By Rex Bowman / Richmond Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Virginia's scenic, rolling Piedmont is rich in presidential history — Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe all made their homes there. The land is also rich in uranium. But the state has had a moratorium on mining the nuclear fuel since 1982. Now, a group of landowners in rural Pittsylvania County is looking to make a fortune by digging up the ore, and, with talk of nuclear energy making a comeback following last summer's sky-high gas prices, the state is thinking about giving its blessing. The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy is preparing to undertake a study on whether uranium can be extracted without contaminating the air or polluting the water.
The stakes are huge. The 30 or so landowners who formed Virginia Uranium Inc. say the two deposits they want to mine contain up to 120 million pounds of ore, enough to mine for decades. With uranium spot prices hovering around $47 a pound, the ore in Pittsylvania, never mind the rest of the state, is worth billions of dollars.
Only the moratorium stands in the way. The history of the ban begins in 1977, when the Marline Uranium Corp., a subsidiary of the Marline Oil Co., began looking for the ore around the state. (The U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that vast swaths of the Piedmont, between the low-lying Tidewater to the east and the Blue Ridge to the west, potentially hold uranium.) In two years Marline had found the monster deposits in Pittsylvania.
The discovery touched off a hunt for uranium statewide, alarming communities along the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge that didn't want to see horse pastures turned into mining pits. In 1982, the state acted to ease nerves by declaring the moratorium. Then the price of uranium tanked, dropping to $9 a pound at one point. Mining companies had little incentive to challenge the moratorium, so didn't.
Today, most Virginians seem unaware that the fate of the state's uranium mining moratorium is being discussed anew. The state coal and energy commission's study that might persuade the state's General Assembly to lift the moratorium could still take up to two years to complete. But already in rural Pittsylvania, which has one of the state's highest unemployment rates, debate is fierce. Supporters say new mining technology will allow miners to get the uranium safely, the mine would offer much-needed jobs to 300 people, and the uranium would fuel new reactors and help the nation kick its foreign oil habit.
Opponents point out that almost all uranium mining in the United States occurs in arid, sparsely populated places out west that are geologically unlike anything in Virginia. In the water-rich Old Dominion, they argue, radioactive materials from uranium such as thorium-230, radium-226 and radon-222 could shake loose and leach into the groundwater. Meanwhile, the large piles of mining debris known as "tailings" could blow in the wind and contaminate the air.
"It's going to rain down dust like lint," predicts 57-year-old cattle farmer and mine opponent Phillip Lovelace of Pittsylvania.
Virginia Beach and neighboring Chesapeake, two cities with a combined population greater than 600,000 that get part of their water from Pittsylvania streams, are alarmed at talk of lifting the moratorium. Virginia Beach opposes the mining plan outright, while Chesapeake has expressed grave concerns to state officials.
Opponents are also skeptical of the job claims: in all the uranium mines out west, which produced 4.5 million pounds of uranium in 2007, there are fewer than 400 miners employed, according to statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
To settle the issue, the state commission hopes to enlist the help of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study. Meanwhile, opponents have organized and circulated petitions and enlisted the help of environmental groups, including the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.
Virginia Uranium for its part has agreed to merge with a Canadian mining company, Santoy Resources of British Columbia, to ensure it has the capital to press forward with its mining plans. In the end, insists Walter Coles, head of Virginia Uranium, there will be no mining if it puts the environment at risk. "If we're going to do it, it has to be done safely."
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Utah's Dirty Mining Legacy
Comment: Comment: Utah has an unhealthy uranium mining experience and according to (NIOSH) report concluded that the current radiation exposure standard "does not provide an adequate degree of protection for underground miners.
During the uranium boom of the 1940s and 50s, thousands of uranium mines were claimed in Utah. When the uranium boom went bust in the 1970s, Utah was left with over 5,000 abandoned uranium mines. The cleanup cost of closing those mines is estimated at $125 million taxpayer dollars.
But the impact of the uranium mining industry isn’t limited to our land; it also affected the health of those laboring in the mines. As early as the 1950s, the federal government had secretly studied the health of uranium miners and knew there were significant health impacts. In order to gain access to miners to do the study, the US Public Health Service agreed not to warn uranium miners of the radiation hazards of their work.
They found uranium miners had increased risk for lung cancer, respiratory disease, and diseases of the blood.
Now, the nuclear industry will tell you that we’ve learned from our past and things will be different this time. And to their credit, there have been improvements.
However, the truth is that uranium miner health standards have remained unchanged since 1971, and so there is no question that a new generation of miners will be exposed to some of same health impacts as the last.
In fact, a 1980 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report concluded that the current radiation exposure standard "does not provide an adequate degree of protection for underground miners exposed to radiation when it is evaluated over their exposure lifetime."
Although this information has been conveyed to Congress, the antiquated standard remains in place.
During the uranium boom of the 1940s and 50s, thousands of uranium mines were claimed in Utah. When the uranium boom went bust in the 1970s, Utah was left with over 5,000 abandoned uranium mines. The cleanup cost of closing those mines is estimated at $125 million taxpayer dollars.
But the impact of the uranium mining industry isn’t limited to our land; it also affected the health of those laboring in the mines. As early as the 1950s, the federal government had secretly studied the health of uranium miners and knew there were significant health impacts. In order to gain access to miners to do the study, the US Public Health Service agreed not to warn uranium miners of the radiation hazards of their work.
They found uranium miners had increased risk for lung cancer, respiratory disease, and diseases of the blood.
Now, the nuclear industry will tell you that we’ve learned from our past and things will be different this time. And to their credit, there have been improvements.
However, the truth is that uranium miner health standards have remained unchanged since 1971, and so there is no question that a new generation of miners will be exposed to some of same health impacts as the last.
In fact, a 1980 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report concluded that the current radiation exposure standard "does not provide an adequate degree of protection for underground miners exposed to radiation when it is evaluated over their exposure lifetime."
Although this information has been conveyed to Congress, the antiquated standard remains in place.
Nuclear power knocked out of renewable-energy bill
Comment: We need to tell VA Government that our County wants True Green Power, Not Nuke Power, therefore, no uranium mining. Remember, Utah is tired of uranium mining!
By Robert Gehrke
02/20/09
Salt Lake Tribune
A measure aimed at bolstering the state's production of renewable energy cleared the Legislature on Thursday after twice staving off attempts by conservative lawmakers to include nuclear power as a renewable resource.
"It's amazing to me the same crowd that says the world is coming to an end due to [carbon-dioxide] emissions is the same group that is running away from the one source of energy with zero emissions," Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, said during debate Wednesday.
The House, however, rejected Daw's amendment on a voice vote. A similar effort failed in the Senate.
Holladay Democratic Sen. Pat Jones' nonbinding resolution asks the state to craft model ordinances that municipalities can use if they want to develop renewable power.
In addition to the fight over the inclusion of nuclear power, the bill was voted down in the House, but then revived after much of the language, which some members felt was disparaging to the state's coal industry, was stripped out.
The Senate agreed to the House's changes, and Jones said it makes it a better bill. The measure now goes to the governor for his anticipated approval.
By Robert Gehrke
02/20/09
Salt Lake Tribune
A measure aimed at bolstering the state's production of renewable energy cleared the Legislature on Thursday after twice staving off attempts by conservative lawmakers to include nuclear power as a renewable resource.
"It's amazing to me the same crowd that says the world is coming to an end due to [carbon-dioxide] emissions is the same group that is running away from the one source of energy with zero emissions," Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, said during debate Wednesday.
The House, however, rejected Daw's amendment on a voice vote. A similar effort failed in the Senate.
Holladay Democratic Sen. Pat Jones' nonbinding resolution asks the state to craft model ordinances that municipalities can use if they want to develop renewable power.
In addition to the fight over the inclusion of nuclear power, the bill was voted down in the House, but then revived after much of the language, which some members felt was disparaging to the state's coal industry, was stripped out.
The Senate agreed to the House's changes, and Jones said it makes it a better bill. The measure now goes to the governor for his anticipated approval.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
Letter to Editor:
Pittsylvania County must position itself to be the final determinant as to whether or not we agree with the findings of any and all studies regarding uranium mining and milling in our region. Neither the Coal and Energy Commission nor legislators who do not represent us should decide our fate.
