Sunday, October 18, 2009

VRRBAC meeting will be held Monday, October 19, 2009

The next VRRBAC meeting will be held Monday, October 19, 2009

from 10 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. at the

Bedford County Administration Office, Ground Floor Training Room

122 E. Main Street, Bedford, VA 24523!

Meeting Agenda

VIRGINIA ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting Agenda
Monday, October 19, 2009
10:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.
Bedford, VA
A. Call meeting to order
B. Welcome; Recognition of Members and Guests
C. Consider Minutes of August 21, 2009 Meeting
D. Presentations
Virginia's Stormwater Regulations
Jan Briede, DCR Stormwater Outreach Manager
Smith Mountain Lake FERC Re- licensing Status, EIS
Russ Johnson, Franklin County Board of Supervisors and VRRBAC member
E. Sub-Committee Reports/Review of draft Structure
Agriculture and Forestry Sub-Committee - Haywood Hamlet, Chair
Lake Interests Sub-Committee - No Chair
Permit Holders Sub-Committee - John Lindsey, Chair
Public Officials and Government Entities Sub-Committee - Robert Conner, Chair
Roanoke River Interests Sub-Committee - Read Charlton, Chair
F. Next Meeting Date/Topic /Location
G. Other Business
H. Adjournment
Committee Members
Senator Wm. Roscoe Reynolds Walter Coles, Sr., Chatham
Senator Frank M. Ruff John H. Feild, Mecklenburg
Delegate Kathy J. Byron Haywood J. Hamlet, Phenix
Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr Evelyn Janney, Floyd
Delegate Onzlee Ware. Bob Jean, Brookneal
Delegate Charles D. Poindexter Russ Johnson, Wirtz
Representative Tom Perriello John Lindsey, Penhook
Mike McEvoy, Chairman, Roanoke Billy Martin, Sr., Blue Ridge
Tim Pace, Collinsville Robert H. Conner, Vice-Chair, Ebony
Mark Wagner, Huddleston Read Charlton, Vice-Chair, Charlotte
Court House

Petition against New Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Plants in India

Comment: We are fighting against uranium mining and nuclear power all over the world!

Posted by Radical Notes October 18, 2009 at 12:06 am in Petition

To Smt. Pratibha Patil,
The President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Copy to:

Sri Manmohan Singh,
The Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Sri Jairam Ramesh,
The Minister of Environment & Forests,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Madam,

We are writing to you on behalf of the National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements.

It is to protest against the reported decision of the government of India to take a quantum leap in installed capacity for nuclear power generation, from the current level of 4,120 MW to 63,000 MW by 2032. This decision is but an invitation to disaster.

In this context, we will like to submit the following.

Nuclear power, contrary to orchestrated hypes, is actually costlier than power from conventional sources like coal, gas and hydro. And once all the hidden costs are factored in, it would be costlier than even from renewable sources, like wind, in particular.

More importantly, it is also intrinsically hazardous, as large amount of radiation is routinely released at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. An even more intractable problem is that of safe storage of nuclear waste and safe disposal of outlived power plants, given the fact that the half-lives of some of the radioactive substances involved are over even millions of years.

Even more disconcerting is, considering the complexity of the technology of a nuclear reactor; there is no way to ensure that a major accident at a nuclear power plant will never take place. And a major accident, given the nature of things, will just turn catastrophic affecting a very large number of people, over a large territory, over a very long period. The disastrous accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, in the Ukraine province of the then USSR, on April 26 1986 is a chilling illustration.

The promise of nil greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is also nothing more than a myth if the entire fuel cycle – including mining, milling, transportation and construction of the power plant – is considered.

Moreover, nuclear energy with its highly centralized power production model would only further aggravate the problem by accentuating the current development paradigm reliant on mega-industries and actively blocking any possibility towards ecologically benign decentralized development.

The strong linkage between nuclear power and weapons – in terms of large overlaps in technology, in turn triggering strong political push – of which India itself is a graphic illustration can also be overlooked only at our own peril given the genocidal, and suicidal, character of the nuclear weapon.

As nuclear power is economically unattractive and socially unacceptable, on account of radiation hazards and risks of catastrophic accidents, no order for new nuclear reactors was placed in the USA and most of West Europe during the last 30 years, since the Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979.

The US and European companies in nuclear power plant equipment and nuclear fuel business are thus looking to Asia for markets – India, China and Japan spearheading the current expansion programme.

It is unfortunate that the Indian government is becoming their willing collaborator in this in pursuit of its megalomaniac hunt for nuclear power and weapon. It has thus, over a period of just one year, rushed to enter into agreements with as many as seven countries, viz. the US, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Mongolia and Argentina.

So far, nuclear power production capacity in India is very small, only about 3 percent of the total electricity generation capacity; and the veil of secrecy surrounding the existing nuclear power plants in the country, and absence of any truly independent monitoring agency, has seriously hindered dissemination of information on accidents – large and small – at these plants and their public scrutiny. That explains the current low level of popular awareness as regards the grave threats posed by the nuclear industry.

Taking advantage of this, the government of India is now set to steamroll its massive expansion program.

The contention that nuclear power is indispensable to meet future energy needs is false; for energy demand, and “need”, is obviously a function of the development paradigm chosen and pursued. And “energy security” is not an autonomous entity or objective, but must be in alignment with other chosen objectives which must include equitable growth and concerns for ecology.

Viewed thus, “energy security” may be achieved by: (I) Increasing efficiency of electricity generation, transmission and distribution. (II) Doing away with extravagant and wasteful use of energy. (III) Pursuing a path of low-energy intensity and decentralised development. (IV) Making optimum use of alternative energy options. (IV) Radically raising investment in development of sustainable and renewable energy sources and technologies, especially wind and solar energy.

As a part of its expansion program, the government of India has announced plans to expand the nuclear power plant coming up at Koodankulam (Tamil Nadu). Additional four reactors from Russia of 1,200 MWe each, in the immediate or near future, are to come up over and above the two of 950 MWe each, presently under construction. The process for setting up a nuclear plant at Jaitapur (Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra) has also reached an advanced stage. The French company Areva is set to supply two new generation reactors of 1650 MWe each, to be followed by another two. Land acquisition notices have been served on the local people to acquire 981 hectare of land.

The government has reportedly already approved 15 new plants at eight sites. These sites are Kumharia in Haryana – meant for indigenous reactors; Kakrapar (indigenous reactors) and Chhayamithi Virdi (reactor from US) in Gujarat; Kovvada (reactor from US) in Andhra Pradesh; Haripur (reactor from Russia) in West Bengal; Koodankulam (reactor from Russia) in Tamil Nadu; and Jaitapur (reactor from France) in Maharashtra.

Similarly, the mad rush for more and more power plants is matched by an accelerated drive for uranium mining in newer areas: Andhra and Meghalaya, in particular. And this, despite the horrible experience of uranium mines in different parts of the world, as also in our own Jadugoda – where appalling conditions continue despite strong popular protests, spanning decades.

In view of all these facts enumerated above, we the undersigned demand that the government of India put a complete stop to the construction of all new uranium mines and nuclear power plants, and radically jack up investments in renewable and environmentally sustainable sources of energy.

We also earnestly urge you to intervene immediately.

Sincerely,

Please Sign

http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2009/10/18/petition-against-new-uranium-mining-and-nuclear-power-plants-in-india/

Phillips: Moving Mountains for Energy

10.18.2009
Stephanie Phillips, Associate Editor
Writing From: Portland, Oregon

The debut column of Stephanie Phillips’ “impacted community profile” series.

So we all know that the “environment” is a hot topic. Every day, there is growing energy in the media, in policy making and in debate devoted to the large-scale environmental problems of the world. We all know about climate change, the ozone hole and rainforest destruction and we all either love or hate the posed solutions of cap and trade and carbon taxes, nuclear power and “green jobs.”

Ultimately, however, the “environmental problem” is both more macro and more micro than these hot issues. I see these as only symptoms of a larger societal problem, tied to the basic ways that people relate to both energy and to capitalism. We are addicted to energy, and currently produce it in a way and on a scale that we know cannot be sustained – resources we rely on will run out and the “landfill” of the atmosphere will fill up.

Simultaneously, our economic structure so heavily discounts the future, making these problems incredibly difficult to solve politically. We have yet to find a way to effectively incorporate long-term environmental consequences into the cost of energy and carbon pollution, and thus the price of commodities and the freedom to pollute significantly deflates the price of energy.

Further, due to the economic efficiency of centralized production and distribution, power generation and its ugly consequences come in the form of huge generating facilities and resource extraction projects that are so far removed from urban and suburban centers, that the average person can easily claim ignorance as to the effects of our energy use. Thus, in a way, when we turn on the lights at night, it’s almost magic; it just comes through the walls and into our lives. We understand the consequences in theory, but in our day to day lives, we pay the low electric
bill once a month, and ta-da: we have access to an endless supply of electrons!

It isn’t endless though, and there are other destructive effects to our energy addiction and to this “efficient” method of power generation. Climate change is one we are all aware of, certainly, and yet at the same time it remains an elusive idea that is difficult to pinpoint and relate to the personal. There are other effects though, direct and harmful effects on local communities linked to the realities of power generation, both in the United States and abroad. These are happening now and their effects on people are very visible and tangible.

