Rising Fuel Costs Could Lead to Nuclear-Powered Ships

By New Scientist, [RxPG]

Kudrik also thinks the US is being optimistic about how much nuclear reactors will reduce the need for ships to moor in potentially unfriendly ports. The very high-pressure water coolant in such reactors often leaks, meaning the reactor has to be shut down while the craft pulls into a nearby port for repairs.


ON 12 October 2000, the destroyer USS Cole hove into port at Aden in Yemen for routine refuelling.

As the vessel took on fuel oil, a small boat drew alongside it. Suicide bombers inside the boat detonated a cache of explosives, blasting a 20-metre hole in the destroyer's hull and killing 17 of its crew.

The attack was a stark reminder of the risks the crews of naval ships face when they are forced to put in at potentially unfriendly ports.

Now some members of Congress believe they have a way to keep ships out of harm's way and prevent similar incidents happening in the future. A bill recently passed by the House of Representatives aims to make many more of the ships in the US naval fleet nuclear powered, including amphibious assault ships that carry troops into combat. The benefit will be two-fold, argue proponents of the bill. Rocketing oil prices make nuclear power an economic way of funding naval expeditions, and thanks to the slow burn of the highly enriched nuclear fuel in marine reactors, ships will have no need to pull into potentially hostile ports to refuel.

However, critics claim the presence of a nuclear reactor on a ship would make it a terrorist target. It beggars belief in these days of heightened terrorism alerts that people are seriously suggesting building nuclear-powered assault ships, says Ben Ayliffe, head of anti-nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace in the UK.

Read the rest of this interesting and controversial article here

Cool Idea! Students Urge Ban on Uranium Mining

FREDERICTON (CP) — Students from across New Brunswick are urging the province to close the door on uranium exploration in the province.

Six youth environmental groups sent letters today to every member of legislature to express their concern about proposed uranium mining in Kent County and across the province.

Spokesperson Elizabeth Vickers-Drennan says she hopes the letter will show politicians they can’t be silent on this issue.

In the letter, the students cite health concerns as the main reason they oppose uranium exploration and development.

They’re also concerned about the long-term effects on the environment.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1060772.html

Hundreds pack Moncton, N.B., theatre to hear experts on uranium matters

The last 2 sentences in this short article say it all.

THE CANADIAN PRESS


MONCTON, N.B. — Hundreds of New Brunswickers expressing opposition to uranium exploration in the province packed a theatre in Moncton for an information session.

The session Thursday night was hosted by the provincial Department of Natural Resources — the second such meeting in the province in as many days.

Experts from various provincial and federal agencies were on hand to provide answers about things like radon, and exploration and mining practices.

But the experts came up short in the effort to provide guarantees that uranium could be safely extracted without any threats to human health and the environment.

Dr. Sonia Johnson from Health Canada, attending to speak about medical effects of uranium, was put on the spot with a question asking whether she would move her family to a site within eight kilometres of a uranium mine.

When she declined to answer, stating she was not there to make personal comments, she was booed by the audience. (emphasis mine...SB)

http://trurodaily.com/index.cfm?sid=141504&sc=518

"Why Are They Hiding It?"

Counter Punch

Weekend Edition
May31/June 1, 2008

A Half-Trillion for Nukes

By KARL GROSSMAN

With Wall Street unwilling to finance new nuclear plants, U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Warner of Virginia have cooked up a scheme to provide $544 billion -­ yes, with a “b” -- in subsidies for new nuclear power plant development.

Their move will be debated on the floor of the Senate Tuesday, June 3.

A Lieberman aide describes the plan as "the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the United States ."

The Lieberman-Warner scheme is cloaked in a climate change bill -- the claim being that nuclear power plants don’t emit greenhouse gases and thus don’t contribute to global warming. However, the overall “nuclear cycle” ­- which includes mining, milling, fuel enrichment and fabrication, and reprocessing -- has significant greenhouse gas emissions that do contribute to global warming.

Moreover, nuclear power is enormously dangerous. Accidents like the Chernobyl explosion of 1986 stand to kill and leave many people with cancer. Nuclear plants routinely emit life-threatening radioactivity. Safeguarding nuclear waste for millions of years is an insoluble problem.

Nevertheless, there have long been powerful forces in government and the nuclear industry promoting atomic energy.

