From Iraq to Appalachia

While THE Alliance does not endorse a socialist agenda, we print the truth where and when we can find it. The following article speaks the truth. We respect and honor the contributions to our country's freedom by our armed forces. But, this does not excuse our government's abuse of power. An abuse that has sickened and killed our loved ones (and their families) serving in the military, who were just following orders. We can only hope that the current administration, and whomever is in power in the United States in the future, will put an end to such travesties that cause an author to write such an article as you are about to read. Until then, THE Alliance will continue to fight for the rights guaranteed in our constitution. We will support and help any group that wants to end this nonsense and take back their inherent governing authority. GV

Ronald Teska explains why two places half a world apart share similar experiences--because both are occupied territories of American energy companies.

April 15, 2009

WHAT DO the Iraq and Appalachia have in common? More than you may think. Both are occupied by U.S. energy corporations, resulting in colonization. It's oil in one case and coal in the other, but make no mistake about it: The modus operandi and consequences are strikingly similar.

Soldiers and coal miners have a shared camaraderie as both are enforcers of the will of the oil and coal corporations for the purpose of increasing bottom-line profits at any cost.

This is depicted on a billboard in Beckley, W. Va., showing soldiers and coal miners arm in arm.

The major difference being that coal miners do not have to kick down the doors of Appalachians to get the coal, as the coal companies already own most all of it.

In Iraq, private contractors (working for Halliburton and Blackwater, for example) are killed and not counted as U.S. casualties. In Appalachia, independent contractors killed are also not tallied as coal company deaths.

Innocent Iraqi women and children killed are termed "collateral damage," and innocent deaths in Appalachia are treated no differently.

What are the differences between a 4-year-old child in Iraq killed with a bullet, and a 4-year-old child in Appalachia killed by a rock blasted off the mountain, or by a flood resulting from a breached sludge/slurry pond, or in an accident when the family car collides with a coal construction vehicle.

There will be long-term civilian suffering in Iraq by virtue of the more than 400 tons of debris from depleted uranium shells that we spread over the cradle of civilization in Iraq. This has already resulted in severe and repeated birth defects in Iraq, and among our own troops, who come home and infect their husbands and wives.

The irony here is that over 80,000 MOP chemical protection suits designed to protect our troops from exposure were defective--they were made in Rainelle, W. Va., with no consequences for the now-bankrupt company.

Likewise, long-term ill effects are occurring in Appalachia due to the use of tetryl, a banned Second World War-era substance used to detonate the ANFO explosives that daily to blow up the mountains.

This also results in the spread of arsenic, selenium and other toxic substances released when the mountain is blown up, and the rock exposed and pushed into the valleys.

In both arenas, we are getting rid of our toxic wastes without regard to the fact that Iraqis and Appalachians and coal miners are becoming sick and being killed.

Outside colonizing forces (the oil and coal companies) are providing inadequate protection to the soldiers and coal miners who follow their orders.

When oil and coal companies care so little for their own workers, how much concern can they have for Iraqi and Appalachian residents?

The culture and history of Iraq and Appalachia are of no consequence as far as the occupiers are concerned. Our tanks run over archaeological sites in the cradle of civilization, and the dragline excavator in Appalachia obliterates historic sites, cemeteries and artifacts in the oldest mountain range in the world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPALACHIANS ARE displaced and become refugees in major cities and neighboring states, never to see their home again.

And should Appalachians go back home to their mountains, they discover that even the mountain is gone--currently, a one-quarter-mile-wide road could be constructed from New York to San Francisco with mountaintop removal sites.

Meanwhile, the millions of Iraqi refugees also can't go home, or come home to find those homes destroyed.

Yellow-dog journalism influenced by both corporations and their political allies tries to convince the public that the people and culture of Iraq and Appalachia aren't worthy of respect, admiration or protection. "Ragheads" and "hillbillies" don't deserve rights when it comes to the extraction of oil and coal.

To justify going after the oil in Iraq, the occupiers are trying to convince the world that it is part of a "war against terrorism."

To justify going after the coal in Appalachia, the occupiers are trying to convince the world that "clean coal" is one of the best offenses against terrorism.

The consequences of both wars against terrorism have left the people of both theaters without water, homes, food, family infrastructure, culture, health and peace and justice. On the bright side, the occupiers' bottom line has soared.

There are permanent U.S. bases along the proposed Caspian Sea pipeline, and Iraq can boast about having the lartest American embassy in the world. But we all know that Iraq harbored no terrorist responsible for 9/11, and we all know "clean coal" is an oxymoron (not a single home in this country has electric from "clean coal").

Toxic waste sites dot the landscape in Iraq (not even counting DU), while toxic sludge and slurry ponds sit in Appalachia, with one harboring billions of gallons of toxic sludge sitting above the Marsh Fork Elementary School

When these impoundments are breached, residents are killed, aquatic life is destroyed, and the future of the oldest mountain range in the world is threatened.

And it just so happens to be that the first strike our U.S. Air Force made after its inception was against the coal miners at the battle of Blair Mountain, where Mother Jones was engaged in union organizing.

Our soldiers are subject to "stop loss" orders, which forces them to stay deployed in iraq even when their deployment is up.

This is similar to the coal miner having to give up the 40-hour work week that thousands have died for.

There are many other subtle parallels, such as the fact that West Virginia sends a higher percentage of our sons and daughters to the Middle East than any other state. And since Appalachians are losing their homes and being displaced by the occupiers, the military becomes an attractive alternative.

When I see a popular sign in Appalachia that states "Clean coal: Fighting terrorism for America's future," I am convinced of the shared goals of the energy corporations who support and buy our political system to help carry out the goal of increasing bottom lines at any cost.

Living in Appalachia with the coal companies at my door makes all this more visible and real to me.

We need to empathize with Iraqi citizens and Appalachian residents and put ourselves in their shoes for a while to more fully understand the devastating consequences of these corporate occupations.

Then, and only then, will we think twice about buying an automobile that does not get at least 35 miles per gallon, or buying that electric hand cream warmer, or leaving a light on.

Then, and only then, will we see that perhaps we have strayed so far away from a representative social democracy that to get it back would require all of us to assume our responsibilities as :

"We the People"--and not become victims ourselves of the "increasing bottom line at any cost."

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)!!!!

Home-Grown Power

Comment: We want Real Green Power, no Nuke Plants, no uranium mining, no Clean Coal(joke-clean coal is a joke)!!

By IAN BOWLES
Published: March 6, 2009
Boston

PRESIDENT Obama has laid out an ambitious agenda for dealing with our energy needs and climate change: he proposes to double the supply of renewable energy within three years, establish a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions and use federal stimulus dollars to help homes, businesses and governments use energy more efficiently. This is the right blueprint for increasing the number of green jobs, encouraging economic growth, ensuring that the United States has the energy it needs at reasonable prices, and reducing the risk of global climate change.

But as Congress translates this grand plan into legislation, lawmakers should resist calls to add an extensive and costly new transmission system that would carry electricity from remote areas like Texas, the Great Plains and Eastern Canada to places with high energy demands like Boston, Chicago and New York. This idea is being promoted by energy companies and by elected officials who see it as an economic development opportunity for their particular state or region. Long-distance transmission lines are needed, they argue, to ensure that the president’s energy goals are met.

