Where is Radon Gas Found? – The Occurrence of a Poisonous Gas

Radon, the colorless, odorless, tasteless, naturally occurring, radioactive noble gas that is formed from the decay of radium, is the number two cause of lung cancer and one of the top causes of cancer death in the world. That is why knowing where to find them and immediately getting rid of them is very important. But where exactly does radon come from? Where can one find the presence of radon that is dangerous to human being? Let’s find out.

On the average, there is one atom of radon in 1-by-1021 molecules of air. It can also be found in some spring waters and hot springs. The towns of Misasa, Japan, and Bad Kreuznach, Germany boast radium-rich springs which emit radon. Unsurprisingly, Radium Springs, New Mexico does too.

Radon exhausts naturally from the ground, especially but not only on regions with granitic soils. Not all granitic regions are prone to high emissions of radon. For example, the rock which Aberdeen is on is very radium-rich but the rock lacks the cracks required for the radon to migrate. In other near by areas of Scotland, which is on the north of Aberdeen, and in Cornwall-Devon, the radon is very able to leave the rock.

Radon, as we know it, is a decay product of radium which in turn is a decay product of uranium. It is possible to get maps of average radon levels in houses, these maps assist in the planning of radon mitigation measures for homes. Note that while high uranium in the soil/rock under a house does not always lead to a high radon level in air, a positive correlation between the uranium content of the soil and the radon level in air can be seen. The radon released into the air, which is 222Rn, decays to 210Pb and other radioisotopes, the levels of 210Pb can be measured. It is important to note that the rate of deposition of this radioisotope is very dependent on the weather.

Well water can also be very rich in radon. The use of this water inside a house is an additional route allowing radon to enter the house. The radon can enter the air and then be a source of exposure to the humans, or the water can be consumed by humans which is a different exposure route.

Water, oil and gas from wells cam also contain radon. The radon decays to form solid radioisotopes which then form coatings on the inside of pipework. In an oil processing plant, the area of the plant where propane is processed is often one of the more contaminated areas of the plant as radon has a similar boiling point as propane.

Because uranium minerals emit radon gas uranium mining is considerably more dangerous than other hard rock mining, which requires adequate ventilation systems if the mines are not open pit. Currently the level of radon in the air of mines is controlled by law. In a working mine, the radon level can be controlled by ventilation, sealing off old workings and controlling the water in the mine.

The level in a mine can go up when a mine is abandoned, it can reach a level which is able to cause the skin to become red, which is a mild radiation burn. The radon levels in some of the mines can reach 400 to 700 kBq m-3.

The danger of radon exposure in houses was discovered in 1984 by Stanley Watras, an employee at the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. He set off the radiation alarms on his way into work for two weeks straight while authorities searched for the source of the contamination. They were shocked to find that the source was astonishingly high levels of radon in his basement and it was not related to the nuclear plant. The risks associated with living in his house were estimated to be equivalent to smoking 135 packs of cigarettes every day.

Depending on how houses are built and ventilated, radon may accumulate in basements and lower floors of the house. The European Union recommends that action should be taken starting from concentrations of 400 Bq/m3 for old houses and 200 Bq/m3 for new ones. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) recommends action for any house with a concentration higher than 8 pCi/L (300 Bq/m³). The US Environmental Protection Agency recommends action for any house with a concentration higher than 148 Bq/m3 (given as 4 pCi/L). Nearly one in 15 homes in the United States has a high level of indoor radon according to their statistics. The US Surgeon General and EPA recommend all homes be tested for radon. Since 1985, millions of homes have been tested for radon in the United States

So it looks like radon can be everywhere. But it is also important to know that radon exposure can be prevented by always checking the level of its presence in a location. Lower levels of radon in the surrounding can be of no harm to human beings. That is why knowing where and how to detect the presence of this poisonous gas is a matter of life and death.

Radon From Granite Causes Cancer Radon Gas Detectors – Keep it safe

Simply put, think of natural stone as a very dense sponge that allows water, air and yes radon to pass through the stone. Once the stone is removed from the source of radon (the e… Read more…

Be careful when getting a granite countertop

So she called a radon measurement and mitigation technician to find the source. “He went from room to room,” said Dr. Sugarman, a pediatrician. But he stopped in his tracks in the ki… Read more…

Radon Gas In The Home Can Be Dangerous To Your Health

Soil and water are the two main sources of radon entering your home. It is estimated that one out of fifteen homes in the US test for elevated radon levels. Radon is odorle… Read more…

http://radongasdetectors.net/where-is-radon-gas-found-the-occurrence-of-a-poisonous-gas

History of underestimating radioactivity

Comment: Scary stuff in this article. Shows how far people will go for experiments, the same in form of nuclear cycle! The nuke bunch looks at people as disposable just to get uranium out of the ground for greed!


Source: J. Ellsworth Weaver Brief Chronology

The slow progress to safety

1784 William Morgan unknowingly produces X-rays in experiment witnessed by Ben Franklin.

1789 Martin Klaproth announces his discovery of a new element, uranium.

1895 Roentgen discovers x-rays.

1898 Marie and Pierre Curie coin the word "radioactivity" and separate Radium.

1900 Friedrich Ernst Dorn discovers radon, a radioactive product of uranium.

1904 A glass blower at Thomas Edison's Menlo Park lab is the first person known to have been killed by x-ray exposure. Severely burned in 1896, he still works with x-rays until 1898. His death causes Edison to discontinue radiation experiments.

1912 Arthritis patient dies because of Radium injections.

1921 Suggestion that radium and its emanation might cause lung cancer in miners are taken seriously but not proven.

1927 H. Muller shows genetic effects of radiation.

1929-1930 Fifty percent (!) of uranium miners are dying of lung cancer at the Joachimsthal mine.

1941 The first standard for radon levels (10-11 Ci/L) by National Bureau of Standards.

1958 (England) Alice Stewart publishes first major findings on the carcinogenic effect of diagnostic x-rays on children.

1958 Proposed that lung be regarded as a moderately radiosensitive organ.

1960's Beginning of population radiation exposure standards.

1986 Report "Lung Cancer Risk from Indoor Exposures to Radon Daughters" published.

1990 "Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation - BEIR V" published.

Human guinea pigs

1943-1947 Polonium injected into incurable patients at Rochester, NY. Doses greater than occupational limits.

1945 Plutonium injected into human subjects at Los Alamos.

1945-1947 18 patients (one a five year old) injected with plutonium at Rochester, NY, Oak Ridge, TN., U. of Chicago, and UCSF. No informed consent; doses much greater than occupational limits.

