Stimulus Deal Reached...Here’s What’s Green In It (Nuke Is Out!)

From "Climate Progress":

A final deal was reached on a $789 billion stimulus plan (see NYT here). One of the best pieces of news is that the $50 billion in fraudulent budget gimmickry on behalf of the nuclear industry was axed, as posted last night.

There’s also a 3-year extension of the production tax credit for wind and other renewables, which will be crucial to Obama meeting his goal to “double the production of alternative energy in the next three years.” And there’s an expanded tax credit for plug in hybrids, which will be critical for Obama to meet his goal of one million plug-ins by 2015.

The conferees did put back $400 million for DOE’s ARPA-E program, which in normal circumstances would be mostly duplicative of existing DOE R&D programs (see “Note to media on ARPA-E“). But it is new money, and will give Stephen Chu something to chew on quickly.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has distributed a fact sheet on the conference report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Here are the details on what’s green in ARRA (and I’ll also post the science and tech stuff):

Clean, Efficient, American Energy: To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we will increase renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient.

Smart Grid/Advanced Battery Technology/Energy Efficiency

o Provides a total of $30 billion for such initiatives as a new, smart power grid, advanced battery technology, and energy efficiency measures, which will create nearly 500,000 jobs.

o Transforms the nation’s electricity systems through the Smart Grid Investment Program to modernize the electricity grid to make it more efficient and reliable.

o Supports U.S. development of advanced vehicle batteries and battery systems through loans and grants so that America can lead the world in transforming the way automobiles are powered.

o Helps state and local governments make investments in innovative best practices to achieve greater energy efficiency and reduce energy usage.

o Spurs energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D.

Tax Incentives to Spur Energy Savings and Green Jobs

o Provides $20 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency over the next 10 years.

o Includes a three-year extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for electricity derived from wind (through 2012) and for electricity derived from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, waste-to-energy, and marine facilities (through 2013).

o Provides grants of up to 30 percent of the cost of building a new renewable energy facility to address current renewable energy credit market concerns.

o Promotes energy-efficient investments in homes by extending and expanding tax credits through 2010 for purchases such as new furnaces, energy-efficient windows and doors, or insulation.

o Provides a tax credit for families that purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles of up to $7,500 to spur the next generation of American cars.

o Includes clean renewable energy bonds for State and local governments.

o Establishes a new manufacturing investment tax credit for investment in advanced energy facilities, such as facilities that manufacture components for the production of renewable energy, advanced battery technology, and other innovative next-generation green technologies.

Landmark Energy Savings at Home

o Provides $5 billion for landmark provisions to improve the energy efficiency of more than 1 million modest-income homes through weatherization.

o This will save modest-income families on average $350 per year on their heating and air conditioning bills.

Repairing Public Housing and Making Key Energy Efficiency Retrofits to HUD-Assisted Housing

o Provides a total of $6.3 billion for increasing energy efficiency in federally-supported housing programs.

o Specifically, establishes a new program to upgrade HUD-sponsored low-income housing (elderly, disabled, and Section to increase energy efficiency, including new insulation, windows, and frames.

o Also invests in energy efficiency upgrades in public housing, including new windows, furnaces, and insulation to improve living conditions for residents and lower the cost of operating these facilities.

All in all, an impressive down payment on the transition to a clean energy economy.

Here’s the science and tech stuff (which includes ARPA-E):

Transform our Economy with Science and Technology: To secure America’s role as a world leader in a competitive global economy, we are renewing America’s investments in basic research and development, in training students for an innovation economy, and in deploying new technologies into the marketplace. This will help businesses in every community succeed in a global economy.

Investing in Scientific Research (More than $15 Billion)

o Provides $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, for basic research in fundamental science and engineering — which spurs discovery and innovation.

o Provides $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which funds research in such areas as climate science, biofuels, high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy sciences — areas crucial to our energy future.

o Provides $400 million for the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to support high-risk, high-payoff research into energy sources and energy efficiency in collaboration with industry.

o Provides $580 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, including the Technology Innovation Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

o Provides $8.5 billion for NIH, including expanding good jobs in biomedical research to study diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, and heart disease.

o Provides $1 billion for NASA, including $400 million to put more scientists to work doing climate change research.

o Provides $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete for biomedical research grants.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/12/stimulus-deal-reached-heres-whats-green-it-it/

Educate Yourself on Dangers of Uranium Mining

Excellent letter, Irene!

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST

Uranium has never been mined safely anywhere in the world, in the past nor in the present, and it won't be minded safely here in Virginia.

People have suffered from uranium mining in thousands of ways.

Air, water, soil, plants, animals, homes, things you touch and eat, your hair and everything else around each person and for hundreds of miles around a mine, gets polluted by radioactive uranium, radon or other poisonous by-products of mining.

Once uranium and radon have been released and extracted from the ground, you can be sure it will find its way into your food, clothing, water, homes and, of course, your cells and DNA.

You may experience sicknesses of all kinds, including cancer.

Please protect your family and yourself by educating yourself about uranium mining and what it really is.

Don't take the word of politicians, mining company technicians and scientists paid by the mining companies, or, for that matter anyone else, nor mine either.

You won't get rich or even get a job. Specially trained people will be imported to do jobs you think you will get.

The economy in our area will not get richer.

You will see people sicker, home and land values go down the drain forever, and your family will suffer for the rest of the generations.

DNA changes do not show up immediately, but will be in your children, grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren and so on.

Also your water and soil and homes will never get cleaned up because radioactive materials don't disappear.

Once our area is polluted, it will stay polluted for hundreds of years.

The mines in Australia, quoted often as examples of safe mining are some of the worst polluters of all, causing great harm to thousands of people and thousands of acres of land.

Don't take my word for it, but look it up for yourself. Look up "dangers of uranium mining" and find out what "curse" would be brought upon us if we allow uranium mining in our state anywhere.

It is worse than terrorism, the turn-down in our economy and anything else you can think of.

If you neglect to get involved to fight for your home, family, health and anything dear to you, then you are allowing people who have no interest in you or our community to open a Pandora's box that will spew out poisons that will eat up everything you and we are and have.

We can't be complacent. I went through World War II. No one thought it was really going to get to us, and so we did nothing. We then were swallowed up in the horrors of war and our lives were changed forever.

This is worse; we will never recover from the pollution that uranium mining will bring! So don't allow it to happen right under our noses.

Educate yourself first, then educate your grown children, then get involved educating neighbors and friends and join organizations that are fighting uranium mining.

If you look up "dangers of uranium mining" and follow some of the links given you there, look at some of the movies, you will see how bad uranium mining would be for our area, and you can join organizations that can fight for you.

Look up Danville VA-SCC against uranium mining.

Just think what the flooding of 1996, which covered many towns in this area including Coles Hill where the mines would have been, would have done to all our water sources and wells, land, trees, gardens, homes, animals.

Don't think pollution couldn't happen here.