Wall Street is uneasy -- rightfully regarding nuclear power as terribly risky. Six of the nation’s largest investment banks including CitiGroup, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley last year told the U.S. Department of Energy that the risks “make lenders unwilling…to extend long-term credit.”

Enter Senators Lieberman and Warner.

Safe energy advocates are outraged by their scheme. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, says: “It’s time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf.”

John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA , says: "After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions.”

Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear says: “If the nuclear power industry attains this $500 billion-plus in federal taxpayer subsidies, it would effectively double the subsidies this industry has already enjoyed over the course of the past 50 years which has made it the single most subsidized industry in the energy sector.”

“Taxpayers should not be asked to continue bankrolling a nuclear power industry that has never been financially or environmentally viable,” says Sandra Schubert, director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group. And this “especially” must not happen “in times of tight budgets.” Instead, government “should do everything in its power to rapidly pursue clean energy solutions like solar and wind.”

Sneakily, the $544 billion for nuclear power is not specifically listed in the Lieberman-Warner measure. It is “covert” legislative sleight-of-hand, says Blackwelder, with the nuclear subsidy contained in a “vaguely-entitled category for zero and low carbon energy technologies.”

“Why are they hiding it?” asks Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “Because they know that the environmental movement in this country is serious about addressing climate change and will not tolerate a reversion to dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear energy.”

“It’s so deceitful,” says Kay Drey of Beyond Nuclear, who is also incensed that the media have virtually made no mention of “this would-be half-trillion dollar nuclear bail-out.”

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has organized a campaign for people to e-mail or write or telephone their senators to stop the Lieberman-Warner effort.

But the move has major support in the Senate -­ especially from John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president.

Among the subsidies nuclear power already gets is $20 billion approved by Congress and President Bush only last year. And there’s a law Congress passed, called the Price-Anderson Act, that limits liability to $10 billion for a catastrophic accident -- although, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this is a small fraction of what a nuclear plant disaster could cause in property damage, not to mention birth defects, cancers and deaths.

Turning to nuclear power to deal with climate change is like trying to treat heroin addiction with crack. Lieberman and Warner would have us pay for hundreds of billions of dollars for atomic crack.

Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, author of several books on nuclear technology and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro Close-Up.

Glow of Uranium Boom Attracts U.S. Miners

Thanks to Karen Maute!

by Ted Robbins

Enlarge

Ted Robbins/NPR

Joe Lister has managed the Mt. Taylor mine — pretty much alone — since it closed 17 years ago.

Enlarge

Ted Robbins/NPR

The gate leading into the Mt. Taylor mine in northern New Mexico. It's the country's largest uranium mine.

More on U.S. Mines

• Environmental Working Group

All Things Considered, May 29, 2008 · Since the 1980s, the world has had huge stockpiles of uranium ore as a result of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race and little interest in new nuclear power plants.

But now, there's money to be made in mining uranium.

The price of uranium ore has shot up 10-fold in the past three years because demand has outstripped supply.

Countries like China and India have plans to open dozens of new nuclear power plants, which require enriched uranium for fuel. Major producers — like Australia, Canada, Russia and Namibia — are the major suppliers.

And now the U.S. uranium industry wants to get in on the boom.

Mining companies have staked tens of thousands of claims in five Western states. Those who are in charge of established mines, such as the Mt. Taylor mine in northern New Mexico — the country's largest — want to reopen them.

Since Mt. Taylor closed 17 years ago, Joe Lister has been managing it pretty much alone. He says he'd like to have his 450 colleagues back and working.

But startup costs — up to $150 million for the mine — are an inhibiting factor.

So are federal and state rules regulating the radioactive mineral. Regulations on mine safety, uranium waste and environmental impact are tough and numerous.

Plus, after decades of little activity, the glut of new applications has overwhelmed officials who regulate the industry. The situation is even worse because many of the officials who knew the regulations have retired, according to Patrick Donnelly, a mining analyst with Salman Partners in Toronto.

"And now you're seeing a new generation of scientists and bureaucrats, and ... dealing with these permits and licenses, and these people are inexperienced," Donnelly says. "They're going to be a lot more careful, a lot more rigorous in the permitting process. No one wants to make a mistake."

There are plenty of nuclear industry opponents watching.

But why aren't more mines open in the U.S.?

"When we say uranium, when we say nuclear, what are your first thoughts?" Mt. Taylor's Lister says. "What is the first thing you think of? Do you think atomic bomb? Do you think Three Mile Island? Most people do."

