Perhaps Tom will help me to react appropriately...

– Media Sensationalism MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT THE "MEDIA" TYPICALLY DOES NOT "SENSATIONALIZE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Except for editorial opinion pieces that can make, or break a movement that "they" don't approve of (let the "media" - Danville Register & Bee - figure out what I mean by this). Typically, the "media" reports. That's their job. You will always have young, cub reporters (think John Crane) that, if there is nothing newsworthy that's sensational, will create sensation in how he chooses to report. This "killing of the Golden Goose" is how these young reporters, to their chagrin, think that they can create a "story" worth printing. Anyone that has undergone "how to deal with the media 101" in corporate training knows to watch out for this. Even so, sometimes you get blind-sided by an overzealous, trying-to-be-up-and-comer reporter.

It's up to the "warring factions" to make news, and "sensationalize" a subject. The media coverage of dissenting voices is Tom's topic in this presentation to the NRC of the NA (NAS?). My opinion is that Tom is warning the "media". He's telling them to print only the pro-nuke, pro-uranium mining and milling perspectives or risk the wrath of the "powers that be".

Unless, of course, they are favorably reporting the pro side of things! Some "media" might be happy with that. Unfortunately, the era of true investigative reporting has gone the way of the dinosaur. It's much more cost effective to "stir the pot" than to truly dig in and uncover the facts! If this is not true, let the "media" prove me wrong. Let the "media" not make decisions about content based on advertising dollars. Let the "media" prove that "news" and "investigative journalism" is based on issues independent of ratings, readership, advertising (real or potential) dollars, and political influence. Let the "media" win back the respect that it once had. This is the ONLY way that the "media" can counter the charge of "media sensationalism" leveled by the pro-nuke, pro-uranium mining & milling industry.

– Mistrust of Government Regulators Let's see... where to begin... No matter which side of the aisle you are on, all of us can list a multitude of sins (some listed in this editorial) that cause us, as individuals and groups of people, to not trust "The Government". Why is that? Why is it that the only constituency that does trust "The Government" has names that end in INC. and LLC? Could it be that these "people" know something that we don't?

Look, there are plenty (a majority) of companies and corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, that are "good corporate citizens". Indeed, non-profits (such as The Alliance, CELDF, SCC, United Way, Kids & Kritters to name a few) could not exist without the American corporate structure. There would also be many (vastly many) jobs that would not exist without small, for-profit enterprises. But, let's be realistic! None of these not-for-profit and small for-profit corporations can dictate "government regulations" like national & international corporations can.

Surprise! Our elected and appointed government officials DO NOT dictate "government regulations" So, who does dictate "government regulations"?

Big corporations. Not local Mom & Pops. Really HUGE corporations. The kind of corporations that put local (including regional and some state wide) businesses out of business! These conglomerates, often financed from foreign (not American) resources, such as VUI/Santoy/Virginia Energy Resources - a wholly owned CANADIAN corporation - have the financial resources to buy anything they want! Including our government. How do they do this? They have a multi-prong approach (just go to the Canadian stock exchange to see what Walter & company is up to). They promote their cause publicly through the media and charitable donations. In fact, they put millions of dollars (don't believe for one minute the "small company" poverty plea of VUI, "America") into "Public Education, Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing campaigns".