But there are better — and cheaper — ways to get more clean power flowing to the big cities.

Renewable energy resources are found all across the country; they don’t need to be harnessed from just one place.

In the Northwest, the largest amount of green power comes from hydroelectricity.

In the Northeast, the best source may be the wind over the ocean, because it blows harder and more consistently there than on land. Offshore wind farms have been proposed for Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

In the Southwest, solar energy can be tapped on a large scale.

And in the Southeast, biomass from forests may one day be a major source of sustainable power.

In each area, developing these power sources would be cheaper than piping in clean energy from thousands of miles away.

Unlike our federal highway system, which is needed to transport goods across the country, or the “information superhighway” of the Internet, which is the fastest way to carry information around the world, long-distance transmission lines have no inherent value.

On the contrary, the farther electricity is transported, the more of it is dissipated. “Line loss,” as this is called, gobbles up an estimated 2 percent to 3 percent of electricity nationally.
And of course, the longer the power line, the more expensive it is to build. In New England, we estimate the cost per mile at $2 million to $10 million. The closer electricity is generated to where it’s used, the better.

Another component of President Obama’s clean energy vision is the creation of a smarter power grid. But that has little to do with high capacity transmission lines that carry electricity in bulk over hundreds of miles.

Building a “smart grid” means upgrading the local grid from a simple delivery system to an information system that can let consumers know the times when power is cheapest, thus enabling them to adjust their use to save money.

This flattens out electricity loads and minimizes periods of peak demand. Smart grids will also be able to identify and fix power failures instantly, and someday may even send signals to specific household appliances like thermostats, washing machines and refrigerators to switch them on when demand is low or turn them off during times of peak energy use.

The cost of building transmission lines to connect new power plants to the grid ought to be covered the way we cover it in the Northeast, by folding it into the price of the power that the lines deliver. That allows the market to help keep prices as low as possible.

In Massachusetts, we get about 5 percent of our power from hydroelectric plants in Quebec. Our distribution utilities are negotiating to install a second transmission line for Canadian hydropower, which would be paid for through long-term power-purchase contracts approved by the New England states whose residents use that power.

Developers of remote wind-power farms in eastern Canada have said they would also like to sell us electricity, but unless the combined cost of the power they could provide and its transmission is competitive with our other renewable energy choices, their projects won’t get approved.

That’s the way it should be.

For a clean energy future, we need a smart grid and we need more renewable energy.

The Obama administration is offering welcome support for both. Beyond that, what we need is a level playing field that enables energy providers to compete fairly with one another.

The cost of transmission should be incorporated into the overall cost of bringing clean energy to market.

Then let the chips fall — and wind turbines rise — where they may.

Ian Bowles is the secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts.

News release by CSU professor provides more details about uranium mining survey

Comment: A study that ask the citizens near the proposed uranium mining their thoughts and they are against uranium mining!!! Hello, State of Virginia and Pittsylvania County, we do not want uranium mining or milling!!

"This study not only confirms the common wisdom that public opinion is against the proposed mining operation, but also gives an indication of the strength of this opposition"

Almost everyone in northern Colorado knows about the proposed Centennial Project, Powertech Uranium Corp, and Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction. And almost everyone knows that the opposition to the project is widespread, highly-motivated, and very active. We now have a survey confirming the effectiveness of that opposition.

As I discussed in an earlier posting, Craig Trumbo, PhD, a CSU professor and risk communication expert, led a group of CSU students on a class project to survey northern Colorado residents about their opinions regarding the uranium mining issue. A recent news release posted on the Colorado State University website described the survey generally and provided a few of the results.

Just today, a second news release has surfaced, one that is apparently not on the CSU website. The release is penned by Dr. Trumbo and goes into much more detail about the methodology and results of the survey. Dr. Trumbo and his students have rendered a valuable service to northern Colorado residents by documenting the strength of the opposition to the Centennial Project. The news release is printed in its entirety below.

JW


CSU Research Class Completes Survey Study of Uranium Mining Concerns

Contact:
Dr. Craig Trumbo
Department of Journalism and Technical Communication
1785 Campus Delivery, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
970-491-2077 craig.trumbo@colostate.edu

During the 2008 spring semester, students in CSU’s Journalism and Technical Communication course Communication and Evaluation Research Methods undertook a class project to examine citizen concerns about the uranium mining operation proposed for the area between Nunn and Wellington, Colorado. The project, a mail survey, was designed primarily as a hands-on learning experience for the nine seniors and eight graduate students in the class, and was supported by The Institute for Learning and Teaching at CSU. The course instructor, Dr. Craig Trumbo, oversaw the class project. As per standard policy, the conduct of the survey was reviewed and approved for protection of human subjects by CSU’s Institutional Review Board.

Because funding resources would only support a fairly modest survey, the class decided to focus the study on individuals living in greater proximity to the proposed mining site, eliminating Fort Collins from the study. The main communities included in the study were Wellington, Carr, Nunn, Ault and Pierce.

The class designed the four-page questionnaire at the start of the semester and mailed it to 450 randomly selected individuals in late February. By the end of April, 203 completed questionnaires had been returned. Taking into account undeliverable and forwarded addresses, the response rate for the survey was 48%. Since the sample size was relatively small, the margin of error for the study is fairly large, about +/- 7%. It should also be noted that while the proportional representation of the communities in the study was fair (40% of the responses were from Wellington), a comparison to current census estimates show that the survey respondents were more likely to be older males in higher educational and higher income brackets than average for the area.

The content of the questionnaire focuses on details concerning how individuals perceive potential risks and benefits associated with the proposed mining operation. It also focuses on how individuals view the information that has been provided through the media and other channels by two high-profile sources on the issue, Powertech Uranium and the citizen’s group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD). While there have been a number of other important information sources on this issue, the size of the survey required that the project focus on only these two.

The results of the survey offer some interesting insights into the way in which individuals are thinking about this issue. First, awareness of the proposed mining operation is nearly universal in the area. Of the 203 survey responses, only 11 (5%) indicated that they had never heard of the issue (these were not included in following analyses). We asked if individuals had made their minds up on the issue one way or another. Very few respondents were in favor of the mining operation (5%), about a fifth (20%) reported they were undecided, while a strong majority (74%) said they were against it.

We were interested to know the degree to which people feel fully informed about the issue, and from where they have received information. A little more than half (58%) felt they needed more information on the issue. Respondents rated newspapers as the most important source of information, followed by Web sites, and interpersonal sources (family, friends, neighbors). Radio and televison were the least important sources of information.

When asked if they were familiar with Powertech and CARD, most respondents reported they were (78% and 82%, difference within the margin of error). Of the individuals who stated that they were familiar with both CARD and Powertech, we also asked a set of questions asking how credible and how trustworthy each group was in terms of the information they have provided. Respondents strongly reported that CARD was both more credible (85 vs. 50 on a 100-point scale) and more trustworthy (84 vs. 56 on a 100-point scale).

A core part of the survey looked at the specific concerns people have about the proposed mine. We asked how important nine potential risks were, using scales running from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important). Less important risks included threats to existing businesses, industrial overdevelopment, rail and truck accidents, and wind-borne materials (all with average scores between 3.5 and 4.2). The most important risks identified by respondents were threats to home values, potential costs of future clean-up, and water contamination (all average scores over 4.5).