1961 20 aged volunteers receive injections with radium and thorium in Boston, MA. Potential doses well above occupational limits. No follow-up done.

1963-70 64 volunteer prisoners at Washington State Prison and 67 volunteer prisoners at Oregon State Prison receive testicular irradiation; exposures from 7 to 600 roentgens.

The nuclear race

1932 "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." - Dr. Albert Einstein

1933 "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Lord Ernest Rutherford (after splitting the atom for the first time)

1934 Szilard applies for a patent, "Improvements in the Transmutation of Chemical Elements," stating "radio-active bodies are generated by bombarding suitable elements with neutrons. Such uncharged nuclei cause the formation of radio-active substances." He amends his patent to add "the liberation of nuclear energy for power production and other purposes through nuclear transmutation" and describes the concepts of chain reaction and critical mass. Further, "if the mass is larger than the critical value... I can produce an explosion."

1938 Nobel Prize awarded to Enrico Fermi (Italy) for his work on transuranics. The Fermi family (Enrico's wife is Jewish) escapes from Italian Nazi persecution to New York.

1939 Hitler annexes Czechoslovakia, the richest known source of uranium.

1939 Enrico Fermi patents the first nuclear reactor (conceptual plans).

1942 (June) Germany - Werner Heisenberg's fourth experimental atomic pile explodes spewing burning particles of graphite twenty feet in the air and setting the lab on fire. Heisenberg and Robert Doepel are nearly killed.

1942 (Sept) The Manhattan Project is formed to secretly build the atomic bomb before the Germans.

1942 (Dec) The first sustained and controlled chain reaction in an atomic pile at University of Chicago. The reactor is graphite moderated. Fermi oversees the design and building.

1945 USSR occupies Czechoslovakia. Soviet commanders order all German plans, parts, models, and formulas regarding the use of atomic energy, rocket weapons, and radar be turned over to them. USSR infantry and technical troops occupy Jachymov (Joachimsthal), the only European source of uranium.

1945 (July) Trinity Test - the first nuclear bomb explosion at Alamagordo, NM. 19 KT yield. Cattle receive beta-radiation burns.

1945 (Aug 6 and 9) Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombed.

1949 (Aug) USSR explodes its first A-bomb in Kazakhstan.

1949 (Oct) AEC committee headed by Oppenheimer votes against hydrogen bomb. Teller, the "father" of hydrogen bomb, urges construction.

1950 (Jan) Truman orders the construction of hydrogen bomb.

1952 Great Britain explodes its first A-bomb (25 KT) in lagoon of Monte Bello Islands off Western Australia.

1952 US explodes the world's first hydrogen bomb.

1953 USSR explodes its first hydrogen bomb.

1953 (Dec) Oppenheimer loses security clearance due to contact with Communists in the 1930's and opposition to H-bomb.

1954 40,000 Soviet soldiers participate in a war game where a nuclear bomb is detonated at 1,150 feet in the air in Kazakhstan. Troops are sent immediately into the contaminated dust.

1957 First British hydrogen bomb destroys Christmas Island in South Pacific.

1960 France explodes its first A-bomb.

1961 USSR explodes a 58 megaton hydrogen bomb in the air over Novaya Zemlya. The largest weapon ever exploded in history.

1963 The limited atmospheric test-ban treaty.

1964 China explodes its first A-bomb.

Irresponsibility and accidents

1945 (June) Criticality accident at Los Alamos, 14 people exposed, some receive up to 3,000 rem gamma and neutrons.

1945 (Aug) A Los Alamos lab technician conducts an unauthorized experiment and is lethally irradiated; the first American to die of acute radiation sickness.

1949 The Green Run at Hanford reprocesses one ton of uranium too early after irradiation; releases 20,000 Curies of Xenon-133 and 7,780 Curies of Iodine-131; the plume measures 200 by 40 miles.

1949 Officials in Mayak Chemical Combine at Chelyabinsk, USSR, begin dumping wastes from plutonium production into the Techa River. From 1949 to 1956, 2.75 million Curies of radioactivity is dumped into the river without notifying the townspeople downstream. Some exposed to doses as high as 350 rem/yr.

1952 Explosion and meltdown at Chalk River reactor in Ontario, Canada, which made bomb materials for the US. Future U.S. president Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer by education, is one of the volunteer workers who participate in the cleanup, going on until he receives his Maximum Permissible Dose.

1953 Experimental reactor criticality accident in USSR, 2 persons exposed.

1954 US hydrogen bomb test (Castle Bravo) over Bikini results in fallout over Marshall Islands, contaminates crew of 23 on Fortunate Dragon, 28 US servicemen, and 239 Marshall Islanders.

1956 Broken Arrow 1, Lakenheath AFB, UK. US B-47 bomber catches fire on landing and crashes into nuclear bomb storage igloo. 3 nuclear bombs, each containing 8,000 lb. of TNT trigger, threaten to explode. Fire crew heroically pour foam on igloo instead of trying to save the four trapped fliers.

1957 Explosion of an underground, high-level nuclear waste storage tank at Mayak Chemical Complex near Chelyabinsk in the Urals (USSR) vents 2 million Curies over 15,000 sq. miles. Population of over 250,000 resettled due to Strontium-90 contamination. The world's worst nuclear accident until Chernobyl.

1957 British plutonium production reactor in Seascale (now Sellafield) catches fire spreading approximately 20,000 Curies of radioactive iodine across Great Britain and northern Europe. Comes within seconds of a meltdown and a large-scale nuclear accident.

1957 B-47 crashes on landing at Homestead AFB, FL, kills the four man crew, trigger explosives on nuclear weapon explode.

1958 Broken Arrow 3, B-47 drops a nuclear bomb from 14,000 ft on garden of a homeowner in Mars Bluff, SC, makes crater 35 ft deep; chemical trigger designed to set off TNT explodes spreading plutonium contamination.

1959 AEC's Sodium Reactor Experiment reactor, Santa Barbara, CA, 10 of 43 fuel assemblies damaged due to lack of heat transfer, contamination released.

1959 High levels of Strontium-90 caused by nuclear testing reported in US milk and in children's bones.

1960 Jackson, New Jersey, BOMARC nuclear missile catches fire, plutonium released to atmosphere.

1960 A 19-year old in USSR commits suicide with 10 Curies Cesium-137 source; exposure time 20 hours leads to death 18 days later.

1961 Prompt criticality accident at US Army reactor in Idaho Falls kills three. Recovery exposes 47 persons.

1961 Broken Arrow 4, Goldsboro, NC, B-52 crashes, 5 interlocks fail and the 24 MT nuclear bomb is one interlock away from detonating, crater 50 ft deep, 3 acres in area excavated to look for portion of one weapon, 4 million cu. ft. of earth removed.

