For Sale on Amazon! Uranium Ore! (Really!)

Uranium Ore

Other products by Images SI Inc.

	119 Reviews 5 star: (52) 4 star: (26) 3 star: (18) 2 star: (9) 1 star: (14) See all 119 customer reviews... See all 3 discussions... (119 customer reviews)

---

1 used & new available from $29.95

Product Description

Radioactive sample of uranium ore. Useful for testing Geiger Counters. License exempt. Uranium ore sample sizes vary. Shipped in labeled metal container as shown. Shipping Information: We are always in compliance with Section 13 from part 40 of the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules and regulations and Postal Service regulations specified in 49 CFR 173.421 for activity limits of low level radioactive materials. Item will be shipped in accordance with Postal Service activity limits specified in Publication 52. Radioactive minerals are for educational and scientific use only.

See the real Amazon.com page here:

Five Myths About Nuclear Energy

Atomic energy is among the most impractical and risky of available fuel sources. Private financiers are reluctant to invest in it, and both experts and the public have questions about the likelihood of safely storing lethal radioactive wastes for the required million years. Reactors also provide irresistible targets for terrorists seeking to inflict deep and lasting damage on the United States. The government’s own data show that U.S. nuclear reactors have more than a one-in-five lifetime probability of core melt, and a nuclear accident could kill 140,000 people, contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania, and destroy our homes and health.

In addition to being risky, nuclear power is unable to meet our current or future energy needs. Because of safety requirements and the length of time it takes to construct a nuclear-power facility, the government says that by the year 2050 atomic energy could supply, at best, 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs; yet by 2020, wind and solar panels could supply at least 32 percent of U.S. electricity, at about half the cost of nuclear power. Nevertheless, in the last two years, the current U.S. administration has given the bulk of taxpayer energy subsidies—a total of $20 billion—to atomic power. Why? Some officials say nuclear energy is clean, inexpensive, needed to address global climate change, unlikely to increase the risk of nuclear proliferation and safe.

On all five counts they are wrong. Renewable energy sources are cleaner, cheaper, better able to address climate change and proliferation risks, and safer. The government’s own data show that wind energy now costs less than half of nuclear power; that wind can supply far more energy, more quickly, than nuclear power; and that by 2015, solar panels will be economically competitive with all other conventional energy technologies. The administration’s case for nuclear power rests on at least five myths. Debunking these myths is necessary if the United States is to abandon its current dangerous energy course.

Myth 1. Nuclear Energy Is Clean

The myth of clean atomic power arises partly because some sources, like a pro-nuclear energy analysis published in 2003 by several professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, call atomic power a “carbon-free source” of energy. On its Web site, the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also a proponent of nuclear energy, calls atomic power “emissions free.” At best, these claims are half-truths because they “trim the data” on emissions.

(....)

Myth 2. Nuclear Energy Is Inexpensive

Achieving greater energy efficiency, however, also requires ending the lopsided system of taxpayer nuclear subsidies that encourage the myth of inexpensive electricity from atomic power. Since 1949, the U.S. government has provided about $165 billion in subsidies to nuclear energy, about $5 billion to solar and wind together, and even less to energy-efficiency programs. All government efficiency programs—to encourage use of fuel-efficient cars, for example, or to provide financial assistance so that low-income citizens can insulate their homes—currently receive only a small percentage of federal energy monies.

(....)

Should the United States continue to heavily subsidize nuclear technology? Or, as the distinguished physicist Amory Lovins put it, is the nuclear industry dying of an “incurable attack of market forces”? Standard and Poor’s, the credit- and investment-rating company, downgrades the rating of any utility that wants a nuclear plant. It claims that even subsidies are unlikely to make nuclear investment wise. Forbes magazine recently called nuclear investment “the largest managerial disaster in business history,” something pursued only by the “blind” or the “biased.”

Myth 3. Nuclear Energy Is Necessary to Address Climate Change

Government, industry and university studies, like those recently from Princeton, agree that wind turbines and solar panels already exist at an industrial scale and could supply one-third of U.S. electricity needs by 2020, and the vast majority of U.S. electricity by 2050—not just the 20 percent of electricity possible from nuclear energy by 2050. The D.O.E. says wind from only three states (Kansas, North Dakota and Texas) could supply all U.S. electricity needs, and 20 states could supply nearly triple those needs. By 2015, according to the D.O.E., solar panels will be competitive with all conventional energy technologies and will cost 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Shell Oil and other fossil-fuel companies agree. They are investing heavily in wind and solar.

(....)

Myth 4. Nuclear Energy Will Not Increase Weapons Proliferation

Pursuing nuclear power also perpetuates the myth that increasing atomic energy, and thus increasing uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing, will increase neither terrorism nor proliferation of nuclear weapons. This myth has been rejected by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. More nuclear plants means more weapons materials, which means more targets, which means a higher risk of terrorism and proliferation. The government admits that Al Qaeda already has targeted U.S. reactors, none of which can withstand attack by a large airplane. Such an attack, warns the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, could cause fatalities as far away as 500 miles and destruction 10 times worse than that caused by the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986.

(....)