We also asked how important nine potential benefits were, using the same scale. One stood out as clearly least important: potential employment for the respondent (1.75). Most others were rated about the same, around 2.5 on the scale: supporting free enterprise, improved industrial base in the area, potential employment for others, and economic benefits for the town, county and state. The two highest-rated benefits were the support of national energy independence and reduction of carbon emissions through nuclear energy (both scoring about 3).

The average score for the nine risks was significantly higher than for the nine benefits (4 versus 2.5) and the calculation of a risk/benefit ratio shows that 16% of the respondents felt that the benefits outweigh the risks, with the balance (84%) reporting that the risks outweigh the benefits up to a factor of five.

Finally, we asked a set of questions concerning actions and voting intention. Of our respondents, 3% had written a letter to the editor, 12% had donated money to some issue group, 14% had written a letter to an elected official, 35% had attended a public meeting, and 39% had signed a petition. Of the respondents who said they intended to vote in some local or state election this year (93%), a strong majority (79%) indicated that this issue will affect their voting choices.

Taken overall, this study not only confirms the common wisdom that public opinion is against the proposed mining operation, but also gives an indication of the strength of this opposition and provides some nuanced insight into the factors shaping public opinion.

Supervisors explore uranium ban, minerals tax

COMMENTS:BAN URANIUM MINING & MILLING NOW!!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune EditorWednesday, March 11, 2009 9:30 AM EDT

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors' Legislative Committee met last week to explore tightening the county's zoning ordinance and a possible ban on uranium mining.(BAN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING NOW!!)

The committee, chaired by Staunton River District Supervisor Marshall Ecker, tabled the ban, but is expected to schedule a work session with the county's attorney to determine if a ban is even possible.(BAN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING NOW, THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR HOMES AND LAND!!!)

"I think we need to address the issue and look at it closely and not make any hasty decisions one way or the other," said Ecker."Right now, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I want to look at the facts," he said.The committee also includes Banister District Supervisor William Pritchett and Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Henry "Hank" Davis Jr.Davis recently pushed for a stronger resolution from supervisors on uranium mining.(NO RESOLUTION, WE WANT A COMPLETE BAN ON URANIUM MINING AND MILLING!)

The resolution, adopted unanimously last month, recommends that a state study determine uranium mining will cause "no damage or harm" to the county.(THE STUDY IS A JOKE, A PRO-MINING GROUP JUST WANT TO MINE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, ITS THEIR LIFE, URANIUM MINING HAS NEVER BEEN MINED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SAFELY, THE URANIUM PEOPLE GETS THE GOV. TO WEAKEN WATER, AIR LAWS, THEREFORE, THE URANIUM PEOPLE SAYS IT IS SAFE (CHECK OUT CANADA LAWS), THEY JUST WANT MONEY AND HECK WITH THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE THEIR LAND!!!)

The resolution was sent to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which is conducting a comprehensive study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.The Coles Hill uranium deposit about six miles northeast of Chatham is one of the largest deposits in the United States. (WHO CARES WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE THINKS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION, THIS IS OUR COUNTY, OUR HOMES, WE WANT A COMPLETE BAN ON URANIUM MINING!)

The subcommittee will meet Tuesday, March 24, at 2 p.m. in Richmond to receive recommendations on the scope of the study from Dr. Michael Karmis, a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

The idea for a ban on uranium mining was suggested by Karen Maute of Danville, a well-known zoning and environmental advocate."I brought this to the board's attention because I feel like we're losing control over our own destiny," said Maute, who cautioned against rolling out a "welcome mat" for uranium mining. (COUNTY PEOPLE, WE WANT A COMPLETE BAN ON URANIUM MINING IN OUR WHOLE STATE!!!)

"I don't think the Coal and Energy Commission has our best interest at heart," she added. "I'd like for that to come from this board." (NO, COAL & ENERGY WANTS URANIUM HILLSIDE REMOVAL, LIKE THEY ARE DOING TO OUR MOUNTAIN FAMILIES WITH MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, POLLUTING AND DESTROYING THEIR WATERS)

Maute attended last week's Legislative Committee meeting along with other uranium opponents, Eloise Nenon and Gregg Vickrey, both of Chatham.Nenon is a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which began 30 years ago when the prospect of uranium mining first surfaced.Vickrey is chairman of a new local rights-based organization called The Alliance.

Virginia Uranium Inc., which was formed more than two years ago to mine the Coles Hill deposit, was represented by Henry Hurt and the company's lawyer, Neal Keesee.

"Our company firmly believes we're on the right track with the study," said Hurt.Even if the Coal and Energy Commission determines uranium mining can be done safely, the General Assembly would have to lift the state's moratorium, which has been in place since 1982."All of these steps involve public input and public participation," said Hurt. (REALLY, PUBLIC INPUT, HOW COME NO ONE FROM OUR COUNTY IS ON THE BOARD????? WHO IS PAYING FOR THE STUDY?)

"Some people are confused that the study gives us the go-ahead."John Light, the county's attorney, said he doesn't know if the county has the authority to ban uranium mining (We are not confused but do you really believe the Coal People are going to say uranium mining is safe, they are blowing up VA MOUNTAINS WITH MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, THEY LOVE TO MINE, THEY ARE GREEDY, CORP. JERKS!!!). OH, BY THE WAY, HOW COME YOU DO NOT KNOW IF WE CAN BAN URANIUM, IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR 2 YEARS, NEW JERSEY COUNTIES BANNED URANIUM IN 1980, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, WE NEED TO BAN URANIUM, FIGHT THE STATE!)

"Whether or not the county will have the authority to prohibit uranium mining if the commonwealth lifts the moratorium ultimately depends on the manner that the moratorium is lifted, and whether the county is granted that authority by the General Assembly, either expressly or by implication," he said.

The board's chairman, Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville, said it's a state issue."Right now all we can do is listen," he said. "The state has a moratorium and I respect that. ( this is the county issue, we demand the state of VA we do not want to be mined, we are going to ban uranium mining, with Harville's idea, the US will still be English!!!!)

They have more authority than we do. (the State does not have more rights than citizens in this county, we have to right to ban uranium!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

"The Legislative Committee also is looking at a minerals tax for the county.Maute said the county should consider taxing undeveloped minerals deposits, like Coles Hill, which is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

At present, mineral deposits are assessed with real estate by the commissioner of revenue, and the county receives little if any additional revenue on what's beneath the ground. (if the county needs money, start taxing minerals in the ground, it is done in other places out West)

Ecker supports a minerals tax, but said it's not likely the county will tax anything, including uranium, unless it is mined.

Hurt pointed out the uranium is worthless unless it can be taken out of the ground. (States out West taxes minerals)!

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com434-432-2791

CCAMU SPEECH ON PARLIAMENT HILL

Comment: Another article from Canada, I think the uranium company in VA will use Canada for example for uranim mining (since it really is a Canadian Co.), well, the PhD's in article is against uranium mining because of the health problems. The guy in the local city paper, is only a PDd and works for the Nukes.

Good morning … welcome, and thank you for coming to our press conference.