1961 Loss of coolant reactor accident on the first Soviet nuclear missile submarine. Crew members die from radiation exposure while rigging a provisional cooling system using a reserve tank and pipes cut off one of the torpedoes. The welding took 90 minutes. Captain Nikolai Zateyev reported that "the ones who got radiation doses began to swell visibly. Their faces grew red. After two hours, watery discharges came from the roots of their hair. Soon it became frightening to look at their eyes and swollen lips. They were completely disfigured. Hardly able to move their tongues, they complained of pain in the entire body." Eight officers and sailors died within days, six more died within the next several years.

1963 Nuclear submarine USS Thresher sinks in North Atlantic. Government did not admit until 1990's that it was torpedoed by another US submarine.

1964 US satellite disintegrates over Madagascar and releases 17,000 Curies of plutonium into the atmosphere from its nuclear reactor.

1964-1965 In the Gulf of Abrosimov off Novaya Zemlya, USSR, eight naval reactors are dumped into the sea, including three with fuel still intact.

1979 (March) Equipment failures and human error cause an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor at Harrisburg, PA. Partial core meltdown. The worst nuclear plant accident in U.S. history.

1986 (April) Runaway reaction during a test at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor near Kiev, now Ukraine, causes explosions that rupture the containment structure and send massive amounts of radiation through the Northern Hemisphere. Soviet troops are dispatched to help fight graphite fire and contain the reactions in the melted core. The worst nuclear accident in history. Over 75 million people exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. Soviet medical experts predict nearly 30,000 cancer-related deaths over a 50-year period due to fall-out from the accident.

1986 Nuclear powered Soviet submarine suffers explosion and fire in missile tube, kills at least three and sinks with reactor on-board.

1989 42 crewmen die when the Soviet nuclear submarine "Komsomolets" sinks in the Norwegian Sea, leaving the submarine's reactor and nuclear warheads (two nuclear torpedoes containing 28 lb. of plutonium) 310 miles off Norway.

1989 Federal agents raid Rocky Flats and allege that the plant concealed environmental contamination and improperly stored and disposed of hazardous radioactive wastes. The Energy Secretary halts all plutonium production operations.

1989 "Yellow Children" start appearing in births in Talmenka, Russia. Children have jaundice, congenital defects of nervous system and organs. In one month, 42 of 59 babies born have these symptoms. Suspected fall-out from nuclear bomb tests in Kazakhstan.

1990 After eating game and fish contaminated with Cesium-137, seven people are hospitalized in Tomsk, Siberia, Russia. Plutonium and uranium cores for weapons are manufactured in this town.

1992 "Big chunks of the republic are so poisoned they will not be suitable for human settlement for a very long time. We are talking decades," said Russia's minister for the environment. "We in Belarus lost one in four people during the Great Patriotic War (WW II), while as a result of Chernobyl, one in five citizens - approximately 2 million people, including 800,000 children - now suffer because they live in contaminated zones," said the chairman of the Belarus State Committee on Chernobyl.

1992 DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) and its predecessor agencies have decontaminated and dismantled over 90 contaminated facilities across the US. The organization has cleaned up 11 of 43 sites under its Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Under its Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, EM has cleaned up 15 of 24 sites and 4,200 of 5,000 vicinity properties.

1992 The Hanford Site changes its mission from nuclear materials production to the clean up of its facilities.

1993 "British Medical Journal" reports an excess incidence of cancer in children aged 0 to 24 over the period 1953-1990 in Seascale, within sight of the Sellafield plant of British Nuclear Fuels.

1993 An "alarming" suicide rate among soldiers and engineers who helped clean up the Chernobyl nuclear disaster is the result of radiated nervous systems, the breakdown of immune defenses and stress. The San Francisco Examiner reports that nearly seven years after the world's most serious nuclear reactor accident exposed about 500,000 Ukraine residents, reactor workers and cleanup crews to radiation, the death toll stands at 7,000 - of whom 18 percent have taken their own lives, according to statistics provided by the Russian government. Thousands more are suffering from symptoms caused by excessive radiation, says the article. More than 40 percent of all former Chernobyl workers who ask for medical assistance suffer from severe after-effects, such as permanent memory loss and impaired thinking ability.

1993 In a new report, the Russian Federation details how the USSR broke the international rules for thirty years by dumping radioactive waste in the oceans. The amount of radioactive waste includes 2.5 million Curies and 18 nuclear reactors from submarines and an icebreaker. These were mostly dumped in the Kara Sea.

1993 Russia dumps liquid radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan.

1993 French deliberately cause a meltdown under almost identical conditions as at Three Mile Island in the Phebus reactor in the south of France. Close circuit televisions show a bright blue glow as the fuel rods melt. Environmentalists criticize the experiment as dangerous and unnecessary.

1994 Russian scientists disclose pumping 3 billion Curies of radioactive waste under layers of shale and clay for the last 30 years at sites at Dimitrovgrad (near the Volga River), Tomsk (near the Ob River), and Krasnoyarsk (on the Yenisei River).

1995 Russians drinking water from the Techa River (draining from the Mayak plutonium facility near Chelyabinsk) have more lymphatic genetic mutations (T-cell antigen receptors) than people who suffered radiation from atomic bombing of Hiroshima, according to Japanese and Russian scientists. The region's death rate is higher than its birth rate. The Japanese scientists are from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima. An international symposium on radiation effects on human health is held in Chelyabinsk to discuss the hazards posed by the Mayak plant to nearby residents.

1995 Artificial reservoirs for liquid nuclear waste in Russia's Ural region may overflow if left unrepaired, destroying nearby areas around Chelyabinsk with what is called a "nuclear flash flood," Russian officials warn. The reservoirs at the Mayak chemical plant now hold a total of 400 million cubic meters of liquid nuclear waste, and there is a strong possibility the embankment will give way, inundating towns and villages along the Techa River nearby. No effective measures have been taken to prevent a 33-feet-high flood with a radioactivity as high as 200,000 Curies of Strontium-90 and Cesium-137. Suspension of an atomic power plant project in the region has added to the danger of a nuclear flash flood, since the project was designed to accelerate evaporation of water in the reservoirs by using surplus heat from the power plant.


http://www.radonseal.com/radon-facts2.htm

Avoid radioactive rain from radon clouds!

Comment: Well, Well, another problem with uranium mining, Radon clouds! Demand Virginia leaders to ban uranium mining and milling forever!

