Gloucester County Citizens for Accountable Representation

For those not familiar with the Gloucester County Citizens for Accountable Representation and its efforts to remove 4 members of its Board of Supervisors (see the post below this one), this is their website although info is scant at this time. http://gccfar.org/ The website does outline the statuatory process the GCCAR followed in seeking the ouster of the 4 BOS members.

A time-line of the events can be found here:

http://xml.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_glotimeline_1101nov01,0,2444522.story

The actions of the GCCAR, as well as the recent decision of Circuit Court Judge Westbrook J. Parker, have garnered national attention from experts in Constitutional law. Experts seem to agree that Judge Parker's ruling, tossing out the petitions of the GCCAR and ordering the 40 members (who sought the requisite signatures on the petitions) to pay the attorney's fees of the 4 BOS members as well as court costs (see the article in the post below this one) is probably violative of the 1st Amendment and that GCCAR members could possibly win an appeal.

From the Newport News Daily Press archives (retrieved from Google's cache):

Experts: Ruling May Be Illegal: Many Say Judge's Penalty Against Gloucester Petitioners Might Violate the First Amendment

By Cory Nealon, Daily Press, Newport News, Va. ( http://www.dailypress.com )

Dec. 21--GLOUCESTER -- -- Whether it's the founding of the country or daffodil cultivation, Gloucester County is no stranger to breaking new ground.

It has seldom, if ever, done so in matters of law.

That is, until Wednesday, when a judge fined 40 Gloucester County residents who unsuccessfully petitioned to remove four county supervisors from office.

"This may be brand-new territory," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor. "I don't think this has ever happened in Virginia."

And rarely elsewhere, apparently.

Tobias is one of handful of legal experts in Virginia and beyond who said that they were stunned by Circuit Court Judge Westbrook J. Parker's ruling and that it might violate the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states in part that citizens may petition the government for a "redress of grievances."

The residents, who call themselves the Gloucester County Citizens for Accountable Representation, sought to remove the supervisors -- Teresa Altemus, Bobby Crewe, Michelle Ressler and Gregory Woodard -- after a special grand jury indicted the foursome on 14 charges of misuse of office. The charges, as well as the petitions, were dismissed from court. As a result, Parker ordered the county to pay nearly $125,000 in legal fees that the supervisors accrued.

Of those fees, Parker ordered the 40 petition-circulating members of the citizens' group to pay $2,000 each toward the county's cost, saying the petitioners misused the judicial system. He justified the sanctions by saying it would be unfair to make the county -- and therefore the citizens who didn't sign the petitions -- to pay the entire bill.

Legal scholars such as Tobias and Robert M. O'Neil, a noted constitutional law professor and former president at University of Virginia, said the ruling could infringe upon the First Amendment.

"A court should protect a citizen, plaintiff or lawyer seeking redress," said O'Neil, also director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, a free-speech advocacy group. "This is a most unusual type of sanction. I haven't seen anything like this."

In his ruling, the judge agreed with points made by the supervisors' attorneys, who said their clients were victims of a political conspiracy to oust them from office. Parker said the appropriate avenue for the petitioners was elections, not the judicial system.

The view isn't surprising, said Kareem Crayton, an associate at the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. In many states, he said, it's very onerous to remove an elected official from office -- unlike in states with a recall, such as California.

He likened removal to impeachment -- which former President Bill Clinton endured and survived -- rather than to a recall, which led to the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as California governor. Still, Crayton -- also a law and political science professor -- said the sanctions ordered by Parker were unusual.

"It is rare, indeed, for a court to fine people exercising a right that allows them to petition the government," he said.

Virginia law says elected officials, if brought to court on charges that are dismissed, may seek attorney fees from the government. It's uncommon, Tobias said, for a judge to supersede a specific statute in favor of a more general statute -- in this case, a judge's authority to impose sanctions on a civil litigant who brings what the judge deems a baseless suit to court.

As of Friday, the petitioners had yet to decide whether they'll appeal Parker's decision. The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed interest in the case but won't proceed unless the petitioners give the go-ahead.

Tobias said he thought that they would stand a decent chance at reversing the ruling.

He said, "It may be that they would win that appeal."

The final outcome of this interesting exercise of citizens' rights to petition their goverment for "redress of grievances" bears watching.

Lawyer Retained For 40 Petitioners Fined for Seeking to Remove Supervisors.

FROM THE RICHMOND-TIMES DISPATCH
JAN. 30, 2009

GLOUCESTER RESIDENTS FINED FOR SEEKING TO REMOVE SUPERVISORS

Cory Nealon - Daily Press

GLOUCESTER -- Virginia Beach attorney L. Steven Emmert has agreed to represent the 40 Gloucester residents who were fined after unsuccessfully petitioning to remove four county supervisors from office.

Emmert is expected to file an appeal on behalf of the petitioners, who were fined $2,000 each.

"This is obviously a matter of significant public concern," Emmert said this week. "These people spoke out and they were punished for it."

Substitute Circuit Judge Westbrook J. Parker ordered Gloucester County to pay $129,321.53 of the legal bills accrued by the supervisors: Teresa L. Altemus, Michelle R. Ressler, Robert A. "Bobby" Crewe and Gregory Woodard.

Paarker also ordered the petitioners, who he said abused the judicial system for political purposes, to reimburse the county $80,000. His reasoning: that a majority of Gloucester residents did not support the petitions and therefore, should not have to pay the supervisor's legal costs.

Emmert said he is considering two angles for the appeal.

One, that the ruling violates citizens' First Amendment rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Second, that the petitioners gathered nearly 6,000 signatures in good faith, something Parker contested.

Emmert expects to be hired by week's end He did not say who would pay his fees.

Petitioners previously said they didn't have the money to hire and attorney. Garr Johnson, one of the several petitioners who has acted as a spokesman for the group, said only that a "group of concerned citizens" has agreed to employ Emmert.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/GLOU30_20090129-221017/192786/

HB 2374 Income tax, state; Renewable Energy Job tax credit.

