What Would Uranium Mining Mean? written by Shireen Parsons - Response to Parsons' letter/Response to Dillon's letter

Comment: Please review three letters listed below, the first letter is called: "What Would Uranium Mining Mean?" by Shireen, the second letter Nuke Dude title: " Response to Parsons' (letter 2) and finally Shireen's letter :Response to Dillon's letter (Letter No. 3) .
Thanks Shireen for all the letters!

Response to Dillon's letter (letter 3)

Sep 15, 2009 - 05:17:43 pm CDT

In his September 8 "Response to Parsons' letter," J. Carrington Dillon launched a laughable ad hominem attack on me and on the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, for which I am the Virginia community organizer. It seems that my own commentary about how uranium mining in Virginia would impact communities and the environment downstream in North Carolina has him hopping mad.

According to Dillon, I have a "total disregard for factual information, my "claims" are "ridiculous," I employ "unjustifiable fear tactics" and "completely made-up and baseless facts" (how can a fact be made-up and/or baseless?), and that I'm "grossly unqualified to even participate in this dialog." My goodness! And he describes the Legal Defense Fund as "a group of radical environmental class-action lawyers" and says that I said our goal is to "seize local governing authority."

Whew! Where to start? First, to set the record straight, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is a nonprofit, community interest law firm that provides free and low-cost legal services to communities threatened by corporate assaults, such as mining, land-application of sewage sludge, toxic waste dumps, factory farming.... We assist our partner communities to prevent such corporate assaults by asserting their inherent local governing authority and enacting binding local laws banning specific corporate activities. More than 120 communities in a growing number of states - including Virginia - have enacted such local laws, and have prevented the corporate assaults that threatened them. We don't have to "seize" local governing authority - our federal and state constitutions affirm it. We simply have to wield it. If we don't have democracy in the communities where we live, where on Earth do we have it?

With regard to my statements about the catastrophic impacts of uranium mining on environmental and human health, I and a growing number of Virginia residents have researched those impacts on communities and the environment around the world thoroughly enough to debate anyone on this subject - anyone who has access to the internet can do this. And we all know for a fact that, everywhere in the world where they've operated, uranium mining corporations have contaminated the air, water and soil with heavy metals and radioactive materials, some of which persist in the environment for 4.5 billion years, and that, here in the US, it's been done with the blessing of our federal and state regulatory agencies. If Dillon has evidence of one exception to that statement, I invite him to provide it.

And, yes, Virginia Uranium Inc. is, indeed, wholly owned by Canadian corporations.

Now, whenever I'm subjected to an ad hominem attack, I consider the source. Who is J. Carrington Dillon, and what motivated his angry response to my commentary?

J. Carrington Dillon is a structural engineer for AREVA, a multi-billion-dollar, multinational mega-corporation primarily owned by the French government. According to its corporate website, AREVA is "ranked first in the global nuclear power industry." Dillon's AREVA job description also includes creating and managing Clean Energy Insight (www.cleanenergyinsight.org), a propaganda tool for the nuclear industry.

And what kind of corporate footprint does AREVA have on the environment and human communities where it operates? According to Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), the humanitarian news and analysis service of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in Niger, for example, mining operations, owned and operated by AREVA in partnership with the Nigerian government, have contaminated the air, soil and water, resulting in sickness and death for local residents, and have depleted regional groundwater supplies.

And the Paris-based Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), which specializes in the analysis of radioactivity in the environment, found "serious lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger. In 2005, CRIIRAD environmental studies found water radiation levels in mining communities up to 110 times higher than the World Health Organization safe drinking water standards for industrial areas. You can read about AREVA's mining impacts in Niger at www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=83706.

Uranium mining corporations profit from environmental devastation and human suffering wherever they operate. J. Carrington Dillon is one of their minions. Consider the source.

Shireen Parsons
Virginia Community Organizer
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund


(Nuke response to Shireen's first letter, listed below: "What Would Uranium Mining Mean?"

Response to Parsons' letter (Letter No. 2)

Sep 08, 2009 - 06:47:26 pm CDT I recently read an opinion piece published in the Caswell Messenger titled "What Would Uranium Mining Mean?" written by Shireen Parsons (8/18/09). From the first sentence, I was insulted by Ms. Parsons' total disregard for factual information. Considering my personal and professional background, I felt obligated to provide the readers of the Caswell Messenger a response to Ms. Parsons' ridiculous claims.

I was raised in Ridgeway, Va., and actually spent a couple of my summers playing Dixie Youth baseball in Yanceyville. I grew up witnessing the economic struggles of the Piedmont. I've had family and friends lose their jobs as local textile and furniture mills packed up shop in the past decade or so, and I see possible uranium mining activities as an opportunity for the Piedmont to regain an economic foothold.