November 1999

Workers entering the Super Collider at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago used to trigger radioactivity alarms when it rained.

It was discovered that rainwater deposited on their shoes and hands carried radioactive decay products of radon.

The laboratory developed special radiation monitors to detect the specific gamma rays emitted by radon progeny in rain clouds.

During the first year of operation the alarm was triggered nine times.

Since the radon alarms occurred simultaneously at two monitors approximately 1,000 meters apart, it proved that large radon-saturated clouds are regularly passing over populated areas.

It confirmed that radon released by wastes from uranium mines in the West can travel hundreds of miles across America.Source: Health Physics, November 1999

http://www.radonseal.com/radon-facts.htm#clouds

Radon emission rate increases as Cotter impoundments dry

Publish Date: 6/27/2009
Guest Column
Sharyn Cunningham/CCAT Co-Chair

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste and Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, will hold a public meeting Tuesday. A review of radon emission regulations for uranium mill tailings impoundments will be discussed. The meeting will be from 6-9 p.m. Tuesday at Quality Inn and Suites, U.S. 50 and Dozier Avenue.

Uranium milling produces large quantities of tailings placed in impoundments. ISL uranium mines utilize evaporation ponds, as well, and are being considered for compliance under these regulations. Tailings contain large amounts of radium, and therefore, they emit large quantities of radon. Radon is a dangerous radioactive gas, and it attaches to dust particles. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart W is the radon emission standard for operating uranium mill tailings. Over 20 years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was recommending that the limit or standard be set at 2 picocuries per square meter per second. Instead, EPA set the limit at 20.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required EPA to review this standard and, if appropriate, revise it within 10 years. By 2001, EPA still had not performed this non-discretionary duty. Because of concerns over air emission violations at the Cotter Uranium Mill, CCAT and RMCAA began discussions in 2006 with the EPA. Failure to reach agreement on this issue led to the filing of a lawsuit. CCAT and RMCAA requested the radon standard review from EPA, and public participation during the review through public meetings, teleconferences, and an Internet Webinar. The lawsuit is nearing final settlement. In the meantime, EPA has begun the review of the standard. The Tuesday meeting in Cañon City is the first of three meetings to be conducted to allow participation from affected communities.

Why should you care? ISL uranium mining is moving forward in Colorado. In 2007, CDPHE confirmed leakage from the Cotter Uranium Mill tailings impoundment. Radon emissions from tailings in the impoundments have been stopped by water coverage, so we are facing a no-win situation. The weight of water covering the tailings threatens the liner and will increase leakage of contamination into groundwater, while drying the impoundments and exposing tailings to the air increases the rate of radon emissions. CDPHE has directed Cotter to dry the primary and secondary impoundments.

EPA regulations require once-a-year tests for radon at uranium mill tailings impoundments, but EPA can require more frequent testing when a facility nears the radon emissions rate limit. Between 2006 and 2008, as Cotter has been drying the Primary Impoundment, tests showed a 230 percent increase in the radon emissions rate.

In 2008, Cotter’s test results were just a fraction below the NESHAPS limit. CCAT believes the current unusual circumstances warrant more frequent tests. CCAT also has requested proof that alternative measures used to control radon emissions, such as sprinkling the tailings, are supported by scientific research and evidence.

If you care about the air you breathe, or the dust blowing in our winds, participate in this hard-won opportunity for our community to have a voice in decisions that are being made in far-away places, join us in voicing our concerns and offering our personal experience and knowledge for this review.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Opinion-story.asp?ID=11005

Protect area from 'benign' uranium mining

Comment: Uranium mining has never been mined safely anywhere in the world. The State of Virginia needs to study our Western families and their problems with past and present uranium mining and milling!!


Article Last Updated; Thursday, June 04, 2009

While reading the piece on mining rules and the push to open uranium mining along the Dolores River (Herald, May 30), we were struck by the comment of Stuart Sanderson, spokesman for the Colorado Mining Association, that "Uranium mining is relatively benign."

Colorado and its many mountain communities have suffered from the "benign" practices of mining before.

Aside form the obvious concern about mining near the beautiful gold-medal fishing of the Dolores, here are a few other facts to consider: Uranium mining, using various technologies, produces massive amounts of polluted water, which is pumped out of the mine site and usually ends up in groundwater; the process produces radon gas from tailings (if any) and sulfuric acid, which is used as a leaching liquid.

Trace amounts of radioactivity end up in rock from the milling process, which then is dumped at or near the mill site. This is hardly benign.

We urge people to participate in the rules-making process and pay careful attention to ensure that we are protected adequately from such "benign" practices. Our future health and the viability of the Dolores River are at stake.

Doug and Jan Parker,
Cortez

http://durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/letters_to_the_editor/2009/06/04/Protect_area_from_benign_uranium_mining/

Many Oppose Uranium Jobs

posted 6:23 pm Mon February 09, 2009 - Pittsylvania Co., VA
reporter: Sarah Bloom posted by: Amy Foster, from ABC 13

It's led to a lot of heated debate in Pittsylvania County.

Should a company be allowed to mine uranium there? There are millions of pounds of the stuff - worth billions of dollars.

But folks are worried about the side effects.

Virginia Uranium Incorporated is pumping the economic benefits, in the form of 300 to 500 jobs, with starting salaries of $65,000 to $70,000.

With having a job almost a luxury these days, news of hundreds of possible openings is eye opening.

Pamela Watkins - "I would say... give me one!"

Sandra Barnes - "I would be saying hooray! You know, a lot of our problem here is we're really suffering because we have no jobs left."

That many jobs at that salary, sounds pretty good right now. A stop at the Community Services building, will put the economic squeeze into perspective fast.

Jay Browns, Pittsylvania Co. Community Services - "Lines out the doors. A lot of times, we open at 8:30 each day, and a lot of times when we get here, the parking lot is full and there is a line waiting to get in to apply for benefits."

But that enthusiasm is terrifying to people like Eloise Nenon. She's spent hours fighting the mining industry.

Eloise Nenon, Against Mining - "In areas where they have uranium mining you have horrendous birth defects, you have rampant lung cancer, and many other physical problems."

Health doesn't seem to concern the people we spoke with. They say they believe in the dangers. Right now, they're just worried about putting food on the table.

Sarah - "Is that putting your health at a price?"

Barnes - "Breathing puts your health at a price right now, so it's we've got to decide what's more important."

For Nenon, and others opposed to mining, that's a frightening realization.

Barbara Hancock, Against Mining - "As a nurse, I feel any amount of money wouldn't be worth living in those conditions."

