Hold dialogue before mining: UN

Stand up and be counted, Virginia politicians. Do the people of Southside not deserve the same respect as the people of Meghalaya, India with regard to proposed uranium mining? If you cannot or will not say "yes", and then follow through with the necessary dialogue, you do not deserve your office.


Shillong, October 16 (PTI): A UN envoy on Thursday said the government should seek the consent of local people before taking up uranium mining in Meghalaya, an issue hanging fire for over two decades. "Such projects need participation of indigenous people. They should agree that they would like to have such a project on their land," Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Victoria Tauli Corpuz told reporters here.

The Forum is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights. "The government should hold intense dialogue until they give their consent. By merely saying that such projects would bring in development is not enough. Development packages should not be used as enticement," Corpuz said.

http://www.morungexpress.com/regional/35497.html

Corrupt Politics

The recent Republican Attorney General’s opinion declaring that Pittsylvania County does not have the right to enact an ordinance banning uranium mining within its borders speaks volumes about how corrupt our political system has become. The fact that the opinion was sought by Republican Senator Robert Hurt, who just happens to be the son of Henry Hurt, a major investor in VUI (Virginia Uranium Inc.), and the fact that the opinion was rendered by a Republican Attorney General also speaks volumes.

Here we go again! Republicans are all about Big Money and Big Business, aren’t they? They are the ones who keep giving the Big Bad Boys the green light to plow “We the People” under, aren’t they?

Listen up, good people: the system is broken and we need to fix it.

How did we get here, you might ask? The answer is “Dillon’s Rule”. Virginia just happens to be a Dillon’s Rule state. (Some are and some are not.) Simply stated, Dillon’s Rule says that all power belongs to the State and that the State will determine what is best for the people--- not the people themselves. In other words, damn the people! How can that be, you might ask, doesn’t the Virginia constitution and the U. S. constitution say that all power belongs to the people, and isn’t our beloved State of Virginia the mother of presidents and cradle of democracy?

The answer to both questions is a resounding YES! However, our rights have been hijacked—stolen from us by Dillon’s Rule. Our politicians say that you and I no longer have the power and authority to determine our own destiny---that, ladies and gentlemen, our destiny will be determined by a group of Richmond politicians who more often than not are interested in stuffing their pockets with corporate cash than in fairly representing “We The People” who put them there.

Now, that we know how the deck is stacked against us we need to act. We The People need to take our government back. We The People need to weed out the bums and send good people to Richmond and Washington---and we need to throw out Dillon’s Rule which was adopted by the state without our blessing. Right now, there is a large major Canadian mining conglomerate poised to extract radioactive uranium that is now buried deep in solid bedrock, grind it into a fine powdery state, extract only one-half pound from each ton (.02%) and leave the remaining smoldering mass (99.98%) piled along the banks of the Banister River to ooze its radioactive heavy metal waste downstream forever. This is War!

If the Attorney General’s opinion doesn’t make your blood boil, you are not a fan of freedom nor are you a true Virginian, and, you do not cherish the rights fought for and handed down to us by our forefathers. This is treason and it should be dealt with accordingly.

Each locality, be it a town, a city or a county, should have the right to determine its own destiny. That’s the American way! That’s Democracy!! If We The People can’t determine our own destiny then there is no freedom and there is no democracy.

I don’t know about you but come November this loyal and long time Republican is going to start the process by voting for a Democratic Governor---and I am going to look ever-so carefully at all who are up for election.

Yours truly,

Jack Dunavant, Chairman

Southside Concerned Citizens

http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php/opinion/article/corrupt_politics/

Anti-Mining Group Takes Stand

By John Crane

Published: April 20, 2009

A local organization plans to roll out a petition Wednesday night demanding that the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors impose a ban on uranium mining.

The petition calls for an overthrow of the county’s government if the board “does not represent the majority of the people in the county” and renders itself “illegitimate under the Virginia Constitution.”

The Alliance, a group that formed in February after splitting from Southside Concerned Citizens, will give its first anti-mining presentation at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Averett University’s student center.

Shireen Parsons, a Christiansburg-based organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, said uranium mining opponents will try to gather signatures from a majority of county residents beginning at the meeting Wednesday.

“If this community wants to protect itself, that’s what they must do,” Parsons said Wednesday.

The petition calls for the board to ban uranium mining within three months after it’s submitted to supervisors. It also demands that local governments within the county adopt ordinances, such as chemical-trespass ordinances, to protect residents from uranium mining.

