OUR CORRESPONDENT
Shillong, Oct. 2: The National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements today organised a rally in Delhi, widening the ambit of the Khasi Students Union’s anti-uranium mining crusade.
The decision to take out the rally from Rajghat to Jantar Mantar on the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace, was not without reason.
Nearly 200 NAAM activists carrying placards and banners were joined by some Khasi students led by KSU president Samuel Jyrwa. They blended anti-nuclear power plant protests with the uranium mining issue.
At Jantar Mantar, speakers from Meghalaya, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand highlighted the ill effects of uranium mining and the dangers of setting up of nuclear power plants.
The co-ordinator of NAAM, S.P. Udayakumar, said over phone that on reaching the samadhi site of the Mahatma, the activists shouted slogans against uranium mining in India and then proceeded towards Jantar Mantar.
Later, near Teen Murti Bhavan, the NAAM activists staged How to Kill a Man, a play that showed how uranium mining could kill thousands of people.
It was followed by passing of a resolution by NAAM members urging the government to prevent uranium mining projects in Meghalaya, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and stop the projects at Jaduguda in Jharkhand.
“We also vowed to say no to nuclear power plants in the country,” Udayakumar said.
“Uranium mining and nuclear power plants will do great harm to the people of the country; if America wants to carry out uranium mining, let it do so in that country and India should not succumb to the pressure of America.”
Talking over phone, Jyrwa said uranium mining and setting up of nuclear power plants go against the very ideals that Mahatma Gandhi stood for.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091003/jsp/northeast/story_11567822.jsp
Showing posts with label BAN URANIUM MINING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BAN URANIUM MINING. Show all posts
Friday, October 2, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
A setback for the Sunday Mines
Mining company told to collect more data at site
By Matthew Beaudin
Published: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:12 AM CDT
Environmental groups won a victory against the revving uranium industry last week when the US Department of the Interior halted an increase in mining near Naturita and sent the mining company to the field for more data.
In a letter remanding a standing approval for expansion — won over the winter — Lynn E. Rust, the deputy state director in the BLM’s Energy, Land and Minerals division, told Denison Mines Corporation that “This mine permit analysis should rely on the best available data, not simply on the data submitted, if better data can readily be obtained.”
Sheep Mountain Alliance and other groups filed a complaint with the state, asking for the approval to be stricken down or, at least, remanded. They got the latter.
Mining under the initial permit is allowed to continue, “but updated monitoring should occur under that dated permit,” Rust wrote.
The initial approval gave the Canada-based Denison Mines Corporation permission to expand its existing mining operations in the Big Gypsum Valley. New activities at the Sunday Mining complex would have included the expansion of waste rock areas and the addition of vent holes along with access roads and additional drilling. It would have increased land disturbance from 80 to 100 acres.
In an earlier review of the project, Jamie Sellar-Baker, the Dolores Public Lands Office associate manager, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for the project, meaning its existence will have “no significant impact” on the environment surrounding it.
The most recent letter, though, asks for more information.
“Basically, they said the groundwater and environmental baseline data they collected was not the most recent information,” Hilary White, SMA’s executive director, said. “We’re thrilled with what we did get.”
Sheep Mountain didn’t get it all it wanted, however: Ever since the Department of Energy’s decision more than two years ago to re-open the federal uranium leasing program in the Uravan Mineral Belt — which sowed the seeds of the Manhattan Project — environmental groups have been asking for a comprehensive analysis of mining’s cumulative impacts rather than case-by-case reviews. The BLM, in this case, found a wholesale review of mining’s broad effects was unnecessary.
White says the environmental groups are still trying to get such a review through different cases.
In the summer of 2007, the Department of Energy also announced its intent to renew 13 active leases in southwest Colorado for 10 years, effectively rolling out the welcome mat for mining companies.
“If we just sit idly by and leave it up to the government and public land agencies … the public safety and environment is not fully protected,” White said. ‘It’s very important that there is ongoing … large amounts of scrutiny by private parties to question the government approval process.”
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/09/26/news/doc4abc17ca0cf29638841724.txt
By Matthew Beaudin
Published: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:12 AM CDT
Environmental groups won a victory against the revving uranium industry last week when the US Department of the Interior halted an increase in mining near Naturita and sent the mining company to the field for more data.
In a letter remanding a standing approval for expansion — won over the winter — Lynn E. Rust, the deputy state director in the BLM’s Energy, Land and Minerals division, told Denison Mines Corporation that “This mine permit analysis should rely on the best available data, not simply on the data submitted, if better data can readily be obtained.”
Sheep Mountain Alliance and other groups filed a complaint with the state, asking for the approval to be stricken down or, at least, remanded. They got the latter.
Mining under the initial permit is allowed to continue, “but updated monitoring should occur under that dated permit,” Rust wrote.
The initial approval gave the Canada-based Denison Mines Corporation permission to expand its existing mining operations in the Big Gypsum Valley. New activities at the Sunday Mining complex would have included the expansion of waste rock areas and the addition of vent holes along with access roads and additional drilling. It would have increased land disturbance from 80 to 100 acres.
In an earlier review of the project, Jamie Sellar-Baker, the Dolores Public Lands Office associate manager, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for the project, meaning its existence will have “no significant impact” on the environment surrounding it.
The most recent letter, though, asks for more information.
“Basically, they said the groundwater and environmental baseline data they collected was not the most recent information,” Hilary White, SMA’s executive director, said. “We’re thrilled with what we did get.”
Sheep Mountain didn’t get it all it wanted, however: Ever since the Department of Energy’s decision more than two years ago to re-open the federal uranium leasing program in the Uravan Mineral Belt — which sowed the seeds of the Manhattan Project — environmental groups have been asking for a comprehensive analysis of mining’s cumulative impacts rather than case-by-case reviews. The BLM, in this case, found a wholesale review of mining’s broad effects was unnecessary.
White says the environmental groups are still trying to get such a review through different cases.
In the summer of 2007, the Department of Energy also announced its intent to renew 13 active leases in southwest Colorado for 10 years, effectively rolling out the welcome mat for mining companies.
“If we just sit idly by and leave it up to the government and public land agencies … the public safety and environment is not fully protected,” White said. ‘It’s very important that there is ongoing … large amounts of scrutiny by private parties to question the government approval process.”
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/09/26/news/doc4abc17ca0cf29638841724.txt
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cañon City uranium contamination looms over Montrose mill battle
By David O. Williams 9/25/09 8:39 AM
MONTROSE — For many in Montrose County and surrounding counties and communities in Southwest Colorado, the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill really is a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.
But for residents of Cañon City area, some of whom made the long trip to a special-use permit hearing in Montrose earlier this month, declaring “not in my back yard” could have spared them decades of health problems associated with the metal the Navajo Indians call “yellow death.”
Rebecca Lorenz of Colorado Springs was one of the attorneys who in the 1990s convinced two separate federal juries to award Cañon City area residents millions in damages stemming from radiation poisoning produced by Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Lincoln Park that was declared an EPA Superfund Cleanup site.
At a hearing before the Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, Lorenz read a laundry list of illnesses stemming from Cotter Corp. uranium processing that began in the 1950s and ran well into the 1980s: cancer, arthritis, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects and learning disabilities, to name a few.
She urged the commissioners to consider those considerable health risks before approving a special-use permit on Sept. 30 for a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, which wants to process uranium ore in far western Montrose County in the Paradox Valley between Bedrock and Naturita.
Cañon City resident Sharon Cunningham also made the long drive to Montrose, telling the commissioners that “ore from this area and tailings are less than a mile from my house.” She related the story of Cotter Corp. chemist Lynn Boughton, who worked at the Cañon City mill for decades and fought Cotter and Pinnacle Insurance for years to secure a settlement after contracting cancer.
Cotter Corp.’s Glen Williams also attended the hearing, acknowledging his company’s problems processing ore near Cañon City. But he said technology has changed dramatically since the state’s uranium-mining heyday, and he urged the commissioners to approve the Paradox Valley mill so mines Cotter still owns and operates in the area will have a much closer processing facility. Milling involves leaching uranium ore with sulfuric acid to produce uranium oxide, or yellow cake, which can then be converted into fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
“The [Paradox Valley] area is nice, but this county was built on natural resources,” Williams said.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels, said Cañon City is ancient history in his industry, with Cotter using unlined tailings ponds that led to groundwater contamination.
“You just can’t use [tailings] for sandboxes the way they were in the ’50s and ’60s, but comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous,” Filas said, adding his company will use state-of-the-art, double-lined ponds in the Paradox Valley.
Montrose internal medicine specialist Dr. Christine Gieszl and others cited numerous federal studies and a 2007 Colorado Medical Society (CMS) finding that uranium mining and milling pose a major public health risk. But Filas discounted the CMS decision.
“Our feeling is that decision was mostly political based on opposition to Powertech in Weld County,” Filas said, referring to a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins that has now been opposed by the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Ault, Wellington, Timnath and Nunn, according to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
There are a number of other concerns associated with a revival of Colorado’s uranium mining industry to meet a growing call for carbon-free nuclear power in the United States and around the world, including transportation of ore and other mining materials on two-lane mountain roads.
The Montrose County commissioners have finished taking public testimony on the proposed mill and appear ready to make a decision at their next hearing on the proposal, set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30, at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
http://coloradoindependent.com/38522/canon-city-uranium-contamination-looms-over-montrose-mill-battle
MONTROSE — For many in Montrose County and surrounding counties and communities in Southwest Colorado, the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill really is a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.
But for residents of Cañon City area, some of whom made the long trip to a special-use permit hearing in Montrose earlier this month, declaring “not in my back yard” could have spared them decades of health problems associated with the metal the Navajo Indians call “yellow death.”
Rebecca Lorenz of Colorado Springs was one of the attorneys who in the 1990s convinced two separate federal juries to award Cañon City area residents millions in damages stemming from radiation poisoning produced by Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Lincoln Park that was declared an EPA Superfund Cleanup site.
At a hearing before the Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, Lorenz read a laundry list of illnesses stemming from Cotter Corp. uranium processing that began in the 1950s and ran well into the 1980s: cancer, arthritis, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects and learning disabilities, to name a few.
She urged the commissioners to consider those considerable health risks before approving a special-use permit on Sept. 30 for a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, which wants to process uranium ore in far western Montrose County in the Paradox Valley between Bedrock and Naturita.
Cañon City resident Sharon Cunningham also made the long drive to Montrose, telling the commissioners that “ore from this area and tailings are less than a mile from my house.” She related the story of Cotter Corp. chemist Lynn Boughton, who worked at the Cañon City mill for decades and fought Cotter and Pinnacle Insurance for years to secure a settlement after contracting cancer.
Cotter Corp.’s Glen Williams also attended the hearing, acknowledging his company’s problems processing ore near Cañon City. But he said technology has changed dramatically since the state’s uranium-mining heyday, and he urged the commissioners to approve the Paradox Valley mill so mines Cotter still owns and operates in the area will have a much closer processing facility. Milling involves leaching uranium ore with sulfuric acid to produce uranium oxide, or yellow cake, which can then be converted into fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
“The [Paradox Valley] area is nice, but this county was built on natural resources,” Williams said.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels, said Cañon City is ancient history in his industry, with Cotter using unlined tailings ponds that led to groundwater contamination.
“You just can’t use [tailings] for sandboxes the way they were in the ’50s and ’60s, but comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous,” Filas said, adding his company will use state-of-the-art, double-lined ponds in the Paradox Valley.
Montrose internal medicine specialist Dr. Christine Gieszl and others cited numerous federal studies and a 2007 Colorado Medical Society (CMS) finding that uranium mining and milling pose a major public health risk. But Filas discounted the CMS decision.
“Our feeling is that decision was mostly political based on opposition to Powertech in Weld County,” Filas said, referring to a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins that has now been opposed by the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Ault, Wellington, Timnath and Nunn, according to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
There are a number of other concerns associated with a revival of Colorado’s uranium mining industry to meet a growing call for carbon-free nuclear power in the United States and around the world, including transportation of ore and other mining materials on two-lane mountain roads.
The Montrose County commissioners have finished taking public testimony on the proposed mill and appear ready to make a decision at their next hearing on the proposal, set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30, at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
http://coloradoindependent.com/38522/canon-city-uranium-contamination-looms-over-montrose-mill-battle
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
No to uranium mining: Tribes set meeting in N.M. next month
Sep 22
Indigenous Peoples from all over North America will converge at Acoma Pueblo next month to join in an inter-tribal campaign to end the latest uranium boom threatening communities throughout Indian Country, Kathy Helms of the Gallup (N.M.) Independent’s Dine bureau reports here.
The 7th Indigenous Uranium Forum will take place Oct. 22-24 in Acoma Pueblo at Sky City Hotel. The Forum began 22 years ago with a series of conferences on the environmental and health impacts of uranium development in the Grants Mineral Belt in New Mexico. And, as Helms writes, it’s grown into a vehicle for strategy development and coordination of communities affected along the entire lifeline of nuclear power – from uranium mining in the Grants Mineral Belt to nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain.