Therefore, I want to take the opport unity, in a monthly “impacted community profile” to describe in depth some of these more local environmental problems in the United States (that are linked to the same energy-use disease that has caused climate change), and how average Americans are affected by our energy dependence.

Impacted Region: Appalachia
Energy Type: Coal

Problem: Method of extraction – mountain-top removal

Coal combustion accounts for 22% of US energy needs and 51% of our electric needs. Coal is in domestic abundance and the United States exports it to other countries.

The affected region is Appalachia – which includes West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, etc. This is coal country, and it has been providing the nation with a significant power source for over a century. Traditionally it is extracted via dangerous underground mines, however beginning in the 1960s, many companies began using a far easier method of extraction

– rather than digging for coal in a mountain, they simply dynamite the top of the mountain off entirely, exposing the coal seams, and then scrape coal out directly. The method is called mountain top removal. Entire mountain tops are left barren and exposed in the process, and locals are forced to endure the increased risks of landslides, water and air toxicity, exploding rock, horrible noise, devastated environments and fewer and fewer jobs.

The local effects are horrific. First, a location on top of a mountain is clear-cut, and all vegetation is removed. Clear cutting is not only a horrible eye-sore for a region, but it destroys local ecosystems, and leaves loose soil, which is more conducive to landslides. This poses a direct threat to nearby property owners.

Second, dynamite is used to blast away the upper layers (up to 800 ft) of the mountain, exposing the coal. Large rock explosions can be dangerous to nearby homes.

Third, large machines are used to remove the loose earth. Dry land waste or “overburden” is pushed into valleys, destroying local ecosystems. Over 700 miles of headwater streams in the region have been buried by valley fill.

Fourth, the exposed coal is scooped up and hauled away to be used to in power generation. It must first be washed to remove excess soil and rock, which generates sludge – a liquid mixture of coal and earth that is collected and stored in sludge ponds trapped by dams at mine locations.

There are over 600 sludge impoundments in the southeast region, and spills pose a potential risk. This past December, a coal sludge holding pond at a power plant in Tennessee broke and over 500 million gallons of toxic sludge dumped into the local environment, damaging homes and devastating the area for miles. The spill entered the local water supply as well, posing potential long-term health effects to those in the region.
Once the process if finished, the land left behind is hideous – a barren exposed wasteland.

Mountain top removal poses huge risks to local communities, in terms of toxics exposure and landslides. Simultaneously, it provides very few jobs for the community, and does not bolster the economy in the way traditional coal mining does. The process is popular because it is cheap and easy – and can be performed primarily with machines.

There is no good reason to support mountain top mining of coal. It benefits coal companies only and keeps energy prices even more deflated. Coal is already the most environmentally damaging fossil fuel: it emits the most CO2 in combustion, while also emitting many other pollutants that cause acid rain and deteriorate human health. It dirties the air with particulate matter and increases asthma rates. It wastes the most energy in production, with efficiency rates in the 30% range (meaning it wastes up to 70% of potential energy). On top of all this, the existence of mountain top removal renders it even worse. It is amazing to me that this practice continues despite growing environmental awareness.

Activists have been fighting mountain top removal and coal-fired generation for decades. October 30th is an “end mountain top removal” day of action. I implore you to engage your political voice, join in the protest, and voice your support of stopping this terrible practice. Simultaneously, I implore you to remember where your energy comes from, and use as little as you can.

http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/10/18/phillips-moving-mountains-for-our-energy-needs/

Saturday, October 17, 2009

A Nuclear Family Vacation: Travels in the World of Atomic Weaponry

by Nathan Hodge

Synopses & Reviews
ISBN13: 9781596913783
ISBN10: 1596913789

Review-a-Day (What is Review-a-Day?)

"In their new book, A Nuclear Family Vacation, Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger quote Tom Vanderbilt's aphorism that 'all wars end in tourism.' Because World War III may leave no tourists behind, Hodge and Weinberger, a husband-and-wife journalistic team, wisely decide to get their nuclear tourism in beforehand by visiting nuclear sites in 10 U.S. states and 5 countries. The idea that they are tourists is something of a conceit, though: They visit many sites that would be closed to the rest of us, prepare for road trips by reading government reports rather than Fodor's travel guides, and score interviews with senior officials everywhere they go." Hugh Gusterson, American Scientist (read the entire American Scientist review)

Synopses & Reviews
Publisher Comments:

Two Washington, D.C., defense reporters do for nukes what Sarah Vowell did for presidential assassinations in this fascinating, kaleidoscopic portrait of nuclear weaponry.

In A Nuclear Family Vacation, husband-and-wife journalists Sharon Weinberger and Nathan Hodge hit the open road to explore the secretive world of nuclear weaponry. Along the way, they answer the questions most nuclear tourists dont get to ask: Are nuclear weapons still on hair-trigger alert? Is there such a thing as a suitcase nuke? Is Iran really building the bomb?

Together, Weinberger and Hodge visit top-secret locations like the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in Iran, the United States Kwajalein military outpost in the Marshall Islands, the Y-12 facility in Tennessee, and “Site R,” a bunker known as the “Underground Pentagon,” rumored to be Vice President Cheneys personal “undisclosed location” of choice. Their atomic road trip reveals plans to revitalize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, even as the United States pushes other countries to disarm. Weaving together travel writing with world-changing events, A Nuclear Family Vacation unearths unknownand often quite entertainingstories about the nuclear world.

Review:

"With the end of the Cold War, a drastically downsized nuclear weapons establishment has suffered an antiapocalypse — missile silos abandoned and crumbling, shell-shocked industry survivors bereft of a reason to go on. In this adventure in 'nuclear tourism,' the husband-and-wife authors, both defense journalists, poke through the rubble for signs of life. Their itinerary includes deserted test sites in Nevada and Kazakhstan; a West Virginia hotel whose basement conceals a blast-proof bunker once intended to house Congress; an Iranian uranium-processing facility; and an active missile-launch site in Wyoming.

They interview weapon scientists and generals to understand why aging nuclear arsenals are retained and revamped without a rival superpower, and uncover a gamut of rationales: national paranoia in Russia, at the Pentagon mystifying world-is-flat globalization theory. Framing this inquiry as a travelogue is a bit gimmicky: nuclear installations are functional, drab and unevocative, so for color the authors often fall back on Borat-esque culture-clash comedy or the absurdist security rigmaroles they endure. But they do convey an acute sense of the incoherence of latter-day nuclear strategizing. (June)" Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Review:

“[Hodge and Weinberger] succeed admirably in reminding us that nuclear weapons have "never really gone away" and in calling attention to the crucial public debates that are not taking place. The questions they pose are significant and overdue; the answers they receive unsettling…They remind us that the purpose and future of our nuclear arsenal are too important to be left to those whose jobs remain dependent upon its perpetuation.”

Chicago Tribune “A Nuclear Family Vacation is an eye-opening read for anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons are a thing of the past.” Nerve

“How are you spending your next holiday? Tired of the same old thing? You might want to pick a different destination from A Nuclear Family Vacation, a new book and travel guide by veteran defence reporters Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger.

This husband-and-wife team take the reader on a rapid, darkly comic tour of nuclear weapons sites across the world. A rare achievement in a nuclear policy book, their narrative demystifies an intimidating topic for a broad audience without sacrificing substance. Instead of pontificating on thermonuclear war, Hodge and Weinberger give us an eye-level view, often through their car window…the book sparkles with anecdotes and insights. It is well worth the trip.” Nature

“Some people trek to Machu Picchu, some dive on the Great Barrier Reef. Those of us interested in nuclear issues visit the monuments and precincts of the Bomb. Such are husband-and-wife journalists Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger.” New Scientist

“In A Nuclear Family Vacation, a husband-and-wife duo of Washington, DC-based defense reporters takes a journey deep into the nation's nuclear weapons complex. But waitthis turns out to be a surprisingly fun road trip.” Mother Jones

“In this off-the-uncontaminated-path adventure, Sharon Weinberger and Nathan Hodge make nuclear vacationing seem fun, in a weirdly exhilarating way. They are the slightly obsessed tour guides holding the microphones at the front of the security-cleared bus. Together, the experts lead us across a neglected, mismanaged, and forgotten past, pointing out the history of doomsday weaponry along the way. A Nuclear Family Vacation is a shocking reminder that the Cold War isnt over; its just transformed into something else that we dont have a name for yet.”Robert Sullivan, author of Cross Country and Rats

“A vacation for some, a nightmare for others. Either way, well worth reading.” Kirkus Reviews

“Exhibiting dark humor, defense journalists Hodge and Weinberger take a tour of Americas nuclear-weapons infrastructure, visiting labs, plants, bunkers, missile silos, and ground zeros of nuclear explosions.”

Booklist

“In this adventure in ‘nuclear tourism, the husband-and-wife authors…convey an acute sense of the incoherence of latter-day nuclear strategizing.”Publishers Weekly

“Nuclear tourism is an effective and interesting way of canvassing issues we face today. Reading A Nuclear Family Vacation is a good way to learn more about the history of nuclear weapons and become conversant with our current situation.

