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

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

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

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

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

From: karen

To: pio@vdem.state.va.us

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

Subject: Radiological_Information_for_Farmers_and_Growers

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

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

Karen ____

XXX XXXXX Rd.

Danville, VA 245XX

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an Emergency, Who Will Provide Advice

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

Protecting Your Farm

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

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

Sheltering Animals

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

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

Protecting Your Crops

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

Milk

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

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

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

Protecting Food Products

Food and Milk Processors, Warehouses and Commodity Terminals

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

Economics

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

Potential Sources of Radiological Emergencies

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

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

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

Appendix 2

Adjacent States and Jurisdictions Within 50-Mile Ingestion Pathway*

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

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

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

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

* Similar alerting procedures will be used

How safe do you feel?

Tornadoes and Uranium Mines - - A Wise Mix?

In light of the recent weather in the area, is a uranium mine in a state with so many tornadoes really a wise idea? Hmmm...and the figures below are just for 2006!

From our friend Phil in NM:

http://www.vdem.state.va.us/newsroom/history/stats/tornado/2006stats.cfm

History & Statistics

Virginia's Weather History • Virginia Weather and Disaster Statistics • Presidentially Declared Disasters

What's In Weather and Disaster Statistics

• Overview

• Hurricane Statistics
• Tornado Statistics
• Lightning Statistics

Virginia Weather and Disaster Statistics: Tornado Statistics

Tornado Statistics, 2006

• Total number of tornadoes: 16
• Total people killed: 0
• Total people injured: 3
• Total damage estimated: $425,000

Posted by Smidgen at 5:09 PM 0 comm

Setting the Record Straight on Canonsburg, PA

The letter below appeared in the Danville Register & Bee on April 27, 2008. We'd like to set the record straight on Canonsburg, Pa. Our comments on Canonsburg follow the letter.

It will help our community

To the editor:
Regarding, “We’re no Slope County,” (April 20, page B6), the exhaustive analysis of population-density comparisons in North Dakota and Virginia, the basic assumption is seriously flawed: That uranium cannot be mined safely in densely populated areas.

Uranium has been mined safety in far more densely populated areas than Virginia. For example, well-regulated safe mining and reclamation has taken place for years in villages in France. Closer to home, uranium has been mined safely — and the land fully reclaimed — in Canonsburg, Pa., just a hop and a skip from the major metropolis of Pittsburgh.

The nightmare scenarios of uranium mining during the 1950s and 1960s in the western United States stand as chilling examples of the wrong way to mine anything — including uranium. Today’s intense regulatory environment, plus far more sophisticated techniques in managing and monitoring mining tailings, make uranium mining far safer than countless other activities going on around us all the time.

The letter’s author concludes his analysis by asking why uranium mining is being considered in Virginia. It is being considered because of the huge and positive economic potential for this region as well as all of Virginia. In addition, America vitally needs fresh sources of uranium to reduce its enormous reliance upon foreign sources to fuel our nuclear power plants.

That’s why we need to study the best ways to safely mine the vast deposit in Pittsylvania County — and to conduct the study in ways that will assure residents that it can be done with no harm to people, livestock or the environment.

ROY CRIDER
Chatham

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/april_27_uranium_mining_and_highway_safety/3174/

There was NEVER any uranium mining in or around Canonsburg, PA, often referred to as the most radioactive town in America.

There was a uranium milling facility there that was operated on and off from 1911 until the mid-1950's. There were hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive tailings, most of which were left uncovered and unprotected for years.

"In the early sixties the AEC [Atomic Energy Commission] allowed the lagoon to be filled in with tailings. It was an extraordinary decision, since--contrary to regulations--the government did not own the site. Health physicist Robert Gallagher, who performed a preliminary survey there, called the move "incredible." He charged that the AEC approval was either "a special favor or an oversight of gigantic magnitude."[70] As for the fill job, Joseph Swiger, project manager for the dumping, termed it "the worst and sloppiest job I've ever worked on." It was "morally objectionable," he told The Pittsburgh Press, "because the material was hazardous.

In 1967 the site was sold for $130,000 to a local entrepreneur named Vaughn Crile, who was never warned that there might be a radiation problem. Crile built an industrial park on top of the tailings and brought in fourteen tenants along with his family business. The DOE surveyed the site in 1978 and found that the 125 workers there were being exposed to radon concentrations fourteen times above the level officially considered safe.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO9.html

The site got some federal reclamation money in 1978 and was able to bury some of the worst of the tailings at the site of the actual mill which is now fenced off and posted as radioactive. Other areas in the town are still considered "hot spots". Residents and workers have been the subjects of at least one study on radon and cancer.

Danville Informational Seminar on Uranium - - Invite Everyone You Know!

Uranium Educational Seminar

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

6:30 - 8:30 p.m.

North Theater - - 629 North Main Street

Danville, Virginia

Sponsored by Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC)

Contact Numbers: (434) 791-4930 or (434) 797-3460

Locals Protest Uranium Mining Development (Australia)

Monday, 28/04/2008

A group of Alice Springs residents have rallied over the weekend against potential uranium mining of the south of town.

In a symbolic move about 30 people shared yellow sponge cake and raised concerns about the two uranium deposits, Angela and Pamela, which have been licensed for exploration.

Concerned residents say that the public can't be short-sighted about the effects that uranium mining could have on the area.

"I think it is tempting to only see the economic benefits and that's a short term vision and I think that we should be about long term vision," she said.

"The idea of mining is big amount of money in short amount of time. I am concerned about the possible effects of the amount of water that is required for the uranium mine, also contamination of the water catchment area for Alice Springs."

"There are risks involved in uranium mining, risks for the workers, for the local people, risks with transportation. There are untold risks."