We are speaking to you this morning for two reasons:
1. To warn you that the City of Ottawa and parts of eastern Ontario could be exposed to radioactive pollution if uranium mines are allowed to be developed in cottage country west of Ottawa.

2. To repeat our call to Premier McGuinty and the Ontario government to take immediate action to live up to his promise to protect our environment. We are calling for a moratorium against uranium mining in eastern Ontario. This must be done NOW to prevent further damage to our environment.

Eminent scientists are very concerned about this threat. They have added their voices to our call for a moratorium. Dr. Syd Brownstein, a senior chemist working with the National Research Council of Canada, is here today and will speak to you shortly. Dr. Brownstein has extensive experience with the chemistry of radioactive materials.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, world-renowned expert in nuclear technology and founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, is our second expert. Dr. Edwards cannot by physically here today, but he has kindly allowed us to quote his assessment of the threat to Ottawa of airborne and water-borne radioactive pollution from potential uranium mining in the area north of Sharbot Lake.

Let me now introduce myself … my name is John Kittle, and I represent an organization called the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium. CCAMU is made up of individuals and organizations from all walks of life who have come forward from communities as far afield as Ottawa, Frontenac, Lanark, Kingston, Peterborough and Toronto.

We are all united in our resolve to work toward a peaceful resolution of this uranium crisis.As you are no doubt aware, eastern Ontarians have been watching with alarm as claim staking and uranium exploration in eastern Ontario cottage country has been brought to their attention.

To date, over 30,000 acres have been staked by mining companies. Exploratory drilling by one company was scheduled to start this summer.Full-time residents and cottage-owners alike are frightened that uranium mining will bring radioactive contamination – that it will poison their land, their water and their air.

They have watched, helplessly, as their property values dropped.

They are afraid that as news spreads, tourists will stay away, and that this will further affect an already fragile economy.

Our First Nations neighbours, who look upon the land, both Crown and private, as a sacred stewardship, are also frightened by this threat and, I am sure you have all heard that they have taken direct action to stop it, and have asked the Premier to personally intervene.

Over 2500 people have signed a petition and a growing base of politicians and organizations at the federal, provincial and local levels of government have given us letters of support.

We have also received written letters of support from 3 of the 4 candidates for our provincial riding … Liberal, NDP and Green.

Several eastern Ontario township councils have already petitioned the province for a moratorium.Many people assume that the effects of uranium pollution would be limited to those areas immediately adjacent to the site near Sharbot Lake.

However, Dr. Gordon Edwards, a well-known authority on the long-term hazards of nuclear facilities, has detailed the impact that a potential uranium mine in eastern Ontario could have on the City of Ottawa. Here’s what he describes … I quote:

- Downwind radioactive fallout:

Mining uranium releases large amounts of radioactive radon gas, which is much heavier than air. The radon will follow the path of the prevailing winds in eastern Ontario, from west to east, depositing solid radioactive fallout (mainly radioactive lead and polonium) on a wide swath of land from Sharbot Lake to the City of Ottawa and beyond. Such radioactive deposits, entering into the food chain, will pose a gradually accumulating health risk to the population – especially children.

- Downstream transport of radioactive particles:

The abundant lakes and rivers north of Sharbot Lake drain into the Mississippi River, which itself empties into the Ottawa River, upstream from the City of Ottawa. This is a natural highway for water-borne radioactive materials, which will end up in Ottawa's drinking water.

- Inadequate monitoring for public health and safety:

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that regulates nuclear energy and uranium mining has no health department, nor does it employ biomedical specialists or medical doctors. A 1980 report by the British Columbia Medical Association, entitled “The Health Hazards of Uranium Mining”, declared that the Atomic Energy Control Board was "Unfit to Regulate" due to its lack of medical expertise. The situation is no better today with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, successor to the AECB.

I will now introduce Dr. Syd Brownstein. Dr. Brownstein holds a PhD in Chemistry, and taught at Cornell University. He was also a member of the Ontario Hydro Safety Committee on Nuclear Fusion Reactors, and worked on joint projects involving the National Research Council of Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada, Eldorado Nuclear and the Atomic Energy Commission of France. …

Dr. Brownstein …… Thank you Dr. Brownstein … This uranium situation is complex, dangerous, and its consequences far-reaching. It calls for nothing less than decisive, immediate action on the part of the Premier and the Government of Ontario. We are here, today, to say to our Premier – who is also the City of Ottawa’s foremost MPP:

“Mr. McGuinty, we believe that you are in a position to bring this crisis to a timely and peaceful resolution: the status quo is not the answer, nor is forging blindly ahead. Mr. Premier, we believe that only a moratorium will give us the time we all need for sober second thought.

We therefore ask that the Government of Ontario call for an immediate moratorium on all uranium exploration and mining in eastern Ontario, while the ramifications on our health and the environment are investigated.”

We would like to point out that the Province of Nova Scotia has had a moratorium in place against uranium exploration and mining since the early 1980s. This resulted from an extensive commission of enquiry that heard testimony from over 185 experts, including Dr. Edwards and Elizabeth May.

We ask Ontario to put a moratorium in place, using Nova Scotia as a precedent. We do not want an election promise … we want action NOW before any more damage is done to our environment.

In conclusion, I would like to announce that we are physically delivering our message, along with our petition, to Premier McGuinty’s constituency office, in Ottawa South, at 2:00PM today. The Premier has been invited to receive it personally, and then to brief us on the Ontario Government’s position on this issue. We hope he shows up.

Why did they make us wait?

Comment: We want our State and our County to BAN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING!

To the editor:

Finally, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors has resolved that “… no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its business, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damage …”

So, thank you to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for listening to the concerned citizens who elected you to office (though it certainly took a while).

Thanks to all of the many citizens who attended the hearings, wrote letters and e-mails and made calls to the Board of Supervisors and other elected officials at both the local and state level in Virginia and North Carolina, sent letters to the editors of the many news publications and networks in Virginia and North Carolina, collected signatures on petitions, displayed a yard sign and “talked up” the issue with your family, friends and neighbors.

And, we cannot overlook the great amount of time spent by Southside Concerned Citizens and their key players for the relentless work on their part to help protect us all — thanks to each of you.

We have a very long road ahead of us in this fight to protect the environment of Pittsylvania County and surrounding counties in Virginia and North Carolina.

This is a small — but promising — victory that perhaps everyone is finally beginning to understand the seriousness of allowing uranium mining and milling to occur in our backyard … that, for generations to come, it will cause destruction of the environment (air, soil and water quality), an increase in serious health issues for humans and animals, including livestock, a decline of property values and subsequently economic growth.

Keep talking and writing about your concerns.

And, both thank and support the Southside Concerned Citizens, The Alliance and other environmental organizations that are working to keep our Earth and neighborhoods a safer place to live.

DEBORAH L. GUERIN BARKSDALE
Chatham

Goliad County Citizens Pleased at Decision by TCEQ to hold Contested Case Hearing over Uranium Mining Permit

Press Release: Wednesday, February 25,

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality did the right thing today:Goliad County Citizens Pleased at Decision by TCEQ to hold Contested Case Hearing over Uranium Mining Permit

(Austin) - Over 50 local officials and citizens from Goliad County traveled via bus and trucks today to Austin and were pleased when the three Commissioners of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality allowed a contested case hearing concerning an application by Uranium Energy Corporation to mine uranium in the aquifer just north of the historic mission town of Goliad.