HB 2374 Income tax, state; Renewable Energy Job tax credit. David L. Englin | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles

---

Summary as introduced:
Income tax; Renewable Energy Job tax credit. Provides an income tax credit to corporations for each "Renewable Energy Job" created and filled. The amount of the credit for each such job is (i) two percent of each salary that is less than $50,000 a year, and (ii) $1,000 for each salary of $50,000 and more a year. A Renewable Energy Job is employment in an industry related to renewable alternative energies. The credit is available for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, but before January 1, 2014. Full text:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 091930500 (impact statement)

Status:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 091930500
01/14/09 House: Referred to Committee on Finance

SB 1215 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Fund, created.

imilar legislation pending in the VA Senate:

SB 1215 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Fund, created. R. Creigh Deeds | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles

---

Summary as introduced:
Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program. Repeals the Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and creates a program to provide financial incentives to companies that manufacture or assemble equipment, systems, or products used to produce renewable energy, nuclear energy, or energy efficiency products. To be eligible for a grant, the manufacturer must make a capital investment greater than $50 million and create at least 200 full-time jobs. The program would be managed by the Director of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Full text:
01/13/09 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093109812

Status:
01/13/09 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093109812
01/13/09 Senate: Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources

HB 2235 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and Fund; created.

Wonder who this is being designed for?

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+sum+HB2235

HB 2235 Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and Fund; created.

Clean Energy Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program. Repeals the Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing Incentive Grant Program and creates a program to provide financial incentives to companies that manufacture or assemble equipment, systems, or products used to produce renewable energy, nuclear energy, or energy efficiency products. To be eligible for a grant, the manufacturer must make a capital investment greater than $50 million and create at least 200 full-time jobs. The program would be managed by the Director of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Full text:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093108812

Status:
01/14/09 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/09 093108812
01/14/09 House: Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
01/27/09 House: Referred from Commerce and Labor by voice vote
01/27/09 House: Referred to Committee on Appropriations
01/28/09 House: Assigned App. sub: Economic Development, Agriculture and Natural Resources(Cox)

County Fined For Landfill Leak

Imagine the mess had this leak, and its delayed abatement, been uranium-related.


By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Monday, January 26, 2009 6:47 PM EST

Pittsylvania County will pay a $1,300 civil penalty for a "leachate" leak at the county's landfill in Dry Fork, although local and state officials both said the leak was minor and did not contaminate the nearby Banister River.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality discovered the leak during an unannounced inspection last March.

According to DEQ, a small seep was found along the base of the Phase 1 cell, a 10-acre site closed two years ago.

The county discovered that a leachate pump, similar to a submersible well pump, 80 feet below the garbage wasn't working properly.

It pumps out leachate - basically any liquid that comes in contact with trash - to a million-gallon holding pond, where it is stored before being sent to Chatham's Wastewater Treatment Plant.

The pump was running, but its impellers had corroded, rendering it useless.

The county installed a new pump with a flow meter and is checking flows on a weekly basis to insure leachate is properly removed, said Assistant County Administrator Otis Hawker.

Hawker said tests around the leak determined it did not enter the landfill's stormwater system or contaminate a nearby stream or the river.

"They could not determine there was any release," he said.

Marvin Booth III, an enforcement representative with DEQ's Lynchburg office, described the leak as "very minimal in nature."

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/01/26/chatham/news/news20.txt

Let’s Put Uranium Mining to a Vote [in Pittsylvania Co.]

Danville Register & Bee
Published: January 28, 2009

To the editor:
Uranium mining?! Are you kidding me? Uranium mining?! I don’t see how one can justify the potential risks over the potential rewards. I’ve read that the estimated amount of uranium ore at Coles Hill would equate to two years worth of energy.

Who in their right mind would want to gamble the long-term welfare of an entire region for a paltry two years worth of fuel? No matter how small the risk Virginia Uranium Inc. might promise is involved in mining and milling uranium, it cannot guarantee that there is no risk to it. For me, zero is the only acceptable risk regarding a radioactive substance.

The potential depth and extent of an accidental radiation exposure is a great unknown. If a radiation spill occurs, how large might it be, and how long before it’s detected and contained? As an OB-GYN physician, I can guarantee many pregnant patients from the county will be asking, “Will this uranium mining affect my baby?” All I’ll be able to truthfully answer is, “I hope not.”

I’m not trying to be an alarmist, but many people throughout the 20th century have been damaged by unanticipated or uncontrolled exposure to radioactive substances. Before knowledge of the atomic bomb, I’m sure the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have felt overly threatened if they were told that a single bomb was to be dropped on their cities. There are just too many unknowns concerning radiation exposure.

I have not heard or read anything in favor of this mining save from those who stand to gain financially from it. I feel the issue of uranium mining should be put up to a referendum, rather than made by politicians or several members on a committee or panel. The people of Pittsylvania County should have a direct say on this issue that so strongly affects their livelihood and well-being. Let’s all remember that our home is Pittsylvania County, not “Coles County.”

RANDOLPH NEAL, M.D.

Danville

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/uranium_mining_and_mark_stegall/8710/

Unrestrained Mining May Cause Rice Shortage, Foreign Environment Experts Warn

KORONADAL CITY (MindaNews/27 January 2009) –

A moratorium on mining is needed if the Philippines is to avoid a rice shortage in the long term, foreign environment experts today said in a presentation of a study done in six mining sites across the country.

http://worldminingexplorationnews.com/27/01/2009/unrestrained-mining-may-cause-rice-shortage-foreign-environment-experts-warn-minda-news/

USEC, U.S. Government Win Supreme Court Uranium Fight

The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in favor of American nuclear fuel producer USEC Inc., upheld antidumping duties imposed by the Bush administration in 2002 on enriched uranium imported by France’s Areva SA.

The justices unanimously rejected Area’s contentions that U.S. antidumping law doesn’t apply because the company provides enrichment services, rather than a product. U.S. nuclear power companies backed Areva in the case, as did Alcoa Inc., perhaps the country’s largest nongovernmental consumer of electricity.

The decision overturns a ruling that the Bush administration had said “threatened the ongoing economic viability of USEC,” the only U.S. company that enriches uranium.

The Commerce Department concluded in 2001 that Areva, the world’s largest maker of nuclear reactors, was selling enriched uranium in the U.S. at less than fair value. The following year, the U.S. International Trade Commission said that Areva’s actions were harming USEC, clearing the way for the Commerce Department to impose an import duty.