Pittsylvania County's Zoning Ordinance which was enacted "for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public" states that the Code of Virginia gives the governing body of any county the authority to regulate "the excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources." It appears that the authority exists for the governing body to ban mining and milling of uranium in the county until studies are completed and we (citizens and local representatives) decide if benefits outweigh the risks. If we are not satisfied that the results of the studies assure community health and well-being we can continue the ban. It does not appear that the Dillion Rule applies here. Supervisors should take the initiative to find out.
I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for their recent resolution which states “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages but we can do more.
We are not powerless, unless we choose to be so. ENACT A BAN!
A call for a ban on uranium mining and and milling is a seperate issue from a revue of the mineral tax. The ban will give us an opportunity to decide if uranium mining/milling will be a detriment to health and economy. Exploring options regarding the county's mineral tax is altogether different.
I am not a proponent of uranium mining in Pittsylvania county.
However, Pittsylvania County is undergoing assessment.
The Code of Virginia allows mineral lands to be "specially and seperately assessed". Areas in the state and around the country levy taxes on undeveloped and/or improved mineral lands, mineral reserves, excavated ore and as mineral rights .
Mineral rights can be bought and sold, like your personal property, without an ounce of ore leaving the ground.
Neither Virginia Uranium nor Santoy, an international entity, in which is invested millions, and sits on top of billions in assets has not paid a penny in taxes to the county.
If Walter Coles, Jr. wants to "spread the wealth" he can begin entertaining the notion of taxing (VUI/Santoy's/Bowen Minerals LLC/ Coles Hill LLC, and others) mineral rights . If that proves a hardship, we can allow VUI and others a free pass on taxes if we ban the mining and milling of uranium.
That being said, I'm sure VUI will put a "happy spin" on this as well.
Karen B. Maute
Pittsylvania County must position itself to be the final determinant as to whether or not we agree with the findings of any and all studies regarding uranium mining and milling in our region. Neither the Coal and Energy Commission nor legislators who do not represent us should decide our fate.
Pittsylvania County's Zoning Ordinance which was enacted "for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public" states that the Code of Virginia gives the governing body of any county the authority to regulate "the excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources." It appears that the authority exists for the governing body to ban mining and milling of uranium in the county until studies are completed and we (citizens and local representatives) decide if benefits outweigh the risks. If we are not satisfied that the results of the studies assure community health and well-being we can continue the ban. It does not appear that the Dillion Rule applies here. Supervisors should take the initiative to find out.
I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for their recent resolution which states “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages but we can do more.
We are not powerless, unless we choose to be so. ENACT A BAN!
A call for a ban on uranium mining and and milling is a seperate issue from a revue of the mineral tax. The ban will give us an opportunity to decide if uranium mining/milling will be a detriment to health and economy. Exploring options regarding the county's mineral tax is altogether different.
I am not a proponent of uranium mining in Pittsylvania county.
However, Pittsylvania County is undergoing assessment.
The Code of Virginia allows mineral lands to be "specially and seperately assessed". Areas in the state and around the country levy taxes on undeveloped and/or improved mineral lands, mineral reserves, excavated ore and as mineral rights .
Mineral rights can be bought and sold, like your personal property, without an ounce of ore leaving the ground.
Neither Virginia Uranium nor Santoy, an international entity, in which is invested millions, and sits on top of billions in assets has not paid a penny in taxes to the county.
If Walter Coles, Jr. wants to "spread the wealth" he can begin entertaining the notion of taxing (VUI/Santoy's/Bowen Minerals LLC/ Coles Hill LLC, and others) mineral rights . If that proves a hardship, we can allow VUI and others a free pass on taxes if we ban the mining and milling of uranium.
That being said, I'm sure VUI will put a "happy spin" on this as well.
Karen B. Maute
By PUBLISHED BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: February 19, 2009
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors has made its strongest statement yet on a proposed uranium mine and mill.
Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution that “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages … ”
With those 35 words, supervisors said they want what the county has today. While they are certainly willing to accept the jobs, tax dollars and the resulting economic rollover effect a successful uranium mine would bring to Pittsylvania County, they don’t want those benefits at the cost of losing what Pittsylvania County has right now.
No damage is a much higher standard than simply weighing the costs versus the benefits of a project or accepting a small amount of damage.
The no-damage motion was pushed by Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis. It followed a previous board motion — and the community’s consensus — that the proposed project should be studied by the state.
That study is already being developed, and one of the proposed motions before supervisors Tuesday would have thanked the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee for meeting in Chatham to hear citizen comments.
But that could be handled with a lovely note written on county stationary and dropped in the mail.
Resolutions don’t have the force of law, but they do speak loudly about intentions, motivations and concerns.
Clearly, a lot has changed in the past year on the uranium mining issue to convince the Board of Supervisors that they needed to do more than simply support the state study.
The Board of Supervisors has set a high standard for what it will accept from a uranium mine and mill. Davis and the other board members should be congratulated for taking a tough, proactive stance on an issue of community concern.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors has made its strongest statement yet on a proposed uranium mine and mill.
Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution that “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages … ”
With those 35 words, supervisors said they want what the county has today. While they are certainly willing to accept the jobs, tax dollars and the resulting economic rollover effect a successful uranium mine would bring to Pittsylvania County, they don’t want those benefits at the cost of losing what Pittsylvania County has right now.
No damage is a much higher standard than simply weighing the costs versus the benefits of a project or accepting a small amount of damage.
The no-damage motion was pushed by Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis. It followed a previous board motion — and the community’s consensus — that the proposed project should be studied by the state.
That study is already being developed, and one of the proposed motions before supervisors Tuesday would have thanked the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee for meeting in Chatham to hear citizen comments.
But that could be handled with a lovely note written on county stationary and dropped in the mail.
Resolutions don’t have the force of law, but they do speak loudly about intentions, motivations and concerns.
Clearly, a lot has changed in the past year on the uranium mining issue to convince the Board of Supervisors that they needed to do more than simply support the state study.
The Board of Supervisors has set a high standard for what it will accept from a uranium mine and mill. Davis and the other board members should be congratulated for taking a tough, proactive stance on an issue of community concern.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
EPA doesn't think uranium is 'harmless'
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:34 AM EST
A most interesting letter to the editor was published in the Feb. 11, 2009, issue of the Star-Tribune from someone describing himself as having worked for a number of years as an inspector of uranium ore at Babcock and Wilcox.
He pronounced uranium mining to be safe and that the opposition to uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is merely "people are jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property."
On the Internet site of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency one finds this statement:
"Since 1879 when uranium mine workers began being diagnosed with lung diseases, such as cancer, regulators have gradually tightened controls.
Recently, officials also have become concerned with the broader impacts of uranium mining on public health and the environment."EPA further states: "The greatest health risk from large intakes of uranium is toxic damage to the kidneys, because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.
Uranium exposure increases your risk of getting cancer because of its radioactivity. Uranium concentrates in specific locations in the body, thus risk of cancer of the bone, liver cancer, and blood diseases such as leukemia are increased. Inhaled uranium increases the risk of lung cancer.
"EPA also stated that "a small amount of the uranium in the bloodstream will deposit in a person's bones, where it will remain for years."Concerning uranium mining, EPA says: "Mines and mining wastes can release radionuclides, including radon, and other pollutants to streams, springs, and other bodies of water."
According to EPA, "You should never drink water from streams and springs near abandoned uranium mines.
"If this mining takes place, one day Coles Hill will be an abandoned uranium mine site.
EPA also says never take home from the site samples or rocks as souvenirs.
About milling of uranium, EPA stated: "Milling wastes or tailings contain several naturally-occurring radioactive elements, including uranium, thorium, radium, polonium and radon. They also contain a number of chemically hazardous elements, such as arsenic.
"The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency administers several Acts with the purpose of controlling these contaminants.
One is the Safe Drinking Water Act, which has established standards for combined radium 226/228; beta emitters; gross alpha standard; and uranium.The Clean Air Act, obviously, covers contaminants in the air, termed "Hazardous Air Pollutants," which lists radionuclides (including radon).
I think I believe the EPA on the dangers of uranium instead of the assertion by the gentleman about its harmlessness.
