Reed Hayes: One false step, 41 years of pain

by Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

Monday, August 10, 2009

July 1967. Graveyard shift at the Atlas uranium mill in Moab, Utah. A light bulb is out on the second level over one of the vats of yellowcake - sludge of concentrated uranium ore.

Reed Hayes eases himself down the walkway, a replacement bulb in hand. But someone on the swing shift forgot to put up a rope to block off the yellowcake tank. Suddenly Hayes falls. He splashes into the tank.

He's a strong swimmer, and he swims out through the sludge. The shift boss tells him to go home, shower, change clothes and get back to work.

A month later, shortly after he left his job, painful rashes break out all over his body, "head to toes." It's an affliction Hayes has carried to his retirement home, a tidy ranch house with an immaculate garden at the western tip of the Paradox Valley.

Hayes' words come slowly, with long pauses between sentences, as he describes dozens of different drugs and tests he's endured over the decades.

"I've got it today. I've got parts of it on my body right now," Hayes says.

He wears a thick, long-sleeved shirt, sunglasses and a hat every time he goes outside to work in his garden and orchard. For some reason, this year, he's been able to grow apricots - 56 of them, to be precise - while many of the Western Slope crops failed.

Atlas was no help to him. The company is defunct. He applied to the government for compensation for sick nuclear workers, but he couldn't get it because the program was for only lung disease. He's applied to another program, and his case has been pending since last fall.

"I think I'm on the back burner, basically," he says.

"I've been in misery, sometimes literally hell, for 41½ years," Hayes says. "My wife has taken me to the emergency room probably seven or eight times. Sometimes it breaks out and gets in my mouth, starts choking me. Sometimes it gets in my eyes. It moves around."

Steroid balms help a bit, along with antihistamines.

"It never does get rid of it. It just calms it down. It's just a Band-Aid," Hayes says. "That's my story."

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/10/Reed_Hayes_One_false_step_41_years_of_pain/

Don't Drink The Uranium

August 1, 2009

by Ann Garrison

Havasupai Guardians of the Grand Canyon.
Photo credit: Brenda Norrell

On July 21, 2009, Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a two year "time out" on new uranium mining claims on nearly a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon, in response, it seemed, to the protest of environmentalists, and, Native Americans, who still suffer cancers and other illnesses at rates many times higher than the general population, consequent to uranium mining on or near tribal lands.

Cause for celebration? Not in the least. Salazar's announcement is straight out of Orwell's 1984. This two year "time out" is no time out at all, because new mining claims are not the issue. More than 10,000 uranium claims have been staked on federal land immediately surrounding the Grand Canyon in the last three years. According to Roger Clark, Air and Energy Director of the Grand Canyon Trust, if even 1% of these claims become mines, they could seriously contaminate both ground and surface water surrounding the Grand Canyon, which drains into the Colorado River and contributes to the drinking water of 30 million people in the Lower Colorado River Basin, in Arizona, Colorado, and California.

On the day that Salazar announced his faux time out, the Native Havasupai, who make their home at the base of the Grand Canyon's South Rim, began gathering to host a weekend teach-in and speak-out against uranium mining at Red Butte, a Havasupai sacred site they hope to defend from contamination and desecration by Denison Mines' plan to reopen its nearby Arizona One uranium mine. Denison, a collaboration of Dennison Mines, Inc. and Uranium International, was then reported to be only one Arizona air quality permit away from reopening the mine closed 20 years ago.

In November 2008, the Motley Fool stock adviser, in "A Fresh Jolt for Uranium," said that Denison's prospects, like those of other small players in uranium mining were benefiting from increased demand created by uranium mining giant Cameco's ongoing difficulty getting its jet bore uranium mine into operation at Cigar Lake, on Native Canadian land in northern Saskatchewan. In October 2006, while Cameco's Cigar Lake mine was still under construction, a wall of water knocked it into Cigar Lake and adjacent waterways.

The Fool also pointed out that uranium supplies from decomissioned nuclear warheads, a.k.a., "the bomb mine," are running out:

"As it stands, uranium usage routinely exceeds global mine production. We can tap decommissioned warheads and other stockpiles to fill the gap, but that won't last forever. The longer Cigar Lake is delayed, the faster we blow through above-ground supply. That would do wonders for the spot price of uranium."

On July 30th, 2009, nine days after Salazar's announcement, and, four days after the Havasupai concluded their protest, the Motley Fool named Denison as their favorite "penny stock" of the week, meaning, the cheap stock most likely to take off from a very low price. and, maybe even make you rich, on a very small investment:

''Uranium was recently at its lowest price level. With brent price increase, uranium and fossil fuels tend to follow the price increase,'' wrote CAPS investor jajege in June. ''New nuclear power plants are planned and will require more uranium production, especially after the stock of uranium from the nuclear weapons are running out.''

It's still a very risky stock, though, the Fool warned, but only because of its low capitalization of only $2.5 million, its heavy debt load of $100 million, and, the risky nature of mining ventures.

Not because of Interior Secretary Salazar's ''time out,'' and, not because of environmentalist and native resistance, although, in November 2008, the Fool did warn of ''delays in permitting and other pesky problems'':

'None of these companies is immune to mining mishaps. Delays in permitting and other pesky problems have pushed back production schedules pretty much across the board. Still, the growth outlook is very favorable for Denison, which makes it the sort of stock you should own.'

In 2006, the Navajo Nation Tribal Council passed a ban on uranium mining, the first native claim to sovereignty, over natural resources of its kind. Navajo environmentalists have been defending the ban, against enormous pressure, ever since. At Red Butte, members of the Havasupai Tribe said that they hope to enact a ban as well.

As with the Navajo ban, a fundamental question would then be whether uranium mining which endangers the water table well beyond the mining claim itself, violates a Havasupai ban, and/or, the environmental rights of wider communities, including the 30 million people of Arizona, Colorado, and California, who depend on the Colorado River's contribution to the drinking water in the Colorado River Basin.

Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) reported on the gathering at Red Butte, and Censored News writer/editor Brenda Norrell captured video: "Havasupai: Singing away uranium mining."

http://www.examiner.com/x-8257-SF-Energy-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d1-Uranium-the-Havasupai-and-drinking-water-in-the-Colorado-River-Basin

Hold on a Minute, Mr. Secretary...Some Questions for You

This letter to Secretary Chu, and local news outlets, is in response to "Thank you Mister Secretary" written by Norm Reynolds, Virginia Energy (VUI) posted below (scroll down2 posts). As usual, Ms. Maute asks pertinent questions. We're hoping she gets full, honest responses...but we're not counting on it.