The Court of International Trade then overturned the ITC ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington agreed with that conclusion.

The case is United States v. Eurodif, 07-1059, and USEC v. Eurodif, 07-1078, U.S. Supreme Court (Washington).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=a7lE8uf9xGyU&refer=germany

Occupation Iraq: "The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children"

Monday, January 26, 2009

""The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children"

German documentary exposes current radioactive warfare in Iraq.
Website: http://www.grassrootspeace.org/depleted_uranium_iraq.html

"The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium, and the Dying Children", an award winning (ÖKOMEDIA 2004) documentary film produced for German television by Freider Wagner and Valentin Thurn, and released by Ochoa-Wagner Produktion in 2004 in Germany, exposes the use and impact of radioactive weapons during the current war against Iraq. The story is told by citizens of many nations and opens with comments by two British veterans, Kenny Duncan and Jenny Moore, describing their exposure to radioactive, so-called ‘depleted’ uranium (DU), weapons and the congenital abnormalities of their children. Dr. Siegwart-Horst Günther, a former colleague of Albert Schweitzer, and Tedd Weyman of teh Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) traveled to Iraq, from Germany and Canada respectively, to assess uranium contamination in Iraq. (photo of Dr. Siegwart-Horst Günther with Iraqi mother and children © 2004 Telepool.)

Weyman led the investigative team that gathered samples for analysis for the UMRC– http://www.umrc.net He discusses startling findings of the 2003 field investigations in Iraq. "The human and environmental samples have been found to contain depleted uranium and abnormally high levels of the artificial transuranic isotope, 236U. ... Viewers will see in the film, evidence of a new class of uranium weapons." These include "bunker defeat" bombs.

As an M.D., Dr. Günther is especially interested in the health effects that can be caused by such contamination. At a hospital in Basra, Dr. Jenan Hassan revealed an on-going health catastrophe--a ten-fold increase in cancers and a twenty-fold increase in congenital deformities. The grisly realities of the cancer ward provide an appropriate alarm that could help to stop the use of these weapons unless it can be shown they will not harm civilians for generations to come.

Dr. Duracovic, founder of the Uranium Medical Research Centre, and formerly a Colonel in the U.S. Army, says that the Canadian government has wasted a million dollars on tests provided to Canadian veterans, using faulty methodology that looked for uranium in the hair, where uranium will not accumulate.

--MORE--"

http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2009/01/occupation-iraq-doctor-depleted-uranium.html

Uranium in Pittsylvania County -- Star-Tribune

From the Chatham Star-Tribune...letters and articles from their papers during the past several months...just click on the link:

Click here for PDF of reports

Why not study uranium?
In the last week of the General Assembly, the House Rules Committee rejected a Senate-passed bill that would have required a study of uranium mining.

House committee kills uranium study bill
A study on the benefits and risks of uranium mining in Virginia may have to wait at least another year after the House of Delegates' Rules Committee tabled the bill Monday afternoon.

Virginia Uranium vice president sets record straight
It would be good to set the record straight on a couple of issues raised by Jesse Andrews in his letter last week.

Letter 'unfounded emotional attack'
There are so many inaccuracies in Jesse Andrews' letter. I am shocked that your paper would even publish it.

Uranium mining a 'plus' for few investors
We must kill the study of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County and all of Virginia.

Corporate greed fuels 'go nuclear' push
"Nothing to Regulate" was the title of the Sunday, March 2, 2008, opinion page commentary in the Danville Register & Bee newspaper. It stated, "Since January, we've supported a state study of uranium mining."

Community deserves facts uranium study would provide
Without uranium or radiation, our planet would be nothing short of a ball of ice. Radiation simply means energy radiated outwards.

Uranium mining motivated by greed, pure and simple
I am writing in reply to Mr. Mastilovic's letter in the Feb. 20 issue of the Star-Tribune.

Facts in short supply on uranium issue
Life is funny. Albert Einstein's career is significantly affecting Pittsylvania County.

Website question reflects ignorance
What an ignorant poll question you have on your website!

Uranium mining would be devastating
Your readers and people who would live close to uranium mining might want to take a close look at the enclosed photo of a uranium mine.

Open Mines
Richmond Times-Dispatch

Suspicion clouds mining-ban study
The Virginian-Pilot

Senate Bill 525
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

Coles Hill uranium deposit
James L. Jerden Jr.: Research

What is uranium?
Source: New Fuel Now

Canada doesn't paint rosy picture of uranium mining
Virginia Uranium Inc., ran an ad in the Jan. 30, 2008, issue of the Star-Tribune with a section titled "A Few Words About Land Values" which painted a glowing picture of the economic blessings which uranium mining will bestow on Pittsylvania County.

If uranium comes, we only have ourselves to blame
The Virginia Senate on Tuesday voted 36-4 to approve a bill to study the benefits and risks of uranium mining.

Test your water and appraise homes now
I urge you, whether for or against the proposed mining and milling of uranium in Pittsylvania County, to have your water tested now so that you will have this as a reference in the event that your water is contaminated down the road.

'Toxic nightmares,' scare tactics cloud uranium debate
The issue of studying a potential large deposit of uranium is something that is very important to me.

Uranium study is just 'results for hire'
This is in response to Bill Hedge's letter on Feb. 13 and to the recent full-page ad by Mr. Coles. Here's why we should oppose the study of uranium mining.

Uranium study bill needs work
Senate Bill 525, establishing a Virginia Uranium Mining Commission, has left the Senate and is in the House. Pittsylvania County remains the main focus of this legislation.

County, town put area on 'fast track' to uranium mining
At their meeting on Feb. 11, Chatham Town Council voted unanimously to support uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

Senate Oks uranium study bill
The Virginia Senate on Tuesday voted 36-4 to approve a bill to study the benefits and risks of uranium mining.

County forum focuses on uranium
DRY FORK - About 200 people attended a public forum on uranium mining Saturday evening at White Oak Grove Outreach Center in Dry Fork.

Chatham Town Council supports study of uranium
After taking a month to weigh the issue, Chatham Town Council voted 5-0 Monday night to adopt a resolution supporting an "unbiased, neutral, and comprehensive" study on uranium mining.

