Comment: Attention NAS, reject the uranium study or we will doubt your so call science when a Profit for Uranium Corporation is paying the study! Please review the following articles about the NAS!
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: September 8, 2009
Virginia’s study of uranium mining finally has the funding it needs to move forward, thanks to the only entity that ever offered to pay for it.
Virginia Uranium Inc. Chairman Walter Coles Sr. long ago said his company would pay for the state study. With the commonwealth unwilling to fund the study and no one else waving their checkbook around, VUI money was the only way to move this issue forward.
In a better world, the state government should have paid for the study. The state’s moratorium keeps VUI from mining what’s believed to be the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States. If the study sways the General Assembly to lift the moratorium, it will be state agencies that will assume part of the responsibility for writing mining and milling regulations and ensuring that they’re enforced.
But most of all, it was in the state’s interest to allow the National Academy of Sciences to do its work without mining opponents from accusing the NAS of somehow being in the pocket of Virginia Uranium Inc.
That argument is a slap in the face of the scientists, researchers and others who will be involved in this project. It will no doubt plan a fertile seed of future debate, doubt and consternation. The state has done a cheap and foolish thing.
Compounding the problem is the NAS study probably won’t be a slam-dunk for either side. Both camps are likely to complain that certain things weren’t checked out by the National Academy of Sciences or that certain people weren’t interviewed or that certain places weren’t visited.
Even conditional conclusions — if this is done, then that will happen — are likely to be scrutinized right down to the syllable.
Given the stakes for both sides, we could be looking at years of argument that doesn’t convince anybody of anything — including majorities of the House of Delegates and state Senate.
Additionally, many local people supported an outside study of uranium mining and milling and are counting on the study’s results to inform their final choice on the matter.
For its part, an NAS spokeswoman said her agency doesn’t have direct contact with the companies it studies.
“We would not work directly with them (VUI),” Jennifer Walsh said. “We would only go to them with questions and concerns. They would have no say-so in the study.”
Is that the end of it? Probably not. Should it be the end of it? Probably so. But the problem could have been avoided if the state of Virginia didn’t saddle the National Academy of Sciences with this controversy.
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/richmond_drops_the_ball_not_the_cash/13689/
Showing posts with label National Academy of Sciences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Academy of Sciences. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Notes on Three Articles about the NAS
Comment: We need to demand to Virginia that we want public meetings with the NAS about Uranium Study!
Notes on Three Articles about the NAS
1. More info, NAS is against reprocessing only because it is too expensive, for Nuke Plants. (BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS)
2. Second report: Hearings were open to the public (Thompson chairs NAS committee caught in political barrage)
3. (A Comparison of the Risk of Skin Cancer with the Risk of Lung Cancer from Exposure to Radon Decay Products in Underground Mines)
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/NERBa.pdf
October 2007
Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950523Arc5212.html
NEWS RELEASE 05/23/95
CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558
Thompson chairs NAS committee caught in political barrage
STANFORD -- When Stanford geophysics Professor George Thompson told a fellow geophysicist that he was about to take on the chairmanship of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review committee, Thompson commented, "This may take a few months out of my life."
"A lot more than that, George," the colleague said, with what turned out to be 20- 20 foresight. Thompson was about to become involved in a year-long process that combined staid scientific hearings on the safety of storing low-level nuclear wastes with political theater, as activists and local residents protested the idea of such a storage facility.
On the national scene, the 17 members of his committee were caught in a clash of cultures, as political definitions collided with scientific ones over the meaning of bias and objectivity. In the process, two U.S. senators and the editorial boards of two newspapers impugned the integrity of the National Academy of Sciences itself.
Reflecting on the process a week after delivering the NAS committee's May 11 report, Thompson had some advice for his colleagues. Each year, about 6,000 U.S. scientists and engineers -- many from Stanford -- serve on committees formed by the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS. "Scientists have a real duty to respond to the invitation to serve on these committees," he said, "and not to abrogate the responsibility to someone less knowledgeable."
Thompson cautioned scientists responding to that invitation, however, to evaluate what is asked of them. "Don't underestimate the time it may consume," he said, "and decide: Is this a substantial, important topic that may influence this and future decisions?"
Ward Valley report
For the panel that became known as the Ward Valley Committee, Thompson says those criteria were met. The NAS formed the committee at the request of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who asked for the report to help him make a policy decision about whether to turn over land in the Mojave Desert to the State of California for a proposed dump site for low-level nuclear wastes.
Like 31 other states, California currently has nowhere to store these contaminated materials, which range from test tubes and rubber gloves from medical facilities that use radiation to treat disease, to rags, tools and decontamination solutions from nuclear plants. "Low-level" wastes are radioactive, but either the contamination is very dilute or the radioactivity has a short half-life so the contamination will wear off within a few dozen years. Such wastes are stacking up in more than 800 temporary sites across the state, most in urban areas -- including at Stanford, where they are kept in heavily monitored storage at the Environmental Safety Facility. (See story, page xx.)
The committee was asked to dig into seven scientific questions, most about whether radiation could seep into groundwater from the site at Ward Valley near Needles, Calif., and eventually reach the Colorado River, 20 miles away. Its members found that it was "highly unlikely" that radioactivity could reach groundwater through the 700 feet of unsaturated sand and clay beneath the dump. They also recommended more extensive long- term monitoring of the site.