There have been no reported nuclear power plant incidents that threatened public safety since the accident at the nuclear power plant Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania 29 years ago.

There is an issue of what to do with spent fuel, but with petroleum prices soaring and carbon-emitting coal plants under scrutiny, Donnelly says more mines will open. The need for energy is just too big and there's too much money to be made supplying it.

"You will see a uranium mining renaissance in the U.S.," Donnelly says. "Are you going to see it this year? A little bit. Next year, a little bit more."

Concerns Continue over Nuclear Proliferation

by Mike Shuster

View an interactive map of nuclear proliferation.

Lindsay Mangum, NPR

Enlarge

Sean Gallup

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (from left), German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were among those who met in January in Berlin to discuss Iran's nuclear program. Getty Images

Enlarge

Andy Wong

Russia's Alexander Losyukov (from left), South Korea's Chun Yung-woo, North Korea's Kim Gye Gwan, China's Wu Dawei, the United States' Christopher Hill, and Japan's Kenichiro Sasae attended the six-nation talks in September 2007 in Beijing aimed at bringing about the disarmament of nuclear weapons in North Korea. Getty Images

NPR.org, February 28, 2008 · The world first learned of nuclear weapons in 1945 when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in an effort to bring about the swift end of World War II.

Then came the shock of the Soviet Union's first nuclear test, in 1949, far more quickly than experts in the United States had predicted.

The nuclear arms race was born.

The Quick Acquisition of Weapons

Britain began to acquire a small nuclear arsenal in the 1950s. In the early 1960s, France and China followed with nuclear tests.

It took less than 20 years from the first atomic blasts for five nations to acquire nuclear weapons. And by the mid-1960s, America's leaders feared that in another 20 years, the number of states with nuclear weapons could grow to 20 or more.

By that time, too, the combined nuclear arsenals of just the United States and the Soviet Union had grown to more than 20,000. In 1962, the two superpowers nearly launched the world's first nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.

So President John F. Kennedy — and then President Lyndon B. Johnson after him — decided that the world needed some mechanism to slow the rush to global nuclear armageddon.

Creation of the NPT

In 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was created with the hope that all nations of the world would sign it and abide by its essential bargain — that the five nations with nuclear weapons would give them up, if the rest of the world's nations pledged not to acquire them in the first place.

Now, 189 nations have signed the NPT. It has become the international standard by which nations are judged on their commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Its categories still stand — the five "official" nuclear weapons states and the rest, which all pledged to remain non-nuclear weapons states.

Abiding by the Treaty

But the NPT has not had a perfect record. Three states — India, Pakistan and Israel — have never signed the treaty and have acquired nuclear weapons. Another, North Korea, signed the treaty but cheated and developed a nuclear weapons program in secret. In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the treaty. The country exploded a nuclear weapon in 2006.

Others have joined the treaty but also cheated — Iraq, Iran and Libya among them. Iraq was forced to give up its nuclear weapons program in the 1990s, and Libya in 2004. Iran's possible pursuit of nuclear weapons is one of the flashpoints in international relations today.

A few states acquired nuclear weapons but willingly gave them up. South Africa dismantled its small nuclear stockpile in 1993 and then joined the treaty. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan found themselves with nuclear weapons on their territory after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. They all chose to become non-nuclear weapons states and returned the weapons to Russia.

Successful Disarmament?

Over the years, some states began research in nuclear technology that could lead to weapons, but ended those programs. Many more nations possess non-military nuclear technology — such as civilian nuclear energy programs — that give them the potential to develop nuclear weapons.

The five nuclear weapons states recognized under the NPT have not yet fulfilled their end of the bargain. They have not given up their nuclear weapons, although the United States and Russia have been engaged for nearly 20 years in reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles. Each still possesses several thousand nuclear weapons that could be ready to launch in very little time.

The prediction nearly a half-century ago that the world would soon see 20 or more states with nuclear weapons has not come to pass. That fear, though, still remains.

Colombia Reflects Rising Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Thanks to SCC Member Barbara Thompson for sharing this article!

Documents on Terrorism

NPR

by Tom Gjelten

April 21, 2008 · The Colombian government revealed last month that the country's FARC rebels were seeking to acquire enriched uranium. The rebels may have been more interested in trading the uranium to a terrorist group than in developing it into nuclear arms for their own purposes.