I will confess that I am jealous of the fact Mr. Coles owns this property because, if I owned it, I would tie it up in such a way that no mining of any kind whatsoever could ever take place on or under that land as long as the planet Earth existed.
A few billion dollars would never compensate my sense of guilt at destroying the lives of so many people and ruining a section of the country.
Also, to save the gentleman any possible embarrassment, let me say that though we share the same surname, there is no kinship and I have never met the gentleman.
Hildred C. Shelton
Danville
A most interesting letter to the editor was published in the Feb. 11, 2009, issue of the Star-Tribune from someone describing himself as having worked for a number of years as an inspector of uranium ore at Babcock and Wilcox.
He pronounced uranium mining to be safe and that the opposition to uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is merely "people are jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property."
On the Internet site of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency one finds this statement:
"Since 1879 when uranium mine workers began being diagnosed with lung diseases, such as cancer, regulators have gradually tightened controls.
Recently, officials also have become concerned with the broader impacts of uranium mining on public health and the environment."EPA further states: "The greatest health risk from large intakes of uranium is toxic damage to the kidneys, because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.
Uranium exposure increases your risk of getting cancer because of its radioactivity. Uranium concentrates in specific locations in the body, thus risk of cancer of the bone, liver cancer, and blood diseases such as leukemia are increased. Inhaled uranium increases the risk of lung cancer.
"EPA also stated that "a small amount of the uranium in the bloodstream will deposit in a person's bones, where it will remain for years."Concerning uranium mining, EPA says: "Mines and mining wastes can release radionuclides, including radon, and other pollutants to streams, springs, and other bodies of water."
According to EPA, "You should never drink water from streams and springs near abandoned uranium mines.
"If this mining takes place, one day Coles Hill will be an abandoned uranium mine site.
EPA also says never take home from the site samples or rocks as souvenirs.
About milling of uranium, EPA stated: "Milling wastes or tailings contain several naturally-occurring radioactive elements, including uranium, thorium, radium, polonium and radon. They also contain a number of chemically hazardous elements, such as arsenic.
"The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency administers several Acts with the purpose of controlling these contaminants.
One is the Safe Drinking Water Act, which has established standards for combined radium 226/228; beta emitters; gross alpha standard; and uranium.The Clean Air Act, obviously, covers contaminants in the air, termed "Hazardous Air Pollutants," which lists radionuclides (including radon).
I think I believe the EPA on the dangers of uranium instead of the assertion by the gentleman about its harmlessness.
I will confess that I am jealous of the fact Mr. Coles owns this property because, if I owned it, I would tie it up in such a way that no mining of any kind whatsoever could ever take place on or under that land as long as the planet Earth existed.
A few billion dollars would never compensate my sense of guilt at destroying the lives of so many people and ruining a section of the country.
Also, to save the gentleman any possible embarrassment, let me say that though we share the same surname, there is no kinship and I have never met the gentleman.
Hildred C. Shelton
Danville
God put uranium in safe place
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:34 AM EST
Dear Mr. Melvin (Doc) Shelton.
I would like to answer some of your questions you asked in the Star-Tribune in the Feb. 11, 2009, Letters to the Editor.
You apparently don't know anything about mining and milling of uranium, you just worked with the finished product.
You didn't work with the dust that contaminates the air, water, and the soil, or the chemicals and acids that will contaminate the soil and water.Both of these things can harm and kill humans, animals, fish, birds, and any living things.
When you stated God created heaven and earth and everything on it, you told the truth.He created man and woman and gave them a brain, so that they could think.
He created thorns and man found out they hurt him if touched. So he used his brain to stay away.
He created cliffs, but man knew he could be hurt or killed if he jumped or fell.
God did create uranium and he put it in a safe place where it could not harm all of his creations.
You gave us a quote from the Bible; now let me give you one. Timothy, Chapter 6, Verse 9 and 10: "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves though with many sorrows."
Mr. Shelton, we the people are not jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property.
We just love God's creation and want to save it.Don't you?So use your God-given brains people and put a stop to this uranium issue.
Allen E. Gross
Sheva
Dear Mr. Melvin (Doc) Shelton.
I would like to answer some of your questions you asked in the Star-Tribune in the Feb. 11, 2009, Letters to the Editor.
You apparently don't know anything about mining and milling of uranium, you just worked with the finished product.
You didn't work with the dust that contaminates the air, water, and the soil, or the chemicals and acids that will contaminate the soil and water.Both of these things can harm and kill humans, animals, fish, birds, and any living things.
When you stated God created heaven and earth and everything on it, you told the truth.He created man and woman and gave them a brain, so that they could think.
He created thorns and man found out they hurt him if touched. So he used his brain to stay away.
He created cliffs, but man knew he could be hurt or killed if he jumped or fell.
God did create uranium and he put it in a safe place where it could not harm all of his creations.
You gave us a quote from the Bible; now let me give you one. Timothy, Chapter 6, Verse 9 and 10: "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves though with many sorrows."
Mr. Shelton, we the people are not jealous of Mr. Coles and others owning the property.
We just love God's creation and want to save it.Don't you?So use your God-given brains people and put a stop to this uranium issue.
Allen E. Gross
Sheva
NBers still concerned over uranium
Comment: Sounds like our problem and our county!
Low prices, new regulations, public backlash have reduced exploration
FREDERICTON - Uranium exploration in the Metro Moncton area is all but dead and buried, according to high-ranking officials in the Department of Natural Resources.
But roughly one year after the public backlash over uranium exploration hit a fever pitch, the implementation of tougher regulations and tumbling uranium prices haven't washed away the concerns of people living in southeastern New Brunswick.
Indeed, local stores in Cocagne and Grande-Digue sold out of anti-uranium exploration lawn signs as recently as last week.
The combination of a public backlash, plummeting mineral prices and new government regulations have cooled the uranium exploration that was taking place last year throughout the province.
According to the Department of Natural Resources' assistant deputy minister responsible for minerals, Cecil Freeman, another spike in mineral prices could bring a rush of mining companies back to the province, as it did a quarter of a century ago and again last year.
Natural Resources officials told a committee of MLAs yesterday that uranium prices reached as high as $136 a pound in 2007, which represents a significant increase over the 2002 price of $10 a pound. In October of last year, prices had dropped to $48 a pound.
But even if and when mining companies do return en masse, Freeman says dense population levels around Metro Moncton, which have virtually crippled potential exploration activities in this area, will likely discourage mining companies from focusing on setting up in this area.
"There is no exploration right now in the Moncton area," said Freeman, noting that there are only three areas still being actively explored for uranium in the province: northeastern New Brunswick, and the Plaster Rock and Harvey areas.
"The closer you get to the City of Moncton, if you take the watershed out, and you take the towns and cities and villages out, and you put a 300-metre circle around every house, there isn't much land except very awkward pieces."
But Kent South Conservative MLA Claude Williams said citizens are still concerned.
"There is still the same level of concern today as there was one year ago," said Williams.
"People are just as vigilant."
Williams said he was concerned by comments made by deputy minister Tom Reid who said uranium is "just another mineral" in the eyes of his department.
"When we hear the deputy say that uranium is just another mineral, it raises concerns," said Williams. "If the officials of this government have information that suggests New Brunswickers shouldn't be concerned about uranium, they can come out and tell New Brunswickers."
Reid said he did not intend to suggest his department doesn't take uranium exploration seriously, but didn't back away from his comments. "I apologize if we are giving that impression that we are not concerned about uranium and New Brunswickers and the environment. Uranium is just another mineral."
Reid said his department is comfortable with the regulations that are currently in place. He said the current process provides government with enough information to make a decision that is in the public's interest.
Freeman said there was an important element missing in the debate over uranium mining that raged over much of last year because there was no proposed site that could provide solid data and answers to public questions.
He said the public's negative response to mining exploration discouraged many mining companies from continuing their activities in the province.
However, he said the mining industry is still aware that New Brunswick is open for business.
"Some of those would have been hurt by this who put up money and feel they can't go where they thought they could go, but generally we were just at a national show, and they are not talking bad about us," said Freeman.
Freeman said mining companies could have calmed public sentiment toward uranium exploration if they had faced the New Brunswickers at public meetings instead of leaving the task to government officials.