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2228921.htm

Uranium Mining Focus of Meeting in Danville

By John Crane

Published: April 28, 2008

A local environmental group will hold a seminar on the effects of uranium mining Wednesday night in Danville.

Southside Concerned Citizens is sponsoring the Uranium Mining Educational Seminar that will take place at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the North Theatre at 629 North Main St. in Danville. The two-hour event is free and open to the public.

Gregg Vickrey, chairman of SCC’S Chatham/Pittsylvania County chapter and a scheduled presenter at the seminar, said the meeting will answer questions residents may still have about uranium mining and milling.

“There are still a lot of people that tell us they don’t know enough about uranium and uranium mining,” Vickrey said Sunday.

Walter Coles Sr., owner of Virginia Uranium Inc. in Chatham, said the seminar will be the same as past presentations and that he will not attend.

Besides Vickrey, presenters will include Jeff Johnson, a geologist with the Dan River Basin Association, and Allison Fisher, organizer with the energy program of Public Citizens, a Washington, D.C.-based group. Jack Dunavant, chairman of SCC, will introduce the speakers.
SCC has held similar events in Dry Fork, Halifax and Chase City.

Vickrey said he will speak on the history of how the idea of uranium mining started in the area in the early 1980s, discuss what happened in the last year, and talk about the upcoming General Assembly’s actions on the topic.

Virginia Uranium Inc. has proposed a uranium mining and milling operation for about 110 million pounds of uranium ore on Coles Hill about six miles outside Chatham, and sought a study from the National Academy of Science or other independent institution to determine whether mining can be done safely in the commonwealth. A bill that would have authorized a study died in the Senate earlier this year.

Opponents of the mining are afraid of its environmental effects, but proponents, including Virginia Uranium, say it could revamp the local economy. The potential for mining uranium in Virginia was proposed in both Pittsylvania and Orange counties in the early 1980s, but only Pittsylvania County has seen any serious interest in getting the statewide moratorium lifted.

The educational seminar also will address Virginia’s climate compared to that of other areas where uranium has been mined, the promise or failure of new technologies in mining, and effects on water, wildlife, crops, livestock and residents’ health.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_mining_focus_of_meeting/3212/

Don’t Throw It All Away - -Great Letter to Danville Register & Bee

Very nicely done, Karen!

To the editor:

The story, “Region makes Top 10 list!,” (April 23, page B1), states that Southern Business and Development magazine has listed both Danville-Pittsylvania County and Martinsville-Henry County as “Comeback Kids” for their ability to overcome economic obstacles. The loss of textiles and tobacco dealt this region a mighty blow. But we can “come back.”

We are located in a unique geographic position in our state and region. We have it all. Our region has beauty, a mild climate with four distinct seasons, no smog or traffic congestion, easy access to the mountains and the coast. That’s just for starters. We have two highways that connect to major interstates. We live in a relatively pristine environment.

There’s no reason we can’t continue to attract an array of new, desirable businesses and industries … unless we become known as a uranium mining region.
There is no greater threat to digging ourselves out of economic devastation than to dig ourselves into a uranium pit. Any jobs realized from mining and milling will pale next to the number and quality of jobs our region will lose if we become a yellowcake community.

In addition to the loss of potential economic opportunities we, as Virginia taxpayers, will foot the bill for a new layer of uranium-related administration, regulatory oversight and radioactive/heavy metal waste monitoring for generations.

Can we adequately analyze the negative impact of uranium mining and milling on our future economic development and quality of life?

Why risk it? We are the “Comeback Kids.” Let’s not bury our future economic development at the bottom of a uranium mine.

KAREN MAUTE
Danville

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/april_25_city_taxes_no_pickup_and_comeback_kids/3140/

Panel Discusses Future Energy Needs [Northern VA]

By Lillian Kafka,

Potomac News and Manassas Journal Messenger

Published: April 18, 2008

Experts on energy production and delivery met in Manassas on Thursday night to talk about what comes next in the local energy market.

The Prince William Committee of 100 gathered the panel, comprised of electricity providers, an energy economist and other industry specialists.

The moderator, Sen. Chap Peterson, D-Fairfax, wanted them to name the most important aspects of energy conservation.

Another person asked why customers couldn’t buy geothermal power or that harvested from sunlight.

And what about electricity generated by the motion of waves in the ocean?

Jeffrey Brown, local energy economist and panelist, said the industry needs to approach the looming “economic tsunami” of energy prices with a focus on conservation.

“We’ll need a balanced approach that will require coordination of a number of different fuel types with businesses and consumers on the residential level,” he said. “The cheapest watt is the one you don’t use.”

As the state cap on electricity rates expires this year, some panelists approached the issue of rising electricity rates with caution.

Matt Groff, energy coordinator for Prince William County’s public works department voiced a strong prediction.

“Your rates are going to increase significantly,” he said. Groff is also a board member of the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association.

William Murray, director of public policy for Dominion Resources, said any rate change must be approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission.

“Here’s an interesting exercise,” he said. “Walk around your house and look at all of the things that are plugged in that didn’t exist 10 or 15 years ago.”

The panelists focused much discussion on residential electricity conservation.

“You have the power. Use it wisely.” is a message on Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative ads from a recent campaign to teach customers to use less power, said Mike Curtis, spokesman for NOVEC and energy panelist.

He recalled the oil embargo of the 1970s and wondered why Americans didn’t learn from such recent history.

“As soon as times got better and the oil embargo went away, we happily returned to our wasteful ways,” he said.

But things are changing again, he said.

“Now we have a greater sense of urgency that we’re all in something together,” he said.

Part of that something is a need to educate power customers, he and Groff stressed.