A stash subsequently uncovered in Colombia proved to be harmless. But the case shows that the danger of terrorist or insurgent groups acquiring nuclear materials on the black market could be a looming threat.

Terrorism experts say it points to a danger that's greater than many people realize.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries have sought to penetrate nuclear smuggling networks through sting operations and other counter-terrorism measures but so far with limited success.

A rash of nuclear smuggling came in the 1990s, following the breakup of the Soviet Union, when many nuclear facilities weren't secure. Since then, security at those facilities and others has been greatly tightened.

But there has been an increase in threatening rhetoric from the al-Qaida leadership, directed specifically against Western Europe and the United States. And some of the nuclear material that was lost 10 years ago might only now be turning up in the black market.

Louise Shelley, who directs the Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption at George Mason University, says there is a potential threat.

"I mean, when Osama bin Laden says, 'We're going to get at you,'" Shelley said, "this is the kind of point where you think that the rhetoric is escalating to something that may make sense to use this."

Much of the nuclear material, or alleged nuclear material, moving through the black market, however, involves scams. The uranium for which the Colombian rebels were reportedly willing to spend more than $2 million was useless.

Christian Ethics and Nuclear Power

The following article was submitted by SCC Member, Karen Maute. Although it was written in 1979, it still pertains today. VUI has said many times that we should exploit the hazardous uranium deposit that "God has provided". This article by a respected United Methodist minister and trustee of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc. where he also served as the chairman of their alternative energy committee at the time that he wrote this, would beg to differ with VUI's position. GV

by J. George Butler

Mr. Butler, a retired United Methodist minister, is a trustee of the Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc., and chairman of its alternative energy committee. This article appeared in the Christian Century April 18, 1979, p. 438. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

---

Christian ethics has as its frame of reference Jesus’ idea of God. God is creator of heaven and earth, a loving God concerned about human beings -- the children of God who are of infinite worth in his sight. We must reverence all of his creation: humanity as well as the earth. The psalmist sang: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Nearly 500 years ago Martin Luther questioned the distinction between the sacred and the secular: all life is sacred. And long before Luther, the creeds of Christendom spoke of God as “maker of all things visible and invisible.

From this perspective, Christian ethics has a great deal to say about nuclear power -- its potential to destroy life and to poison the earth. Christians often use the word “stewardship,” but most often in a narrow sense, in connection with the practice of tithing one’s worldly goods. True Christian stewardship embraces the larger meaning found in the ancient creeds: all of life, “the world and they that dwell therein.

“Christianity,” wrote Anglican Archbishop William Temple (Nature, Man and God, 1935), “is the most avowedly materialist of all the great religions”: it is concerned with daily bread as well as things spiritual, for the two are inextricably interrelated. Because of this materialism, Christian ethics must examine nuclear power in broad perspective. From the standpoint of stewardship of life as well as stewardship of the earth.

The Rasmussen Report

Let us consider nuclear power first in its relation to life. What dangers does it pose? Nuclear advocates assure us that the risk of catastrophic accident is negligible. For example, the public-relations department of the Illinois Power Company puts out an attractive brochure which quotes from a government report, the Rasmussen Reactor Safety Study: “Assuming 100 operating reactors . . . the chance of a nuclear accident involving 1,000 fatalities [is] in the same class as that of a meteor striking a U.S. population center, causing the same number of deaths.

But the Rasmussen report is not the scientific document it purports to be. Henry Kendall of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists, took advantage of the Freedom of Information Act to pry from a reluctant Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) some material heretofore suppressed. His objective review of the Rasmussen document says simply that Americans have been deceived by it. Using the government records to which he finally gained access, Kendall concluded:

That federal, officials .suppressed the results of an internal review of the “Reactor Safety Study,” made prior to its release, that found major flaws in the study’s methods, assumptions and data base. One reviewer called the study’s concept of accident probability “gibberish”; another reviewer labeled some of its estimates “suspiciously low.

That the “Reactor Safety Study” abandoned its review of certain sensitive safety issues because study officials feared “the facts may not support our predetermined conclusions” and because it was “not known in advance” that the results would “engender confidence” in the reliability of reactor safety systems.

That the basic plan of the “Reactor Safety Study” was written by two MIT nuclear engineers; one was a director of the Atomic Industrial Forum, the nuclear industry lobbying group; the other, a nuclear industry consultant, was misrepresented as being a specialist in nuclear reactor safety.