Honorable Secretary Chu,

Thank you for visiting Virginia.

Most of us in Virginia as are welcoming to federal dignitaries. However, we do not generally take kindly to their attempting to set state policy. We're even less excited to have to have an industry do it for us.

The letter from which I cite (printed in its entirty below) leads one to believe that perhaps that may be occurring.

Mr. Norm W. Reynolds has written a letter to local papers (Danville and Pittsylvania County) which appears to take liberties the purpose of your visit and President Obama's energy agenda. I am hoping you can set the record straight. I, and many others, await answers to the questions posed below.

Sincerely,

Karen B. Maute,

Danville, VA

Mr. Reynolds states, "U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu could not have picked a better spot than Pittsylvania County to sound his ringing call for “restarting” our nation’s nuclear energy program, as well as endorsing Virginia’s state-sanctioned study to assess the safety and feasibility of mining and milling uranium in the commonwealth.

Question: Was the purpose of your visit to Pittsylvania County, VA to"sound his ringing call for "restarting" our America's nuclear program?

Mr. Reynolds writes, Speaking to concerns that have been raised about mining in Virginia, Chu — a Nobel laureate in physics — explained that in “any kind of mining, whether it’s uranium, coal or nickel, or you name it, it has to be done in a way that protects the environment and protects the people. … there’s a study going on as to whether uranium mining in Virginia is going to do that. … we will wait for the results of that study.”

Question: Do you consider the coal industry as an example of mining in a way that protects the environment and people?

Question: To your knowledge where has uranium been mined and milled safely with a climate, watersheds and density of population similar to Virginia?

Question: Thousands of new uranium claims exist in historically mined areas in the US. Density of population appears less and the areas more arid.

Question: Why encourage mining in Virginia where millions stand to suffer water contamination if mining and milling of uranium occurs?

Mr. Reynolds states, "The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is working with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent study to address concerns of Virginians about safety to people, livestock, crops and the environment."

Question: Has the National Academy of Sciences entered into contract to conduct the proposed study?

Question: If so, with whom did they contract and how is the study being funded?

Mr. Reynolds writes,The secretary’s position on the uranium potential at Coles Hill seemed to reflect that of his boss, President Barack Obama. When the president was campaigning in Virginia last year, The Roanoke Times carried the following report:

“According to an e-mail from his Virginia communications director, Obama supports a proposed study of the (Coles Hill) site to evaluate the potential environmental effects of mining. But, he adds, ‘Virginia has the potential to be a national leader in uranium mining, and development of uranium resources in Pittsylvania County could create hundreds of jobs in that part of the state.’”

Question: Who was the communications director who sent the e-mail stating that Obama supports a proposed study of the (Coles Hill) site to evaluate the potential environmental effects of mining?

Question: Is this President Obama's quote or from the un-named communications director, "‘Virginia has the potential to be a national leader in uranium mining, and development of uranium resources in Pittsylvania County could create hundreds of jobs in that part of the state.’”

Mr. Reynolds writes, "On the larger subject of using nuclear energy to power America, Chu told the local audience of about 275 people that the Obama administration and the U.S. Department of Energy are “very supportive of restarting the nuclear power industry,” adding that he believes it can be done safely."

Question: Does this mean that you, Secretary Chu, believe mining and milling of uranium can be done safely? If so, please elaborate reasons for that belief.

Mr. Reynolds writes, "For those of us who have worked long and hard on the Coles Hill project, it is gratifying that the nation’s highest energy official saw fit to come to Pittsylvania County and to endorse the scientific study and to state so unequivocally the Obama administration’s high commitment to getting nuclear back on track in the United States. We look forward to moving ahead hand in hand with such enlightened thinking."

Question: To what extent is the Obama administration involved with the uranium industry ?

Mr. Reynolds writes, "What Dr. Chu is talking about goes straight to the heart of energy independence for our nation. Yes, we need to move ahead on all fronts that make sense. But let us keep in mind that of the 55 million pounds of uranium needed to operate nuclear facilities for one year in this country, over 50 million pounds are imported. That is a frightening statistic in a world as unpredictable as the one in which we are living."

Question: Will the Obama administration and subsequent administrations require uranium mined at Coles Hill or in the United States to remain in the states for the sole purpose of American energy use?

Question: Can sale to foreign countries be prohibited?

Question: Why is the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission studying market trends for the uranium industry as part of its invironmental study?

Uranium Mining and Extreme Flooding in Virginia

(Figures 1-3, modified for size, are above. #1- uppermost, #2 - middle, #3 - bottom. They are from the USGS, Circular 1245. Links for Figures 4-5 are below the text document and are from the Piedmont Environmental Council.)

Uranium Mining and Extreme Flooding in Virginia

The Need for a Sediment Transport/Water Quality Model and PMP Failure Analysis

by

Thomas M. Leahy

July 1, 2009


Extreme Flooding in Virginia

Figure 1 is a map of the United States showing the location of approximately 23,000 past and present USGS stream flow gauges. Figure 2 is the same map showing only those stream flow gauges (about 3,000) that have recorded extreme flooding events. The screening criteria that the USGS used to define an extreme flooding event was 100 to 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) per square mile for small water sheds (less than 1000 square miles) and 50 to 100 cfs per square mile for large watersheds (1,000 squaremiles and greater). The average stream flow for watersheds in Virginia and adjacent states is about 1.0 cfs per square mile. Therefore, Figure 2 shows the locations where stream flows have been recorded that were at least 50 to 300 times greater than the average normalized stream flow in Virginia.

For the contiguous 48‐states, Figure 2 shows that other than the west coast, extreme flooding occurs mostly in the southeast quadrant (south of the 40th parallel and east of the 100th meridian). Moisture for the precipitation that fuels these events is provided by the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. These floods can be represented by three primary clusters.

The first is the central mid‐west and lower Mississippi Valley which includes eastern Kansas and Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and western Tennessee and Alabama. These regions have been nicknamed Tornado and Dixie Alleys due to the frequency and magnitude of tornados that result from intense thunderstorms known as super-cells, formed by the collision of cool dry Canadian air with warm humid Gulf of Mexico air.