And a decision fueled by what opponents say, are false promises.

Nenon - "Why would they hire local people when there are experienced miners? And there are a lot of those not that far away!"

The representative we spoke with from Virginia Uranium told us the company would absolutely hire locally, and train those people extensively.

Still, those opposed say they'll believe it when they see it and hope they never do.

Radiation Exposure

Comment: FYI!

URL of this page: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/radiationexposure.html

Radiation is energy that travels in the form of waves or high-speed particles. It occurs naturally in sunlight and sound waves. Man-made radiation is used in X-rays, nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants and cancer treatment.

If you are exposed to small amounts of radiation over a long time, it raises your risk of cancer.

It can also cause mutations in your genes, which you could pass on to any children you have after the exposure.

A lot of radiation over a short period, such as from a radiation emergency, can cause burns or radiation sickness. Symptoms of radiation sickness include nausea, weakness, hair loss, skin burns and reduced organ function.

If the exposure is large enough, it can cause premature aging or even death. You may be able to take medicine to reduce the radioactive material in your body.

Environmental Protection Agency

Uranium(Environmental Protection Agency) - http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.html

NRC Queries Executive's Actions at Tenn Nuke Plant

This is what permitting and regulating does for you! Red emphasis mine. GV

NRC queries executive's actions at Tenn nuke plant

January 15, 2009 12:40 EST

ERWIN, Tenn. (AP) -- Federal regulators are questioning Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. about a senior executive suspected of drinking and acting inappropriately days after a potentially lethal uranium spill in 2006.

The Johnson City Press reports the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sent the company a letter Jan. 7 demanding an explanation for failing to remove the unnamed executive for "cause testing" after co-workers smelled alcohol on his breath.

The executive later had an "angry outburst" with an NRC inspector and allegedly made a sexual remark to a female technician.

The letter says this happened in the three days following a spill of 9 gallons of uranium solution at the plant. The spill wasn't made public until a year later. NFS spokesman Jud Simmons says the company is evaluating its response. He did say no one involved in the incident is either in management or still employed by the company.

NFS was acquired by Virginia-based nuclear fuel processor Babcock and Wilcox Co. on Jan. 1.

Information from: Johnson City Press,
http://www.johnsoncitypress.com

http://www.epa.gov/radon/nram/

Navajos Wary About Uranium Mining at Ambrosia Lake

Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 28, 2008; A02

AMBROSIA LAKE, N.M. -- Twenty years after uranium mining ceased in New Mexico amid plummeting prices for the ore, global warming and the soaring cost of oil are renewing interest in nuclear power -- and in the state's uranium belt.

At least five companies are seeking state permits to mine the uranium reserves, estimated at 500 million pounds or more, and Uranium Resources Inc. (URI), a Texas-based company, wants to reopen a uranium mill in Ambrosia Lake.

Industry officials say a uranium boom could mean thousands of jobs and billions in mineral royalties and taxes for the state.

But the deposits are largely in and around Navajo land, and the industry’s poor record on health and safety as it extracted tons of the ore in past decades has soured many Navajos on uranium mining. In 2005, the Navajo Nation banned uranium mining and milling on its land, and thousands of tribe members are receiving or seeking federal compensation for the health effects of past uranium exposure.

Like many Navajos who worked in the mines, Larry J. King didn’t know then that there was anything dangerous about it. “We had no respirators; you’d have sweat running down your face with the uranium dust getting in your ears, nose and mouth,” said King, who surveyed mine tunnels from 1975 to 1982. “You couldn’t help but swallow it.”

During mining’s peak, from the early 1950s to the early 1980s, about 400 million pounds of uranium were extracted from the region. At the end of the boom, around 1984, the price of uranium languished below $10 a pound. Mines shut down, and the United States began importing nearly all of its uranium, with the bulk coming now from Canada, Russia and Australia. But by last summer, the price had rebounded to a record high of $136 a pound.

Though the mines created numerous jobs and substantial royalties for the Navajo and Laguna tribes, the decades of extraction took a heavy toll: lung cancer, kidney disease, birth defects and other ailments at notably high levels among miners and families who lived among piles of uranium tailings — the ground-up waste from milling — and even used the material to build their homes.

All but one of the major companies now seeking to mine in New Mexico are newcomers to the state and have promised to do a better job than their predecessors. In addition, pending state legislation would require them to deposit a small percentage of their profits in a “legacy fund” to clean up existing uranium contamination.

But King said, “I don’t believe them one bit.”

He blames his recent health problems on uranium. He remembers July 16, 1979, when more than 90 million gallons of uranium-contaminated water burst through the dam of a tailings holding pond and into the Puerco River running by his land. And he remembers seeing his cattle drop dead from, he thinks, drinking polluted mine runoff.

Another former uranium miner, Milton Head, 69, describes similar effects on people and livestock. “Stubby Simpson was a picture of health, didn’t smoke or drink, then he got lung cancer and lasted six months,” Head said of another former miner. “Steers would turn yellow, their horns and hooves would slough off, like they were just drying up.”

Head, who is not Navajo, is all for uranium as a fuel source but does not trust the federal government to regulate the industry. He lives a few blocks from a former uranium mill that is now a Superfund site.

Teddy Nez, a Navajo, lives near a 40-foot-tall pile of uranium tailings. Little ground vegetation grows in the parched climate.

“You’re breathing uranium right now,” Nez said as dust swirled through the air.

There are more than 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and several mill sites in the region, according to the Southwest Research and Information Center, a nonprofit public interest group that focuses on energy development and natural resources. Chris Shuey, director of the group’s Uranium Impact Assessment Program, says three-quarters of the sites have not been cleaned up.

None of URI’s holdings are on the Navajo reservation, though there is some intersection with Navajo private allotted lands. Jurisdiction in the area is a complicated web of mineral and water rights underlying a checkerboard of tribal and nontribal holdings.

URI Chief Operating Officer Richard Van Horn said the Navajo tribe’s uranium mining ban could limit the company’s plans but would not stop mining in the region.

Along with conventional mining, in which uranium-laden ore is taken out of the ground and milled, URI plans to use a process called in situ recovery mining. The ore is left in the ground, and oxygenated water is injected into uranium-laden aquifers to essentially bond to the mineral and pump it to the surface.

While the process causes much less waste and surface disruption, opponents worry that it will contaminate the water supply since it involves mobilizing uranium within the aquifer.

URI’s New Mexico operations director, Randy Foote, counters that the area’s water is already not potable and that the company would be required to return the aquifer to its baseline state before ending operations.