Myth 5. Nuclear Energy Is Safe

Proponents of nuclear energy, like Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, and the former Argonne National Laboratory adviser Steve Berry, say that new reactors will be safer than current ones—“meltdown proof.” Such safety claims also are myths. Even the 2003 M.I.T. energy study predicted that tripling civilian nuclear reactors would lead to about four core-melt accidents. The government’s Sandia National Laboratory calculates that a nuclear accident could cause casualties similar to those at Hiroshima or Nagasaki: 140,000 deaths. If nuclear plants are as safe as their proponents claim, why do utilities need the U.S. Price-Anderson Act, which guarantees utilities protection against 98 percent of nuclear-accident liability and transfers these risks to the public? All U.S. utilities refused to generate atomic power until the government established this liability limit. Why do utilities, but not taxpayers, need this nuclear-liability protection?

(....)

...Four decades ago, the then-director of the government’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory warned that nuclear waste required society to make a Faustian bargain with the devil. In exchange for current military and energy benefits from atomic power, this generation must sell the safety of future generations.

Yet the D.O.E. predicts harm even in this generation. The department says that if 70,000 tons of the existing U.S. waste were shipped to Yucca Mountain, the transfer would require 24 years of dozens of daily rail or truck shipments. Assuming low accident rates and discounting the possibility of terrorist attacks on these lethal shipments, the D.O.E. says this radioactive-waste transport likely would lead to 50 to 310 shipment accidents.

(....)

Where Do We Go From Here?

...Despite the problems with atomic power, society needs around-the-clock electricity. Can we rely on intermittent wind until solar power is cost-effective in 2015? Even the Department of Energy says yes. Wind now can supply up to 20 percent of electricity, using the current electricity grid as backup, just as nuclear plants do when they are shut down for refueling, maintenance and leaks. Wind can supply up to 100 percent of electricity needs by using “distributed” turbines spread over a wide geographic region—because the wind always blows somewhere, especially offshore.

Many renewable energy sources are safe and inexpensive, and they inflict almost no damage on people or the environment. Why is the current U.S. administration instead giving virtually all of its support to a riskier, more costly nuclear alternative?

By Kristin Shrader-Frechette
JUNE 23, 2008

To read this lengthy but well-reasoned article, please click here.

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

This really underscores the dangers of living near a U-mining site and gives new meaning to "not in my backyard".

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...LS)


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

Uranium: It’s Worse Than You Think

EDITORIAL

by Jonathan Thompson

HIGH COUNTRY NEWS

When people think of Durango, Colo., they usually think of the scenery, or the tourist attractions, or the disproportionate number of healthy, spandex-clad bicyclists, runners and raft guides. Rarely do they think of cancer.

Perhaps they should.

...Since the mid-1960s, when four young residents died of leukemia, various studies have shown that Monticello and surrounding San Juan County have higher cancer rates than the rest of the state. The latest study, released by the state’s health department this spring, found that Monticello has experienced an unexpectedly high rate of lung cancer over the last 35 years. Although the study stopped short of linking the cancers to the mill, it may have lent some weight to residents’ continuing efforts to get federal funding for early detection and treatment facilities. (Currently, the feds are supposed to compensate people who got sick from working in mines and mills, or from living downwind of nuclear tests, but not those who lived near uranium mines or mills.)

(...)

Even though the findings of the new studies are preliminary, they are important: They warn us that we still don’t know all the costs of the West’s last big nuclear push. And until we do, we may want to proceed very cautiously with the next one. (Emphasis mine...SB)

Read the full editorial here

On Cancer’s Trail [Uranium Linked to Estrogen]

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

by Florence Williams

High Country News

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."

Read the complete article here at High Country News

Environmental ministers seek deep emissions cuts

KOBE, Japan (AP) — European and developing countries urged the United States and Japan on Sunday to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — a step they say is needed to defuse a coming ecological disaster caused by global warming.

The calls at a meeting of environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Japan coincided with rising concern that momentum is draining from U.N.-led efforts to force a new climate change agreement by a December 2009 deadline.

The G8 nations — the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Russia and France — are largely on board with a proposal to attempt to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases responsible for global warming by 50% by 2050.

But a major focus of the meeting in Kobe is midterm targets for 2020, which scientists say are needed to avoid a potentially disastrous rise in world temperatures of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over levels prior to the industrial age.

"A long-term goal is not a substitute for midterm, mandatory targets," said Matthias Machnig, Germany's environment minister.

(...)

The United States, however, has not committed to a midterm goal, demanding that top developing countries like China also commit to reductions. Japan has called for emissions by industrialized countries to begin to fall in the next one or two decades, but it too z+_ KJIJOhas stopped short of setting a 2020 target.

Continue reading the article here...

Cameco Pollutants May Be Seeping Into Lake Ontario

CANADA: May 22, 2008

TORONTO - Contaminants such as arsenic and uranium that shut down Cameco Corp's Port Hope, Ontario, nuclear conversion facility last year may be seeping into nearby Lake Ontario, the company said Wednesday.