Forum organizer Anna Rondon says the present political climate is perfect for organizing nationally. “For the first time in 60 years, indigenous peoples in North America have the greatest opportunity to stop further uranium/nuclear development and to promote renewable energy,” she says.
Gwen Florio
http://buffalopost.net/?p=3129
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Russia’s ARMZ Says It’s in Talks With Areva on Africa Projects
Comment: Watch our Africa, the Uranium mining bullies will be coming to steal your land and ruin your lives for the price of greed!
By Yuriy Humber
Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., the Russian state-run miner of the radioactive metal, said it’s in talks with Areva SA to jointly develop deposits in Africa, where a fifth of the world’s uranium is located.
The companies want to tap fields in Namibia, among other African nations, because of the region’s low-cost, under- explored deposits, Dmitry Shulga, head of investor relations at Moscow-based ARMZ, said by phone today. The next round of talks is set for October, he said. Patricia Marie, a spokeswoman for state-run Areva, declined to comment on any talks with ARMZ.
“Talks are underway,” Shulga said. “I would not limit things to Namibia. The continent as a whole has a lot of potential. It is highly under-explored. There may be deposits there that will surprise the world.”
France, which relies on nuclear energy more than any other nation, and Russia are seeking to secure more uranium supply as China and India accelerate growth of atomic power generation. The Asian countries each hold 1 percent of recoverable uranium, compared with 8 percent in South Africa and 5 percent each in Namibia and Niger, the International Atomic Energy Agency says.
Areva spent $2.5 billion in 2007 to buy UraMin Inc., which operates Namibia’s biggest mine at Trekkopje, and has expanded in Niger. Namibia overtook Niger as Africa’s biggest uranium miner in 2008. “We have attractive projects and many utilities want to work with us to secure their supply,” Marie said.
Kazakhstan to Australia
ARMZ, which agreed in June to buy a stake in Toronto-based Uranium One Inc. to gain resources from Kazakhstan to Australia, is cultivating partnerships to widen supply. The company has an accord with Mitsui & Co. to assess mining in Russia’s Far East and a Canadian exploration venture with Cameco Corp.
Rosatom Corp., the parent company of ARMZ, has held talks with BHP Billiton Ltd. since 2006 on expanding its Olympic Dam site, the world’s biggest uranium mine.
“Africa is interesting for us in that it has places where no one has really looked,” Shulga said. “We’re open to partnerships and not just with Areva.” ARMZ will seek alliances with companies of “similar” size, technological levels and goals, rather than start-up exploration ventures, he said.
Canada is the world’s largest uranium mining state.
To contact the reporters on this story: Yuriy Humber in Moscow at yhumber@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: September 15, 2009 10:34 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aFh_Oki5lSJE
By Yuriy Humber
Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., the Russian state-run miner of the radioactive metal, said it’s in talks with Areva SA to jointly develop deposits in Africa, where a fifth of the world’s uranium is located.
The companies want to tap fields in Namibia, among other African nations, because of the region’s low-cost, under- explored deposits, Dmitry Shulga, head of investor relations at Moscow-based ARMZ, said by phone today. The next round of talks is set for October, he said. Patricia Marie, a spokeswoman for state-run Areva, declined to comment on any talks with ARMZ.
“Talks are underway,” Shulga said. “I would not limit things to Namibia. The continent as a whole has a lot of potential. It is highly under-explored. There may be deposits there that will surprise the world.”
France, which relies on nuclear energy more than any other nation, and Russia are seeking to secure more uranium supply as China and India accelerate growth of atomic power generation. The Asian countries each hold 1 percent of recoverable uranium, compared with 8 percent in South Africa and 5 percent each in Namibia and Niger, the International Atomic Energy Agency says.
Areva spent $2.5 billion in 2007 to buy UraMin Inc., which operates Namibia’s biggest mine at Trekkopje, and has expanded in Niger. Namibia overtook Niger as Africa’s biggest uranium miner in 2008. “We have attractive projects and many utilities want to work with us to secure their supply,” Marie said.
Kazakhstan to Australia
ARMZ, which agreed in June to buy a stake in Toronto-based Uranium One Inc. to gain resources from Kazakhstan to Australia, is cultivating partnerships to widen supply. The company has an accord with Mitsui & Co. to assess mining in Russia’s Far East and a Canadian exploration venture with Cameco Corp.
Rosatom Corp., the parent company of ARMZ, has held talks with BHP Billiton Ltd. since 2006 on expanding its Olympic Dam site, the world’s biggest uranium mine.
“Africa is interesting for us in that it has places where no one has really looked,” Shulga said. “We’re open to partnerships and not just with Areva.” ARMZ will seek alliances with companies of “similar” size, technological levels and goals, rather than start-up exploration ventures, he said.
Canada is the world’s largest uranium mining state.
To contact the reporters on this story: Yuriy Humber in Moscow at yhumber@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: September 15, 2009 10:34 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aFh_Oki5lSJE
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Past health problems need not be repeated in uranium mining
Article Last Updated; Sunday, September 06, 2009
George Glasier, a local rancher in Montrose County with experience in previous uranium businesses, announced that he was planning to open a new uranium mill near Naturita to supply the rapidly expanding overseas nuclear reactor markets. The new mill would be the basis for a major restart of uranium mining in Western Colorado. As expected, the local residents have expressed mixed reactions about a possible uranium business startup.
The Durango Herald published a series of four articles about the controversies surrounding the plan, providing much useful information (Aug. 9 to Aug. 12). But if the major concern is the possibility that the detrimental health effects from radiation exposure found in the previous uranium mining efforts will be repeated in any new startup, then the coverage was incomplete and, in certain cases, misleading.
Left out of the discussion was any reference to the extreme urgency that motivated both the development of a nuclear bomb, and the subsequent weapons race with the Soviet Union, that the early uranium mining was required to support. Historians have identified urgency as the cause of many of the previous health problems because it demanded action rather than caution when faced with radiation levels of undetermined lethality.
The urgency was driven by those scientists who had recently escaped from Germany and were intimately aware that those who remained behind knew as much about how to build a nuclear weapon as they did. They also understood, more than most, that the destructiveness of the weapon they were racing to develop would allow the first country that was successful to win the war. The fact that the Germans never fully implemented their knowledge was not discovered until after the war was over.
The urgency continued into the arms race because of the need to match Soviet production levels in order to maintain a deterrent against a surprise attack. It is important to acknowledge the role urgency played in causing radiation illnesses because that type of pressure will not be involved in mining and milling uranium to support generating electricity.
The most important omission from the Herald coverage, however, was the evidence about radiation health effects obtained by the National Academy of Sciences' Radiation Effects Research Foundation. The foundation studied 50 years of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and its final report was published in 1999.
The findings allowed the government, for the first time, to set specific and reliable safe levels for radiation exposure. By emphasizing past mistakes and oversights, and not how those mistakes could be prevented given new information about radiation risks, the Herald articles exaggerated the possibility that health problems of the past could happen again in any startup of uranium mining.
The foundation results showed indications of cancer are clear-cut only above 200,000 millirems lifetime exposure, although there is weaker evidence down to about 100,000 millirems. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set a safe level, over and above background levels, of 500 millirems per year. The background radiation in Colorado can reach 600 millirems per year in some locations. So, the safe level in the state would be 1,100 millirems per year. Dividing 1,100 millirems into 100,000 millirems lifetime limit (the lower boundary before any observed health damage from cancer would occur) shows it would take 91 years of continuous exposure in a mine or a mill for a worker to reach that unsafe level. These days, uranium workers are required to be equipped with radiation exposure meters to insure that safe levels are not exceeded.
One other finding about radiation protection, not well described in the articles, concerns the progress that has been made to reduce the incidences of lung cancer. When it was determined the major cause was breathing radon gas, the obvious protection was to reduce the levels of that gas through ventilation. Today, radon can be reduced in mines through improved ventilation systems to the level the NRC recommends safe for homes.
Finally, the Herald articles reported, "The Academy of Sciences says no level of radiation is completely safe. Even a small dose leads to a small increase in the risk for cancer". That interpretation of what the academy has reported is misleading. Virtually all the evidence of stochastic risks from very low radiation doses comes from straight-line extrapolations from much higher doses and not from direct observation of low-dose effects.
There have been many attempts to determine risk through direct observations by studying populations that receive dose rates moderately higher than normal. In no case have those studies shown unambiguous evidence of harmful effects. While the lack of harm found so far does not allow science to conclude that low-level radiation is safe under all conditions, it sends a warning to be skeptical of the risks from low-doses obtained from straight-line extrapolations from high doses.
There are undoubtedly many reasons why people wish to support or oppose current attempts to restart uranium mining in Western Colorado. But if anyone is planning to base their opposition on the fear that health effects like those experienced in the previous uranium boom will be repeated, the argument will be a hard sell. Specific information about the effects of radiation at different dose-levels, and new regulations and procedures to protect both uranium workers and the public from unsafe radiation exposure, can be used to demonstrate past harms need not be repeated.
Garth Buchanan holds a doctorate in applied science and has 35 years of experience in operations research.
Reach him at gbuch@frontier.net.
http://durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/2009/09/06/Past_health_problems_need_not_be_repeated_in_uranium_mining/
George Glasier, a local rancher in Montrose County with experience in previous uranium businesses, announced that he was planning to open a new uranium mill near Naturita to supply the rapidly expanding overseas nuclear reactor markets. The new mill would be the basis for a major restart of uranium mining in Western Colorado. As expected, the local residents have expressed mixed reactions about a possible uranium business startup.
The Durango Herald published a series of four articles about the controversies surrounding the plan, providing much useful information (Aug. 9 to Aug. 12). But if the major concern is the possibility that the detrimental health effects from radiation exposure found in the previous uranium mining efforts will be repeated in any new startup, then the coverage was incomplete and, in certain cases, misleading.
Left out of the discussion was any reference to the extreme urgency that motivated both the development of a nuclear bomb, and the subsequent weapons race with the Soviet Union, that the early uranium mining was required to support. Historians have identified urgency as the cause of many of the previous health problems because it demanded action rather than caution when faced with radiation levels of undetermined lethality.
The urgency was driven by those scientists who had recently escaped from Germany and were intimately aware that those who remained behind knew as much about how to build a nuclear weapon as they did. They also understood, more than most, that the destructiveness of the weapon they were racing to develop would allow the first country that was successful to win the war. The fact that the Germans never fully implemented their knowledge was not discovered until after the war was over.
The urgency continued into the arms race because of the need to match Soviet production levels in order to maintain a deterrent against a surprise attack. It is important to acknowledge the role urgency played in causing radiation illnesses because that type of pressure will not be involved in mining and milling uranium to support generating electricity.
The most important omission from the Herald coverage, however, was the evidence about radiation health effects obtained by the National Academy of Sciences' Radiation Effects Research Foundation. The foundation studied 50 years of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and its final report was published in 1999.
The findings allowed the government, for the first time, to set specific and reliable safe levels for radiation exposure. By emphasizing past mistakes and oversights, and not how those mistakes could be prevented given new information about radiation risks, the Herald articles exaggerated the possibility that health problems of the past could happen again in any startup of uranium mining.
The foundation results showed indications of cancer are clear-cut only above 200,000 millirems lifetime exposure, although there is weaker evidence down to about 100,000 millirems. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set a safe level, over and above background levels, of 500 millirems per year. The background radiation in Colorado can reach 600 millirems per year in some locations. So, the safe level in the state would be 1,100 millirems per year. Dividing 1,100 millirems into 100,000 millirems lifetime limit (the lower boundary before any observed health damage from cancer would occur) shows it would take 91 years of continuous exposure in a mine or a mill for a worker to reach that unsafe level. These days, uranium workers are required to be equipped with radiation exposure meters to insure that safe levels are not exceeded.
One other finding about radiation protection, not well described in the articles, concerns the progress that has been made to reduce the incidences of lung cancer. When it was determined the major cause was breathing radon gas, the obvious protection was to reduce the levels of that gas through ventilation. Today, radon can be reduced in mines through improved ventilation systems to the level the NRC recommends safe for homes.
Finally, the Herald articles reported, "The Academy of Sciences says no level of radiation is completely safe. Even a small dose leads to a small increase in the risk for cancer". That interpretation of what the academy has reported is misleading. Virtually all the evidence of stochastic risks from very low radiation doses comes from straight-line extrapolations from much higher doses and not from direct observation of low-dose effects.
There have been many attempts to determine risk through direct observations by studying populations that receive dose rates moderately higher than normal. In no case have those studies shown unambiguous evidence of harmful effects. While the lack of harm found so far does not allow science to conclude that low-level radiation is safe under all conditions, it sends a warning to be skeptical of the risks from low-doses obtained from straight-line extrapolations from high doses.
There are undoubtedly many reasons why people wish to support or oppose current attempts to restart uranium mining in Western Colorado. But if anyone is planning to base their opposition on the fear that health effects like those experienced in the previous uranium boom will be repeated, the argument will be a hard sell. Specific information about the effects of radiation at different dose-levels, and new regulations and procedures to protect both uranium workers and the public from unsafe radiation exposure, can be used to demonstrate past harms need not be repeated.