“Uranium is actually relatively benign,” Foote said. “All the wells out here have small amounts of uranium in them.”

http://nmviewpoint.typepad.com/new_mexico_viewpoint/2008/03/at-least-five-c.html

Ambrosia Lake [Uranium] Tailings Reclaimation Nearly Completed

Gallup Independent

Oct 28, 2008

By Kevin Killough
Staff writer

GRANTS, NM — In about a month, the largest uranium tailings pile in the country will be officially reclaimed, making it safe for 1,000 years without any maintenance. The pile rises like a mesa from the floor of the Ambrosia Lake valley. Heavy machinery continues to climb the rock-covered slopes, finishing up the final tasks before the site can be turned over the Department of Energy.

The designers of the $100 million project went to great lengths to ensure the safety and security of the site. Even if it rained 21 inches in 24 hours, which would destroy Grants and leave Ambrosia Lake under 15 feet of water, the public wouldn’t need to worry about contamination from the tailings pile.

“If you see a guy building an ark, you want to come to the tailings pile,” said Terry Fletcher, president of Rio Algom LLC, who has overseen the reclamation project. It’s a highlight of his career in mining, milling and reclamation that spans 36 years.

Fletcher wants the public to know of the accomplishment, because he says that a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that uranium companies abandoned the toxic tailings piles. In fact, every single mill and tailings pile has been reclaimed or is in the process of being reclaimed, he said.

Tailings piles are common to many types of mining.

Chemical solutions are used in the milling process to separate the desired mineral from the mined ores. The remaining moist sand is left in piles. If not properly contained, they can be dangerous for the public and environment. Uranium tailings have the added hazard of radon gas emissions.

Today, mills are much more regulated, and processes prevent the contamination that has left uranium mining with a bad reputation. Even though no companies are making money off uranium milling in the state, Rio Algom, in a partnership with Kerr-McGee, swallowed the cost of the reclamation as part of what Fletcher says is the companies’ policy of sustainable development.

“It’s what responsible mining companies do,” Fletcher said.

A bridge across the highway stands as a testament that uranium companies today operate with an eye toward safety first. After assessing the potential for an accident with earth moving equipment crossing the road, the company decided to build a $1 million bridge to use during the reclamation processes. No government regulations required this.

“It’s just one of the things the company does that it doesn’t have to,” Fletcher explained.

The bridge pales in comparison to the massive tailings reclamation project. First the tailings were moved on top of a three-layer lining. The middle layer is a mesh that detects any leakage moving between the top and bottom layers. After reclamation, the DOE will constantly monitor the detection system for any leaks into the groundwater and stop any problems in the unlikely event they should occur.

On top, the pile was covered with a clay layer that is 20-feet thick on the slopes. The 30-foot high slopes were then covered with thick rock layers. The largest rocks were placed at the bottom of the slope where the water will be running the fastest. This will stop the sides from being eroded away. Finally, the pile will be covered with dirt, and as vegetation grows over time, the pile will look almost like a natural formation.

“It’ll look like a flatter mesa than nature made,” Fletcher said.

The piles give off about two-thirds less radon emissions than what occurs naturally in this part of the state. This month, Fletcher said, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspected Rio Algom’s pile and gave it an A+ rating.

The mines that supplied the mill with ore have also been reclaimed at about $50,000 each. There’s not much to see at a reclaimed mine. At one time large head frames loomed over the shaft, lowering and raising men and materials. Now, reclaimed mines are just an area of grass and maybe a tree where cows graze.

“That area there you’re looking at was one of the major mining sites in New Mexico,” Fletcher said, pointing to what looks like just a part of the landscape.

Other problems created by the obsolete practices of past mining continue to require cleanup efforts, especially the many “dog holes” that independent miners left behind. The groundwater contamination from some tailings piles is a whole other cleanup effort. But the completion of the Rio Algom pile reclamation is a good sign that past mistakes are on their way to being corrected.

Kevin Killough blogs at http://gallupnm.blogspot.com

http://www.gallupindependent.com/2008/10october/102808tailings.html

A Re-Print: Alarm Bells Are Ringing [Re: Uranium Mining], Will Virginia Residents Heed Their Warning?

The following letter by SCC member, and medical professional, Anne Cockrell (Danville, VA) has been published in at least a couple of local newspapers. Sadly, though, the papers, for whatever reason, did not publish Anne's sources for the statements she's made. Since VUI investors and Team Members consistently claim that SCC members make statements regarding health problems and environmental issues for which there is no substantiation or quoted source, we thought it only fair that we reprint Anne's article here, including her sources, one of which is VUI's own Prospectus, the document it prepared in order to entice investors when it incorporated in Canada.

Our thanks to Anne for her hard work in documenting her information so well and for letting us reprint her entire letter here.

Please note that information in italics and a different color print are original emphases.

To the Editor:

Before Virginia considers lifting its moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium, critical questions need to be asked and thoroughly answered.

I have many, but here are two sets of questions dealing with health risks and water usage. (Does Virginia Uranium Inc. have any answers to add to mine?):

1) Will radiation, emanating from the huge piles of tailings, those produced by a uranium mining and milling facility, operating over a 30-year period, create health risks for Virginia residents? Will the health risks be mine site-specific or a statewide concern?

...Scientist Dr. Gordon Edwards recently wrote, “Uranium ore bodies are among the deadliest mineral deposits on earth. They harbor large quantities of dangerous radioactive materials” (pacificfreepress.com). Radium, a decay product of uranium commonly found in uranium mine tailings piles, has been labeled by the British Columbia Medical Association as a superb carcinogen because microscopic quantities can cause bone and head cancers, anemia, and leukemia. Polonium-210, which is as radioactive as uranium and a billion times more toxic than cyanide, is a by-product of uranium mining and found in mine tailings. A uranium mine releases radon, which blankets the ground hundreds of miles downwind from a uranium mine as solid radioactive fallout." (http://www.nunnglow.com/impacts/)

About a ton of ore is required to extract two pounds of uranium. Huge quantities of pulverized rock (uranium tailings) are left over from the milling process. They contain thorium, radium, and all the other uranium by-products and retain 85 per cent of the ore's original radioactivity. The tailings give off at least 10,000 times as much radon gas as the undisturbed ore. Radon atoms produced inside hard rock have a low chance to escape from the grain, but when the rock is pulverized, radon gas escapes easily. (http://www.radonseal.com/radon-facts.htm#minesfallout)

In 2005, the US National Academy of Sciences* released results of a study reporting: “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". (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dr.Gordon+Edwards,+uranium+mining+radiation+dangers&start=10&sa=N)

*Note: This is the very same science academy, named in Senate Bill 525, which would have been tapped to perform the study to determine if uranium mining and milling could be done safely in the state of Virginia. Senate Bill 525 was defeated March 3, 2008 by a House Panel of the Virginia General Assembly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302815.html?nav=emailpage

2) Will a uranium mining & milling facility require large volumes of water to operate? How much and from where? Will the Banister River, running east of the proposed Coles Hill mine, be utilized as the mine's main water supply? Will downstream Raleigh, N.C. (Kerr Lake Reservoir) and Virginia Beach (Lake Gaston) residents, mind sharing their drinking water with a uranium mine? Considering the drought conditions the south experiences most years during the summer, will there be enough water for all on the receiving end? Will it be safe to drink?