The news sent shares of the company down about 4 percent as investors worried about higher costs, a larger-than-expected cleanup, and potential litigation. The plant's operations were suspended last July after contaminants were found in nearby soil. "Based on the data points we have, and the modelling that we do, it does appear that some contaminants are reaching the water," company spokesman Doug Prendergast told Reuters. He said the data was taken from studies of wells dug on the property, but that recent samples of lake water have not suggested any noticeable change. The discovery of the contaminated soil last year was one of a series of setbacks for Cameco, the world's top uranium producer. The company has also faced delays in overhauling its flooded Cigar Lake mine, and dealt with a water inflow at its Rabbit Lake mine. Both mines are in Saskatchewan. The stock, which was down slightly before the news came out, ended the session down C$2.32 at C$40.52 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Analyst Ray Goldie of Salman Partners said the stock sell-off was likely overdone given that the vast majority of Cameco's revenue comes from its uranium mines rather than its conversion business. "It does seem like something on overreaction to me," he said, although he added that concerns about potential litigation could also be having an impact on the stock. LONG NUCLEAR HISTORY The town of Port Hope has a population of about 16,000 and is about 100 kilometres (62 miles) east of Toronto. It has a history with the nuclear industry that dates back 70 years, when it was the site of a plant that refined uranium for use in the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Cameco also owns the Zircatec fuel manufacturing plant in the town. Some citizen groups have in the past called for the federal government to do comprehensive health study on the community. Cameco said in December that the soil contamination had come from trenches in the floor of the plant that had been in contact with chemicals and other liquids. It estimated in February that it will likely cost between C$15 million and C$20 million to clean up the soil and repair the plant. The Port Hope facility normally employs about 340 people and is licensed to produce 12,500 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride -- a compound used in the production of nuclear fuel -- a year. The company had hoped to reopen the Port Hope facility in the third quarter, and Prendergast said as yet there was no change to that plan. "We don't believe that this produces any kind of timetable delay at this point," he said, adding "It clearly is a new wrinkle. It's a further complication." (US$1=$0.98 Canadian) (Reporting by Cameron French; editing by Peter Galloway)

Story by Cameron French

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48449/story.htm REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

Killer app: Game consoles contain hazardous chemicals

By Ben Silverman

The next casualty in the console war might be you.

In their new 'Playing Dirty' report, environmental organization Greenpeace found that all three home video game consoles - Sony's PS3, Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii - tested positive for a variety of hazardous chemicals, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), beryllium, bromine, and phthalates.

The latter, found in relatively high levels in both the Xbox 360 and PS3, are not permitted in components of toys or childcare products sold in the European Union. However, game consoles are not classified as toys and therefore are not subject to existing legislation.

The report found that all three systems also contained significant levels of bromine, a chemical linked to impaired memory functions and other health problems. One of the phthalates found in the 360 and PS3, a chemical called DEHP, is also known to interfere with sexual development in mammals, especially males.

Hold on -- you don't need to start wearing a cup made of reinforced steel every time you play Halo 3 just yet. Greenpeace points out that the three console manufacturers have "avoided or reduced uses of individual hazardous substances in certain materials within their consoles." Nintendo's Wii showed no traces of beryllium in its electrical contacts, the Xbox 360 used fewer brominated materials in its housing materials and the PS3 circuit boards were bromine-free.

Find the rest of this article and a link to the full report here

Support Nuclear Disarmament By Stopping a New Generation of Nuclear Weapons

The Bush administration and the Department of Energy are asking Congress to fund a new generation of nuclear weapons, the so-called “Reliable Replacement Warhead.” Under the guise of concern about the reliability of our aging stockpile, the Bush administration is pushing for more than $40 million for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Yet, this reasoning conveniently ignores independent scientists and the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, who have all consistently certified that our nuclear stockpile is in good shape. Additionally, an extra $53.6 million could be used to “develop the processes and equipment to manufacture the RRW pit.” A plutonium pit is the “trigger” of a nuclear weapon.

The US needs a new nuclear weapons policy, not new nuclear weapons. To ask your member of Congress to cut funding for this dangerous program, visit here:

http://capwiz.com/peaceactionwest/issues/alert/?alertid=11331981

MIT, Chesonis Foundation announce solar revolution

Goal: Bring the sun's power to the people

April 22, 2008

Promising to transform solar power from a "boutique" option to an affordable, dependable, mainstream energy solution, MIT and the Chesonis Family Foundation today launched a "solar revolution" with the ultimate aim of making solar energy America's primary carbon-free fuel.

The Solar Revolution Project (SRP), funded by a $10 million gift from the Foundation, will explore new materials and systems that could dramatically accelerate the availability of solar energy. The SRP will complement and interact closely with other large solar projects at MIT, creating one of the largest solar energy clusters at any research university.

The Chesonis gift will allow MIT to explore bold approaches that are essential for transforming the solar industry. Specifically, it will focus on three elements --capture, conversion and storage -- that will ultimately make solar power a viable, near-term energy source.

Continue reading...

As US Threatens Iran Over Enriching Uranium, Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia

The Bush administration has pledged to support Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program, including supplying enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The agreement came out of President Bush’s visit to the Saudi kingdom last week, during which Bush also pledged new US assistance in guarding Saudi oil reserves.

For transcript, video, and downloads...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching

Large-Scale Solar Power Plants Could Power Nation, Combat Global Warming and Create Thousands of Jobs

05/08/2008

Download the report, "On the Rise:Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming."

America could meet all of its current electricity needs with large central concentrating solar power plants according to a report released today, “On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming” by Environment America. These solar thermal power plants covering an area of 100 x 100-mile area in the Southwest, slightly more than what’s already been excavated for strip mining for coal across the country, could power the entire nation; while slashing global warming emissions. Because solar thermal energy storage allows electric generating capacity even when the sun is not shining, it can replace traditional energy sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power.