Garth Buchanan holds a doctorate in applied science and has 35 years of experience in operations research.
Reach him at gbuch@frontier.net.
http://durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/2009/09/06/Past_health_problems_need_not_be_repeated_in_uranium_mining/
Marathon fight over what lies beneath the Flinders Ranges
Comment: No to uranium mining!
Pia Akerman and Michael Owen September 07, 2009
Article from: The Australian
SINCE the 1890s, the rolling mountains and red cliffs of the Flinders Ranges have drawn those seeking treasures below the earth.
In the 1930s, Antarctic explorer Douglas Mawson was struck by the geological promise of the harsh terrain, in particular an area known as Arkaroola, 700km north of Adelaide. Since then, mining has had a presence at Arkaroola even after the area was declared a wilderness sanctuary in the 1960s. During World War II, prospectors were bringing uranium out by camel.
But now, the prospect of Marathon Resources continuing to explore for uranium, like many miners before it, has got people worked up.
The anti-Marathon lobby is made up of an array of strange bedfellows including greenies, scientists, tourists and politicians - most notably federal Liberal heavyweight Nick Minchin, who, as resources minister, approved the nearby Beverley uranium mine. They are stepping up a campaign urging the Rann government not to let Marathon continue its work.
The company's mineral exploration licence is up for renewal next month and, with it, the controversy that first erupted when Marathon was caught illegally dumping uranium drilling waste in December 2007. Marathon's drilling program was indefinitely suspended by the state government last year, an action that will not be reviewed until at least the end of this year.
Pressure is mounting on the South Australian government not to let the company, once described by Premier Mike Rann as "cowboys", resume its activities.
Marg Sprigg and her brother Doug - owners of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and the hotel that sits within it, but not what lies under the ground - have led the charge. As flocks of grey nomads visit every year, they have a vested interest in keeping the area protected.
Ms Sprigg, a geologist like her father, denies she is anti-mining. She stresses how pleased the Spriggs were with the conduct of another mining company that explored Arkaroola in the late 1980s. "They did things properly, taking rigs and staff in and out by helicopter," she said. "That's 20 years ago, and you would think that 20 years on there would be more improvement in the way things are done."
Canadian backpacker Abbie Larose, 24, landed in Arkaroola in July, after three months travelling around the east coast. She is now working at the Spriggs's hotel to save money for further travel.
"This sort of area shouldn't be touched," she said. "It should be left as is for people to come and visit."
Peter Williams, chairman of Marathon Resources, acknowledges the sensitivity of Arkaroola and insists the South Australian-based company has a strategy to balance the competing needs of environmentalism and commercialism. "It is a very special area that is sensitive and we respect that - I do not want to do anything that would harm that in the long term," he said.
"In the meantime, it would be an heroic event if people on all sides considered that we could co-exist. It happens in other parts of the world: why can't we do it here?
"There's an enormous resource of uranium in that area that could be developed for our total good, for our benefit long-term."
Marathon, which is being advised by its board director and former Labor senator lobbyist Chris Schacht, as well as an environmental-specialist lobbyist firm, has paid more than $1.8million during the past three years for workers to stay at the Arkaroola hotel, which Mr Williams said was at the request of the Sprigg family.
"Marg Sprigg has been trenchant in her opposition to us but, by the same token, her father Reg encouraged mining and exploration in that place for many, many years - it has 240km of mining roads all over it," he said.
Arkaroola is believed to contain Australia's fifth-biggest undeveloped uranium deposit, but Marathon is confident it is far larger and is fighting for the right to establish the true extent of the resource.
For the Rann government, which has been busy in recent years promoting the state's looming mining boom, it is a tricky predicament to balance green concerns with what is potentially on offer.
Mr Williams said any mining venture would employ about 350 people and provide a royalty stream for the government of $50m a year for up to 15 years.
"Nobody knows the extent of the uranium deposit and that's what we feel we should be obliged to complete," he said. "We need to explore and prove it."
Marathon may forever be haunted by its mistake in dumping drill tailings in plastic bags, ore samples and rubbish at the site, a move uncovered 18 months ago.
The incident led to amendments to the state's Mining Act, which will be introduced into the South Australian parliament this month. Once the amendments are passed, the government will consider lifting an indefinite suspension on the company's drilling program.
Ms Sprigg hopes South Australia's Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway, whom she describes as "fantastic" for taking action against Marathon, will cancel the company's right to operate in the area, but she is not optimistic.
"When I spoke to Dick Smith about this, he said: 'Jeepers, it would be like mining the Grand Canyon. We wouldn't do it,"' Ms Sprigg said. "If exploration led to mining in Arkaroola, I just think it would be an appalling thing.
"All the values of the place - scenic, ecological - they are all so precious. Why do we have to mine everything? Why do we have to take a chance of affecting things?"
Mr Williams does not want to dwell on the illegal dumping of uranium, other than to say he "regrets what happened (and) we fixed it".
He accepts the opposition of environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society is one of principle and they will never be swayed to accept uranium mining in Arkaroola.
When it comes to Senator Minchin's view, Mr Williams understands it is purely personal, but he does not underestimate the experience the Howard government minister brings to a strategic political campaign against the company.
He said the level of politicking was a "recognition by lots of those people that this is a very large opportunity for the state".
"There could be enormous value lost to this state and the country if we don't give it every shot to have a look at it. I am happy to go along with the debate until we resolve the issue as to whether we can mine it or not," Mr Williams said. Yet the Spriggs say they are galvanised in their opposition because of a promise their geologist father, Reg, made to Mawson 70 years ago.
Mawson asked Dr Sprigg, who was then heavily involved in early studies of the surrounding mountains, to ensure Arkaroola was protected for future generations. That promise helped prompt Dr Sprigg to buy Arkaroola in 1967 and turn it into a wilderness sanctuary.
Senator Minchin, a conservative factional powerbroker, provided commonwealth authorisation for the Beverly uranium mine in South Australia to proceed when a Howard government resources minister. He is the first to admit his alliance with the Greens against Marathon is an unlikely one.
But he has been a regular visitor to Arkaroola for the past 20 years and is focused on achieving a ban on further exploration and mining in the wilderness sanctuary, despite the potential economic benefits.
"There is nothing more damaging to South Australia than to put a uranium mine in Arkaroola, and I have been a long-term supporter of uranium mining in principle," Senator Minchin said. "But I do not support mining at any cost."
Mr Williams denies this is the approach Marathon would take.
"It takes time to work all these things out - we need to do some exploration work and then all the alternatives in mining are determined," he said.
In the meantime, the PR battle will rage on.
Mr Williams said he believed Marathon had the Rann government's "full support".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26036377-5005200,00.html
Pia Akerman and Michael Owen September 07, 2009
Article from: The Australian
SINCE the 1890s, the rolling mountains and red cliffs of the Flinders Ranges have drawn those seeking treasures below the earth.
In the 1930s, Antarctic explorer Douglas Mawson was struck by the geological promise of the harsh terrain, in particular an area known as Arkaroola, 700km north of Adelaide. Since then, mining has had a presence at Arkaroola even after the area was declared a wilderness sanctuary in the 1960s. During World War II, prospectors were bringing uranium out by camel.
But now, the prospect of Marathon Resources continuing to explore for uranium, like many miners before it, has got people worked up.
The anti-Marathon lobby is made up of an array of strange bedfellows including greenies, scientists, tourists and politicians - most notably federal Liberal heavyweight Nick Minchin, who, as resources minister, approved the nearby Beverley uranium mine. They are stepping up a campaign urging the Rann government not to let Marathon continue its work.
The company's mineral exploration licence is up for renewal next month and, with it, the controversy that first erupted when Marathon was caught illegally dumping uranium drilling waste in December 2007. Marathon's drilling program was indefinitely suspended by the state government last year, an action that will not be reviewed until at least the end of this year.
Pressure is mounting on the South Australian government not to let the company, once described by Premier Mike Rann as "cowboys", resume its activities.
Marg Sprigg and her brother Doug - owners of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and the hotel that sits within it, but not what lies under the ground - have led the charge. As flocks of grey nomads visit every year, they have a vested interest in keeping the area protected.
Ms Sprigg, a geologist like her father, denies she is anti-mining. She stresses how pleased the Spriggs were with the conduct of another mining company that explored Arkaroola in the late 1980s. "They did things properly, taking rigs and staff in and out by helicopter," she said. "That's 20 years ago, and you would think that 20 years on there would be more improvement in the way things are done."
Canadian backpacker Abbie Larose, 24, landed in Arkaroola in July, after three months travelling around the east coast. She is now working at the Spriggs's hotel to save money for further travel.
"This sort of area shouldn't be touched," she said. "It should be left as is for people to come and visit."
Peter Williams, chairman of Marathon Resources, acknowledges the sensitivity of Arkaroola and insists the South Australian-based company has a strategy to balance the competing needs of environmentalism and commercialism. "It is a very special area that is sensitive and we respect that - I do not want to do anything that would harm that in the long term," he said.
"In the meantime, it would be an heroic event if people on all sides considered that we could co-exist. It happens in other parts of the world: why can't we do it here?
"There's an enormous resource of uranium in that area that could be developed for our total good, for our benefit long-term."
Marathon, which is being advised by its board director and former Labor senator lobbyist Chris Schacht, as well as an environmental-specialist lobbyist firm, has paid more than $1.8million during the past three years for workers to stay at the Arkaroola hotel, which Mr Williams said was at the request of the Sprigg family.
"Marg Sprigg has been trenchant in her opposition to us but, by the same token, her father Reg encouraged mining and exploration in that place for many, many years - it has 240km of mining roads all over it," he said.
Arkaroola is believed to contain Australia's fifth-biggest undeveloped uranium deposit, but Marathon is confident it is far larger and is fighting for the right to establish the true extent of the resource.
For the Rann government, which has been busy in recent years promoting the state's looming mining boom, it is a tricky predicament to balance green concerns with what is potentially on offer.
Mr Williams said any mining venture would employ about 350 people and provide a royalty stream for the government of $50m a year for up to 15 years.
"Nobody knows the extent of the uranium deposit and that's what we feel we should be obliged to complete," he said. "We need to explore and prove it."
Marathon may forever be haunted by its mistake in dumping drill tailings in plastic bags, ore samples and rubbish at the site, a move uncovered 18 months ago.
The incident led to amendments to the state's Mining Act, which will be introduced into the South Australian parliament this month. Once the amendments are passed, the government will consider lifting an indefinite suspension on the company's drilling program.
Ms Sprigg hopes South Australia's Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway, whom she describes as "fantastic" for taking action against Marathon, will cancel the company's right to operate in the area, but she is not optimistic.
"When I spoke to Dick Smith about this, he said: 'Jeepers, it would be like mining the Grand Canyon. We wouldn't do it,"' Ms Sprigg said. "If exploration led to mining in Arkaroola, I just think it would be an appalling thing.
"All the values of the place - scenic, ecological - they are all so precious. Why do we have to mine everything? Why do we have to take a chance of affecting things?"
Mr Williams does not want to dwell on the illegal dumping of uranium, other than to say he "regrets what happened (and) we fixed it".
He accepts the opposition of environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society is one of principle and they will never be swayed to accept uranium mining in Arkaroola.
When it comes to Senator Minchin's view, Mr Williams understands it is purely personal, but he does not underestimate the experience the Howard government minister brings to a strategic political campaign against the company.
He said the level of politicking was a "recognition by lots of those people that this is a very large opportunity for the state".
"There could be enormous value lost to this state and the country if we don't give it every shot to have a look at it. I am happy to go along with the debate until we resolve the issue as to whether we can mine it or not," Mr Williams said. Yet the Spriggs say they are galvanised in their opposition because of a promise their geologist father, Reg, made to Mawson 70 years ago.
Mawson asked Dr Sprigg, who was then heavily involved in early studies of the surrounding mountains, to ensure Arkaroola was protected for future generations. That promise helped prompt Dr Sprigg to buy Arkaroola in 1967 and turn it into a wilderness sanctuary.
Senator Minchin, a conservative factional powerbroker, provided commonwealth authorisation for the Beverly uranium mine in South Australia to proceed when a Howard government resources minister. He is the first to admit his alliance with the Greens against Marathon is an unlikely one.
But he has been a regular visitor to Arkaroola for the past 20 years and is focused on achieving a ban on further exploration and mining in the wilderness sanctuary, despite the potential economic benefits.
"There is nothing more damaging to South Australia than to put a uranium mine in Arkaroola, and I have been a long-term supporter of uranium mining in principle," Senator Minchin said. "But I do not support mining at any cost."
Mr Williams denies this is the approach Marathon would take.
"It takes time to work all these things out - we need to do some exploration work and then all the alternatives in mining are determined," he said.
In the meantime, the PR battle will rage on.