I now reside in Charlotte and work in the nuclear engineering field. The people of the Piedmont are important to me, to who I am as an individual and a professional. I feel that they are entitled to the truth from a person who is at least qualified to provide it.

Ms. Parsons is an organizer for the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund a group of radical environmental class-action lawyers whose goal, according to Ms. Parsons "is to seize local governing authority." (Danville Register & Bee, April 2009) With dishonest statements like these, Ms. Parsons has lost all credibility and respect from even local opponents of Virginia Uranium Inc.

It is important to address local concerns when it comes to uranium mining. But it is also important to address these concerns with facts and not unjustifiable fear tactics. The truth is that facts are stubborn things. By providing nothing but completely made-up and baseless facts in her letter, Ms. Parson proved herself to be grossly unqualified to even participate in this dialogue. What I can offer is a personal concern for the safety and economic prosperity of the local communities and the credibility to do so with facts.

Currently, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is working with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent 18-month study to address concerns of Virginians about safety and economic impacts. This study is being paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc., as opposed to taxpayers and was endorsed recently by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu during a trip to Virginia in which he addressed concerns that have been raised about uranium mining in the area. Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics, stated that in "any kind of mining, whether it's uranium, coal or nickel, or you name it, it has to be done in a way that protects the environment and protects the people. There's a study going on as to whether uranium mining in Virginia is going to do that we will wait for the results of that study."

In order to provide fact-based information, I would like to shortly address some of Ms. Parson's statements from her letter:

1. "Uranium mining has never been done safely anywhere in the world. It cannot be done safely."

This couldn't be any further from the truth. Uranium mining is closely regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in addition to state-level regulation authorities like the Virginia Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy.

There are many federal laws and regulations that provide these government agencies with the ability to ensure safe operations. In fact, since these federal regulations came into effect in 1980, there have been zero uranium mining incidents in the U.S.

2. "(Virginia Uranium Inc.) a US corporation, wholly owned by Canadian Corporations."

Actually, 75% of VUI is owned by the Coles and Bowen families (landowners) from Pittsylvania County. 25% is owned by a Canadian company. Furthermore, the Coles and Bowen families have made it clear that they will not proceed with operations in their backyards until it is ensured that local communities will benefit from uranium mining operations.

3. Ms. Parsons has stated that the Cole's Hill uranium mine would cover an absolutely "huge" amount of land. In her article, Ms. Parsons states that "the Cole's Hill uranium mine would cover an area equal to 55 city blocks."

The Coles and Bowen property is approximately 3,000 acres. Ms. Parsons says that 55 city blocks, or about 220 acres will be mined (about the same size of the Danville Piedmont Mall). This means that only 7 percent of the property will be mined. "Huge" is a subjective term, but law states that the mine must be restored after mining has ended, so it seems to be sort of a moot point anyway.

4. "The radioactive contaminants persist in the environment anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to four billion years."

Although no studies exist to prove her figures to be accurate, Ms. Parsons is likely attempting to use data from radioactive waste coming from enriched uranium used in a nuclear reactor. The uranium taken from the mine will be naturally occuring, not enriched, and will not have been put through a fission reactor. Uranium in its natural form also exists in things like seawater, granite counter tops, and dirt. We come in contact with it everyday of our lives.

5. "What (VUI) doesn't tell us is that the purpose of our federal and state regulatory agencies is not to protect the environment and human health. Rather, their purpose is to permit corporations to destroy the landscape, contaminate the environment and degrade human health

This is simply an outrageous statement and even publishing it is questionable.

6. "There is absolutely no doubt that the Bannister and all waterways downstream would be contaminated"

If there is "no doubt," then why is the National Academy of Sciences even attempting to conduct a study into whether uranium mining can be done safely at Cole's Hill?

7. Ms. Parsons also makes several general comments about radiation effects on the local area from uranium mining activities.

Aside from Ms. Parsons' statements being absolutely imaginary, studies completed to determine radiation effects from uranium mining do not back up her claims. A 1980 study completed by the NRC concluded that a person living beside a "cluster" of uranium mines for 15 years will receive an effective radiation dose of 41 millirem. A common chest x-ray at a general physician's office will give you 40 millirem of radiation. Think about that one.

The one thing that Ms. Parsons is correct about in her letter is that the U.S. Constitution guarantees people the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that would come from guaranteed economic prosperity in the form of 500 high-paying jobs. Why should "small-town folk" allow an outside organization like the CELDF come in and stifle economic growth in the name of their own personal agenda?

Imagine a new industry being able to come into the Piedmont and do something that has not been done in quite a while - provide 500 jobs and healthy local spending that stimulates the local economy. Hopefully, the National Academy of Sciences study will conclude that uranium mining at Cole's Hill can be done safely and that the Piedmont can look forward to the ensuing economic growth. Until the study is completed, no one should jump to conclusions by subjecting themselves to radical myths and actions peddled by people like Ms. Parsons and the CELDF.