"If we are going to get serious about fighting global warming and addressing our nation’s energy woes, solar energy must be part of the solution, said Anna Aurilio, Director of Environment America’s Washington DC office. “Tapping this abundant and clean domestic energy source must be a centerpiece of America’s energy, environmental and economic policies," she added.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has identified the potential for more than 7,000 gigawatts (GW) of concentrating solar power generation on lands in the southwestern United States alone - more than six times current U.S. electricity consumption. Other areas of the United States, such as the mountain West, the Great Plains and Florida, can also generate significant power from the sun.

Continue...

For More Information:
Anna Aurilio, 202-683-1250 x317
Rob Sargent, 617-747-4317

Would It [proximity to a uranium mine] Bother Tourists?

Karen poses an excellent question in this letter (the red lettering is mine, not in the original letter):

Published: May 17, 2008

To the editor:

The Associated Press story, “Waves from Myrtle Beach ad felt in Virginia,” (May 16, page A1), illustrates the importance of image and advertising. In an attempt to lure vacationers south, the ad drew attention to perceived negative aspects of Virginia Beach and positive aspects of a Myrtle Beach vacation. The president and chief executive of the Myrtle Beach Area’s Chamber of Commerce made no apologies regarding the advertising and stated that his top priority is to fill hotel rooms. He’s quoted as saying, “It’s pure guerrilla marketing and some take issue with that.”

As gas prices rise, tourist destinations have to work hard to attract visitors. Perhaps drawing attention to a rival area’s shortcomings, real or perceived, negatively impacts tourism. Find their weakness … then make a case for why your resort area is better.

I wonder if Virginia Beach’s tourism director and local and state elected officials have wondered if being downriver from a uranium mine will negatively affect tourism. With the current competition for the tourist dollar, perhaps they should.

KAREN XX

XX, VA

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/may_17_outsourcing_uranium_restrictions_and_israel/3727/

Virginia Uranium Shares Information With Gretna Town Council

By SUSAN WORLEY/Star-Tribune Staff Writer
Friday, May 16, 2008 9:00 AM EDT

GRETNA - Gretna Town Council heard a presentation Monday night by Virginia Uranium Inc., which outlined plans to mine a major uranium deposit in eastern Pittsylvania County.

The deposit is located at Coles Hill near Sheva.

"Coles Hill is a significant deposit and worth further study," said Mick Mastilovic, speaking on behalf of Virginia Uranium. "A study will tell us what's there, what can be done, and how it can be done safely."

He indicated a study will also take into consideration new technology available, new regulations and the importance of uranium as an energy source in a changing economy.

A powerpoint presentation showed what is currently being done at Coles Hill. Core samples are being extracted to determine the extent and quality of the deposit.

"We are at the very beginning of what is called uranium exploration," added Mastilovic.

There are approximately 65,000 feet of core samples encased in cardboard boxes in a storage shed on the property. These samples will be used to study the feasibility of mining.

Yellowcake, the uranium oxide extracted during processing of uranium ore, "is something to be careful with and respectful of, but it is not dangerous unless inhaled or ingested," explained Mastilovic.

One of the questions asked concerned containment of tailings, the residue left when ore is mined.

Mastilovic said tailings will be stored in cells similar to landfills. Cells will be designed to suit the area's environment.

Also asked was a question concerning what will be done with the leftover rock after the uranium is extracted.

Mastilovic said it will eventually be returned to the mining pit or mine shafts.

"How long does it stay above ground," asked town attorney Michael Turner.

"That's undetermined at this time," answered Mastilovic.

A question was also asked about how the mining operation would avoid water contamination of area wells, streams and rivers.

Mastilovic explained that the water in the mining process will be treated and contained in tailings ponds which will be monitored similar to landfills.

Virginia Uranium information indicated that the industry should produce 300 to 500 jobs with miner's salaries as much as $100,000 annually. It could also mean significant tax revenue paid to the county.

Mining the deposit could last 30 years.

"It sounds like an amazing project," said council member Wayne Wood.

Virginia Uranium hopes to have an independent study done that will address the feasibility and safety of uranium mining.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2008/05/17/chatham/news/news25.txt

Ban Uranium Mining, N.B. Environmentalists Say

The Canadian Press

May 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM EDT

FREDERICTON — Environmental groups in New Brunswick are calling for an immediate ban on uranium exploration and mining as companies continue staking large swaths of the province.

Representatives of several conservation groups say about 30 organizations have signed a statement calling for a no-uranium mining policy, similar to moratoriums already in place in Nova Scotia and British Columbia.

The New Brunswick government, however, is insisting that the economic benefits of uranium mining and exploration outweigh potential dangers to the public, and it has turned aside requests for even a temporary halt to the prospecting currently under way.

Four companies are exploring for uranium in New Brunswick, including Toronto-based Vale Inco.

Inka Milewski of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick accuses the government of putting the interests of industry ahead of the health of people.

She said that the New Brunswick government has known for years that there are dangerously high levels of radon and uranium in Harvey, N.B., southwest of Fredericton, but that no steps have been taken to inform and protect residents of the area.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080514.wnburanium0514/BNStory/National/home

Uranium Speculation Skyrockets in CO County - - Could This Happen to Virginia?

Dolores County’s claims rise from 396 to 5,399 in one year

May 14, 2008

By Stephanie Paige Ogburn

Cortez Journal

More than 6,500 new uranium claims were filed on Dolores district public lands last year as prospectors and corporations reacted to a sharp increase in the mineral's prices.

The claims are located on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property administered by the Dolores Public Lands office, primarily in northwest Dolores and southwest San Miguel counties.

