Va. firm seeking to mine uranium to pay for study

Comment: Is this the future of Virginia if uranium mining is allowed?

By: SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press
09/04/09 4:55 PM EDT

ROANOKE, VA. — The company that wants to mine a vast uranium deposit in Southside Virginia will pay for a study to determine whether the ore can be extracted without harming humans and the environment, a state legislator said Friday.

Del. Terry Kilgore said he has written a letter asking the National Academy of Sciences to proceed with a study on whether the 119 million pounds of uranium on 3,000 acres in Pittsylvania County can be mined safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc. had offered to pay for the study, which Kilgore estimated will cost up to $1.3 million.

He said the state, which is dealing with a $1.5 billion budget deficit, can't finance the study and no one else has come forward.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission that Kilgore heads decided earlier this year that the national academy should be the organization that studies whether uranium can safely be mined and milled in Virginia.

Some mining opponents were skeptical of a study financed by the company that wants to mine uranium.

"I don't know how anybody could expect that it's going to be really unbiased," said Eloise Nenon, who lives near the site and belongs to a citizens group opposed to the mining. "It'll lack credibility."

William Colglazier, executive officer of the national academy, said its studies are based on science, not political considerations. The academy is a private, nonprofit agency that advises government officials on scientific matters. Group members who conduct studies are chosen for their expertise and work without compensation, Colglazier said.

"We have no stake in the outcome," he said.

Virginia's study request will probably go before the academy's governing board for approval in October.

"This looks like an important issue," Colglazier said. "It looks like a reasonable request."

Kilgore, a Republican from southwest Virginia's coal-mining region, believes the study will be fair and will answer the safety questions. It could take up to two years to complete, he said.

"It's going to take a while, and that's a good thing," he said. "We want to make sure it's done right."

The study is a first step by Virginia Uranium toward persuading the General Assembly to lift a ban on uranium mining in the state that has been in place since 1982.

"We're certainly gratified that it looks like things are moving forward," company spokesman Patrick Wales said.

The Pittsylvania County deposit is believed to be the largest in the nation.

Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/57285647.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/57285647.html

2003 National Meeting - International Perspectives: Reprocessing, Storage and Disposal

Comment: Please review the following article about nuclear waste by the NAS! In addition, this blog will follow other countries and their effect on reprocessing nuke spent rods! The Reprocessing cycle is not successful and very expensive. America does not need to invest into the reprocessing cycle. In addition, leaders of America do not make remarks about the nuke cycle like: "We need to be like France, France gets all her power from nuke plants and US needs to like France.” Well, when leaders of US make the above comment, that means they know nothing about the French Nuke Cycle. The Nuke French way is a failure, the French Nuke companies are located in unstable countries, the French Nuke Companies have to buy power from Europe this year because of the rivers are too warm to cool the Nuke reactors . The French reprocessing plants dumps the waste into the ocean! So stop saying, "We need to be like France,” no we do not want to be like France! We demand clean, true green energy; the nuke way is the old way!

Speaker: Charles McCombie
ARIUS: Association for Regional an International Underground Storage
5405 Baden/Switzerland

Introduction

In this symposium on technology and policy issues associated with nuclear wastes, I have been asked to address specifically three key issues: reprocessing, storage and disposal. Before doing so, I will give a brief, but quantitative, overview of the nuclear fuel cycle in order to illustrate which wastes arise from the activities involved therein.

Following this I will try to overview the status of technologies for storage, reprocessing and disposal and to address key policy issues associated with each of these technologies. The technical maturity and development potential differ strongly between the three fields, as do the political and societal issues currently being debated in each case.

Conclusions
The broad conclusion that can be built upon the above discussions can be summarised as follows:

The technologies for storage of HLW and spent fuel, for reprocessing and for disposal have all been developed to the implementation stage. The challenges facing these activities are in all cases more societal than technical.
Storage technologies are well tried and long tested; they present no technical problems. Siting of the centralised storage facilities that are needed as reactor stores fill up is a serious societal challenge.
Reprocessing technology has been developed and implemented in various countries; improvements could be made, but there is little incentive at present, given the declining interest being shown primarily for economic reasons. The intensive debate on the proliferation hazards potentially associated with reprocessing has abated; should it re-emerge, new technologies that avoid segregating plutonium could be developed.
The technology for geologic disposal is developed and could be implemented today, although significant optimisation of designs is possible. The chief obstacle has been obtaining the required level of societal acceptance. Some countries, however, are moving ahead now in a way that promises the operation within 10-20 years of repositories that could act as reference facilities.
The USA, through implementation of the project at Yucca Mountain, could become the first example of a country that has implemented deep geologic disposal of spent fuel, thus following upon the long-delayed success of the WIPP project.
Not all of the lessons that can be drawn from the US programmes are positive. The costs involved are horrific examples for smaller nations. The exemplary transparency of programme progress is somewhat tarnished by the prominence of political bargaining and adversarial legal wrangling.

The role of the National Academies in influencing waste management strategies has been long-lasting and important. This is illustrated by the overarching reports produced at regular intervals from the landmark report of 1957 through to the staging report released on the day of this symposium. It is emphasised further by the numerous more technical reports produced by scientists and technologists working within the framework of the extensive committee system set up by the National Research Council to give unbiased input on issues vital to ensuring safe management of all radioactive wastes.