Mr Williams said he believed Marathon had the Rann government's "full support".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26036377-5005200,00.html
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Virginia Uranium to fund state study 18-month study will cost $1.2 million
Comment: The Uranium Study should not be pay for by VUI! Letting a Profit Corporation called Virginia Uranium Inc (really a Canadian Uranium Corporation) pay the so call study in country terms is called, "Fox in charge of the Hen House theory"! I love Mr. Kilgore comment, ""I just wanted to visualize what we've been talking about," he said. “ It's way out away from anything." Really??? The major water resource for Southern Virginia and the watershed lake systems feeding Virginia Beach area where the Navy is stationed, Langley Air Force Base, Raleigh-Durham, NC area (major business of Research Triangle Park, Duke Medical Center, the gov't seat of North Carolina, Duke University, North Carolina State University) down east North Carolina which is only 20-50 miles away! In addition, the county seat of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Mr. Kilgore looks at a map! Schools, people farms, people homes will be able to look down in the open pit uranium mining! People of Virginia, demand this money to be stop for the study now, demand the state of Virginia to ban uranium mining now or we will lose our health, our water, our homes and our land for the greedy Canadian uranium company!
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:58 AM EDT
The question over who will fund a study on uranium mining has been resolved.
Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, said Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study, which is expected to take about 18 months, will cost an estimated $1.2 million, Kilgore said.
The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg has agreed to serve as a repository for the funding.
Kilgore said a formal contract between Virginia Tech and the National Academy of Sciences should be signed soon, with the study beginning in about 30 days.
The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Research Council, a respected institute that conducts research and advises government agencies.
It will help the commonwealth "determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."
No conflict
According to Kilgore, the academy has assured Virginia Tech that private funding will not influence the study.
"I don't think we have anything to worry about," he said. "The National Academy has a great reputation for being fair and up front."
Kilgore explored other avenues to underwrite the study, including state funding, but said the money just wasn't there.
"I wish we had other funding opportunities, but in these tough economic times it was just hard to find," the delegate said.
Virginia Uranium offered to pay for the study when it first announced plans two years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.
"Basically, that's what we've said all along," said chairman Walter Coles.
Coles doesn't see any conflict in having private industry fund the study.
"Groups do it all the time. States do it," he said. "They are scientists. Their reputation is at stake. It's too important."
'Pandora's Box'
Eloise Nenon of Chatham, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, questioned the legitimacy of a study funded by the uranium industry.
"Generally speaking, the money behind something influences it," said Nenon, adding the National Academy of Sciences is "quite strongly pro-nuclear."
"This is a red flag," she said.
Nenon has little faith in a study.
"It ignores the people, it ignores the community, the history and traditions, and what's important to people here," she said.
"What's important for Virginia Uranium may not be what's important for citizens. Our life is a lot more than science."
Frank Benson of Gretna agreed.
"It's a Pandora's Box," said Benson, another member of Southside Concerned Citizens. "It's going to pollute the water, air and soil.
"We're going to lose businesses and farming. If they don't wake up, this is going to be a ghost town."
Katie Whitehead, chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, said serious doubts remain about the study.
"We won't know if the National Academy of Sciences is willing to perform a study paid for solely by an interested party until someone representing Virginia sends the required letter formally requesting a study and officially identifying the funding source," she said.
"Only the National Research Council Governing Board has the authority to decide whether NAS does the study, and the board has not yet even considered the question."
Whitehead pointed out the academy's reputation depends on rigorous, thorough research, independence and objectivity, and on the avoidance of even the appearance of influence.
"The National Academies do not perform studies for private, for-profit corporations," she said.
"We don't know how the governing board will weigh the fact that the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has looked for a year and found no one other than the uranium industry willing to support the study - if support means paying for it."
'Signed, sealed, delivered'
Kilgore said Virginia Uranium will fund the scientific study, but not an in-depth look at the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.
A second study, which will address the effects of uranium mining on businesses, schools and the community, will be conducted by another organization and funded separately, the chairman said.
"We're hoping to get everything signed, sealed and delivered on the scientific, technical study," he said.
"As soon as we get this one nailed down, we plan to move on to the socioeconomic study."
Kilgore, who is from Scott County in far southwest Virginia, recently flew over Coles Hill on the way to a Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission meeting.
To satisfy his curiosity, the small plane landed in a field and Kilgore explored the site, one of the largest uranium deposit in the United States.
"I just wanted to visualize what we've been talking about," he said. "It's way out away from anything."
Final framework
The Coal and Energy Commission's Subcommittee on Uranium Mining voted 8-2 to approve a final framework for the uranium mining study in May.
The panel, chaired by Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, made public safety a top priority.
The study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing.
In particular, it will look at short- and long-term health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling and processing.
It also will identify uranium mining "best practices" worldwide, review global and national uranium market trends.
The academy, however, will not offer a recommendation on whether uranium mining should be permitted.
That decision will be left to the General Assembly, which placed a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit was discovered in the early 1980s by Marline Uranium Corp.
In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/02/chatham/news/news51.txt
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:58 AM EDT
The question over who will fund a study on uranium mining has been resolved.
Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, said Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences.
The study, which is expected to take about 18 months, will cost an estimated $1.2 million, Kilgore said.
The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg has agreed to serve as a repository for the funding.
Kilgore said a formal contract between Virginia Tech and the National Academy of Sciences should be signed soon, with the study beginning in about 30 days.
The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Research Council, a respected institute that conducts research and advises government agencies.
It will help the commonwealth "determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."
No conflict
According to Kilgore, the academy has assured Virginia Tech that private funding will not influence the study.
"I don't think we have anything to worry about," he said. "The National Academy has a great reputation for being fair and up front."
Kilgore explored other avenues to underwrite the study, including state funding, but said the money just wasn't there.
"I wish we had other funding opportunities, but in these tough economic times it was just hard to find," the delegate said.
Virginia Uranium offered to pay for the study when it first announced plans two years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.
"Basically, that's what we've said all along," said chairman Walter Coles.
Coles doesn't see any conflict in having private industry fund the study.
"Groups do it all the time. States do it," he said. "They are scientists. Their reputation is at stake. It's too important."
'Pandora's Box'
Eloise Nenon of Chatham, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, questioned the legitimacy of a study funded by the uranium industry.
"Generally speaking, the money behind something influences it," said Nenon, adding the National Academy of Sciences is "quite strongly pro-nuclear."
"This is a red flag," she said.
Nenon has little faith in a study.
"It ignores the people, it ignores the community, the history and traditions, and what's important to people here," she said.
"What's important for Virginia Uranium may not be what's important for citizens. Our life is a lot more than science."
Frank Benson of Gretna agreed.
"It's a Pandora's Box," said Benson, another member of Southside Concerned Citizens. "It's going to pollute the water, air and soil.
"We're going to lose businesses and farming. If they don't wake up, this is going to be a ghost town."
Katie Whitehead, chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, said serious doubts remain about the study.
"We won't know if the National Academy of Sciences is willing to perform a study paid for solely by an interested party until someone representing Virginia sends the required letter formally requesting a study and officially identifying the funding source," she said.
"Only the National Research Council Governing Board has the authority to decide whether NAS does the study, and the board has not yet even considered the question."
Whitehead pointed out the academy's reputation depends on rigorous, thorough research, independence and objectivity, and on the avoidance of even the appearance of influence.
"The National Academies do not perform studies for private, for-profit corporations," she said.
"We don't know how the governing board will weigh the fact that the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has looked for a year and found no one other than the uranium industry willing to support the study - if support means paying for it."
'Signed, sealed, delivered'
Kilgore said Virginia Uranium will fund the scientific study, but not an in-depth look at the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.
A second study, which will address the effects of uranium mining on businesses, schools and the community, will be conducted by another organization and funded separately, the chairman said.
"We're hoping to get everything signed, sealed and delivered on the scientific, technical study," he said.
"As soon as we get this one nailed down, we plan to move on to the socioeconomic study."
Kilgore, who is from Scott County in far southwest Virginia, recently flew over Coles Hill on the way to a Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission meeting.
To satisfy his curiosity, the small plane landed in a field and Kilgore explored the site, one of the largest uranium deposit in the United States.
"I just wanted to visualize what we've been talking about," he said. "It's way out away from anything."
Final framework
The Coal and Energy Commission's Subcommittee on Uranium Mining voted 8-2 to approve a final framework for the uranium mining study in May.
The panel, chaired by Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, made public safety a top priority.
The study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing.
In particular, it will look at short- and long-term health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling and processing.
It also will identify uranium mining "best practices" worldwide, review global and national uranium market trends.
The academy, however, will not offer a recommendation on whether uranium mining should be permitted.
That decision will be left to the General Assembly, which placed a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit was discovered in the early 1980s by Marline Uranium Corp.
In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/02/chatham/news/news51.txt
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Uranium's legacy
Aerial photo of NE Church Rock Mine, Photo: United Nuclear Corporation (UNC)
Comment: Please read all three articles about the problems that are still haunting our families out west from uranium mining more that 30-40 years ago. The uranium companies and the federal government just left the people out west with a uranium nightmare. Virginia is in bed with the French and the Canadians nuke bunch and will let them come to Virginia and ruin our countryside with open pit uranium mine plus a uranium mill and a bunch of nuke plants! People of Virginia, tell the so call Virginia leaders to ban uranium mining and milling NOW!
Comment: Please read all three articles about the problems that are still haunting our families out west from uranium mining more that 30-40 years ago. The uranium companies and the federal government just left the people out west with a uranium nightmare. Virginia is in bed with the French and the Canadians nuke bunch and will let them come to Virginia and ruin our countryside with open pit uranium mine plus a uranium mill and a bunch of nuke plants! People of Virginia, tell the so call Virginia leaders to ban uranium mining and milling NOW!
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
Red Water Pond Road residents prepare for relocation
CHURCHROCK — General Electric and its subsidiary United Nuclear Corp. are preparing to spend $5 million to remove about 97,000 cubic yards of radium-contaminated soil from around three households on Red Water Pond Road and an unnamed arroyo next to the former Northeast Churchrock Mine.
Seven Navajo families live in the three households, but for the next five months they are facing “relocation” to apartments in Gallup as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim removal action.
Northeast Churchrock Mine cleanup plan under fire
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
CHURCHROCK — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency presented its cleanup plan for Northeast Churchrock Mine to a lively group of concerned individuals and Navajo Environmental Protection Agency officials Tuesday evening at Churchrock Chapter House.
Andrew Bain, remedial project manager with EPA’s Superfund Division, fielded questions regarding its preferred cleanup alternative which calls for excavation of all mine waste soil and sediments exceeding 2.24 picocuries per gram of radium and consolidating them in a disposal cell on the United Nuclear Corp. mill site, or constructing a new cell at the mill.
Addressing Uranium Contaminationin the Navajo Nation
Northeast Church Rock Mine (NECR)
Gallup, New Mexico, NECR is the highest priority abandoned mine cleanup in the Navajo Nation. The mine adjoins the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) uranium mill site, a Superfund site managed jointly by EPA Region 6 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The mine is mostly on Navajo tribal trust land, while the mill is on private fee land. At the request of the Navajo Nation, EPA is using Superfund authority to investigate and clean up the NECR mine site, in coordination with the existing adjacent Superfund site clean up.
After identifying a large volume of radium-contaminated soil, in 2007 EPA took emergency action to remove 6,500 cubic yards of soils from around four residences with the highest contamination levels. EPA spent $990,000 on the excavation, and required UNC to safely dispose of the soils at an additional cost of $1.3 million.
To address the long-term threats from the NECR Mine, EPA developed a removal plan in spring 2008. EPA developed an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report that proposes potential remedies for the mine site and will hold a 30-day public comment period in the spring of 2009. A remedy will then be selected out of this process for the eventual mine cleanup.
For more information about Superfund activities at this site, see North East Church Rock Mine Cleanup.
http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/navajo-nation/ne-church-rock-mine.html
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
Red Water Pond Road residents prepare for relocation
CHURCHROCK — General Electric and its subsidiary United Nuclear Corp. are preparing to spend $5 million to remove about 97,000 cubic yards of radium-contaminated soil from around three households on Red Water Pond Road and an unnamed arroyo next to the former Northeast Churchrock Mine.
Seven Navajo families live in the three households, but for the next five months they are facing “relocation” to apartments in Gallup as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim removal action.
Northeast Churchrock Mine cleanup plan under fire
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau
CHURCHROCK — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency presented its cleanup plan for Northeast Churchrock Mine to a lively group of concerned individuals and Navajo Environmental Protection Agency officials Tuesday evening at Churchrock Chapter House.
Andrew Bain, remedial project manager with EPA’s Superfund Division, fielded questions regarding its preferred cleanup alternative which calls for excavation of all mine waste soil and sediments exceeding 2.24 picocuries per gram of radium and consolidating them in a disposal cell on the United Nuclear Corp. mill site, or constructing a new cell at the mill.