But Williams said it is the government's responsibility to answer public questions because it licenses and regulates the mining industry.
Low prices, new regulations, public backlash have reduced exploration
FREDERICTON - Uranium exploration in the Metro Moncton area is all but dead and buried, according to high-ranking officials in the Department of Natural Resources.
But roughly one year after the public backlash over uranium exploration hit a fever pitch, the implementation of tougher regulations and tumbling uranium prices haven't washed away the concerns of people living in southeastern New Brunswick.
Indeed, local stores in Cocagne and Grande-Digue sold out of anti-uranium exploration lawn signs as recently as last week.
The combination of a public backlash, plummeting mineral prices and new government regulations have cooled the uranium exploration that was taking place last year throughout the province.
According to the Department of Natural Resources' assistant deputy minister responsible for minerals, Cecil Freeman, another spike in mineral prices could bring a rush of mining companies back to the province, as it did a quarter of a century ago and again last year.
Natural Resources officials told a committee of MLAs yesterday that uranium prices reached as high as $136 a pound in 2007, which represents a significant increase over the 2002 price of $10 a pound. In October of last year, prices had dropped to $48 a pound.
But even if and when mining companies do return en masse, Freeman says dense population levels around Metro Moncton, which have virtually crippled potential exploration activities in this area, will likely discourage mining companies from focusing on setting up in this area.
"There is no exploration right now in the Moncton area," said Freeman, noting that there are only three areas still being actively explored for uranium in the province: northeastern New Brunswick, and the Plaster Rock and Harvey areas.
"The closer you get to the City of Moncton, if you take the watershed out, and you take the towns and cities and villages out, and you put a 300-metre circle around every house, there isn't much land except very awkward pieces."
But Kent South Conservative MLA Claude Williams said citizens are still concerned.
"There is still the same level of concern today as there was one year ago," said Williams.
"People are just as vigilant."
Williams said he was concerned by comments made by deputy minister Tom Reid who said uranium is "just another mineral" in the eyes of his department.
"When we hear the deputy say that uranium is just another mineral, it raises concerns," said Williams. "If the officials of this government have information that suggests New Brunswickers shouldn't be concerned about uranium, they can come out and tell New Brunswickers."
Reid said he did not intend to suggest his department doesn't take uranium exploration seriously, but didn't back away from his comments. "I apologize if we are giving that impression that we are not concerned about uranium and New Brunswickers and the environment. Uranium is just another mineral."
Reid said his department is comfortable with the regulations that are currently in place. He said the current process provides government with enough information to make a decision that is in the public's interest.
Freeman said there was an important element missing in the debate over uranium mining that raged over much of last year because there was no proposed site that could provide solid data and answers to public questions.
He said the public's negative response to mining exploration discouraged many mining companies from continuing their activities in the province.
However, he said the mining industry is still aware that New Brunswick is open for business.
"Some of those would have been hurt by this who put up money and feel they can't go where they thought they could go, but generally we were just at a national show, and they are not talking bad about us," said Freeman.
Freeman said mining companies could have calmed public sentiment toward uranium exploration if they had faced the New Brunswickers at public meetings instead of leaving the task to government officials.
But Williams said it is the government's responsibility to answer public questions because it licenses and regulates the mining industry.
NRC ISSUES FINAL RULE ON NEW REACTOR AIRCRAFT IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
Comment: I wonder how much more money will be added to the $10 billion to build a Nuke Plant that can with stand an jet?
NRC NEWSU.S. , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
February 17, 2009
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact.
“This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein, adding that some of the credit for resolving the issue is due to the efforts of the late Commissioner Edward McGaffigan. “Without the energy he devoted to this effort every day, up to the week he died, the Commission may never have been able to come to common ground on this very important issue. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.”
Nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as Abeyond-design-basis events.@
Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. These design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.
The NRC has already taken several steps to improve security at existing nuclear power plants, including adopting a rule in March 2007 that requires both existing and potential new reactors to defend against a more realistic threat.
The agency also issued a February 2002 Order requiring all existing nuclear power plants to develop and adopt mitigative strategies to cope with large fires and explosions from any cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts.
The NRC voted in December 2008 to codify these requirements in a separate rule for all existing and future nuclear power plants.The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government.
The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule.
NRC NEWSU.S. , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
February 17, 2009
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact.
“This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein, adding that some of the credit for resolving the issue is due to the efforts of the late Commissioner Edward McGaffigan. “Without the energy he devoted to this effort every day, up to the week he died, the Commission may never have been able to come to common ground on this very important issue. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.”
Nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as Abeyond-design-basis events.@
Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. These design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.
The NRC has already taken several steps to improve security at existing nuclear power plants, including adopting a rule in March 2007 that requires both existing and potential new reactors to defend against a more realistic threat.
The agency also issued a February 2002 Order requiring all existing nuclear power plants to develop and adopt mitigative strategies to cope with large fires and explosions from any cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts.
The NRC voted in December 2008 to codify these requirements in a separate rule for all existing and future nuclear power plants.The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government.
The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
County takes mining stance
Comment: The County needs to ban uranium mining forever, it has never been mine safely!
By John CranePublished: February 17, 2009
CHATHAM — Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper and Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis each had a resolution on uranium mining on the table Tuesday night for the Board of Supervisors to choose.
The board picked Davis’ more strongly worded and comprehensive resolution in a unanimous vote.
Davis’ resolution requests that a study finds no harm to the county, “its businesses, institutions, environment, and citizens by uranium, as opposed to a cost/benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages.”
Sleeper’s version thanks the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee for holding a public hearing at Chatham High School and reiterates the county’s 2007 resolution calling for an independent study.
It also states the county’s “highest concern that the safety and welfare of the people and property in Pittsylvania County remain unharmed and undamaged by uranium mining.”
Davis said he wanted a resolution that addressed more than just safety concerns, but how the county will be perceived if uranium mining is approved.
Supervisors rejected, by a 4-3 vote, a substitute motion by Dan River Supervisor James Snead to combine the two resolutions.
A uranium mining opponent, Karen Maute, asked supervisors to consider banning uranium mining in the county, and requested they explore updating and enforcing the county’s minerals tax.
Virginia Uranium Inc. hopes to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit six miles northeast of Chatham.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has approved a study on uranium mining.
By John CranePublished: February 17, 2009
CHATHAM — Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper and Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis each had a resolution on uranium mining on the table Tuesday night for the Board of Supervisors to choose.
The board picked Davis’ more strongly worded and comprehensive resolution in a unanimous vote.
Davis’ resolution requests that a study finds no harm to the county, “its businesses, institutions, environment, and citizens by uranium, as opposed to a cost/benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages.”
Sleeper’s version thanks the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee for holding a public hearing at Chatham High School and reiterates the county’s 2007 resolution calling for an independent study.
It also states the county’s “highest concern that the safety and welfare of the people and property in Pittsylvania County remain unharmed and undamaged by uranium mining.”
Davis said he wanted a resolution that addressed more than just safety concerns, but how the county will be perceived if uranium mining is approved.
Supervisors rejected, by a 4-3 vote, a substitute motion by Dan River Supervisor James Snead to combine the two resolutions.
A uranium mining opponent, Karen Maute, asked supervisors to consider banning uranium mining in the county, and requested they explore updating and enforcing the county’s minerals tax.
Virginia Uranium Inc. hopes to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit six miles northeast of Chatham.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has approved a study on uranium mining.
Uranium project near Moab ahead of schedule
Comment: 120 Jobs, 6 days a week, sounds good, well maybe not?
By Mike Stark
Associated Press WriterSalt Lake Tribune
Posted:02/13/2009 02:27:01 PM MST
The first rail cars hauling uranium tailings away from a huge pile near Moab could move sometime in April.
Work is about a month ahead of schedule to begin rail shipments, said Don Metzler, the project's director for the federal Department of Energy. Managers are hoping to ship the first load April 20, but Metzler says that date is only a target at this point and not firm.
"It's getting more intense, and we're getting more excited," Metzler said Friday.
The 16 million tons of radioactive sludge are being taken to Crescent Junction as part of a $1 billion project to deal with the waste.
The tailings are leftovers from a former uranium mill about three miles northwest of Moab.