That the basic plan of the “Reactor Safety Study” was to produce a report that would have “significant benefit for the nuclear industry.” The study outline also stated: “The report to be useful must have reasonable acceptance by people in the industry.”

That, despite the claim that the study was “independent” of the industry, the nuclear industry actually carried out important parts of the actual safety analysis reported in the study.

That the government suppressed the report of another special task force of government nuclear safety experts which concluded that “it is difficult to assign a high degree of confidence” to the type of risk estimates being made by the “Reactor Safety Study” The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety Study (Union of Concerned Scientists, 1977)

Prodded by the work of the Union of Concerned Scientists and by Congressman Morris K. Udall (D., Ariz.), chairman of the House subcommittee on energy and the environment, the NRC finally issued a report on January 19, 1979, repudiating major portions of the Rasmussen document. As the January 20 New York Times reported: “The decision [by the NRC] to reject totally the Rasmussen Study’s summary was based on a finding that the summary ‘is a poor description of the contents of the report.

But the nuclear industry proceeded to step up its lobbying to counteract the damage. General Electric has ordered its nuclear-division executives to seek out at least one congressperson or administration official on each trip to Washington to spread the pro-nuclear gospel; the company is even considering awarding prizes to those who manage to reach particularly important officials. Whether such efforts will succeed is anybody’s guess. Udall believes that the fate of nuclear power is “hanging in the balance.” Should Congress decide that no new fission plants may be built until the waste-disposal problem is solved, the future of nuclear power may well be sealed.

Though nuclear advocates contend that reactors are safe, the American insurance industry apparently does not agree. There is not one homeowners’ insurance policy written in America which does not have a nuclear-exclusion clause. Further, no private group of insurance companies would consider writing nuclear-insurance coverage for the civilian nuclear power industry. Congress was forced to pass the Price-Anderson Act, guaranteeing $560 million of government insurance, before the civilian nuclear power program could begin operations.

Read the rest of the article here: Unforeseen Risks

Calculating the Environmental Cost of Uranium Mining

From Environmental Expert.com Calculating the environmental cost of uranium mining

Source: European Commission, Environment DG Published May 30, 2008 Nuclear power is receiving growing attention from governments seeking ways to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, there is little detailed analysis of the true carbon costs of the nuclear industry. A new analysis suggests that eco-efficiency of uranium mining and milling, a key aspect of the efficiency of nuclear power generation, depends on the amount of uranium in the rocks being mined. Nuclear power could be used as an alternative to fossil fuels to meet Europe's growing energy needs. But debate rages over how carbon friendly the industry really is. Uranium mining, milling, enrichment and fuel manufacture all contribute to GHG emissions and need to be taken into account when weighing up the potential for nuclear power in climate change mitigation strategies. A detailed analysis of the environmental costs of uranium mining and milling in terms of energy, water and chemical consumption, as well as GHG emissions, was conducted. The study used company sustainability and technical reports and historical records of uranium finds. The results show that the environmental costs of uranium mining and milling are highly dependent on ore grade (the concentration of uranium), with more heavily concentrated, richer deposits of rock typically consuming fewer resources. Energy consumption was calculated based on direct energy input, for example diesel and electricity consumption and was typically in the region of 200-400 GJ/t U3O8. This is around two and a half times the amount of energy used by the average EU citizen each year. The researchers point out that this fails to take account of other sources of energy consumption, such as the energy needed to produce the chemicals used in mining and milling. They point out that full sustainability reporting needs to include reagents (substances used to cause a chemical reaction) with major embodied energy costs, which they calculate could add a further 6 per cent to the energy consumed in nuclear fuel production. Analysis showed significant differences in water consumption, depending on the type of mining operation and particularly on the quality of the ore grade. This ranged from under 50 to over 8,000 KL/t U3O8. Carbon dioxide emissions also varied from 10 to 50 t CO2/t U3O8 and there is a gradual increase of CO2 emissions over time. It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium to feed such a plant would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year. This is similar to the total CO2 emission from the Falkland Islands in 2004. Exploiting uranium reserves suggests that these environmental costs will increase over time as high grade ore deposits decline and the industry turns to lower grade ore or deeper deposits. Extracting uranium from lower grade ore not only means higher energy costs and greater CO2 emissions, but is likely to increase pressure on water resources. Nuclear power already contributes 30 per cent of Europe's electricity and the EU 27 are home to 152 nuclear reactors. However, planned phase-out of nuclear reactors in some member states may see the share of energy provided from nuclear sources drop in future.