In Dolores County, uranium claims rose from 396 in 2006 to 5,399 in 2007, the latest year for which data is available. In San Miguel County, claims were at 1,119 in 2006 and 2,633 in 2007.

Continued...

Clean-Air Rules Protecting Parks Set to Be Eased

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 16, 2008; A01

The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.

The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.

Nearly a year ago, with little fanfare, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed changing the way the government measures air pollution near Class 1 areas on the grounds that the nation needed a more uniform way of regulating emissions near protected areas. The agency closed the comment period in April and has indicated it is not making significant changes to the draft rule, despite objections by EPA staff members.

Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who now heads the environmental strategies group at the law firm Bracewelll & Giuliani, helped initiate the rule change while heading the EPA's air and radiation office. He said agency officials became concerned that the EPA's scientific staff was taking "the most conservative approach" in predicting how much pollution new power plants would produce.

...The initiative is the latest in a series of administration efforts going back to 2003 to weaken air quality protections at national parks, including failed moves to prohibit federal land managers from commenting on permits for new pollution sources more than 31 miles away from their areas and to protect air resources only for parks that are big and diverse enough to "represent complete ecosystems."

Continued:

Documents Link Wind Farm Foes to Energy Firm

By Stephanie Ebbert

The Boston Globe

May 15, 2008

A new lobbying firm for the group opposing a wind farm off Cape Cod filed a federal document last month reporting that its work for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is partially funded and shaped by an international energy conglomerate.

The disclosure represents the first documented financial connection between the group opposing the wind farm and Oxbow Corp., which mines and markets energy and commodities, including coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound immediately decried the filing as a mistake, and the lobbying firm later amended it in the US Senate Office of Public Records to eliminate the reference to Oxbow.

Oxbow's founder, Osterville yachtsman William I. Koch, has been a cochairman of the alliance since 2005, a year that saw a flurry of congressional attempts to kill the wind farm. While Oxbow maintains that its lobbyists monitor Cape Wind because of the corporation's interest in energy and shipping, Cape Wind proponents assert that Oxbow's lobbyists have been doing far more to fight the wind farm.

Continued:

Fungus Could Be a Fix for Uranium Pollution

By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
5 May 2008

Uranium pollution from high-tech armor and munitions is one of the dangerous legacies of the wars in the Balkans and Iraq. But a naturally occurring fungus might help combat the spread of that pollution into local ecosystems. The fungus transforms the uranium into a stable form that shouldn't work its way into the food chain, a new study shows. The findings potentially could help engineers isolate the toxic metal until better ways of cleaning up all but the most heavily contaminated sites can be developed.

Even better, this transformational ability of fungi "would work for pollution with any--depleted or not--metallic uranium and its corrosion products," says environmental microbiologist and lead author Marina Fomina. "Our findings could also be applied to cleaning up contaminated liquid wastes, metal leaching, and recycling and recovery," she says.

Read the full article here:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/505/2?etoc

(The photo was found online without attribution. Should you be the owner of the photo rights, we will remove the photo, should that be your request, or we will be happy to give you the credit to which your copyright entitles you.)

Reclamation and Remediation of the Tailings at Moab, Utah Mining Site

Our thanks to SCC member Karen and to Jack Dunavant, SCC President, for bringing the information below to our attention. It's a term paper on a tailings pile at a uranium mining site at Moab, Utah written by a student at Brigham Young University's Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology.

The .pdf file is 15 pages long but the type is large and well-spaced with graphs and pictures. It's not a tedious read...in fact, it's quite interesting. Even if you skip the parts that you don't quite understand, you'll come away from it with a better understanding of tailings and government intervention than you had before.

Jack states that it's a "short and concise study" with "more meat in it than I've seen to date". Karen adds that it "gives an overview of the issues surrounding a tailings pile" and cautions readers to take special note of "how long it takes [government entities] to reach decisions to mitigate environmental damages.

If you need an Adobe Reader in order to access the file, you can download one here:

http://www.tucows.com/preview/194959

This is the link to the term paper. I promise that you'll be amazed at some of its findings. Here's a little taste from the conclusion:

The site is a time bomb waiting to explode. An earthquake could cause to pond to fail and dump its contents into the Colorado River. The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the tailings present a threat to four endangered species of fish. Groundwater is currently being contaminated by the site, and the future does not present any hope of this changing. Assuming the cap did work, it would still take a minimum of 60 years to see any change in concentrations of hazardous materials in the leachate.

http://www.et. byu.edu/groups/ ce540/syllabus/ termpaper/ 1997-F/garner. pdf

Nuclear is Not a Panacea

Jill Claybrook is the president of Public Citizen (www.citizen.org), a national, non-profit, public interest organization whose motto/purpose/mission is "Protecting health, safety and democracy".The group offers membership and their publication at their main site.

The article below is the "President's View" from the March/April edition.

Administration, Congress Are Wrongly Promoting Nuclear Energy

At the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, a global ministerial-level gathering held in early March in Washington, D.C., President Bush stated “We’ve got to get off oil. … [O]ur dependence on fossil fuels like oil presents a challenge to our environment. When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially.”

That’s pretty amazing, coming from a guy whose administration has scoffed at the notion of conservation and stifles administration staffers who talk openly about the dangers of climate change.

The problem is what Bush said next.

“I believe developing nations ought to be encouraged to use nuclear power,” he said. “I believe it will help take pressure off the price of oil, and I know it’s going to help protect the environment.”