The 130-acre site along U.S. 191 leaches contaminants into the river, which provides water for some 25 million people downstream.
Crescent Junction -- about 30 miles north -- is meant to be a safe long-term disposal site for the waste.
Federal officials decided in August to transport the tailings primarily by rail, not truck, to Crescent Junction.
Since then, crews have been working to prepare the rail line and make sure the disposal site is ready.
Metzler said about 120 people are working six days a week to complete preparations, including thousands of feet of rail spurs and roads for hauling the waste from the pile to the rails.
In the coming weeks, excavation will begin on the north side of the tailings pile for the first shipments.
Once the shipments begin, Metzler expects one train -- each with 22 rail cars containing a total of 88 specially designed containers for the tailings -- to run five days a week.
Meanwhile, disposal cells for the waste are nearly ready at Crescent Junction. Crews have excavated nearly 2 million cubic yards to make room for the first shipments.
Work was also completed in December to reduce the amount of rain water that flows through the tailings pile and increases the risk of contaminating the Colorado River during heavy storms.
Despite the aggressive schedule, Metzler said DOE and EnergySolutions, the contractor on the project, don't want to sacrifice safety or workmanship.
"We want to be smart about this," he said.
The goal is to have the Moab site cleaned up by 2028, but that could be moved up to 2019 if more money is available.
The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined in the 1950s for nuclear weapons. The Atlas Minerals Corp. bought the mill in 1962.
It closed in 1984 but left behind the heap of tailings on the banks for the Colorado River.
By Mike Stark
Associated Press WriterSalt Lake Tribune
Posted:02/13/2009 02:27:01 PM MST
The first rail cars hauling uranium tailings away from a huge pile near Moab could move sometime in April.
Work is about a month ahead of schedule to begin rail shipments, said Don Metzler, the project's director for the federal Department of Energy. Managers are hoping to ship the first load April 20, but Metzler says that date is only a target at this point and not firm.
"It's getting more intense, and we're getting more excited," Metzler said Friday.
The 16 million tons of radioactive sludge are being taken to Crescent Junction as part of a $1 billion project to deal with the waste.
The tailings are leftovers from a former uranium mill about three miles northwest of Moab.
The 130-acre site along U.S. 191 leaches contaminants into the river, which provides water for some 25 million people downstream.
Crescent Junction -- about 30 miles north -- is meant to be a safe long-term disposal site for the waste.
Federal officials decided in August to transport the tailings primarily by rail, not truck, to Crescent Junction.
Since then, crews have been working to prepare the rail line and make sure the disposal site is ready.
Metzler said about 120 people are working six days a week to complete preparations, including thousands of feet of rail spurs and roads for hauling the waste from the pile to the rails.
In the coming weeks, excavation will begin on the north side of the tailings pile for the first shipments.
Once the shipments begin, Metzler expects one train -- each with 22 rail cars containing a total of 88 specially designed containers for the tailings -- to run five days a week.
Meanwhile, disposal cells for the waste are nearly ready at Crescent Junction. Crews have excavated nearly 2 million cubic yards to make room for the first shipments.
Work was also completed in December to reduce the amount of rain water that flows through the tailings pile and increases the risk of contaminating the Colorado River during heavy storms.
Despite the aggressive schedule, Metzler said DOE and EnergySolutions, the contractor on the project, don't want to sacrifice safety or workmanship.
"We want to be smart about this," he said.
The goal is to have the Moab site cleaned up by 2028, but that could be moved up to 2019 if more money is available.
The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined in the 1950s for nuclear weapons. The Atlas Minerals Corp. bought the mill in 1962.
It closed in 1984 but left behind the heap of tailings on the banks for the Colorado River.
Extracting a disaster
The effects of uranium mining are disastrous. To minimise the risks, the nuclear supply chain needs independent auditing
David Thorpe ,guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 December 2008 18.30 GMT
Article history
The increased sourcing of raw uranium that will arise from nuclear new build is an ethical and environmental nightmare currently being ignored by the government.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the trade body for companies that make up 90% of the industry, admits that in "emerging uranium producing countries" there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring. It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing principles of uranium stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement.
Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency's safety guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores (pdf) are not legally binding on operators.
The problem is that transparency is not a value enshrined in the extractive or the nuclear industries. Journalists find themselves blocked. Recently, to tackle this issue, Panos Institute West Africa (IPAO) held a training seminar for journalists in Senegal which highlighted that only persistent investigation – or, in the case of the Niger's Tuareg, violent rebellion – has a chance of uncovering the truth.
The co-editor of the Republican in Niger, Ousseini Issa, said that only due to local media campaigns was there a revision of the contract linking Niger to the French company Areva. "As a result of our efforts, the price of a kilogram of uranium increased from 25,000 to 40,000 CFA francs," he said. The local community hopes now to see more of the income from the extraction of its resources.
IPAO has much evidence that in Africa the legacy of mining is often terrible health, water contamination and other pollution problems. IPAO would laugh at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – an Orwellian creation launched by Tony Blair in 2001.
What is the effect of uranium mining? Nuclear fuel from fresh uranium is cheaper than from recycled uranium or recycled plutonium (MOX), which is why there is a worldwide uranium rush.
To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites.
To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.
These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas.
The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the World Information Service on Energy.
No one can convince me that the above process is carbon-free, as politicians claim. It takes a lot of – almost certainly fossil-fuelled – energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed.
And what of the other costs? Over half of the world's uranium is in Australia and Canada.
In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.
In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land's Aboriginal owners.
The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a "blank cheque licence for pollution". Groundwater specialist Dr Gavin Mudd has examined the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and called for it to be "independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry" (The Epoch Times September 2 2008).
Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, BHP Billiton plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013.
This will increase production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is a vast open cast mine, from which the wind can carry away radioactive dust.
Not far away locals are fighting a new uranium mine 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs. At the Ranger mines, Energy Resources of Australia – 68.4% owned by Rio Tinto – expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of ore in the Ranger 3 Deeps area. In October it agreed to supply uranium oxide to a Chinese utility, signing a safety accord.
This is how safe the mine in fact is – and you won't find such records at African mines: almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then further leaks ranging from 50 to over 23,000 litres have been reported.
The list goes on.
The bottom line is this: UK ministers are blind to the consequences of their pro-nuclear evangelism.
Carbon credits under the Kyoto mechanism have to be independently audited by a global body to ensure that new renewable energy is unique, additional and lives up to its claims.
At the very least there should be an independent, global body verifying the ethics, health and long-term safety of the nuclear supply chain.
Better, just leave it in the ground.
David Thorpe ,guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 December 2008 18.30 GMT
Article history
The increased sourcing of raw uranium that will arise from nuclear new build is an ethical and environmental nightmare currently being ignored by the government.
The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the trade body for companies that make up 90% of the industry, admits that in "emerging uranium producing countries" there is frequently no adequate environmental health and safety legislation, let alone monitoring. It is considerately proposing a Charter of Ethics containing principles of uranium stewardship for its members to follow. But this is a self-policing voluntary arrangement.
Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency's safety guide to the Management of Radioactive Waste from the Mining and Milling of Ores (pdf) are not legally binding on operators.
The problem is that transparency is not a value enshrined in the extractive or the nuclear industries. Journalists find themselves blocked. Recently, to tackle this issue, Panos Institute West Africa (IPAO) held a training seminar for journalists in Senegal which highlighted that only persistent investigation – or, in the case of the Niger's Tuareg, violent rebellion – has a chance of uncovering the truth.
The co-editor of the Republican in Niger, Ousseini Issa, said that only due to local media campaigns was there a revision of the contract linking Niger to the French company Areva. "As a result of our efforts, the price of a kilogram of uranium increased from 25,000 to 40,000 CFA francs," he said. The local community hopes now to see more of the income from the extraction of its resources.
IPAO has much evidence that in Africa the legacy of mining is often terrible health, water contamination and other pollution problems. IPAO would laugh at the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – an Orwellian creation launched by Tony Blair in 2001.
What is the effect of uranium mining? Nuclear fuel from fresh uranium is cheaper than from recycled uranium or recycled plutonium (MOX), which is why there is a worldwide uranium rush.