New life for decades-old lawsuit blaming nuclear plant for cancers

Kiski Valley residents continue to pursue legal action

Sunday, April 27, 2008

By Torsten Ove

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A forlorn stretch of fenced-in grass along the Kiskiminetas River in Apollo is all that's left of a Cold War relic.

The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Co., which once made nuclear fuel for ships and submarines, is a bad memory for many residents who say the facility gave them cancer and ruined their property values.

Now their dormant class-action suit over its legacy, 16 years old and millions of documents long, is about to start all over.

Texas tort king Fred Baron, the lawyer for Karen Silkwood in the Oklahoma radiation case made famous by the 1983 movie "Silkwood," represents hundreds of Kiski Valley people who claim they or their relatives developed 32 kinds of cancer related to the Apollo plant and a subsidiary in nearby Parks Township.

In addition to 240 personal injury complaints, the suit contains 60 wrongful death complaints and another 120 property damage claims arising from home values that have dropped to almost nothing.

The plaintiffs got a boost last month when one of the corporate defendants, Atlantic Richfield Co., settled for $27.5 million, which includes payments of up to $600,000 to each of a half-dozen families.

But the second defendant, Babcock & Wilcox, has dug in its heels and is headed to trial again, even though it already settled part of the case 10 years ago before a judge overturned the $37 million verdict.

Atlantic Richfield owned NUMEC's stock from 1967 to 1971, when Babcock & Wilcox bought it and began operating the two plants until they shut down in 1983.

The legal action has such a convoluted history that it's hard to keep track of it all without a flow chart.

First filed in 1994, the suit has also been delayed at every turn, most recently by the seven-year Babcock & Wilcox bankruptcy case in New Orleans that itself was disrupted when Hurricane Katrina flooded the bankruptcy court.

The whole thing has been further complicated by a separate proceeding in a New York state court in which American Nuclear Insurers, the insurance company for both corporations, has balked at paying damage awards.

In fact, ANI previously blocked a global settlement for $87 million, according to court papers.

But with Babcock & Wilcox emerging from bankruptcy last year, the case is finally moving forward again here.

Read the rest of this lengthy but fascinating article here

Where Are the Farmers?

Danville

Where are the farmers?

To the editor:

Why has our local Farm Bureau been silent on the issue of uranium mining? Why would some local farmers invest in Virginia Uranium Inc., knowing that they will contribute to the demise of farming — the largest industry in Pittsylvania County?

A Jan. 20, 1985, (Marline era) newspaper article quotes former Delegate Glenn McClannan, D-Virginia Beach, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, as stating he felt uranium could be mined safely but “concerns about it, unfounded or not, could damage the state’s farming business.”

I disagree with his opinion that uranium can be mined safely largely because no one anywhere in the world has proven mining, milling and tailings storage/disposal to be “safe.” I do agree that there is great potential to irreparably damage the farming industry if mining, milling and tailings storage occurs.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so I invite you to view a picture on the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy’s Web site at http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMM/UraniumFig5.pdf

Here you will see an aerial view of Virginia Uranium Inc.’s exploration footprint. Keep in mind, this depicts only the area of exploration. It will not show the actual areas that will be open-pit mined or shafts that may be tunneled under “protected areas.” You will not see the surrounding acres of family-owned farms and the town of Chatham only a few miles away.

You will see farmland that will be lost for decades, if not forever. How might uranium mining, milling and tailings storage affect farmers around, downwind and downriver? A “study” will not be able to determine the impact that uranium mining will have on Virginia’s farming industry. Where are the spokespersons for Pittsylvania County’s largest industry? Where are the farmers?

KAREN MAUTE

Mount Cross

Banister River: Nature, History, and Prehistory - Exploring Outdoor Virginia

The beautiful, historic Banister River

Our friend Karen has forwarded a link to a wonderful site with tons of information about the Banister River...pictures, history, flora and fauna, etc....with the suggestion that we take a serious look at what could be lost should uranium mining contaminate this treasure.

http://www.victorianvilla.com/sims-mitchell/local/nature/river/banister/index.htm

On Cancer’s Trail [Uranium - Estrogen Link]

(Note: I am sending this article to blogmasters of U-related blogs everywhere. It's chilling. Since I've known men who've suffered breast cancer, the information here should be of interest to everyone.)