J Carrington Dillon
Charlotte, NC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:

Karen wrote on Sep 10, 2009 6:03 PM:

" Someone as tightly connected to the nuclear industry (Areva) as Mr. Dillon is would have to take this position. In this country regulatory agencies have not protected the inhabitants of areas where uranium mining has taken place. The post-mining contamination from tailings, (the residue left from rock and soil after uranium is extracted) exists in U.S. In the western U.S. are contaminated areas that will never be made right. People in our western states are fighting at a grass roots level to keep their land from being made uninhabitable. They are starting with their local governments because rarely does the State want to step in. Big money talks, and Mr. Dillon's affiliation can be found at the following address: www.linkedin.com/in/jcarringtondillon. Right here in Caswell there is a toxic waste dump on Dowdy Lane off Rte. 86 that has been condemned by the EPA and designated a Superfund site. It is not being cleaned up as there is no cleanup money in the Superfund. And there are not enough people screaming about it to move the government.
Would Mr. Dillon label the people of West Virginia radical as he has Ms. Parsons group? Are they radical because they protest their homes rendered worthless, their health jeopardized, their communities flooded, and their children's schools made unsafe by toxic mining sludge? All from mountain top removal mining which blasts off the tops of the mountains, clogging mountain streams and ruining the environment. Why is mining done this way? Because it is more profitable for the corporations indulging in this practice. There is no government agency rushing to the aid of all those whose lives are affected. Look up the track record of Massey Corp. and see what they have done to West Virginia. Then think of the consequences of big money, high contamination, and lack of government intervention. The uranium mining industry has been curtailed in Canada because of the damage done there. Virginia Uranium Inc. does have a large Canadian contingent onboard. The company has a Toronto stock exchange listing. There are many corporation names at this point, holding companies, and more twists and turns in the history of VU Inc. than I can relate. And that is what this company is counting on. That no one will figure it all out. Few people will take the time to do the research to discover how dangerous this venture is. The National Academy of Sciences study that is lulling people into a false sense of security will come back without a means to definitely form an opinion either pro or con. And that ambivalence will open the door. Unless there is resistance. How many people will do the research to discover what this proposal means? "

Doug wrote on Sep 9, 2009 12:48 PM:

" It's easy to label people whom you disagree with as radical, without presenting any evidence. This mining will contaminate the Danville area, not Charlotte. Now let's take a look at government regulators--will they do a better job than they did regulating the pig farms, and peanut butter maanufacturers? "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who will protect Virginia from uranium mining? (Letter No. 1)
By SHIREEN PARSONS

URANIUM MINING has never been done safely anywhere in the world. It cannot be done safely. Logically, that should end this discussion, but it will not, because a few individuals, shielded from liability behind Virginia Uranium Inc. — a U.S. corporation wholly owned by Canadian corporations — would reap huge profits from mining and milling uranium on more than 2,000 acres in rural Pittsylvania County.

The Coles Hill mine would be merely the first mine in eastern Virginia, as our entire Piedmont is strewn with uranium deposits, and Virginia Uranium’s corporate mandate is to explore and develop them. If, as it surely will, the legislature lifts the moratorium, the Piedmont would become a uranium mining corridor, just as Eastern Kentucky, Southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia are coal mining corridors.

As planned, the Coles Hill uranium mine would cover an area equal to 55 square city blocks and would be 800 feet deep. Through the blasting, extracting and crushing of uranium-bearing rock, all open-pit mines and their waste piles release into the environment heavy metals, including arsenic, lead and mercury, and radioactive materials.

The radioactive contaminants persist in the environment anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to 4 billion years. They are taken up and retained by plants and animals, and they become part of the food chain forever. In animals and humans, the radioactive toxins cause lung, kidney and liver damage, cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations. In mammals, these contaminants are passed on to future generations in utero and via breast milk.

Once released into the environment, the heavy metals and radioactive contaminants travel great distances. Leached into ground and surface water in Pittsylvania County, they would contaminate the Roanoke River watershed to Virginia Beach, North Carolina’s Albemarle Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. The wind-borne particulates would travel thousands of miles — every way the wind blows — in a few days.

Virginia Uranium’s public relations team tells us that, this time, uranium mining would be done safely, because the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia would be according to a regulatory program developed by the Virginia Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy (DMME).

But monitoring and oversight by our regulatory agencies are inadequate to nonexistent. Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970, one-third of Americans live in areas with unhealthy ozone levels. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes and tributaries aren’t safe for swimming or fishing. Deforestation, excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers — and a 60 percent increase in the amount of refuse generated in the past 25 years — have further contaminated the soil and water.