To produce the 25 tonnes or so of uranium fuel needed to keep your average reactor going for a year entails the extraction of half a million tonnes of waste rock and over 100,000 tonnes of mill tailings. These are toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.
The conversion plant will generate another 144 tonnes of solid waste and 1343 cubic metres of liquid waste.
Contamination of local water supplies around uranium mines and processing plants has been documented in Brazil, Colorado, Texas, Australia, Namibia and many other sites.
To supply even a fraction of the power stations the industry expects to be online worldwide in 2020 would mean generating 50 million tonnes of toxic radioactive residues every single year.
These tailings contain uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, and emit radon-222.
In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets limits of emissions from the dumps and monitors them. This does not happen in many less developed areas.
The long-term management cost of these dumps is left out of the current market prices for nuclear fuel and may be as high as the uranium cost itself. The situation for the depleted uranium waste arising during enrichment even may be worse, says the World Information Service on Energy.
No one can convince me that the above process is carbon-free, as politicians claim. It takes a lot of – almost certainly fossil-fuelled – energy to move that amount of rock and process the ore. But the carbon cost is often not in the country where the fuel is consumed.
And what of the other costs? Over half of the world's uranium is in Australia and Canada.
In Australia the government is planning to make money from the nuclear renaissance being predicted; uranium mining is expanding everywhere. Australian Greens are fast losing the optimism they felt when the Labor party won the last election.
In the Northern Territory plans to expand a nuclear dump at Muckaty station are being pushed forward with no regard for the land's Aboriginal owners.
The supposedly greener new Australian government Minister Martin Ferguson has failed to deliver an election promise to overturn the Howard government's Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which earmarks a series of sites for nuclear waste dumps.
In South Australia, in August the Australian government approved the expansion of a controversial uranium mine, Beverley ISL. This was dubbed a "blank cheque licence for pollution". Groundwater specialist Dr Gavin Mudd has examined the data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and called for it to be "independently verified by people not subservient to the mining industry" (The Epoch Times September 2 2008).
Elsewhere in the Northern Territory, BHP Billiton plans to have the first of five planned stages of expansion at its Olympic Dam mine in production by 2013.
This will increase production capacity to 200,000 tonnes of copper, 4500 tonnes of uranium and 120,000 ounces of gold. This is a vast open cast mine, from which the wind can carry away radioactive dust.
Not far away locals are fighting a new uranium mine 25 kilometres south of Alice Springs. At the Ranger mines, Energy Resources of Australia – 68.4% owned by Rio Tinto – expects to find 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of ore in the Ranger 3 Deeps area. In October it agreed to supply uranium oxide to a Chinese utility, signing a safety accord.
This is how safe the mine in fact is – and you won't find such records at African mines: almost 15,000 litres of acid uranium solution leaked in a 2002 incident, and since then further leaks ranging from 50 to over 23,000 litres have been reported.
The list goes on.
The bottom line is this: UK ministers are blind to the consequences of their pro-nuclear evangelism.
Carbon credits under the Kyoto mechanism have to be independently audited by a global body to ensure that new renewable energy is unique, additional and lives up to its claims.
At the very least there should be an independent, global body verifying the ethics, health and long-term safety of the nuclear supply chain.
Better, just leave it in the ground.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Taking a stand
SCC Chairman response to: Taking a stand
By Published by The Editorial Board Published: February 15, 2009
"Resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium”… “Unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
The resolutions are so many words - worth nothing! What is a "reasonable degree of certainty"? Define "significant"! Is this something that will kill only a predetermined number of people?
What we have now in Pittsylvania County, VA is "NO HARM" Currently, the mother lode of uranium is producing "no harm" to the people affected by this deposit. Or is it? Some folks are having their water tested. This has begun since before exploratory drilling began in the Coles Hill area. Their results are horrendous when it comes to human drinking water!
What will be the "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
Who will decide what these "degrees" will be?
What about the other considerations: Social & economic institutions, both public and private? What "study" will address this? Who will determine the study parameters?
Currently, the uranium in this area causes only as much harm as the drilling and testing. This harm is approved by the state (of Virginia) without any regulations what so ever. This "exploration" cares not if the environment and/or people are harmed! It is not within the purview of the state licensing committee to question such things!
Resolutions need to be MUCH STRONGER! They need to accept nothing less than "NO HARM"! Even then, they are non-binding to the state and federal legislature.
So, to go on record with all concerned parties, nothing less than a permanent ban of uranium mining & milling in the Commonwealth of Virginia must be enacted by the representatives elected to protect the people!
From local towns and cities, to County Boards of Supervisors, and our State Legislature, this is what MUST be done to protect the people! Nothing else will do!
Why, because we do not currently have to worry about this plague except what might occur naturally in the environment.
Nothing less will than a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …” is what the politicians ask for. Nothing less than nature, the way things currently are, no harm from man made interference, no harm from mining & milling is what the people should, and do, demand of our elected and appointed officials throughout the Commonwealth!
Comments in BOLD are Shireen Parson’s comment to Editorial
Taking a Stand,
Uranium mining and milling is one of the biggest issues facing Pittsylvania County’s political leaders. But it’s also an issue over which they have little direct control. Richmond has the power, not the town councils in Chatham, Gretna and Hurt or the Board of Supervisors.
Oh really? The Declaration of Independence and the US and Virginia constitutions DO NOT declare that "Richmond has the power." On the contrary, those documents declare that the governing authority belongs to the people, and that governments at all levels act with the consent of the governed.
Still, that hasn’t stopped discussions, debates and even the passage of non-binding resolutions.
He got that right -- the resolutions are not laws -- they have no power. In essence, instead of standing up and exercising their governing authority to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their communities and their environment, the municipal governments are begging the state legislature to do the right thing. And the state will NOT do the right thing.
What good is a non-binding resolution? Those resolutions will help to speak
for the people who live closest to the proposed mine and mill. "Help to speak..."? The people can speak for themselves, and they're saying NO URANIUM MINING. And they're demanding that their local elected officials stand up and do the will of the majority.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is developing the state’s official study of uranium mining and milling. What? No mention of the fact that every member of the CEC is on the take from VUI?
But the uranium ore locked in the rocks beneath Coles Hill can’t be mined today because of a moratorium put in place by the General Assembly a quarter-century ago. The state study is important because it’s the first important step toward trying to get that moratorium lifted. The study is simply a rubberstamp to OK the development of a regulatory program for uranium mining in the state, which will be approved by the legislature, and the moratorium disappears -- poof!
So, where do local governments come in? They are closest to the people, and they are their constituents’ voice on this issue. Their discussions, debates and resolutions have already yielded some surprises. Local governments are not the people's "voice" -- they're the people's SERVANTS. They're only job is to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the people and their environment.
The town councils in Gretna and Hurt not only want to be included in the state study, their resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium “… unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …†A "reasonable degree of certainty"? Certainty is not a variable -- it's an absolute. Something is either certain, or it is not. "No significant release"? ANY release of heavy metals, toxic chemicals and radioactive materials is significant and unacceptable, and uranium mining ALWAYS releases those contaminants into the environment. These resolutions are meaningless.
Chatham Town Council is being asked to go beyond that by detailing what kinds of plans it would have for an emergency at Coles Hill, as well as the operation’s impact on the community’s history and heritage and Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall.
"What kinds of plans" the town council would have for an "emergency"? Like a hurricane? Or flooding? Or an earthquake? Or an explosion gone wrong? Or a truck full of ore overturning into a local creek or river? Like the plans the county had for ensuring that its landfill wasn't leaking?
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,†said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. Really? "Something more"? Like, maybe something that will actually protect the citizens and their environment? How about chemical trespass ordinances and a county ordinance banning corporations from mining uranium?
The Board of Supervisors, at the request of Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis, could take another look at their previous work on this issue. Davis is concerned about what a uranium mining operation would do to real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions. "Their previous work on this issue?" What have they done? Nothing! "Real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions" ? If they don't ban uranium mining, they can kiss them all goodbye.
“I think the Board of Supervisors needs to make a statement or two about how it feels about uranium mining,†Davis said this week.. The board of supervisors must do the will of the majority of citizens who elected them and who pay their salaries. They must exercise their governing authority and ban uranium mining.