No uranium mining has occurred before in the agricultural garden spot."I am so happy. I just thank god for this decision. Thank god for all the people in Goliad County.

This has been such a long, long haul and it's not over yet," said local landowner Lu Ann Duderstadt who lives near the area targeted for uranium mining.

Craig and LuAnn Duderstadt, were considered by the TCEQ to be affected parties along with several individuals, Goliad County, the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District, a Lutheran church and a volunteer fire department.

The Duderstadts who raise and sell feed hay were forced to purchase water for domestic use in their home after UEC exploration activities allegedly fouled the aquifer near their ranch.

They rode the bus from the Weesatch area just north of Goliad to the TCEQ hearing in Austin today.

"I feel like we have a chance here. And we're still going to carry this out until the end," vowed Mrs. Duderstadt.At the hearing, Commissioner Larry Soward raised the possibility of consolidating into one contested case hearing the four UEC permit applications associated with the uranium mining venture on the basis that it would be more administratively cohesive for the TCEQ.

The Commissioners instead voted to grant a hearing for the first application declared administratively complete late last year.

The TCEQ will now refer the case to SOAH and SOAH will schedule a preliminary hearing probably in mid- to late April.Houston Attorney Jim Blackburn was present to represent Goliad County and Goliad Attorney Terry Baiamonte was present to represent Goliad County Ground Water Conservation District.Blackburn also represents the County in a current Federal Court suit concerning UEC alleged violations of Rail Road Commission rules during exploration activity.

For more information, see http://www.uraniuminfo.org/
# # #Explore, Enjoy, Protect the Planet

Activists warn US lawmakers of uranium mining perils

February 28, 2009

A French physicist and a US actor have joined representatives of indigenous peoples from Africa, Australia and the United States to send US lawmakers a stark warning about the dangers of uranium mining.

"We want US lawmakers to understand that uranium mining is highly pollutant and that there is currently no scientific answer to the question of radioactive waste containment," Bruno Chareyron of France's CRIIRAD laboratory, which measures radioactivity in the environment, told AFP Friday.

"We want them to know that the information they are given by the mining companies is not wholly reliable," he said.

Representatives of the Tuareg nomads of Niger, Native Americans and Australian aborigines told of the ravages of uranium mining on their communities.

In Niger, French company Areva has been mining uranium for more than 40 years with "no regard for the environment, people's health, animals," Sidi-Amar Taoua, a Tuareg who has lived for seven years in the United States, told AFP.

"Uranium mining has impacted every area and sparked a war between the Tuareg who took up arms to defend their land, and the government, which is complicit with Areva," he said.

Areva announced last month that it has applied for US government approval to build a two billion dollar uranium enrichment plant in the northwestern state of Idaho.

The project would be the French state-controlled group's first uranium enrichment plant in the United States.

Native American lands in the southwestern United States have been the site of more than 1,300 uranium mines. Although most have been closed, the mines' legacy includes contaminated drinking water and illnesses from cancer to kidney disease, said Native American environmental activist Manny Pino.

"In this process of nuclear renaissance, it's almost like the federal government is ignoring the historical legacy of uranium mining in the past and prioritizing the economic benefits of nuclear power in the future at the expense of our land, our water and our people," he said.

Mitch, an aboriginal militant against radioactive waste dumps and uranium mining in Australia, currently the world's biggest producer of the mineral, said: "Short term monetary gain will leave us with long-term deadly waste for generations to come."

Uranium mining saw a long boom period in the United States between the 1940s and 1980s, before coming to a near halt in the 1990s as prices paid for the mineral plummeted.

In 2005, as uranium prices were starting to climb upwards again, the Navajo passed a law banning the mining or processing of uranium on their lands.

But when the price of the mineral peaked at around 140 US dollars a pound in 2007, mining companies descended "like vultures" on uranium-rich areas, 70 percent of which are situated on land inhabited by low-income indigenous communities, said James Cromwell, the actor.

As oil and gas prices spiked last year, nuclear power gained ground as an attractive energy option to ensure US energy independence.

Then secretary of the interior Dirk Kempthorne authorized uranium exploration near the Grand Canyon, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

"There's a lot of activity. When uranium prices went up we saw proposals for exploration all over the place," said Sandy Bahr of environmental group the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter.

In January, Arizona lawmaker Raul Grijalva introduced a bill in Congress that would
permanently withdraw from mineral extraction one million acres of public lands in watersheds surrounding the Grand Canyon.

Traditional owner: don’t mine our land

Jay Fletcher & Emma Murphy4 February 2009

A multinational mining company that has been exposed for leaking uranium into Lake Ontario in North America is now exploring uranium deposits only a few kilometres from a significant Alice Springs water supply.

Canadian resource giant, Cameco, has entered a joint venture with Australian Paladin Energy to explore and potentially mine the Angela Pamela uranium tenement 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs near the old outstation of Owen Springs.

Last year, Cameco was forced to admit to leaking uranium, arsenic and fluorides into Lake Ontario, one of the biggest lakes in North America.

On May 23, ABC Alice Springs reported that the Port Hope refinery plant was closed when contaminated soil was discovered, but during the “clean-up” it is likely that tailings found their way into the harbour.

Moreover, the company has been ordered to pay a C$1.4 million settlement to the state of Wyoming for failing to comply with environmental standards at its uranium mine.

Among the charges were problems with the pace of ground water restoration, according to Canada’s Calgary Herald.Traditional owner Raelene Silverton from Urana Potara community — located on the West Waterhouse station near Owen Springs — told Green Left Weekly in December that mining the site would create serious risk to local and Aboriginal communities.

“There are a lot of people saying not to mine in there”, Silverton said.

“There’s a bore there and Alice Springs communities get their water from there, it would be too dangerous.”Cameco-Paladin were granted an exploration permit by the Northern Territory government in 2007.

A May 27, 2008 media release from the Central Land Council (CLC) said that negotiations were being conducted with traditional owners, yet local owners such as Silverton, who do not want the plans to go ahead, say they have been excluded from the process.

“That’s all my father’s dreaming gone through there, around Owen Springs area”, Silverton told GLW. “That’s a big story.

We are related to that place … There is uranium there and they’re going to mine there. I don’t want that to happen.“It belongs to Central Arrernte people.”

Silverton, who worked as a councillor for the CLC, said that consultation with the Aboriginal population has been either limited or non-existent.“Nobody has talked to us properly”, she said.Alice Springs is surrounded by Aboriginal settlements, previously pastoral outstations.

Environmental groups and anti-nuclear campaigners have expressed grave concerns over the proposed site, with adverse environmental impacts set to affect these groups the most.

The Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC) in Alice Springs has organised against uranium mining, nuclear energy and waste dumping in central Australia since it began in 1980 and has formed the Alice Springs Angela Pamela collective in response to the government’s and Cameco-Paladin’s plans.In the collective’s mission statement, the group argues that exploration and mining will pose a significant threat to water security, human health and the environment.

“Workers, nearby communities and the environment will all be exposed to radioactive materials”, it says.

