What Would Uranium Mining Mean? written by Shireen Parsons - Response to Parsons' letter/Response to Dillon's letter

Comment: Please review three letters listed below, the first letter is called: "What Would Uranium Mining Mean?" by Shireen, the second letter Nuke Dude title: " Response to Parsons' (letter 2) and finally Shireen's letter :Response to Dillon's letter (Letter No. 3) .
Thanks Shireen for all the letters!

Response to Dillon's letter (letter 3)

Sep 15, 2009 - 05:17:43 pm CDT

In his September 8 "Response to Parsons' letter," J. Carrington Dillon launched a laughable ad hominem attack on me and on the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, for which I am the Virginia community organizer. It seems that my own commentary about how uranium mining in Virginia would impact communities and the environment downstream in North Carolina has him hopping mad.

According to Dillon, I have a "total disregard for factual information, my "claims" are "ridiculous," I employ "unjustifiable fear tactics" and "completely made-up and baseless facts" (how can a fact be made-up and/or baseless?), and that I'm "grossly unqualified to even participate in this dialog." My goodness! And he describes the Legal Defense Fund as "a group of radical environmental class-action lawyers" and says that I said our goal is to "seize local governing authority."

Whew! Where to start? First, to set the record straight, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit, community interest law firm that provides free and low-cost legal services to communities threatened by corporate assaults, such as mining, land-application of sewage sludge, toxic waste dumps, factory farming.... We assist our partner communities to prevent such corporate assaults by asserting their inherent local governing authority and enacting binding local laws banning specific corporate activities. More than 120 communities in a growing number of states - including Virginia - have enacted such local laws, and have prevented the corporate assaults that threatened them. We don't have to "seize" local governing authority - our federal and state constitutions affirm it. We simply have to wield it. If we don't have democracy in the communities where we live, where on Earth do we have it?

With regard to my statements about the catastrophic impacts of uranium mining on environmental and human health, I and a growing number of Virginia residents have researched those impacts on communities and the environment around the world thoroughly enough to debate anyone on this subject - anyone who has access to the internet can do this. And we all know for a fact that, everywhere in the world where they've operated, uranium mining corporations have contaminated the air, water and soil with heavy metals and radioactive materials, some of which persist in the environment for 4.5 billion years, and that, here in the US, it's been done with the blessing of our federal and state regulatory agencies. If Dillon has evidence of one exception to that statement, I invite him to provide it.

And, yes, Virginia Uranium Inc. is, indeed, wholly owned by Canadian corporations.

Now, whenever I'm subjected to an ad hominem attack, I consider the source. Who is J. Carrington Dillon, and what motivated his angry response to my commentary?

J. Carrington Dillon is a structural engineer for AREVA, a multi-billion-dollar, multinational mega-corporation primarily owned by the French government. According to its corporate website, AREVA is "ranked first in the global nuclear power industry." Dillon's AREVA job description also includes creating and managing Clean Energy Insight (www.cleanenergyinsight.org), a propaganda tool for the nuclear industry.

And what kind of corporate footprint does AREVA have on the environment and human communities where it operates? According to Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), the humanitarian news and analysis service of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in Niger, for example, mining operations, owned and operated by AREVA in partnership with the Nigerian government, have contaminated the air, soil and water, resulting in sickness and death for local residents, and have depleted regional groundwater supplies.

And the Paris-based Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), which specializes in the analysis of radioactivity in the environment, found "serious lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger. In 2005, CRIIRAD environmental studies found water radiation levels in mining communities up to 110 times higher than the World Health Organization safe drinking water standards for industrial areas. You can read about AREVA's mining impacts in Niger at www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=83706.

Uranium mining corporations profit from environmental devastation and human suffering wherever they operate. J. Carrington Dillon is one of their minions. Consider the source.

Shireen Parsons
Virginia Community Organizer
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund


(Nuke response to Shireen's first letter, listed below: "What Would Uranium Mining Mean?"

Response to Parsons' letter (Letter No. 2)

Sep 08, 2009 - 06:47:26 pm CDT I recently read an opinion piece published in the Caswell Messenger titled "What Would Uranium Mining Mean?" written by Shireen Parsons (8/18/09). From the first sentence, I was insulted by Ms. Parsons' total disregard for factual information. Considering my personal and professional background, I felt obligated to provide the readers of the Caswell Messenger a response to Ms. Parsons' ridiculous claims.