Halifax 1st in Virginia to adopt 'chemical trespass' defense
HALIFAX - To applause Thursday night, Halifax Town Council unanimously approved a Corporate Mining and Chemical and Radioactive Bodily Trespass ordinance.

Why are supervisors 'neutral' on uranium mining?
As a citizen and taxpayer of Pittsylvania County, I have talked with some of the members of the Board of Supervisors on the issue of the uranium study.

Hurt reminded of words
In 2005, Chatham's Henry Hurt wrote a letter to the editor regarding the sale of Danville's "not for profit" hospital to the "for profit" Life Point corporation. His letter can be viewed in the archived material of the Star-Tribune.

Uranium forum raises more questions than it answers
I attended the uranium forum in Pittsylvania County last evening and after hearing Virginia Uranium Inc.'s presentation, I am even more disturbed about the prospect of uranium mining and milling at Coles Hill.

County leaders should stand against uranium
It disturbs me greatly to wonder what motivation it takes for our community leaders in Pittsylvania County to hazard their constituents' health and welfare by not taking an absolute stand against uranium mining.

Uranium study will provide facts, not opinions
Several hundred years ago, Christopher Columbus said he believed the world was round.

Senate subcommittee to review amended uranium study bill
A bill in the General Assembly to study the benefits and risks of uranium mining was amended Monday to include public hearings and members from Pittsylvania and Halifax counties on the study commission.

Residents urged to take action against uranium mining
SOUTH BOSTON - A call to an American Revolutionary ideal - consent of the governed - is the key in citizens' battle to protect Southside's environment, Ben Price, project director with the non-profit Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, told a crowd at a forum on uranium mining Thursday night.

Public forum scheduled on uranium mining
A public forum for citizens and elected officials on uranium mining will be held Thursday, Jan. 24, at 7 p.m. at Halifax County High School in South Boston.

Halifax Town Council to hold hearing on uranium concerns
HALIFAX - Halifax Town Council has agreed to take a "chemical trespass" ordinance billed as a tool for citizens' protection to public hearing.

Proposed Virginia Uranium Mining Commission would study risks, benefits
The proposed Virginia Uranium Mining Commission would conduct a study on:

Zoning board Oks permit for Virginia Uranium
Star-Tribune Editor

Zoning hearing focuses attention on uranium mining
The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing Thursday on Virginia Uranium Inc.'s request for a special-use permit for a temporary office trailer and storage facility for new core samples from its exploratory drilling northeast of Chatham.

County adopts resolution for uranium study
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday night to adopt a resolution asking the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop a "neutral, comprehensive legislative study" on uranium mining.

Virginia Uranium begins test drilling
SHEVA - Virginia Uranium Inc. is drilling exploration holes near Chatham to confirm what is believed to be the richest uranium deposit in the United States.

Virginia Uranium to begin test drilling at Coles Hill
A company that hopes to eventually mine a huge uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County has received a state permit for exploration drilling.

Local company hopes to mine uranium
A locally owned and managed company, Virginia Uranium Inc., has been formed to mine and mill a huge uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County if, according to the company's chairman, Walter Coles, it can be done safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc. principles
Virginia Uranium Inc.'s "Seven Guiding Principles" include:

Energy report raises prospect of uranium mining
A state energy plan scheduled to be released next week may renew the prospect of uranium mining in Virginia - a prospect that could dramatically affect Pittsylvania County.

Uranium opponents, supporters square off over resolutions
Opponents and supporters of uranium mining squared off at Chatham Town Council Monday night.

Southside needs straight answers on uranium issues
A recent editorial in the Danville Register and Bee stated: "If the environmentalists are right, allowing Virginia Uranium to mine the Coles Hill site will both stigmatize and pollute the community. We will be known as that town with the uranium mine, and that uranium mine will poison our land, water and air."

Engineer believes uranium can be mined safely
I was born and raised in Danville. My family roots in Pittsylvania County go back nearly 300 years.

Are you against uranium mining?
My name is Crystal. I live in a little community called Chatham, Virginia.

Is county's climate suited for uranium mining and milling?
In an article in the Oct. 3, 2007, issue of the Star-Tribune it was stated that representatives of Virignia Uranium Inc., had visited a site for mining and milling uranium operated by the French firm Areva located in Saskatchewan, Canada.

Virginia Uranium ads only present one side
The ads on uranium mining being sponsored by Walter Coles Jr. in the Star-Tribune are very interesting and give the viewpoint of those supporting uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

U.S. should explore all resources - including uranium
This is a story about fear-and uranium.

Do you want to be guinea pigs?
Do you want to be guinea pigs?

Virginia Uranium cannot cope with mining risks
To Virginia's appointed and elected officials:

Coles, cronies only ones who would benefit from uranium
In their third propaganda report, published in the Star Tribune on January 23, Virginia Uranium, or whatever name they are going by this week, stated that they ..."are asking for an independent, scientific study, paid for by us in a hands-off manner and authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia, to determine if mining can be done safely in Virginia."

Prospect of uranium mining taints holiday
Christmas in Chatham, Virginia, has always been a special time for my family.

Uranium should remain in the ground
The author of, "Advances increase safety of uranium mining," (9/19/07) was most likely right when he said that "significant technological advances have taken place in uranium mining and tailings disposal over the past 25 years."

Uranium mining is a bad idea
Can you put a price tag on your health and safety, air that you breathe, water that you drink? If you could, what might that figure be?

Fair and balanced, please
Editor's note: The following letter to the editor refers to a recent editorial on uranium mining in the Danville Register & Bee.

Uranium mining would be a huge mistake
I feel that uranium mining in Pittsylvania County would be a huge mistake.

Virginia Uranium needs to answer questions
Last week's ad in the Star Tribune titled, II. Virginia Uranium, Inc. Questions We've Been Hearing, was the second full-page ad run by Walter Coles Sr.

County should hold public hearing on uranium mining
Someone told me about asking Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper questions on uranium mining in the county and Dan, reportedly, has a question of his own: "What is wrong with uranium mining?"

Uranium opponents too close minded
Editor's note: The following comment was posted to the Star-Tribune's website last week.

Technological advances increase safety of uranium mining
Please allow me to comment on recent news articles and Ms. Susan Stilwell's 9-12-07 letter to the editor on the possibility of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

'New technology' in uranium mining little comfort
In the discussion about beginning uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, people keep mentioning progress in uranium mining processes now make this a matter to which no informed person can have objections.