I pray and hope this letter will inspire some people to educate themselves on this important subject which will affect their lives in the near future if nothing is done to stop uranium mining.

Irene Buss

Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/12/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

Radiation is All Around Us

I'm afraid, Mr. Enns, that this "alarmist rhetoric" as you call it is really "the facts" as you seek them. The reality of uranium mining is very, very ugly...and deadly. The only way to make it palatable is to sugar-coat it...which disguises it as "safe" when there's not a "safe" uranium mine anywhere in the world.

By Published by The Editorial Board
Danville Register & Bee

Published: February 12, 2009

To the editor:
The author of, “Let’s put uranium mining to a vote,” (Jan. 28, page A10), seemed outraged that uranium mining is being contemplated in Southside Virginia, writing, “Zero risk is the only acceptable risk regarding a radioactive substance.”

I can’t help but wonder if he has ever had to refer a patient for a CT or PET scan or MRI to identify possible cancer? I guess those against this facility are against life-saving diagnosis and treatment.

A few minutes spent searching the Internet produced information from multiple scientific sources indicating that the levels of radiation exposure to uranium miners, international airline crews and U.S. nuclear industry employees are all lower than that administered to patients by nuclear medical technology.

And for that matter, I challenge anyone to name one risk-free activity that we undertake, either as individuals on a daily basis or as a human race? The knowledge of an element of risk is no more enough to stop us from driving our cars than it was to prevent us from putting a man on the moon.

When Marie Curie and her counterparts discovered that uranium possessed the property of radioactivity, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for physics. This was more than 100 years ago, and science involving uranium has resulted in improvements in many areas of our daily lives, from forensics to medicine to agriculture and food safety.

Our region has an opportunity to combat this major economic shift our nation is experiencing. When was the last time we received exciting economic news? I guess physicians are immune to such downturns like the rest of us.

I have lived in Central Virginia for eight years and call it home, and I would never want to harm it or my neighbors.

I agree 20th century mining technology was faulty; however, we have moved into a new age of technology. I encourage all to seek out other states that have adopted uranium policies — and the positive benefits they have created.

I’m neither a doctor nor a physicist, but rather a concerned Virginian seeking education on the risks and benefits of mining uranium. The facts will serve us all better than alarmist rhetoric.

LUKE ENNS

Rustburg

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/more_than_just_need_radiation_and_it_wont_work/8980/

Chatham Mulls Updating Uranium Resolution

By John Crane

Published: February 11, 2009

The towns of Hurt and Gretna have passed resolutions on uranium mining this month, and now Chatham is mulling a resolution of its own to replace the previous one the town passed a year ago.

Chatham Mayor George O. Haley said he wants to bring the town’s resolution up to par with the other towns’ more detailed documents.

“Their resolutions were a little more comprehensive than ours,” Haley said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.

Chatham passed a simple resolution on Feb. 11, 2008, asking the state’s General Assembly not to consider scrapping Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining unless a thorough, independent study finds uranium mining and milling safe.

A year later, the situation has changed. Senate bill 525, which called for a study, was tabled in the House Rules Committee in March 2008. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study in November to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences or a comparable institution.

Also, Gretna and Hurt have passed resolutions calling for the study to meet certain criteria. Both request the entire process be open to the press and public and that the respective towns be allowed to participate in the study. Both also call for a peer-review group separate from the parties conducting the study and made up of representatives from agencies in environmental public health, water supply and resources, air quality and the Army Corps of Engineers to monitor and critique the study. In addition, the towns want ample time and adequate funding for the study. And the study must be thorough, unbiased and conducted by an agency outside the mining industry.

Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, asked the Chatham Town Council during its regular meeting Monday night to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.

Nenon wants the resolution to be broader than those passed in Gretna and Hurt and to include a request for a parallel study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation or other comparable institution. Nenon would like to see a study cover quality-of-issues separate from “hard science” aspects.

Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council. Haley said he is anti-uranium mining but supports a study to determine whether it can be done safely. Chatham’s original resolution was “not as comprehensive as I would like for it to be,” he said. However, “it was a step in the right direction,” Haley said.

Besides public health and environmental issues, Haley said he is also concerned about the aesthetic effects uranium mining and milling would yield.

“What are we going to look like physically when this takes place?” Haley said.

Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, who heads the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee, said the study process will be open and honest. Ware said the towns’ resolutions will not fall on deaf ears.

“There is no question that we are highly interested in and attuned to the views of those who are the most directly affected,” Ware said.

Ware said the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will present the scope of the study at the subcommittee’s next meeting. A date and time have not been set. The NAS would examine the study’s language next, Ware said. The NAS would probably designate about a dozen or 15 internationally known scientists to conduct the study, Ware said.

The study will take about 18 months.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/chatham_mulls_updating_uranium_resolution/8991/

Gretna Town Council Targets Uranium

By SUSAN WORLEY/Star-Tribune Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

GRETNA - Gretna Town Council passed a resolution Monday night addressing concerns about the possibility of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County.

The town endorses the concept of asking the National Academy of Sciences to join the Coal and Energy Commission on the state study that is under way.

The town takes the position that unless mining and milling can be done safely, Gretna opposes the lifting of the state moratorium enacted in 1983.

"That unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air, the Town of Gretna is opposed to the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium mining," states the resolution.

The town stresses that a study should include a thorough evaluation of the risks, including those resulting from natural events such as floods.

Also safeguards must be in place to protect the environment, agricultural lands and the health and well-being of citizens.

The town would like for the study process to be open to the public and the press.

Since Gretna is the closest town to the site, a town representative should be included in the study, not for influence, but to make sure the town is kept informed.

It is a non-binding resolution that is simply the expression of the position of the town, said town attorney Michael Turner.

Joe Aylor, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium Inc., which plans to mine the site, grew up in Gretna.

He said there are 119 million pounds of uranium at Coles Hill which could mean between 300 and 500 jobs for the long term.

"The jobs would mean economic gains for the community and Pittsylvania County," said Aylor.

He invited those present to visit the VUI office in Chatham or the proposed site to better understand what uranium mining means for the community.

Aylor said the resolution basically mirrors what the state is already doing.

Bunny Eanes, who represents a group that earlier asked council to pass a resolution addressing uranium mining, said she is very concerned.

"The studies I have seen don't address the long range effects in this area's climate and rainfall," said Eanes.

"I'm worried about my grandchildren. The jobs all sound fine and well, but I don't think jobs are worth the health of our community."

The resolution will be forwarded to the town's Congressional and General Assembly delegations.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/11/chatham/news/news53.txt

Gretna Residents Applaud Hurt Action

Deborah Lovelace has sent us the following message in response to the article below:
(http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/02/hurt-enters-uranium-fight.html)

Notice in the story [above article] how Patrick Wales says Hurt does not need a resolution (mine) and then hands them one (his). The Town Council saw right through hi[m].

It should be noted that Deborah and her husband Phillip have been extremely active in the anti-mining movement...they are life-long residents of Pittsylvania Co. and don't want to see the land of their forefathers...or their grandchildren's grandchilren...destroyed.