From the 2005 World Nuclear Association Symposium Proceedings (a pro-nuclear group): "...Most uranium mines are power and water intensive, so that delivering the required wattage and volumes to site become a major cost centre. This is especially significant when development of a mine means the introduction of power and water to a region. While site-specific power can be installed, the energy source still needs to arrive at site (e.g. diesel fuel for on-site power generation). Similarly, while water treatment, recycle and discharge (also specific cost centres) are designed around water usage optimization, an initial water source must be introduced to site such that water transport systems can service base load water requirements for the life-of-mine." (Garrow, Dustin. Limitations to Progress in Developing Uranium Resources, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/subindex.htm

Towns and cities (Halifax, Clarkesville, Raleigh, Norfolk and Virginia Beach. etc.) and their drinking water sources, downstream from the proposed Coles Hill mine, can be viewed online by googling: Piedmont Environmental Council, Hot Issues and, then, Uranium Mining Maps. http://www.pecva.org/

Available data indicate that radium concentrations in the discharge waters of a producing mine tend to increase substantially as the ore body is developed. Whereas natural background radium concentrations are generally about several picocuries/liter (pCi/l), 100 to 150 pCi/l appear in the effluents of operating mines. The discharge of such highly contaminated mine effluents to streams and seepage from tailings ponds, creates a long-lived source of ground-water contamination.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

In addition to the leaking of contaminants from tailings management facilities (TMFs) and waste-rock storage sites, uranium mines and mills release radioactive (principally uranium), hazardous (e.g. heavy metals) and conventional (e.g. total suspended solids) contaminants to groundwater and surface water through discharges of mill and mine waters, and general run-off from mine sites. (http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/ClearingAir_UraniumMining.pdf)

One last question: Should all Virginia residents be concerned about the proposed Coles Hill mine or just those living in close proximity, namely the quaint town of Chatham?

According to the Canadian IPO (Initial Public Offering) of Virginia Uranium Ltd:

Virginia Uranium Ltd. was incorporated on August 31, 2007 under the laws of the Yukon Territory [Canada] to invest and to actively participate in the management, business and operations of Virginia Uranium Inc. ("Holdco") through its representation on the board of Holdco and its shared management with Holdco. Holdco is focused on the exploration and development of significant uranium deposits located in the southern part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States... Holdco's goal is to become a significant producer of uranium through the development and construction of a mining and milling operation at the Coles Hill Property. If developed and permitted, the Coles Hill Property would be the first uranium mine in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Holdco will commence a regional exploration and acquisition program to target and acquire both new and historic uranium prospects in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. http://ipo.investcom.com/cgi-bin/ipodetails1.cgi?ID=1&string=Virginia+Uranium+Ltd&exact=yes&com=yes

Taking VUI at its word, not only will the Coles Hill mine be its "first" uranium mine in Virginia, but it will "target and seek both new and historic prospects in Pittsylvania County."

Pittsylvania County is a big county--Virginia's largest land mass county. Where will VUI explore next after Coles Hill? Once the state's moratorium is lifted, what's to keep other mining corporations (foreign or domestic) from following Virginia Uranium Inc.'s lead and opening additional mines, since we're reportedly uranium-rich in Southside Virginia?

Even if the old mineral leases (approx. 466) Marline held with Virginia landowners in the early 80s have expired, does this mean uranium is no longer on those properties?

Folks, alarm bells are ringing, will Virginia residents heed their warning?

A proposed uranium mine isn't just Chatham's little problem, it's a statewide issue that should be given grave consideration.

Anne Cockrell

Southside Concerned Citizen Member

Danville, Virginia

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

Additional website info, if above webpages do not open:

1) http://www.nunnglow.com/impacts/ Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, In-Situ Leaching (ISL) Impacts: Spills, Leaks, and Excursions are Common Hazards of In-Situ Uranium Mining

2) Radon and Radioactivity - Facts and Controversies

Radon mitigation stacks, radon potions, health risk controversies, radon in tobacco, radioactive fallout, radiation experiments, nuclear accidents.
www.radonseal.com/radon-facts.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

3) Good evening … let me introduce myself … my name is John Kittle

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
In 2005, the US National Academy of Sciences released results of a study reporting: ... Dr. Gordon Edwards, founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear ...
www.lakemississippi.ca/Almonte%20V3%20speech.doc - Similar pages

4) House Panel Rejects Study of Uranium Mining - washingtonpost.com

RICHMOND, March 3 -- Lawmakers concerned about land, air and drinking water contamination killed a proposal Monday that would have allowed a study of ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/ AR2008030302815.html - Similar pages

5) World Nuclear Association Symposium Proceedings

Uranium Institute Symposia Home Page.
www.world-nuclear.org/sym/index.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

6) Piedmont Environmental Council of Virgina (PECVA) - Piedmont ...

Promotes and protects the Virginia Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty.
www.pecva.org/ - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

7) Effects of Uranium Mining and Milling on Ground Water in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico
RF Kaufmann, GG Eadie, CR Russell - Ground Water, 1976 - Blackwell Synergy
Effects of Uranium Mining and Milling on Ground Water in the Grants Mineral Belt,
New Mexico by Robert F. Kaufmann, Gregory G. Eadie, and Charles R. Russell3 ...
Cited by 7 - Related articles - Web Search - All 4 versions

8) Uranium Mining:

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Uranium Mining: Nuclear Power’s Dirty Secret | The Pembina Institute | 1. Pembina Institute’s Life Cycle Study of Nuclear Power. Uranium Mining: ...
pubs.pembina.org/reports/ClearingAir_UraniumMining.pdf - Similar pages

9) Canadian IPO

Virginia Uranium Ltd. was incorporated on August 31, 2007 under the laws of the Yukon Territory to invest and to actively participate in the management, ...
ipo.investcom.com/cgi-bin/ipodetails1.cgi?ID=1&string=Virginia+Uranium+Ltd&exact=yes&com=yes - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Uranium's Crystal Ball is Price Sobering

RCR QUARTERLY REVIEW

The growth of nuclear power is still marching forward but the aspirations on uranium's price have dropped back a peg or two, according to the latest quarterly research by Sydney-based Resource Capital Research (RCR).Author: Ross LoutheanPosted: Sunday , 05 Oct 2008

PERTH -

The industry average long-term uranium price has been downgraded $US15/lb by RCR's just-released quarterly Equity Research Report from its third quarter report to $US80/lb and saying that in the current quarter it will trade between $US50-65/lb.
At the time the report was released the spot uranium price was $US55/lb.