Hodge and Weinberger have done the legwork to back up their common-sense conclusions.”Defense Technology International “Under­lying their journey into our nuclear past is an earnest and thoughtful discussion of our nuclear presentand future…They identify a troubling lack of a cohesive national nuclear policy and remark that “much of the infrastructure supporting nuclear weapons continues to exist merely because no one has come up with a compelling reason to shut it down.” One can imagine an updated version of A Nuclear Family Vacation in which the two visit sites in Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Israel, Russia, France, Great Britain, and heaven knows where else. The itinerary is not as finite as one would like; in fact, it seems to be growing. But there would be some comfort in having these sober and subtle observers as our guides.”Bookforum

Synopsis:
Journalists Hodge and Weinberger hit the open road to explore the secretive world of nuclear weaponry. Weaving together travel writing with world-changing events, "A Nuclear Family Vacation" unearths unknown--and often quite entertaining--stories about the nuclear world.
back to top

About the Author

Sharon Weinberger is a contributing writer for Wireds national security blog, Danger Room. She was previously editor in chief of McGraw-Hills Defense Technology International and a writer for Aviation Week & Space Technology, a leading aerospace and defense magazine. She is the author of the recently published Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagons Scientific Underworld, and writes frequently on national security and science for the Washington Post Magazine, Slate, and Discover.

Nathan Hodge is a Washington, D.C.-based writer for Janes Defence Weekly. A frequent contributor to Slate, he has reported extensively from Afghanistan, Iraq, and the former Soviet Union. His work has appeared in the Financial Times, Foreign Policy, and Details, among many other newspapers and magazines.

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781596913783

Nobel Prize For Economics: Elinor Ostrom, Oliver Williamson Win

JEANNINE AVERSA, KARL RITTER and MATT MOORE
10/12/09 05:49 PM

WASHINGTON — One scholar studies how best to manage resources like forests, fisheries and oilfields. A fellow American looks at why some companies grow so large. Together they're winners of this year's Nobel Prize in economics for groundbreaking work that could affect efforts to prevent another global financial crisis.

Elinor Ostrom, 76, known for her work on the management of common resources, is the first woman to win a Nobel in economics. She shares this year's prize with Oliver Williamson, 77, who pioneered the study of how and why companies structure themselves and how they resolve conflicts.

Monday's final prizes of 2009 capped a year in which a record five women won Nobels. And it was an exceptionally strong year for the United States, too. Eleven American citizens, some of them with dual nationality, were among the 13 Nobel winners, including President Barack Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said it chose Ostrom and Williamson for work that "advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention." They will share the $1.4 million prize.

Ostrom showed how common resources – forests, fisheries, oilfields, grazing lands and irrigation systems – can be managed successfully by the people who use them, rather than by governments or private companies.

"What we have ignored is what citizens can do and the importance of real involvement of the people involved – as opposed to just having somebody in Washington ... make a rule," Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, said during a brief session with reporters in Bloomington, Ind.

Williamson, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, focused on how companies and markets differ in resolving conflicts. He found that companies are typically better able than markets to resolve conflicts when competition is limited, the citation said.

The academy did not specifically mention the global financial crisis. But many of the problems at the heart of it – bonuses, executive compensation, risky and poorly understood securities – involve a perceived lack of oversight.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/nobel-prize-for-economics_n_317150.html

NOTICE OF MEETING:Renewable Energy Subcommittee of the Commission on Energy and Environment

SENATE OF VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
RICHMOND

September 25, 2009

NOTICE OF MEETING

TO: Members, Renewable Energy Subcommittee, of the Energy and Environment Commission
FROM: Angi Murphy, Senate Committee Operations
RE: Meeting Date/Time/Location


A meeting of the Renewable Energy Subcommittee of the Commission on Energy and Environment has been scheduled for Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in the Pittsylvania County Public Library (Gretna Branch) at 207 Coffey Street, Gretna VA 24557.

Members:

The Honorable Charles D. Poindexter, Chair
The Honorable Joseph P. Johnson, Jr.
Patrick G. Hatcher
Hugh E. Montgomery
August Wallmeyer
Arlen Bolstad
David K. Paylor
Stephen A. Walz

Enclosure (s):

cc: The Honorable Susan Clarke Schaar
The Honorable Bruce F. Jamerson
Ellen Porter, Division of Legislative Services
Patrick Cushing, Division of Legislative Services
Mail List for Virginia Commission on Energy and Environment

http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/82965f555b18a72185256c330058a983/11D8A24A68C83B088525763C006011F1?OpenDocument

Friday, October 16, 2009

7th Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum


october 22, 23, 24 2009
Sky City hotel & casino
I- 40 at Exit 102, Acoma Pueblo, NM

Featuring:

Winona LaDuke (Anishinaabe) is an internationally renowned activist working on issues of sustainable development, renewable energy and food systems. She lives and works on the White Earth reservation in northern Minnesota, and is a two time vice presidential candidate with Ralph Nader for the Green Party. As Program Director of the Honor the Earth, she works nationally and internationally on the issues of climate change, renewable energy, and environmental justice with Indigenous communities. Winona LaDuke will be speaking at the Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum on Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 9AM.

The 7th Indigenous Uranium Forum proposes to focus much needed public attention on the rape of Mount Taylor and to serve as a vehicle to launch a regional inter-tribal campaign to end this madness in the Grants Mineral Belt, Lakota Lands, and elsewhere in Indian Country from the Grand Canyon to White Mesa where deadly and runaway uranium technology threatens the lives of future of our water, land, people, and our winged, four legged and those that crawl relatives.

The 7th Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum we will focus on the recent onslaught of exploratory measures to mine and mill uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt. Due to recent price fluctuations of uranium on the world market and United States energy policy still emphasizing nuclear power as an answer to global warming and climate change, we will inform and educate participants of local, national and international nuclear issues impacting Indigenous peoples. The forum will also prioritize presentations on health issues impacting both mining and non-mining populations living in contaminated communities. We will use the forum as an organizing and network initiative to help us better understand the work Indigenous people are doing to fight nuclear power in their communities and move toward alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar.

Set in the stunning landscape of Utah's Monument Valley, this unforgettable, universally acclaimed documentary chronicles the extraordinary saga of how a rediscovered 1950s silent film reel leads to the return of a long-lost brother to his Navajo family. Since the 1930s, members of the Cly family have lived in Monument Valley and appeared as subjects in countless photographs, postcards, and Hollywood westerns -- even in a home movie by legendary director John Ford and a propaganda film by a uranium mining company. The film "The Return of Navajo Boy" will be screened at the Forum Friday, October 23, 2009 at 7PM.

Special acknowledgement to the following supporters:

7th Generation Fund
Lannan Foundation
Western Mining Action Network
Bioneers
Available Media, Inc.
Beyond Nuclear
Phil Harrison, Navajo Nation Council Delegate (Cove & Red Valley)

History of Forum:

November 2006 saw the birth of Indigie Femme. Based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA international performers Indigie Femme combines their traditional and original songs, dance and storytelling, Indigie Femme’s vision is to create global cross-cultural exchange. The lively performances weave ethnic cultures through song, dance, storytelling and facilitating educational workshops in North America and the world. Indigie Femme will be performing at the Forum Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 5PM.

http://www.siuf.net/index.html

Uranium Mining in a National Park

Posted on October 16, 2009 by archiearchive FCD

Here in the Rudall River National Park we are soon to discover that a National Park is just like your back yard.

If there is a mineral there and someone wants to mine it, they can and will mine it.

In our case, the mineral is uranium and the back yard is the home of the traditional Martu people. A place where they hunt, where they swim in the water holes and where the footprint of man is washed away with the next season’s rains.

Unless they are the men are from Cameco. In which case they will mine uranium from a parcel of land which used to be a part of a gazetted National Park. This parcel was excised from the Park by a Government decree.

So for maybe seven or ten years a mine will operate and then the miners will leave.

Left behind will be the pollution they promise won’t happen.

Just like at the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Kakadu National Park. I mean “the Ranger Uranium Mine with-in the Kakadu National Park.” For that was another parcel of land excised from a National Park.

There are 100,000 litres of contaminated water leaking into the ground water each day from the Ranger mine. The Australian Government says we should not be worried about this.

And they are quite correct. There is no need for any politician in Canberra, no bureaucrat in his ivory tower or any mining executive in his overseas mansion to worry about that contamination. After all, his children and grand children will not hunt the land, relying on the groundwater for their life. They will not swim in the contaminated water holes nor eat the fish caught in those waterholes.

No uranium mine in Australia has failed to pollute the land it is on or the land outside the mine’s boundaries.

But the Government tells us we should not worry.

http://archiearchive.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/uranium-mining-in-a-national-park-2/

Coal Country Documentary Exposes Environmental Tragedy

Check out the trailer below, then look for the premiere on Planet Green November 15th.



October 15, 2009

Coal Country, a documentary about the battle fought over coal mining in Appalachia, exposes the environmental tragedy and social conflicts that have arisen from mining coal.

The Sierra Club is heavily promoting the film by sending out 45-minute promotional videos, promoting their own agenda to rid the US of its reliance on coal.

--Alison Kelman

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83453140969e20120a63ff8db970c

http://outside-blog.away.com/blog/2009/10/coal-country-documentary-exposes-environmental-tragedy.html

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Public Supports Protecting Grand Canyon and One Million Acres of Public Lands From Mining

For Immediate Release, October 15, 2009

Contacts: Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 999-5790
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7488

Public Supports Protecting Grand Canyon and One Million Acres of Public Lands From Mining
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.— Today conservationists join tribal leaders, city and county officials, and people from throughout Arizona in supporting the protection of one million acres of public lands near Grand Canyon. Supporters of the protections will attend a public hearing this evening in Flagstaff to tell the Interior Department to move forward with a mineral withdrawal to protect the lands from future mining activities. The hearing will be held at the High Country Conference Center at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff starting at 6:00 p.m.