He also claimed that nuclear power is safe and should be expanded in the U.S. with the help of a federal risk insurance program and loan guarantees for nuclear power plant developers.

Continue reading here:

http://www.citizen.org/prezview/articles.cfm?ID=17635

Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Uranium Mine (NM)

(Excerpts)

By BEN NEARY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

DENVER -- Federal judges expressed surprise Monday that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued permits to allow a company to leach uranium out of an aquifer that supplies drinking water to thousands of Navajos in New Mexico.

Local groups are challenging the NRC's approval of permits for Hydro Resources Inc., a New Mexico company, to operate in-situ mines near the Navajo communities of Crownpoint and Church Rock in western New Mexico.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Monday in what lawyers say is the first-ever challenge to the NRC's approval of licenses for an in-situ uranium mining operation.

Opponents said the proposed mining would push radiation levels in the area past federal standards for human exposure, while lawyers for the mine developer and the NRC said the mine would be safe for area residents and wouldn't affect drinking water.

...

The Navajo Nation, which includes lands in western New Mexico and eastern Arizona, outlawed uranium mining in 2005.

Navajo school children from Crownpoint traveled to Denver on Monday and held placards in front of the federal courthouse with messages such as "Say no to uranium, say no to sickness."

Savanna Cowboy, 15, a student at Crownpoint Middle School, said the school is about a half-mile from Hydro Resources' proposed processing plant.

"I know for a fact what uranium can cause," Cowboy said outside of the courthouse Monday. "It causes health problems, health effects and contaminates the water really bad."

...

"The question for you today, your honors, is whether the NRC can disregard radiation from that source and continue to do its statutory duty to protect the public?" Jantz told the judges.

Jantz said the company proposes to leach uranium "in the same aquifer where the town of Crownpoint gets its water."

In response, Judge David M. Ebel said, "I can't even begin to understand that."

...

Anthony Thompson, a lawyer for Hydro Resources, also said the portion of the aquifer that the company would be mining near Crownpoint would not be drinking water.

To that, Judge Carlos Lucero responded, "I do not understand it. If it's just vertically confined and not horizontally confined, what's to keep this water from flowing into the municipal drinking water?"

Thompson said the company would be responsible for monitoring wells in the area and would always pump more water from the ground than it would inject back in to make sure that nothing flowed away from the sites.

Lucero seemed unconvinced. "In other words, the licensee's checking himself?" the judge asked. "You don't have the city or some independent body doing it?"

Read the complete article here:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600ap_wst_uranium_petition.html?source=rss

Interest in nuclear power fuels uranium rush -- Grand Canyon area sees 1,100 claims staked

By Judy Pasternak Los Angeles Times / May 10, 2008

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. - Thanks to renewed interest in nuclear power, the United States is on the verge of a uranium mining boom and nowhere is the hurry to stake claims more pronounced than in the districts flanking the Grand Canyon's storied sandstone cliffs.

On public lands within 5 miles of Grand Canyon National Park, there are more than 1,100 uranium claims, compared with 10 in January 2003, according to data from the Department of the Interior.

In recent months, the uranium rush has spawned a clash as epic as the canyon's 18-mile chasm, with both sides saying they are working for the good of the planet.

Environmental organizations have appealed to federal courts and Congress to halt any drilling, arguing that mining so close to such a rare piece of the nation's patrimony could prove ruinous for the canyon's visitors and wildlife.

Mining companies say the raw material they seek is important to the environment, too: The uranium would feed nuclear reactors that could, unlike coal and natural gas, produce electricity without contributing to global warming.

And uranium is in short supply. In recent years, mines closed in Canada and West Africa, yet the United States as well as France and other European countries have announced intentions to expand nuclear power. Predictably, the price of uranium has soared to $65 a pound recently, from $9.70 a pound in 2002.

In the five Western states where uranium is mined in the United States, 4,333 new claims were filed in 2004, according to the Interior Department; last year the number had swelled to 43,153.

Continued:

County pushes for required radon testing for new homes

Published: May 8, 2008

New homes built in Pittsylvania County will be required to have radon- detection equipment and services soon.

The Board of Supervisors voted 6-1 Monday night to hold a public hearing on May 20 on the proposed amendment to the county code.

The change would establish radon requirements as a condition of building inspections of all new homes in the county. It also would bring the county in line with the 2006 Virginia Construction Code, which took effect May 1, County Administrator Dan Sleeper said.

Staunton River Supervisor Marshall Ecker opposed the amendment, citing its effect on local builders.

“What are we going to do to the building industry in Pittsylvania County (by voting for this)?” Ecker asked.

Tunstall Supervisor Tim Barber said the health of residents must be considered.

“This to me is about public safety,” he said.

A memorandum sent to Sleeper from county building official Donald Stickel states that Pittsylvania County is in the highest-risk zone on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s radon map.

“We have received numerous inquiries by citizens asking why we are not enforcing the provisions…,” Stickel wrote.

Radon is a cancer-causing, radioactive gas that has no taste and is odorless, according to the EPA. It results from the breakdown of uranium in soil, rock and water.

Radon exposure is highest in homes, since that is where individuals spend most of their time, the EPA states.

Sleeper reminded supervisors before their vote Monday night that the amendment is a state requirement.

“The state of Virginia says you have to do it,” he said. “It’s in the Virginia Construction Code.”