Parsons and Gregg Vickrey, a founder and the chairman of the Alliance, will speak at the event about the issues surrounding uranium mining and how a community can practice self governance. Vickrey’s presentation will be similar to seminars he gave in the past under SCC illustrating mining operations around the world and how mining could affect the area.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on the practice, but the Virginia Coal & Energy Commission is overseeing a study to determine whether it can be done safely in the commonwealth.

Vickrey said the presentation will be updated with information about the merger between Santoy and VUI.

County Supervisor Hank Davis, who represents the Chatham-Blairs District, declined to comment about the petition. Neither Vice Chair and Tunstall District Supervisor Tim Barber nor Chairman Coy Harville could be reached for comment by press time Monday.

Patrick Wales, VUI geologist and spokesman, said the presentation will be a retread from Vickrey’s past seminars. Ordinances like those against chemical trespass resulting from mining operations are unconstitutional in a Dillon Rule state, Wales said. The Dillon Rule means that state law supersedes local laws.

The town of Chatham discussed a possible chemical trespass ordinance, but former Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell said in an opinion last year that it would be unconstitutional.

Parsons said the Dillon Rule flies in the face of the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.

“It’s no different from rules in favor of slavery,” Parsons said.

She said opponents’ intentions are not merely to oppose mining, but to return government control to the hands of citizens.

“Our goal is not to stop uranium,” Parsons said. “Our goal is to seize local governing authority.”

The six-part petition cites the Virginia Constitution, saying that if the Board of Supervisors does not pass the mining ban, the petitioners will call for a vote to elect 11 people to draft a constitution for Pittsylvania County that bans uranium mining and “recognizes the right to community self-government.” The Pittsylvania County Chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens would implement the voting process.

Parsons said she could not say how the process would take place.

“We would have to discuss how to do this,” she said.

The petitioners, representing a majority of county citizens, would call for a vote by residents to ratify the “county constitution” and would give supervisors the choice of adopting it. If the board doesn’t, the constitution would become law anyway and petitioners authorize a special election to replace the existing county supervisors.

Excerpts

Excerpts from the petition that a local group plans to roll out Wednesday at Averett University’s student center:

• “WE THE PEOPLE OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, in order to secure local self-government, democracy, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and environment of Pittsylvania County, Hereby Demand:”

• “That the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance that bans uranium mining from occurring within the County ... “

• “That if the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors fails to take action to ban the mining, the Board will have failed to represent the majority of the people within the County ...”

• “That the undersigned, representing a majority of the residents in Pittsylvania County, hereby call for a vote of the residents to elect eleven people to draft a Constitution for the County of Pittsylvania ... “

• “If the County Supervisors refuse to adopt the new Constitution, the undersigned hereby authorize that another vote be taken to elect new County Supervisors ... “

• To read the full petition, go to GoDanRiver.com and click on this story’s link. [We have been unable to find the link to the entire petition at the GoDanRiver.com website...SB]

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/anti-mining_group_takes_stand/10521/

We have removed the Readers Reactions from our post. So many have been left at the GoDanRiver.com website (link above), we thought it unfair to only post the first few here.

Uranium Should Be Put to Vote

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:18 AM EDT

I feel like I am wasting my time writing this letter of concern regarding the approval or disapproval of uranium mining in Virginia.

However, we, the voting public, elected our officials and no matter how many letters we, the voting public, write concerning the mining of uranium in Virginia, I personally feel that it will do little if any good.

Once elected, though concerned of our wishes, it seems very clear that the elected officials of our state cease to be controlled by the voting public.

If the promoters of uranium mining are so sure that it is good for Virginia, then put the issue before the voting public and let us go to the polls and decide our own future.

It seems that the majority of the voting public is dead-set against uranium mining in Virginia, and if we could go to the polls and voice our opinion, it would be defeated.

On the other hand, if things continue the way they are going, it will be approved by a select few of the voting public-our elected officials.

If our trusted servants insist on deciding the issue, let them take full responsibility for their actions and stand accountable now and in the future for their decision.

Let's "wake up, Virginians" and band together to protect and preserve this beautiful state we live in called Virginia.

Any issue this important should be decided by all of us, not just a handful of people who at this time have the power to decide the future of Virginia's children and our children's children for which our forefathers fought and died.

"Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right." Proverbs 16:8.

M. Lee Wheeler

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/08/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

'Grateful' Legislators Can Be Voted Out of Office

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:45 AM EST
Chatham Star-Tribune

To the Editor:

How utterly delightful that our elected representatives, Virginia State Senator Robert Hurt and House Delegates Danny Marshall and Don Merricks, have chosen to send a very public thank-you note to Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission.