Deborah also sends the following article (captioned above...Gretna Residents Applaud Hurt Action):

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:22 AM EST

My husband and I are very pleased with the decision by Hurt Town Council to approve a resolution on behalf of their townspeople asking for representation from Hurt to oversee an unbiased uranium study. This certainly shows that Hurt Town Council really cares about the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.

We think it is commendable of Mr. Tommy Neal for his leadership on this matter by making the motion to adopt this, and we would like to thank him and council personally and on behalf of all the citizens of Hurt. Mr. Neal made his career by protecting citizens and certainly showed at the meeting he is still doing so.

All towns, counties, businesses, churches and civic organizations should follow Hurt's fine example and put in their own resolutions. Your livelihood is going to be decided by others if you don't take action to protect yourself!

All citizens should call or write your local and state representatives to make sure they protect you. Citizens, you need to get involved; don't leave it up to someone else or it won't get done. Take your future, your children's future and your grandchildren's future into your own hands or you will get mined!

Don't believe those who will say that the government will come in and take this uranium if they want it. The United States Department of Energy Office of Public Affairs just released their Excess Uranium Inventory Plan Dec. 16, 2008, and how they plan to sell part of it. A total of 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake from Iraq was shipped to Canada (Cameco bought it) by the U.S. military, which cost the taxpayers $70 million. If we really needed uranium, we would have brought this 550 metric tons here and we would not be selling our excess uranium!

If you need any help with resolutions, education information or anything else we can do, please do not hesitate to call us at 434-656-2046 or e-mail us at lovelace1265@fairpoint.net.

We do not belong to any groups, but are concerned citizens, parents and grandparents. We are trying to do our part to get the word out. Won't you do your part also?

Deborah Lovelace
Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/11/altavista/opinion/opinion02.txt

We appreciate all that the Lovelaces do and continue to do...their commitment is enduring and their efforts tireless.

Skilled Workforce Ready For Uranium Mining

I don't suppose we could actually see some of the job descriptions and/or specific "skill sets" and qualifications that have been identified, could we? Also, since all the articles on this topic which have preceded this one have identified the area having the "qualified workforce" as "southwest Virginia", which is coal-mining country, how does that translate to Southside, Virginia? Will Santoy/VUI be importing its workforce from southwest Virginia? That certainly wouldn't help Southside's unemployment problem, assuming it still exists several years from now when the legislature is in the position to even consider lifting the moratorium, assuming (again) that the legislature is ever in that position. Not only is the cart before the horse, they're in the wrong part of the field! Let's not be misled here, folks.

SB

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST

An independent panel of experts has confirmed that the skilled workforce needed for the development of uranium in Pittsylvania County is ready and waiting in Southside Virginia, according to a report filed with the Canadian Securities Administrators this week.

"Mining personnel can reasonably be recruited from the local area, as the skill sets needed for miners exist already among people and companies who are comfortable with farming and heavy equipment," stated the report.

The technical report was submitted by Virginia Uranium Inc.'s minority investor, Santoy Resources of Vancouver, Canada. (A copy of the full report can be found at http://www.santoy.ca/i/pdf/43-101ColesHill.pdf .)

The report comes as good news to the Danville area, which continues to have, "by far, the highest metropolitan area jobless rate," according to a Virginia Employment Commission report released last week.

According to unemployment statistics, Danville's unemployment rate is 11.5 percent, which is nearly double the unemployment rate of all other metropolitan areas in Virginia.

"This is important news for our company, as well as this region," said Norm W. Reynolds, chairman and chief executive officer of Virginia Uranium.

"We are all painfully aware of the unemployment figures in the city of Danville, Pittsylvania, Halifax and Henry counties where we would expect to draw the bulk of our 400-500 workers, if the Commonwealth of Virginia decides to permit the development of the Coles Hill resource."

The report is the work of Behre Dolbear & Company, LTD., Marshall Miller and Associates Inc. and PAC Geological Consulting Inc.

The report, called a "National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report," is required by the Canadian Securities Administrators, and amounts to a technical and scientific audit of the project.

It also confirmed previous analysis of the mineralization at the Coles Hill site, maintaining that the uranium deposit is "relatively clean" and "does not contain quantities of heavy metals that are typical of some uranium deposits of the southwestern United States."

Virginia Uranium is a Virginia corporation established in 2007 by the Coles and Bowen families to begin preliminary work on the development of one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the United States, which is located at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/11/chatham/news/news66.txt

More on Santoy/VUI

Thomson Financial Mergers & Acquisitions

Title:	Santoy Resources Ltd acquires Coles Hill Uranium Deposit,VA (pending)
Price:	$36.00
Publication Date:	Feb 05, 2009
Abstract:	US - Santoy Resources Ltd planned to acquire Coles Hill uranium deposit, located in Virginia, a uranium mining property.
Acquirer:	Santoy Resources Ltd
Acquirer Business Discription:	Uranium mining co
Acquirer SIC Code:	1094 - Uranium-radium-vanadium ores
Target Name:	Coles Hill Uranium Deposit,VA
Target Business Description:	Uranium mining ppty
Target SIC Code:	1094 - Uranium-radium-vanadium ores
Please Note:	Target Financials are not included in this report. Transaction Statistics are not included in this report.
Format:	Adobe Acrobat
Free Sample:	Click Here to Download http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/Thomson_M&A/Santoy_Resources_Ltd_acquires_Coles_Hill_Uranium_Deposit_VA-2048553020

Hurt Enters Uranium Fight

More details on the Hurt Town Council's action and resolution re: uranium mining:

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:21 AM EST

Hurt Town Council plowed into the uranium issue last week by adopting a resolution against lifting Virginia's moratorium on mining without substantial assurance against negative impacts.

Meeting Feb. 3, council's resolution also supported "an unbiased, scientific study of the potential impacts of uranium mining and milling in Virginia" by an independent group, like the National Academy of Sciences. It also laid out conditions for the study, including representation by the town.

Pittsylvania County is home to what is believed to be the largest uranium deposit in the United States. That deposit about six miles northeast of Chatham is worth an estimated $10 billion. Virginia Uranium Inc. was formed two years ago to explore the possibility of mining the material.

On Monday, Virginia Uranium sent out a news release saying the skilled workforce needed for a uranium operation is available in Southside Virginia.

Following last week's meeting, Councilman Tommy Neal said he moved to adopt the resolution because Hurt residents don't want a nearby uranium operation.

"And we represent the town citizens. ... If they're going to mine that stuff around here, they need to make sure it's safe," Neal said.

The resolution passed in a 5-0 vote. Councilwoman Lorraine (Rainy) Clay was absent. The vote came after council heard from uranium opponents and Virginia Uranium officials.

Deborah Lovelace, one of several opponents at the meeting, said later she was overjoyed by council's action. She said the resolution shows the General Assembly the town cares about the issue.

"The citizens that are going to be affected should certainly have a say in the study process at the very least and whether they even want a mine and milling operation after a fair and unbiased study is done," Lovelace said.