“There’s a lot of untapped potential in the world of conservation in the U.S.,” Brown said. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen Japan or western Europe suffering from their [energy] conservation.”

All of the panelists agreed that dealing with carbon as it relates to climate change will be the preeminent issue in the years to come.

Coal-fired power plants supply much electricity, but there are not many alternatives, yet.

“I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think we can exclude coal from the picture altogether,” Curtis said.

Others said nuclear power is just as important to keep in the picture.

Brown proposed a change in federal law that prevents nuclear plants from reusing waste and getting more life out of mined uranium.

Groff suggested local governments take a lead in preventing huge losses in commercial and residential electricity waste via poor insulation. Green building standards should be adopted on a statewide level, he said.

Murray reminded the audience that as an energy provider, Dominion is interested in investing in energy sources that are of “utility scale and economic.”

That’s why energy research funding is imperative, said LS Power’s Lynne Mackey, director of regulatory policy.

She stressed that coal, one of the biggest sources of carbon pollution, cannot be left out of the energy equation.

“We cannot eliminate the most prolific fuel source in the country,” she said. “It should be considered as a bridge to the next generation.”

Staff writer Lillian Kafka can be reached at 703-878-8065.

http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/panel_discusses_future_energy_needs/14019/

Analysis: Energy's Water Demands Worrisome

By ROSALIE WESTENSKOW
UPI Correspondent

THE DALLES, Ore., April 24 (UPI) -- Add another requirement to the clean-energy checklist: low water usage.

Two Virginia Tech researchers released a study this week examining the water-use requirements for 11 different energy sources, ranking them in terms of efficiency.

One of the most important aspects of the study was to raise awareness of the role water plays in energy production, said Rachelle Hill, a recent Virginia Tech graduate who co-authored the study.

"We need to do more research and really study what goes into energy production, not just what comes out," Hill told United Press International.

And a lot of water goes in. According to the study, U.S. thermoelectric power plants consume 136 billion gallons of water per day, averaging out to 25 gallons for every kilowatt-hour produced. Water is used in almost every aspect of energy, from the cooling and cleaning of machinery to the production of steam to turn turbines. And as energy demand rises in coming decades, so will the amount of water required to produce it.

Water usage has become a major concern in recent years because supply has dwindled, said Eric Evenson of the U.S. Geological Survey, a federal science agency.

An ever-growing population has increased water usage in a number of sectors, leading to shortages in some areas, Evenson said, and policymakers should examine any strain on supply.

"Any one factor, like water needs for energy, or for public supply, or for agriculture … bears on the quantity of overall water availability," he said.

And energy has a big impact, said Mike Hightower, a member of the Energy-Water Nexus National Lab Team, a group of scientists from a number of national laboratories researching the issue.

"In the United States on a daily basis, about 40 percent of our fresh water withdrawals are for energy production," said Hightower, a technical staff member at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque.

While much of the water used in energy production is not consumed but returned to its source and later reused, the energy sector's reliance on water's availability could cause problems down the road, Hightower told UPI.

"Even if you don't consume a lot of water, if you use it, you need it day in and day out to operate," he said. If a drought occurs, "then water levels lower, you can't withdraw any more and that's going to impact your energy supply."

In the past, U.S. municipalities have often used groundwater faster than it can be replenished, lowering overall groundwater levels. If this continues to occur, Hightower said, power plants and other energy producers will have less water available for use, interrupting their production capabilities.

While the study points out the necessity of looking at water when considering environmental impacts, it raises some issues about how to balance that concern with carbon emissions. The energy sources receiving the highest accolades in the study for their limited water usage also emit CO2, a growing dilemma now that climate-change concerns have overshadowed the energy arena.

Natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel, took the top spot for water efficiency, but researchers ranked the purportedly less carbon intensive fuel sources biodiesel and corn ethanol last.

Ethanol production received a bad rap because it requires large amounts of water to grow the corn crops used to produce the fuel, and, unlike the water used to cool power plants, irrigation water is not reusable, according to the study. The water seeps into the ground and often becomes contaminated with the fertilizers used on the crops.

On the power-generation side, however, things look brighter. Hydroelectric power came in first, followed by geothermal and solar power. And this doesn't include wind or other types of renewable energy that the researchers excluded from the study specifically because their water use is negligible.

Although hydroelectric requires water, that water is never consumed -- it simply runs through the turbines. This makes it a winner on both fronts, as it emits zero carbon, said Kerry McCalman, power manager for the Bureau of Reclamation, a U.S. Department of Interior agency and one of the largest producers of hydroelectric power in the country.

"Hydropower generated by the Bureau of Reclamation as a whole offsets 31 million tons of CO2 emissions per year, on average," McCalman told UPI.

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Energy/Analysis/2008/04/24/analysis_energys_water_demands_worrisome/5920/

Hundreds of EPA Scientists Report Political Interference

For those who believe that there will be enough government oversight to protect the citizenry from the harm of uranium mining, the internet is replete with articles to the contrary. Now comes even more evidence of widespread political interference with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

An official with the independent group that conducted the survey says it indicates the widespread nature of the problem.

By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 24, 2008

WASHINGTON -- More than half of the scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who responded to a survey said they had experienced political interference in their work.

The survey results show "an agency under siege from political pressures," said the Union of Concerned Scientists report, which was released Wednesday and sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

The online questionnaire was sent to 5,419 EPA scientists last summer; 1,586 replied, and of those, 889 reported that they had experienced at least one type of interference within the last five years.

Such allegations are not new: During much of the Bush administration, there have been reports of the White House watering down documents on climate change, industry language inserted into EPA power-plant regulations and scientific advisory panels' conclusions about toxic chemicals going unheeded.

But Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based nonprofit group, said the survey documented the widespread nature of the problem at the EPA. "What we've been up against until now is anecdotal evidence," Grifo said.