They even headed up the letter with "Put it on the Web!"

Personally, I'm so thankful that they represent us! Come voting time, I will remember their support of a group of officials that does not include any representation from Pittsylvania County, Virginia's largest land mass county - the ground zero test site for overturning the state's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium.

I will especially remember that Senator Robert Hurt's father is an investor in Virginia Uranium Inc.

I will remember that Senator Hurt has not recused himself from voting in the past for an "unbiased study" by the state to determine if uranium mining and milling would be harmful to our area and the rest of Virginia.

Sure, the Senate's Rules Committee okayed his not recusing himself from voting for the study last year.

After all, he and his investor father do not live under the same roof and are not dependent upon each other financially.

Big "but" coming: Doesn't an appearance of a conflict of interest apply here?

I'm also dismayed over former Congressman Virgil Goode taking $73,650 from the coal industry, an industry overseen by elected officials such as the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission.

Knowing this industry's use of mountaintop removal/surface blast mining for coal removal is responsible for the destruction of 470+ mountains along the Appalachian Mountain chain (formerly intact communities and homes of fellow Americans), I decided not to vote for Goode and cast my vote for Tom Perriello.

Silly of me to jump party lines and cast my vote for this reason? Seems I wasn't the only voter dissatisfied with Goode because he lost his congressional seat.

I've met and spoken to his successor, Tom Perriello, and asked that he represent and protect the rights of the citizenry of this state - not those of profit-driven corporations.

Whatever the outcome of this "unbiased, scientific study" on uranium mining and milling for the state of Virginia, I truly feel Southside Virginia is well on its way to being mined and polluted by an industry that has done so, recklessly, for decades.

Virginia Uranium Inc.'s promise of "new and safe mining technology" runs contrary to the multitude of articles and headlines noting the past and ongoing pollution in many midwestern and western U.S. states: Arizona, California, Nebraska, Utah, Colorado, North & South Dakota, Oregon, New Mexico, Wyoming, Washington state, Texas. And that's just in the USA.

Doesn't the fact that these states seek millions in federal funding to clean up and remediate the environmental damage done to land and water sources by uranium mining and milling corporations speak volumes?

Will the promise of jobs and the posting of bond money by Virginia Uranium to remediate any future harm to the environment allay our fears that our rights won't be protected?

As Virginia citizens, shouldn't our right to live, work and rear families in a safe environment be a given?

Does remediate really mean restore, as in pre-mining conditions?

Or, does it mean living with radiation progeny and heavy metals contamination of the land, water and air, during and post-mining?

Will we have to move away from this area as many around Coles Hill have stated they will do in order to protect our families?

Once the moratorium is lifted, other parts of this uranium-rich county will be open to other mining companies like Virginia Uranium and its Canadian partner/owner, Santoy.

Seems to me, if we voted our elected officials in to protect our rights and interests as citizens, we can surely vote them out when we feel they've put the interests of corporations before ours.

Perhaps a hand-written note of thanks would have been the better choice for this grateful group of elected officials.

Anne Cockrell
Alliance member

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/03/04/chatham/opinion/opinion07.txt

Take the Pledge...Sign the Declaration! Become a Born-Again American!

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/

(click to see video, hear song, and take action)

BORN AGAIN AMERICAN
By Keith Carradine

Just a workin’ man without a job
It got shipped off to China via Washington, D.C.
And I know I’m nothin’ special, there are plenty more like me
Just the same
I thought I knew the rules of the game

I stood up for this country that I love
I came back from the desert to a wife and kids to feed
I’m not sayin’ Uncle Sam should give me what I need
My offer stands
I’ll pull my weight you give me half a chance

I went up to a congressman and said to him “you know
Our government is letting people down”
He said he’d need a lot of help to buck the status-quo
I said there was a bunch of us around

I’m a Born Again American, conceived in Liberty
My Bible and the Bill of Rights, my creed’s equality
I’m a Born Again American, my country ‘tis of me
And everyone who shares the dream from sea to shining sea

My brother’s welding chassis at the plant
He’s earning what our granddad did in 1948
While CEOs count bonuses behind the castle gates
How can they see
When all they care about’s the do re mi

It’s getting where there’s nowhere left to turn
Not since the crash of twenty-nine have things been so unfair
So many of our citizens are living in despair
The time has come
To reaffirm that hope’s not just for some

The promise of America’s surrendering to greed
The rule is just look out for number one
But brace yourself ‘cause some of us have sown a different seed
A harvest of the spirit has begun