Virginia's DMME presides over one of the most devastating mineral extraction processes in the world — mountaintop-removal coal mining, which, in the Appalachian coal states, has razed hundreds of thousands of acres of once-forested mountains, buried thousands of miles of streams under the rubble and destroyed hundreds of coalfield communities.. This is a legal activity permitted by the EPA and DMME. Can we rationally expect regulatory agencies to protect us from the catastrophic effects of uranium mining in Virginia?

Those who would profit from uranium mining in Virginia say it would be an economic boon, with jobs and money pouring into the economically depressed Piedmont region.. Virginia Uranium says miners would make $68,000 a year in a county where the 2000 median household income was $35,000, the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent and 12 percent of the population lived below the poverty line.

What the corporate spin fails to mention, however, is that hard-rock mining requires skilled labor, and that experienced miners would be imported from other states to earn those salaries and risk their health and lives. And that, wherever hard-rock mining occurs, surrounding communities become ghost towns and regional economies implode. The economic rewards are enjoyed only by the corporate owners and officers.

In Virginia’s Piedmont, as in all regions cursed with hard-rock mining, the blasting, heavy truck traffic, environmental contamination and impacts to human health would cause real property values to evaporate. Local businesses would shut down, and the regional economy would collapse outward in every direction. The Banister River, a source of Virginia Beach’s water, is less than a mile from the Coles Hill mine site, and there is absolutely no doubt that the Banister would be contaminated.

The relevant question, then, is who decides what Virginia communities look like, how safe they are, what quality of life they enjoy? Who decides whether the Virginia Piedmont and beyond will be sacrificed for a uranium mining corporation’s profits? Is it We, the People, or is it a handful of corporate executives, aided and abetted by the state legislature and regulatory agencies?

An ever-increasing number of citizens in Pittsylvania County and beyond, understanding the catastrophic effects uranium mining would wreak upon their communities and future generations, declare that they will not consent to this corporate assault, and that they will exercise their inherent local governing authority to enact binding local laws that will protect and preserve the health, safety and well-being of their communities and the ecosystem upon which all life depends.

Like Virginia Beach, the Town of Halifax is downstream from the planned uranium mine in Pittsylvania County. In February 2008, the Halifax Town Council voted unanimously to enact the Halifax Corporate Mining, Bodily Trespass and Community Self-Government Ordinance, drafted at the council’s request by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit law firm. The ordinance asserts the town’s inherent local governing authority bans mining within the town and criminalizes chemical and radioactive bodily trespass.

Halifax Town Council member Jack Dunavant said of the decision, “This is an historic vote. We, the people, intend to protect our health and environment from corporate assault. It’s time to invoke the Constitution and acknowledge the power of the people to protect our own destiny and end this era of corporate greed and pollution.”

Citizens and elected officials of every community downstream and/or downwind from the planned Pittsylvania County mine site would do well to follow Halifax’s lead and exert their inherent governing authority to protect themselves.

Shireen Parsons is the Virginia organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Christiansburg.



http://caswellmessenger.com/articles/2009/09/09/opinion/opinion02.txt

Mining Prospects Enhanced with ANSYS Engineering Simulation

Comment: Fly Rock, Blasting, environmental impact, the future of blowing up Virginia hillsides for uranium!

Orica USA Simulates Blasting Precise-Delay Timing for Process Improvement Benefits.

SOUTHPOINTE - ANSYS, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANSS), a global innovator of simulation software and technologies designed to optimize product development processes, today announced that its software is being used in the mining industry to develop precise-delay timing for blasting. Orica USA, a division of the world's leading supplier of commercial explosives — Orica Limited — is studying the effects of multiple blastholes on rock fracturing and fragmentation to further its ability to provide advanced Blast-Based Services™ to industry. The effort is shedding light on the complex physics set in motion in the rock blasting process, and the results will be used to improve overall processes — including blast control along with time and cost savings.

Like other industries, mining markets are demanding low-cost products and processes that result in optimal performance and minimal environmental impact. “Because it is more economical to move rock with explosives, the mining industry prefers to move as much through blasting and as little through loading and trucking as possible,” said Dale Preece of the Global Technology Group at Orica USA. “Orica is about industry solutions, about developing integrated approaches to blasting that, less than a decade ago, would have been inconceivable. Our overarching goal is to harvest more materials from fewer well-planned blasts. What we’re currently simulating with explicit dynamics software from ANSYS is precise-delay timing and how resulting forces due to the effects of shock waves, stress waves and the effect of velocity gradients can be leveraged to produce optimal fragmentation.” These capabilities are a critical component of Orica’s Blast Based Services, which is changing the market approach to explosives by allowing the industry to purchase mine-specific solutions tailored for the client’s unique operational and commercial challenges.