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO READ ALL OF THE ARTICLE:
http://www.nae.edu/cms/News/8436/8619.aspx

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer.

Comment: Repeatedly people say wait for the Virginia Uranium Study because "The National Academies of Science" are part of the study. So listed below is what the wonderful "The National Academies of Science" said about exposure to uranium will do to the human body!

June 30, 2005
CONTACT: Diane D'Arrigo, NIRS 301-270-6477 16
Cindy Folkers, NIRS 301-270-6477 20

Washington, DC July 30, 2005

The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer.

Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are: There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.

Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.

It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures.

The "bystander effect" is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. "Genomic instability" can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report "might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk." These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study.

The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5.

That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought.

RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT-- RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS

The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime. [1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public.

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses [3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens.

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background.

The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).[4]

The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided.

"This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste—releasing it to regular trash or "recycling" it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money," stated Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). "This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened."

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated "These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures."

-30-
[1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ).

More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII's risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC:(7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime).

[2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3) At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer...but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures.

[3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray.

[4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer.

http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

Potential wind power is 23 times current US electricity use

Comment: Go Wind, Solar, Tide, NO Nuke Plants, No Uranium Mining!

A trio of researchers have calculated the sort of yields we might see if the world took advantage of all the wind power available to it. It's a bit of a thought experiment, but the numbers are still impressive: 40 times the current global electric use.

By John Timmer Last updated June 23, 2009 6:15 AM CT

When the National Academies of Science recently looked at the potential for renewable energy deployment in the states, its expert panel made some reasonable assumptions, such as limits imposed by manufacturing capacity and the current electric grid. This week, the NAS Proceedings will see the publication of a paper that considers what would happen if we dropped reasonableness from the analysis and calculated what we might achieve if we pushed wind power to its maximal capacity. The paper is an odd mix of these unreasonable assumptions and conservative estimates, and is probably best viewed as a sort of thought experiment. Still, the numbers that come out of the analysis are quite impressive: maxing out deployment of current-generation technology could produce five times the total energy used in the world today, and 40 times the electricity.

To a certain extent, this shouldn't be a complete shock. The amount of energy deposited on earth by the sun every year dwarfs any conceivable estimate of future energy use, and estimates are that as much as one percent of that winds up being converted to wind. The authors calculate that the fraction of wind energy that winds up on land is over 1014 watts, which is a lot to work with. The key question is how much of that to harvest.

The authors take the total land mass and subject it to a process of elimination. Areas permanently covered in ice are out, so Antarctica and Greenland have to go. Forests and densely populated areas are also out. But the authors supplement their land-based analysis with a second that considers offshore potential. There are plenty of ways to slice up the continental shelf when it comes to feasibility, but the authors keep things simple: the area has to be less than 200m deep, and within about 90km of the shore.

Obviously, wind energy isn't going to be evenly distributed across the areas that are left once this first pass is done, so the authors modified their model to take typical wind speeds into account. Typical global wind behavior was obtained from NASA's GEOS-5 system, with the wind values taken at 100m—the height of a current generation 2.5MW turbine (3.6MW turbines were assumed for offshore installation). Each turbine was given a quarter of a square kilometer footprint in order to limit their interference with the performance of neighboring units. Things like air density at altitude were also considered, and the utilization cutoff—the fraction of time that winds were strong enough to run the turbine—was set at 20 percent.

The authors produced a heat map of wind power capacity, which shows Greenland, the Amazon basin, and Central Africa whited out due to their ice cover or extensive forestation. The Great Plains of the US, the Russian steppe, and the tundra on the east side of Hudson Bay all have lots of potential, and the Patagonian grasslands positively glow. Divided up by nation, Russia comes out way ahead at over 118 PWh (Petawatt hours), with Australia in second at 86; Canada, the US, and Argentina round out the top five. Those same nations dominate the offshore potential as well, which adds another five to 25 PWh to their totals.

For the US, the total that could be generated within its territory is more than 23 times its current electricity consumption. By this measure, even China would have an 18-fold excess in production. If the world wanted to supply all its current electric needs, it could do so exclusively by relying on sites that could run turbines at full efficiency for up to half the year. To handle all its energy needs, it would only have to drop to sites with 36 percent efficiencies, about the same as the current typical install in the US.

Of course, the typical problems with renewable energy come out of this analysis as well. For starters, most of the generating capacity isn't where the people are, so long-distance transmission would be needed. By focusing in on the US, the authors detect two further issues. In the states, electrical use peaks in the summer, which happens to be the time where wind power hits its low point. The summer also turned out to be the time that the wind supply in three distant states (Minnesota, Montana, and Texas) showed the highest degree of correlation. This means that, when the wind stops blowing in one, it's likely to drop in the rest, too.

The last issue is that, at some level, putting this many turbines in place will undoubtedly change the dynamics of the lower atmosphere, with results that are probably difficult to predict.

Again, it's important to emphasize that this isn't being presented as a realistic plan to achieve a renewable energy nirvana; it's simply an attempt to provide a sense of what's possible. In the end, though, the study does make clear that supplying a lot of our energy via wind is possible, and that finding should inform debates about the degree to which it makes sense to do so and the adjustments we'll need to make to our existing energy systems in order to make it happen.

http://ow.ly/fEM7