If accepted, Thompson said that the monitoring recommendation may change how similar dump sites are planned and approved in other states.
Thompson said that when Babbitt's staff asked him directly what he would do if the decision about Ward Valley were his choice to make, he replied that he believes the site is a safe place to store low-level nuclear wastes. Whether it is an appropriate choice means balancing other factors -- such as the appropriateness of leaving those wastes in urban areas.
On the other hand, Thompson said, issues emphasized in the study -- the fragility of the desert, the potential for disruption of habitats for endangered animals like the desert tortoise -- make Ward Valley an inappropriate choice for many other purposes. "I wouldn't put a casino there, for example," he said.
In addition to its recommendations, Thompson said one of the committee's main achievements was to let the public in on the process of investigating the scientific questions about safety. Six days of hearings were held in Needles, with scientists and engineers testifying about the geology, hydrology and ecology of the area, and about what is known about transport of radioactivity. At open-mike sessions at each hearing, the committee also heard from representatives of the Fort Mojave Indian tribe, which lives in a nearby reservation along the Colorado River, and from frightened local residents. "Don't kill my baby," one woman pleaded, holding her child up for the scientists to see.
An older couple told the committee they would simply have to give up their home and move away if the dump was placed nearby. They attended every session, and often came up to chat with committee members. In the end, they thanked the scientists for considering the safety issues.
"I don't know that their fears were much alleviated, but I think they were reassured that someone really is considering these questions," Thompson said. "We have to somehow restore confidence in government and in some institutions."
National Academy under fire
Even before the Ward Valley report was issued, one of the nation's most highly respected institutions was under fire for allegedly undermining that confidence. Editorials in April in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times charged that the credibility of the report and of the National Academy of Sciences' entire review process might be at stake because of questions about bias and secrecy.
The editorials referred to letters sent to NAS by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), and three New York State legislators, as well as by seven scientists who are members of the academy. Each letter charged that various NAS panels assessing nuclear wastes are stacked toward industry and that the panels conduct part of their work in secret.
According to William Colglazier, executive officer of the National Research Council, the operating organization of the NAS, the seven academy members later withdrew their objections once they learned about the council's multi-level procedures for disclosing conflict and for critiquing each committee's report with a second overview panel, to weed out errors and bias. One of the scientists told NAS administrators and Science magazine that the letter had been drafted for them by a member of a public-interest group, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Colglazier and NAS president Bruce Alberts met in early May with the editorial boards of the two newspapers as well. In subsequent editorials, the papers have dropped charges of bias and concentrated on the substance of the Ward Valley report.
Colglazier said that the letters followed a year of pressure by opposition groups. "Committee and staff members were harassed," he said. "They had to do their work under a microscope."
At first, NAS officials assumed the opposition would have little impact. Controversial topics are not unusual for the NAS, which was chartered by Congress in 1863 as an independent non-profit institution to provide scientific advice to government. Scientists are expected to report solely on the science of an issue, so policymakers like Babbitt can make informed political decisions.
The National Research Council conducts about 200 studies each year with the help of the nation's top experts. In most cases the quality of the expertise and the council's careful procedures have maintained its reputation for what Colglazier calls "our only coin . . . the objectivity of the advice."
In the case of Ward Valley, Colglazier said, "We underestimated the sophistication of the [political] opposition. We had naively assumed that the academy would be respected when it was attacked so viciously."
A clash of cultures
Looking back on the controversy, Thompson said he could see where scientists' definitions differ from those of politicians on questions of objectivity and the appropriate expertise for a review panel.
The 17 scientists studying Ward Valley included experts on geophysics, geochemistry, hydrology, soil science, ecology, botany and environmental engineering. They had done previous research on the ecology of the desert tortoise and desert plant populations, soil physics, the transport of contaminants in unsaturated zones, and the movement of radionuclides in underground water.
"If you have gone through the work to conduct an experiment and analyze the data, and come to a conclusion, then you have experience, knowledge -- some would say bias," Thompson said. "Scientists consider it the best use of science to do one's work, submit it for scientific publication, put it out there and have it challenged by other scientists. It's amazing to us to be attacked [for doing that], to have the attackers say this person is biased because he or she has published on the subject."
As an example of those attacks, Thompson said that hydrologist Bridge Scanlon of the University of Texas-Austin was sharply criticized because she had recently presented a scientific paper on the migration of water in desert zones to a scientific meeting.
'Opponents also attacked members of the committee for belonging to institutions that used low-level nuclear waste (as most universities do) or for having conducted studies for nuclear power companies or the Department of Energy, which oversees nuclear weapons facilities.
"One would be hard pressed to find an expert on radioactive waste, or on hydrology and geology issues surrounding radionuclides, who has not lent their scientific expertise to industry or to government agencies," Thompson said.
The committee also was criticized for writing its report in secret. Colglazier explained that this is standard procedure at the NRC because only the finished draft of a report, which has been re-drafted to answer the objections raised in peer review, is an official NRC document.
Thompson said the issue also reflects the clash in scientific and political cultures. It would have been hard to do the hard thinking needed to complete the report in the fishbowl atmosphere of an open hearing, he said. "There is a difference between bias and scientific interpretation. When you weigh all the factors and make an interpretation, your scientific colleagues tend to challenge you, to make you prove it. [In an open meeting], advocates can use these challenges to short-circuit the process."