Eventually, most local people will take a side in the uranium mining and milling debate. But for today, most Pittsylvania County residents appear willing to wait out the state’s study.
That’s a luxury their elected leaders don’t have.
County leaders have to lead on the uranium mining issue.
The majority of local citizens have already decided that they refuse to suffer the catastrophic effects of uranium mining. Their leaders must act in accordance with will of the people and ban uranium mining.
^. .^ >^..^< \/ >^..^<
Shireen Parsons,
Christiansburg, Virginia
By Published by The Editorial Board Published: February 15, 2009
"Resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium”… “Unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
The resolutions are so many words - worth nothing! What is a "reasonable degree of certainty"? Define "significant"! Is this something that will kill only a predetermined number of people?
What we have now in Pittsylvania County, VA is "NO HARM" Currently, the mother lode of uranium is producing "no harm" to the people affected by this deposit. Or is it? Some folks are having their water tested. This has begun since before exploratory drilling began in the Coles Hill area. Their results are horrendous when it comes to human drinking water!
What will be the "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
Who will decide what these "degrees" will be?
What about the other considerations: Social & economic institutions, both public and private? What "study" will address this? Who will determine the study parameters?
Currently, the uranium in this area causes only as much harm as the drilling and testing. This harm is approved by the state (of Virginia) without any regulations what so ever. This "exploration" cares not if the environment and/or people are harmed! It is not within the purview of the state licensing committee to question such things!
Resolutions need to be MUCH STRONGER! They need to accept nothing less than "NO HARM"! Even then, they are non-binding to the state and federal legislature.
So, to go on record with all concerned parties, nothing less than a permanent ban of uranium mining & milling in the Commonwealth of Virginia must be enacted by the representatives elected to protect the people!
From local towns and cities, to County Boards of Supervisors, and our State Legislature, this is what MUST be done to protect the people! Nothing else will do!
Why, because we do not currently have to worry about this plague except what might occur naturally in the environment.
Nothing less will than a "reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …” is what the politicians ask for. Nothing less than nature, the way things currently are, no harm from man made interference, no harm from mining & milling is what the people should, and do, demand of our elected and appointed officials throughout the Commonwealth!
Comments in BOLD are Shireen Parson’s comment to Editorial
Taking a Stand,
Uranium mining and milling is one of the biggest issues facing Pittsylvania County’s political leaders. But it’s also an issue over which they have little direct control. Richmond has the power, not the town councils in Chatham, Gretna and Hurt or the Board of Supervisors.
Oh really? The Declaration of Independence and the US and Virginia constitutions DO NOT declare that "Richmond has the power." On the contrary, those documents declare that the governing authority belongs to the people, and that governments at all levels act with the consent of the governed.
Still, that hasn’t stopped discussions, debates and even the passage of non-binding resolutions.
He got that right -- the resolutions are not laws -- they have no power. In essence, instead of standing up and exercising their governing authority to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their communities and their environment, the municipal governments are begging the state legislature to do the right thing. And the state will NOT do the right thing.
What good is a non-binding resolution? Those resolutions will help to speak
for the people who live closest to the proposed mine and mill. "Help to speak..."? The people can speak for themselves, and they're saying NO URANIUM MINING. And they're demanding that their local elected officials stand up and do the will of the majority.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is developing the state’s official study of uranium mining and milling. What? No mention of the fact that every member of the CEC is on the take from VUI?
But the uranium ore locked in the rocks beneath Coles Hill can’t be mined today because of a moratorium put in place by the General Assembly a quarter-century ago. The state study is important because it’s the first important step toward trying to get that moratorium lifted. The study is simply a rubberstamp to OK the development of a regulatory program for uranium mining in the state, which will be approved by the legislature, and the moratorium disappears -- poof!
So, where do local governments come in? They are closest to the people, and they are their constituents’ voice on this issue. Their discussions, debates and resolutions have already yielded some surprises. Local governments are not the people's "voice" -- they're the people's SERVANTS. They're only job is to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the people and their environment.
The town councils in Gretna and Hurt not only want to be included in the state study, their resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium “… unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …†A "reasonable degree of certainty"? Certainty is not a variable -- it's an absolute. Something is either certain, or it is not. "No significant release"? ANY release of heavy metals, toxic chemicals and radioactive materials is significant and unacceptable, and uranium mining ALWAYS releases those contaminants into the environment. These resolutions are meaningless.
Chatham Town Council is being asked to go beyond that by detailing what kinds of plans it would have for an emergency at Coles Hill, as well as the operation’s impact on the community’s history and heritage and Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall.
"What kinds of plans" the town council would have for an "emergency"? Like a hurricane? Or flooding? Or an earthquake? Or an explosion gone wrong? Or a truck full of ore overturning into a local creek or river? Like the plans the county had for ensuring that its landfill wasn't leaking?
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,†said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. Really? "Something more"? Like, maybe something that will actually protect the citizens and their environment? How about chemical trespass ordinances and a county ordinance banning corporations from mining uranium?
The Board of Supervisors, at the request of Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis, could take another look at their previous work on this issue. Davis is concerned about what a uranium mining operation would do to real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions. "Their previous work on this issue?" What have they done? Nothing! "Real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions" ? If they don't ban uranium mining, they can kiss them all goodbye.
“I think the Board of Supervisors needs to make a statement or two about how it feels about uranium mining,†Davis said this week.. The board of supervisors must do the will of the majority of citizens who elected them and who pay their salaries. They must exercise their governing authority and ban uranium mining.
Eventually, most local people will take a side in the uranium mining and milling debate. But for today, most Pittsylvania County residents appear willing to wait out the state’s study.
That’s a luxury their elected leaders don’t have.
County leaders have to lead on the uranium mining issue.
The majority of local citizens have already decided that they refuse to suffer the catastrophic effects of uranium mining. Their leaders must act in accordance with will of the people and ban uranium mining.
^. .^ >^..^< \/ >^..^<
Shireen Parsons,
Christiansburg, Virginia
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER
Comment: We do not need new nuclear power plants, we do not need uranium mining, use "True Green" energy.
Eurpope's anti-Nuclear Plants will help everyone against uranium mining plus some companies uses France as a model Nuclear Power power, well France is polluting the water, land & air!
Don't forget to tell your grandchildren tomake sure they let their grandchildren knowhow to instruct their grandchildren to showtheir grandchildren how to clarify to theirgrandchildren in what way their grandchildrencould enable their grandchildren to look afterour nuclear waste.
Europe must stop wasting taxpayers' money to protect a dangerous and expensive technology. 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power, despite its widespread use also in Europe, remains the most dirty and dangerous form of energy.
Instead of nuclear power, Europe needs massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies. Any sensible energy policy must have these two elements at its heart.
The nuclear industry hopes for a nuclear come-back -- despite its dangers, despite its astronomical costs. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace, and since Chernobyl, there were 22 serious nuclear accidents around the world..
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. And, globalised terrorism makes nuclear power stations and the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear material a serious security hazard.
And nuclear power is economically insane. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is also no solution to climate change: each Euro invested in nuclear energy would save ten times more greenhouse gases if it was invested in energy efficiency measures instead.
Despite this, and despite the fact that many EU Member States and the majority of their citizens are not in favour of nuclear energy, the so-called EURATOM Treaty officially obliges all EU countries to promote nuclear power.
Clearly, this treaty must be abolished, it being an old relic that has no role to play in a modern Europe.
Read on: 6 reasons against nuclear power
1. Nuclear power is dangerous, safety is a myth
Nuclear power remains the most dangerous form of energy. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace. The history of the Nuclear Age is a history of accidents.
20 years after Chernobyl, people are still suffering from health problems caused by the accident. An accident can occur at any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Transports of large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes are also increasing the risks to populations.
Although nuclear power is a hazardous business, the nuclear industry hardly has any financial liability. In the case of a nuclear disaster, most of the damages will be paid by society and not the companies' insurances. None of the various international conventions on nuclear damage currently in force are designed to make operators, or owners, of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause.
2. Nuclear power is a deadly legacy for our children
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Highly radioactive spent fuels need to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds and thousands years. Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and reactors to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds and thousands of years and radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects.