"We need representation on any kind of study," Lovelace said later.

Besides town representation, the resolution said the study process should be open to the public and press, must evaluate risks of uranium mining, including what would happen during natural events like floods, and determine whether the mining and milling could be done in a way that will protect the environment and citizens.

Council also said it opposed lifting the moratorium unless there is "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air under any circumstances." The moratorium was enacted in 1982.

"We don't need to stand back and let someone else do all of our homework for us," said Hurt resident Steve Worley, who read the resolution to council. "Maybe we need to do some, too." He said he's concerned about the health effects and real estate values.

Another town resident, Ed Shelton, urged council not to do anything until the just-started study by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is completed. He said uranium is going to be mined because it will be needed for energy.

Two representatives of Virginia Uranium, Henry Hurt and Patrick Wales, were also at the meeting.

Wales, a geologist and project manager, said health is a paramount concern for the company.

He suggested council didn't need to pass a resolution since a scientific, unbiased study had already started. He said Virginia Uranium is glad to see the study under way. He also gave council a resolution supporting the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's study.

Wales said the study won't automatically lift the moratorium, but will give the General Assembly, regulators and the public the facts to make a better decision. He said if the moratorium is lifted, regulations will have to be written and permits issued, a process that could take up to four years.

On Monday, Virginia Uranium reported that an independent panel of experts had found that the skilled workers needed for development of uranium in the county is available.

"Mining personnel can reasonably be recruited from the local area as the skill sets needed for miners exist already among people and companies who are comfortable with faming and heavy equipment," the news release quoted the report.

"This is important news for our company as well as this region," said Norm W. Reynolds, chairman and chief executive officer of Virginia Uranium. "We are all painfully aware of the unemployment figures in the city of Danville, Pittsylvania, Halifax and Henry counties where we could expect to draw the bulk of our 400-500 workers, if the Commonwealth of Virginia decides to permit the development of the Coles Hill resource."

STORY BY MARK THOMAS/ALTAVISTA JOURNAL EDITOR

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/11/altavista/news/news93.txt

Altavista Considering Resolution Re: Uranium Mining Impact Study

At its regular meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10, the Altavista Town Council took the following action, according to the Altavista Journal:

A resolution supporting Altavista to be part of a study on the impact of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County was referred to the Legislative Committee for a recommendation in March.

Councils in Hurt and Gretna have adopted the same resolution.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/11/altavista/news/news91.txt

Mecklenburg Supervisors Pass Biosolids Ordinance

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

By Lisa Andrews, Staff Writer

BOYDTON — During the regular meeting of the Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors on Monday, an ordinance approving monitoring of the land application of biosolids was approved, which allows the county more oversight of the applications, officials said.

The ordinance will allow the county to work with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to ensure the application and storage of biosolids is done according to state requirements. The county will work with the DEQ by having its own monitor. The county’s monitor will be paid for through the fees that apply when landowners submit applications for using biosolids, officials said.

Biosolids, otherwise known as sludge, are the end result after treating domestic and commercial wastewater or sewage in a wastewater treatment plant. Depending on their level of treatment and resultant pollutant content, biosolids can be used in regulated applications ranging from soil conditioning to fertilizer for food or distribution for other uses.

Fred Dilella, a DEQ water compliance manager, and Gary Wright, a DEQ water inspector, addressed the supervisors with information on how the state monitors biosolids and how they will work with the county’s monitor.

Dilella said, “We have a permitting program which outlines very clearly what treatments must occur for the biosolids to be acceptable and what levels of contaminate. Your basic black soil is what it looks like. We have requirements on buffering, for example, 200 feet from a house, 100 feet from a stream and 100 feet from a well.

“When we go out we make sure that people are abiding by the requirements of the permit. The studies have demonstrated that when applied according to the regulations it is a safe practice. Our job is to make sure that they do apply according to the regulations,” Dilella said.

Wright said, “The permit has a lot of requirements but it is a general thing. The plants up take the nutrients. Other things in the biosolids that people worry about are the heavy metals they get tested on a monthly basis. If the biosolids don’t meet the specifications it goes to the landfill instead.

“We are onsite to see what they are doing. We are trying to get to every site that does land applications to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing,” Wright said.

Mecklenburg County Administrator Wayne Carter said, “This will actually allow us another layer of oversight, ensuring they are applied according to the permit and the guidelines. We will be able to have a local inspector. The person applying has to reimburse us for the cost there is no cost to the county.” The county is not required to have a local monitor.

“I think an important part is for people having concerns that we as an agency have the staff to check all the sites,” Dilella said. “We are probably there during 85 percent of all applications. When we are not there we are checking their storage.

“We hope this will provide some comfort to the public.”

There was no public comment on the ordinance.

Neil Zahradka, manager of DEQ’s Office of Land Applications Programs, said Monday, “(Virginia) DEQ bacterial content standards limiting the amount of heavy metals present in biosolids are the same as the federal regulations.

“Biosolids are most often applied to fields where corn, wheat and soybeans are grown. Biosolids can be applied to hayfields and pastures during other times of the year as well.

“A panel of experts was convened in 2007 to respond to several questions from the Virginia General Assembly regarding environmental and health effects of biosolids land application, not just odor. The expert panel finished its work in 2008 and the DEQ maintained a website at: www.deq.virginia.gov/info/biosolidspanel.html.

“The DEQ convened a technical advisory committee to review several aspects of the biosolids regulations, in addition to considering recommendations from the expert panel mentioned above. The DEQ will consider the recommendations of the technical advisory committee as it drafts amendments to the regulations. The State Water Control Board will review, take comment, and the vote on the proposed changes,” Zahradka said.

http://www.vancnews.com/articles/2009/02/11/south_hill/news/news04.txt

Tilting Toward Wind Off Virginia's Coast

The Virginian-Pilot
© February 8, 2009

Despite today's stormy economy, the timing probably couldn't be better for proceeding with an experimental wind farm about 12 miles off Virginia Beach's shoreline.

After years of ignoring or downplaying the nation's energy problems and the significance of global warming, more Americans than ever - including public officials - seem to recognize the urgency of investing in clean, renewable energy resources.

In years past, there was skepticism that a productive wind farm could be safely built off Virginia's coast without interfering with the military, the fishing industry or tourism.

But, as The Pilot's Scott Harper recently reported, a group of scientists and energy experts - asked by the General Assembly in 2006 to generate ideas for green-power projects - has completed a two-year study showing that a wind farm off Virginia Beach would be viable.

The project, which would likely include 196 turbines about 300 feet tall, would cost about $1 billion and create more than 3,000 jobs, according to the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium. Private companies would build the project, and the Navy could be a partner.

The consortium, based at Old Dominion University, includes scientists from multiple universities, Norfolk State and Virginia Tech among them. Other participants include the Virginia Manufacturers Association and the state Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.

As promising as the group's findings are, the next phase is in doubt. The proposed state budget, cut heavily, doesn't include $1 million for a pilot project using a few turbines.