Colglazier was concerned about the toll that work in such a fishbowl takes on scientific panels. National Research Council panel members serve without pay, he said. They are scrutinized for conflicts of interest in a disclosure process that is open to all other panel members, and sometimes leads to a scientist being bumped from a committee. But if the public demanded the same level of disclosure that they demand from political appointees, or if panels were routinely subjected to political attack, he said the personal toll might discourage scientists from participating.
"This process is unique to the United States," Colglazier said. "Other nations do not have this tradition of scientists and engineers from outside the government giving advice -- and of the government listening to that advice. It helps [policymakers] to make more rational decisions in the long run. It would be a shame if it were lost."
Having an impact
Thompson said the major factor that most impressed him about the Ward Valley Committee was the conscientiousness of its members. "They wanted to consider all the issues in their total scientific depth," he said. "They also wanted to set a pattern for how a site assessment [for a nuclear waste site] could be done in the future."
So far, licensing procedures for proposed low-level waste sites have required a year of monitoring to determine whether water seeping through the site could carry contamination into groundwater. The committee recommended that this monitoring be expanded to include more test wells beneath and around the site. They said the monitoring should continue for more than 100 years, far beyond the 30-year use of the site and the life of most of its radioactive materials, and should be reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.
Two dissenting members of the committee said that no engineering or construction should start until an extra test is made to make sure that contaminants could not have traveled deep into the soil in recent years. The majority of the committee agreed that this test should be made, but said work could begin even though it would have to be halted if this extra test, for the presence of tritium, turned out positive.
Perhaps primed by the controversy over the makeup of the committee, newspaper reports and editorials emphasized the dissenting opinions in the report. Thompson was bemused to note that most reports missed the committee's recommendations for more stringent requirements for waste sites.
"I was amazed to hear that the governor's office was crowing about the report, as if [transfer of the land to the state] was in the bag," he said. "If they read our report, they have a lot more work to do."
The final decision about transferring the land is expected shortly from the secretary of the interior.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11279&page=353
Appendix B
A Comparison of the Risk of Skin Cancer with the Risk of Lung Cancer from Exposure to Radon Decay Products in Underground Mines
It has been suggested that ambient conditions in underground mines might cause cancers at sites other than the lung (Tomasek et al., 1993; Denman et al., 2003), specifically, that radon in the ambient air might be responsible for an excess risk of skin cancer and leukemia. The committee has reviewed the relevant literature and has compared the risk of skin cancer with the risk of ling cancer.
The nobel gas radon-222 (222Rn) is produced naturally in rocks and underground formations. Because of its mobility, it can escape from the geologic matrix and accumulate in the atmosphere. It can reach high concentrations particularly in caves and underground mines. Radon is radioactive; when it decays, it initiates a series of radioactive transitions. The short-lived radioactive descendents of 222Rn—polonium-218 (218Po), lead-214 (214Pb), bismuth-214 (214Bi), and polonium-214 (214Po)—have historically been called radon daughters, radon progeny, or radon decay products. Their kinetic behavior is complicated. They are not inert and do adhere to other objects when contact is made. Many of the daughters “plate out” on surfaces, where they become immobile and decay in situ. Others attach to aerosols and remain suspended in the atmosphere until they decay.
Risks of lung cancer are related to inhalation of radon daughters, not radon itself, because almost all radon inhaled is immediately exhaled, but inhaled radon daughters mostly become resident in the airways of the lung. The radioactive half-lives of the daughters are shorter than the respiratory clearance time, so they decay in the lung. The alpha particles released by 218Po and 214Po have sufficient penetration to reach and deliver high doses to sensitive cells in the bronchial epithelium.
Notes on Three Articles about the NAS
1. More info, NAS is against reprocessing only because it is too expensive, for Nuke Plants. (BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS)
2. Second report: Hearings were open to the public (Thompson chairs NAS committee caught in political barrage)
3. (A Comparison of the Risk of Skin Cancer with the Risk of Lung Cancer from Exposure to Radon Decay Products in Underground Mines)
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/NERBa.pdf
October 2007
Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950523Arc5212.html
NEWS RELEASE 05/23/95
CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558
Thompson chairs NAS committee caught in political barrage
STANFORD -- When Stanford geophysics Professor George Thompson told a fellow geophysicist that he was about to take on the chairmanship of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review committee, Thompson commented, "This may take a few months out of my life."
"A lot more than that, George," the colleague said, with what turned out to be 20- 20 foresight. Thompson was about to become involved in a year-long process that combined staid scientific hearings on the safety of storing low-level nuclear wastes with political theater, as activists and local residents protested the idea of such a storage facility.
On the national scene, the 17 members of his committee were caught in a clash of cultures, as political definitions collided with scientific ones over the meaning of bias and objectivity. In the process, two U.S. senators and the editorial boards of two newspapers impugned the integrity of the National Academy of Sciences itself.
Reflecting on the process a week after delivering the NAS committee's May 11 report, Thompson had some advice for his colleagues. Each year, about 6,000 U.S. scientists and engineers -- many from Stanford -- serve on committees formed by the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS. "Scientists have a real duty to respond to the invitation to serve on these committees," he said, "and not to abrogate the responsibility to someone less knowledgeable."
Thompson cautioned scientists responding to that invitation, however, to evaluate what is asked of them. "Don't underestimate the time it may consume," he said, "and decide: Is this a substantial, important topic that may influence this and future decisions?"