The other two clusters of extreme flooding events are southern Texas and the eastern ridge of the Appalachian/Blue Ridge Mountain chain from Georgia to Maine, including a distinct concentration in Virginia. The USGS determined that these regions are prone to extreme flooding because topography provided by mountain ranges and escarpments can rapidly lift moisture laden air into the cooler upper atmosphere:

“Within the eastern conterminous United States, the pattern of large flows closely corresponds to the proximity of subtropical moisture derived from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Finer‐scale patterns within this region, however, are clearly linked to topography. Orographic lifting of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico triggers convective instability and has caused concentrations of large floods at topographic features such as the Balcones Escarpment in south central Texas, the Ozark Mountains of western Missouri, and along the eastern edge of the Appalachians on the eastern seaboard. The important role of topographic relief is also illustrated by the lack of exceptional discharges in Florida, and along the coastal plain of the southern and eastern tier States. Despite being closest to the moisture sources and subject to frequent landings of major hurricanes, these relatively flat areas have few stations that have recorded flows exceeding the large‐flow criteria . . .”

--Large Floods in the United States: Where They Happen and Why, USGS Circular 1245, 2003, p.9. Emphasis added.

Figure 2 also shows that there are very few extreme flow events in the western states or in the northern mid‐west. Where they do occur, they are mostly confined to very small watersheds. This is the result of a lack of an available moisture source and/or cooler air temperatures, both of which limit the moisture content in the air.

Probable Maximum Precipitation [PMP] in Virginia

The screening criteria for identifying the extreme flows depicted in Figure 2 ranged from 50 to 300 cfs per square mile. However, depending upon duration, a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event in Virginia and surrounding areas will deluge an area with 1,000 to 7,000 cfs per square mile.

Figure 3 is the same as Figure 2, except that the locations of storms with precipitation approaching the PMP have been shown. Figure 3 also includes the location of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine, in Pittsylvania County, VA. In the eastern US, the locations of the near‐PMP events mimic the location of the extreme flooding events identified by the USGS: Tornado and Dixie Alleys, southern Texas, and the eastern ridge of the Appalachian and Blue Ridge Mountains.

In fact, Figure 3 shows a string of at least 8 near‐PMP storms east of the Blue Ridge Mountains from North Carolina to Maine. These events occurred along a corridor that cuts a path right through the uranium ore deposits in Pittsylvania County and the ore deposits in four counties west of Fredericksburg.

Two of the storms occurred in Virginia ‐ one in 1969 in Nelson County about 60 miles from the Pittsylvania uranium deposits (Figure 4), and the other in 1995 in Madison County, one of the four counties west of Fredericksburg where uranium ore deposits have been identified (Figure 5).

The Need for a Sediment Transport and Water Quality Model and Failure Analysis

As a consequence of the topographic relief provided by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the subtropical moisture provided by the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, the Piedmont region in Virginia just east of the Blue Ridge Mountains is prone to extreme flooding and has a much higher likelihood of experiencing catastrophic precipitation events than many other areas in the country. However, this is also the same location of the uranium deposits in Pittsylvania County and west of Fredericksburg.

Stakeholders concerned about the potential impacts of uranium mining have asked to be shown locations and examples of uranium mines and mill tailing cells that occur in areas that have similar climate, geography, and population density as Virginia. This may be problematic ‐ there may not be any other locations where uranium mines and milling operations, an unlimited source of hot humid air, topographic/orographic lifting potential, and high population density all intersect.

Even if a uranium mine and milling operation located in a relatively wet climate (i.e., 45‐inches per year of precipitation) could be identified, that location might not be prone to extreme precipitation events due to its particular meteorological and physiographic characteristics. It is even less likely that a uranium mine or milling operation will be indentified that has ever experienced a PMP event similar to the two that have occurred in Virginia (about thirty inches of rain in six‐hours).

Therefore, it is important to assess what the potential consequences would be if a storm similar to the Nelson County or Madison County storms were to strike a mining and milling operation and transport a significant load of mill tailings downstream to the receiving rivers and reservoirs. This will require an engineering study that includes a sediment transport and water quality model.

The model must be able to accept as input, various precipitation events ranging from severe hurricanes and nor’easters that strike Virginia relatively frequently to a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event. The modeling of the fragmentation of a mill tailing dewatering facility, storage area, or confining cell will be a difficult task, subject to much debate. So, initially, the model should be designed to accept as input, assumptions of various amounts of mill tailings that might be released as the result of a catastrophic precipitation or flood event that would strike the proposed Cole’s Hill mining operation.

The model would then predict the downstream transport and fate of the mill tailings in terms of location and quantity beginning with the Banister River, through Kerr Reservoir, through Lake Gaston and Roanoke Rapids, and downstream through the Roanoke River and flood plains, and into Albemarle Sound.

After the model has determined the location and quantity of the transported mill tailings, a water quality component will predict the increased radioactivity and other contamination that will result in the downstream waters for any given amount of mill tailings released. The water quality parameters that will be considered are gross alpha, gross beta, radium isotopes, radon, and uranium. Other toxic substances typically associated with mill tailings will also be considered.

The model will also include an assessment of how long the increased radioactivity or other contamination would persist given normal weather and flow patterns.

Figure 4: http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,557,2133,0,html/Properties-with-Former-Uranium-Mining-Leases-and-Downstream-Water-Supplies-Southside-Region

Figure 5: http://www.pecva.org/anx/ass/library/19/downstreamflow_counties_wtr.pdf

Uranium: Wealth or Woe

World Sikh News continues its journey of the unexplored while adhering to the philosophy of Guru Nanak’s Sarbat da Bhala. WSN is a forum for the weak, the underprivileged and the unrepresented. We publish this article received from the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation highlighting the plight of the Topnaar Nama people in Namibia.

Debates rage over whether energy generated by uranium induced nuclear fission is beneficial or harmful. The debate often settles into familiar bipartite arguments of nuclear power plants versus nuclear bombs. However, this article demonstrates that this approach is too narrow; the threats to land and livelihoods generated purely from the extraction process are substantial but unknown or ignored, as the Topnaar Nama people in Namibia are discovering.

Whilst tragic results of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well documented, the environmental and health problems that are a consequence of uranium exploration are less well known by the general global public.