I’m a Born Again American conceived in liberty
My Bible and The Bill Of Rights
My creed’s equality
A Born Again American, my country ‘tis of me
And everyone who shares the dream from sea to shining sea

It’s clear my country’s soul is on the line
She’s hungering for something that she lost along the way
The principle the framers called upon us to obey
That in this land
The people’s will must have the upper hand

I felt the calling once before and took a sacred vow
And faithful to that vow I have remained
I hear the calling once again, my country needs me now
And to her cause I have been re-ordained

I’m a Born Again American conceived in liberty
My Bible and the Bill Of Rights, all people living free
A Born Again American, my country ‘tis of me
And everyone who shares the dream
From sea to shining sea
And everyone who shares the dream
From sea to shining sea
A M E R I C A

Uranium, Other Conflict-of-Interest Issues Cause Lobbyists To Walking a Fine Line w/ GA

It appears that transparency could expose conflicts, double-dipping, etc.

JEFF E. SCHAPIRO, COLUMNIST

TIMES-DISPATCH

Published: January 31, 2009

Chuck Duvall is a lobbyist of the old school. Quiet, droll, with a purposeful stride, he carries his office in his pocket. What was said of a House speaker from Duvall's 'hood might apply to Duvall: He can walk through the woods without rustling the leaves.

But Duvall's mix of clients and this year's blend of legislation have state Capitol habitues stirring over a perceived conflict of interest.

Duvall, who came to Richmond from Frederick County as a legislative aide in the early 1970s, deals with this dilemma by intentionally not dealing in the issues that put his clients at cross-purposes.

For lobbyists, conflicts of interest are a growing challenge, if not problem, that can be largely attributed to Virginia's rapidly changing political and economic landscape. However, the principal safeguard against possible abuses remains unchanged: self-policing.

Given the amount of money spent influencing the General Assembly -- $20 million last year, up from $16 million in 2007 -- a skeptical public may have little confidence that lobbyists can be relied upon to keep their nest clean.

Another complication: lobbyists' innate aversion to scrutiny. Many lobbyists believe the most effective way to ply their trade -- that is, peddling information that molds government policy -- is to be heard and not seen. In other words: Leave the headlines to the politicians.

Del. Sam Nixon, R-Chesterfield, hopes to promote some transparency with legislation forcing lobbyists to report bill-specific spending -- the gifts and entertainment showered on a lawmaker for this vote or that.

Nixon got the idea from contract lobbyists who complain about opaque post-General Assembly disclosures to the state by their counterparts at the high-roller firms.

Duvall lobbies for hospital giant HCA, which favors higher tobacco taxes for Medicaid. He also represents Bailey's cigarette maker S&M Brands, a foe of additional levies. And Duvall has 7-Eleven. The convenience-store chain is against more tobacco taxes as well as a proposal to strip retailers of their cut for collecting the sales tax.

For the 2009 legislature, Duvall -- with his clients' OK -- skirts a possible conflict by not lobbying on these issues. That way, he preserves long-standing -- and lucrative -- business relationships. Further, Duvall avoids disrupting ties to lawmakers, who look to him for the straight skinny and the occasional campaign contribution.

Duvall isn't the only lobbyist bumping into conflicts.

Lawyer Alan Albert represents Virginia Beach. His partner, Tom Lisk, schmoozes for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association. The city favors tougher controls on smoking in public; the group opposes them. The firm and Virginia Beach decided Albert would not lobby on smoking bills.

Albert snapped up Virginia Beach as a client because of a conflict of interest by another lobbyist. Ben Dendy represented the city for years. The relationship ended because Dendy signed with a proposed uranium mine that Virginia Beach fears will poison its water supply.

More troublesome than conflicts of interest may be the protocols -- or lack thereof -- for identifying and avoiding them. Lawyers risk public punishment by the Virginia State Bar for breaching the profession's canons. Not nonlawyers.

The best solution may be to let daylight upon the mystery. That's assuming the lobbyists, and their assembly friends, don't lock the shutters first.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF01_20090131-220546/194252/

Gloucester County Citizens for Accountable Representation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And rarely elsewhere, apparently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM THE RICHMOND-TIMES DISPATCH
JAN. 30, 2009

GLOUCESTER RESIDENTS FINED FOR SEEKING TO REMOVE SUPERVISORS

Cory Nealon - Daily Press

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

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

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

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

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

Emmert said he is considering two angles for the appeal.

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

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

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

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

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

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

Danville Register & Bee
Published: January 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

RANDOLPH NEAL, M.D.

Danville

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