She acknowledged that scientists who were frustrated or upset might have been more likely than those who were satisfied to respond to her organization's survey, but added: "Nearly 900 EPA scientists reported political interference in their scientific work. That's 900 too many."

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar noted that administrator Johnson had had a 27-year career as a scientist himself.

"We have the best and finest scientific community in the world at EPA," Shradar said. "All of the issues we deal with are issues that we all are very passionate about. It's important that we let the scientists do the science and allow policymakers to do the policy work."

The survey respondents were split over the impact of political interference on regulations. According to the report, 48% believed that the EPA's actions were "frequently or always" consistent with scientific findings, and 47% believed that agency policy "occasionally, seldom or never" made use of scientific judgments.

In optional essays, scientists repeatedly singled out the Office of Management and Budget at the White House, accusing officials there of inserting themselves into decision-making at early stages in a way that shaped the outcome of their inquiries. They also alleged that the OMB delayed rules not to its liking. EPA actions "are held hostage" until changes are made, a scientist from the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation wrote.

Some also accused members of Congress of inappropriate intervention.

All of the respondents remained anonymous.

J. William Hirzy, an EPA senior scientist and union official, said that politics trumped science at times during the Clinton administration as well but that "what we're seeing now is . . . the favoring of energy interests, coal-fired power plants. That's something different in this administration."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) wrote to Johnson on Wednesday asking him to be prepared to respond to the findings at a hearing next month of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

judy.pasternak@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa24apr24,1,5692736.story

Opponents to Uranium Mining Detail Dangers

If you live in Southside, VA, you simply must read this story. The parallels between what's happened in Larimer, Co, CO and what could happen in Pittsylvania Co. (and beyond) are uncanny.


By Douglas Crowl
Loveland Connection

Article published Apr 24, 2008

Jay Davis thought a letter in the mail one October day in 2006 explaining uranium claims under or near his 80-acre Larimer County ranch had to be a joke.

He tossed the letter aside assuming one of his friends was trying to pull a fast one.

“We just totally dismissed it,” Davis said.

Then, a man from Powertech Uranium Corp. came knocking on his and neighbors’ doors explaining plans to mine uranium underneath thousands of acres north of Fort Collins.

Nearly two years later, Davis, a few of his neighbors and many followers travel throughout Northern Colorado with their group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD) trying to stop Powertech and other companies from mining uranium in Northern Colorado.

The group met in Loveland Wednesday night and spoke to about 40 people about the dangers of uranium mining, which included presentations by two experts in the field and a physician listing the variety of cancers uranium contamination can cause.

The speakers drew a grim picture, showing Powertech at risk of contaminating the aquifer, surface water and the air with a variety of lethal elements, as well as turning the landscape into a tight grid of uranium wells.

There were photos of mine fields in Wyoming and Texas and horror stories of millions of dollars spent on failed reclamation mine sites. Much of the information can be found at CARD’s Web site, www.nunnglow.com.

Davis said the speakers were not giving a balanced view of the issue, but he said people should understand the risks involved.

“What we have found tells us it’s bad,” Davis said. “We’ve heard the other side that tells us we are crazy, but to say that it’s not going to have an impact … I don’t think so.”

Powertech has claims under 5,600 acres northeast of Fort Collins with 9.6 million pounds of uranium, Powertech President and CEO Dick Clement said.

Most of the land’s surface is owned by private landowners, who would have to respect the mineral right and endure the mining process.

Clement, of course, knows Davis and CARD and he denies the group’s claims about uranium mining. He said mining companies have indeed made mistakes in the past, but modern mining is safe.

"It started out that it's close to populated areas,” Clement said of the opposition. “But generally, there's an anti-nuclear movement in the world. I really don’t understand it. It’s a fear factor.”

In the United States, 104 nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation’s energy, pushing the demand for mined uranium to 55 million pounds annually, Clement said.

One issue CARD challenges is Powertech’s in-situ approach to retrieve the uranium, which involves pumping a mix of water, oxygen and carbon dioxide into the aquifer where the uranium naturally exists, to bring the resource to the surface.

The problem here is that Powertech’s site also has 3,500 drill holes from past explorations. If the aquifer is under pressure, the liquid mix and maybe the uranium could leach into other ground water.

“We don’t want to be putting these chemicals down there and releasing them through the holes,” said Ami Wangeline, who has a doctorate degree in botany and spoke at the CARD presentation in Loveland.

Clement said the in-situ process is proven safe, which state Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, supported at the legislature last month.

Marostica gave a presentation on the in-situ process while arguing against HB1161, which could require more rigorous water treatment.

The bill passed out of the House of Representatives to the Colorado State Senate with a 49 to 16 vote, with Marostica as the only state representative in Northern Colorado to vote against it.

Marostica did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Mining companies already are required to return water back to its initial purity after exploration.

But depending on how the language in HB1161 is interpreted, Clement said it would make purity standards so strict that his company could not drill on Northern Colorado, which he characterized as “taking” the company's property.

“The most important thing to understand is that this process has been operating in the United States for a number of years," Clement said.

Even with examples of safe mining, Davis said there’s enough evidence of risk and impact involved in uranium mining to make Coloradans not want it in their backyard.

“Our whole thing is the health issues related to it,” he said.

Before any mining does happen, Powertech must complete five quarters of water testing in the area to determine its quality. The company is in the middle of the second-quarter testing now, Clement said.

---

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/LOVELAND0102/80424013/1192/LOVELAND

Mark Your Calendars! Danville Informational Seminar on Uranium

Uranium Educational Seminar

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

6:30 - 8:30 p.m.