Ward Valley report
For the panel that became known as the Ward Valley Committee, Thompson says those criteria were met. The NAS formed the committee at the request of Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who asked for the report to help him make a policy decision about whether to turn over land in the Mojave Desert to the State of California for a proposed dump site for low-level nuclear wastes.
Like 31 other states, California currently has nowhere to store these contaminated materials, which range from test tubes and rubber gloves from medical facilities that use radiation to treat disease, to rags, tools and decontamination solutions from nuclear plants. "Low-level" wastes are radioactive, but either the contamination is very dilute or the radioactivity has a short half-life so the contamination will wear off within a few dozen years. Such wastes are stacking up in more than 800 temporary sites across the state, most in urban areas -- including at Stanford, where they are kept in heavily monitored storage at the Environmental Safety Facility. (See story, page xx.)
The committee was asked to dig into seven scientific questions, most about whether radiation could seep into groundwater from the site at Ward Valley near Needles, Calif., and eventually reach the Colorado River, 20 miles away. Its members found that it was "highly unlikely" that radioactivity could reach groundwater through the 700 feet of unsaturated sand and clay beneath the dump. They also recommended more extensive long- term monitoring of the site.
If accepted, Thompson said that the monitoring recommendation may change how similar dump sites are planned and approved in other states.
Thompson said that when Babbitt's staff asked him directly what he would do if the decision about Ward Valley were his choice to make, he replied that he believes the site is a safe place to store low-level nuclear wastes. Whether it is an appropriate choice means balancing other factors -- such as the appropriateness of leaving those wastes in urban areas.
On the other hand, Thompson said, issues emphasized in the study -- the fragility of the desert, the potential for disruption of habitats for endangered animals like the desert tortoise -- make Ward Valley an inappropriate choice for many other purposes. "I wouldn't put a casino there, for example," he said.
In addition to its recommendations, Thompson said one of the committee's main achievements was to let the public in on the process of investigating the scientific questions about safety. Six days of hearings were held in Needles, with scientists and engineers testifying about the geology, hydrology and ecology of the area, and about what is known about transport of radioactivity. At open-mike sessions at each hearing, the committee also heard from representatives of the Fort Mojave Indian tribe, which lives in a nearby reservation along the Colorado River, and from frightened local residents. "Don't kill my baby," one woman pleaded, holding her child up for the scientists to see.
An older couple told the committee they would simply have to give up their home and move away if the dump was placed nearby. They attended every session, and often came up to chat with committee members. In the end, they thanked the scientists for considering the safety issues.
"I don't know that their fears were much alleviated, but I think they were reassured that someone really is considering these questions," Thompson said. "We have to somehow restore confidence in government and in some institutions."
National Academy under fire
Even before the Ward Valley report was issued, one of the nation's most highly respected institutions was under fire for allegedly undermining that confidence. Editorials in April in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times charged that the credibility of the report and of the National Academy of Sciences' entire review process might be at stake because of questions about bias and secrecy.
The editorials referred to letters sent to NAS by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), and three New York State legislators, as well as by seven scientists who are members of the academy. Each letter charged that various NAS panels assessing nuclear wastes are stacked toward industry and that the panels conduct part of their work in secret.
According to William Colglazier, executive officer of the National Research Council, the operating organization of the NAS, the seven academy members later withdrew their objections once they learned about the council's multi-level procedures for disclosing conflict and for critiquing each committee's report with a second overview panel, to weed out errors and bias. One of the scientists told NAS administrators and Science magazine that the letter had been drafted for them by a member of a public-interest group, Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Colglazier and NAS president Bruce Alberts met in early May with the editorial boards of the two newspapers as well. In subsequent editorials, the papers have dropped charges of bias and concentrated on the substance of the Ward Valley report.
Colglazier said that the letters followed a year of pressure by opposition groups. "Committee and staff members were harassed," he said. "They had to do their work under a microscope."
At first, NAS officials assumed the opposition would have little impact. Controversial topics are not unusual for the NAS, which was chartered by Congress in 1863 as an independent non-profit institution to provide scientific advice to government. Scientists are expected to report solely on the science of an issue, so policymakers like Babbitt can make informed political decisions.
The National Research Council conducts about 200 studies each year with the help of the nation's top experts. In most cases the quality of the expertise and the council's careful procedures have maintained its reputation for what Colglazier calls "our only coin . . . the objectivity of the advice."
In the case of Ward Valley, Colglazier said, "We underestimated the sophistication of the [political] opposition. We had naively assumed that the academy would be respected when it was attacked so viciously."
A clash of cultures
Looking back on the controversy, Thompson said he could see where scientists' definitions differ from those of politicians on questions of objectivity and the appropriate expertise for a review panel.
The 17 scientists studying Ward Valley included experts on geophysics, geochemistry, hydrology, soil science, ecology, botany and environmental engineering. They had done previous research on the ecology of the desert tortoise and desert plant populations, soil physics, the transport of contaminants in unsaturated zones, and the movement of radionuclides in underground water.
"If you have gone through the work to conduct an experiment and analyze the data, and come to a conclusion, then you have experience, knowledge -- some would say bias," Thompson said. "Scientists consider it the best use of science to do one's work, submit it for scientific publication, put it out there and have it challenged by other scientists. It's amazing to us to be attacked [for doing that], to have the attackers say this person is biased because he or she has published on the subject."