They hire the best, high powered lobbyists that they can afford (trust me, they have the best). These lobbyists write the proposed legislation. Remember, it was Whitt Clement, Brother-In-Law to Walter Coles, (the man that has taken it upon himself to decide if uranium mining & milling is "safe" on his property - he owns the biggest share of the ore that, when mined & milled, will pay him, at minimum, Millions. The ore is estimated to be worth Billions as long as there is a domestic world wide nuke energy market for it. No wonder VUI's private presentations focus on the nuclear industry instead of the local issue of uranium mining & milling. In fact, you really can't get them - VUI - to talk much about the local issue of uranium mining and milling) and a renowned Richmond lobbyist that convinced VA Senator Frank Wagner to include uranium mining and milling in his 2006 energy bill, later adopted by the Governor of Virginia. We (the people) have been under the threat of this scourge on humanity ever since. We, the people, NEVER asked for this controversy. Walter Coles and his investors forced this controversy on us, against our will. They have manipulated the General Assembly, the Coal & Energy Commission (not an elected panel, but an appointed panel responsible to, and reporting to no one. So, what's in this for them?), and the media to achieve their goals. The nuke industry, in full support of uranium mining and milling, manipulates through presentations like Tom's to the national government, and appointed governmental bodies such as the NRC of the NA (NAS?), and the media. The nuke industry also forces it's propaganda on unwitting citizens through paid advertising and the intimidation... I mean manipulation... of the "media".

Have I mentioned that industries such as nuke energy and mining of every kind - including uranium mining and milling - are the ones that write the regulations? Sad, but true. Our government (the elected people that supposedly represent you and me) consider the industry people the experts in the field. Therefore, our elected officials abdicate their responsibilities to protect us poor dumb citizens to the very people that are in the business to make money. This is where the idea of "cost benefit analysis" comes from. Big corporations analyze their potential financial exposure concerning breaking their own "regulations". The regulations that they had their elected officials put in place. If their analysis determines that it is more profitable to "break the regulations", also known as committing an illegal act, they will do so. After all, they know the rules (that they made) and repercussions much better than anyone else. It's their business to know!

This finally brings us to the idea that people have a "mistrust" of government regulators. Duh! Why should we trust government regulators when they work for the very corporations that they are supposed to regulate. At best, they will find wrong doing and impose the sanctions that the regulated industry has approved, creating a profitable (but not healthy) situation for all (of them) concerned. Even if a regulatory agency wanted to do its job for the people, they DO NOT have the money. Want proof? Take a look at how many inspectors there are, per state, and how many bridges per state they are required to "regulate", inspect, keep safe for the citizens. It makes me cringe every time I cross one. It's not the inspector's fault, it's the government's fault. It's not the government's fault, it's the people's fault. In this case, the "people" does not include corporations.

Corporations are only "people" when it comes to "their" (whoever "they" are) rights. Funny how corporation rights always trump people's rights. Its like corporations have the same number of votes that every counted-in-the-census human being has, times two! Now we're back to mysticism. I think this has something to do with the smell of money in the room whenever big corporations influence... I mean talk to their... I mean our, elected government officials.

Trust the regulators? I think not! We, THE PEOPLE, have plenty of reason to not trust them.

So, the call to action? I challenge every person (not corporations, but including their elected officials) to do the following:

Ask yourself what YOU are doing to learn the facts?
Ask yourself what YOU are doing to make a difference in the debate?
Ask yourself how much respect you have for someone that deliberately remains ignorant of the issues in today's world of information technology, yet espouses their opinion as if it's fact?
Ask yourself how much respect you have for an industry (the entire nuke industry from uranium mining and milling to power plants and depleted uranium ordinance production) that spends Millions of Dollars to control your government, your media, and the very thoughts that you think? An industry that would allow, indeed sponsor, Tom Pool, Chairman, International Nuclear, to speak on its behalf? An industry that demeans and ridicules, demonizes and criminalizes, any PERSON that disagrees with them. Ask yourself, are they looking out for your best interest, or theirs?
Ask yourself how you really feel about the corporate owned politicians that sanction this abuse of you and your family? Ask yourself if you want a country ruled by BULLIES?
Ask yourself what are YOU doing to educate the, according to Tom Pool, Chairman, International Nuclear, ignorant masses (my words, his by inference)?
Ask yourself, are YOU willing to do anything at all, one way or the other? If not, don't think that you have any right to rejoice or complain no matter what happens. You deserve to get what your sowing reaps. If so, and I'm referring to REAL human beings, NOT corporations, THEN DO IT. Thinking about it doesn’t count. DO SOMETHING! Doing something DOES NOT include living in the past, using this crisis to remind all concerned of past glories. When you do this, you make yourself look foolish and irrelevant. It causes people that may be on your side to distance themselves from you. It hurts your cause. It doesn’t matter what you've done in the past, or how long your family has lived in the South. What matters is your RELEVANT contribution to the issues at hand. Doing something DOES NOT mean seeking media attention and glory for yourself. This is not productive to your cause. The issues are important, not the people that deliver the message.
If you do something, understand that YOU are doing it. Take pride in that! Do not rely on groups (such as The Alliance or SCC), or any one individual, to take action for you. Take personal responsibility for the outcome of this and any other issue that you feel is important.
Participate in YOUR government. The surest way to take back our inherent, and rightful, governing authority is to participate in the process. Attend your Town & City council meetings. Attend your County Board of Supervisors meetings. Attend your School Board meetings. Attend your Zoning Commission meetings. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD! There is a saying that "all politics is local". If you do not regain control of the polotics at the local level, you will never stand a chance of demanding your constitutional rights at the state and federal level. The pro-nuke, pro-uranium mining and milling corporations may have a LOT of dollars to vote with, but THE PEOPLE still go to the ballot box. Ultimately it is We, The People, that allow these travesties, these corruptions of our way of life to happen. It is up to each of us to take a stand, to participate, to own our futures. To say loud and clear, I claim MY right to live free of the corruption that has become prevalent in MY country, the United States of America.
Recognize that our government has become corrupted by mega national and international corporations. Recognize that YOU have a right to live in this country free of the abuse and corruption in YOUR government that is being caused by these corporations.

Are YOU listening? Are you THINKING?
Will you heed this call to action?

Join the Fight!

1. To become a member of THE Alliance, fill in the Membership Form at the bottom of this page (SCROLL DOWN).

2. Be sure to Subscribe to this Blog (scroll down). This will ALWAYS be free.

3. Educate yourself with the information posted here

4. Participate in THE Alliance activities

5. Once you have joined THE Alliance and paid your membership fee, you will receive an invitation to join our exclusive List Serve. Be sure to accept this invitation! This will be the only way that members will receive exclusive information from THE Alliance. You will also be able to voice your opinions.

LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

February 18, 2009, John Crane, of the Danville Register and Bee, quoted the Chairman of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, Coy Harville (known by some as "King Coy") as saying: "Davis’ authorship of a resolution without telling the board ahead of time was "sneaky." However, Harville said he voted for it because the resolution, when given to the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee, won’t make much difference anyway."

"It’s just a piece of paper," he said.

Harville, who had initially voted for the combined resolution before supporting Davis’, declined to reveal his opinion of uranium mining, saying instead there’s a state moratorium on the practice.

This is in response to Supervisor Hank Davis' motion to resolve that the "Study Commission", currently considering a study to lift the moratorium on uranium mining and milling in Virginia, must find that there be "no damage or harm to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environments, and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost/benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages". Supervisor Marshall Ecker seconded this motion.

In other words, the "Study Commission" must find that this criterion is met conclusively and absolutely before recommending that the current moratorium on uranium mining be lifted.

The above language is EXACTLY what Mr. Davis submitted to the County for the BOS Packet for the 2/17/09 BOS meeting. It appears that, at least Mr. Sleeper (County Administrator), felt a need to rewrite Mr. Davis' resolution to be submitted to the full Board. TALK ABOUT SNEAKY!

Could it be that Mr. Sleeper was directed to do this by a higher authority? The County Administrator is subject to the Chairman of the Board's direction when the BOS is not in session...

Mr. Davis did not accept this weak, groveling, resolution and submitted his original material.

After a nonsensical debate of "combining" the two resolutions, Mr. Davis' resolution was passed unanimously.