North Theater - - 629 North Main Street

Danville, Virginia

Sponsored by Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC)

Contact Numbers: (434) 791-4930 or (434) 797-3460

Billionaire Texas Oil Man Makes Big Bets on Wind

By Chris BaltimoreFri Apr 18, 9:00 AM ET

Legendary Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has gone green with a plan to spend $10 billion to build the world's biggest wind farm. But he's not doing it out of generosity - he expects to turn a buck.

The Southern octogenarian's plans are as big as the Texas prairie, where he lives on a ranch with his horses, and entail fundamentally reworking how Americans use energy.

Next month, Pickens' company, Mesa Power, will begin buying land and ordering 2,700 wind turbines that will eventually generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity - the equivalent of building two commercial scale nuclear power plants - enough power for about 1 million homes.

"These are substantial," said Pickens, speaking to students at Georgetown University on Thursday. "They're big."

Pickens knows a thing or two about big. He heads the BP Capital hedge fund with over $4 billion under management, and earned about $1 billion in 2006 making big bets on commodity and equity markets.

Though a long-time oil man, Pickens said he has embraced the call for cleaner energy sources that don't emit heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"I'm an environmentalist - I can pass the saliva test," he said.

But Pickens is not out to save the planet. He intends to make money.

Though Pickens admits that wind power won't be as lucrative as oil deals, he still expects the Texas project to turn at least a 25 percent return.

"When I go into these markets, I expect to make money on them," Pickens said. "I don't expect to lose."

America is facing a looming power crunch, with electricity demand expected to grow 15 percent in a decade. And while many states have rejected big coal-fired power projects on environmental concerns, they are offering a bounty of incentives to build renewable sources.

U.S. crude futures at new records above $115 a barrel means a bright future for renewable sources like wind and solar.

Pickens' wind farm is part of his wider vision for replacing natural gas with wind and solar for power generation, and using the natural gas instead to power vehicles.

To picture Pickens' energy strategy, imagine a compass.

Stretching from north to south from Saskatchewan to Texas would be thousands of wind turbines, which could take advantage of some of the best U.S. wind production conditions.

On the east-west axis from Texas to California would be large arrays of solar generation, which could send electricity into growing Southern California cities like Los Angeles.

The end result would be to free up more clean-burning natural gas - primarily a power-generation fuel now - to power automobiles.

Major oil companies have embraced so-called natural gas liquids because they have spent billions of dollars building refineries and pipelines to turn crude oil into gasoline, Pickens said.

But shifting natural gas used in power generation to transportation needs could cut U.S. crude oil imports by nearly 40 percent, he said.

(Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/us_nm/usa_oil_pickens_wind_dc&printer=1;_ylt=Ako7FzjJv4XOvU2DbSq1QewXIr0F

Declaration of the Indigenous World Uranium Summit

Saturday December 2, 2006 08:30 PM

Window Rock, Navajo Nation, USA

We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, at this critical time of intensifying nuclear threats to Mother Earth and all life, demand a worldwide ban on uranium mining, processing, enrichment, fuel use, and weapons testing and deployment, and nuclear waste dumping on Native Lands.

Past, present and future generations of Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately affected by the international nuclear weapons and power industry. The nuclear fuel chain poisons our people, land, air and waters and threatens our very existence and our future generations. Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. Uranium mining, nuclear energy development and international agreements (e.g., the recent U.S.-India nuclear cooperation treaty) that foster the nuclear fuel chain violate our basic human rights and fundamental natural laws of Mother Earth, endangering our traditional cultures and spiritual well-being.

We reaffirm the Declaration of the World Uranium Hearing in Salzburg, Austria, in 1992, that “uranium and other radioactive minerals must remain in their natural location.” Further, we stand in solidarity with the Navajo Nation for enacting the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005, which bans uranium mining and processing and is based on the Fundamental Laws of the Dine. And we dedicate ourselves to a nuclear-free future.

Indigenous Peoples are connected spiritually and culturally to our Mother, the Earth. Accordingly, we endorse and encourage development of renewable energy sources that sustain - not destroy - Indigenous lands and the Earth's ecosystems.

In tribute to our ancestors, we continue centuries of resistance against colonialism. We recognize the work, courage, dedication and sacrifice of those individuals from Indigenous Nations and from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, the United States, and Vanuatu, who participated in the Summit. We further recognize the invaluable work of those who were honored at the Nuclear-Free Future Awards ceremony on December 1, 2006. And we will continue to support activists worldwide in their nonviolent efforts to stop uranium development.

We are determined to share the knowledge we have gained at this Summit with the world. In the weeks and months ahead, we will summarize and disseminate the testimonies, traditional Indigenous knowledge, and medical and scientific evidence that justify a worldwide ban on uranium development. We will enunciate specific plans of action at the tribal, local, national and international levels to support Native resistance to the nuclear fuel chain. And we will pursue legal and political redress for all past, current and future impacts of the nuclear fuel chain on Indigenous Peoples and their resources.

http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/uranium/iwus_declaration

Probe Finds Uranium Mine Violations in 'Model' Mine

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER

Jackson Hole Star-Tribune

What has been considered Wyoming's "model" in-situ uranium mine, and the only operational uranium facility in the state in recent years, is under scrutiny by state regulators for what they describe as an alarming volume of environmental violations.

Following an investigation last fall, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has issued a notice of violation to Power Resources Inc., which operates the Smith-Highland Ranch in-situ leach uranium mine north of Douglas.

The six-page investigation report details several "long-standing" environmental concerns at the mine. Among them are delayed restoration of groundwater, "routine" spills, and a seriously inadequate bond to cover restoration.