Addressing Uranium Contaminationin the Navajo Nation
Northeast Church Rock Mine (NECR)
Gallup, New Mexico, NECR is the highest priority abandoned mine cleanup in the Navajo Nation. The mine adjoins the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) uranium mill site, a Superfund site managed jointly by EPA Region 6 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The mine is mostly on Navajo tribal trust land, while the mill is on private fee land. At the request of the Navajo Nation, EPA is using Superfund authority to investigate and clean up the NECR mine site, in coordination with the existing adjacent Superfund site clean up.
After identifying a large volume of radium-contaminated soil, in 2007 EPA took emergency action to remove 6,500 cubic yards of soils from around four residences with the highest contamination levels. EPA spent $990,000 on the excavation, and required UNC to safely dispose of the soils at an additional cost of $1.3 million.
To address the long-term threats from the NECR Mine, EPA developed a removal plan in spring 2008. EPA developed an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report that proposes potential remedies for the mine site and will hold a 30-day public comment period in the spring of 2009. A remedy will then be selected out of this process for the eventual mine cleanup.
For more information about Superfund activities at this site, see North East Church Rock Mine Cleanup.
http://www.epa.gov/region09/superfund/navajo-nation/ne-church-rock-mine.html
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Don’t learn about (uranium) mining from industry
Comment: Great Letter!
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: August 25, 2009
To the editor:
The column, “Educate yourself about radiation,” (Aug. 16, page A11), convinced me to take that step and I checked the Internet site of the Central Virginia Community College in Lynchburg to see if I could enroll in the course which the author had taken.
After searching for a half-hour, I telephoned the college and asked for information on that specific course, giving the name from the article. The person with whom I spoke asked to let her do some checking and call me back.
The person called back and said all they could find was that in 2006 there was a weekend workshop for teachers at the college conducted by Areva that included that subject. I had to assume that was the course referred to in the column.
Areva has one of its plants located in Lynchburg, and the corporate Web site proclaims: “World leader in the design and construction of nuclear power plants, and the supply of fuel, maintenance and modernization services.” Also stated is the fact that Areva has almost a 40 percent market share in the manufacture of fuel for PWR and BWR reactors.
Since we are to educate ourselves, apparently from industry sources such as Areva, on the dangers of uranium mining, may I recommend, from the World Nuclear Association Symposium Proceedings, a technical paper entitled, “Waste Management in Uranium Mining Industry” by Stan Frost, who was, at the time of presentation, a vice president of Cameco Corp., Canada. Cameco is major producer of, among other products, nuclear power plant fuel.
Another such educational source is the copy of the Cameco corporate newspaper, “The Community Forum,” for October 2007. This discusses the discovery of uranium and arsenic subsurface ground contamination at the Port Hope, Ontario, Canada, uranium hexafluoride conversion plant. It was proposed the groundwater would be pumped to the surface and decontaminated and some contaminated soil would be removed. Uranium mining does not ruin air and water “in a modern, properly managed uranium mining and milling operation”?
After reading these educational sources which bear dates in the last 10 years and which certainly did not take place in, to quote the column, “unregulated mining activities that occurred 30 to 50 years ago,” I find that education by uranium mining sources does not at all reassure me about uranium mining and milling taking place in Pittsylvania County.
HILDRED SHELTON
Danville
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/dont_learn_about_mining_from_industry/13433/
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: August 25, 2009
To the editor:
The column, “Educate yourself about radiation,” (Aug. 16, page A11), convinced me to take that step and I checked the Internet site of the Central Virginia Community College in Lynchburg to see if I could enroll in the course which the author had taken.
After searching for a half-hour, I telephoned the college and asked for information on that specific course, giving the name from the article. The person with whom I spoke asked to let her do some checking and call me back.
The person called back and said all they could find was that in 2006 there was a weekend workshop for teachers at the college conducted by Areva that included that subject. I had to assume that was the course referred to in the column.
Areva has one of its plants located in Lynchburg, and the corporate Web site proclaims: “World leader in the design and construction of nuclear power plants, and the supply of fuel, maintenance and modernization services.” Also stated is the fact that Areva has almost a 40 percent market share in the manufacture of fuel for PWR and BWR reactors.
Since we are to educate ourselves, apparently from industry sources such as Areva, on the dangers of uranium mining, may I recommend, from the World Nuclear Association Symposium Proceedings, a technical paper entitled, “Waste Management in Uranium Mining Industry” by Stan Frost, who was, at the time of presentation, a vice president of Cameco Corp., Canada. Cameco is major producer of, among other products, nuclear power plant fuel.
Another such educational source is the copy of the Cameco corporate newspaper, “The Community Forum,” for October 2007. This discusses the discovery of uranium and arsenic subsurface ground contamination at the Port Hope, Ontario, Canada, uranium hexafluoride conversion plant. It was proposed the groundwater would be pumped to the surface and decontaminated and some contaminated soil would be removed. Uranium mining does not ruin air and water “in a modern, properly managed uranium mining and milling operation”?
After reading these educational sources which bear dates in the last 10 years and which certainly did not take place in, to quote the column, “unregulated mining activities that occurred 30 to 50 years ago,” I find that education by uranium mining sources does not at all reassure me about uranium mining and milling taking place in Pittsylvania County.
HILDRED SHELTON
Danville
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/dont_learn_about_mining_from_industry/13433/
Monday, July 27, 2009
A US contamination from Uranium mining reality highlighted by the New York Times. Uranium Contamination Haunts Navajo Nation.
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 27th, 2009
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
Uranium Contamination Haunts Navajo Country
Dan Frosch, The New York Times, July 27, 2009.
“There were a lot of things people weren’t told about the plight of Navajos and uranium mining,” Stephen B. Etsitty said.
The Slowman home, the same one-level cinderblock structure his family had lived in for nearly a half-century, was contaminated with potentially dangerous levels of uranium from the days of the cold war, when hundreds of uranium mines dotted the vast tribal land known as the Navajo Nation. The scientist advised Mr. Slowman, his wife and their two sons to move out until their home could be rebuilt.
“I was angry,” Mr. Slowman said. “I guess it was here all this time, and we never knew.”
The legacy wrought from decades of uranium mining is long and painful here on the expansive reservation. Over the years, Navajo miners extracted some four million tons of uranium ore from the ground, much of it used by the United States government to make weapons.
Many miners died from radiation-related illnesses; some, unaware of harmful health effects, hauled contaminated rocks and tailings from local mines and mills to build homes for their families.
Now, those homes are being demolished and rebuilt under a new government program that seeks to identify what are very likely dozens of uranium-contaminated structures still standing on Navajo land and to temporarily relocate people living in them until the homes can be torn down and rebuilt.
Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, and other tribal officials have been grappling for years with the environmental fallout from uranium mining.
“There were a lot of things people weren’t told about the plight of Navajos and uranium mining,” Mr. Etsitty said. “These legacy issues are impacting generations. At some point people are saying, ‘It’s got to end.’ ”
After a Congressional hearing in 2007, a cross-section of federal agencies committed to addressing the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining on the reservation. As part of that commitment, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Navajo Nation began working together to assess uranium levels in 500 structures through a five-year plan set to end in 2012.
Using old lists of potentially contaminated structures, federal and Navajo scientists have fanned out to rural reaches of the 27,000 square mile reservation — which includes swaths of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah — to measure levels of radium, a decay product of uranium that can cause lung cancer. Of 113 structures assessed so far, 27 contained radiation levels that were above normal.
“In these situations, you have contamination in somebody’s yard or in their house,” said Harry Allen, the E.P.A.’s section chief for emergency response in San Francisco who is helping lead the government’s efforts. “To us, that is somewhat urgent.”
Many structures that showed high levels of radiation were vacant; some families had already moved out after hearing stories of contamination in their homes. But eight homes still had people living in them, and the E.P.A. and Navajo officials have worked to convince residents that it would be unsafe to stay.
“People had been told they were living in contaminated structures, but nobody ever did anything about it,” said Will Duncan, an environmental scientist who has been the E.P.A.’s main representative on the reservation. “They would tell us, ‘We don’t believe you are going to follow through.’ ”
But with a budget of nearly $8 million, the E.P.A. has demolished all 27 contaminated structures and has begun building ones to replace those that had been occupied. Typically, the agency pays a Navajo contracting company to construct a log cabin or a traditional hogan in the structure’s stead, depending on the wishes of the occupants. Mr. Allen said the cost, including temporarily relocating residents, ran approximately $260,000 per dwelling and took about eight months.
The agency also offers $50,000 to those who choose not to have an old home rebuilt.
Lillie Lane, a public information officer with the Navajo Nation E.P.A. who has acted as a liaison between the federal government and tribal members, said the program held practical and symbolic importance given the history of uranium mining here.
Ms. Lane described the difficulty of watching families, particularly elders, leaving homes they had lived in for years. She told of coming upon two old miners who died before their contaminated homes could be rebuilt. “In Navajo, a home is considered sacred,” she said. “But if the foundation or the rocks are not safe, we have to do this work.”
Some families, Ms. Lane said, complained that their children were suffering from health problems and had wondered if radiation were to blame.
The E.P.A. has started sifting through records and interviewing family members to figure out whether mining companies that once operated on the reservation are liable for any damages, Mr. Allen said.
On a recent summer day, Fred and Clara Slowman proudly surveyed their new home, a one-level log cabin that sits in the quiet shadows of Black Rock Point, miles away from the bustle of Farmington, N.M., where the family has been living in a hotel.
Mr. Slowman said he suspected that waste materials from a nearby abandoned mine seeped into his house. The family plans on having a traditional Navajo medicine man bless their dwelling before they move in.
“In our traditional way, a house is like your mom,” he said. “It’s where you eat, sleep, where you’re taken care of. And when you come back from the city, you come back to your mom. It makes you feel real good.”
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2009/07/27/a-us-contamination-from-uranium-mining-reality-highlighted-by-the-new-york-times/
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)
Uranium Contamination Haunts Navajo Country
Dan Frosch, The New York Times, July 27, 2009.
“There were a lot of things people weren’t told about the plight of Navajos and uranium mining,” Stephen B. Etsitty said.
The Slowman home, the same one-level cinderblock structure his family had lived in for nearly a half-century, was contaminated with potentially dangerous levels of uranium from the days of the cold war, when hundreds of uranium mines dotted the vast tribal land known as the Navajo Nation. The scientist advised Mr. Slowman, his wife and their two sons to move out until their home could be rebuilt.
“I was angry,” Mr. Slowman said. “I guess it was here all this time, and we never knew.”
The legacy wrought from decades of uranium mining is long and painful here on the expansive reservation. Over the years, Navajo miners extracted some four million tons of uranium ore from the ground, much of it used by the United States government to make weapons.
Many miners died from radiation-related illnesses; some, unaware of harmful health effects, hauled contaminated rocks and tailings from local mines and mills to build homes for their families.
Now, those homes are being demolished and rebuilt under a new government program that seeks to identify what are very likely dozens of uranium-contaminated structures still standing on Navajo land and to temporarily relocate people living in them until the homes can be torn down and rebuilt.
Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, and other tribal officials have been grappling for years with the environmental fallout from uranium mining.
“There were a lot of things people weren’t told about the plight of Navajos and uranium mining,” Mr. Etsitty said. “These legacy issues are impacting generations. At some point people are saying, ‘It’s got to end.’ ”
After a Congressional hearing in 2007, a cross-section of federal agencies committed to addressing the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining on the reservation. As part of that commitment, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Navajo Nation began working together to assess uranium levels in 500 structures through a five-year plan set to end in 2012.
Using old lists of potentially contaminated structures, federal and Navajo scientists have fanned out to rural reaches of the 27,000 square mile reservation — which includes swaths of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah — to measure levels of radium, a decay product of uranium that can cause lung cancer. Of 113 structures assessed so far, 27 contained radiation levels that were above normal.
“In these situations, you have contamination in somebody’s yard or in their house,” said Harry Allen, the E.P.A.’s section chief for emergency response in San Francisco who is helping lead the government’s efforts. “To us, that is somewhat urgent.”
Many structures that showed high levels of radiation were vacant; some families had already moved out after hearing stories of contamination in their homes. But eight homes still had people living in them, and the E.P.A. and Navajo officials have worked to convince residents that it would be unsafe to stay.
“People had been told they were living in contaminated structures, but nobody ever did anything about it,” said Will Duncan, an environmental scientist who has been the E.P.A.’s main representative on the reservation. “They would tell us, ‘We don’t believe you are going to follow through.’ ”
But with a budget of nearly $8 million, the E.P.A. has demolished all 27 contaminated structures and has begun building ones to replace those that had been occupied. Typically, the agency pays a Navajo contracting company to construct a log cabin or a traditional hogan in the structure’s stead, depending on the wishes of the occupants. Mr. Allen said the cost, including temporarily relocating residents, ran approximately $260,000 per dwelling and took about eight months.
The agency also offers $50,000 to those who choose not to have an old home rebuilt.
Lillie Lane, a public information officer with the Navajo Nation E.P.A. who has acted as a liaison between the federal government and tribal members, said the program held practical and symbolic importance given the history of uranium mining here.