The growth of nuclear power is still marching forward but the aspirations on uranium's price have dropped back a peg or two, according to the latest quarterly research by Sydney-based Resource Capital Research (RCR).Author: Ross LoutheanPosted: Sunday , 05 Oct 2008

Click here for the rest of the article

Eeek! Mr. Wales, You Might Want to Re-Check Your Cancer Facts!

You might want to look at this information, Mr. Wales, from the EPA:

http://sccchatham.blogspot.com/2008/09/minedmilled-uranium-health-risks.html

There's quite a bit of cancer-related information on that blog page and it's related to mining and milling, Mr. Wales.


And you might want to check out this article from the Las Vegas Sun. Keep in mind that Las Vegas is 90 miles from Yucca Mountain. I think we can safely assume that the number of cancers would be quite a few higher if we were talking about towns and cities less than 30 miles away (like the towns in Pittsylvania are from Coles Hill) . And we'll concede that the storage facility will contain spent uranium as well as tailings. In mining areas, it's really that odorless, tasteless, invisible radon gas (and its progeny) that must be feared. Like the EPA says (quoted above in the blog article), there is no safe amount of radon exposure. Radon does cause cancer. It is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer in the country.

From the Las Vegas Sun...

YUCCA MOUNTAIN:

EPA offers a bit of comfort on cancer risk

What is often lost in the debate over Yucca Mountain is that what we’re really talking about is cancer.

How much cancer risk should future Nevadans be exposed to if federal government’s nuclear waste repository is built in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas?

The answer came this week: 1 in 125.

One in every 125 future residents living near Yucca Mountain’s deadly nuclear waste can expect to be at risk of getting cancer.

One in every 250 can expect to die.

The odds are better for people who would live in the area only a short time.

The new standards, interpreted by watchdog groups, were released by the Bush administration’s Environmental Protection Agency in a surprise move, more than four years after a federal district court tossed out the old ones as not protective enough of Nevadans’ health.

Many observers expected the new cancer risk standards would not be released until after the presidential election so as not to inflame an unpopular issue in the battleground state of Nevada. Most Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain, even if it is not their top issue. John McCain, the Republican candidate, supports developing the dump; Barack Obama, the Democrat, has vowed to halt it.

Yet others believe that by releasing the new standards, the Bush administration hopes to accelerate the project before leaving office. The Energy Department reached a major milestone this summer by submitting the dump’s application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval. Had the cancer standards been released before that, Nevada would have likely sued again and potentially delayed the submittal.

Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, said, “There is no way this weak standard will breathe life into the Bush-McCain plan to dump nuclear waste in Nevada.” He and Republican Sen. John Ensign vowed to continue fighting it.

A nuclear watchdog group, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, called for an independent investigation into whether the Energy Department can realistically meet the new standards.

The Democratic chairman of a House environmental committee, Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, said the government should withdraw the project’s application and start over once the Energy Department proves it can protect Nevadans’ health.

The Bush administration’s release of the new risk standard “only reinforces how their entire approach to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project has put politics and the financial health of the nuclear industry ahead of science and the health of the public,” Markey said.

The cancer risk wouldn’t start immediately. That’s what makes talking about cancer at Yucca Mountain tricky. The conversation immediately fast-forwards to the never-never land of planning a facility that will be around for 1 million years.

At first, the risk will be much smaller. For the first 10,000 years, just one in every 1,000 people living in the desert around Yucca Mountain would be at risk of getting cancer. That’s about as much danger as the Environmental Protection Agency allows at other sites with nuclear contamination. Some even have a higher risk.

But what has always tripped up Yucca Mountain planners is what happens in the far-off future, the post-10,000-year time frame, as the waste sits in the mountain for the next million years.

Who knows? Maybe there will be a cure for cancer by then.

But those future years are when the biggest potential risk for exposure occurs. If the containers holding the nuclear fuel begin to corrode, waste could spread into ground water used for drinking and irrigation.

The Energy Department says its models show very little waste will escape — just a small fraction of what the new standards allow. Watchdogs are skeptical.

Still, the new cancer risk standard is an improvement, all sides agree. The original would have allowed as many as 1 in 70 future residents to die of cancer. The court said no way.

But putting 1 in 125 residents at risk of cancer in the far-out future is still more than the government allows at its other nuclear-contaminated sites, said Daniel Hirsch, a longtime anti-nuclear activist who teaches at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Hirsch likes to say the EPA’s approach is like falling off the Empire State Building: The first 50 floors are fine. But the last few are the killers.

The Environmental Protection Agency said the new standard “protects public health and safety for one million years.”

The agency assumes less risk by estimating residents live near the site for only 30 years, rather than 70 years, as watchdogs calculate.

“Developing a standard that will apply for 25,000 generations is unprecedented,” the agency said. “In meeting this challenge, we followed international guidance and applied our best scientific judgment.”

The new standards come at a pivotal time as Nevada’s point man fighting the project, Bob Loux, the director of the state agency for nuclear projects, resigned this week after Gov. Jim Gibbons called for his ouster following Loux’s role in a pay-raise scandal.

Some experts say there may be no one else in the country with the expertise and experience to run the office Loux has headed since its inception 25 years ago.

And the pro-Yucca forces see Loux’s departure as a chance to reconsider the potential economic benefits of hosting a waste dump.

Loux, who will remain on the job until his successor is appointed, said Wednesday the state is reviewing whether it will again sue the government for stricter standards.

Hirsch is a believer in the concept of generational ethics — that this generation has a responsibility not to saddle the next with contamination, which he says the Bush administration would allow at Yucca Mountain.

“For purely political reasons, to try to help get an unsafe project approved, they have overridden the science — and the ethics — of creating so many cancers in people not even born yet,” he said.

(Some of the comments by readers are quite informative too...)

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/02/epa-offers-bit-comfort-cancer-risk/