Whether applied to mining coal, gold, copper, uranium, nickel or bauxite, precision-delay timing involves multiple blasts that are specifically sited and sequenced. The wrong placement/timing combination can result in muck piles that are difficult for a front loader to efficiently excavate, excessive machine wear, environmentally adverse effects, or an unsafe explosion creating excessive air-blast levels and flyrock.

A blasthole produces stress waves. Multiple blastholes cause these to collide and interact — thereby magnifying, diminishing or canceling out their effects. The physics involved are complex and dependent on the time between detonations. For example, colliding stress waves can become reinforced and reflected, producing significant damage, or stress waves can become depleted in strength due to other more powerful waves. The Orica simulation study used explicit dynamics software from ANSYS to show that blast-induced fracturing and damage lag significantly behind the initial blast’s stress wave, with the most effective delay time occurring when crack propagation and damage are maximized before a subsequent detonation occurs, a span of tens of milliseconds, depending on the rock and blast pattern. “Precise-delay timing enables detonation of adjacent blast holes with the ‘right’ delay time, not simply a guesstimate,” Preece added.

Orica has pioneered the development and implementation of new mining technology for more than a century. The company’s recent engineering simulation efforts are especially timely since rising energy prices have driven up the cost of natural gas, which when converted into ammonia is used to produce a key ingredient in explosives. Orica’s Blast Based Services seek to maximize the performance and efficiency of the blasting process.

“Mining activities remain a time- and cost-intensive business, so accurate planning is critical.

http://www.cadcamnews.in/2009/07/mining-prospects-enhanced-with-ansys.html

Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy Uranium Mining Subcommittee

Comment: Notes of the meeting!
Heck No! We Won't Glow, demand the local leaders to ban uranium mining and milling now!

Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:30 p.m. House Room D, General Assembly Building
Richmond, Virginia

Meeting Summary

Delegate Ware began the meeting by setting the agenda and indicating that Delegate Kilgore would be listening in by phone. After the members introduced themselves, Dr. Karmis began with a brief introduction of the scope of study.

The final draft of the scope of study was developed in conjunction with the National Research Council (NRC), which functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Karmis emphasized to the subcommittee that the role of the NRC is not to make actual policy recommendations, but to collect and analyze information with the aim of improving the quality of the policy-making process. The draft of the final scope of study is based upon the tentative scope approved by the subcommittee on March 24th and has been drafted with the NRC's Division on Earth and Life Studies.

Dr. Karmis concluded his introduction of the scope by noting several points: (i) the study will provide advice, but not recommendations; (ii) reserves should bedistinguished from resources, of which reserves are a fully explored and known component; and (iii) that the NRC clarified with Dr. Karmis that the use of the term "reclamation" is meant to include post-mining land use and monitoring.

Delegate Abbitt asked whether issue 11, which states "[b]riefly characterize a public education and outreach program . . . for a uranium mining operation," assumed that the previous issues on public health, safety, and the environment would be answered reassuringly. He further noted his opinion that no money should be spent designing a public education and outreach program unless uranium mining has been found to be safe.

Delegate Abbitt also asked whether the study would examine "real-life situations." Dr. Karmis responded that existing issue 2, which states "[i]dentify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices[,]" will review real-life situations. Delegate Abbitt suggested to the subcommittee that the scope be amended to clarify as such and emphasize the importance of studying tailings practices.

Delegate Abbitt continued to express his concerns with the scope and its apparent brevity. He asked that the report include information on buried tailings and radioactive leachate, which would be with us for thousands of years. He also asked for more information on the financial assurances provided by any mining entity—how such assurances might be given for such a long period of time in the future and whether foreign ownership of the mining entity would affect such assurances?

Delegate Amundson asked for clarification on how the study would review best practices and stated that she thought that it might be procedurally difficult to make such generalizations. Dr. Karmis responded that the study would review best practices as a preliminary step before determining if any such practices would be applicable in our situation. Delegate Amundson asked that the study also provide guidelines that could be used to determine applicability of best practices in the Commonwealth. Furthermore, Delegate Amundson stated her understanding that the scope of study is arranged sequentially, but asked that the subcommittee move the issue of public health and safety into a predominant position.

Delegate Daniel Marshall spoke before the subcommittee as a member of the public and stated his concerns with the final scope as drafted. He would like a list of definitions for the terms used in the scope, such as "reclamation," so that he could be reassured that terms written broadly would be interpreted as such. He also emphasized to the subcommittee that this study is of statewide application and hoped that the scope could be sequenced in order of importance.

Delegate Marshall asked that the subcommittee not take any action on the scope for 60days to allow further review and input from the public. He is concerned that the scope will not include any recommendations and wonders what party will be competent to make such recommendations if the NRC will not do it. Senator Watkins answered that the policy issue will come back to the subcommittee, but ultimately will be answered by the General Assembly as a whole.