“Mining uranium is the first step in a nuclear chain which includes: unsafe, expensive, water-intensive energy production; risk-prone transport of radioactive materials; inadequate safeguards against sale of uranium for nuclear weapons and production of radioactive waste which will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years.”

Silverton is also facing challenges under the federal government’s intervention, with her home community one of the 500 being considered for its “economic viability” at the end of last year.

The federal government discussed closing smaller communities and moving the Aboriginal residents to larger stations and towns.

Unsurprisingly, all communities that were considered sit on land rich in uranium.Since federal Labor abolished its “no new mines” policy in April 2007, uranium mining ventures in the NT have increased sharply.

According to ALEC’s website, between January 2007 and April 2008, the NT government granted 386 exploration licences, 193 of which were to companies specifically interested in the exploration and mining of uranium.

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #781 4

Concerned Baker Lake residents question public support for Areva proposal

Comment: Local people of Canada are fighting uranium Too, Two articles are listed below:

Last Updated: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:47 PM CT
CBC News

Only a plebiscite can determine whether a proposed uranium mine has public support, according to a group of residents in Baker Lake, Nunavut.

The Baker Lake Concerned Citizens Committee says it wants an investigation into how the Nunavut Planning Commission ruled that Areva Resources Canada Inc.'s proposal to dig a uranium mine meets all stipulations in the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan.

The citizens' committee, which is concerned about uranium mining in the area, argues that Areva's proposal does not fully meet Section 3.6 of the plan — that any uranium mining proposal "must be approved by the people of the region," according to the plan document.

Areva wants to dig an open-pit and underground uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, about 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, a hamlet of 1,728.

The committee acknowledged that the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the hamlet of Baker Lake have passed resolutions supporting Areva's proposal, and said the Nunavut Planning Commission held a workshop with local residents and organizations.

Still, committee spokeswoman Joan Scottie told CBC News, that is not enough to constitute public approval.
"They held a single workshop in Baker Lake on June 5 to 7, 2007. The participants were not told that the meeting was going to be used to justify proceeding with uranium mining in the region," Scottie said in an interview.

"The only mechanism that can implement this term of the Keewatin Land Use plan is [a] public plebiscite."
Reviews look at health, environmental protection

Uranium mining development being proposed in Nunavut's Keewatin region — also known as the Kivalliq region — must be reviewed by the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.

Those reviews must pay "particular attention to questions concerning health and environmental protection," according to Section 3.5 of the land-use plan.

When the Nunavut Planning Commission referred Areva's proposal to the Nunavut Impact Review Board, it said the proposal met all the requirements set out in the Keewatin Land Use Plan.

"With respect to sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the [Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan], which require review of all issues relevant to uranium exploration and mining by the [Nunavut Planning Commmission], as well as approval of the people of the region, the NPC has concluded that these requirements have been met," read the commission's letter, dated Jan. 16, and signed by Brian Aglukark, its director of regional planning.

Scottie's committee raised their concerns in a Feb. 10 letter to the impact review board, which is now determining whether to conduct a full-scale environmental review of Areva's proposal.

The impact review board gave the public until Wednesday to submit comments.

A lawyer with the Nunavut Planning Commission would not comment on the criteria it used to decide whether Areva's proposal conforms with the land-use plan. The lawyer told CBC News the decision speaks for itself, but added that he was aware that Scottie's group had submitted a letter of concern.

But according to a 2007 communique posted on Areva's website, the planning commission had suggested that Section 3.6 of the land-use plan would be satisfied with resolutions of support from the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the hamlet of Baker Lake and other hamlets in the region.

Scottie said the citizens' committee will forward its concerns on to the federal minister of Indian and northern affairs to investigate.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/02/16/baker-areva.html

Funding encourages Baker Lake residents to comment on Areva proposal

Last Updated: Monday, February 16, 2009 4:00 PM CT
CBC News

Some last-minute funding helped about 70 people in Baker Lake, Nunavut, give a regulatory board their thoughts on a uranium mine proposal in the area.

The proposal by Areva Resources Canada Inc. is undergoing a screening by the Nunavut Impact Review Board. The board has extended its deadline for accepting public comments to Feb. 18, at the request of the territorial government.

Areva wants to develop an open-pit and underground uranium mine at its Kiggavik site, about 80 kilometres west of Baker Lake, a hamlet of 1,728.

The board's current screening process will help the board decide whether Areva's proposal should be subjected to a full-scale environmental review.

Six days before the board's original deadline of Feb. 10, the Baker Lake hamlet gave $1,000 to the local hunters and trappers organization (HTO) to help with the process of gathering public comments.

Almost 70 residents came to the HTO's office on short notice and filled out comment forms, said Joan Scottie, who is also part of a local committee of citizens concerned about uranium mining.

Scottie said more than 60 per cent of those people who filled out comment cards opposed Areva's proposal.

"This is the first time in a long time we gave the people [a chance] to participate," Scottie said.

"This is what [most] …of the youth and the elders and the hunters [say]. This is their response."

Scottie said the hamlet money was used primarily for "participation prizes," a practice that she said is in line with what many other organizations and researchers in Nunavut do to attract people.

The HTO was among about 18 groups, government agencies, Inuit organizations and individuals that submitted comments to the review board on the Areva proposal

Victory in Landmark Clean Water Act ChallengeLeague and Lake Residents Overturn Dominion Nuke Permit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FEBRUARY 20, 2009
CONTACT: Louis Zeller (336) 982-2691 or (336) 977-0852

Today a Virginia court in Richmond ruled that state agencies violated federal law and that the water quality permit for Dominion-Virginia Power’s North Anna nuclear station is revoked.

Judge Spencer ruled that Lake Anna water quality is governed by the federal Clean Water Act and that Virginia’s Attorney General was wrong in supporting the state’s water permit.

This landmark decision favored the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and co-plaintiffs residing near Lake Anna by determining that the so-called hot side of the lake is “waters of the United States.”

The Virginia State Water Control Board must now go back to the drawing board to evaluate the adverse impacts of hot water discharges to Lake Anna from the two nuclear reactors.

Louis Zeller, Science Director of the League, said, “We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution; however, we believe that the greatest impact of the Richmond court’s decision is that the Commonwealth and the people must reject the permitting of a third reactor at our endangered Lake Anna.”

The League is conducting research to see how many other power plants will be affected by this decision.

Nuclear power knocked out of renewable-energy bill

Comment: We need to tell VA Government that our County wants True Green Power, Not Nuke Power, therefore, no uranium mining. Remember, Utah is tired of uranium mining!

By Robert Gehrke
02/20/09
Salt Lake Tribune

A measure aimed at bolstering the state's production of renewable energy cleared the Legislature on Thursday after twice staving off attempts by conservative lawmakers to include nuclear power as a renewable resource.

"It's amazing to me the same crowd that says the world is coming to an end due to [carbon-dioxide] emissions is the same group that is running away from the one source of energy with zero emissions," Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, said during debate Wednesday.

The House, however, rejected Daw's amendment on a voice vote. A similar effort failed in the Senate.

Holladay Democratic Sen. Pat Jones' nonbinding resolution asks the state to craft model ordinances that municipalities can use if they want to develop renewable power.
In addition to the fight over the inclusion of nuclear power, the bill was voted down in the House, but then revived after much of the language, which some members felt was disparaging to the state's coal industry, was stripped out.