Planning Commission praised for stand against uranium
We commend the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission for the decision to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals the denial of issuance of the special -use permits requested by Southside Cattle Company, LLC.

Unanswered questions remain about uranium mining
On Oct. 15, Aberdeen International, headquartered in Toronto, Canada, announced that it had completed its investment in Virginia Uranium Inc.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl were all 'regulated'
The people, including our elected and appointed officials that are depending on the various governmental agencies to protect us by regulating uranium mining, in Pittsylvania County, are in for a shock.

Science teacher wants facts, not opinions
As I am neutral on the possibilities of uranium mining in Virginia, I would like to see the proposed study by an unbiased entity, such as the National Academy of Science, go forward.

Does democracy exist in Pittsylvania County?
In the past three weeks I have attended three public forums on uranium mining - meetings of the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission, Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals, and Chatham Town Council.

Study needed to know if mining is safe
The Orange County Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution to "support a continued moratorium" on uranium mining in Virginia.

Uranium drilling allowed to violate local ordinance
It has been approximately 30 days since the concerns noted in the letter below were first raised verbally to both the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors and the county administrator at the regular December 2007 meeting by SCC affiliate Karen Maute.

Leave uranium in the ground
At the Chatham Town Council meeting of Jan. 14, 2008, Virginia Uranium Inc. chairman Walter Coles stated that he favors retaining the current moratorium on uranium mining until a study can be made to determine whether such mining could be done safely in Pittsylvania County.

Contact legislators about uranium study bill
I am writing to ask that everyone - on all sides of the uranium mining issue - contact legislators about Senate Bill No. 525 relating to establishing the Virginia Uranium Mining Commission.

Response to Walter Coles Sr.'s Op-Ed Piece
Virginia Uranium Inc. chairman Walter Coles' column is the first public presentation I have seen in his words about your proposal to mine uranium at Coles Hill and other sites in Pittsylvania County. I would like to respond.

Elected officials should protect against uranium
Why do I feel someone is not telling me the truth when you are told they want no change, then they present a resolution for a study to see if uranium mining would be safe.

People need to fight uranium mining
As a long-time resident of Pittsylvania County, I have some serious concerns about uranium mining.

Proposed uranium study bill flawed
On Jan. 28, Sen. Frank Wagner presented a substitute Senate Bill 525 to the Virginia Senate Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources Committee.

County residents deserve direct answers on uranium
Here are some questions I think we should ask our Board of Supervisors, Town Council, and Zoning Commission as they approve "only a study" of uranium mining:

State Issues Exploration Permit to Virginia Uranium, Inc.
Richmond, VA - A permit to conduct exploratory drilling for uranium in Pittsylvania County, VA, was issued to Virginia Uranium, Inc. on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, by the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME).

County should pass resolution to keep moratorium
In response to the Register and Bee editorial on Dec. 10, titled "The First Shot," I attended the meeting of Southside Concerned Citizens in October, where Walter Coles outlined the type of uranium mining and concluded by saying that the proposed mine at Coles Hill would in fact be an open pit mine.

Uranium mining poses host of problems
1. Tailings Waste

Uranium argument 'laced with hysteria'
I have read several letters from environmentalists in your newspaper recently. Every one of these letters is laced with the hysteria so emblematic of the environmental movement over the last 50 years.

Uranium mining could spell disaster
There has been much public interest in recent months about the proposed mining of uranium in Pittsylvania County.

Long-term impact of uranium mining prompts concerns
As a graduate of Hargrave Military Academy, I am concerned about the possible long-term impact of uranium mining in Pittsylvania on Hargrave, Chatham Hall and other such institutions in the area.

Are we prepared to sacrifice county?
In his Dec. 29 letter to the editor, concerning the "safety" of uranium mining, Walter Coles Sr. cited Lynchburg as having a safe uranium-handling facility.

If your friends jump off a cliff, will you follow?
That's the question that my mom used to ask me when I was about to do something foolish. It was a good question then and it's a good question for all of us to ask ourselves now.

State panel would study risks, benefits of uranium mining
A bill filed in the General Assembly last week would appoint a 15-member panel to study the risks and benefits of mining uranium in Virginia.

http://www.wpcva.com/chatham/uranium/

Feds: Audit of SC Nuclear Complex White-Washed

By BEN EVANS, AP

January 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — A company managing South Carolina's Savannah River Site nuclear complex altered findings in a 2007 financial audit to justify expenses to the government, federal investigators said in a report released Wednesday.

The Energy Department's Inspector General said as a result, it cannot verify $1.4 billion in expenses submitted by the Washington Savannah River Company that year.

Under a federal program aimed at cutting down on auditing costs, the company was supposed to conduct independent self-audits to document its expenses. Instead, company managers worked closely with the audit department to smooth over discrepancies — despite documented dissent from professional staff auditors, the report said.

Managers "directed inappropriate changes to valid audit results" and were "permitted to provide after-the-fact justifications and approvals for violations of various ... procedures designed to prevent or detect unallowable costs," the review said.

In one case, managers were allowed to insert required approvals for expenses three years after they were made, according to the report.

"These actions violated professional standards," the report said.

WSRC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the report says the company disputed some of the findings.

The company lost the Savannah River Site contract in competitive bidding last year. But a joint venture formed by its corporate parent, San Francisco-based URS Corp., recently won a six-year contract worth up to $3.3 billion to handle nuclear waste at the site, which sits outside Aiken, S.C., near the Georgia line.

In October, WSRC agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle fraud allegations involving the Savannah River Site's employee pension fund. The government accused the company of failing to disclose projected cost increases for the fund during contract negotiations with the Energy Department.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7PPNZ6-DXCNcCDoGRrd5YKnyGeAD95ROLGG1

Campaign Finance Reports -- Atty General's Race

January 26, 2009

Attorney General Robert McDonnell, Republican

Donations of $100 or more:

Walter JR. Coles, 1040 Coles Road, Chatham, Virginia Uranium Inc., Executive, Dec. 6, $250

Virginia Uranium Inc., 231 Woodlawn Heights Road, Chatham, Virginia Uranium Inc., Energy, Oct. 31, $2,000

(and many, many others who can be found here: http://www.newsleader.com/article/20090126/NEWS01/901260301 )

Uranium is Costly: Bill For Nuclear Plant in Missouri Worries Consumer Groups

By Tony Messengerand Virginia Young

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

01/23/2009

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri's energy debate is about to go nuclear.