Since the county adopts updates to the Virginia Construction Code, it’s already a part of county code anyway, Sleeper said Tuesday. Sleeper said he didn’t know how much more the amendment’s conditions would cost builders or consumers.

A public hearing on amending the Pittsylvania County Code will be held during the board’s next regular meeting at 7 p.m. May 20 in Chatham.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/county_pushes_for_required_radon_testing_for_new_homes/3486/

Uranium Poison Gas Dispersal Plants Slated for Widespread Expansion

By Cathy Garger
May 7, 2008, 13:33

The truth of the matter, however, is that energy originating from uranium is the *dirtiest* form of energy that can possibly be produced.

The federal government is entering into what is quite literally dangerous territory with its plans to fully support yet another uranium enrichment plant certain to harm the good people of Idaho - and countless others throughout the nation. And if that’s not bad enough, plans for two other nuclear facilities that emit these toxic, radioactive gasses into the environment are in the works for Ohio and New Mexico as well.

All this, however, is nothing new. As the resources below sadly demonstrate, uranium facilities owned and operated by those in the federal laboratories’ arm of the nuclear energy “biz” have already done a good job of contaminating the states of Idaho, ⁽¹⁾ Ohio, ⁽²⁾ and New Mexico ⁽³⁾. Now, with the private corporate ventures of new Uranium enrichment facilities on the drawing board in these same three states, it is quite clear that nuclear contamination of America is the federal stock holders’ most lucrative, tried ‘n’ true, “hot” commodity. ⁽⁴⁾

If you have no idea why anyone might object to the construction of Uranium enrichment plants that promise to bring a few hundred jobs into each state, you are hereby encouraged to do a simple Internet search as follows, including the quotation marks just as you see them.

"Uranium enrichment plant" +contamination

This search will give you over 11,000 “hits” that explain exactly why we must never allow the construction of even one more of these Uranium enrichment facilities, not ever again.

Senator Larry Craig, R (Idaho) has gone on record with the premier federal media mouth piece, FOX News, promoting the lie that uranium enrichment processing is a "clean energy technology." ⁽⁵⁾ The truth of the matter, however, is that energy originating from uranium is the *dirtiest* form of energy that can possibly be produced.

Read the rest of the article, end notes, references and acknowledgements here:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_26663.shtml

AREVA Selects Bonneville County, Idaho, for its U.S. Uranium Enrichment Facility

May 6, 2008

AREVA Inc. announced today that it has selected the state of Idaho for its new U.S. uranium enrichment facility. The site is located in Bonneville County, 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, close to the Idaho National Lab.

The selection was made after an extensive technical, environmental, and socio-economical analysis of several potential sites throughout the United States. With its decision, AREVA will move forward to seek all necessary approvals from federal, state and local agencies, including a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and operate the facility.

"The United States needs more clean energy to support its economic growth. To enable us to meet those needs we have to expand our domestic nuclear infrastructure, secure our supply of enrichment services, and reduce our reliance on foreign imports. This new enrichment plant is a critical part of this process," said Michael McMurphy, President of AREVA Inc. He added, "While we had several attractive sites to choose from, we opted for Idaho Falls, which has strong ties to nuclear energy and which welcomed AREVA and its proposed enrichment facility to become a new member of its community. We look forward to a productive and long-term partnership that will deliver diversity and strength to the regional economy."

The new state-of-the-art facility represents a multi-billion dollar investment that would create hundreds of high-skilled jobs during the construction and operation phases.

The Idaho Falls plant will provide enrichment services to U.S. nuclear plant operators using advanced proven centrifuge technology developed by the Enrichment Technology Company, Ltd. (ETC), an AREVA subsidiary, and world leader in enrichment services technology. This centrifuge technology has been successfully deployed in Europe for more than thirty years, using 50 times less electricity than the gaseous diffusion process.

AREVA is a major supplier of enrichment services. It owns and operates the Georges Besse enrichment plant in France, which has safely operated for nearly three decades. AREVA is currently constructing a new gas centrifuge enrichment facility in France - Georges Besse II - with first deliveries expected for 2009.

We had a comment posted to the Tornadoes and Uranium Mine on SCC's blog item that gave us pause with its interesting thoughts:

"It's also worth examining the dangerous weather generated by remnants of major hurricanes. The flash flooding, high winds, etc., are in addition to the prospect of tornadoes spawned by such tropical weather systems. Mining experts will (or should) concede that environmental management and risk would be a significant concern which would need to be addressed if such an operation were proposed for an area in Virginia with a history of severe weather. Even then, would the bonds be nearly adequate enough for the potential weather-related disasters? Would anyone be held legally liable for an act of nature?"

I'm not sure how these situations would be handled but on April 22, 2008, Karen of SCC sent the following link and question to the Virginia Dept of Emergency Management:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----- Original Message -----

From: karen

To: pio@vdem.state.va.us

Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:17 PM

Subject: Radiological_Information_for_Farmers_and_Growers

http://www.vdes.state.va.us/threats/radiological/Radiological_Information_for_Farmers_and_Growers.pdf

I found the above link on line. In the event that mining and milling of uranium occurs in Virginia, would these same precautions and procedures be followed in the event of migration of radioactive tailings offsite of an industrial facility through air or water in a catastrophic event?

Karen ____

XXX XXXXX Rd.

Danville, VA 245XX

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To date, she's not gotten a response although she has again submitted the question to VDEM with the message "Please note this was originally sent on 4/22/08. Your response will aid in decision- making in Southside Virginia".