“This is an exciting opportunity to provide protections for the land and the waters around Grand Canyon as well as for the Colorado River and the drinking water for millions of people in the Southwest,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “We are asking that the Department of the Interior move forward with a proposed action to safeguard this area from uranium mining for the next 20 years.”

In August, Interior announced its preparation of an environmental impact statement evaluating a proposed 20-year “mineral withdrawal” that would prohibit new mining claims and the exploration or mining of existing claims without valid existing rights across nearly one million acres of public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. The purpose of the mineral withdrawal would be to protect Grand Canyon’s watersheds from the adverse effects of new uranium exploration and mining. If approved, the withdrawal would extend and strengthen protections set forth in the two-year land segregation announced by the Department on July 20, 2009.

“New uranium mining would pose unacceptable risks to Grand Canyon’s watersheds and wildlife,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Department of the Interior’s proposed mineral withdrawal would help to abate those risks and secure the Grand Canyon’s future.”

Spikes in uranium prices have caused thousands of new uranium claims, dozens of proposed exploration drilling projects, and proposals to reopen old uranium mines adjacent to Grand Canyon. Renewed uranium development threatens to degrade wildlife habitat and industrialize now-wild and iconic landscapes bordering the park; it also threatens to contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River.

“Uranium mining has already done irreparable harm to our region’s people, water, and land,” said Grand Canyon Trust spokesman Roger Clark. “We should not repeat the mistakes of the past on our public watersheds surrounding the Grand Canyon.”

Proposed uranium development on the lands involved in the withdrawal has drawn criticism from scientists, city officials, county officials, former Governor Janet Napolitano, the Navajo, Kaibab-Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai tribes, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Statewide polling conducted by Public Opinion Strategies shows overwhelming public support for withdrawing from mineral entry the lands near Grand Canyon; Arizonans support protecting the Grand Canyon area from uranium mining by a two-to-one margin.

The deadline for public comment on the first phase of the mineral withdrawal analysis is October 26, 2009. Comments can be submitted at the meeting, emailed to azasminerals@blm.gov or mailed to Grand Canyon Mining Withdrawal Project, ATTN: Scott Florence, District Manager, Arizona Strip District Office, 345 E. Riverside Drive, Saint George, UT 84790-6714.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/uranium-mining-10-15-2009.html

Mountaintop Mining, Up Close and Personal

by SolveClimate Staff - Oct 14th, 2009

Words alone can’t describe what mountaintop mining is doing to Appalachia, its streams and the lives of its people.

Coal companies have dynamited more than 470 mountaintops and pushed the debris into valleys, burying hundreds of miles of streams and contaminating the water with metals such as nickel, lead, cadmium, iron and selenium.

From those bare expanses, the mining companies strip out the coal and then move on to the next mountain. The treeless landscapes, meanwhile, can create dangerous flash flooding for nearby residents, and the mining debris can render their well water undrinkable.

In a new 20-minute documentary produced by Yale Environment 360 and MediaStorm, Chad Stevens takes his video camera inside the community meetings, homes and offices of the people on both sides of the front lines, capturing their emotions and letting them tell the story. The producers' goal was to show the many views of the conflict and provide an environmental science perspective.

“I wanted us to really show what is happening on the ground there, which is really stunning in some cases and hard to describe in the written word,” said Yale's Roger Cohn, an executive producer of Leveling Appalachia: The Legacy of Mountaintop Removal Mining.

The video is worth watching.

It flips from residents like Debbie Jarrell of Rock Creek, W.Va., who has fought strip mining on Coal River Mountain:

"What do you tell your grandchildren? We used to have clean water. We used to be able to drink it out of the creek. We used to be able to go up that hollow — well, there’s not a hollow now — but we used to be able to go up there and pick berries."

To the people in charge of laws and regulations, like West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin:

"The reality is that 50 percent of the energy for the United States comes from coal. You can't keep the country running without it and be competitive in a global economy. … We've got to use what we have."

To experts like Jack Spadaro, a mining health and safety consultant and former mine inspector:

"We’ve just obliterated one of the most advanced ecosystems in the world."

And biology professor Ben Stout of Wheeling Jesuit University:

"We’re also burying one of the most productive forests in the world, one very capable of capturing and sequestering carbon."

To industry representatives, like West Virginia Coal Association’s Chris Hamilton, whose claims defy science and get at the corporate truth:

“Mountains are not destroyed. Water systems are not destroyed here in West Virginia."

"… I hear that all the time: ‘They’re impacting our mountains.’ Well, they’re not ‘our mountains’. Those mountains have been bought."


The same arguments erupted again this week at public hearings on mountaintop mining, where the Army Corps of Engineers heard from environmentalists, area residents and hundreds of coal miners worried about their jobs if the federal government tightened its rules.

In Pikeville, Ky., miners said their employers gave them the day off and bused them in to fill the auditorium. Just ahead of those hearings, the Sierra Club released a report saying that other types of mining in Appalachia employ more workers and suggesting that mountaintop mining costs states more that it generates.

The disputes over strip mining the Appalachian Mountains have become raucous, and threatening in some places, where miners fearful for their livelihoods have clashed with protesters fearful for the environment and residents for their mountain homes.

In another new documentary, Coal Country, Judy Bonds of Coal River Mountain Watch describes what's going on with mountaintop mining as a war:

"It's families against families," she says. "Upton Sinclair once said that it's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it."

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091014/mountaintop-mining-close-and-personal

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Night blockade against uranium mining in Meghalaya

October 14th, 2009 - 3:45 pm ICT by IANS

Shillong, Oct 14 (IANS) The influential Khasi Students Union (KSU) has announced a two-night road blockade in Meghalaya beginning Wednesday to protest a proposed uranium mining project in the state.

The road blockade would affect vehicular movement, specially night passenger buses and goods laden trucks, on the national highways between Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura.

The blockade will be on from 7 p.m. till 5 a.m. Wednesday, and then again for the same duration Thursday.

“The KSU at a meeting Tuesday decided to intensify its stir… to protest the Meghalaya government’s decision to lease out land to the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL),” said KSU president Samuel B. Jyrwa.

“The KSU believes the uranium project would harm the environment and health of people living adjoining areas,” Jyrwa said.

The state government has tightened security across the Khasi and Jaintia Hills of southeastern Meghalaya.

“We are concerned that the proposed road blockades may affect other northeastern states too,” Meghalaya principal secretary (home) Barkos Warjri told reporters here.

Police heads of the four districts — East Khasi Hills, West Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Ri-Bhoi — have been asked to see that the traffic flow along the national and other highways are not disturbed due to the night blockade.

Chief Minister D.D. Lapang told reporters: “The uranium reserves are a national property and no one can stop the government from using them.”

“The government has waited for 20 long years to persuade the people to allow uranium mining at Domiasiat in West Khasi Hills district of southern Meghalaya.”

The KSU and local parties have been spearheading the movement against the Meghalaya government’s decision to allow the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) to carry out pre-project development programmes in 422 square hectares in the uranium-rich areas of West Khasi Hills.

A senior Meghalaya government official said the union ministry of environment and forests had already allowed UCIL to start uranium mining for the annual production of 375,000 tonnes of uranium ore and processing of 1,500 tonnes of the mineral ore per day in West Khasi Hills district.

The UCIL has proposed a Rs.1,046 crore open-cast uranium mining and processing plant at Domiasiat in the West Khasi Hills district. Meghalaya has an estimated 9.22 million tones of uranium ore deposits.

Read more: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/night-blockade-against-uranium-mining-in-meghalaya_100260506.html#ixzz0TxkvI1Ih

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/night-blockade-against-uranium-mining-in-meghalaya_100260506.html

Vote may delay arrival of depleted uranium in Utah

By The Associated Press Wednesday, October 14, 2009

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah’s Radiation Control Board has voted to allow more depleted uranium into the state only after the company that wants to take it submits a report confirming that additional steps to safeguard the waste will work.

On Tuesday the board voted to require EnergySolutions Inc. to complete a “site performance assessment” before additional depleted uranium comes to Utah.

The move comes less than a month after the board refused to block the disposal of the low-level radioactive waste in the state.

A board vote in September removed any obstacles to EnergySolutions’ plans to dispose of depleted uranium waste from the Savannah River site, a former nuclear weapons complex in South Carolina, at the company’s facility about 70 miles west of Salt Lake City.

http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2009/10/14/news/doc4ad60cc0476df657146512.txt

Coal, Environmentalists Massing for Corps Hearings

Six public hearings, one each in six affected states, begin today and give both sides the chance to defend their positions on mountaintop removal mining, which is a flash point in Appalachia's coalfields.

Oct 13, 2009

Six public hearings beginning today by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concern its pending proposal to require coal mining companies to obtain individual Clean Water Act permits for dumping material resulting from mountaintop removal mining into valleys of Appalachia. Companies have used a streamlined permitting process up to now, but the Corps proposed to change or eliminate the streamlined process in July 2009 and announced it will hold these hearings – one in each of the six affected states – Oct. 13 and Oct. 15. Environmentalists opposed to mountaintop removal mining and coal companies are reportedly massing supporters to defend their positions on the practice, which is scrutinized both in Ken Ward Jr.’s Coal Tattoo blog and in a Sept. 30 article, "The Coalfield Uprising," posted by The Nation and written by Jeff Biggers, who has a book coming out soon from Nation Books.