"Given that PRI's operation has for many years been the major uranium producer in Wyoming, there is an expectation that the operation might serve as a model for excellence in (in-situ leach) mining. Unfortunately, this is not the case," DEQ land quality District 2 supervisor Mark Moxley wrote in a Nov. 21, 2007, report.

On March 10, DEQ issued a notice of violation to Power Resources Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Corp., detailing alleged violations pursuant to two permits.

"Upon reading this report, it's clear a lot of the issues raised are based on documentation, which is not a good reflection of our environmental performance," Cameco Corp. spokesman Gord Struthers said Thursday.

Cameco is committed to keeping better records and documentation, Struthers said.

He said the company is in the process of updating timetables for restoration and other aspects of operations at the mine to accurately reflect actual progress. The company is also "in a very sound financial position," so it can easily increase its bond to adequately cover restoration of the mining activity, he said.

"It's real hard to trumpet our values in this situation," Struthers said. "But I think that over the years it's pretty clear the company has been a solid performer. The environment is one of our top priorities."

The in-situ mining process involves a series of closely spaced wells that flush uranium material through water aquifers. The technique has been touted as a more environmentally friendly way of minining uranium than underground or surface strip mining.

Moxley's report concluded that the mine routinely extends production times for some well fields. "Well field C," for example, was in production for 10 years instead of the planned one to three years. Underground water restoration is supposed to occur simultaneously with ongoing production, but that rarely happens at the mine, according to the report.

Production and restoration time frames have doubled and tripled, yet the mine still proposes to bring additional well fields into production, according to the report.

Currently, Power Resources Inc. is bonded for $38.4 million to cover the cost of restoration at the mine, according to DEQ. That's based on a calculation of a staff of 26 people, 22 of them on a salary of $34,000 per year.

"If their current operations require a staff of 100 people then it will take at least to 2/3 of that staff to conduct restoration," Moxley stated in the report. "Retaining competent staff will require that wages and benefits be at least $50,000 per year."

"All those well fields are going to be restored to a point acceptable to federal and state regulators," Struthers said. "There is some acceptance within the company that we could be more proactive in our restoration activity."

Cameco's Smith-Highland Ranch mine is currently the only producing uranium mine in Wyoming. It produced a record 2 million pounds of uranium oxide in 2006, and was expected to produce at about the same level in 2007.

Cameco is the world's largest producer of uranium. It has four active mines in North America, including the Crow Butte mine in Nebraska.

The alleged years-long, routine violation of environmental standards at the Smith-Highland Ranch in-situ uranium mine revealed that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's oversight of the operation failed, according to DEQ Director John Corra.

But Corra insists that DEQ staff was not "asleep at the switch."

"We were inspecting this place, we were looking at the reports," Corra said, adding that he's not making excuses.

"Had we exercised the proper level of oversight, it wouldn't have gotten this far," Corra said.

DEQ's lack of oversight comes at a time when regulators expect to receive seven or more applications for new in-situ leach uranium mining operations throughout the state. Dozens of new players intend to open production from Rawlins to the Gas Hills to the Powder River Basin and into the extreme northeast corner of the state.

The in-situ mining process involves a series of closely spaced wells that flush uranium material through water aquifers. Several landowners and conservation groups have expressed concern in recent months about whether regulators are prepared to protect groundwater and surface resources.

"Even if the state and the public receives appropriate assurances from the companies up front through permit conditions and bonding, the Department may not have the capacity to investigate and enforce violations the way you have done in this matter. We have heard these concerns echoed by department staff," Powder River Basin Resource Council organizer Shannon Anderson said in a recent letter to DEQ.

Land quality and water quality division officials within DEQ are in the process of re-evaluating procedures and staffing levels in regard to the expected increase of uranium mining in the state, according to Corra.

Those recommendations are forthcoming, he said.

Corra said it was an anonymous tip that prompted then DEQ land quality administrator Rick Chancellor to conduct an investigation of the Smith-Highland Ranch uranium mine, which falls within the division's District 1. Beginning in October 2007, Chancellor brought in the division's District 2 supervisor, Mark Moxley, to lead the investigation in order to get a "fresh set of eyes" perspective.

Chancellor has since left the land quality division to become administrator of the Abandoned Mine Lands division.

Don McKenzie is the new land quality division administrator. He said there's been no disciplinary action within DEQ staff as a result of the Smith-Highland Ranch investigation.

Of the environmental performance at the Smith-Highland Ranch mine, McKenzie said, "I have no intention of allowing this to continue."

Despite what DEQ considers grossly inadequate bonding for the mine, the mine has been allowed to continue normal operations.

Corra said it was unfortunate that it took a high-level investigation to bring the alleged scope of violations at the Smith-Highland Ranch mine to light. Staffing and a dwindling knowledge base in the uranium industry were factors, he added.

"Regardless of what the staff did or did not do best, it does not relieve a permit holder from doing what they are supposed to do," Corra said. "We're taking actions to make sure there's not a recurrence of this sort of situation."

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/04/04/news/wyoming/08b3f724c99992fa8725742000812281.tx

Home Sweet Radioactive Home? Uranium and Retirement at Elliot Lake, Ontario

http://www.elliotlake.com/retire/

Centre for Excellence in Retirement Living

Up until the late '80's, Elliot Lake was known as the "Uranium MiningCapital of the World". As the mining era drew to a close, the City of Elliot Lake recognized the need for revitalization.

All the circumstances presented a unique opportunity for Elliot Lake to remake itself as a retirement haven.

Created in 1987, Elliot Lake Retirement Living began attracting its first retirees to this picturesque community nestled in the beauty of Northern Ontario.

Since then, Elliot Lake Retirement Living has been successful in its goals and has become known as the Most Affordable Retirement Program in the country and Elliot Lake, as a centre of excellence
for retirement living.