As an example of those attacks, Thompson said that hydrologist Bridge Scanlon of the University of Texas-Austin was sharply criticized because she had recently presented a scientific paper on the migration of water in desert zones to a scientific meeting.
'Opponents also attacked members of the committee for belonging to institutions that used low-level nuclear waste (as most universities do) or for having conducted studies for nuclear power companies or the Department of Energy, which oversees nuclear weapons facilities.
"One would be hard pressed to find an expert on radioactive waste, or on hydrology and geology issues surrounding radionuclides, who has not lent their scientific expertise to industry or to government agencies," Thompson said.
The committee also was criticized for writing its report in secret. Colglazier explained that this is standard procedure at the NRC because only the finished draft of a report, which has been re-drafted to answer the objections raised in peer review, is an official NRC document.
Thompson said the issue also reflects the clash in scientific and political cultures. It would have been hard to do the hard thinking needed to complete the report in the fishbowl atmosphere of an open hearing, he said. "There is a difference between bias and scientific interpretation. When you weigh all the factors and make an interpretation, your scientific colleagues tend to challenge you, to make you prove it. [In an open meeting], advocates can use these challenges to short-circuit the process."
Colglazier was concerned about the toll that work in such a fishbowl takes on scientific panels. National Research Council panel members serve without pay, he said. They are scrutinized for conflicts of interest in a disclosure process that is open to all other panel members, and sometimes leads to a scientist being bumped from a committee. But if the public demanded the same level of disclosure that they demand from political appointees, or if panels were routinely subjected to political attack, he said the personal toll might discourage scientists from participating.
"This process is unique to the United States," Colglazier said. "Other nations do not have this tradition of scientists and engineers from outside the government giving advice -- and of the government listening to that advice. It helps [policymakers] to make more rational decisions in the long run. It would be a shame if it were lost."
Having an impact
Thompson said the major factor that most impressed him about the Ward Valley Committee was the conscientiousness of its members. "They wanted to consider all the issues in their total scientific depth," he said. "They also wanted to set a pattern for how a site assessment [for a nuclear waste site] could be done in the future."
So far, licensing procedures for proposed low-level waste sites have required a year of monitoring to determine whether water seeping through the site could carry contamination into groundwater. The committee recommended that this monitoring be expanded to include more test wells beneath and around the site. They said the monitoring should continue for more than 100 years, far beyond the 30-year use of the site and the life of most of its radioactive materials, and should be reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.
Two dissenting members of the committee said that no engineering or construction should start until an extra test is made to make sure that contaminants could not have traveled deep into the soil in recent years. The majority of the committee agreed that this test should be made, but said work could begin even though it would have to be halted if this extra test, for the presence of tritium, turned out positive.
Perhaps primed by the controversy over the makeup of the committee, newspaper reports and editorials emphasized the dissenting opinions in the report. Thompson was bemused to note that most reports missed the committee's recommendations for more stringent requirements for waste sites.
"I was amazed to hear that the governor's office was crowing about the report, as if [transfer of the land to the state] was in the bag," he said. "If they read our report, they have a lot more work to do."
The final decision about transferring the land is expected shortly from the secretary of the interior.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11279&page=353
Appendix B
A Comparison of the Risk of Skin Cancer with the Risk of Lung Cancer from Exposure to Radon Decay Products in Underground Mines
It has been suggested that ambient conditions in underground mines might cause cancers at sites other than the lung (Tomasek et al., 1993; Denman et al., 2003), specifically, that radon in the ambient air might be responsible for an excess risk of skin cancer and leukemia. The committee has reviewed the relevant literature and has compared the risk of skin cancer with the risk of ling cancer.
The nobel gas radon-222 (222Rn) is produced naturally in rocks and underground formations. Because of its mobility, it can escape from the geologic matrix and accumulate in the atmosphere. It can reach high concentrations particularly in caves and underground mines. Radon is radioactive; when it decays, it initiates a series of radioactive transitions. The short-lived radioactive descendents of 222Rn—polonium-218 (218Po), lead-214 (214Pb), bismuth-214 (214Bi), and polonium-214 (214Po)—have historically been called radon daughters, radon progeny, or radon decay products. Their kinetic behavior is complicated. They are not inert and do adhere to other objects when contact is made. Many of the daughters “plate out” on surfaces, where they become immobile and decay in situ. Others attach to aerosols and remain suspended in the atmosphere until they decay.
Risks of lung cancer are related to inhalation of radon daughters, not radon itself, because almost all radon inhaled is immediately exhaled, but inhaled radon daughters mostly become resident in the airways of the lung. The radioactive half-lives of the daughters are shorter than the respiratory clearance time, so they decay in the lung. The alpha particles released by 218Po and 214Po have sufficient penetration to reach and deliver high doses to sensitive cells in the bronchial epithelium.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
U.S. Uranium and Nuclear (presented to NAS)
Comment: Listed below is a Report to National Research Council of the National Academies from the Nuke Bunch! However, there were not footnotes in the report where the Nuke Bunch got their information! Will VUI present the same type of report to NAS? Will there be a counter anti uranium report from a Virginian Environment Group to NAS?