The hearings will start at 7 p.m. local time. The Oct. 13 locations are Charleston, W.Va., Pikeville, Ky., and Knoxville, Tenn., and the Oct. 15 locations are Pittsburgh, Pa., Cambridge, Ohio, and Big Stone Gap, Va.

Tim Huber of the Associated Press reported last week that the Sierra Club is organizing carpools to attend the hearings, while the National Mining Association is organizing mountaintop removal mining supporters to attend.

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/10/13/massing-for-corps-hearings.aspx

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The case against uranium mining/The case for uranium mining

The blue is caused by copper contamination, but there could also be other heavy metals present (came from the uranium mine, all metals were mined, this happen after a flood!)

Comment: Please read the two letters about uranium mining!

The case against uranium mining

14/10/2009 8:39:00 AM

A LONG term North West cattle station owner believes primary producers need to be consulted on how their land would be affected by uranium mining before any decision on the industry’s future was made.

Margaret Campbell owned the “Rosebud” cattle station, which bordered the former Mary Kathleen uranium mine near Cloncurry, while it was still in operation from the 1950s to the 80s.

She said she had seen firsthand how a uranium mine could be a health and economic problem for those living in such close proximity to the site.

She can remember a flock of ducks being killed instantly when they landed on a nearby creek that allegedly contained radioactive water.

“I can remember the pipes at the mine breaking and this horrible grey stuff running past my kitchen window,” she said.

“The message the mine sent back was it is only the tailings but don’t let your kids play in it.”

Mrs Campbell said creek overflows during the wet season would destroy surrounding vegetation.

“It can’t all be cleared away – it stays radioactive. Cattle producers wouldn’t be able to sell their cattle if they’re contaminated and it would be hard to know which cattle are contaminated. The government and the mining companies need to talk to producers before any decision was made,” she said.

“It is not really the kind of industry you want around.”

The case for uranium mining

14/10/2009 8:40:00 AM

IT WOULD take about three years for a uranium mining industry to be established in Mount Isa if the Queensland Government was to give the go-ahead for the industry to begin, a leading industry expert has said.
Alan J Eggers served as the managing director of Summit Resources when the company began developing uranium exploration in the Mount Isa region from 1990.

He is currently the executive chairman of Manhattan Corporation Limited, a public listed company with uranium interests in Western Australia.

As a long term uranium industry figurehead and among the first to explore sections of the North West for the controversial mineral, he has seen the debate for and against uranium mining rise and fall on the political agenda during the past two decades.

However, he believes it was “inevitable” Queensland would begin uranium mining.

He said advanced exploration had already been conducted throughout the North West and companies were simply waiting for the State Government to give the industry the thumbs up.

“We have everything in place to export uranium - including the skills, the knowledge and the ports – the only thing standing in the way is the political will,” he said.

“There are already uranium mines in Australia and several other mining leases in Western Australia being considered. So Queensland is simply losing out on royalties and revenue by not allowing uranium mining.”

In Australia, the industry produces uranium entirely for export.

Uranium is exported under a framework of anti- nuclear weapons proliferation safeguards and strict health, safety and environmental regulations.

Full year exploration statistics released last month by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show a 20 per cent decline in uranium exploration Australia-wide, compared with 2007-08 (from about $231 million to $185 million).

In Queensland, exploration spending during the year was weaker, although spending in the June quarter ($6.3 million) was up slightly on March.

http://www.northweststar.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-case-for-uranium-mining/1648705.aspx?src=rss

France dumps nuclear waste in Siberia, reports say


Nuclear 13.10.2009
Editor: Kate Bowen

Nuclear waste from France has been sent to Siberia for storage. According to news reports, over 100 tons of uranium were transported to Seversk. France's ecology minister has called for an investigation into the case.

According to the French daily newspaper Liberation and Franco-German television broadcaster Arte, France's electricity company EDF has sent 108 tons of uranium to Siberia since the mid-1990s. About 13 percent of France's nuclear waste is stored in open-air parking lots near a nuclear plant in Seversk, said reports on Monday.

EDF said it sends uranium left over from nuclear plant production in France to Russia to be treated so that it can be used again.

Ten to 20 percent of the uranium came back to France to be used in French power plants, an EDF spokeswoman said Monday. A company official denied that waste was left outdoors.

Liberation based its information on an eight-month investigation which was broadcast by Arte on Tuesday.

Legal loophole

The container was allegedly shipped by boat from Le Havre in northern France to the Siberian atom complex "Tomsk-7," located 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles) away. This was only possible due to a legal loophole: In Russia, depleted uranium, recharged uranium and plutonium are not considered atomic waste but "radioactive material," according to the report by journalist Laure Noualhat.

Therefore, the shipment to Russia was not officially treated as an atomic waste transport overseas - that would have been forbidden by law.

France's ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno, has called for an investigation into the case. Jouanno said Tuesday on France-Info radio that the country's nuclear energy industry "must be completely transparent."

Anti-nuclear power movement group "Sortir du Nucleaire" accused Jouanno of trying to win time by announcing an investigation. The group has demanded that the atomic waste be brought back from Russia.

France, like Germany, has not yet found a location to permanently store nuclear waste underground. French nuclear authorities are considering permanently storing the waste generated in the past three decades and the waste produced in the future near Bure in eastern France, 500 meters (1,640 feet) below ground.

sst/AFP/AP
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

US nuclear regulators accept application to review Canadian firm’s planned SD uranium mine

Canadian firm gets key OK in SD uranium mine plan

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — The Canadian developer of a planned uranium mine in southwest South Dakota can move ahead with its request for a federal permit, one of four needed to operate.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission informed Powertech Uranium Corp. that its application for a detailed technical and environmental review has been accepted for the Dewey Burdock project near Edgemont.

The company is currently operating under a state permit to drill exploratory holes. It withdrew the federal application in June so it could fix several deficiencies that would have led to the proposal being rejected.

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said Tuesday that those issues have been addressed and the NRC staff has started reviewing the application. There will be an opportunity for a public hearing before the agency makes a decision on the project, which could happen within about two years, he said.

The application accepted by the NRC is for a Source Material License, which deals with nearly every aspect of the proposal, said Mark Hollenbeck, Dewey Burdock project manager.

“It covers all issues related to radiation, health and safety,” he said.

Powertech also needs a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency and two from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Hollenbeck said.

The company has a corporate office in Vancouver, British Columbia, and operations in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, as well as the Edgemont project in South Dakota.

Powertech wants to inject chemically treated water into holes to dissolve the uranium, then pump out the solution and collect the uranium for processing. Company representatives said the process, called “in situ leach-mining,” is safe and does not cause contamination.

But some environmental and American Indian groups oppose the project for fear it would harm underground aquifers and disturb sacred and burial sites. The land is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and lies on the southern edge of the Black Hills, which Indians consider sacred.

Charmaine White Face with Defenders of the Black Hills said the groups have already filed opposition at the state level and also plan to oppose the project when the federal process allows it.

“I’m sure that between all of us we will push it as far as we can to stop this,” she said.

On the Net:
Powertech: www.powertechuranium.com
NRC: adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?Acce
DENR: denr.sd.gov/Powertech.aspx
Defenders of the Black Hills: www.defendblackhills.org

http://blog.taragana.com/n/us-nuclear-regulators-accept-application-to-review-canadian-firms-planned-sd-uranium-mine-194897/

Monday, October 12, 2009

Uranium and cancer

By Christina MacPherson

Uranium development a sham Eastern Panorama Agnes Kgarshiing (India)

11 Oct 09

Cancer cases among Aboriginal people living near Australia’s biggest uranium mines is doubling, a study by the Federal Governments leading Indigenous Research body shows, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, of the 23rd November 2006.

There have also been many Uranium Tailing disasters, in Australia, Canada and the United States, even though these countries are armed with the most “State of the Art” tailing dams.

According to the AFP news, a French physicist Bruno Chareyron of France’s CRIIRAD laboratory, which measures radioactivity in the environment, has joined representatives of indigenous peoples from Africa, Australia and the United States to send US lawmakers a stark warning about the dangers of uranium mining.

He spoke in a conference in Washington DC in the month of Feb 2009 where he stated that that he wants the US lawmakers to understand that uranium mining is highly pollutant and that there is presently no scientific answer to the question of radioactive waste containment. He mentioned that the information given by mining companies is not entirely reliable.

http://nuclearnewsaustralia.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/uranium-and-cancer/

To read whole story, click below:
http://www.easternpanorama.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=769:uranium-development-a-sham-&catid=45:web-special&Itemid=24

Chemicals From Former Missile Sites Pose Water Contamination Risk

By Mead Gruver
Associated Press
Sunday, October 11, 2009

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- As U.S. Air Force officials marked the 50th anniversary of the deployment of nuclear missiles to sites in the rural United States this past week, residents in some of these communities are still grappling with another legacy -- groundwater pollution from chemicals used to clean and maintain the weapons.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is identifying and cleaning up dozens of former nuclear missile sites in nine states.

To date, the corps has spent $116 million at 44 former Atlas and Titan intercontinental ballistic missile -- or ICBM -- sites and 19 former Nike antiaircraft missile sites from the early Cold War. The missile sites include 14 in Kansas, 10 in Nebraska, seven in Wyoming, seven in Colorado and two in Oklahoma. California, New Mexico, New York and Texas have one contaminated site each.