I was raised in Ridgeway, Va., and actually spent a couple of my summers playing Dixie Youth baseball in Yanceyville. I grew up witnessing the economic struggles of the Piedmont. I've had family and friends lose their jobs as local textile and furniture mills packed up shop in the past decade or so, and I see possible uranium mining activities as an opportunity for the Piedmont to regain an economic foothold.

I now reside in Charlotte and work in the nuclear engineering field. The people of the Piedmont are important to me, to who I am as an individual and a professional. I feel that they are entitled to the truth from a person who is at least qualified to provide it.

Ms. Parsons is an organizer for the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund a group of radical environmental class-action lawyers whose goal, according to Ms. Parsons "is to seize local governing authority." (Danville Register & Bee, April 2009) With dishonest statements like these, Ms. Parsons has lost all credibility and respect from even local opponents of Virginia Uranium Inc.

It is important to address local concerns when it comes to uranium mining. But it is also important to address these concerns with facts and not unjustifiable fear tactics. The truth is that facts are stubborn things. By providing nothing but completely made-up and baseless facts in her letter, Ms. Parson proved herself to be grossly unqualified to even participate in this dialogue. What I can offer is a personal concern for the safety and economic prosperity of the local communities and the credibility to do so with facts.

Currently, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is working with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent 18-month study to address concerns of Virginians about safety and economic impacts. This study is being paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc., as opposed to taxpayers and was endorsed recently by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu during a trip to Virginia in which he addressed concerns that have been raised about uranium mining in the area. Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics, stated that in "any kind of mining, whether it's uranium, coal or nickel, or you name it, it has to be done in a way that protects the environment and protects the people. There's a study going on as to whether uranium mining in Virginia is going to do that we will wait for the results of that study."

In order to provide fact-based information, I would like to shortly address some of Ms. Parson's statements from her letter:

1. "Uranium mining has never been done safely anywhere in the world. It cannot be done safely."

This couldn't be any further from the truth. Uranium mining is closely regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in addition to state-level regulation authorities like the Virginia Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy.

There are many federal laws and regulations that provide these government agencies with the ability to ensure safe operations. In fact, since these federal regulations came into effect in 1980, there have been zero uranium mining incidents in the U.S.

2. "(Virginia Uranium Inc.) a US corporation, wholly owned by Canadian Corporations."

Actually, 75% of VUI is owned by the Coles and Bowen families (landowners) from Pittsylvania County. 25% is owned by a Canadian company. Furthermore, the Coles and Bowen families have made it clear that they will not proceed with operations in their backyards until it is ensured that local communities will benefit from uranium mining operations.

3. Ms. Parsons has stated that the Cole's Hill uranium mine would cover an absolutely "huge" amount of land. In her article, Ms. Parsons states that "the Cole's Hill uranium mine would cover an area equal to 55 city blocks."

The Coles and Bowen property is approximately 3,000 acres. Ms. Parsons says that 55 city blocks, or about 220 acres will be mined (about the same size of the Danville Piedmont Mall). This means that only 7 percent of the property will be mined. "Huge" is a subjective term, but law states that the mine must be restored after mining has ended, so it seems to be sort of a moot point anyway.

4. "The radioactive contaminants persist in the environment anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to four billion years."

Although no studies exist to prove her figures to be accurate, Ms. Parsons is likely attempting to use data from radioactive waste coming from enriched uranium used in a nuclear reactor. The uranium taken from the mine will be naturally occuring, not enriched, and will not have been put through a fission reactor. Uranium in its natural form also exists in things like seawater, granite counter tops, and dirt. We come in contact with it everyday of our lives.

5. "What (VUI) doesn't tell us is that the purpose of our federal and state regulatory agencies is not to protect the environment and human health. Rather, their purpose is to permit corporations to destroy the landscape, contaminate the environment and degrade human health

This is simply an outrageous statement and even publishing it is questionable.

6. "There is absolutely no doubt that the Bannister and all waterways downstream would be contaminated"

If there is "no doubt," then why is the National Academy of Sciences even attempting to conduct a study into whether uranium mining can be done safely at Cole's Hill?

7. Ms. Parsons also makes several general comments about radiation effects on the local area from uranium mining activities.