U.S. Uranium and Nuclear
Power Outlook: 2008 - 2030
Presented to:National Research Council of the National Academies
Presented by:Tom Pool
Chairman, International Nuclear
November 18, 2008
Nuclear Power – Impetus for Growth
• Global Warming – Minimal Carbon Emissions
• Acid Rain – Minimal SO2 Emissions
• Energy Independence – US Fuel Aplenty
• Technology is here now
• Low Operating Costs
• Stellar Safety Record
• Minimal Environmental Footprint
Radiation Safety
• Linear-No-Threshold
– Any additional radiation causes more
cancers
• Hormesis
– Low level radiation stimulates natural
protection systems
US Uranium Resources:
Socio – Political Lock-Up
• Virginia – Moratorium (de facto) on
Uranium Mining
• Montana – Moratorium (de facto) on
Uranium Milling
• New Mexico – Large-Scale Navajo
Cultural Issues
• Arizona – Grand Canyon Issues
Opposition
Most Opposition to Nuclear Power and Uranium
Can Be Characterized as:
– Lack of Understanding (Fear of the Unknown)
• Connection With Nuclear Weapons
• Chernobyl & Three Mile Island
– Prejudice
– Mysticism
– Political Positioning
– Over Reaction
– Media Sensationalism
– Mistrust of Government Regulators
Rebuttal to Opposition
• Stakeholder Identification
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Stakeholder Education
• Transparency
• Regulatory Perfection
NOT IN THEIR REPORT:
Environmental Problems and Violations Accumulate for Uranium Mining and Processing
(JUST SOME PROBLEMS, CANADA NOT INCLUDES, WILL DO LATER)
While the uranium mining industry insists that the in-situ leaching process for extracting uranium is environmentally safe, mining violations and associated fines imposed by mining regulatory agencies continue to accumulate. To avoid violations, some mining companies request more lax environmental standards. Significant problems also occur with uranium processing and transportation.
Here are some recent examples:
•Uranium Mine (Power Resources, Inc.) to pay $1.4 million settlement. See http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/07/10/news/breaking/doc4876424160775926209366.txt.
•Cameco Resources agrees to pay $50,000 fine for deficienies identified during abandoned drill hole inspection at Smith Ranch ISL site. See http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopwy.html#SMITHR.
•According to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality records, 51 requests for “amended restoration tables to make them higher” have been granted out of 80 uranium mining production areas. See http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/goliad_county/story/323434.html.
•Strathmore pays $18,000 fine for numerous violations connected to exploration activities at Sky ISL project site (Wyoming). See http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusawy.html#SKY.
•The Cotter Corp. uranium mill has been cited by the state for radioactive contamination at the adjacent Shadow Hills Golf Club. See http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/14/uranium-mill-cited-for-new-contamination/.
•$50,000 penalty imposed on Cameco's subsidiary Crow Butte Resources for violations at ISL uranium mine (Nebraska). See http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopusa.html#CROWBCD080523.
•Wyoming DEQ issues Notice of Violation to Cameco Resources for deficienies identified during abandoned drill hole inspection. See http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopwy.html#SMITHR.
•Cameco Resources Reaches Settlement with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. See http://www.cameco.com/media_gateway/news_releases/2008/news_release.php?id=236.
•Wyoming Model In Situ Uranium Mine Under Scrutiny for an Alarming Volume of Environmental Violations. See http://www.nunnglow.com/latest/wyoming-deq-sanctions-uranium-mine.html.
•WISE Uranium Reports Cogema Seeks Approval for Groundwater Restoration. See http://www.nunnglow.com/latest/wise-uranium-reports-cogema-seeks-approval-for-groundwater-restoration.html
•Probe finds uranium mine violations. See http://www.nunnglow.com/probe-finds-uranium-mine-violations.html
http://dels.nas.edu/besr/docs/Pool.pdf
U.S. Uranium and Nuclear
Power Outlook: 2008 - 2030
Presented to:National Research Council of the National Academies
Presented by:Tom Pool
Chairman, International Nuclear
November 18, 2008
Nuclear Power – Impetus for Growth
• Global Warming – Minimal Carbon Emissions
• Acid Rain – Minimal SO2 Emissions
• Energy Independence – US Fuel Aplenty
• Technology is here now
• Low Operating Costs
• Stellar Safety Record
• Minimal Environmental Footprint
Radiation Safety
• Linear-No-Threshold
– Any additional radiation causes more
cancers
• Hormesis
– Low level radiation stimulates natural
protection systems
US Uranium Resources:
Socio – Political Lock-Up
• Virginia – Moratorium (de facto) on
Uranium Mining
• Montana – Moratorium (de facto) on
Uranium Milling
• New Mexico – Large-Scale Navajo
Cultural Issues
• Arizona – Grand Canyon Issues
Opposition
Most Opposition to Nuclear Power and Uranium
Can Be Characterized as:
– Lack of Understanding (Fear of the Unknown)
• Connection With Nuclear Weapons
• Chernobyl & Three Mile Island
– Prejudice
– Mysticism
– Political Positioning
– Over Reaction
– Media Sensationalism
– Mistrust of Government Regulators
Rebuttal to Opposition
• Stakeholder Identification
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Stakeholder Education
• Transparency
• Regulatory Perfection
NOT IN THEIR REPORT:
Environmental Problems and Violations Accumulate for Uranium Mining and Processing
(JUST SOME PROBLEMS, CANADA NOT INCLUDES, WILL DO LATER)
While the uranium mining industry insists that the in-situ leaching process for extracting uranium is environmentally safe, mining violations and associated fines imposed by mining regulatory agencies continue to accumulate. To avoid violations, some mining companies request more lax environmental standards. Significant problems also occur with uranium processing and transportation.