There is not a single safe disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations worldwide. In almost all countries waste is stored in bunkers, below surface or above ground, while the world desperately researches ways to safely store it for thousands of years to come. These 'intermediate' storages are expensive and require safety measures that are not comparable to any other waste or industrial process. As there is no safe way to store these wastes for the necessary periods of time, this alone should be enough reason to abandon nuclear power as a viable energy source.
3. Nuclear power is financially insane
If the European energy market was a level playing field, where energy pricing would reflect the true costs of producing energy from different sources, nuclear power would be economically insane.
All countries using its technology have seriously underestimated the full costs of nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Also, nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe's electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Over the last 30 years, the EU's governments spent more than €45 billion for nuclear research.
As already said, Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator's insurance.
There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan (the decommissiing costs alone could be as high as 500 billion Euro for the power stations currently operating within the EU) and provisioning for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, and will result in a massive burden on future economies and generations.
4. Nuclear power is no solution to climate change
In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, the world will have to cut back its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by around 50% by 2050. Since by far the most of emissions happen in the energy sector, the nuclear industry hopes to use the climate crisis to stage a nuclear revival, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing low-emissions supply of energy.
But nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. It has been calculated that for example in the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, doubling capacity would cut emissions by no more than 8% . Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios -- one plant every two weeks -- have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic.
Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption (and emissions) the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out in a "Green Paper" on energy efficiency. Also, nuclear power comes with high opportunity costs (since every Euro can be spent only once): Every Euro invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper.
5. Nuclear weapons are the flip side of nuclear power
Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. The global expansion of nuclear power could well contribute to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. So far India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course the five official nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China), have developed arsenals of nuclear weapons using their "peaceful' nuclear facilities.
Nuclear power reactors have produced enough plutonium to build 160,000 nuclear weapons or an even wider range of radioactive materials for use in 'dirty bombs'. The spread of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Smuggling of nuclear material, including from civil nuclear programs, also presents a significant challenge. The International Atomic Energy Association has recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. In 2004 alone almost a hundred such incidents occurred.
6. Nuclear power dependent on limited & dirty resources
Nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel. And uranium - like oil, gas and coal - is a finite resource that will only last a few more decades, at most 50 years (with the current level of use). A significant increase in the use of nuclear power will quickly result in a shortage of nuclear fuel.
The reprocessing of spent fuels has already been proven to be no solution. Reprocessing is a complicated and hazardous chemical process that creates an enormous amount of radioactive waste. Besides that, reprocessing is a very uneconomical technology, as past examples have clearly demonstrated.
Nevertheless there are two reprocessing units in Europe: Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (France).
Both are known to be the biggest sources of radioactive pollution in the European environment through the release of huge quantities of radioactive liquid effluents into the sea and gaseous discharges into the air.
And last but not least, the production of weapons from plutonium separated in reprocessing facilities is relatively simple, dramatically increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Eurpope's anti-Nuclear Plants will help everyone against uranium mining plus some companies uses France as a model Nuclear Power power, well France is polluting the water, land & air!
Don't forget to tell your grandchildren tomake sure they let their grandchildren knowhow to instruct their grandchildren to showtheir grandchildren how to clarify to theirgrandchildren in what way their grandchildrencould enable their grandchildren to look afterour nuclear waste.
Europe must stop wasting taxpayers' money to protect a dangerous and expensive technology. 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power, despite its widespread use also in Europe, remains the most dirty and dangerous form of energy.
Instead of nuclear power, Europe needs massive investments in energy efficiency and renewable energies. Any sensible energy policy must have these two elements at its heart.
The nuclear industry hopes for a nuclear come-back -- despite its dangers, despite its astronomical costs. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace, and since Chernobyl, there were 22 serious nuclear accidents around the world..
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. And, globalised terrorism makes nuclear power stations and the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear material a serious security hazard.
And nuclear power is economically insane. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is also no solution to climate change: each Euro invested in nuclear energy would save ten times more greenhouse gases if it was invested in energy efficiency measures instead.
Despite this, and despite the fact that many EU Member States and the majority of their citizens are not in favour of nuclear energy, the so-called EURATOM Treaty officially obliges all EU countries to promote nuclear power.
Clearly, this treaty must be abolished, it being an old relic that has no role to play in a modern Europe.
Read on: 6 reasons against nuclear power
1. Nuclear power is dangerous, safety is a myth
Nuclear power remains the most dangerous form of energy. A disaster like the Chernobyl accident, now 20 years ago, can happen anytime anyplace. The history of the Nuclear Age is a history of accidents.
20 years after Chernobyl, people are still suffering from health problems caused by the accident. An accident can occur at any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. Even during normal operation, radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. Transports of large quantities of low and intermediate level wastes are also increasing the risks to populations.
Although nuclear power is a hazardous business, the nuclear industry hardly has any financial liability. In the case of a nuclear disaster, most of the damages will be paid by society and not the companies' insurances. None of the various international conventions on nuclear damage currently in force are designed to make operators, or owners, of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause.
2. Nuclear power is a deadly legacy for our children
A solution for the long-term storage & treatment of radioactive waste has yet to be found. Highly radioactive spent fuels need to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds and thousands years. Nuclear waste is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and reactors to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds and thousands of years and radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects.
There is not a single safe disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations worldwide. In almost all countries waste is stored in bunkers, below surface or above ground, while the world desperately researches ways to safely store it for thousands of years to come. These 'intermediate' storages are expensive and require safety measures that are not comparable to any other waste or industrial process. As there is no safe way to store these wastes for the necessary periods of time, this alone should be enough reason to abandon nuclear power as a viable energy source.
3. Nuclear power is financially insane
If the European energy market was a level playing field, where energy pricing would reflect the true costs of producing energy from different sources, nuclear power would be economically insane.
All countries using its technology have seriously underestimated the full costs of nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Also, nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe's electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Over the last 30 years, the EU's governments spent more than €45 billion for nuclear research.
As already said, Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator's insurance.
There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan (the decommissiing costs alone could be as high as 500 billion Euro for the power stations currently operating within the EU) and provisioning for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, and will result in a massive burden on future economies and generations.
4. Nuclear power is no solution to climate change
In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, the world will have to cut back its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by around 50% by 2050. Since by far the most of emissions happen in the energy sector, the nuclear industry hopes to use the climate crisis to stage a nuclear revival, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing low-emissions supply of energy.
But nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. It has been calculated that for example in the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, doubling capacity would cut emissions by no more than 8% . Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios -- one plant every two weeks -- have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic.
Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption (and emissions) the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out in a "Green Paper" on energy efficiency. Also, nuclear power comes with high opportunity costs (since every Euro can be spent only once): Every Euro invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead -- thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper.
5. Nuclear weapons are the flip side of nuclear power
Radioactive material from nuclear power generation can be used to build nuclear weapons. The global expansion of nuclear power could well contribute to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons states. So far India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course the five official nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China), have developed arsenals of nuclear weapons using their "peaceful' nuclear facilities.
Nuclear power reactors have produced enough plutonium to build 160,000 nuclear weapons or an even wider range of radioactive materials for use in 'dirty bombs'. The spread of nuclear technology significantly increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Smuggling of nuclear material, including from civil nuclear programs, also presents a significant challenge. The International Atomic Energy Association has recorded over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. In 2004 alone almost a hundred such incidents occurred.
6. Nuclear power dependent on limited & dirty resources
Nuclear power plants run on uranium fuel. And uranium - like oil, gas and coal - is a finite resource that will only last a few more decades, at most 50 years (with the current level of use). A significant increase in the use of nuclear power will quickly result in a shortage of nuclear fuel.
The reprocessing of spent fuels has already been proven to be no solution. Reprocessing is a complicated and hazardous chemical process that creates an enormous amount of radioactive waste. Besides that, reprocessing is a very uneconomical technology, as past examples have clearly demonstrated.
Nevertheless there are two reprocessing units in Europe: Sellafield (UK) and La Hague (France).
Both are known to be the biggest sources of radioactive pollution in the European environment through the release of huge quantities of radioactive liquid effluents into the sea and gaseous discharges into the air.
And last but not least, the production of weapons from plutonium separated in reprocessing facilities is relatively simple, dramatically increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