Ms. Lane described the difficulty of watching families, particularly elders, leaving homes they had lived in for years. She told of coming upon two old miners who died before their contaminated homes could be rebuilt. “In Navajo, a home is considered sacred,” she said. “But if the foundation or the rocks are not safe, we have to do this work.”
Some families, Ms. Lane said, complained that their children were suffering from health problems and had wondered if radiation were to blame.
The E.P.A. has started sifting through records and interviewing family members to figure out whether mining companies that once operated on the reservation are liable for any damages, Mr. Allen said.
On a recent summer day, Fred and Clara Slowman proudly surveyed their new home, a one-level log cabin that sits in the quiet shadows of Black Rock Point, miles away from the bustle of Farmington, N.M., where the family has been living in a hotel.
Mr. Slowman said he suspected that waste materials from a nearby abandoned mine seeped into his house. The family plans on having a traditional Navajo medicine man bless their dwelling before they move in.
“In our traditional way, a house is like your mom,” he said. “It’s where you eat, sleep, where you’re taken care of. And when you come back from the city, you come back to your mom. It makes you feel real good.”
http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2009/07/27/a-us-contamination-from-uranium-mining-reality-highlighted-by-the-new-york-times/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Uranium tearing county apart
Comment: Great Letter!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:41 AM EDT
I grow weary of this constant belittling enveloping this county.
What happened to the days of "Hi Neighbor"?
We now have a large issue that makes most of us turn on one another. Over what? Money, jobs, maybe's.
Churches are torn apart, friendships are destroyed forever. Women cry and wring their hands. Many people don't know where to go or what to do.
The majority of people in this county do not want anything to do with this uranium! Check the numbers, please!
People write letters pro and con. Some say leave Walter Coles and Henry Bowen alone.
The people trying to stop this are non-progressive and trying to scare everyone.
Facts are facts. There is no safe processing mill in the world.
The people trying to stop this are not paid lobbyist giving out balloons to little children. These people are the backbone of this county, speaking for the majority of the county and trying to do whatever they can to save us all.
They are not big money people who buy what they want.
They are everyday people who bothered to educate themselves on uranium, who give their time, money and heart in trying to stop big money which once again is fooling the little guy into thinking they know what's best for us while they line pockets and spin their jargon of jobs and safety first.
When are we going to wise up and quit being puppets for the few and do what the majority of people want in their county?
Check the numbers, please!
Any man that causes harm (mental or physical) to so many people before what he wants is even off the ground is no man in my book.
You do not tear holes in churches. You do not turn neighbor against neighbor. You do not make grown women cry.
I don't care what the issue is. Moral upbringing, plain and flat should stop you in your tracks.
You are not excused for any of these things, no matter how much money you intend to give "your" church or think you can give to your community.
This is not about you, it is about us all. May God have mercy on your souls!
Check the numbers, please!
As for Smith Mountain Lake, how many people made money off of the lake, percentage wise throughout the county?
How many have died on Smith Mountain Lake? How many water battles have there been between Leesville Lake and Smith Mountain?
Finally, how many of you saw less taxes on your property because of the development on the lake?
What is Coles Hill really going to give you?
Check, the numbers, please!
Reality, not fantasy.
By the way, I believe in God, hunting, fishing. I do not throw thrash out my window, and I have never hugged a tree in my life!
Do I belittle? No, I speak from moral standards, love of neighbor.
Check the numbers, please!
Debra Towle
Chatham
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:41 AM EDT
I grow weary of this constant belittling enveloping this county.
What happened to the days of "Hi Neighbor"?
We now have a large issue that makes most of us turn on one another. Over what? Money, jobs, maybe's.
Churches are torn apart, friendships are destroyed forever. Women cry and wring their hands. Many people don't know where to go or what to do.
The majority of people in this county do not want anything to do with this uranium! Check the numbers, please!
People write letters pro and con. Some say leave Walter Coles and Henry Bowen alone.
The people trying to stop this are non-progressive and trying to scare everyone.
Facts are facts. There is no safe processing mill in the world.
The people trying to stop this are not paid lobbyist giving out balloons to little children. These people are the backbone of this county, speaking for the majority of the county and trying to do whatever they can to save us all.
They are not big money people who buy what they want.
They are everyday people who bothered to educate themselves on uranium, who give their time, money and heart in trying to stop big money which once again is fooling the little guy into thinking they know what's best for us while they line pockets and spin their jargon of jobs and safety first.
When are we going to wise up and quit being puppets for the few and do what the majority of people want in their county?
Check the numbers, please!
Any man that causes harm (mental or physical) to so many people before what he wants is even off the ground is no man in my book.
You do not tear holes in churches. You do not turn neighbor against neighbor. You do not make grown women cry.
I don't care what the issue is. Moral upbringing, plain and flat should stop you in your tracks.
You are not excused for any of these things, no matter how much money you intend to give "your" church or think you can give to your community.
This is not about you, it is about us all. May God have mercy on your souls!
Check the numbers, please!
As for Smith Mountain Lake, how many people made money off of the lake, percentage wise throughout the county?
How many have died on Smith Mountain Lake? How many water battles have there been between Leesville Lake and Smith Mountain?
Finally, how many of you saw less taxes on your property because of the development on the lake?
What is Coles Hill really going to give you?
Check, the numbers, please!
Reality, not fantasy.
By the way, I believe in God, hunting, fishing. I do not throw thrash out my window, and I have never hugged a tree in my life!
Do I belittle? No, I speak from moral standards, love of neighbor.
Check the numbers, please!
Debra Towle
Chatham
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt
County’s uranium question ignored
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: July 1, 2009
To the editor:
On Feb. 17, I went before the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ask that they update the zoning ordinance and explore the possibility of banning uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.
On May 28, Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper asked state Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, to request an “opinion” from the Attorney General. It read specifically, “On behalf of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, I am requesting an Attorney General’s opinion on whether or nor the County of Pittsylvania can pass an ordinance that would ban mining of uranium in its local jurisdiction.”
Sen. Hurt’s letter of June 3 responds to Sleeper stating that he had contacted the AG’s office regarding “the question of whether the County of Pittsylvania can adopt an ordinance that would ban uranium mining in its local jurisdiction.”
The attorney general’s office returned an opinion that had been rendered earlier regarding the adoption of a “chemical trespass ordinance,” an ordinance that had been adopted by the Halifax Town Council in Halifax County.
This is not the question for which an answer is sought. Our supervisors either missed the mark or aimed 180 degrees from the target regarding the question that should have been asked.
We have an existing local zoning ordinance. Can this ordinance be amended to better protect us regarding the mining and milling of uranium?
KAREN B. MAUTE
Mount Cross
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/countys_uranium_question_ignored/12193/
Published: July 1, 2009
To the editor:
On Feb. 17, I went before the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ask that they update the zoning ordinance and explore the possibility of banning uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.
On May 28, Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper asked state Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, to request an “opinion” from the Attorney General. It read specifically, “On behalf of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, I am requesting an Attorney General’s opinion on whether or nor the County of Pittsylvania can pass an ordinance that would ban mining of uranium in its local jurisdiction.”
Sen. Hurt’s letter of June 3 responds to Sleeper stating that he had contacted the AG’s office regarding “the question of whether the County of Pittsylvania can adopt an ordinance that would ban uranium mining in its local jurisdiction.”
The attorney general’s office returned an opinion that had been rendered earlier regarding the adoption of a “chemical trespass ordinance,” an ordinance that had been adopted by the Halifax Town Council in Halifax County.
This is not the question for which an answer is sought. Our supervisors either missed the mark or aimed 180 degrees from the target regarding the question that should have been asked.
We have an existing local zoning ordinance. Can this ordinance be amended to better protect us regarding the mining and milling of uranium?
KAREN B. MAUTE
Mount Cross
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/countys_uranium_question_ignored/12193/
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Uranium exploration amendment on agenda
Comment: We have been following the group: TAC because they are fighting uranium mining too!!! Our battle of fighting uranium mining should include the west and maybe the whole east coast if most Va leaders have their way!!Publish Date: 6/1/2009
Panel to consider prohibiting mining
Debbie Bell
The Daily Record
Uranium exploration and mining again are on tap for the Fremont County Planning Commission.
Panel to consider prohibiting mining
Debbie Bell
The Daily Record
Uranium exploration and mining again are on tap for the Fremont County Planning Commission.
The panel will meet Tuesday evening in regular session with an agenda that includes a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Fremont County Master Plan that would prohibit mining in certain areas of the county.
The amendment, submitted by the Tallahassee Area Community group, would prohibit mining in the “Mountain District” of Fremont County. That area covers about 500 square miles in the northern part of the county and another 250 square miles in the south-central part of the county.
TAC formed last year to protest uranium exploration and possible future mining in the Tallahassee area northwest of Cañon City. Lee Alter, chairman of TAC’s government affairs committee, will represent the group in presenting the Master Plan amendment.
In addition to the three-page amendment submitted by TAC, the group also offered its rationale and justification why the amendment should be adopted.
The panel typically does not conduct formal public hearings, but because one of the panel’s charges is to help draft and update the Master Plan, the formal hearing was scheduled.
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Commissioners Board Room, LL-3, at the County Administration Building, 615 Macon Ave.
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=10746
The amendment, submitted by the Tallahassee Area Community group, would prohibit mining in the “Mountain District” of Fremont County. That area covers about 500 square miles in the northern part of the county and another 250 square miles in the south-central part of the county.
TAC formed last year to protest uranium exploration and possible future mining in the Tallahassee area northwest of Cañon City. Lee Alter, chairman of TAC’s government affairs committee, will represent the group in presenting the Master Plan amendment.
In addition to the three-page amendment submitted by TAC, the group also offered its rationale and justification why the amendment should be adopted.
The panel typically does not conduct formal public hearings, but because one of the panel’s charges is to help draft and update the Master Plan, the formal hearing was scheduled.
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Commissioners Board Room, LL-3, at the County Administration Building, 615 Macon Ave.
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=10746
Friday, May 22, 2009
Uranium study Ok’d; Public-safety, health-impact items made top priority in final draft
Comment: Attention Pittsylvania County, VA people, you must demand our local leaders to draft an ordinance to ban uranium mining NOW or the State of Virginia will mine us, The state of VA, Canada and VUI want the money, they are a bunch of greedy, evil Corp., as you have read on this blog, NUKE Power is not needed, it is too expensive, too dangerous, NO TO URANIUM MINING!!!NOTE FROM GREGG: No Surprise that the "study" was approved. Notice that none of the articles about this deal with who is going to PAY for the study. Ultimately, we, the tax payer's will pay for this road map to put a private, for profit, Canadian corporation into business. This is the same as a bailout before the fact and will become a public financial burden after the fact when we, the people, will be required to monitor the radioactive site in perpetuity after the corporation takes it's profits and closes the site. When disaster strikes this site, and it will because of it's location and our weather, we, the people, will also be tasked with trying to mitigate the damages.
By John Crane
Published: May 21, 2009
RICHMOND — The uranium-mining study has begun. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, tasked with overseeing a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth, approved a revised final draft of the study Thursday.
But Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said he is disappointed with the decision. Marshall asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.
“We’re not in a hurry to do this,” Marshall said during an interview before the meeting.
Subcommittee members pressed ahead after taking public comment, rearranging and adding amendments to the study’s 11-item “statement of task” before approving it by an 8-2 vote. Delegate William Janis, R-56th District and Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-59th District, opposed.
One of the biggest alterations the subcommittee brought to the document was making the public-safety and health-impact items the top priority on the statement of task, moving them from No.7 on the list to No. 1. Reviewing global and national uranium market trends had been in the top spot.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.
Subcommittee members received an earful from uranium mining skeptics and opponents. More than 100 people attended the meeting and about 20 publicly commented.
Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said uranium mining and milling causes male sterility and would spell disaster for Pittsylvania County farmers.
“This is going to destroy agriculture,” Nenon said.
George Stanhope, an SCC member, said mining would send dust with low-level radiation into the Banister River heading toward Lake Gaston.
Mining opponent Phillip Lovelace told the subcommittee that if health is not the No.1 topic of the study, “I don’t want it.”
Lovelace said he is against lifting the moratorium on mining and milling uranium. If the state allows mining across the commonwealth, five major rivers will be contaminated in other parts of Virginia, he said. Major military installations would relocate from the state as a result, causing major damage to Virginia’s economy and leaving the commonwealth vulnerable to terrorists, he said.
“(If the moratorium is lifted) you’re putting the whole East Coast in jeopardy,” Lovelace said.
Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who represents the Staunton River District, said the subcommittee should make health, safety and the economic concerns of uranium mining its main focus.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” Ecker said.
Amanda Wydner, a Pittsylvania County native, said the study should address what uranium mining could portend for culture and quality of life in the area. Land values, population density and demographics should be measured and compared before and after mining. She said the study should find out how it will affect the area’s skyline, aesthetic appearance and reputation as a quaint Southern town, she said.
“How will the perception of Chatham change?” she said.