I agree with Karen that we should all take a look at the link she send to VDEM. It's a .pdf file and needs Adobe Reader to open it. You probably have Adobe on your computer but in case you don't, go here to download one:

http://adobe.8-1pdf.com/index.asp?aff=100&camp=google_areader_us&se=google

Here are some excerpts...I really encourage you to take a look at the whole report, keeping in mind what you know about tailings and radon contamination. Any italics are mine.

http://www.vdes.state.va.us/threats/radiological/Radiological_Information_for_Farmers_and_Growers.pdf

In an Emergency, Who Will Provide Advice

This information provides general advice as to precautions, preparations and actions you can take. However, in a radiological emergency, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management in cooperation with the Virginia Departments of Health, Radiological Health, and Agriculture and Consumer Services, will monitor and broadcast radiation levels, dangers and recommended actions based on information gathered by radiation monitoring teams. Federal and state agencies will conduct damage assessments in potentially affected areas and will inform farmers, growers and producers of any actions, which should be undertaken. The general public will receive this information over the EAS.

Protecting Your Farm

You may be asked to shelter your farm animals and give them protected feed and water. This will help prevent contamination from harming your animals, and from later entering the human food supply.

Checking for contamination at home gardens and small-scale farms may not begin for weeks after the emergency. Homegrown produce should be tested for radioactive contamination before it is consumed. Home gardeners and small-scale farmers should wait for a field monitoring team to help them, or for further instructions from local and state agriculture and health agencies.

Sheltering Animals

If you are advised to shelter animals, remove them from pasture and house them in a farm building. You may not have enough shelter available for all of your animals, so priority should be given to your most valuable livestock. State and local emergency response agencies will have more advice for decontaminating farm animals.

Possible livestock shelters:
• Barns
• Milking parlors
• Machine sheds
• Garages
• Corncribs
• Poultry buildings

Protecting Your Crops

The following specific actions may be advised to reduce the danger of ingesting adulterated food products.

Milk

Remove all dairy animals from pasture and shelter them if possible, and provide them with protected food and water. Sampling teams from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center will come to your farm to take milk, and possibly feed and water samples, for laboratory analysis to determine whether any of these products are adulterated.

If dairy products are contaminated, it will be recommended that milk and milk products be withheld from the market. It is possible, however, for milk products contaminated with very low levels of radioactive materials to be safe for human consumption.

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will advise as to which protective actions are appropriate.

Protecting Food Products

Food and Milk Processors, Warehouses and Commodity Terminals

Windows and vents to the outdoors should be closed. Vacuum systems should be shut down, as should compressed air systems. Any system that draws air from the outdoors to the inside should be shut down. Your facility will be notified directly by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, if the food products in your facility are affected. If samples are collected, the Department of Agriculture officials will notify you which products can be released for sale

Economics

Under the worst conditions, radioactive contamination could reduce the economic productivity of your farm. As previously mentioned, you may suffer the loss of some farm and dairy items due to contamination or spoilage during the period of time that a radiological emergency is in progress. However, following an accident, radioactive contamination might reduce the competitive economic value of your farm products. This would be due to public reluctance to purchase farm products that are suspected of having been grown in an area that has been affected by a radioactive release from a nuclear power plant or other source. State authorities will advise you on the contamination level that your farm experienced and the marketability of your farm products. An insurance pool has been established to help individuals recover from the losses caused by a radiological disaster.

Potential Sources of Radiological Emergencies

This brochure applies to peacetime emergencies resulting from fixed nuclear facility incidents (including commercial and military nuclear power reactors); transportation incidents; and other incidents, e.g., nuclear powered satellite reentry. Sabotage and terrorism are not treated as separate types of incidents; rather, they are considered a complicating dimension of the incident types noted.

Specifically, the following fixed nuclear facilities are potential sources of radiological emergencies in Virginia:

• North Anna Power Station, near the town of Mineral, Virginia;
• Surry Power Station, on Hog Island in Surry County, Virginia;
• Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, near Lusby, Maryland;
• Naval and commercial shipyards, Hampton Roads area; and
• Commercial and naval nuclear fuels plants and research reactors, near Lynchburg.

Appendix 2

Adjacent States and Jurisdictions Within 50-Mile Ingestion Pathway*

1. The Virginia Emergency Operations Center (EOC) will provide notification to affected or potentially affected jurisdictions within the ingestion pathway and adjacent states in the event of a radiological emergency occurring at the North Anna or Surry Power Stations. *The State will transmit to each local organization recommended protective measures based upon protective action guides and other criteria. This shall be consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding exposure resulting from passage of radiological airborne plumes and with other Federal recommendations regarding radioactive contamination of human foods and animal feeds.

2. The primary means for notifying adjacent states and local jurisdictions within ingestion pathway will be by commercial telephone. Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) will be used to back up voice messages as appropriate. Adjacent states and local governments within the ingestion pathway are listed in Tables 1 (Surry) and 2 (North Anna).

3. The Virginia EOC will provide notification to affected or potentially affected local jurisdictions within the Virginia portion of the ingestion pathway in the event of a radiological emergency occurring at the Calvert Cliffs (Maryland) Nuclear Power Station. See Table 3 for jurisdictions to be notified.

4. Notifications will be made to local governments within the ingestion pathway when a General Emergency is declared or earlier as appropriate.

* Similar alerting procedures will be used

How safe do you feel?