Aside from Ms. Parsons' statements being absolutely imaginary, studies completed to determine radiation effects from uranium mining do not back up her claims. A 1980 study completed by the NRC concluded that a person living beside a "cluster" of uranium mines for 15 years will receive an effective radiation dose of 41 millirem. A common chest x-ray at a general physician's office will give you 40 millirem of radiation. Think about that one.

The one thing that Ms. Parsons is correct about in her letter is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees people the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that would come from guaranteed economic prosperity in the form of 500 high-paying jobs. Why should "small-town folk" allow an outside organization like the CELDF come in and stifle economic growth in the name of their own personal agenda?

Imagine a new industry being able to come into the Piedmont and do something that has not been done in quite a while - provide 500 jobs and healthy local spending that stimulates the local economy. Hopefully, the National Academy of Sciences study will conclude that uranium mining at Cole's Hill can be done safely and that the Piedmont can look forward to the ensuing economic growth. Until the study is completed, no one should jump to conclusions by subjecting themselves to radical myths and actions peddled by people like Ms. Parsons and the CELDF.

J Carrington Dillon
Charlotte, NC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:

Karen wrote on Sep 10, 2009 6:03 PM:

" Someone as tightly connected to the nuclear industry (Areva) as Mr. Dillon is would have to take this position. In this country regulatory agencies have not protected the inhabitants of areas where uranium mining has taken place. The post-mining contamination from tailings, (the residue left from rock and soil after uranium is extracted) exists in U.S. In the western U.S. are contaminated areas that will never be made right. People in our western states are fighting at a grass roots level to keep their land from being made uninhabitable. They are starting with their local governments because rarely does the State want to step in. Big money talks, and Mr. Dillon's affiliation can be found at the following address: www.linkedin.com/in/jcarringtondillon. Right here in Caswell there is a toxic waste dump on Dowdy Lane off Rte. 86 that has been condemned by the EPA and designated a Superfund site. It is not being cleaned up as there is no cleanup money in the Superfund. And there are not enough people screaming about it to move the government.
Would Mr. Dillon label the people of West Virginia radical as he has Ms. Parsons group? Are they radical because they protest their homes rendered worthless, their health jeopardized, their communities flooded, and their children's schools made unsafe by toxic mining sludge? All from mountain top removal mining which blasts off the tops of the mountains, clogging mountain streams and ruining the environment. Why is mining done this way? Because it is more profitable for the corporations indulging in this practice. There is no government agency rushing to the aid of all those whose lives are affected. Look up the track record of Massey Corp. and see what they have done to West Virginia. Then think of the consequences of big money, high contamination, and lack of government intervention. The uranium mining industry has been curtailed in Canada because of the damage done there. Virginia Uranium Inc. does have a large Canadian contingent onboard. The company has a Toronto stock exchange listing. There are many corporation names at this point, holding companies, and more twists and turns in the history of VU Inc. than I can relate. And that is what this company is counting on. That no one will figure it all out. Few people will take the time to do the research to discover how dangerous this venture is. The National Academy of Sciences study that is lulling people into a false sense of security will come back without a means to definitely form an opinion either pro or con. And that ambivalence will open the door. Unless there is resistance. How many people will do the research to discover what this proposal means? "

Doug wrote on Sep 9, 2009 12:48 PM:

" It's easy to label people whom you disagree with as radical, without presenting any evidence. This mining will contaminate the Danville area, not Charlotte. Now let's take a look at government regulators--will they do a better job than they did regulating the pig farms, and peanut butter maanufacturers? "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who will protect Virginia from uranium mining? (Letter No. 1)
By SHIREEN PARSONS

URANIUM MINING has never been done safely anywhere in the world. It cannot be done safely. Logically, that should end this discussion, but it will not, because a few individuals, shielded from liability behind Virginia Uranium Inc. — a U.S. corporation wholly owned by Canadian corporations — would reap huge profits from mining and milling uranium on more than 2,000 acres in rural Pittsylvania County.

The Coles Hill mine would be merely the first mine in eastern Virginia, as our entire Piedmont is strewn with uranium deposits, and Virginia Uranium’s corporate mandate is to explore and develop them. If, as it surely will, the legislature lifts the moratorium, the Piedmont would become a uranium mining corridor, just as Eastern Kentucky, Southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia are coal mining corridors.