Here are some recent examples:
•Uranium Mine (Power Resources, Inc.) to pay $1.4 million settlement. See http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/07/10/news/breaking/doc4876424160775926209366.txt.
•Cameco Resources agrees to pay $50,000 fine for deficienies identified during abandoned drill hole inspection at Smith Ranch ISL site. See http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopwy.html#SMITHR.
•According to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality records, 51 requests for “amended restoration tables to make them higher” have been granted out of 80 uranium mining production areas. See http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/goliad_county/story/323434.html.
•Strathmore pays $18,000 fine for numerous violations connected to exploration activities at Sky ISL project site (Wyoming). See http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusawy.html#SKY.
•The Cotter Corp. uranium mill has been cited by the state for radioactive contamination at the adjacent Shadow Hills Golf Club. See http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/14/uranium-mill-cited-for-new-contamination/.
•$50,000 penalty imposed on Cameco's subsidiary Crow Butte Resources for violations at ISL uranium mine (Nebraska). See http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopusa.html#CROWBCD080523.
•Wyoming DEQ issues Notice of Violation to Cameco Resources for deficienies identified during abandoned drill hole inspection. See http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopwy.html#SMITHR.
•Cameco Resources Reaches Settlement with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. See http://www.cameco.com/media_gateway/news_releases/2008/news_release.php?id=236.
•Wyoming Model In Situ Uranium Mine Under Scrutiny for an Alarming Volume of Environmental Violations. See http://www.nunnglow.com/latest/wyoming-deq-sanctions-uranium-mine.html.
•WISE Uranium Reports Cogema Seeks Approval for Groundwater Restoration. See http://www.nunnglow.com/latest/wise-uranium-reports-cogema-seeks-approval-for-groundwater-restoration.html
•Probe finds uranium mine violations. See http://www.nunnglow.com/probe-finds-uranium-mine-violations.html
http://dels.nas.edu/besr/docs/Pool.pdf
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Virginia panel OKs uranium mining study
Associated Press - May 21, 2009 5:15 PM ET
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy has approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in Virginia.
The subcommittee on Thursday amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what would be included in the study.
Among the major revisions was moving an item on assessing health risks to workers and the public to the top of the list. The study will not take a position for or against the mining.
Before uranium could be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982.
The study was requested as a first step to lifting that ban by a company that wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit.
http://www.nbc12.com/global/story.asp?s=10405336&ClientType=Printable
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy has approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in Virginia.
The subcommittee on Thursday amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what would be included in the study.
Among the major revisions was moving an item on assessing health risks to workers and the public to the top of the list. The study will not take a position for or against the mining.
Before uranium could be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982.
The study was requested as a first step to lifting that ban by a company that wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit.
http://www.nbc12.com/global/story.asp?s=10405336&ClientType=Printable
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
Posted on Tue, Mar. 31, 2009
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
By RENEE SCHOOF AND DAVID LIGHTMAN
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday announced a sweeping plan to change how the nation produces and uses energy in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
No environmental legislation in America has ever attempted such wide-reaching changes. The bill - an incomplete draft that will evolve in the months ahead - would provide incentives to boost wind, solar and other renewable energy, would improve efficiency so that homes and businesses need less fuel and would support the development of cars that run on biofuels and electricity. (Nuke Power is not green and is not renewable!!)
It also would make using fossil fuels more expensive - and that will be the central issue of debate in Congress, with armies of lobbyists on both sides.
The measure contains a variety of terms intended to help businesses survive the energy transition, but it leaves open for debate the central question: how revenues from pollution permits would be used. That means the question of how consumers would be helped also remains to be worked out.
The plan calls for a system to limit for the first time the amount of global warming pollution - mainly carbon dioxide from coal and oil combustion - that's permitted from utilities, oil companies and large-scale industries, which make up 85 percent of the U.S. economy. They'd have to buy permits for each ton of emissions.
The total emissions amount would be lowered each year until it was 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. That's the amount that science suggests will be needed as part of a global effort to prevent irreversible problems from steadily increasing warming.
Companies that need more permits could buy them from companies that need fewer of them. This system of a declining cap on overall emissions and a market for permits is known as "cap and trade."
Sponsors declared that their plan would create jobs in clean energy that couldn't be shipped offshore, would reduce dependence on foreign oil and would make the United States an exporter of energy technology, all while making sure that American consumers and coal-dependent parts of the nation are spared from sharp cost increases.
"This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence and cut global warming pollution," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who sponsored the draft along with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.
Waxman and Markey modeled their cap and trade plan on a consensus report that U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of 26 large businesses - including ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP America Inc., Duke Energy, Alcoa and the U.S. automakers - and five environmental groups released in January.
Environmental groups supported the draft.
Democrats are pushing for ambitious climate-change legislation this year before a global conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December that aims to set new goals for reducing the emissions that contribute to global warming.
Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the Waxman-Markey plan a "new national energy tax" and asserted that it would cost households up to $3,100 a year and reduce the number of U.S. jobs.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio attacked the plan with similar arguments and added that AK Steel, which is in his district, would pay more under cap and trade than competitors in places such as China would.
"Their costs will skyrocket and their customers will simply buy cheaper imported steel," Boehner said.
The draft, however, contains provisions to protect businesses from foreign competition and leaves open for debate how consumers will be protected. One idea that has some bipartisan support is returning all or most revenue from pollution permit sales to taxpayers.