During the development of the atomic bomb, thousands of mines were built in the Southwest of the United States and Northern Canada. The radioactive waste, known as tailings, that builds up in huge piles of rocks and slush outside the mines continues to threaten the wellbeing of local populations and contaminates the environment.

The sad truth is that Governments are fully aware of the dangers but still refuse to implement adequate protection measures.

”Suffering” from natural wealth

Uranium is not only radioactive but chemically toxic too. 80% of the radioactivity of the original uranium ore is left behind in highly acidic ‘tailings’. It remains radioactive for hundreds-of-thousands of years and should be kept safely isolated from the environment.

Uranium can cause a wide variety of health problems. Miners and local communities drink contaminated water, eat contaminated food and breathe in radon gas and dust from the tailings. In addition to this, the extraction and processing of uranium ore uses huge amounts of highly sought-after water that cannot be recycled.

It has been argued by mining companies that uranium extraction brings jobs to local populations, thus creating better living conditions, and for a few this was true. However the companies also quietly ignore the health and environmental effects of the process.

After 30 years living alongside uranium mines, the Tuareg of Niger refer to uranium as a ‘curse’ rather than a blessing. They say the North of Niger “suffer[s] from its wealth’, rather than reap supposed rich rewards.

In many cases there have been no safety precautions, no radiation protection and no information about the hazards of the mining process. Regulations are non-existent or faulty to such an extent that they would never be accepted in industrialized states.

The problems associated with uranium mining are set to continue with its rising price as demand from nuclear power plant companies increases. Africa is especially at risk because companies are attracted by the lack of strict regulations.

”There was always water”

One community that is particularly at risk from uranium extraction is the Topnaar Nama, one of fourteen groups of Nama people. These groups traditionally lived in the southern parts of the Namib, which today is part of Namibia and adjacent to South Africa. This nomadic group breed their own livestock such as goats and cows, which, along with !Nara fruits make-up their main food staples. They now live their traditional way of life in the area of the Kuiseb River and canyon, south of Walvisbay and Svakopmund.

Water is obviously the most important source of life, as Fanuel Abraham Haoseb, the Councilor of the Nama King acknowledges:

‘Water is life. In the older days people knew where to find water, where the water level is near, where it is easy to get water. There was always water’.

There are currently two mines operating in the Topnaar territory with the Namibian Government recently issuing more uranium exploration licenses to various international companies. The Topnaar people now fear for their lives and existence. Uranium mining poses a considerable threat to general health, and lifestyle because of effects on underground and surface water resources.

As a result of these mines Fanuel Abraham Haoseb resents the fact that ‘…water [now] belongs to Nam Water”. He continued, saying that:

“Even we have to pay for the water to Nam Water - every community - which is difficult to pay because we have not enough animals, not enough income. So NamWater puts up pumps and the water belongs to Nam Water which was first our water. And this is going not only to Walvisbay, it is going up to Swakop and Arandis.’

The lack of water, and other environmental issues related to uranium mining have other impacts on the Topnaar. As Captain Samuel Khaxab from the Royal House of the Topnaar Nama states:

‘We do not accept the uranium mines. One day I want to show my children, my small children, this flower and that bock - which is called springbock and that one [which] is an Oryx. But if that mine is coming, the animals cannot be there anymore. The thing is so strong, dangerous; the people who are working in the mine become sick. The Roessing mine is far from us, but now it comes near at us. And it is dangerous for us. We cannot give permission for that thing.’

It has been recognized that the demand for water is much too high for the Namib to supply. In an attempt to combat this problem a water desalination plant is presently under construction at Wlozkasbaken as a joint venture between the uranium mining company UraMin and Nam Water.

It has been reported that workers of the Roessing mine, amongst them Topnaar people, are becoming ill and are dying. One Topnaar reported that his friend, a miner, had died a few weeks ago because of what the doctor referred to as ‘old mans illness’. He was only 60, and those within the Topnaar villages that have never worked in the mines live beyond 80 without any ‘old mans illness.’

A profiteering Government?

It is clear from the issuing of uranium exploration licenses that the Namibian Government is less than supportive towards the Topnaar peoples’ situation. This is despite the fact that the Namibian constitution states that traditional chiefs (captains or kings) of different tribes be included in parliament.

It appears that financial institutions within the country, such as the Bank of Namibia, have found the potential income that mining may bring too attractive to reject. This is despite studies in other African countries that demonstrates only a small percentage of the worth of the resources extracted actually stay in the country.

Indeed it is clear that the Topnaar people are not benefitting from the mining taking place within their territory. Ephraim Peterson, also from the Royal House of the Topnaar-Nam said:

‘In the harvest time we collect the !Narra fruit. We eat it, the goats and donkeys also eat it. But the fruit is in danger because of the Uranium mines. If those mines are coming they can contaminate our plants, the !Narra. We also have the fish but we never benefit from it. Even from the Naukluft Park also. The tourists are coming in. Thousands of tourists are coming in, but we never got something from it. Our ancestors were hunting here before it became a Park. They were eating springbock, Oryx, the ostrich. But today we cannot hunt anymore. It is not allowed, the Government took it over.’

Captain Samuel Khaxab agrees, arguing that the ‘Government has forgotten the customary law, the old law of Namibia. Customary law says that if someone comes from the royal house, he is entitled to the captainship and the chieftainship. The law says the mountains belong to us; the birds belong to us, the Oryx, the ostrich, all the animals, everything in that area is belonging to me and my people. That is what customary law says. Even the minerals are ours and the ground belongs to us’.

It is apparent to the Topnaar, in the words of Ephraim Peterson, that the Government ‘does not care’, no money has ever been received from the mines; instead they must pay the water company in order to get water. He claims that the ‘people who govern now do what they want. They do not care about us. And that is very painful for us!’

Fearing for the future

The Topnaar Nama people fear for their lives and for their existence. Uranium mining poses considerable health hazards to the people, and the side effects of uranium mining, such as the depletion of the underground and surface water resources make their traditional lifestyles impossible to maintain.

Fanuel Abraham Haoseb describes how the natural water systems have come under strain in recent years:

‘In the past elephants, giraffes, rhinos they used to come down the river during the rainy season. They were grazing just 5 kilometers from Walvisbay town. But today these animals are not coming down anymore. Our water is now supplying too many things like factories or the mines in our area. Mines use a lot of water and new mines can use more water and this will have an effect on us because Nam Water will have to pump more water out of the river so that they can give more water to other people, to other things. This will also have an effect on our community itself. The river, the trees and the whole lifestyle of us will be afflicted by this system.’