The women in Stefanie Raymond-Whish’s family have a history of breast cancer. Now the young Navajo biologist is asking why.

May 26, 2008

HIGH COUNTRY TIMES

by Florence Williams

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Stefanie Raymond-Whish was 9 years old when her grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer. A traditional Navajo who raised 15 children after her husband died in a car wreck, Raymond-Whish’s ama’ sa’ ni seldom spoke about her illness. Even after her surgery, when she lived with the grandchildren and their mother, she always acted strong around the kids. It became a pattern: When Raymond-Whish was 13, her 38-year-old mother, Nellie Sandoval, was also diagnosed with breast cancer. And Sandoval was equally reserved on the subject. "My mother was really good about not appearing sick in front of us," says Raymond-Whish, now 32. "As a little girl, I knew about cancer, but didn’t understand the impact of it at the time."

She understood it better by the time she was in college, in Flagstaff, Ariz., when a new tumor appeared in her mother’s other breast. "When my mom had her recurrence, that’s when it really hit me ... it was really upsetting. I went home to Farmington for her lumpectomy." Sandoval survived the disease, but not without a long struggle that included chemotherapy, radiation, and finally a double mastectomy. "My breasts were pretty mangled," says Sandoval, now 58. "So I said, ’Just get rid of them.’ " Both Sandoval and her daughter have made breast cancer and its impact on Navajos the focus of their lives. Sandoval became an activist and filmmaker, working out of her papaya-colored home in Farmington, N.M. Raymond-Whish has taken her mission a step further: She works as a molecular biologist at the University of Northern Arizona, searching for breast cancer’s root causes. "Is there any difference in how breast cancer develops in Native Americans and non-Native Americans?" she asks. One possible - and provocative - answer is emerging from her lab at the university: uranium.

Scientists have long known that uranium damages human cells. But in over six decades of atomic health testing, no one had ever noticed that uranium, at low doses, can act like an estrogen. No one, that is, until recently, when Raymond-Whish and her coworkers observed some unusual effects in lab animals.

(...)

The lab’s discoveries have already demolished the conventional wisdom on the properties of uranium. Not only does the heavy metal appear to alter mammary cells at very low doses, but it also seems to interfere with normal hormonal signals. Sometimes the uranium follows the same pathways as estrogen, but sometimes it doesn’t, which means it’s triggering other endocrine responses as well. "We don’t yet know the mechanism of how uranium is affecting these cells," Raymond-Whish says, "but we do know an estrogen receptor is involved. We see it in both animals and MCF-7 cells." (Emphasis mine...SB)

Read the full article here in High Country News

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS COMPLETE SURVEY STUDY OF URANIUM MINING CONCERNS

For Immediate Release
Thursday, May 22, 2008

Contact for Reporters:
Kimberly Sorensen
(970) 491-0757

Note to Editors: The survey results do not reflect the views of Colorado State University.

FORT COLLINS - Colorado State University students conducted a survey this spring to gauge citizen concern and insights about the uranium mining operation proposed in northern Colorado.

During the 2008 spring semester, students in Colorado State's Journalism and Technical Communication course, Communication and Evaluation Research Methods, undertook a class project to examine citizen concerns about the uranium mine proposed for the area between Nunn and Wellington, Colo.

The mail survey focused on details concerning how people perceive potential risks and benefits associated with the proposed mining operation. It also focused on how people view information that has been provided through the media and other channels by two high-profile sources on the issue, the Canadian company Powertech (USA) Mining Corp. and the citizen's group, Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction.

Results showed that awareness of the proposed mining operation is nearly universal in the survey area. Of the 205 survey responses from 450 randomly selected individuals, only 5 percent indicated that they had never heard of the issue. When asked if individuals had made their minds up on the issue one way or another, very few respondents were in favor of the mining operation, at 5 percent; about 20 percent reported they were undecided, while a majority, or 74 percent, said they were against it. (Emphasis mine...SB)

More than half of the respondents agreed that they need more information about the issue and cited newspapers has the most important source of information. Respondents also stated that they thought Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction was more credible and trustworthy than Powertech.

For the full article, click here

(A copy of the study has been requested. We'll keep you posted...)