The Senate agreed to the House's changes, and Jones said it makes it a better bill. The measure now goes to the governor for his anticipated approval.

NBers still concerned over uranium

Comment: Sounds like our problem and our county!

Low prices, new regulations, public backlash have reduced exploration

FREDERICTON - Uranium exploration in the Metro Moncton area is all but dead and buried, according to high-ranking officials in the Department of Natural Resources.

But roughly one year after the public backlash over uranium exploration hit a fever pitch, the implementation of tougher regulations and tumbling uranium prices haven't washed away the concerns of people living in southeastern New Brunswick.

Indeed, local stores in Cocagne and Grande-Digue sold out of anti-uranium exploration lawn signs as recently as last week.

The combination of a public backlash, plummeting mineral prices and new government regulations have cooled the uranium exploration that was taking place last year throughout the province.

According to the Department of Natural Resources' assistant deputy minister responsible for minerals, Cecil Freeman, another spike in mineral prices could bring a rush of mining companies back to the province, as it did a quarter of a century ago and again last year.

Natural Resources officials told a committee of MLAs yesterday that uranium prices reached as high as $136 a pound in 2007, which represents a significant increase over the 2002 price of $10 a pound. In October of last year, prices had dropped to $48 a pound.

But even if and when mining companies do return en masse, Freeman says dense population levels around Metro Moncton, which have virtually crippled potential exploration activities in this area, will likely discourage mining companies from focusing on setting up in this area.

"There is no exploration right now in the Moncton area," said Freeman, noting that there are only three areas still being actively explored for uranium in the province: northeastern New Brunswick, and the Plaster Rock and Harvey areas.

"The closer you get to the City of Moncton, if you take the watershed out, and you take the towns and cities and villages out, and you put a 300-metre circle around every house, there isn't much land except very awkward pieces."

But Kent South Conservative MLA Claude Williams said citizens are still concerned.

"There is still the same level of concern today as there was one year ago," said Williams.
"People are just as vigilant."

Williams said he was concerned by comments made by deputy minister Tom Reid who said uranium is "just another mineral" in the eyes of his department.

"When we hear the deputy say that uranium is just another mineral, it raises concerns," said Williams. "If the officials of this government have information that suggests New Brunswickers shouldn't be concerned about uranium, they can come out and tell New Brunswickers."

Reid said he did not intend to suggest his department doesn't take uranium exploration seriously, but didn't back away from his comments. "I apologize if we are giving that impression that we are not concerned about uranium and New Brunswickers and the environment. Uranium is just another mineral."

Reid said his department is comfortable with the regulations that are currently in place. He said the current process provides government with enough information to make a decision that is in the public's interest.

Freeman said there was an important element missing in the debate over uranium mining that raged over much of last year because there was no proposed site that could provide solid data and answers to public questions.

He said the public's negative response to mining exploration discouraged many mining companies from continuing their activities in the province.

However, he said the mining industry is still aware that New Brunswick is open for business.

"Some of those would have been hurt by this who put up money and feel they can't go where they thought they could go, but generally we were just at a national show, and they are not talking bad about us," said Freeman.

Freeman said mining companies could have calmed public sentiment toward uranium exploration if they had faced the New Brunswickers at public meetings instead of leaving the task to government officials.

But Williams said it is the government's responsibility to answer public questions because it licenses and regulates the mining industry.

County takes mining stance

Comment: The County needs to ban uranium mining forever, it has never been mine safely!

By John CranePublished: February 17, 2009

CHATHAM — Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper and Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis each had a resolution on uranium mining on the table Tuesday night for the Board of Supervisors to choose.

The board picked Davis’ more strongly worded and comprehensive resolution in a unanimous vote.

Davis’ resolution requests that a study finds no harm to the county, “its businesses, institutions, environment, and citizens by uranium, as opposed to a cost/benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages.”

Sleeper’s version thanks the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee for holding a public hearing at Chatham High School and reiterates the county’s 2007 resolution calling for an independent study.

It also states the county’s “highest concern that the safety and welfare of the people and property in Pittsylvania County remain unharmed and undamaged by uranium mining.”

Davis said he wanted a resolution that addressed more than just safety concerns, but how the county will be perceived if uranium mining is approved.

Supervisors rejected, by a 4-3 vote, a substitute motion by Dan River Supervisor James Snead to combine the two resolutions.

A uranium mining opponent, Karen Maute, asked supervisors to consider banning uranium mining in the county, and requested they explore updating and enforcing the county’s minerals tax.

Virginia Uranium Inc. hopes to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit six miles northeast of Chatham.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has approved a study on uranium mining.

They know what it’s about

To the editor:

How stupid does the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors think we, the county citizens, are?

When the board voted not to discuss the proposed uranium mining study at its meeting Feb. 2, it showed an utter lack of courage and a more than frightening absence of knowledge.

Dan River Supervisor James Snead stated, “I don’t know what it’s about. … I don’t know how we can consider anything when there’s no information.”

How could anyone who is an elected county official not know “anything” about this topic?

Moreover, that there were enough votes to postpone the discussion indicates a majority of the supervisors are, at best, woefully uninformed or at worst in collusion to prevent the citizens from expressing their concerns about uranium mining.

It appears that our board would rather the Uranium Mining Subcommittee take the heat by simply passing on the problem to the group where we have no representation.

This action by the board mirrors those of County Administrator Dan Sleeper, who disclosed the leachate leak at the landfill 10 months after the leak was discovered.

He did not think the amount of the leak warranted informing the citizens!

What our officials can learn from this is that they must become better informed about the mining of uranium, be willing to open the discussion to the citizens and be forthcoming with the truth.

What we the county citizens can learn from this is vigilance is of the utmost importance because it seems that our elected representatives are asleep at the wheel.

It is never too early to inform ourselves about the process of a recall — let’s not wait for the next election to show our disgust!

LARRY WILBURN
Pittsylvania County

Dirty energy loan guarantees stripped from compromise stimulus bill

Clean energy advocates scored a victory yesterday when a provision to provide $50 billion worth of taxpayer loan guarantees for new nuclear and high-tech coal plants was stripped out of the final version of the economic stimulus bill negotiated by the House and Senate.

The guarantees were not in the version of the bill originally approved by the House, but they were added to the Senate version by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah). Bennett has long fought efforts to move the country toward more sustainable energy by opposing vehicle fuel standards, pushing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposing efforts to factor global warming into government planning.Experts had warned that the provision would not create any new jobs over the next four years and could in fact actually kill jobs.

As Climate Progress reported following a discussion with former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford: The capital markets are not swimming in credit.

If you have billions in taxpayer backed loans for your project, even for a project that will take years to finalize and see actual jobs, you may well suck up money that might be otherwise be available for, say, wind projects that are shovel ready now. Bradford called the nuke loans "straw ready.

"Worse, utilities that actually use these loans to build a nuclear plant would face an all but certain drop in their credit rating -- see "Warning to taxpayers, investors -- Part 2: Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings." That means we are setting ourselves up to take over more trouble assets, since the Congressional Budget Office estimates the likely default rate of these loans at over 50%.