Less or no water means no food for the animals, and it also means fewer !Nara fruits. It all adds up to no food for the people and is compounded by a government that is unwilling or unable to assist its people. It appears that the quest for alternative energy sources that has invigorated so many has left the Topnaar Nama people desolate in light of their drained lands.

http://worldsikhnews.com/25%20March%202009/Uranium%20Wealth%20or%20Woe.htm?1=YES

From NunnGlow's FAQ's - - FAQ 3 - Don't we need uranium to fuel cheap, clean nuclear power?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) 2003 study and a 2004 University of Chicago study concurred that nuclear power is much more expensive than natural gas or coal for electrical production (MIT's estimated cost of electricity for coal was 4.2kWh/ natural gas 3.8-5.6 kWh/nuclear power 6.7kWh). The MIT study concluded "The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options. These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power."

Brice Smith's book "Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change" (http://www.ieer.org/reports/insurmountablerisks/bricestmt.html) offers facts, figures, reports, and studies that show uranium and its radiation cannot be an answer to greenhouse gas reduction. In addition, for all the potential dangers nuclear energy will expose us to, it will have little effect on global climate stabilization.

Peter Bradford, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reports that, even if we were to triple today's worldwide nuclear capacity, it would only be equivalent to one third of what we can currently do to decrease greenhouse gas omission through energy efficiency and conservation. (See the nuclear power debate between Bradford, Patrick Moore, and Jim Riccio of Greenpeace USA at http://www.nirs.org/videodebate.htm)

Dr. Helen Caldicott writes in her book Nuclear Power is Not the Answer on page viii: “Nuclear power is not “clean and green,” as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)– the primary “greenhouse gas”- into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon (as CFC gas) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper (“greenhouse gas”) than CO2, but it is a classic “pollutant” and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer.”

It is exciting to hear our legislators want Colorado to become an economic hub for RENEWABLE energy. Let us move toward that goal and leave uranium in-situ, in its original place in the earth. A quick profit for a few individuals will have negative impacts, not just in northern Colorado, but globally.

http://www.nunnglow.com/faqs/faq3.html

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer

This isn't news, per se, but it is vitally important information. It's from the National Academies of Science, the group who is to conduct the state-wide uranium mining feasibility study.

Washington, DC, June 30, 2005 -

The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are:

• There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
  
  
• Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.
  
  
• Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.
  
  
• It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures.
  

The “bystander effect” is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. “Genomic instability” can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report “might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk.” These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study.

The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought.


RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT— RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS

The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime. [1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s allowable radiation dose for members of the public.

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses [3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens.

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).[4]

The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided.

“This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste—releasing it to regular trash or “recycling” it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money,” stated Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). “This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened.”

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated “These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures.”

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

[1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ).

More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII’s risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC:(7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime).

[2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3) At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer…but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures.

[3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray.

[4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/radiation-levels.html

Radioactive Revival in New Mexico

By Shelley Smithson

June 10, 2009

Mitchell Capitan points to a flock of sheep grazing in the shadow of a sandstone mesa. The sheep belong to Capitan's family, along with a few head of cattle and twelve quarter horses standing in a corral near his mother-in-law's house in Crownpoint, New Mexico.

"All of this area," Capitan says, gesturing to the valley of sage and shrub brush below, "there's a lot of uranium underneath there. That's what they're after."

Capitan and his Navajo neighbors are battling a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI)--a subsidiary of a Texas company, Uranium Resources--one of several firms that have laid claim to the minerals beneath thousands of acres on and around the lands of the Navajo Nation and three American Indian pueblos in northwestern New Mexico. A group called the Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining is suing the NRC to block mining in Crownpoint and another Navajo community. A panel of federal judges in Denver heard the case in May 2008 but has yet to issue a ruling.

A resurgence of interest in building nuclear power plants, touted as a nonpolluting alternative to carbon-fueled plants, has sparked a uranium rush. Since 2007 the NRC has received seventeen license applications for twenty-six new reactors, causing a flurry of applications for uranium mining permits across the Four Corners region, where New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado meet. In February Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the Energy Department would expedite the approval process for $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for utilities that are building nuclear plants. The guarantees, along with other Bush-era incentives, are meant to spur construction of new plants.

The anticipated rise in demand for uranium has led the industry back to the very places it deserted three decades ago when it abandoned hundreds of mines, seven polluted uranium mills, billions of gallons of contaminated groundwater and mountains of radioactive waste. Congress is only now beginning to press agencies to clean up the mess, an undertaking that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Plenty of people in this economically distressed corner of New Mexico are thrilled about the 8,000 new jobs and $1 billion in economic benefits the uranium industry promises. They point to claims made by industry lobbyists in a concerted PR campaign that new technology will make mining safer and that cast doubt on the connection between uranium mining and the illnesses that plague people who worked in mines and mills or lived near them.

Many others, especially American Indians like Capitan, remain unconvinced. They are afraid the companies will leave behind another trail of environmental destruction, illness and death like that of thirty years ago.

Sitting in his wood-paneled office in Window Rock, Arizona, Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley Jr., a tall, thin man with silver hair and a fierce opposition to uranium mining, declares, "I don't believe there is any safe technology that can be used to mine uranium. Many of my people died because of mining of uranium ore here on Navajo land. Back at that time, the US government did not apprise my people of the dangers that are inherent with the mining of uranium ore. And as a result, a lot of people came down with cancer." Shirley has watched several family members suffer from uranium-related illnesses. "It is devastating. It has wrecked the lives of our families," he says.

Finish reading this article here.

Recycled Radioactive Metal Contaminates Consumer Products

Isaac Wolf
Scripps Howard News Service

Thousands of everyday products and materials containing radioactive metals are surfacing across the United States and around the world.

Common kitchen cheese graters, reclining chairs, women's handbags and tableware manufactured with contaminated metals have been identified, some after having been in circulation for as long as a decade. So have fencing wire and fence posts, shovel blades, elevator buttons, airline parts and steel used in construction.