Another suggestion is to give permits to companies free in the plan's early years. That also could help hold down costs to consumers if the companies passed the benefits along.
In a sign of the argument to come, Republicans unleashed a series of ads Tuesday aimed at 54 politically vulnerable House Democrats, charging that a cap and trade plan would send energy prices soaring. Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "fiscally irresponsible cap and tax proposal that will increase energy bills, raise taxes and overwhelm the budgets of American families."
Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said he was glad that the draft bill included plans to protect American industries from competitive disadvantage. Still, he said it would take time to analyze the 640-page draft to determine how effective and how costly the bill would be.
The bill's section on global competitiveness calls for some industrial sectors to receive rebates to compensate for additional costs. If the rebates aren't sufficient, the president could impose tariffs on foreign manufacturers and importers to cover the carbon they emitted in making their exported products.
James Mulva, the chairman and chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, said at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday that businesses wanted certainty about energy prices so they could make investment decisions.
He predicted that this issue will be a difficult fight in Congress and called for work toward an "environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair" approach.
Mulva said that a "significant proportion" of the permits should be given free to businesses to help consumers and protect against competition from foreign countries without mandatory controls.
The measure offers other provisions that businesses sought. One is offsets; companies can increase their emissions if they obtain reductions of emissions elsewhere at a lower cost which offsets those increases. Total offsets would be limited.
House Democrats unveil sweeping plan to reshape energy in America
By RENEE SCHOOF AND DAVID LIGHTMAN
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday announced a sweeping plan to change how the nation produces and uses energy in order to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change.
No environmental legislation in America has ever attempted such wide-reaching changes. The bill - an incomplete draft that will evolve in the months ahead - would provide incentives to boost wind, solar and other renewable energy, would improve efficiency so that homes and businesses need less fuel and would support the development of cars that run on biofuels and electricity. (Nuke Power is not green and is not renewable!!)
It also would make using fossil fuels more expensive - and that will be the central issue of debate in Congress, with armies of lobbyists on both sides.
The measure contains a variety of terms intended to help businesses survive the energy transition, but it leaves open for debate the central question: how revenues from pollution permits would be used. That means the question of how consumers would be helped also remains to be worked out.
The plan calls for a system to limit for the first time the amount of global warming pollution - mainly carbon dioxide from coal and oil combustion - that's permitted from utilities, oil companies and large-scale industries, which make up 85 percent of the U.S. economy. They'd have to buy permits for each ton of emissions.
The total emissions amount would be lowered each year until it was 83 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. That's the amount that science suggests will be needed as part of a global effort to prevent irreversible problems from steadily increasing warming.
Companies that need more permits could buy them from companies that need fewer of them. This system of a declining cap on overall emissions and a market for permits is known as "cap and trade."
Sponsors declared that their plan would create jobs in clean energy that couldn't be shipped offshore, would reduce dependence on foreign oil and would make the United States an exporter of energy technology, all while making sure that American consumers and coal-dependent parts of the nation are spared from sharp cost increases.
"This legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs, put America on the path to energy independence and cut global warming pollution," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who sponsored the draft along with Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee.
Waxman and Markey modeled their cap and trade plan on a consensus report that U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of 26 large businesses - including ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP America Inc., Duke Energy, Alcoa and the U.S. automakers - and five environmental groups released in January.
Environmental groups supported the draft.
Democrats are pushing for ambitious climate-change legislation this year before a global conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December that aims to set new goals for reducing the emissions that contribute to global warming.
Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the Waxman-Markey plan a "new national energy tax" and asserted that it would cost households up to $3,100 a year and reduce the number of U.S. jobs.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio attacked the plan with similar arguments and added that AK Steel, which is in his district, would pay more under cap and trade than competitors in places such as China would.
"Their costs will skyrocket and their customers will simply buy cheaper imported steel," Boehner said.
The draft, however, contains provisions to protect businesses from foreign competition and leaves open for debate how consumers will be protected. One idea that has some bipartisan support is returning all or most revenue from pollution permit sales to taxpayers.
Another suggestion is to give permits to companies free in the plan's early years. That also could help hold down costs to consumers if the companies passed the benefits along.
In a sign of the argument to come, Republicans unleashed a series of ads Tuesday aimed at 54 politically vulnerable House Democrats, charging that a cap and trade plan would send energy prices soaring. Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "fiscally irresponsible cap and tax proposal that will increase energy bills, raise taxes and overwhelm the budgets of American families."
Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said he was glad that the draft bill included plans to protect American industries from competitive disadvantage. Still, he said it would take time to analyze the 640-page draft to determine how effective and how costly the bill would be.
The bill's section on global competitiveness calls for some industrial sectors to receive rebates to compensate for additional costs. If the rebates aren't sufficient, the president could impose tariffs on foreign manufacturers and importers to cover the carbon they emitted in making their exported products.
James Mulva, the chairman and chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, said at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday that businesses wanted certainty about energy prices so they could make investment decisions.
He predicted that this issue will be a difficult fight in Congress and called for work toward an "environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair" approach.
Mulva said that a "significant proportion" of the permits should be given free to businesses to help consumers and protect against competition from foreign countries without mandatory controls.
The measure offers other provisions that businesses sought. One is offsets; companies can increase their emissions if they obtain reductions of emissions elsewhere at a lower cost which offsets those increases. Total offsets would be limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