A state lawmaker filed a bill in the Legislature on Thursday that sets the stage for a battle between utility interests who want to build a new nuclear plant and consumer groups that are leery of the costs.

The action comes the day after AmerenUE chief executive Tom Voss visited key decision makers in the Capitol to lobby for the bill.

The bill, filed by the Legislature's most senior member — Sen. Delbert Scott, R-Lowry City — would allow investor-owned utility AmerenUE to raise its rates while the nuclear plant in Callaway County is under construction.

The cost for the plant has been estimated at $6 billion or more. The project has been hailed by industry executives and politicians of both parties as a much-needed economic boost to the state. The plant would provide thousands of jobs over a decade or so of construction.

Under Missouri's current law, approved by voters in a ballot initiative in 1976, utility companies are barred from passing costs of a new plant on to consumers until the plant is operating. The law is generally referred to as "construction work in progress," or CWIP.

Changing the law would allow the financing costs of nuclear, wind and solar energy to be added to the rates as the facilities are built. The bill would also apply to coal plants that use the latest technology to reduce carbon emissions.

Scott said the bill addresses two issues: Having adequate power supplies and keeping the cost of energy down.

"If you wait, the cost is going to be a lot higher and you'll have a huge spike in electric rates. This way, we'll continue with low-cost energy and plenty of energy in the state of Missouri," he said.

Scott will face a battle from consumer groups, who say they aren't opposed to a nuclear plant but don't believe Ameren should be able to charge consumers until it is built. By repealing the current law, the utility would have no incentive to keep costs down, said John Coffman, a lobbyist for the Consumers Council of Missouri.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/8884C1FB4EFF0A0086257547000BC446?OpenDocument

Nuclear-Weapons Material From WW2 Found in Garbage Dump

Friday, January 23, 2009

FOX News

One of the most dangerous substances known to man was found in an unlikely place: a garbage dump.

Workers cleaning up the Hanford Site, a huge Department of Energy cleanup site in southeastern Washington state, came across an old safe buried in a pit.

Cracking it open, they found a glass bottle — which turned out to contain plutonium made for the Manhattan Project in 1945.

Plutonium is extremely radioactive, and even a tiny amount could cause lung cancer in a human who breathed it in. But this wasn't just any plutonium — this was an extremely pure sample of the fissile isotope plutonium-239, used to make atomic bombs such as the one dropped on Nagasaki.

In fact, except for a tiny sample stored at the Smithsonian Institution, the 400 milliliters from the bottle is the oldest batch of plutonium-239 in existence. It's not enough to make a nuclear weapon, but it'd be plenty for terrorist to manufacture a "dirty bomb" with.

All the other sizable samples of plutonium-239 from 1945 went into the Nagasaki bomb or the Trinity nuclear-test bomb that preceded it. It's not clear why this batch was left out — or how it came to end up in a sealed safe abandoned in a landfill on the Hanford site.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481986,00.html

Bill Limiting Uranium Mining Reintroduced in U.S. House

AZ Daily Sun

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Environmental groups are re-introducing legislation to put a little more than 1 million acres of federal land on the Colorado Plateau off-limits to most new uranium mining.

The measure would not impact existing claims where miners have proven they have viable deposits, but is a response to renewed uranium mining interest in the region, spurred by rising prices. U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, reintroduced the legislation Thursday, along with U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor of Arizona.

The bill would limit exploration north and south of the Grand Canyon, including in the Kaibab National Forest near Tusayan, in House Rock Valley, and near Kanab Creek. The measure is supported by the Grand Canyon Trust, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club.

At the same time, the environmental groups are also asking the new interior secretary, Ken Salazar, to put in place temporary measures they requested last year that would temporarily ban uranium mining until the House and Senate could vote on Grijalva's bill.

"The easiest course of action would be for the Obama administration to do a mineral withdrawal," said Taylor McKinnon, of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Last year a House divided committee chaired by Grijalva passed a measure directing former Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to put these lands off limits. Kempthorne declined, calling the committee's direction possibly illegal without a full vote of the House and Senate.

The groups filed suit in response.

-- Sun staff report

http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/01/24/news/local/20090124_local_189568.txt

Judge to Rule Monday in Gold Mine Fight

Posted on January 25, 2009 by gregornot

RENO, Nev. (AP) — A federal judge intends to rule Monday on a complicated legal battle that pits religious and environmental concerns against the economic interests of hundreds of Nevada miners and the world’s biggest gold mining company.

Conservationists and Western Shoshone tribal members are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt part of a huge gold mine project they claim would desecrate a sacred landmark where many have worshipped for centuries on Mount Tenabo in northeast Nevada.

“This case is about one very big, very destructive mine and about one special, unique and very important place - so important that people come hundreds of miles to pray there to their creator,” said Roger Flynn, a lawyer for the tribe and the Great Basin Resource Watch.

http://gregornot.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/judge-to-rule-monday-in-gold-mine-fight/

Grijalva Digs in Heels to Halt Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon

January 23, 2009, 4:20 p.m.

Tucson Citizen

letters@tucsoncitizen.com

The Grand Canyon isn't in U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva's district, but it's in his state, his country and clearly has a special place in his heart.

So it was no surprise Thursday when Grijalva reintroduced legislation that would stop mining for uranium and other minerals on about 1 million acres around Grand Canyon National Park.

Tucson's congressman is determined to protect the Canyon and other public lands throughout the nation.

Bush administration officials had defied his efforts at virtually every turn, but public lands conservation likely faces a far brighter future under President Obama.

We wish Grijalva godspeed in winning enactment of the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2009.

The legislation would stop exploratory drilling for uranium near the South Rim - an activity the U.S. Forest Service allowed last year in Kaibab National Forest.

Mining exploration also is under way on the North Rim on acreage under Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction.

In neither case were environmental impacts studied before the drilling was allowed.