A Scripps Howard News Service investigation has found that -- because of haphazard screening, an absence of oversight and substantial disincentives for businesses to report contamination -- no one knows how many tainted goods are in circulation in the United States.

But thousands of consumer goods and millions of pounds of unfinished metal and its byproducts have been found to contain low levels of radiation, and experts think the true amount could be much higher, perhaps by a factor of 10.

Government records of cases of contamination, obtained through state and federal Freedom of Information Act requests, illustrate the problem.

In 2006 in Texas, for example, a recycling facility inadvertently created 500,000 pounds of radioactive steel byproducts after melting metal contaminated with Cesium-137, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission records. In Florida in 2001, another recycler unintentionally did the same, and wound up with 1.4 million pounds of radioactive material. And in 1998, 430,000 pounds of steel laced with Cobalt-60 made it to the U.S. heartland from Brazil.

But an accounting of the magnitude of the problem is unknown because U.S. and state governments do not require scrap yards, recyclers and other businesses -- a primary line of defense against rogue radiation -- to screen metal goods and materials for radiation or report it when found. And no federal agency is responsible for oversight.

"Nobody's going to know -- nobody -- how much has been melted into consumer goods," said Ray Turner, an international expert on radiation with Fort Mitchell, Ky.-based River Metals Recycling. He has helped decontaminate seven metal-recycling facilities that unwittingly melted scrap containing radioactive isotopes.

"It's your worst nightmare," Turner said.

It is also one that has only barely begun to register as a potential threat to health and safety.

What is known now is that -- despite the shared belief of officials in six state and federal agencies that tainted metal is potentially dangerous, should be prevented from coming in unnecessary contact with people and the environment, and should be barred from entering the United States -- there is no one in charge of making sure that happens.

In fact, the Scripps investigation found:

-- Reports are mounting that manufacturers and dealers from China, India, former Soviet bloc nations and some African countries are exporting contaminated material and goods, taking advantage of the fact that the United States has no regulations specifying what level of radioactive contamination is too much in raw materials and finished goods.Compounding the problem is the inability of U.S. agents to fully screen every one of the 24 million cargo containers arriving in the United States each year.

-- U.S. metal recyclers and scrap yards are not required by any state or federal law to check for radiation in the castoff material they collect or report it when they find some.

-- No federal agency is responsible for determining how much tainted material exists in how many consumer and other goods. No one is in charge of reporting, tracking or analyzing cases once they occur. In fact, the recent discovery of a radioactive cheese grater triggered a bureaucratic game of hot potato, with no agency taking responsibility.

-- It can be far cheaper and easier for a facility stuck with "hot" items to sell them to an unwitting manufacturer or dump them surreptitiously than to pay for proper disposal and cleaning, which can cost a plant as much as $50 million.

-- For facilities in 36 states that want to do the right thing, there is nowhere they can legally dump the contaminated stuff since the shutdown last year of a site in South Carolina, the only U.S. facility available to them for the disposal.

-- A U.S. government program to collect the worst of the castoff radioactive items has a two-year waiting list and a 9,000-item backlog -- and is fielding requests to collect an additional 2,000 newly detected items a year.

Experts say you needn't empty your home of metal implements for fear of radiation. The peril from most individual items is generally not considered great, although some could be hazardous on their own.

In fact, everyone is exposed every day to the "background" radiation found in nature. For instance, some ceramic pots emanate low levels of radiation that occurs in clay. Granite countertops often contain measurable, but individually insignificant, amounts of naturally occurring uranium.

Other exposures come from small and contained amounts of radiation used in smoke detectors and medical devices.

The potential danger comes, however, from the cumulative effect of proximity to radiation, particularly over time and in relation to other contaminants. The precise degree of that danger has not yet been definitively determined for low-level radiation, such as that contained in commonplace goods and materials.

One scientific school of thought, which has been losing favor in recent years, holds that low levels of radiation mean low-level threats. An opposite camp contends that exposure to any level of radiation -- especially if it is chronic -- carries health risks. The U.S. government has so far sidestepped the issue of how little radiation is too much.

According to a 2006 report by a National Academy of Sciences panel, there is a direct relationship between radiation and an increased risk of cancer. Prolonged exposure can also lead to birth defects and cataracts, studies have shown.

Because the amount of tainted metals in circulation is unknown, the cumulative overall health effect -- now and over time -- is impossible to calculate. Whatever it is, there is little debate that unnecessary exposure to radiation is best avoided.

"There is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard Monson, chairman of the Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, at the release of the National Academy report.

There are no reports of anyone dying or being hurt in the United States after contact with the contaminated metal goods and materials. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency leaves no doubt that tainted metal poses a particular threat.

"Radioactively contaminated scrap threatens both human health and the environment," reads a cautionary statement on the EPA's Web site.

The Scripps investigation used the federal Freedom of Information Act to gain access to a previously un-mined NRC database, the only official assemblage of reports of radiologically contaminated items that have turned up in scrap yards, trash dumps and manufactured goods since 1990.

But because such reporting is neither required nor consistent, neither state nor federal environmental officials -- nor many in the scrap-metal industry -- consider the NRC accounts an accurate reflection of the problem's true dimensions. (The only mandatory rule is that anyone knowingly transporting radioactive material must notify the U.S. Department of Transportation.)

"Typically, these go unreported," said Carolyn Mac Kenzie (cq), a U.S. Department of Energy physicist who is a world expert in radioactive metals. "Whatever number you come up with would not reflect reality."

One of the most conservative estimates comes from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which put the number of radioactively contaminated metal objects unaccounted for in the United States in 2005 at 500,000. Others suggest the amount is far higher. The most recent NRC estimate -- made a decade ago -- is 20 million pounds of contaminated waste.

What is known is that the NRC's national Nuclear Material Events Database has documented 18,740 cases involving radioactive material in consumer products, metal intended for their manufacture and other inadvertent exposures to the public, the vast majority since 1990. State environmental reports -- obtained under state freedom of information requests -- also reveal dozens of others.

A recent example emerged last summer, when a Flint, Mich., scrap plant discovered a beat-up kitchen cheese grater that was radioactive. The China-made grater bearing the well-known EKCO brand name was laced with the isotope Cobalt-60. Tests showed the gadget to be giving off the equivalent of a chest X-ray over 36 hours of use, according to NRC documents.