If you liked nationalizing banks and insurance companies, you'll love nationalizing nuclear utilities!Climate Progress went on to explain how the calculated cost of the loans was based on the same sort of ridiculous financial assumptions that got the United States into the subprime mortgage mess.

The loan guarantees were stripped from the compromise bill after a massive outpouring of public opposition.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Maryland-based watchdog group with offices in North Carolina, reports that Senators received more than 7,600 letters on the issue in one week, House members received more than 3,000 letters in three days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got more than 1,100 letters in just one afternoon when the negotiations on the compromise measure were taking place.

The final bill is expected to be approved by the House today and by the Senate on Friday and land on President Obama's desk on Monday.

It is expected to pass, and no amendments can be added at this point.

"This is a huge win -- for our planet and for taxpayers who want stimulus funds to be invested wisely," Friends of the Earth said in a statement.

"The bailout in question would have thrilled nuclear industry lobbyists but done virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the nuclear industry's failures.

Congressional leaders did the right thing and prevented waste by removing this bailout.

"But NIRS warns that the nuclear industry is unlikely to give up on getting the taxpayer subsidies it so desperately wants -- and in fact needs, since private capital has proven unwilling to finance the new reactors planned for the nation, most of which are slated for the South.

As the group reported in an e-mail sent out to supporter following yesterday's vote:
Two days ago, for example, they began a new push to have nuclear power declared a "renewable" energy source in Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) upcoming

Renewable Portfolio Standard bill, which is intended to increase renewable energy production in the U.S. (although first indications are that the bill is much weaker than it should be).

This is likely to become a major issue in March.And there will be new efforts to set up a federal "clean energy bank" to finance nuclear reactors with taxpayer dollars in the coming weeks and months.

By Sue Sturgis on February 12, 2009 11:22 AM

Gretna residents applaud Hurt action

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:22 AM EST

My husband and I are very pleased with the decision by Hurt Town Council to approve a resolution on behalf of their townspeople asking for representation from Hurt to oversee an unbiased uranium study.

This certainly shows that Hurt Town Council really cares about the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.

We think it is commendable of Mr. Tommy Neal for his leadership on this matter by making the motion to adopt this, and we would like to thank him and council personally and on behalf of all the citizens of Hurt. Mr. Neal made his career by protecting citizens and certainly showed at the meeting he is still doing so.

All towns, counties, businesses, churches and civic organizations should follow Hurt's fine example and put in their own resolutions.

Your livelihood is going to be decided by others if you don't take action to protect yourself!

All citizens should call or write your local and state representatives to make sure they protect you. Citizens, you need to get involved; don't leave it up to someone else or it won't get done.

Take your future, your children's future and your grandchildren's future into your own hands or you will get mined!

Don't believe those who will say that the government will come in and take this uranium if they want it.

The United States Department of Energy Office of Public Affairs just released their Excess Uranium Inventory Plan Dec. 16, 2008, and how they plan to sell part of it. A total of 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake from Iraq was shipped to Canada (Cameco bought it) by the U.S. military, which cost the taxpayers $70 million.

If we really needed uranium, we would have brought this 550 metric tons here and we would not be selling our excess uranium!

If you need any help with resolutions, education information or anything else we can do, please do not hesitate to call us at 434-656-2046 or e-mail us at lovelace1265@fairpoint.net.

We do not belong to any groups, but are concerned citizens, parents and grandparents. We are trying to do our part to get the word out. Won't you do your part also?

Deborah LovelaceGretna

Gretna targets uranium

By SUSAN WORLEY/Star-Tribune Staff WriterWednesday,
February 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST

GRETNA - Gretna Town Council passed a resolution Monday night addressing concerns about the possibility of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County.

The town endorses the concept of asking the National Academy of Sciences to join the Coal and Energy Commission on the state study that is under way.

The town takes the position that unless mining and milling can be done safely, Gretna opposes the lifting of the state moratorium enacted in 1983."That unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air, the Town of Gretna is opposed to the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium mining," states the resolution.

The town stresses that a study should include a thorough evaluation of the risks, including those resulting from natural events such as floods.Also safeguards must be in place to protect the environment, agricultural lands and the health and well-being of citizens.

The town would like for the study process to be open to the public and the press.Since Gretna is the closest town to the site, a town representative should be included in the study, not for influence, but to make sure the town is kept informed.

It is a non-binding resolution that is simply the expression of the position of the town, said town attorney Michael Turner.

Joe Aylor, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium Inc., which plans to mine the site, grew up in Gretna.He said there are 119 million pounds of uranium at Coles Hill which could mean between 300 and 500 jobs for the long term.

"The jobs would mean economic gains for the community and Pittsylvania County," said Aylor.He invited those present to visit the VUI office in Chatham or the proposed site to better understand what uranium mining means for the community.

Aylor said the resolution basically mirrors what the state is already doing.

Bunny Eanes, who represents a group that earlier asked council to pass a resolution addressing uranium mining, said she is very concerned."The studies I have seen don't address the long range effects in this area's climate and rainfall," said Eanes."I'm worried about my grandchildren. The jobs all sound fine and well, but I don't think jobs are worth the health of our community."

The resolution will be forwarded to the town's Congressional and General Assembly delegations.

Group calls for uranium mining solution

Published: February 9, 2009
BY JOHN R. CRANE
Register & Bee staff writer

CHATHAM — A founding member of Southside Concern Citizens asked the Chatham Town Council to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.

The resolution needs to be broader than the one passed by the town of Hurt last week, Eloise Nenon, SCC founding member, said to Chatham Town Council members Monday night. Like Hurt’s, Chatham’s resolution should call for the study to open to scrutiny by the press and public, but another study should address concerns not covered in the study’s “hard science”
aspects, Nenon said.

“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,” Nenon said during Chatham Town Council’s regular meeting.

Nenon praised Hurt’s move, but said a study by the National Academy of Science, or another similar entity, would not cover issues such as the community, heritage or history of Chatham and Pittsylvania County or quality-of-life issues.

Nenon said Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall could be vulnerable to the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling.

Other questions Nenon wants answered is what type of emergency plan Chatham has in place in case of disaster.

Nenon also wants to know the names of at least five communities with similar geography to Pittsylvania County that have had uranium mining and milling but have not suffered environmental consequences. In addition, Nenon asked who would be held liable in the event of a disaster at Coles Hill.

Dust at uranium mining sites has never been controlled, she said.

“Are we destined to become the Pittsylvania dustbowl?” Nenon said.

Nenon said the National Trust for Historic Preservation could possibly conduct a separate study.

The town of Chatham passed a resolution opposing the lifting of the state’s moratorium against uranium mining in the absence of a thorough study in February 2008. Chatham Mayor George Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council.

VUI wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.
Patrick Wales, a geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc, said profits made from mining and milling at Coles Hill would go toward land conservation and maintaining the area’s history and agriculture. VUI would impose an excise tax on itself and use the funds to help pay for initiatives to improve the county’s schools, Wales said during a phone interview Monday night after the meeting.

All VUI has asked for is a study to determine the safety of mining and milling uranium, he said. Also, the study has nothing to do with lifting the moratorium on mining, he said. That decision will be up to the General Assembly, Wales said.

John Crane can be reached at jcrane@registerbee.com