Furthermore, old uranium mine sites in northern Arizona, particularly on Navajo lands, have yet to be completely cleaned up, and serious health problems among tribal and other rural residents have been linked to those old uranium mines.

Last June, Grijalva invoked a rarely used House rule to issue an emergency declaration, ordering an immediate halt to uranium mining activity on more than 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon.

The Bush administration blithely ignored the order.

The declaration still is in effect, though. And we urge Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to implement that order once he has settled into his new position.

The emergency declaration could stop the mining immediately, albeit temporarily, for a three-year term.

The new legislation, by comparison, could take longer to enact. But it would impose permanent protections in the Grand Canyon's buffer zones.

Ultimately, however, the action desperately needed is a full overhaul of the antiquated Mining Law of 1872.

Under that law, claims may be staked and mined without any fees paid for the minerals extracted - or, for that matter, any cleanup conducted of the despoiled sites.

In this day and age, when our natural resources and energy reserves are of utmost importance, it is outrageous to allow such unregulated exploitation on public lands.

We hope the new Congress will reform the mining law as well. But first, stop the drilling near Grand Canyon - stop it now.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/fromcomments/108465.php

Uranium Santoy Down 12% -- Go, Santoy!

Oh, Walter...dude...bummer!

Santoy Resources Ltd (TSX Venture Exchange)

sector: Basic Materials . industry: Precious Metals & Minerals ·

As of 23 Jan 2009

0.11CAD Price Change -0.01 Percent Change -12.00%

Uranium Mining: SCC Members Make Excellent Points; Ask Important Questions

Excellent Letters to the Editor from SCC members:

Chatham Star-Tribune

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: January 23, 2009

Would anyone tell us if there was a leak at Coles Hill?

To the editor:
Going to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors’ meeting Tuesday was an eye-opener!

I attended hoping to see Supervisor Marshall Ecker’s proposal adopted to limit the board chairman to a one-year term. But through an off-hand remark by a county resident during the meeting, the audience learned there had been a liner breach at one of the county landfill’s cells. The remark came and went, but some of the uninformed audience members did some sleuthing.

Mmmm ... seems the landfill leak was discovered in March 2008, but the first discussion of it turns up four months later. Supposedly, the problem was addressed and there was a paltry $1,300 levied that the county taxpayers had to pay.

County residents are just learning of this landfill leak in January 2009? Why wasn’t the public informed about the landfill liner breach and its subsequent land and groundwater contamination, especially since the amount — “a significant volume of leachate” — contained “metals and organic constituents?”

The public (the county taxpayers) had to pay the fine. Why were they not informed of this landfill leak? Why wasn’t their input sought? Why weren’t they notified that a potential health and environmental danger was being investigated?

Was the Board of Supervisors afraid that going public would reflect poorly on their handling/enforcement of the county’s waste ordinances?

What happened to the “facility personnel” who were responsible for the “periodic checks” of the landfill site? Were they dismissed? Did they attend workshops to sharpen up their environmental contamination detection skills?

There are many unanswered questions that the board should retroactively address to allay public fears (unfounded or not).

Where is the exact location of the landfill leakage? How much land and groundwater contamination actually occurred? What were the “metal and organic constituents” and in what amounts? Did the county use a Band-aid approach to remediate the leak, or did it actually contain and remediate the contamination?

Scary thought: Would the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors be as forthcoming with information regarding the breach of a uranium mine tailings liner that had been leaking radioactive and heavy metal contaminants into the surrounding land and groundwater for four months? When would they notify the public of such a leak? Would we find it out after reviewing the upcoming agenda in a supervisors’ meeting packet?

Oh, that’s right. Maintenance of uranium mining tailings are “regulated,” and the DEQ and other oversight agencies would notify the public immediately about a liner leak.

Right?

ANNE COCKRELL

Danville

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

They’re off to a bad start

To the editor:

Did the Danville Register & Bee accuse concerned citizens as vilifiers of politicians, “Bought and paid for?” (Jan. 18, page A10)?

Forgive us if we have grave reservations regarding the proposed uranium mining study. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission came through the back door in order to give Virginia Uranium Inc. what it lobbied for — and was denied — during the last General Assembly. The news media has reported that all commission members are recipients of contributions from either VUI, their lobbying firms or both. This information is factual and not a vilification of anyone.

In the absence of meaningful public discussion and debate, we are left to speculate about the intent and actions of the self-appointed overseers of the uranium study. The public hearing allowed us to ask questions that the Coal and Energy Commission is under no obligation to explore. It appears that the Coal and Energy Commission, in its motion to circumvent the General Assembly, is unanimous in encouraging two studies.

One mandate of their motion urges the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research to enter into an agreement with (we know not whom) to conduct a wide-ranging study on the impact of uranium mining in the commonwealth. Notice how easily the Coal and Energy Commission outsourced the responsibility for technical and engineering aspects to the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research? Why involve the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research? Perhaps funding is involved.

The 1985 Coal and Energy Commission report to the General Assembly notes, “At a meeting held on Nov. 2, 1984, in Blacksburg, the Subcommittee was taken through the offices and laboratories of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research Center and the Mining and Engineering Department at VPI & SU. At times, during the tour, Subcommittee members noted the inadequacy of financial support given these important research programs. Some of the equipment being used was 30 years old or older. It seemed to the subcommittee members that there is a pressing need for more funds for these research programs.”

Let’s do the math — 1984 plus 30 years ... it must be funding time again.

A second mandate in the Coal and Energy Commission’s motion to initiate a uranium study addresses human health concerns. It resolves, “That the Commission, through its subcommittee, with assistance if necessary, of the Center (for Coal and Energy Research) undertake the study of other economic, environmental, public health and social issues affecting nearby communities, the region and the commonwealth as a whole ...”

To which nearby communities are they referring? Since only Virginia Uranium is lobbying to mine at Coles Hill, that would be us! So much for a statewide study.

I, for one, do not feel members of the Coal and Energy Commission and their subcommittee members have the expertise to determine the economic, environmental, public health and social issues resulting from uranium mining and milling in Pittsylvania County — and most certainly, not for the whole of Virginia.

If the Coal and Energy Commission wishes to earn our trust and respect, they’re off to a bad start. The Danville Register & Bee can call that vilification if they like.