Delegate Abbitt noted his agreement with Delegate Marshall that the scope of study include definitions.

Members of the public spoke and voiced their concerns on a diverse array of issues including: that the primary focus of the study should be health and safety issues (from several speakers); a desire to have additional time to review the final draft before the subcommittee takes any action (from several speakers); clarification that the study will include real-life examples (from several speakers) and a grounding in actual experience for the investigators; a suggestion that issue 7, which assesses occupational and public health risks, include effects of heavy metals; a suggestion that issue 11, which asks for a characterization of a public education campaign, be stricken; worries that uranium mining in Virginia will have a negative impact on drinking water supplies (from several speakers); hopes that uranium mining would contribute positively towards improved economic conditions in the region and a secure source of domestic energy; skepticism that the study will be able to sufficiently inform policymakers of an acceptable level of risk (from several speakers) and that policymakers might not be able to apply such risk with parity across the Commonwealth; the study will not provide any answers, but simply narrow the questions to be asked in yet another study (from several speakers); the critical importance of Lake Gaston as a water supply for the U.S. Navy, the Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as well as the State of North Carolina (from several speakers); the hope that the study and the subcommittee's oversight will proceed transparently and include all stakeholders; the desire that local government officials will be consulted as the study continues; whether the U.S. has a legitimate need to produce more uranium; impacts on agriculture; the effects of dust from blasting operations; the increase of lead in water taken from drinking wells near the Cole's Hill site since the inception of exploratory drilling; the absence of a mining plan presented by Virginia Uranium; use of taxpayer funds in this study; perceived risks that might persist even if uranium mining is found safe; the complexity of scientific language likely to be included in thestudy; the sequence of the issues set out in the scope (from several speakers); the risks posed from earthquakes and severe weather events such as hurricanes (from several speakers); the risks of open pit mining and the value of applying experience from other types of mining operations to an open pit mine; real estate values around a mine and in buffer areas; aesthetic value of the area; damage to the reputation of private schools from the perceived risks, even if invalidated; that energy independence should be considered at a more local level; the risk that the price would drop and that the project could be curtailed midstream; that the study will simply review information without a push towards rational conclusions (from several speakers); perception of study bias and legitimacy of the study in light of a lack of knowledge regarding study funding (from several speakers); and radon exposure.

Delegate Amundson proposed an amendment to the first paragraph of the scope to clarify the purpose of the study is to assist "the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens." Senator Watkins questioned whether the statement was redundant with earlier language and Delegate Amundson responded that redundancy may be appropriate to make priorities clear. Delegate Ware agreed that this might be an appropriate place to make a clear, though redundant, statement.

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Delegate Amundson asked that existing item 7, which states that the study will "[a]ssess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium[,]" be moved to be the first item in the list.

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Delegate Abbitt asked that an item be added to emphasize that real-world examples of mining practices be reviewed at sites with conditions comparable to Virginia. (The amendment took the form of a new item 4.)

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Senator Wagner asked for further clarification that the study include a review of negative impacts and the measures that might be adopted to mitigate those impacts. Delegate Abbitt asked that the suggested amendment include the phrase "if available" to modify mitigating measures. Senator Wagner agreed. (The amendment was included with the new item 4.)

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Delegate Abbitt asked for more specifics on the risks from mining leachate. Delegate Ware invited Dr. Karmis to respond to Delegate Abbitt's request. Dr. Karmis agreed that scope specifics might be helpful to clarify examination of tailings, tailings disposal, and monitoringDr. Karmis relayed that the NRC finds these issues to fall within the term "reclamation."

Delegate Abbitt and Dr. Karmis agreed that simply using the term reclamation broadly without a definition is vague. Delegate Abbitt proposed an amendment to include more specific language.

The amendment failed by voice vote.

Senator Watkins moved that the scope, as amended, be adopted by the subcommittee. Delegate Abbitt noted his dissatisfaction and stated that he would not be in favor of the amended scope. Senator Watkins stated that the vote was not a referendum on uranium mining and that the General Assembly was in a position where it must seek guidance from others. Eventually theCommonwealth will decide, upon the contributions of science, whether to pursue uranium
mining.

It is a vote to seek knowledge, not an approval of uranium mining.

Senator Puckett put forth his disappointment that the actions of the subcommittee would be characterized as "a fast track approval." He said that this is in an initial step in a very slow process and cited the example of the 12 years it took to approve the Wise County Power Plant.

Senator Puckett further expressed his regret that any member of the public would voice personal attacks, specifically those attacks directed towards Dr. Karmis, whose role it is to serve the General Assembly. He reassured those in attendance that the subcommittee will do its due diligence and include the public at every juncture.