Some options are available, and they should be pursued aggressively. Republican state Sen. Frank Wagner, who represents Virginia Beach, is pushing to shift money from the state's tobacco settlement to help secure federal energy grants.

There's also talk of drawing money from the proposed economic stimulus bill on Capitol Hill. The package includes funds for development of renewable energy resources.

Wind energy alone can't produce enough electricity to meet the state's growing demand. But a broader range of options would make our state and nation less reliant on harmful sources like coal (think mercury emissions and mountaintop removal) and risky options like oil drilling off Virginia's coast.

Virginia's delegation to Congress, particularly Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, should get behind the wind project, which - as one researcher describes it - is "ready to go from theory to practice." In a time of crisis, it is a venture worthy of scarce tax dollars. DESPITE TODAY'S stormy economy, the timing probably couldn't be better for proceeding with an experimental wind farm about 12 miles off Virginia Beach's shoreline.

After years of ignoring or downplaying the nation's energy problems and the significance of global warming, more Americans than ever - including public officials - seem to recognize the urgency of investing in clean, renewable energy resources.

In years past, there was skepticism that a productive wind farm could be safely built off Virginia's coast without interfering with the military, the fishing industry or tourism.

But, as The Pilot's Scott Harper recently reported, a group of scientists and energy experts - asked by the General Assembly in 2006 to generate ideas for green-power projects - has completed a two-year study showing that a wind farm off Virginia Beach would be viable.

The project, which would likely include 196 turbines about 300 feet tall, would cost about $1 billion and create more than 3,000 jobs, according to the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium. Private companies would build the project, and the Navy could be a partner.

The consortium, based at Old Dominion University, includes scientists from multiple universities, Norfolk State and Virginia Tech among them. Other participants include the Virginia Manufacturers Association and the state Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.

As promising as the group's findings are, the next phase is in doubt. The proposed state budget, cut heavily, doesn't include $1 million for a pilot project using a few turbines.

Some options are available, and they should be pursued aggressively. Republican State Sen. Frank Wagner, who represents Virginia Beach, is pushing to shift money from the state's tobacco settlement to help secure federal energy grants.

There's also talk of drawing money from the proposed economic stimulus bill on Capitol Hill. The package includes funds for development of renewable energy resources.

Wind energy alone can't produce enough electricity to meet the state's growing demand. But a broader range of options would make our state and nation less reliant on harmful sources like coal (think mercury emissions and mountaintop removal) and risky options like oil drilling off Virginia's coast.

Virginia's delegation to Congress, particularly Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, should get behind the wind project, which - as one researcher describes it - is "ready to go from theory to practice." In a time of crisis, it is a venture worthy of scarce tax dollars.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/tilting-toward-wind-virginias-coast

Army Uranium Tests Due on Big Isle of Hawaii; Army Hires Contractor to Monitor Levels After Years of Denying Its Use

February 09, 2009

HILO, Hawai'i — The Army plans to measure airborne uranium levels at three monitoring stations on the Big Island over the next 12 months.

It has hired a contractor to do the testing for $150,000.

The move comes after the Army in 2007 said it confirmed the presence of depleted uranium at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island. The Army, after years of denials it used depleted uranium in the Islands, also said soldiers training in Hawai'i fired 714 spotting rounds containing depleted uranium in the 1960s.

Depleted uranium is a byproduct of radioactive enriched uranium and has been used by the U.S. military in bullets and other weapons designed to pierce armor.

The Army and the state say the depleted uranium doesn't threaten public health.

But some researchers suspect exposure to depleted uranium may have caused chronic fatigue and other symptoms in veterans of the first Gulf War, but there is no conclusive evidence it has.

Col. Howard Killian, the deputy director of the Pacific Region for the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, told the Public Works Committee of the Hawai'i County Council about the tests Tuesday.

Big Island residents have expressed concerns over the depleted uranium, prompting the county council last year to pass a resolution calling on the military to halt live firing exercises until it is known whether depleted uranium is present at the site.

The Army, however, has not stopped exercises.

Peace activists Jim Albertini of Kurtistown said the council should urge the state to cancel the Army's lease for Pohakuloa because the military failed to honor the council resolution.

Sierra Club member Cory Hardin said she doesn't understand how the Army can conclude there is no radiation danger when the studies are not completed.

Howard Sugai, chief public affairs officer for the Army's Pacific region, said the Army is confident there is no health risk "because of what we know about depleted uranium."

South Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford and Puna Councilwoman Emily Naeole expressed concerns that the Army hasn't invited Maui resident Dr. Lorrin Pang, a former Army doctor and World Health Organization consultant, to serve on a community advisory council formed to study the situation.

Pang is perhaps the most noted of the scientists to express concerns about depleted uranium at Pohakuloa, and some residents and county officials would feel more comfortable if he were to serve on the Army's advisory council.

Army officials said Tuesday that Pang was excluded from the advisory council because he is not a Big Island resident, but that his inclusion will be considered.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4750

Group [Founder] Calls for Uranium Mining Solution

The National Trust for Historic Preservation angle sounds interesting. Hope someone follows up on getting them involved.

Published: February 9, 2009

BY JOHN R. CRANE

Register & Bee staff writer

CHATHAM — A founding member of Southside Concern Citizens asked the Chatham Town Council to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.

The resolution needs to be broader than the one passed by the town of Hurt last week, Eloise Nenon, SCC founding member, said to Chatham Town Council members Monday night. Like Hurt’s, Chatham’s resolution should call for the study to open to scrutiny by the press and public, but another study should address concerns not covered in the study’s “hard science” aspects, Nenon said.

“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,” Nenon said during Chatham Town Council’s regular meeting.

Nenon praised Hurt’s move, but said a study by the National Academy of Science, or another similar entity, would not cover issues such as the community, heritage or history of Chatham and Pittsylvania County or quality-of-life issues.

Nenon said Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall could be vulnerable to the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling.

Other questions Nenon wants answered is what type of emergency plan Chatham has in place in case of disaster.

Nenon also wants to know the names of at least five communities with similar geography to Pittsylvania County that have had uranium mining and milling but have not suffered environmental consequences. In addition, Nenon asked who would be held liable in the event of a disaster at Coles Hill.

Dust at uranium mining sites has never been controlled, she said.

“Are we destined to become the Pittsylvania dustbowl?” Nenon said.

Nenon said the National Trust for Historic Preservation could possibly conduct a separate study.

The town of Chatham passed a resolution opposing the lifting of the state’s moratorium against uranium mining in the absence of a thorough study in February 2008. Chatham Mayor George Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council.

VUI wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.

Patrick Wales, a geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc, said profits made from mining and milling at Coles Hill would go toward land conservation and maintaining the area’s history and agriculture. VUI would impose an excise tax on itself and use the funds to help pay for initiatives to improve the county’s schools, Wales said during a phone interview Monday night after the meeting.