Estimated to have been in circulation for as long as a decade, the grater likely was four to five times more radioactive when it was new. EKCO's parent company, World Kitchen, of Rosemont, Ill., described the incident as isolated and found no need to issue a recall, spokesman Bryan Glancy said.

It was not the only cheese grater found. NRC documents show that another Cobalt-60-tainted grater had turned up in Jacksonville, Fla., in 2006. The reports do not indicate what brand of grater it was or if it was related to the one that surfaced in Michigan.

Cobalt-60 also tainted a 430,000-pound shipment of metal from Brazil in 1998. Part of that load found its way to Michigan and then Indiana, where it was used to make brackets for 1,000 La-Z-Boy recliners.

The contamination was detected by a radiation monitor when scrap leftover from the brackets job was shipped to the Butler, Ind., steel recycler Steel Dynamics, according to NRC documents.

The Cobalt-60 tainted Reclina-Rocker chairs, which would have given off a chest X-ray's worth of radiation every 1,000 hours, were still in warehouses when the contamination was discovered, and never made it to stores or living rooms, according to Rex Bowser, director of the Indoor Air and Radiological Health Emergency Response Program of the Indiana State Department of Health.

The recliners' radiation levels were "enough above background to be a concern for people sitting in La-Z-Boy chairs," Bowser said.

In many instances where contamination is identified -- generally by companies that have invested in costly detection equipment -- the contamination comes from the inadvertent blending of radioactive sources with piles of other scrap that metal recyclers reprocess and later sell.

Often, when a factory shuts down or a plant relocates, industrial smoke detectors, measuring gauges and other machines and parts that contain small amounts of radioactive material are left behind. Because they commonly are encased in a protective shell, the devices pose little risk when the plant is operating.

But when a facility closes, the devices frequently are trashed as scrap. If those radioactive parts are later heated during reprocessing, the radiation can escape and blend with the finished recycled product.

Many large scrap outfits invest in radiation detectors -- which can cost $50,000 each -- that provide a measure of protection. Steel company Gerdau Ameristeel, based in Toronto and Tampa, Fla., installs as many as six levels of detection at its scrap mills, at a cost of as much as $1 million for each facility, said Jim Turner, corporate environmental director.

But even scrap and recycling operations that are diligent in scanning incoming and outgoing loads can unknowingly wind up with tainted material.

One reason is that monitoring devices are not all strong enough to penetrate a full truckload of scrap and may miss the radioactive sources. And even the weather can foul things up, as Gerdau Ameristeel learned when a 2001 thunderstorm disturbed detectors at its Jacksonville, Fla., recycling operation, permitting radioactive Cesium-137 to slip through. The plant's cleanup cost was $10 million, according to an NRC report.

Sometimes the devices containing radiation simply disappear. In January, for instance, Wal-Mart admitted that it could not account for about 15,000 illuminated exit signs, which each contain tritium, a radioactive isotope, according to the NRC.

And other times, they are purposely masked in an attempt to dump the hot items on someone else, often to avoid the cost of proper disposal. Those fees have mushroomed in the past three decades from $1 per cubic foot to more than $400, with forecasts for them to more than double in coming years, according to a 2004 estimate by Robin Nazzaro, the audit agency GAO's natural-resources and environment director.

Recycler Doug Kramer, owner of Los Angeles-based Kramer Metals, recounted how workers once found a radioactive object wrapped in lead and hidden in a beer keg -- presumably to keep the radiation from being detected.

The global dimension of the recycling of radiation problem is large, and growing, experts say.

Between 2006 and 2007, for instance, authorities in the Netherlands found about 900 women's handbags that had originated in India and were decorated with metal rings laced with Cobalt-60 on each bag's shoulder strap. Once discovered, they were sent to a radioactive waste site in the Netherlands.

Last fall, radioactive metal also from India was used by a Connecticut company to make 500 sets of buttons for Otis elevators in France and Sweden. No one realized the elevator buttons -- which had been installed -- were radioactive until a similar shipment tripped radiation alarms at the U.S. border with Mexico, according to Otis Elevator spokesman Dilip Rangnekar.

Otis scrambled to remove the tainted buttons from the elevator cabs, Rangnekar said. But an international authority on rogue radiation said it is likely even more of the buttons remain in circulation.

"Thousands and thousands were produced," said Abel Gonzalez, a former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency's division of radiation and waste safety. "I doubt they have found all of them."

U.S. officials and metal experts say evidence is mounting that radioactive metal from abroad is increasingly --- and intentionally -- being sent to the United States, sometimes decades after the contaminated material was first detected and returned to its source.

In 1991, an Indian supplier sent to the United States more than 50 shipments of chain-link fencing, some of which was tainted. Investigators found the fencing scattered around the country, including in Florida, Tennessee, New York and Washington state.

"The NRC told them not to ship more material to the U.S., but it allowed them to keep what was here, here," said Paul Frame, a radiation expert at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

But a decade later, another shipment of tainted Indian fencing reached the United States, Frame said.

"My guess was that it was the same stuff," he said. "You suspect that in some cases they know the material is radioactive but they're going to ship it out anyway because it's money."

John Williamson, administrator of Florida's radiation control bureau, agrees and predicts that tainted steel from China and products from India will continue to surface, at the borders and on the plant floors.

One reason is that, after U.S. customs rejects a load of contaminated material, no one knows what happens once it is sent back to its overseas producer because no tracking system exists, he and other front-line experts said.

"In China and India, who knows what happens?" Williamson said. "My belief is it goes back into the hopper."

NRC reports give weight to his belief. Construction reinforcement materials from Mexico laced with Cobalt-60 that were detected at the border in 2006 were traced back to metal from a contaminated batch produced and exported more than 20 years before by two Juarez, Mexico, foundries.

Some experts say the United States bears some blame for the infiltration of tainted metal and products. Even though there is little debate that radiation-laced material is unwelcome, neither Congress nor federal agencies have established a "safe" level of contamination, despite two decades of wrestling with the issue.

That has created a loophole that overseas metal dealers and product manufacturers can exploit, critics say. But forbidding all radioactive material in metal would throw a damaging and costly wrench into the recycling industry, according to John Gilstrap, safety director for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries trade group.

"If we set the thresholds unrealistically low, we're inflicting pain on businesses for no necessary reason," Gilstrap said.

But Gerdau Ameristeel's Turner disagrees. Asked what the allowable level of radiation in metal should be, Turner replied via e-mail: "ZERO."