KAREN B. MAUTE

Mount Cross

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/uranium_mining1/8632/

Uranium Offers Clean Energy, Economic Benefits...huh?

Mr. Cole is a bit misguided. Nuclear power might not leave a large carbon footprint but that hardly makes it clean. Mining and milling are filthy, contaminating, and deadly...for hundreds of thousands of years. Haven't you been listening to SCC, Mr. Cole? Or reading all the articles on the internet about uranium mining/milling? Or are you an investor? Ms. Dix posted an apropos reply to your letter...included below.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:47 AM EST

The Coal and Energy Commission has an important job to accomplish, and last week's session allowed the public an opportunity to be involved in the process.

Instead, as I understand it, Southside Concerned Citizens members and those they rally slandered the board members, accusing them of corruption.

They threw away their opportunity to suggest what they would like included in the study.

Move on folks. The study is approved and going forward.

Not everyone agrees with their viewpoints, and many other citizens support a new industry opportunity.

Threatening and abusive outbursts have greatly diminished any cause they might have or will have in the future.

The fact is we use immense amounts of energy and it is unreasonable to continue importing energy and exporting jobs abroad.

U.S. power requirements will nearly double in the next two decades from the current energy use.

Conservation and green technology alone are not going to meet the growing demand.

A bleak future looms with the current nationwide recession and an already depressed local economy.

Where mining and oil production are contributors to the economy there are no ghost towns, and on the contrary, bustling business and commerce prevails.

Cole's Hill's ore deposit has great potential and substantial benefits that will create jobs, increase business, and put earnings back into the community while creating a robust and viable economy in the Southside Virginia region.

Fossil fuels provide 75 percent of our power nationwide, but the waste and emissions have altered our climate, polluted our atmosphere, and changed our biosphere.

Solar and wind power is constantly mentioned as the magic bullet, and indeed should be in the future mix; however, it is sporadic, weak and less efficient than other sources. When the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing you have no power.

To produce 1,000 megawatts, a wind farm would cover over 200 square miles, robbing winds that affect climate.

On a large enough scale, wind farms could diminish winds by absorbing energy, creating voids in wind circulation and changing precipitation patterns.

Where's that study?

A solar array would require over 50 square miles. Would you oppose these, too, your own suggestions, I would point out, anywhere near where you live?

In contrast, a nuclear power generation plant covers only one-third of a square mile.

Nuclear energy is the answer, not the problem.

Two power plants in Virginia currently produce 30 percent of Virginia's power. If you complain and oppose nuclear energy, then I suggest turning off your lights and power a week and half per month or one out of every three days.

You're hypocrites using nuclear power and then complaining about it with the "not in my backyard" attitude while enjoying the benefits.

Recent letters attack coal-fired power, so better yet, why not just completely disconnect from the power grid? You're just a consumer like everyone else!

Uranium is already used and processed in Virginia within a highly regulated framework.

Lynchburg to the north has an enrichment facility for nuclear fuels that has been there for some time.

France converted its entire power system to reactors and breeder reactors and enjoys a very clean environment.

I attended a "seminar" a while back sponsored by the Southside Concerned Citizens. The first order of business was making sure no one challenged the SCC agenda.

Pittsylvania County-Chatham SCC Chapter president Gregg Vickrey asked who worked for Virginia Uranium and promptly censored them from making any comments or asking any questions.

The presentation that followed reviewed Virginia Uranium's prospectus, making a negative issue of U.S. corporations and consortiums using outside expertise and external investment.

It is common practice in any industry or business venture to seek outside sources for either consultation or financial investment.

If you own a mutual fund, money market, or stocks, then you are supporting very large corporations and they are not all local.

It is my impression much of the "seminar" was more of an emotional setting with sketchy, erroneous maps, photographs, and a running monologue with no reference, statistics or citations.

Simply put, it was not credible or believable. The fear tactics and shock value works for some, and is easier than trying to get educated or really understand the subject.

I finally left when it digressed into attacks on the democracy in our country and how this is an assault on the residents.

Virginia Uranium remains a locally owned and operated company and has real potential.

Big tobacco dominated the region for centuries and made fortunes killing more people than any nuclear energy ever will.

Coliform bacteria and other agents continue polluting the Dan River Basin and surrounding waterways.

Nitrate and phosphate fertilizers washing into the environment cause serious health problems and poor water quality.

What is the SCC doing about those real environmental problems? Why don't you tend issues already in your own back yard first?

Driving cars, using appliances and enjoying modern living can only come from mining metals. Using natural resources is for your benefit.

Nuclear medicine and x-rays yield more exposure from one visit than living your whole life near a mine or reactor.

Opinions without education or knowledge are the purest form of ignorance.

Read the book "Power to Save the World - The Truth about Nuclear Energy" by Craven, copyright 2007.

Chicken Little really thought the sky was falling and everyone else believed it, too.

The truth is nuclear power is cleaner, will curb the global warming situation, and reduce pollution into our atmosphere and watersheds.

Frank Cole

Sheva

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/01/22/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

As a reply:

Deborah Dix wrote on Jan 21, 2009 1:20 PM:

" Can pro uranium mining people tell me names of the Clean Uranium Mines and locations of mines that does not pollute?

Can Pro uranium mining people tell me the names of the Clean Nuclear Plants never does not pollute?

Can Pro uranium mining people tell me the cost of electric bills cost the French people since they use France as a Role Model?

Can Pro uranium mining people tell me how they clean up the uranium mill tailings and where they are stored the tailings when the mine shuts down?

Can Pro uranium mining people tell me how they reclaim the land and the locations of reclaimed uranium mining locations?

Can Pro uranium mining people tell me how Uranium contamined Orange County, CA (the county supervisors did not inform the citizens of problem with uranium) water which comes from the West where the uranium milling ponds are close to the Green and Colorado River?

I emailed Virginia Uranium, Inc with the questions and they have never responded to my email, I have emailed Areva, they never responded to my email, I emailed all the Canadian companies, they never responded to my questions.

Can the pro uranium people, the pro nuclear power answer my questions?

Why do you not want any Green Power?

Japan depends on Nuclear Power (the local people do not have the choice to oppose nuclear power) but they use other forms of power, I saw huge Wind Mills Farms on their mountains! "