All VUI has asked for is a study to determine the safety of mining and milling uranium, he said. Also, the study has nothing to do with lifting the moratorium on mining, he said. That decision will be up to the General Assembly, Wales said.

John Crane can be reached at jcrane@registerbee.com or (434) 791-7987.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/group_calls_for_uranium_mining_solution/8924/

Many Oppose Uranium Jobs [Should Read: Many Don't Believe There Will Ever Be 300-500 Jobs at Coles Hill; Question Safety of Any/All ]

Note: I would have those believing that there will be tons of good-paying jobs should VUI actually mine Coles Hill to ask themselves this question: How many coal miners have you ever seen or heard of that have the standard of living you aspire to?

Mining owners and officials might quite comfortable, but the miners struggle financially every day. Visit the coal-mining areas of Virginia...see how many miners you find that have mining jobs which started at $65-70K annually (adjusted for inflation, of course). Ask how many are making that kind of money now and how many years they've had to work to get to this salary.

Pittsylvania Co., VA -

It's led to a lot of heated debate in Pittsylvania County. Should a company be allowed to mine uranium there? There are millions of pounds of the stuff - worth billions of dollars. But folks are worried about the side effects. Virginia Uranium Incorporated is pumping the economic benefits, in the form of 300 to 500 jobs, with starting salaries of $65,000 to $70,000.

With having a job almost a luxury these days, news of hundreds of possible openings is eye opening.

Pamela Watkins - "I would say... give me one!"

Sandra Barnes - "I would be saying hooray! You know, a lot of our problem here is we're really suffering because we have no jobs left."

That many jobs at that salary, sounds pretty good right now. A stop at the Community Services building, will put the economic squeeze into perspective fast.

Jay Browns, Pittsylvania Co. Community Services - "Lines out the doors. A lot of times, we open at 8:30 each day, and a lot of times when we get here, the parking lot is full and there is a line waiting to get in to apply for benefits."

But that enthusiasm is terrifying to people like Eloise Nenon. She's spent hours fighting the mining industry.

Eloise Nenon, Against Mining - "In areas where they have uranium mining you have horrendous birth defects, you have rampant lung cancer, and many other physical problems."

Health doesn't seem to concern the people we spoke with. They say they believe in the dangers. Right now, they're just worried about putting food on the table.

Sarah - "Is that putting your health at a price?" Barnes - "Breathing puts your health at a price right now, so it's we've got to decide what's more important."

For Nenon, and others opposed to mining, that's a frightening realization.

Barbara Hancock, Against Mining - "As a nurse, I feel any amount of money wouldn't be worth living in those conditions."

And a decision fueled by what opponents say, are false promises.

Nenon - "Why would they hire local people when there are experienced miners? And there are a lot of those not that far away!"

The representative we spoke with from Virginia Uranium told us the company would absolutely hire locally, and train those people extensively. Still, those opposed say they'll believe it when they see it and hope they never do.

http://www.wset.com/news/stories/0209/593368.html

How Does Mining Affect the People?

More from GreatMining.com

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Mining is destructive to the environment as trees and vegetation are cleared and burned for mining. Natural minerals and metals are stripped from the soil. In fact mining is one of the causes for deforestation. When environment is drastically affected, naturally the people will be affected.

The mining pits dug during land dredging mining remain as stagnant water pools serving as breeding ground for mosquitoes and other water-born insects.People living near such water pool areas have high possibility of getting water-born diseases such as malaria. The gravel, mud, and rocks displaced during river dredging mining disrupt the natural flow of the river. As a result, fish and other aquatic living organisms often die and fishermen find it very difficult to navigate in the obstructed rivers. Sand and gravel mining may sometimes pave way for contaminating the groundwater.

Chemicals used during mining process causes pollution to the environment, animals, and people.The chemicals such as cyanide, mercury, or methyl mercury used to amalgamate the metals and minerals extracted by mining are discharged into rivers, streams, bays, and oceans, thus contaminating the water bodies and the aquatic organisms such as fish living within the water bodies. People who consume such contaminated aquatic organisms are prone to serious health hazards. The contaminated water cannot be used for bathing, drinking, cooking, or washing clothes, thus creating water scarcity problem for people living nearby.

The toxic waste from mine tailings flow into either an abandoned mining pit or adjacent forest in the case of land dredging and pollute the river in the case of river dredging. The people who are exposed to the toxic waste from the tailings suffer health problems. They may suffer from skin rashes, headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. Some mining involves the unintentional dispersal of heavy metals, such as lead, into the atmosphere. This can have serious health effects such as mental retardation in children. Asbestos dispersed into the environment during asbestos mining is life threatening for local residents and workers.

People living near mining areas or mining villages are very much disturbed and affected by the impact of mining. Theft, drugs/alcohol, prostitution, rape, cultural degradation and sexual abuse are unfortunately some of the worst problems of people living in mining areas. The poor people who face the health problems of mining cannot afford for a medical treatment, or the people who live in a remote village where a doctor is not accessible remain untreated for their illness.

The mining operators and their families may also face problems. The miners also have life risks when they are working in the mine. The family of small scale miners may suffer from financial and protection problems as the miners leave their family in search of work.

The effect of each proposed mining process on the environmental should be analyzed before granting permission to proceed mining. For example, the mining and use of asbestos are banned in most parts of the world life as asbestos dispersed into the environment is life threatening for people for several years.

Thus deforestation, mineral/metal depletion and chemical pollution due to mining can have unfavorable impact on the environment, aquatic habitats, people, animals, and of course the mining operators . Mining operators must be aware of the impacts of their mining operations, adopt self safety measures and ensure minimum risk to the environment and people.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 20th, 2008 at 9:12 am and is filed under Mining. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://www.greatmining.com/articles/how-does-mining-affect-the-people/

Problems of Uranium Mining

This is an interesting new (at least to me) site: http://www.greatmining.com/ At least some of their folks 'get it'.

December 11th, 2008

Tailings squander

Even the utmost grade deposits have less than 1% uranium. So vast amounts of ore have to be processed to obtain useful quantities of the uranium. The leftover ‘waste’ rock is known tailings. In the course of processing it is crushed to a well powder, which is nearly as radioactive as the uranium itself. It is perilous for more than 250,000 years, which might as well be eternally. These tailings need to be secluded from the environment to avoid a cancer epidemic, and there are previously more than 50 million tonnes of uranium tailings on Australian soil.

Radon Gas

As uranium emanates radiation; it transforms itself into a novel element, which in turn emanates radiation and decays, and so on through 14 steps until it ultimately - after hundreds of thousands of years - becomes a stable type of non-radioactive lead. One of the elements along the way is radon, a radioactive gas which can travel for hundreds of kilometres prior to decaying. Mine workers and others who breathe in this gas risk mounting lung cancer and other kinds of lung disease

Environmental Pollution

Uranium mining pollutes the air, water and earth with radioactive chemicals and heavy metals which can never be well cleaned up. In addition to the radiation hazard, mining is also related with poisonous process chemicals, heavy metals and the use of vast quantities of water. In the short term, uranium mine sites ruin the ecology of the local region; in the long term, they pose a risk to a much wider area.