Total cleanup costs are projected to be $400 million, according to corps spokeswoman Candice Walters.

The sites are contaminated with the chemical trichloroethylene, or TCE, which was used to keep missiles clean and ready to deploy on short notice.

Exposure to high concentrations of the chemical can cause nervous system problems, liver and lung damage, abnormal heartbeat, coma and death, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. TCE also may cause cancer, other government agencies say.

TCE may have polluted many more missile sites than the corps is aware of.

The corps has evaluated a total of 395 former ICBM and Nike missile sites since the Formerly Used Defense Sites, or FUDS, program began in the early 1980s. But the corps didn't identify TCE as a high priority until the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a drinking water standard for the chemical in 1989.

"As new contaminants are identified, then we have to go back and look at some of the sites we have and say, 'Ooh, maybe this is something we should be looking for,' " Walters said.

The FUDS program gets $306 million a year for cleanup work at more than 9,000 former defense sites nationwide that is projected to cost $17.8 billion, Walters said.

Deciding which contaminated missile sites to clean up depends in part on how many people nearby could be exposed to TCE, said Jeff Skog, TCE remediation manager for the corps office in Omaha. "So it sort of depends on what's available during any given year and how high on up the list it is for priority projects," he said.

The most common use for TCE -- especially in decades past, before it was identified as toxic -- was as a degreaser and lubricant. TCE also has been used in model airplane glue, typewriter correction fluid and dry-cleaning chemicals.

The National Toxicology Program has determined that TCE is "reasonably anticipated" to be a human carcinogen and the International Agency for Research on Cancer has said that TCE is "probably carcinogenic" in people. Large-scale studies of health effects from TCE in drinking water, however, have been inconclusive.

In southeast Wyoming and northern Colorado, the corps has identified TCE pollution at 11 former Atlas D and Atlas E missile sites that were overseen by F.E. Warren Air Force Base before being decommissioned and sold off in the mid-1960s. Most of those sites are remote, making them low priorities for cleanup.

One site north of Fort Collins, Colo., is close to a river. An environmental group says a planned reservoir that would partly cover the site could contaminate the Poudre River and municipal water supplies downstream.

"If the TCE plume gets to the river, it will be a dangerous chemical pollutant that the water providers have to deal with," said Gary Wockner with SaveThePoudre.org.

The city of Cheyenne has been using four water wells about 10 miles west of town and eight miles east of the second ICBM site that was built in the American heartland. The wells are located within an unusually large, eight-mile-long plume of TCE within the Ogallala Aquifer.

TCE was first detected in the city wells in the 1990s but levels mostly remained below the EPA's drinking water standard of 5 parts per billion. Aeration at the city's water treatment plant broke down the TCE and made it undetectable in the city's drinking water, said plant manager Bud Spillman.

Hank VanGoethen, who lives west of Cheyenne, said he's not convinced that drinking his well water for 27 years did him any harm. TCE in his well recently increased to more than five times the government standard, prompting the corps to install a filter on his well earlier this year.

He said he drank bottled water for months until the work was finished.

"So far it hasn't cost me anything but aggravation, waiting for them to get it done and watching them do it," he said. "It was definitely a government job."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/10/AR2009101002301.html

Marcellus question: Who will pay to monitor gas drilling?

October 10, 2009
By Tom Wilber
twilber@gannett.com

And now for a little homework ...

The state is asking local government agencies to regulate key aspects of the natural gas industry, raising yet more questions about who will pay for manpower to oversee multinational energy companies setting up shop in Southern Tier's backyards.

The industry's effect on water resources and roads are included in a report released Sept. 30 by the Department of Environmental Conservation outlining environmental concerns from full-scale Marcellus Shale development.

Risks to water, the report says, include turbidity, methane contamination and, to a lesser degree, potential for hazardous chemicals to breach well-bore casings or spill while being handled or disposed of on the surface.

To deal with those threats, the state is calling on local health departments to oversee a testing program of private wells in drilling zones. Testing would begin before drilling starts, and continue for a year after it ends.

DEC would also require drilling companies to work out a plan with local governments to minimize traffic problems and cover damage to roads caused by fleets of heavy equipment, water tankers and drill rigs caravanning from site to site.

The industry's promise of affluence, supporters say, will help the struggling economy and bolster the tax base. Yet officials have yet to figure out how to pay to oversee an onslaught of permitting and drilling activity - mostly in the Southern Tier - that is expected to begin next year.

The county is looking at a 3.9 percent tax hike and job cuts to help balance next year's budget. Gov. David Paterson has ordered state agencies to cut operating expenses 11 percent.

"How will we pay? That is a concern," said Broome County Legislator Stephen Herz, D-Windsor, a member of the Finance Committee.

A proposal to steer industry fees and taxes into the state's general fund died in Albany earlier this year. Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, D-Endwell, favors a plan to raise permit fees and earmark them for regulatory staffing. So does the industry.

Yet that plan is yet to materialize.

"There will have to be money to pay for staff time, no matter where it comes from," said Chip McElwee, executive director of the Broome County Soil & Water Conservation District, an agency that works with landowners to preserve water resources.

Who pays for what?

The state suspended permitting for the Marcellus last summer in order to take a closer look at an industry expected to change the Southern Tier's economic and physical landscape.

Results arrived last month via the 809-page draft called the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. While the proposal lays the ground rules for Marcellus development, it's only one piece of a complicated regulatory puzzle.

Local governments must provide the missing pieces, including the wherewithal to protect water and roads.

The clock is ticking.

The public comment period ends Nov. 30. As of Friday, representatives from industry and government said they are still reading through it. Hard copies were not available at public places, and the DEC still hasn't scheduled public meetings to review it.

While the review proposes a regulatory framework, it does not address costs.

County health agencies, the plan says, would take on a "primary role" in overseeing a program to review water data at private wells within 1,000 to 2,000 feet of a drilling rig, before, during and up to a year after operations. Counties also would flag problems and investigate complaints.

Drilling companies are responsible for testing and sending results to the health department and residents for interpretation.

County officials are still trying to determine how that translates into staffing needs.

Here are the numbers they will work with:

The Marcellus is capable of supporting between 2,000 and 4,000 gas wells in Broome County, based on an economic development report commissioned by the legislature. Each gas well has the potential for producing water testing at multiple spots for years.

How much oversight would that require?

"We have to see how it fits in with our resources," said Robert Denz, director of environmental health for the Broome County Department of Health.

Tough sell

As a preliminary step, the county added $28,000 to the Health Department's budget for 2010 to pay for an additional part-time position to respond to complaints involving drilling's effect on private water supplies. Denz said he did not know whether this would be enough without further evaluating the DEC's proposal.

Any staff additions might be a tough sell, however, given the budget problems.

"Nobody has come to grips with it yet," said Herz, who, as a member of landowner coalition dealing with energy companies, has been following the issue closely. "We are looking at a budget in the county that is pretty harsh."

While officials work on the funding puzzle, the state's regulatory proposal is finding general support among drilling industry leaders and bitter criticism from advocacy groups.

Adam Flint, a member of the Binghamton Regional Sustainability Coalition, said officials are too quick to embrace economic promises of Marcellus development without assessing the costs.

"People are playing fast and loose with the figures," he said. "The reports are not spelling out who pays."

The state report lays the groundwork for drilling to begin. Industry supporters see that as encouraging.

"It seems that the state set the conditions so that actual production could proceed, even under tightly defined parameters," said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy In Depth, a national trade group. "That's why we support this and they (opponents) do not. There is no way to split the baby on this."

Full-scale Marcellus production is on the Southern Tier's threshold. When it arrives and how it unfolds depends largely on how the regulations are crafted. That, in turn, depends on how the public and officials respond to the state's proposal.

They have homework to do in the next few weeks.

Additional Facts
Why it matters
The Marcellus shale runs from the Southern Tier of New York, through the western portion of Pennsylvania into the eastern half of Ohio and through West Virginia. Many gas production companies are now interested in the Marcellus, so they are approaching land-owners with offers to lease the rights to natural gas deposits below houses and farms.

The implications for residents of the region are significant. Gas-leases can generate income for residents, but might create costs for local governments that could be charged with some of the responsibilities for oversight. Gas-drilling in other areas has prompted issues related to pollution, noise, and safety.

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20091010/NEWS01/910100362/Marcellus+question++Who+will+pay+to+monitor+gas+drilling

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Meghalaya Govt. leases out land for uranium mining despite locals protest

AniSeptember 30th, 2009

SHILLONG - The Meghalaya government has decided to lease out 422 hectares of land in the West Khasi Hills region for 30 years to the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) for pre-project developmental works, a step which is agitating a number of locals.

According to locals, Meghalaya’s environment has been destroyed by the through unscientific mining of coal, limestone and other natural resources.

They claim that uranium mining will only add to environmental degradation of Meghalaya.

“First thing is the health-issue relating to uranium mining and the impact it will have in those areas where there will be uranium mining, and the second point is that the amount of royalty that the government will get,” said Michael Syiem, President, Mait Shaphrang Movement, an NGO spearheading the protest against uranium mining.

“Will it be just something which you see— peanuts are we really getting our worth from the wealth the God has given us?” said Syiem.