Some opponents also called for a site-specific study to examine areas similar to Pittsylvania County in geology, hydrology, climate and population density, and to find out how those regions were affected by mining.
“What we have heard here is a real strong desire to make clear that safety is our top priority,” said Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-44th District, a subcommittee member.
Amundson proposed moving the seventh item listed, addressing health and safety, under the statement of task to the top slot. The subcommittee unanimously approved the motion. Another motion from Amundson to amend language in part of the statement also passed unanimously.
Patrick Wales, a VUI geologist, spoke in favor of the study, saying that health and safety are important issues, and that he hopes uranium can be mined in a way that would protect citizens and the environment.
The subcommittee also green-lighted added language proposed by Abbitt that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density.
In response, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-7th District, proposed language stating that if negative consequences were found in those areas, then options would be presented by the National Research Council for elimination or mitigation of the effects. The language was approved.
Abbitt requested that the study include available methods for management of tailings to prevent or mitigate leachates (leakage). The motion failed 4-2.
As a result, Abbitt voted against approving the revised draft.
“I can’t vote for this,” Abbitt said.
Janis voted against the study because he was absent during discussion. Janis had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend the meeting until it was almost over.
Sen. John Watkins, R-10th District, told attendees that the subcommittee’s aim is not to hurry through the study, but to be conscientious.
“We’re not here to run this through without due diligence,” he said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-65th District, said Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will take the revised document to the National Research Council and “things will get under way.”
The study will take about two years.
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_study_okd_public-safety_health-impact_items_made_top_priority_in_fi/11192/
Published: May 21, 2009
RICHMOND — The uranium-mining study has begun. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, tasked with overseeing a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth, approved a revised final draft of the study Thursday.
But Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said he is disappointed with the decision. Marshall asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.
“We’re not in a hurry to do this,” Marshall said during an interview before the meeting.
Subcommittee members pressed ahead after taking public comment, rearranging and adding amendments to the study’s 11-item “statement of task” before approving it by an 8-2 vote. Delegate William Janis, R-56th District and Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-59th District, opposed.
One of the biggest alterations the subcommittee brought to the document was making the public-safety and health-impact items the top priority on the statement of task, moving them from No.7 on the list to No. 1. Reviewing global and national uranium market trends had been in the top spot.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.
Subcommittee members received an earful from uranium mining skeptics and opponents. More than 100 people attended the meeting and about 20 publicly commented.
Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said uranium mining and milling causes male sterility and would spell disaster for Pittsylvania County farmers.
“This is going to destroy agriculture,” Nenon said.
George Stanhope, an SCC member, said mining would send dust with low-level radiation into the Banister River heading toward Lake Gaston.
Mining opponent Phillip Lovelace told the subcommittee that if health is not the No.1 topic of the study, “I don’t want it.”
Lovelace said he is against lifting the moratorium on mining and milling uranium. If the state allows mining across the commonwealth, five major rivers will be contaminated in other parts of Virginia, he said. Major military installations would relocate from the state as a result, causing major damage to Virginia’s economy and leaving the commonwealth vulnerable to terrorists, he said.
“(If the moratorium is lifted) you’re putting the whole East Coast in jeopardy,” Lovelace said.
Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who represents the Staunton River District, said the subcommittee should make health, safety and the economic concerns of uranium mining its main focus.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” Ecker said.
Amanda Wydner, a Pittsylvania County native, said the study should address what uranium mining could portend for culture and quality of life in the area. Land values, population density and demographics should be measured and compared before and after mining. She said the study should find out how it will affect the area’s skyline, aesthetic appearance and reputation as a quaint Southern town, she said.
“How will the perception of Chatham change?” she said.
Some opponents also called for a site-specific study to examine areas similar to Pittsylvania County in geology, hydrology, climate and population density, and to find out how those regions were affected by mining.
“What we have heard here is a real strong desire to make clear that safety is our top priority,” said Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-44th District, a subcommittee member.
Amundson proposed moving the seventh item listed, addressing health and safety, under the statement of task to the top slot. The subcommittee unanimously approved the motion. Another motion from Amundson to amend language in part of the statement also passed unanimously.
Patrick Wales, a VUI geologist, spoke in favor of the study, saying that health and safety are important issues, and that he hopes uranium can be mined in a way that would protect citizens and the environment.
The subcommittee also green-lighted added language proposed by Abbitt that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density.
In response, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-7th District, proposed language stating that if negative consequences were found in those areas, then options would be presented by the National Research Council for elimination or mitigation of the effects. The language was approved.
Abbitt requested that the study include available methods for management of tailings to prevent or mitigate leachates (leakage). The motion failed 4-2.
As a result, Abbitt voted against approving the revised draft.
“I can’t vote for this,” Abbitt said.
Janis voted against the study because he was absent during discussion. Janis had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend the meeting until it was almost over.
Sen. John Watkins, R-10th District, told attendees that the subcommittee’s aim is not to hurry through the study, but to be conscientious.
“We’re not here to run this through without due diligence,” he said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-65th District, said Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will take the revised document to the National Research Council and “things will get under way.”
The study will take about two years.
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_study_okd_public-safety_health-impact_items_made_top_priority_in_fi/11192/
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Uranium Mining on the Blue Ridge
Buffalo Mountain Natural Area Preserve, Along the BlueRidge Parkway, VA This ran in this week's Floyd Press:
Virginia placed a moratorium on uranium mining in the early 1980s but continued to allow for exploration of the ore. The price of "yellowcake" (milled ore) dropped in the 1980s and it was not economically feasible to mine uranium. There is currently a uranuim feeding frenzy and the uranium industry, lobbyists and politicians are "spinning" and "spending" to have the moratorium lifted. If the moratorium is lifted all of Virginia will feel its negative impacts ranging from falling property values to radioactive and heavy-metal ladened water and air. Uranium has never been mined anywhere in the world without human heath and environmental detriment.
I live in Pittsylvania County, VA where a uranium company, Virginia Uranium, Inc., is currently operating (exploring) in anticipation Virginia's lifting of the moratorium on uranium mining. VUI will merge with a Canadian Company, Santoy Resources, during the month of May. VUI/Santoy plans to mine and mill uranium and store toxic/radioactive tailings near the Bannister River that feeds lake Gaston from which millions receive their drinking water.
I'd like to think that the town of Floyd, Floyd and Patrick Counties would be immune to uranium mining if the moratorium is lifted; but I do not think that will be the case.
Virginia placed a moratorium on uranium mining in the early 1980s but continued to allow for exploration of the ore. The price of "yellowcake" (milled ore) dropped in the 1980s and it was not economically feasible to mine uranium. There is currently a uranuim feeding frenzy and the uranium industry, lobbyists and politicians are "spinning" and "spending" to have the moratorium lifted. If the moratorium is lifted all of Virginia will feel its negative impacts ranging from falling property values to radioactive and heavy-metal ladened water and air. Uranium has never been mined anywhere in the world without human heath and environmental detriment.
I live in Pittsylvania County, VA where a uranium company, Virginia Uranium, Inc., is currently operating (exploring) in anticipation Virginia's lifting of the moratorium on uranium mining. VUI will merge with a Canadian Company, Santoy Resources, during the month of May. VUI/Santoy plans to mine and mill uranium and store toxic/radioactive tailings near the Bannister River that feeds lake Gaston from which millions receive their drinking water.
I'd like to think that the town of Floyd, Floyd and Patrick Counties would be immune to uranium mining if the moratorium is lifted; but I do not think that will be the case.
A friend sent a news article from to me from a 1978 publication which is disturbing. It states, "Chevron Resources, subsidiary of Standard Oil Company of California, is another company exploring in Virginia, and is seeking to obtain mineral rights in Floyd and Patrick Counties".
Is there uranium in Floyd and Patrick counties?
Rest assured that US and international companies are perched like vultures to swoop down on all of Virginia if the moratorium is lifted.
One might choose to believe that Floyd County's proximity to the "Parkway" may bring protection. Unfortunately, there are presently companies with plans to mine uranium on Federal park land at the Grand Canyon. The Parkway will not deter uranium mining.
I hope your paper will cover the attempts by the uranium industry, the VA Coal and Energy Commission and politicians to lift the current moratorium on uranium mining.
I hope your paper will cover the attempts by the uranium industry, the VA Coal and Energy Commission and politicians to lift the current moratorium on uranium mining.
Perhaps if your subscribers are aware that they may be impacted by uranium mining they will remind (demand) the politicians that frequent the "Country Store" during campaigning that they want to continue the statewide moratorium on uranium mining.
Floyd County's beautiful vistas, rich cultural heritage and wonderful, diverse population make it not only a nice place to visit, but also a nice place to live.
Floyd County's beautiful vistas, rich cultural heritage and wonderful, diverse population make it not only a nice place to visit, but also a nice place to live.
My husband and I own a small cabin in Floyd County and we go there as often as possible. We're in the process of purchasing additional land in hopes of retiring there someday. Is buying property for a home in Virginia is a wise investment with the prospect of statewide uranium mining?
As I penned this letter, I was sitting and rocking on the cabin's front porch. Buffalo Mountain, visible all winter, is now beginning to hide behind the leaves on the trees. I wonder if there is uranium on the Buffalo?
http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,391,0,44,html/Uranium offers an overview of information re: proposed lifting of the moratorium and potential effects.
Karen B. Maute,
Danville, VA...and Meadows of Dan, Floyd Co.
As I penned this letter, I was sitting and rocking on the cabin's front porch. Buffalo Mountain, visible all winter, is now beginning to hide behind the leaves on the trees. I wonder if there is uranium on the Buffalo?
http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,391,0,44,html/Uranium offers an overview of information re: proposed lifting of the moratorium and potential effects.
Karen B. Maute,
Danville, VA...and Meadows of Dan, Floyd Co.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Stop Uranium Mining
Click here to sign the petition:http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/stop-uranium-mining
Target:To Abolish Uranium Mining
Target:To Abolish Uranium Mining
Sponsored by: Trish Sturrock
Virginia Uranium, Inc., a new corporation, is seeking to lift the moratorium on Uranium Mining in Virginia.
Uranium production presents a serious threat to our water supplies.
Radioactive and other toxic gases and particles will be washed and blown from the mill tailings unless they are protected from rain and wind for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years.
These toxins will then find their way into our waterways becoming a danger to people, livestock, wildlife and crops.
No one has yet put forth a means of controlling this type of pollution.
Below are just a few reasons we need to stop them:
1. The drinking water supply of Virginia Beach is downstream of the proposed mine in Southside. Other cities downstream of Uranium deposits include Fredericksburg and Richmond.
2. The radioactive waste produced by a uranium mining and milling operation is stored on site for more than 1,000 years. Any leakage could contaminate waterways and wells.
3. Uranium mining has left superfund federal clean-up sites everywhere it has been done west of the Mississippi River.
1. The drinking water supply of Virginia Beach is downstream of the proposed mine in Southside. Other cities downstream of Uranium deposits include Fredericksburg and Richmond.
2. The radioactive waste produced by a uranium mining and milling operation is stored on site for more than 1,000 years. Any leakage could contaminate waterways and wells.
3. Uranium mining has left superfund federal clean-up sites everywhere it has been done west of the Mississippi River.
4. The coal ash spill that flooded 400 acres in Tennessee in 2008 was caused by the failure of an earthen dam similar to those used to contain uranium mining waste. The spill would have been much worse had it contained radioactive uranium 'tailings'.
5. No Uranium mining and milling operation has ever been licensed in the US east of the Mississippi. The region's wet climate and high population make it too risky.
Join me in the fight against decimation of our beautiful State!
Join me in the fight against decimation of our beautiful State!
Join me in the fight against decimation of our beautiful State!signature
goal: 1,000,000
16
signatures! Already a Care2 member? log in
For more impact, add a personal comment here
goal: 1,000,000
16
signatures! Already a Care2 member? log in
For more impact, add a personal comment here
I agree to Care2's terms of service. We respect your privacy.
Your email address is used to confirm your signature and is NOT displayed publicly.
Examples of the people signing the petition:
We signed the "Stop Uranium Mining" petition!
# 16:5:58 pm PDT, Apr 29, Name not displayed, Canada
Examples of the people signing the petition:
We signed the "Stop Uranium Mining" petition!
# 16:5:58 pm PDT, Apr 29, Name not displayed, Canada
the moratorium must NOT be lifted to enable uranium production.
# 15:5:47 pm PDT, Apr 29, Thorton Wells, Kansas
# 14:4:31 pm PDT, Apr 29, David Dunkleberger, Pennsylvania
# 13:3:47 pm PDT, Apr 29, Sandi Fentiman, Canada
Poisoning of the land/wildlife/people hits EVERYONE faster than any of us may want to believe or acknowledge. The time to act is now!
# 15:5:47 pm PDT, Apr 29, Thorton Wells, Kansas
# 14:4:31 pm PDT, Apr 29, David Dunkleberger, Pennsylvania
# 13:3:47 pm PDT, Apr 29, Sandi Fentiman, Canada
Poisoning of the land/wildlife/people hits EVERYONE faster than any of us may want to believe or acknowledge. The time to act is now!