As planned, the Coles Hill uranium mine would cover an area equal to 55 square city blocks and would be 800 feet deep. Through the blasting, extracting and crushing of uranium-bearing rock, all open-pit mines and their waste piles release into the environment heavy metals, including arsenic, lead and mercury, and radioactive materials.

The radioactive contaminants persist in the environment anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to 4 billion years. They are taken up and retained by plants and animals, and they become part of the food chain forever. In animals and humans, the radioactive toxins cause lung, kidney and liver damage, cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations. In mammals, these contaminants are passed on to future generations in utero and via breast milk.

Once released into the environment, the heavy metals and radioactive contaminants travel great distances. Leached into ground and surface water in Pittsylvania County, they would contaminate the Roanoke River watershed to Virginia Beach, North Carolina’s Albemarle Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The wind-borne particulates would travel thousands of miles — every way the wind blows — in a few days.

Virginia Uranium’s public relations team tells us that, this time, uranium mining would be done safely, because the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia would be according to a regulatory program developed by the Virginia Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy (DMME).

But monitoring and oversight by our regulatory agencies are inadequate to nonexistent. Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970, one-third of Americans live in areas with unhealthy ozone levels. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes and tributaries aren’t safe for swimming or fishing. Deforestation, excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers — and a 60 percent increase in the amount of refuse generated in the past 25 years — have further contaminated the soil and water.

Virginia's DMME presides over one of the most devastating mineral extraction processes in the world — mountaintop-removal coal mining, which, in the Appalachian coal states, has razed hundreds of thousands of acres of once-forested mountains, buried thousands of miles of streams under the rubble and destroyed hundreds of coalfield communities.. This is a legal activity permitted by the EPA and DMME. Can we rationally expect regulatory agencies to protect us from the catastrophic effects of uranium mining in Virginia?

Those who would profit from uranium mining in Virginia say it would be an economic boon, with jobs and money pouring into the economically depressed Piedmont region.. Virginia Uranium says miners would make $68,000 a year in a county where the 2000 median household income was $35,000, the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent and 12 percent of the population lived below the poverty line.

What the corporate spin fails to mention, however, is that hard-rock mining requires skilled labor, and that experienced miners would be imported from other states to earn those salaries and risk their health and lives. And that, wherever hard-rock mining occurs, surrounding communities become ghost towns and regional economies implode. The economic rewards are enjoyed only by the corporate owners and officers.

In Virginia’s Piedmont, as in all regions cursed with hard-rock mining, the blasting, heavy truck traffic, environmental contamination and impacts to human health would cause real property values to evaporate. Local businesses would shut down, and the regional economy would collapse outward in every direction. The Banister River, a source of Virginia Beach’s water, is less than a mile from the Coles Hill mine site, and there is absolutely no doubt that the Banister would be contaminated.

The relevant question, then, is who decides what Virginia communities look like, how safe they are, what quality of life they enjoy? Who decides whether the Virginia Piedmont and beyond will be sacrificed for a uranium mining corporation’s profits? Is it We, the People, or is it a handful of corporate executives, aided and abetted by the state legislature and regulatory agencies?

An ever-increasing number of citizens in Pittsylvania County and beyond, understanding the catastrophic effects uranium mining would wreak upon their communities and future generations, declare that they will not consent to this corporate assault, and that they will exercise their inherent local governing authority to enact binding local laws that will protect and preserve the health, safety and well-being of their communities and the ecosystem upon which all life depends.

Like Virginia Beach, the Town of Halifax is downstream from the planned uranium mine in Pittsylvania County. In February 2008, the Halifax Town Council voted unanimously to enact the Halifax Corporate Mining, Bodily Trespass and Community Self-Government Ordinance, drafted at the council’s request by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit law firm. The ordinance asserts the town’s inherent local governing authority bans mining within the town and criminalizes chemical and radioactive bodily trespass.

Halifax Town Council member Jack Dunavant said of the decision, “This is an historic vote. We, the people, intend to protect our health and environment from corporate assault. It’s time to invoke the Constitution and acknowledge the power of the people to protect our own destiny and end this era of corporate greed and pollution.”

Citizens and elected officials of every community downstream and/or downwind from the planned Pittsylvania County mine site would do well to follow Halifax’s lead and exert their inherent governing authority to protect themselves.

Shireen Parsons is the Virginia organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Christiansburg.



http://caswellmessenger.com/articles/2009/09/09/opinion/opinion02.txt