As a member of the audience watching this comedy of errors, I must tell you that, in my mind, this unanimous vote nearly didn't happen. My impression, watching Mr. Harville, was that he found himself surprised that EVERY hand was up in favor of Mr. Davis' resolution. It appeared to me that, this being the case, as opposed to the usual "gang of 4" block vote - Harville, Pritchett, Snead and Barber, that he is used to, he found himself the odd man out, so stuck his hand up and declared a "unanimous" vote.

Harville's inane comments recorded above proves out my impression and shows, in my mind, his complete and utter disdain of Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environments, and its citizens.

It is obvious that his vote was meaningless to him! One must wonder why? It is SHOCKING that an elected "servant" of the community would react this way!

So, other than producing a "wasted" piece of paper (by the way, as much as I hate to admit it, Harville's statements are TRUE), what was accomplished Tuesday night?

Tuesday night proved that people, working together for a common cause, CAN have control of their future and take back their inherent GOVERNING AUTHORITY! King Coy and his ilk DO NOT RULE US! They REPRESENT US! They do not, and will not, work for CORPORATION'S INTERESTS ON OUR DIME!

Davis and Ecker deserve our thanks and support. They have helped us to achieve a major, if inadequate step.

The next step will be to codify into law protections that will forever protect "Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environments, and its citizens".

PIT MINING BLASTS

This is how open pit mining is done. This dust will go into our air and settle on our land AND in our water. This is the first step in a chain of events that will pollute our environment. We will breathe, eat, and drink this poison. It will cause cancer and a host of other health problems slowly, over time. The build up of radioactive elements, lead, arsenic, and other heavy metals is accumulative. THIS DUST KILLS! MINING AND MILLING OF URANIUM MUST NEVER HAPPEN IN VIRGINIA!

CLICK THE MENU BUTTON ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE MOVIE PLAYER SCREEN TO VIEW A VARIETY OF CLIPS

All That Glitters is not Gold

Why is SCC and the Alliance concerned about uranium mining and milling in Virginia? This short film really sums it up! It's about the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia. Their plight mirrors our own if uranium mining and milling EVER takes place in Virginia. URANIUM MINING & MILLING HAS NEVER BEEN DONE SAFELY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! WHILE SOME SAY THAT THEY WANT (AND NEED) A "STUDY", THE ONLY TRUE INFORMATION CAN COME FROM WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. Studying "how" to mine and mill uranium in Virginia is much different than studying "should" we mine and mill uranium in Virginia. REMEMBER: All uranium mining and milling has been done with the "latest technology" since its inception. ALL OF THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS FAILED! Since mining and milling has NEVER been done in an area with our population (OVER 500,000 people within 120 miles of the proposed mine and milling operation and many, many more down stream to the Atlantic Ocean) and our net precipitation (greater than evaporation) any "study" of "how" to mine and mill uranium in Pittsylvania County, or anywhere else in Virginia, will be a THEORY. AN EXPERIMENT! Remember your school days? In science class you posed a theory, then designed an experiment to prove it true or false. THIS EXPERIMENT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO KILL!

Wise Uranium Slide Show

What is......THE Alliance!!!

THE Alliance is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation dedicated to fighting corporate assaults through Rights Based Organizing and Education. Our goal is to help preserve the quality of life in the communities that we work with. Our current focus is on the impending mining & milling of uranium in Virginia.

In 1983, as now, the desire of local and multi-national corporations to mine uranium in Pittsylvania County, and eventually the entire state, is of immediate and urgent concern.

We oppose this and any exploratory drilling because we know that it cannot be done safely! We also oppose it because of the burden of the environmental clean up that will be placed on our local communities, state, and future generations when the mine companies cease their operations.

We oppose it because of the extremely negative economic and social impact it will have on our fragile local economies. And, we oppose it because of the disastrous effect it will have on the esthetics of our beautiful, bountiful lands.

URANIUM---The Movie !!