This site consists mostly of pictures of some of the retirement
buildings and opportunities in Elliot Lake, now the "Jewel in the
Wilderness".

Sure sounds lovely, huh? Explore this "Jewel" even further ...the link is right under the picture above...and there are lots of gorgeous pictures of this wonderful retirement community! Then read the rest of the story:

LET'S LOOK AT THE REST OF THE PIECES:

http://www.earthwins.com/ewd/ewd031698a.html

--At Elliot Lake, Ontario where Rio Algom operated sulfide uranium mines from the early '60s, "...the lakes and rivers of the Serpent River watershed were being polluted by chemicals and radium 226."


--"Other waters contaminated by the run-off from other tailing sites, added their burden of acids, sulfates, nitrates and radiation, so that waters eventually emptied into Lake Huron, 30 miles downstream were tainted."


--When the mines abruptly closed during the 1980s and '90s, thousands of unemployed miners had to walk away from their homes, leaving the banks holding worthless mortgages as there was no one who wanted to buy.


--After a large inventory of abandoned homes grew, a mining company vice-president came up with the idea of a "Retirement Living Program."


--As another mining company vice president observed, "Senior Citizens have faced numerous hardships during their lifetimes, wars, depression, inflation. So what's a little low-level radioactive waste?"


Source: The Power & The Promise: The Elliot Lake Story
by Catharine Dixon, Gilldix Publishing, Inc. Elliot Lake, Ontario 1996

AND:

http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html#daughters

In testimony to the Elliot Lake Environmental Assessment Board in 1978, mortality figures published by the Ontario government were used to show that even the "acceptable" levels of radon contamination in homes would result in an extra 17 lung cancer deaths per thousand people chronically exposed to such levels. In other words, instead of 54 lung cancers per thousand, one would expect 71, a 31 per cent increase. In light of this evidence, the Board recommended that the radon standard for homes be reassessed. But no such reassessment has taken place.

Since 1980 the B.C. Medical Association has published a slightly higher risk estimate and has condemned the radon standard for homes "as tantamount to allowing an industrially induced epidemic of cancer." A 1982 report published by the Atomic Energy Control Board concurs, estimating a 40 percent increase in lung cancer among those living in homes contaminated to the "acceptable" radon level.

Uranium Mining: Where Angels Fear to Tread

PETER T. SMITH
COMMENTARY

Published Tuesday April 22nd, 2008

The price of uranium is skyrocketing, and we're a have-not province with aspirations of self-sufficiency and a government apparently willing to make major changes to achieve that goal. This gives New Brunswickers two big problems to consider.

The first problem with the speculation about uranium mining in New Brunswick is environmental. It's no good to start exporting uranium if there's a risk you'd have to start importing water, environment contaminant clean-up service providers, and oncologists. No provincial government should be so blinded by a quick buck as to sell out a crucial parcel of the province permanently. (For all practical considerations, one should never consider a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years as anything less than permanent.)

We have enough environmental problems on the horizon with the planned energy hub and climate change without adding a couple of uranium mines to the picture.

Some have congratulated the Moncton City Council for taking a stand last month in calling for a ban on uranium mining in New Brunswick. Nova Scotia has had a ban on exploration since 1982, a ban reaffirmed by all parties last week, because of concerns for the environment.

This isn't about idealism. For the residents of Moncton and their councillors, the appeal to the province to ban uranium mining has nothing to do with sentiments of the anti-corporate, fantasy-oriented, tree-hugging, environmentalist fringe. It has to do with a legitimate fear that they won't be able to have water for the rest of the millennium.

The environmental concerns break down three ways. First, uranium exploration can put radioactive elements into the air and water. Exploration itself, in other words, is damaging to the environment.

Second, big international mining companies haven't ever given us many reasons to have confidence in their environmental efforts. The Canadian company operating the largest uranium mine in the United States, for example, is behind schedule on its clean up plan and has had 80 spills. The company maintains the spills cause no "lasting" environmental damage, but statements from the state Department of Environmental Quality indicate they aren't so sure.

Third, all mines eventually close and require clean up. This is bad enough when the material isn't radioactive. There are plenty of problems with this. For example, in the United States, many mining companies have avoided clean up costs simply by declaring bankruptcy. In one example detailed by Jared Diamond in Collapse, the clean up of a mine in Colorado cost $180 million, only $28 million of which the state government was able to extract from the bankrupt mining company.

In 2005, when Diamond published that book, U.S. taxpayers faced a $12 billion bill to clean up mines. How much of a guarantee can Shawn Graham get from the mining companies? And Shawn, please read "guarantee" as "money up front for clean up," not as "vague promise to do no harm."

After the environment, the second big problem is economic. Assuming environmental concerns can be addressed properly, and that's a big assumption, we're still stuck with our post-colonial, distinctly Canadian approach to letting others get their hands on our natural resources. We've been all too happy to sell off our natural resources so long as we can skim a little bit of money off the top.

Alberta's assistant deputy minister of economic development, Drury Mason, as quoted in Andrea Mandel-Cambell's book Why Mexicans Don't Drink Molson, put it this way: "The Americans phone us and say 'we need wood' and we sell it to them, and they sell it back to us as a cabinet... And we're happy to do it because we made money on the wood."

Tell us how much wood to hew, and we'll hew it. Tell us how much water to haul, and we'll haul it. Tell us how much uranium to mine, and we'll mine it. It's like we never got over being a colony. Many Canadians are proud of this country's heritage as a British colony, but did anyone think we'd become a uranium colony for Brazil? Vale Inco might sound like it's from Sudbury, but the buck stops in Rio.