# 12:3:38 pm PDT, Apr 29, Kristina Salgado, Arkansas
# 11:2:27 pm PDT, Apr 29, Mieke Bernaards, Belgium
# 10:12:44 pm PDT, Apr 29, Mervi Rantala, Finland
# 9:11:18 am PDT, Apr 29, Elizabeth Reynolds, United Kingdom
This is a worthy cause, please get your friends and family to sign! Another worthy cause :- The Venus Project is an Organisation that proposes a feasable plan of action for social change; one that works towards a peacful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines to strive toward where human rights are not only paper proclaimations but also a way of life. A world whe Mother Nature and Technology work together, not as two opposing forces. Where Resources and
# 11:2:27 pm PDT, Apr 29, Mieke Bernaards, Belgium
# 10:12:44 pm PDT, Apr 29, Mervi Rantala, Finland
# 9:11:18 am PDT, Apr 29, Elizabeth Reynolds, United Kingdom
This is a worthy cause, please get your friends and family to sign! Another worthy cause :- The Venus Project is an Organisation that proposes a feasable plan of action for social change; one that works towards a peacful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines to strive toward where human rights are not only paper proclaimations but also a way of life. A world whe Mother Nature and Technology work together, not as two opposing forces. Where Resources and
Science are choices over Profit and Power. Please look up the website
http://www.thevenusproject.com/ and sign the petition. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/The-future-that-Humanity-Deserves
# 8:10:14 am PDT, Apr 29, Panagiotis Rigopoulos, Greece
# 7:9:54 am PDT, Apr 29, Maria Gonzalez, Uruguay
# 6:9:48 am PDT, Apr 29, Kristina Borisova, Bulgaria
STOP URANIUM MINING!!! It`s awful for the enviroment and we should have realised that nature is the most precious posesion we have and we must save it no matter what it will cost us, because without it we cannot survive.
# 7:9:54 am PDT, Apr 29, Maria Gonzalez, Uruguay
# 6:9:48 am PDT, Apr 29, Kristina Borisova, Bulgaria
STOP URANIUM MINING!!! It`s awful for the enviroment and we should have realised that nature is the most precious posesion we have and we must save it no matter what it will cost us, because without it we cannot survive.
# 5:9:13 am PDT, Apr 29, Marcin Sztwiertnia, Poland
For more impact, add a personal comment here
For more impact, add a personal comment here
# 4:6:25 am PDT, Apr 29, Jamie Mills, Georgia
# 3:6:14 am PDT, Apr 29, Mike Downs, Missouri
# 2:5:45 am PDT, Apr 29, Name not displayed, Virginia
I am appalled at the lack of concern of our earth!
# 3:6:14 am PDT, Apr 29, Mike Downs, Missouri
# 2:5:45 am PDT, Apr 29, Name not displayed, Virginia
I am appalled at the lack of concern of our earth!
# 1:5:24 am PDT, Apr 29, Trish Sturrock, Virginia
We love the parks and recreation that Virginia has to offer - if Uranium mining is allowed all that may be gone. The uranium industry has an extremely poor environmental and public health history...in this time of technology surely there is a better way!
We love the parks and recreation that Virginia has to offer - if Uranium mining is allowed all that may be gone. The uranium industry has an extremely poor environmental and public health history...in this time of technology surely there is a better way!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Study of Uranium Mining in Virginia Approved
Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch)By Jeff E. Schapiro, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va.
Mar. 25--A Virginia panel is giving the go-ahead to a study on opening the state to uranium mining and likely bankrolled by the industry -- raising fears that the research will be weighted in favor of proponents.
A subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission yesterday approved a tentative outline of the study by the National Academy of Science, which would focus on safety, environmental and health concerns. A separate examination of the financial and economic impact of mining also is planned.
Uranium mining has been illegal in Virginia since 1982, but with the push for alternatives to oil and coal, two Southside families want to extract in rural Pittsylvania County the nation's largest untapped lode of uranium. Five lobbying firms are pressing the General Assembly to lift the ban.
Because lawmakers from the largely agricultural region blocked a statefinanced study in 2008, fearing it as a first step toward ending the moratorium, the two families' firm, Virginia Uranium Inc., is offering to pay upward of $1 million for the inquiry.
Opponents are refusing to contribute to the cost of the study.
The green light for the study comes as the uranium industry is buffeted by an uncertain economy that is pushing down prices and drying up financing for the construction of nuclear plants powered by the ore.
Walter Coles Sr., Virginia Uranium's chairman, said in an interview that company financing of the 1 1/2 - to two-year study is potential ammunition for mine foes, described by Mick Mastilovic, company vice president, as "the mobocracy." (Mick, go back home, we have the right to protest the illegal uranium study!!!"")
Coles, whose company has raised $19 million for the project from a Canadian energy firm, hedge funds and local investors, said of the study, "You're damned if you do and damned if you don't."
Joseph R. Stanley III, an environmental analyst for the Virginia Interfaith Center, which is helping to organize resistance to a Pittsylvania mine, said allowing industry to pay for the study means "the perception that [it] would be skewed would exist."
But Michael E. Karmis, director of Virginia Tech's coal and energy research center and the state panel's liaison to the National Academy of Science, said the academy is "totally independent" and its work is "based solely on technical science."
Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814 or jschapiro@timesdispatch.com.
Mar. 25--A Virginia panel is giving the go-ahead to a study on opening the state to uranium mining and likely bankrolled by the industry -- raising fears that the research will be weighted in favor of proponents.
A subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission yesterday approved a tentative outline of the study by the National Academy of Science, which would focus on safety, environmental and health concerns. A separate examination of the financial and economic impact of mining also is planned.
Uranium mining has been illegal in Virginia since 1982, but with the push for alternatives to oil and coal, two Southside families want to extract in rural Pittsylvania County the nation's largest untapped lode of uranium. Five lobbying firms are pressing the General Assembly to lift the ban.
Because lawmakers from the largely agricultural region blocked a statefinanced study in 2008, fearing it as a first step toward ending the moratorium, the two families' firm, Virginia Uranium Inc., is offering to pay upward of $1 million for the inquiry.
Opponents are refusing to contribute to the cost of the study.
The green light for the study comes as the uranium industry is buffeted by an uncertain economy that is pushing down prices and drying up financing for the construction of nuclear plants powered by the ore.
Walter Coles Sr., Virginia Uranium's chairman, said in an interview that company financing of the 1 1/2 - to two-year study is potential ammunition for mine foes, described by Mick Mastilovic, company vice president, as "the mobocracy." (Mick, go back home, we have the right to protest the illegal uranium study!!!"")
Coles, whose company has raised $19 million for the project from a Canadian energy firm, hedge funds and local investors, said of the study, "You're damned if you do and damned if you don't."
Joseph R. Stanley III, an environmental analyst for the Virginia Interfaith Center, which is helping to organize resistance to a Pittsylvania mine, said allowing industry to pay for the study means "the perception that [it] would be skewed would exist."
But Michael E. Karmis, director of Virginia Tech's coal and energy research center and the state panel's liaison to the National Academy of Science, said the academy is "totally independent" and its work is "based solely on technical science."
Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814 or jschapiro@timesdispatch.com.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Canadian churches protest at uranium mining expansion
Monday, 16th March 2009. 12:03pmBy: George Conger.
The Anglican bishops of Saskatchewan have joined their Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Ukrainian Catholic brethren in protesting against government plans to expand uranium mining in the prairie province, and permit the construction of a privately owned nuclear power plant.
In a joint statement released on Feb 26, the Anglican bishops of Saskatoon and Qu’Appelle questioned whether the government had fully studied the environmental risks of nuclear development in the province.
A government-appointed panel is expected to release a report this month encouraging “value-added" initiatives to expand the uranium industry. Saskatchewan is the world’s largest producer of uranium ore and last year a private company, Bruce Power, began work on a feasibility study for building a nuclear generating station.
Before any decision is taken, the bishops said it was “critical that any recommendations be made only after full and open consultation with the people of this province.”
They noted that “Christian churches affirm that God created the earth and that God continues to establish and preserve a just and ordered life for all creation.
Human beings are part of the vast ecosystem of the planet.”
However, “Choices made by human beings must respect God's creation in its careful interrelationship of earth, water, air and all living things.
Exploiting the earth's resources without regard for the consequences is sinful against God and God's creation,” the bishops argued.
While they recognized the “need for urgent action” to combat global warming, “technology and economic development, including mining and power generation, must be subject to critical reflection in light of the impact that such actions have on people and the environment in the present and into the future,” the bishops said.
Environmental concerns have prompted British Colombia, Nova Scotia and the Labrador Inuit territory of Nunatsiavut to enact a moratorium on uranium mining, while in 2008 New Brunswick imposed stricter guidelines on uranium mining.
Jim Harding, author of Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, told the Canadian Press the concerns about uranium mining were well-founded.
"If I lived in an area where they were doing uranium mining, based on what I know about toxicity, lifespan and environmental health and increased risks, I'd move," he said.
Time for an update
Comment: TAKE NOTICE COUNTY: BAN URANIUM MINING AND MINING!!!!
By Published by The Editorial BoardPublished: March 16, 2009
Chatham Mayor George Haley believes the town’s official position on uranium mining and milling is “a sort of neutral type thing” that needs to be changed.
For a while, Haley wanted Chatham to follow the town of Halifax and enact a chemical trespass ordinance, basically making it illegal for pollution from VUI to enter the town. But an official opinion by former Attorney General Bob McDonnell found that chemical trespass ordinances were unconstitutional. (BOB DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VA LAW!!)
Haley now believes that Chatham’s town council should pass a resolution that reflects the growing consensus that uranium mining and milling shouldn’t cause problems for Pittsylvania County.
“I think people are beginning to awaken to the fact that this is a very dangerous situation,” Haley said. “… I really believe that people are beginning to take notice. We need to really look at this matter.”
To its credit, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee — which is developing the state’s study — has come to Chatham to ask local people what questions should be answered.(WHO CARES ABOUT THE URANIUM SUBCOMMITTE!!)
But public opinion on uranium mining — through the passage of these tougher local government resolutions — appears to have changed over the past year.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors and the towns of Gretna and Hurt have all updated their resolutions.(WE WANT THEM TO BAN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING NOW!!!)
The local consensus of support for the state’s study of uranium mining and milling remains.
At this point, most county residents are probably still taking a wait-and-see approach to VUI’s plans. They want more information, and the company certainly hasn’t lost the public relations battle by any stretch of the imagination.
But if the resolutions are a reflection of public opinion — and it’s obvious that they are — the bottom line now appears to be a desire that uranium mining and milling not take away from what the community has today.(EVER SEEN OPEN PIT MINING, SORT LIKE MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!)
Chatham Town Council has picked a good time to reconsider uranium mining.
Local people, through their elected representatives, need to speak loudly on this issue — no matter what position they’re taking.(TELL THE ELECTED REPS NO TO URANIUM MINING AND MILLING, WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE SO CALL STUDY, IT IS ILLEGAL)!!!!
By Published by The Editorial BoardPublished: March 16, 2009
Chatham Mayor George Haley believes the town’s official position on uranium mining and milling is “a sort of neutral type thing” that needs to be changed.
For a while, Haley wanted Chatham to follow the town of Halifax and enact a chemical trespass ordinance, basically making it illegal for pollution from VUI to enter the town. But an official opinion by former Attorney General Bob McDonnell found that chemical trespass ordinances were unconstitutional. (BOB DOES NOT UNDERSTAND VA LAW!!)
Haley now believes that Chatham’s town council should pass a resolution that reflects the growing consensus that uranium mining and milling shouldn’t cause problems for Pittsylvania County.
“I think people are beginning to awaken to the fact that this is a very dangerous situation,” Haley said. “… I really believe that people are beginning to take notice. We need to really look at this matter.”
To its credit, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee — which is developing the state’s study — has come to Chatham to ask local people what questions should be answered.(WHO CARES ABOUT THE URANIUM SUBCOMMITTE!!)
But public opinion on uranium mining — through the passage of these tougher local government resolutions — appears to have changed over the past year.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors and the towns of Gretna and Hurt have all updated their resolutions.(WE WANT THEM TO BAN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING NOW!!!)
The local consensus of support for the state’s study of uranium mining and milling remains.
At this point, most county residents are probably still taking a wait-and-see approach to VUI’s plans. They want more information, and the company certainly hasn’t lost the public relations battle by any stretch of the imagination.
But if the resolutions are a reflection of public opinion — and it’s obvious that they are — the bottom line now appears to be a desire that uranium mining and milling not take away from what the community has today.(EVER SEEN OPEN PIT MINING, SORT LIKE MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!)
Chatham Town Council has picked a good time to reconsider uranium mining.
Local people, through their elected representatives, need to speak loudly on this issue — no matter what position they’re taking.(TELL THE ELECTED REPS NO TO URANIUM MINING AND MILLING, WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE SO CALL STUDY, IT IS ILLEGAL)!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