Health risks

The health risks of uranium mining are by now fairly well known, although still belligerently disputed by the mining industry. Collectively, uranium miners suffer the maximum radiation doses of all workers in the nuclear fuel chain. The major problems are inhalation of dust and radon gas, which leave alpha radiation emitters lodged in the body where they can do the majority harm. As the pollution from the mines spread away from the minesite, local people are also out in the open to contamination. While uranium mining is most usually allied with cancer, low level radiation is also mixed up in birth fault, high infant mortality and chronic lung, eye, skin and reproductive illnesses.

Nuclear Waste

There is a vast amount of high level nuclear waste still being spewed out by reactors round the world and there is nowhere safe to put it. Pangea Resources actually has a plan to bring many of this waste into Australia. Nuclear power stations create this waste as fraction of normal operations; but there are also risks of reactor accidents; the explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 killed a lot of people, spread nuclear pollution right around the planet and forced the enduring evacuation of the surrounding area.

Nuclear Weapons

While the mining companies do not like to confess it, nuclear power is a military technology designed to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. Thousands of these weapons are still on hairtrigger alert ten further than ten years after the Cold War, and they are spreading gradually to new countries.

About the site:
Bryan Peter is a Copywriter of Mining Industry. We provide latest updates in the mining industry, the rich information in this site gives valuable inputs with regards to types of metals, minerals & precious stones and their properties. For more information visit: Uranium Mining.

http://www.free-articles-zone.com/article/224585/Problems%20of%20Uranium%20Mining

From Deborah and Phillip Lovelace...

in response to the Times-Dispatch article "Uranium Mining Plan Splits VA County":

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/URAN08_20090207-212206/200937/

Remember that Coles Hill will probably be only the first mine IF the
moratorium is lifted.

Who is going to pay all the real estate taxes and all the other taxes we pay
if we (who have faithfully paid our taxes) move, not only out of the county
but out of the state because we can not take a chance with our children's
health? I hope the county and state representatives take this into
consideration.

Please forward to everyone in your email address book.

PS I wonder if Gov. Kaine will bring his children here to camp at the uranium
pit and canoe in the Banister as shown in his "green" commercials? Or does
he think this is ok for our children but not his?


Thanks

Deborah Lovelace

Phillip is quoted in the article. He's 9th generation Pittsylvania Countian. Both Deborah and Phil are extremely active in SCC and the anti-mining movement. Their efforts are tireless! We so appreciate all they do to preserve their home...the land they love so much!

Flood Richmond Times-Dispatch with Letters and Editorials!

From Shireen Parsons, CELDF's Community Organizer in VA and Southside:

Please -- FLOOD the Richmond Times-Dis[patch] with letters and op-ed pieces in response to the awful article below!!

http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/02/uranium-mining-plan-splits-va-county.html

"Splits the County"???
A handful of individuals who would profit from uranium mining vs. a citizen majority adamantly opposed to it is not a "split"!

Residents "fear" that uranium mining "would pollute the groundwater and streams with uranium and choke the air with harmful residue"??
That's not a "fear" -- that's an understanding of the reality of uranium mining. It ALWAYS pollutes the soil, water and air!

Byron is "thinking about bugging out"?
I don't believe Byron put it that way -- he knows he's not gonna sit there and suck dust!

VUI "has agreed to merge with a Canadian mining company"??
VUI is wholly owned by Canadian corporations!

"Patrick Wales, a Danville native and geologist for Virginia Uranium, said landowners' fears are overblown"?
Please, Richmond Times-Dis[patch], show us one uranium mine, anywhere in the world, that hasn't contaminated the environment and poisoned every living thing!

"Opponents such as Lovelace and Motley contend that an objective study will bear out their fears."
But we know it won't be an objective study!

And why is there no mention of the Halifax Anti-Mining and Corporate Bodily Trespass Ordinance, or the fact that the petition effort is about driving that ordinance into municipalities that are downstream/downwind from the proposed mine site??

As always, Shireen makes excellent points and her recommendation to deluge the Times-Dispatch with letters is timely and more than appropriate.

Here are the addresses:

Email the article's author here: rbowman@timesdispatch.com or call him: (540) 344-3612

Email Letters to the Editor here: letters@timesdispatch.com

Write snail-mail to the Times-Dispatch here:

Richmond Times Dispatch Editor
300 E. Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23219

THANKS sooo much, Shireen, for ALL you do! Your voice and tireless commitment are invaluable to this fight!

Hmmm: This Seems Odd...

From the blog From On High (http://blogfromonhigh.blogspot.com/2009/02/this-seems-odd.html )

Does this Associated Press release seem a bit out of kilter to you?

Report: Southwest Va has workers for uranium mine

Chatham, Va. (AP) -- A new report says southwest Virginia has enough skilled workers for a proposed uranium mine near Chatham.

The report also confirms the deposit contains 119 million pounds of uranium and there's about 1.5 pounds of uranium per ton of rock.

The report was produced by three consulting firms working for Virginia Uranium Inc. The company is hoping to convince the General Assembly to lift a ban on uranium mining imposed in 1982.

The consulting firms conclude that potential employees from the area are comfortable working with heavy equipment and farm machinery, which are necessary for miners. [link]

What does Southwest Virginia have to do with it? Unless they moved it, Chatham is over north of Danville. Which is in the heart of Southside. They don't have heavy equipment operators over there?

Did the AP reporter not know the difference between Southside and Southwest? Or did the consulting firm make a mistake?

Either scenario speaks poorly of the culprit(s).

Looking online at the articles on the recent report from Santoy/VUI, all of them mention "southwest Virginia" having enough workers to staff the mine. Guess they'll be importing employees into Southside!

Uranium Mining, Native Resistance, and the Greener Path

by Winona LaDuke

Published on Saturday, February 7, 2009 by Orion Magazine

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4248

In a Dine Creation Story, the people were given a choice of two yellow powders. They chose the yellow dust of corn pollen, and were instructed to leave the other yellow powder-uranium-in the soil and never to dig it up. If it were taken from the ground, they were told, a great evil would come.

The evil came. Over one thousand uranium mines gouged the earth in the Dine Bikeyah, the land of the Navajo, during a thirty-year period beginning in the 1950s. It was the lethal nature of uranium mining that led the industry to the isolated lands of Native America. By the mid-1970s, there were 380 uranium leases on native land and only 4 on public or acquired lands. At that time, the industry and government were fully aware of the health impacts of uranium mining on workers, their families, and the land upon which their descendants would come to live. Unfortunately, few Navajo uranium miners were told of the risks. In the 1960s, the Department of Labor even provided the Kerr-McGee Corporation with support for hiring Navajo uranium miners, who were paid $1.62 an hour to work underground in the mine shafts with little or no ventilation.