If you care about Pittsylvania County......
If you care about who gets to make the decisions that affect you and your family........
If you care about what all the "buzz" is about........
If you care..................

scroll to the bottom of this page and take the time to watch the excellent documentary, Uranium. It lasts about 1 hour.

This movie is presented for educational purposes only. Do not exhibit this movie commercially without the expressed written permission of the copyright holder. To order this movie, please click here.

Join THE Alliance Here:

After you have submitted your form, we will send you an email confirming your request and giving you an address to send your $25 Membership Fee. REMEMBER! Sign up now through May 25, 2009 and become a Founding Member of THE Alliance. You will never have to pay a membership fee again! After May 25th, an annual membership fee will apply. Please print and save your confimation notice. THANK YOU FOR JOINING!
form mail

Uranium

Uranium explores the consequences of uranium mining in Canada. Because of toxic and radioactive waste, there are profound, long-term environmental hazards associated with uranium mining. For miners who work at the sites, there is the substantially increased risk of getting cancer. And, because most of the mining to date has been on land historically used by Canada's Native populations, uranium mining violates the traditional economic and spiritual lives of many aboriginal people. Given our limited knowledge of the risks associated with uranium mining, this film questions the validity of its continuation. Director: Magnus Isacsson Producer: Dale Phillips Writing: Michael Riordon Photography: Barry Perles Sound: Rick Gustavsen Sound: Clancy Livingston Sound: Jeremy Sagar Sound: Yvon Benoît Editing: Dominique Fortin Sound: André Chaput Voice and Narration: Buffy Ste-Marie Music: Michael Becker

Uranium

1990, Isacsson, Magnus

Name:
Email Address:
Address:
Phone Number (including area code):
How Did You Hear About Us:
Why Would You Like To Join The Alliance?
What Else Would You Like To Tell Us About Yourself?

Subscribe to NoVaUranium

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Monday, April 27, 2009

Coal Ash: 130M Tons of Waste

The Facts About Uranium

A Call to Action!

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Uranium Mining Whistleblower

Uraniumhead

Down The Yellowcake Road

World Report: Uranium Mining: Vital for the Future, But Not in My Backyard!

Cover to Cover

LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND!

Historic Leases That VUI Wants

CHECK OUT OUR CALENDAR OF EVENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE!

Join the Fight!

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG HERE! Keep up with the latest info delivered directly to your email!

Hurricane Fran, Flood Of '96

LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

JOBS?

Uranium Mines & Mills Throughout The World

URANIUM - THE MOVIE

There Is No Energy Crisis, There is a Crisis of Ignorance

Salt Water Fuel

HARNESSING THE POWER OF WAVES & TIDES

Alternative Energy: Wave-Powered Ocean Energy Technology

What's Behind Uranium Mining And Milling In Virginia

VUI and the General Assembly

Part 3 Candian Company?

Part 4 - VUI's Advertised Goals

Part 5 - Vui's True Goals per Their Prospectus

Part 6 A - VUI's Risks

Part 6 B

PIT MINING BLASTS

Part 8 A - Our Concerns

All That Glitters is not Gold

How Radiation Gets Into Your System

RADON QUESTIONS? ASK RADON DALE!

Links to Other US Community Fights vs Uranium Mining

WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A DICUSSION ABOUT URANIUM MINING? JOIN THE NoVaUranium LISTSERVE HERE!

Wise Uranium Slide Show

What is......THE Alliance!!!

GET YOUR "NO URANIUM" WINDOW SIGN HERE

Sign Our On-line Petition! (click link below)

Example: Open Pit Uranium Mine, Ranger, Australia

Yard Signs Signs Now Available!

URANIUM---The Movie !!

Contact Your Elected/Appointed Officials

Send Your letter to the Editor Statewide

Find Posts by Category

Links to Documents

Blog Archive

Jeffrey City, Wyoming

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

Join THE Alliance Here:

Uranium