Apart from the Mait Shaphrang Movement, the Khasi Students Union (KSU), several other NGOs have joined the crusade against the prospecting of uranium.

They allege that pre-development works are only a precursor to the mining of radioactive mineral, which in turn could lead to serious environmental and health problems.

“We are opposed to this pre-project development activities on the ground that the government is misleading the people of the state and also the district that this pre project development activities is for the area and also for the whole of West Khasi district, which is in fact, not true and very misleading,” said Samuel Jrywa, President, Khasi Students Union (KSU), Meghalaya.

As per UCIL estimates, there could be 3, 75,000 tonnes of uranium deposits in Meghalaya.

While exploratory surveys were carried out in early 1990s, the mining project is yet to begin. By Hempi D.Henpilen (ANI)

http://blog.taragana.com/n/meghalaya-govt-leases-out-land-for-uranium-mining-despite-locals-protest-182801/

Drilling and Killing

by Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill
The Nation magazine, November 16, 1998

We're more likely to see other companies as collaborators rather than adversaries.... We aren't so much competing with each other as we are competing with the earth. And maybe that s a healthy way to look at it. -George Kirkland Chairman & managing director, Chevron Nigeria Limited

The Niger Delta is on fire.

The explosion of a gas pipeline in Nigeria's oil-producing region in October killed more than 700 people. It is also fueling the rage of millions in the delta who want an end to the pollution caused by the oil companies and compensation for their oil-rich land. A third of the country's oil production has been shut down by unprecedented acts of resistance, infuriating transnational oil corporations and their Nigerian military business partners.

Three years after Ken Saro-Wiwa's execution for exposing the relationship between Shell and the regime, it has come to light that US oil giant Chevron played a major role in the killing of two delta activists earlier this year. The corporation facilitated an attack by the feared Nigerian Navy and notorious Mobile Police on a group of people from a delta village called Ilajeland who had occupied one of Chevron's offshore drilling facilities.

Among their demands: clean drinking water, electricity, environmental reparations, employment and scholarships for young people.

On May 28, after occupying the facility for three days, villagers thought they were waiting for Chevron's final response to their demands when helicopters swooped down. "We were looking at these helicopters thinking...people inside these helicopters might have been Chevron's reps who are actually coming to dialogue," said one of the activists, known as Parrere. "They were about to land when we heard shooting of tear gas and guns." The Nigerian military shot to death two protesters, Jola Ogungbeje and Aroleka Irowaninu, critically wounded a third man, Larry Bowato, and injured as many as thirty others. Bowato says, "When they shot these guys, I was rushing there to rescue [them]...it is then they shot me."

Responding to inquiries from Human Rights Watch in London following the attack, Chevron consistently claimed it; action against the occupation was to call the federal authorities and tell them what was happening. But in a startling admission during a recent three-hour interview with Pacifica Radio's daily national newsmagazine Democracy Now! Chevron spokesperson Sola Omole admitted that the company had in fact transported the Nigerian soldiers to the facility.

Q: Who took them in, on Thursday morning, the Mobile Police, the Navy?
Omole: We did. We did. Chevron did. We took them there.

Q: By how?
Omole: Helicopters. Yes, we took them in.

Q: Who authorized the call for the military to come in?
Omole: That's Chevron's management.

Following the interview conducted in Nigeria, Pacifica requested further comment from Chevron's headquarters in San Francisco. Michael Libbey, the company's manager of media relations, wrote the network a letter stating that Sola Omole's comments "fully represent the views of both our Nigerian business unit and of Chevron."

Chevron's acting head of security in Nigeria, James Neku, admitted he flew in with the military the day of the attack. He further revealed that the naval attack force included members of the Mobile Police, known as the "Kill 'n' Go." Niger Delta environmental lawyer Oronto Douglas says, "The Kill 'n' Go shoot without question, they kill, they maim, they rape, they destroy." Douglas was one of the lawyers for Ken Saro-Wiwa, who exposed the brutal record of the Kill 'n' Go in Ogoniland.

Chevron spokesperson Omole concedes that the villagers were unarmed. "I cannot say they came armed," he said. "There was talk of local charms and all that, but that's neither here nor there." Pushed further on whether the protesters came on board with weapons, his answer was

"No."

Chevron contends that when the helicopters landed on a barge at the facility, the soldiers got out and issued a warning. Villagers say there was no warning, that the soldiers simply started shooting. After the shooting incident, eleven activists were held in a barge shipping container for hours and then jailed for three weeks. Bola Oyinbo says that during his imprisonment he was handcuffed and hung from a ceiling-fan hook for hours for refusing to sign a statement written by Nigerian authorities that stated the protesters had destroyed a helicopter.

Among the villagers, it is a fact of life that the Nigerian military serves as a hired gun for the transnational oil companies in the delta. But most oil companies do not want to admit this. When asked who paid the military, Chevron spokesperson Omole said' "Those guys were working for the contractor; I guess you have to ask the contractor that." But Bill Spencer, area manager of ETPM, the company that leased the barge to Chevron, said this was not true. "They were not ours. They were paid. They were supplied by Chevron all of them. Everybody that was out there."

Following the broadcast of the Pacifica program, US Chevron spokesman Libbey described Spencer's comments as "ambiguous" and said, "We categorically deny we paid a dime to any law-enforcement-agency representative."

The Berkeley-based corporate watchdog Project Underground a campaign against Chevron, its San Francisco neighbor Oronto Douglas, the Niger Delta lawyer, says he is continuing filing a lawsuit in the United States against Chevron on behalf of the victims of the attack. "It is very clear that Chevron, like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities," he says. "They drill, and they kill."

In addition to his legal work, Douglas is founder of Chicoco, a pan-Delta resistance movement calling on Washington to impose an oil embargo on the Nigerian regime. The United States buys nearly half of all Nigeria's oil and has its own corporate -government alliance. As Steve Lauterbach, the spokesperson for the US Embassy in Nigeria, says, it is the policy of the embassy to support American companies and their operations abroad."

Ultimately, Oronto Douglas wants the transnational oil companies out, and an end to forty years of support for the world's greatest oil kleptocracy.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Transnational_corps/DrillingKilling_OilNigeria.html

Senior Citizens March 25 Miles to End Mountaintop

posted by: Beth B.

Fifteen individuals between the ages of 50 and 83 set off on a March to End Mountaintop Removal at 10 a.m. on October 8th, 2009. The march was preceded by a rally and press conference in front of the State Capitol building in Charleston, Virginia, and is sponsored by a coalition that includes Climate Ground Zero, Mountain Justice, Intergenerational Justice and Christians for the Mountains. It is part of an ongoing civil disobedience campaign against mountaintop removal in West Virginia.

The seniors are walking five miles each day for five days, ending at Massey subsidiary Mammoth Coal on Monday, Oct. 12. In a statement issued by the US Mine Safety & Health Administration yesterday, Mammoth Coal was named as one of ten mining operators that need to improve performance or face tougher enforcement.

The mountaintop removal mine and processing plant, formerly operated by Cannelton Coal, was bought out by Massey in 2004. Massey cut the United Mine Workers of America contract and reopened the site, located east of Charleston on Route 60, as the non-union Mammoth Coal Company. The decision was met with a UMWA-organized picket and lawsuits.

"Mountaintop removal is closing in on our home place in Coal River, destroying the ridge up and down the river," said Julian Martin, 73, a coal miner's son and Vice President of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, "I see mountaintop removal as probably the world's worst environmental disaster." Martin's grandfather fought in the largest organized labor uprising in United States history, the Battle of Blair Mountain.

March organizers Roland Micklem, 81, and Andrew Munn, 23, are planning activities and speaking events each evening, including talks by Larry Gibson of the Keepers of the Mountain Foundation and Jesse Johnson, 2004 and 2008 Green Party gubernatorial candidate at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Charleston on Friday and Saturday night.

This action is monumental in demonstrating the way that mountaintop removal mining affects the lives of all humans, regardless of age, occupation, religion or political orientation. In a movement that is characterized by the actions of the "young and the restless" these seniors are taking a stand against the unneccessary destruction of West Virginia's mountains.

"We seniors need to make a statement with our own actions and share the risks that are part of this ongoing effort to stop the obliteration of West Virginia’s mountains," said Micklem, a Korean War veteran and former environmental journalist. His organizing philosophy is rooted in Ghandian principles of nonviolent civil disobedience and dialogue with opposition; the energetic senior invited Massey Energy officials to speak with him at the gates of Mammoth Coal Company on Monday. Micklem has not yet received a response.

These seniors are setting an incredible example for young activists, who sometimes have difficulty channeling their passion into peaceful, productive protests.

"As a young person, it is inspiring to see the strength with which senior citizens are stepping forward to meet the task at hand," said Munn, "Climate justice and the preservation of ecological and cultural heritage are issues for all generations, so I think it is fitting that we see this coalition emerging at the forefront of the movement to stop mountaintop removal."

Updates and multimedia can be found on www.climategroundzero.org
http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/senior-citizens-march-25-miles-to-end/

Friday, October 9, 2009

Uranium Corporation of India Limited: Wasting Away Tribal Lands

by Moushumi Basu, Special to CorpWatch
October 7th, 2009

Creative Commons Licensed: Adapted by Ionia Kershaw for Truthout.org (via Flickr)

“I have had three miscarriages and lost five children within a week of their births,” says Hira Hansda, a miner’s wife. “Even after 20 years of marriage we have no children today.” Now in her late forties, she sits outside her mud hut in Jadugoda Township, site of one of the oldest uranium mines in India.

The Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) operates that mine, part of a cluster of four underground and one open cast mines and two processing plants, in East Singbhum district in the Eastern Indian state of Jharkhand. The deepest plunges almost one kilometer into the earth.

Incorporated as a public sector enterprise under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in 1967, UCIL has sole responsibility for mining and processing all of India's uranium. And since the strength of the Jadugoda region's uraninite ore is extremely low, it takes many tons of earth as well as complex metallurgical processes to yield even a small amount of useable uranium ore—along with tons of radioactive waste, disposed of in unlined tailing dams.

UCIL processes the ore into yellowcake and sends it to the Nuclear Fuel Complex in Hyderabad, where it is officially designated for use in nuclear reactors. But it is an open secret that some of the nuclear material becomes the key ingredient in India's nuclear arsenal. (India is one of only three states—along with Israel and Pakistan—that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. North Korea withdrew from the Treaty in 2003.)

Unhealthy Villages

Radiation and health experts across the world charge that toxic materials and radioactivity released by the mining and processing operations are causing widespread infertility, birth defects and cancers. A 2008 health survey by the Indian chapter of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), found that “primary sterility was found to be more common in the people residing near uranium mining operations area.”

Jadugoda residents Kaderam Tudu and his wife, Munia, considered themselves fortunate when their infant was born alive, until, “I found that my baby son did not have his right ear and instead in its place was a blob of flesh,” says Tudu, a day worker in his late thirties. Their son, Shyam Tudu, now eight, has a severe hearing impairment.

Even children who appear healthy are impacted. "The youths from our villages have become victims of social ostracism," says Parvati Manjhi, and cannot find spouses. "And a number of our girls have been abandoned by their husbands, when they failed to give birth,” Now middle-aged, Parvati and her husband, Dhuwa Manjhi, who used to work for UCIL, are childless.

Harrowing tales fill the region around the mines, and add irony to the area's name, Jharkhand, which in the local tribal language means “forest endowed with nature’s bounties.” If the lush land was the indigenous population's boon for centuries, its rich mineral reserves have become their bane. Six decades of industrialization has depleted the forest cover, degraded the environment, displaced tribal peoples—who along with Dalit ("untouchables") form an oppressed underclass—and devastated a way of life deeply interwoven with nature.

Despite India's economic boom and proximity to one of the country's richest mineral reserves, the villages in Jharkhand are now among the poorest in the country, according to the Center For Science & Environment’s (New Delhi) 2008 report “Rich Lands Poor People.”

Uranium Corporation of India Limited in Jharkhand

UCIL’s underground mines in Jadugoda, Bhatin, Turamdhih, Narwapahar, and its open cast mine at Banduhurang extract 1,000 tons per day (TPD) of uranium ore. Two underground mines in the pipeline at Baghjata and Mahuldih will boost that amount. The ore is processed at the Jadugoda and Turamdih mills with a combined capacity of 5,000 TDP. The company earned $64 million in 2007-08, and made a $3 million profit.

The 20-year lease for UCIL's mines was up in 2007, and a new application is being processed. Under it, the company wants to add 6.37 hectares to tailing dam capacity and expand production, according to UCIL Chairman and Managing Director Ramendra Gupta. This move requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) drawn up by the Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CIMFR), along with a public hearing.

Addressing the affected community at the May public hearing in Jadugoda, the company represented the local plans as “a marginal expansion.” But the UCIL website promises “a quantum leap in UCIL’s activities” that includes plans to "deepen the existing mines, expand its processing facilities,” and “not only opening new mines, but also the development of the community around its operations.”

While the company has created local schools and provides jobs and social services, villagers who attended the hearing argued that these provisions do not compensate for the health effects and destruction of their way of life.

“Why are we being made to pay such a heavy price, for so many decades”? Asks Hira Hansda, speaking of her three miscarriages and birth to five infants that quickly died. Her husband Sonaram worked at the tailing dam as a casual employee between 1984-87, and like many villagers, he links the deterioration in local health conditions to the arrival of the uranium mines. The last three surveys conducted in the area found increased radiation levels.

Heavy Security at UCIL’s Public Hearing Keeps Villagers Out

The public hearing on UCIL's new application took place at the heavily fortified camp of the Central India Security Force (CISF) within the UCIL colony at Jadugoda. Conducted by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the proceedings were marked by restrictions on personal liberties under sections of a law applying to situations with the potential to cause civil unrest.

Leaving little room for the public or protesters, the hall was packed with hundreds of UCIL workers and other company beneficiaries who held placards reading: “When compared to hunger, pollution is a small issue," and "Save UCIL.”

Those who had lost their lands and health to the mines were physically barred from the tent. Outside the proceedings, protesters shouted: “Do not destroy our land," “No uranium, no uranium waste, no weapons, care for the future." Many indigenous villagers waved the banner of the Jharkhandi Organization Against Radiation (JOAR), winner of the Germany-based Nuclear Free Future Award for its long crusade against the hazards of uranium mining in Jadugoda. The protesters denounced the hearing as "a farce" and demanded that it be immediately stopped.

Villager and JOAR president, Ghanashyam Biruli, issued the demands: no new uranium mines, bring the existing mine under international safety guidelines, return unused tribal land, provide livelihood and rehabilitation to displaced people, clean up the contamination, commission an independent study of environmental contamination and health effects, and monitor water bodies to ensure that the radionuclides do not seep into the aquifer that is the lifeline of more than 100,000 people. The activists also argued that since the country can buy uranium on the international market, there is no compelling need to expand UCIL's capacity.

The real compelling need, they asserted, was protecting health and the environment. The 2008 health survey by the Indian chapter of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) provided clear evidence, finding that:

* Couples living near the mines were "1.58 times more vulnerable to primary sterility" with 9.6 percent of couples in study villages unable to conceive after three years of marriage, compared with 6.27 percent in a reference (control) group.

* Birth defects followed a similar pattern with 1.84 times higher incidence: “[B]abies from mothers, who lived near uranium mining operation area, suffered a significant increase in congenital deformities,” according to the report. While 4.49 percent of mothers living in the study villages reported bearing children with congenital deformities, only 2.49 percent of mothers in reference villages fell under this category." The national rate for people with disabilities (including congenital deformities) is 3 percent, according to official government statistics.

* Deformed babies near the mining operations are almost 6 times more likely to die, with 9.25 percent mothers in the study villages reporting congenital deformities as the cause of death of their children. In the reference village, mothers reported 1.70 percent of babies died of deformities.

* Cancer deaths were also higher: 2.87 percent of households in study villages attributed the cause of death to be cancer, compared to 1.89 percent in the reference village.

These factors contributed to a lowered life expectancy. In the study villages 68.33 percent of the population died before reaching the state's average life expectancy: 62 years old.

UCIL Denies Contamination

Despite such alarming reports, radiation data are not made public because they fall under the purview of the Atomic Energy Act of 1962. UCIL / DAE (Department of Atomic Energy) also cites security concerns for refusing to release data on health of the workers. But Buddha Weeps in Jadugoda, a 1999 award-winning film by Shri Prakash documented that, despite a law mandating regular monitoring, in the last five- to ten-year period few workers underwent blood and urine tests to assess the impact of radiation.

Independent scientists have confirmed the danger. Professor Hiroaki Koide, from the Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University, Japan, sampled soil and air in the surrounding villages and documented that “The circumference of tailing ponds is impacted with uranium radiation. The strength of the radiation is of 10 to 100 times high in comparison to places without contamination. ...There are places where uranium concentration is high in the road or the riverside, and it is thought that tailings are used for construction material,” including on villagers' houses." Tailings are production waste material that, according to critics are unsafely stored, dumped, and used for landfills, roads and construction.

UCIL Technical Director D Acharya denied that the company was responsible for radiological contamination. “UCIL’s safety and pollution control measures are at par with the international standards, comparable at any point of time,” he said. The company is dealing with naturally occurring materials, he noted, the very low grade ore extracted is a minimal environmental hazard, and the company is not enriching the ore in Jadugoda.

But tacitly acknowledging the risks, UCIL head, Gupta, noted in the 2008 Annual Report that "External gamma radiation, Radon concentration, suspended particulate matters, airborne long lived Alpha activity and concentration of radio nuclides- uranium and Radium in surface and ground water, in soil and food items etc are monitored regularly."

Although he presented no evidence, UCIL Technical Director Acharya said that allegations of health problems are canards spread by anti-uranium lobbies, and that the physical fitness of the employees can be gauged the UCIL football team's success in winning the DAE tournaments for the past five years.

“From time to time we have also conducted structured health surveys and examinations, by independent sources," said Acharya. "One was done by the erstwhile Bihar Assembly, about ten years ago, but the findings are absolutely normal.” (The area was part of Bihar at the time.) "The effects of radiation are being constantly monitored by independent watchdogs, and there are health physics experts who are always with us, for round-the clock-vigil of the situation. Hence, there is really no cause of concern,” he added.

That is not the experience of many villagers, who link serious health problems to the mines. Like many of the women in the surrounding areas, Hansda's pregnancies were a time of terror. “It fills within us fear and apprehensions of the possible ordeal that may be in store. Who knows what would be the fate of the baby,” she said.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15450