All told, more than three thousand Navajos worked in uranium mines, often walking home in ore-covered clothes. The consequences were devastating. Thousands of uranium miners and their relatives lost their lives as a result of radioactive contamination. Many families are still seeking compensation. The Navajo Nation is still struggling to address the impact of abandoned uranium mines on the reservation, as well as the long-term health effects on both the miners and their communities, many of which suffer astronomical rates of cancer and birth defects.

As a college student, I worked for Navajo organizations, trying to inform their people about the uranium-mining industry and the large corporations-EXXON, Mobil, United Nuclear-that proposed to mine their lands. It was a humbling experience, seeing some of the richest corporations in the world faced by courageous peoples who fought for the two things that mattered to them more than money: their land and their identity. The Navajo people joined with many others across the country who felt that there was a much better way to make energy. In the end, the people did prevail-new mining proposals evaporated as tribal resistance and legal and administrative battles merged with economic forces. Eventually, contracts for uranium were canceled by utilities, which no longer sought to build unpopular nuclear power plants.

Now I feel like I am having very bad déjà vu-only this time nuclear power is seen as the answer to global climate destabilization. In 2005, the Navajo Nation passed a moratorium on uranium mining in its territory and traditional lands, which was followed by similar moratoria on Hopi and Havasupai lands, where mines are proposed adjacent to the Grand Canyon. "It is unconscionable to me that the federal government would consider allowing uranium mining to be restarted anywhere near the Navajo Nation when we are still suffering from previous mining activities," Joe Shirley Jr., Navajo Nation president, explained at a congressional hearing on opening uranium mines in the Grand Canyon area. To the north, the Lakota organization Owe Aku (Bring Back the Way) is an intervener in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing to allow the Canadian corporation Cameco to expand its Crow Butte uranium mine, just over the Nebraska border from the reservation.

Read the rest of this article here: http://colorado-aim.blogspot.com/2009/02/winona-nails-it-again.html

Engineer Gets Probation for Ohio Nuke Plant Cover-Up

February 7, 2009

AP

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — A former nuclear power plant engineer in Ohio has been sentenced to three years on probation and fined $4,500 for helping to cover up the worst corrosion ever found at a U.S. reactor.

Andrew Siemaszko (si-MAS'-ko) was sentenced Friday in federal court in Toledo, Ohio. He had faced up to five years in prison.

He was convicted of misleading regulators in 2001 in order to delay a safety inspection at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant along Lake Erie.

Inspectors later found an acid leak that nearly ate through the reactor's 6-inch-thick steel cap.

Defense attorneys have said Siemaszko was set up as a scapegoat because he spoke out about safety concerns.

The plant operator, FirstEnergy Corp., has paid $33.5 million to settle civil and criminal cases.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDVFlznRWrSY1kc-ralPjy-xTOZwD966SU700

Fort Chipewyan Cancer Rates Higher Than Expected: Report

Note/Background: Fort Chip is located in northeastern Alberta, Canada. It is mostly an aboriginal community that lies on the shore of Lake Athabasca. Uranium mining, gold mining and oil drilling has contaminated the water sources between Fort McMurray and Fort Chip for years. The tailing ponds have been knowingly leaking and sending toxic recipes into the waterways both surface and subsurface. There have been times that notices have been sent out about warnings about the fish and wildlife source being less than healthy and that the residents should not be eating animals from certain areas.

Over the last several years the Aboriginal leaders in Fort Chipewyan have been raising the issue of the number of their family members that seemed to be contracting cancer. The death toll to cancer appeared to be higher based on what they knew and the forms of cancer were rare. In 2002/03 Dr. John O’Connor of Fort Chip began speaking out about the issues related to the patients he was working with. He was later put before a great deal of professional challenges by the Alberta Government for raising the alarm on the issue and the Alberta Government insisted that these allegations were unfounded. The Aboriginal people of Fort Chip were forced to do some of their own studies relating to the water and the fish to try and make the government take the allegations seriously. They found higher levels of various toxins in the fish, water and soil than previously reported by the government.

The government is still advertising "jobs galore" in the Fort Chip area even though only 915 people live there permanently and it is very difficult to reach by land or water. Most of the jobs are in mining and oil. The government is also downplaying the degree to which the mining-related carcinogenic elements are impacting the higher than expected cancer rates. Sound familiar? (The background information re: Fort Chipewyan is from Metis Bare Facts blog, http://metisbarefacts.blogspot.com/)

Friday, February 6, 2009

The number of cancer cases in Fort Chipewyan is higher than expected, according to a report from Alberta Health Services released Friday.

Fifty-one cancers in 47 people were found in the remote community, 300km north of Fort McMurray, between 1995 and 2006, a dozen more than the 39 cancers that were expected, and the incidences of some cancers warrant more followup, the report said.

"The increased number of cases of biliary tract cancers, cancers in the blood and lymphatic system and cancers of unknown primary seen in the most recent six years (2001-2006) compared to the years 1995-2000 of the investigation warrant closer monitoring of cancer occurrences in Fort Chipewyan in the coming years," the report says.

"Further investigation is required to evaluate if there is a risk posed by living in Fort Chipewyan. This would be done by tracking a cohort of residents who have lived in the area within the past 20 to 30 years."

The increases are based on a very small number of cases, and could be due to chance or increased detection, the report says.

However, the possibility the increase is due to an increased risk in the community "cannot be ruled out," the report says, and it recommends analyzing other risk factors such as lifestyle, family history and occupational and environmental exposures.

Community leaders feel vindicated by the report, George Poitras of the Mikisew Cree First Nation in Fort Chipewyan said Friday.

"It's about time that we're getting these results confirming what we've been saying all along," he said. "But at the same time, it's kind of upsetting. Nobody wants to know our community is afflicted with cancer because we don't know who's going to be impacted next."

In 2006, Dr. John O'Connor, the physician in Fort Chipewyan, reported six suspected cases of cholangiocarcinomas, a rare form of bile duct cancer.

Of those six cases, two were confirmed in the study. Three more cases were other forms of cancer, and another case was not cancer.

The report found that the observed number of cholangiocarcinomas were "within the expected range" and there were lower than expected rates in some other types of cancer.

Study reviewed by independent experts

"We would all like … to get a black and white answer, something that's clear cut," Dr. Tony Fields, vice-president of the Cancer Corridor of Alberta Health Services, said at a news conference in Edmonton on Friday. "But we typically find ourselves in shades of grey."

The study, which was conducted by Dr. Yiqun Chen, was reviewed by independent experts from Australia, New Zealand and the United States, as well as two Canadian Aboriginal researchers. One of those researchers was recommended by the Nunee Health Board Society in Fort Chipewyan.

The review by the Alberta Health Services came after years of lobbying by health officials and community members in Fort Chipewyan.

Local people believe the oilsands developments located upstream from their community have caused higher-than-normal cancer rates in the community.

However, the methods used by the study also attracted controversy.

In November, community members rejected the findings of the study before they were released, because they felt researchers didn't spend enough time talking to people who live in Fort Chipewyan.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/02/06/edm-fort-chip-cancer.html