The motion to adopt the scope as amended passed, with Delegates Abbitt and Janis voting against the motion.

http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cec/052109/sm052109.pdf

Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM)

Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM)
Uranium Toxicity: Who Is at Risk of Exposure to Uranium?

Learning Objectives Upon completion of this section, you will be able to identify the populations most heavily exposed to uranium and describe who is at risk for uranium exposure.

Introduction : The occupations most heavily exposed to uranium are those employed in mining and milling operations, or in uranium enrichment and processing activities.

Communities living near Department of Energy (DOE) facilities and mining sites and those living in areas where naturally occurring uranium levels are elevated are most at risk for significant environmental exposure.

Past Occupational Exposures: In the past, uranium exposure has been associated mainly with mining and milling of the raw material, with workers engaged in uranium enrichment, and processing (DOE sites). In the 1980s, the United States stopped recycling and reprocessing uranium for antiproliferation purposes (other than for military fuel), increasing the need for mining and material production.

Past Paraoccupational Exposures: In the past, industrial hygiene practices may not have been adequate to protect workers from bringing contamination home with them, resulting in possible exposures to family members. At DOE sites in the 1950s, in particular, workers often did not know the hazards they were working with due to the secrecy of the atomic weapon projects. While it is expected that workers became more aware of the industrial hazards after the end of World War II, industrial hygiene practices in general did not improve significantly until the mid-1970s.

In addition, some releases from DOE facilities during the 1950s and 1960s may have exposed nearby communities to elevated levels of radiation, including uranium.

Current Occupational Exposures : Very little mining or processing of uranium for the purpose of fuel or weapons development is currently underway. Occupational activities with potential for uranium exposure include workers involved in using armor-piercing weapons,
decommissioning uranium-contaminated areas (e.g., handling wastes or debris suspected of containing uranium while decommissioning uranium contaminated areas),
processing nuclear fuel, maintenance and/or repair activities at applicable U.S. government facilities, mining or milling of uranium, silver, phosphorus, coal, etc., producing phosphate fertilizer, operating power plants, repairing, storing, transporting and using uranium weapons,
working with gyroscope, helicopter rotor counterbalances, or control surfaces of aircraft containing uranium metal weights, or using uranium-containing glazes as artists, hobbyists, and glass workers.

Direct Domestic Exposures: As noted earlier, the most common non-occupational exposures are primarily a result of drinking water, eating food, and breathing air contaminated by naturally occurring uranium sources.

Communities located near contaminated sites may be exposed through accidental releases during remediation activities. Essentially no uranium is released from nuclear power plants because of the fuel assembly design and the chemical and physical nature of the uranium oxide fuel [ATSDR 2008b].

Background Exposures: Background exposures to uranium occur throughout the United States and the world because uranium is a naturally occurring element in the soil, water, and air.

Average daily ingestion of uranium (both food and water) is estimated to be 3 micrograms (µg)/day in the United States. According to the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, urine uranium levels were measured in a subsample of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) participants aged 6 years and older during 1999-2002.

The 95th percentile of urinary uranium concentrations was 0.034 µg/gram (gram) creatinine in the 1999-2000 survey years and 0.040 µg/g creatinine in the 2001-2002 survey years for the U.S. population aged 6 years and older [CDC 2009].

Key Points: Populations most heavily exposed to uranium are those employed in mining and milling operations, or in uranium enrichment and processing activities.

The most common nonoccupational exposures occur from exposure to naturally occurring uranium sources such as contaminated well water.

Links to non-federal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. These links do not constitute an endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC, ATSDR or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC and ATSDR are not responsible for the content of the individual organization Web pages found at these links.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/uranium/u_whosat-risk.html

Wake up and fight, folks, Uranium offers empty economic promises

Comment: Great Letters!!! Santoy will take 60-80 per cent profit back to Canada, VUI group will move to the islands, our County will have 2 huge open pits which will poison our water, air, land, animals, plants, poison the Military bases at Virginia Beach!!!!! Uranium Mining & Milling will kill the Chesapeake Bay too!!!

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:07 AM EDT

Uranium offers empty economic promises

This letter is in answer to a letter from Philip Shelton of Blairs published in your paper on May 20, 2009.

I have read your letter regarding the issue of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County where you state, hopefully, that this industry will be such a boon to our economy that our taxes will be reduced.

Let me state now that if this industry is allowed to mine uranium we will lose the enrollment of both Chatham Hall and Hargrave Military Academy.

Both of these institutions are a prime source of local tax revenue.

No one who knows anything about the past history of this industry with its widespread elevations of cancers, birth defects, and death would dare to send their children to a school that is within five miles of an open-pit uranium mine.

Further, if you study the records of uranium mining sites out west, where the industry has tried, unsuccessfully, to mine uranium without harming the environment or the surrounding population for years, you will note that in each case, the cleanup of toxic waste sites is left up to the local taxpayers to foot the bill.