To officials in several states, it is the absence of federal oversight and indistinct rules about materials and goods tainted with low-level radiation that is causing undue pain. After the South Carolina waste site closed last summer, six states called on Congress to act. So far, it has not.

"There is no one federal agency responsible for regulating all ionizing radiation, and therefore regulations are fragmented or non-existent in some areas," said Michael Mobley, head of a commission formed last summer by officials from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee and Virginia.

"If we address all radioactive materials across the board and the waste that is generated from them, we will protect public health and the environment to a greater extent than we do now," he said.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Recycled-radioactive-metal-contaminates-consumer/8-IA8SVArkmy_VkiNzf9wg.cspx

More data needed on uranium's effects, speaker says

Posted By JOYCE CASSIN

June 04, 2009

There are too many unknowns when it comes to uranium and its effects on people, says Dr. Linda Harvey, the guest speaker at the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (PHCHCC) annual general meeting on Wednesday.

"No proof of harm is not the same as proof of no harm," the retired family physician from the Kingston area said.

She told the membership that trials have been undertaken on animals, but very few on people.

"Studies have been based on guess work," she said. "There's a huge gap in knowledge."

Information is not readily available on the effects of uranium on people who are ill, seniors or children, she says.

"There is also very little known on genetic effects," said Harvey, who said she believes deterioration caused by contamination is reversible, at least at first.

"If it happens over years, we don't know," she said.

Neonatal effects in animals have been studied, but that's an area that needs more research in humans, she says.

"These are things that are completely under the radar," she said. "We just don't know."

When it comes to the genetic effects, she says we are creating a situation that may not be good for our descendants.

"Genetics - this is the part that really scares the hell out of me," she said.

Damaging genes at a point in time when we're facing climate change and pandemics scares her.

"We may need our fertility and we would not have it," said Harvey. "And we're doing it to other organisms."

The most recent Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) document has her worried as well.

"There are two flaws that spring out at me," she said.

First she was concerned that the CNSC document stated no further health studies were required in Port Hope.

"They can't say that about any community," Harvey said.

She added that studies in Port Hope, or even across Canada, are too small to achieve statistical significance.

"They toss out everything that doesn't achieve that, so perhaps they are missing something," she said. "We may need to use European data."

She spoke of a German study on leukemia in children near nuclear sites.

"This is good quality data and we should take note of what it's telling us," Harvey said.

Her second major concern with the CNSC document is the portion where it speaks of "most" of the soil levels under regulatory levels.

"That's true, but not all are," she said.

Although Harvey has only been involved in the uranium issue for three years and had no concrete advice to offer members of the PHCHCC, she said the most reasonable solution is to keep speaking up about what people know to be true.

"The pesticide legislation was hard-fought, but it finally came through," she said.

Harvey has co-written a document on her work that can be found on the Physicians for Global Survival web-site at pgs.caunder: social justice, entitled Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation, she says.

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1599413

Keeping Agriculture Alive in the Shadow of a Uranium Mine: Potential Effects and Regulatory Solutions for Virginia

ELPR {William & Mary: Environmental Law & Policy Review}

By admin | May 20, 2009

This is a preview of one of the upcoming Volume 34 notes

by Maggy J. Lewis

This Note deals with the emerging regulatory controversy over the potential mining of a uranium deposit located in rural Southern Virginia. The “Coles Hill” deposit is thought to be the largest deposit of uranium in the United States, but has been largely ignored since the Virginia General Assembly instituted a moratorium on uranium mining in the early 1980’s. The increase in the price of uranium in recent years has revived the debate on uranium mining. There is potential for the moratorium to be lifted in the near future and for uranium mining to be introduced to Virginia for the first time.

[...]

This Note addresses the potential implications for agricultural production if uranium mining becomes a reality for Virginia by looking at scientific and sociological data at other mine sites, as well as public perception of food safety threats. There are gaps to be filled in both regulation and enforcement mechanisms as they apply to uranium mining’s effects on agricultural crops and livestock. This Note provides suggestions for means of regulating the output of agricultural products from the potentially affected regions of Virginia under the current statutory framework for developing state and site-specific protocols to ensure safety and preserve the public confidence in the food supply. By taking the proactive regulatory approach proposed by this Note, agriculture can continue to be a successful economic base of the Southern Virginia both during the uranium mining process and after it has come to an end.

Read the complete abstract here: http://elpr.org/2009/05/20/keeping-agriculture-alive-in-the-shadow-of-a-uranium-mine-potential-effects-and-regulatory-solutions-for-virginia/

Read more about the full Volume34 Note at the same site. It promises to be excellent.

Ionizing Radiation and Childhood Leukemia

by Abel Russ

(of the George Perkins Marsh Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts
E-mail: abelruss@riseup.net

The author declares he has no competing financial interests.)

I read with interest the recent review by Belson et al. (2007) on childhood leukemia, particularly the sections dealing with radiation exposure. Like the authors, I believe that ionizing radiation is strongly associated with childhood acute leukemia. I would like to point out that several critical pieces of information were overlooked; these support stronger and more meaningful conclusions.

Although atomic bomb survivors offer the clearest evidence of leukemia risk after childhood exposures to ionizing radiation, studies of children exposed to fallout in other contexts should not be downplayed. Belson et al. (2007) stated that “radiation exposure secondary to the Chernobyl accident has not been shown to increase the risk of leukemia in children who were exposed after birth …,” but they failed to mention the case–control study of Noshchenko et al. (2002), which found significant increases in childhood and acute leukemias in association with estimated childhood exposures. Children living downwind of the Nevada Test Site have also shown a significant increase in leukemia related to estimated fallout exposure (Stevens et al. 1990).

In utero exposure to ionizing radiation has been a known causal factor for childhood cancer for > 50 years. Although Belson et al. (2007) stated that the lack of evidence for a childhood leukemia risk among atomic bomb survivors constitutes the “most notable reason for doubt of a true association,” they overlooked the reviews of Wakeford and Little (2002, 2003); these authors demonstrated that the highly uncertain atomic bomb survivor data are statistically compatible with the robust set of data found in the Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancers and related X-ray exposure cohorts. There is no valid reason to doubt this association at present.

Read the rest of this article, and see footnotes and credits, here:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1940092#b1-ehp0115-a0395b