Specific criticisms are starting to emerge of the Alberta government in this regard, as in CBC's documentary last month, Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta. Premier Ralph Klein quickly sold off rights to a big natural resource, the Athabaska oil sands, usually to foreign companies, and Albertan taxpayers are left with pressing environmental (and social) concerns. Everyone was so happy about the boom that no one thought to manage the resource and its exploitation more carefully. Shawn Graham would do well to learn from his western colleague's mistakes.

Uranium mining is one of those places where the angels fear to tread. We shouldn't be too quick to rush in.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/274530

Just Say 'No' to Uranium Today

Published Tuesday April 22nd, 2008

Today is Earth Day and given the overwhelming opposition to the uranium exploration now occurring across New Brunswick, it is an good time for Premier Shawn Graham to signal that he and his government take our environment seriously.

The public has spoken: benefits from uranium mining are not worth the hazards and potential hazards that come with it.

A moratorium on uranium exploration and mining, as exists in Nova Scotia, is what the province requires.

Yet to date the premier and government downplay the likelihood of a mine ever being developed and assure us they would never allow environmental harm, but have not been able to give a logical explanation of why they are nevertheless allowing exploration to proceed, including in watersheds. If there is little to no possibility of mining, why the exploration? Surely they are not just leading the mining companies on in some kind of bad joke.

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/274474

400 Gather For Jailed KI Leaders

TORONTO - Jailed leaders of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation addressed a rally by telephone, affirming the right of aboriginal people to say no to mineral exploration in their territory.

''We're here for what we believe in,'' said Chief Donny Morris, speaking from a pay phone in the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre to thunderous applause from a crowd of about 400 people at the April 9 Ryerson University rally.

''We miss our families and our kids; we wish we could be home; but unfortunately, the way the government is operating, it's not possible for us right now.''

The packed crowd included indigenous people from across the province and beyond, labor activists, environmentalists and proponents of social justice who called on Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty to free seven political prisoners who have been jailed because of their refusal to accept mining exploration in their territory without prior consultation.

The six from KI and Bob Lovelace of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation in eastern Ontario deserve widespread support ''because in defending their land, they are defending our environment,'' said organizer Judy Rebick.

Many speakers focused on the need to reform Ontario's Mining Act, dating back to 1873 and predicated on the free entry principle that allows anyone who pays a fee to stake a claim on public land (as well as on private property in some areas) and start clearing trees, making access roads and drilling.

Public land is often the traditional territory of an aboriginal community but, speed and secrecy being of the essence in the race to a claim, the law makes no provision for aboriginal rights to consultation, neither does it allow for land-use planning or assessment of environmental impacts.

McGuinty promised in a 2003 election campaign to undertake land use planning in the north and, when running for re-election in 2007, promised a full re-evaluation of the Mining Act.

Anna Baggio of CPAWS-Wildlands League told the rally that government officials say those promises have been put on the back burner because ''they don't want to put a chill into mining projects in Ontario.''

Meanwhile, the antiquated law represents a Catch-22 situation that has resulted in six-month jail sentences for the six men and one woman who have refused to promise to obey court orders prohibiting peaceful protest.

Fundamental freedoms - of expression, of association and of peaceful protest - are at stake, National Chief Phil Fontaine told the rally. The message is clear, he said, ''that the economic interests will trump the rights of indigenous people every time.''

The abject poverty of First Nations communities is a national disgrace, Fontaine added, noting that he finds it suspicious that politicians have started to question why aboriginal people are living in isolated northern communities and suggesting that they be relocated further south.

''The north in Ontario is some of the most valuable real estate anywhere in the world, rich in so many things - you wonder why they want us off the land. To rape and pillage once more? Well, we must say no to that as well.''

Every northern community must have the right to determine its own future, Fontaine said.

''If they want development, we should support them; but always keeping in mind that the integrity of the communities is paramount.''

New Democratic Party leader Howard Hampton and Christian Peacemaker Team member Jim Loney were among those who addressed the rally but the loudest applause and a standing ovation were reserved for Morris's wife, Anne Marie.

Brushing tears from her eyes, she said her husband found jail to be ''deeply humiliating and degrading.'' Being imprisoned as life returns to the land after a long winter is a special hardship, she said. ''Donny likes to hunt and fish and spend time on the land ... At this time of year, it's the hardest thing.''

Ardoch Algonquin Chief Paula Sherman, who has to pay a $15,000 fine for her part in the protest against uranium exploration, said there are two choices for communities faced with mineral exploration: ''Get out of the way or go to jail.''

Sherman said uranium mining is a quick way of poisoning water and land.

''We've said to Ontario, 'show us a safe uranium mine,' and they can't.''

Former Assembly of First Nations National Chief Ovide Mercredi, from Misipiwistik, Manitoba, noted that the aboriginal belief system, rooted in the land and assuming responsibility for future generations, is not understood by the mainly urban Canadian population.

The Canadian government sees treaty rights as limited to hunting, fishing and trapping, but they must logically include the sustainability of the land.

''If the habitat is destroyed by mining, that is a violation,'' Mercredi said. ''The treaty represents the right to a clean environment for our people.''

He called on McGuinty to follow through on assurances made by Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant that he never wanted the leaders to be jailed. Ensure that the government lawyer stands with the aboriginal people's lawyer when the sentencing appeal is heard, and ''not beside the lawyer for the exploration company,'' Mercredi urged.

Bryant told the legislature April 7 that the Crown will be supporting the appeal.

''We think it's important that these matters are resolved at the negotiating table and not through litigation.''

A less conciliatory position was expressed Jan. 8 by government lawyer Owen Young, who asked Judge Patrick Smith to impose ''a financial penalty that hurts. Morris said they couldn't afford that, but that they could reconcile with themselves going to jail. Well, the very fact that it will hurt means that it's the appropriate penalty because the objective here is to be persuasive.''

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417111