Mr. Shelton, are you aware that Mr. Coles has sold Virginia Uranium Inc. to a Canadian mining company named Santoy?

Why would he sell out? Why is a Canadian mining company buying Virginia Uranium?

The answer is that Santoy's mining operations have been closed down by the Canadian government because of the pollution mines have caused in Canada.

Additionally, VUI has promised record employment here in Pittsylvania County. This is a bald lie.

Their plan states that they will use experienced mining personnel as well as students from the newly formed nuclear science school at Virginia Tech.

VUI claims it will produce 300 to 500 jobs in the county. How can we believe that when, nationwide, the uranium mining industry employs considerably less than 500 people in mining uranium?

It is only through knowledge of the problems of the uranium mining industry that you may begin to realize what a disaster we are in for if the existing moratorium were to be lifted.

I suggest that you, and anyone else who wishes to inform themselves about this industry, study what has gone on before now, worldwide, with the mining and milling of uranium.

I have come to love this area of Virginia and the people who reside here. It is for this reason that I will continue to educate myself and anyone who will listen to the dangers of the uranium mining industry.

I am not, to quote your letter, an "anti-everything" person. However, with what I know I am an anti-uranium mining, tree-hugging resident of Pittsylvania County.

Hunter Austin
Hurt

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/03/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Wake up and fight, folks

I am so frustrated by our populace's belief in the uranium "study." Study of what?

How much money the investors of a Canadian company will make?

How much money Walter Coles and friends will make?

How much money everyone other than these people will lose by being subjected to the loss of their livelihoods and lives by having one of the most hazardous and toxic businesses in the world located in their backyards?

Please wake up and fight, folks.

We need every voice.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/03/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt

Statement of Task

Thanks UraniumHead

Comment: articles from the State of VA, Uranium Subcom. & TDE

Uranium Mining in Virginia and The Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) on proposed methods to manage uranium

Statement of Task

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.

A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens.

In particular, the study will:

1) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium.
2) Review global and national uranium market trends.
3) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
4) Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.
5) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).
7) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
8) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
9) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
10) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

Another piece of uranium stuff from The Depart of Energy:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/descriptions/1Q2009.html

09-002F The Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) on proposed methods to manage uranium that would involve the transportation of uranium (depleted, natural or low-enriched) by truck, rail or barge via nonspecific routes in the United States and exportation to France via a U.S. port. This EA focuses on (a) health and safety impacts, (b) impacts associated with accidents and intentional destructive acts (terrorism, sabotage) and (3) economic impacts of the proposed action on the domestic uranium industry. It is conceivable that uranium may be transported through or exported from Virginia during this process.

Staunton River supervisor to hold meeting on land use, mining

Comment: Everyone in the county and city needs to attend this meeting!

From staff reports
Published: May 27, 2009

HURT — Staunton River Supervisor Marshall Ecker will hold his second quarterly meeting with citizens Tuesday.

The meeting will be held from 5:45 p.m. to 7 p.m. on June 2 at Hurt Town Hall on Pocket Road.


Ecker will discuss issues and concerns important to citizens. Topics covered will include land use and uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

Jaduguda residents object to renewal of uranium mining lease

By admin on May 27th, 2009

Jamshedpur, May 27 (ANI): Residents of Jaduguda and nearby areas of Jamshedpur in Jharkhand staged a mass protest on Tuesday against the renewal of lease of uranium mining rights by the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL).

People protested on the sidelines of a public hearing of the UCIL held in Jamshedpur to discuss renewal of lease of mining areas in Jadugoda.

Locals and members of Jharkhand Organisation against Radiation (JOAR) shouted slogans to register their protest against renewal of mining and alleged they had been harmed by uranium radiation in a lot of ways.

Members and supporters of JOAR have been spearheading the anti-radiation movement and voicing their objection to the renewal of mining.

“There are a lot of problems here. Women are not able conceive. Handicapped children are born. A lot of people are dying because of cancer and tuberculosis caused due to radiation and other odd affects of Uranium,” said Manoj Kumar, a resident.

However, the UCIL dismissed the allegations of the NGOs that people were suffering from radiation effects of uranium mining.

S B Momik, General Manager, Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), Jaduguda said that the grade of mining done by the corporation is not the cause of illness of the people.he uranium deposits at Jaduguda in Singhbhum district of Jharkhand, has been under exploitation since 1962.

The uranium deposits at Bhatin and Narwapahar are currently being explored and mined.re from the three deposits is treated in a mill at Jaduguda and the annual yield of uranium is 300 tonnes which is more than sufficient to meet expected requirements of Atomic Energy Commission for decades. (ANI)

http://silverscorpio.com/jaduguda-residents-object-to-renewal-of-uranium-mining-lease/