Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Marshall for us, and the House

As a member of Danville City Council, Danny Marshall supported a then-revolutionary plan to get Danville and Pittsylvania County to work together on economic development projects. As a member of the House of Delegates, Marshall applauded as Yorktowne Cabinetry announced its intentions to open a new factory here, building in the city-county industrial park that Marshall and others worked to make a reality.

The recession has battered companies around the country, including Yorktowne Cabinetry. But some laid off Yorktowne workers learned that their unemployment benefit checks were reduced because of a mistake made by a Virginia Employment Commission bureaucrat.

Marshall knew that was wrong. He knew working people don’t know how much they’re supposed to receive in jobless benefits, and they certainly couldn’t afford to have those benefits cut because of a bureaucratic error. Thanks to Marshall’s efforts, the “overpaid” jobless benefits have been turned into a loan.

It’s a short-term fix to a problem that may be more widespread than anyone knows. But it’s also an example of the kind of solutions-focused delegate the residents of the 14th District are lucky to have representing them in Richmond.

That’s one reason we strongly endorse Danny Marshall for re-election this year.

Marshall not only went to bat for his constituents on the unemployment benefits issue, he also went against the wishes of his party when he fought for expanded jobless benefits paid with federal stimulus dollars. It wasn’t the first time Marshall defied the party bosses — and stood with the people of the 14th District.

As a member of the Tobacco Commission, Marshall supported a grant-funded early childhood education initiative. If that program produces results, it’s a good bet that Marshall — who is the retired owner of a local business — will fight to expand it and similar programs statewide. Marshall knows all too well the importance of increasing the level of educational attainment in this community.

Marshall has also worked to educate himself on an issue that may reach a boiling point in the next two years — uranium mining and milling. He echoes many of the same concerns that others in this community share about the project. But in typical Marshall fashion, he brings fresh perspective — who else has mentioned that the need for a uranium mine in Pittsylvania County could be mitigated by the uranium derived from decommissioned nuclear weapons? (emphasis mine...SB)

Marshall’s easygoing manner and ready smile makes it easy for his critics to dismiss this man of accomplishment and passion, but make no mistake about it — Marshall has worked hard for this community at a time when hard work was all that prevented economic disaster from turning into calamity.

On Tuesday, the voters of the 14th District should send Marshall a message that they are willing to work as hard for him as he has been working for them.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/marshall_for_us_and_the_house/15043/

Monday, October 19, 2009

What would Hurt bring to the race?

Besides his father Henry's money and the promise of uranium mining, we do not believe Robert Hurt would bring much to Southside or Virginia. We here at the blog support Tom Perriello because he's demonstrated that he is vitally interested in his constituents and the issues important to them, even in the areas he didn't carry in the previous election. Plus, and this is a big plus, he is not a shill for the uranium mining industry that begs to destroy Virginia, beginning with Hurt's home district, Southside. His daddy's investment in the mining endeavor at Coles Hill puts VUI and Coles money behind Robert Hurt but that's all the more reason to stick with Perriello who is not in favor of mining Virginia.


Republicans in the Fifth District are going to have plenty of choices when they pick a candidate for the 2010 race against Rep. Tom Perriello.

The Virginia General Assembly drew the Fifth District for a Republican, and the GOP has wanted the seat back ever since the State Board of Elections confirmed that Perriello had squeaked out a 727-vote win over Virgil Goode last fall.

The conventional wisdom is that Perriello’s win was a fluke, but John McCain and Sarah Palin won more votes in the Fifth District than Goode did. For that matter, Goode didn’t do as well as the Virginia marriage amendment in 2006.

So, Goode may have been slipping and no one noticed.

To Perriello’s credit, he has voted against the president’s first budget, come out against a new assault weapons ban, worked hard on veterans care issues and publicly declared that he would not vote for public funding of abortion in a health care reform bill — all stances that show is he far from the Nancy Pelosi lapdog that his harshest critics claim he is.

The Republicans who want to beat Perriello know he is a tough campaigner and that the political landscape may be completely different next year. No one can say how strong the economy will be or if Americans will like the final health care reform bill that emerges from Congress.

Robert Hurt, of Chatham, has jumped into this tumultuous political environment, recently announcing his intention to run for the Fifth District seat. For most of us, the 2010 election is a long way off. For the GOP, it’s right around the corner.

Hurt has solid conservative credentials and has sponsored common sense legislation in the General Assembly dealing with criminal justice issues. He is a smart, personable candidate and will no doubt work hard if he gets the nomination.

But Hurt has never had to run against anyone like Perriello. When Hurt speaks, he sometimes sounds more like a lawyer instead of a man who happens to practice law. His father Henry’s involvement with Virginia Uranium Inc. could backfire on him, as could his handling of his dog biting someone in Chatham.

That may sound trivial, but in politics, everything is fair game.

Just as Republicans are motivated to unseat Perriello, Democrats want to hold onto the Fifth District seat, so no matter who the GOP picks next year, expect a lot of out-of-town money and national attention on this race.

We don’t know what kind of candidate the GOP is looking for, so there is no way to know what chance Hurt has to win the nomination. If we thought the Republicans wanted a candidate from the Dan River Region, Hurt would probably be a shoe-in. But all we know for sure is both sides want to win, no matter what.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/what_would_hurt_bring_to_the_race/14711/

URANIUM MINING AND THE GOVERNOR'S RACE IN VIRGINIA

The Richmond Times-Dispatch published a letter last month entitled “Mined Uranium Is Harmless Mineral” written by William Schmidt, a long-time power company employee.

We at Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC) have found that Schmidt’s half truths and distortions are typical of many paid nuclear power proponents. Schmidt spoke about weeks of exposure, a U. N. study showing no increased risk of lung cancer in uranium miners, and alpha radiation being harmless. Here is what he didn’t tell us:


Alpha radiation lasts forever (millions of years), and it accumulates in the body.

“Uranium in groundwater leads to health hazards.”

“Normal functioning of kidney, brain, liver, heart and other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal. Uranium is also a reproductive toxicant.”

“---absorbed uranium tends to bio-accumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue---”

“Alpha radiation is not dangerous to life unless it is inhaled or ingested---it is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation—and can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning”.

“It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is 100 times greater than that caused by equivalent amounts of other radiation.”

“Not only do alphas themselves cause damage, but approximately equal ionization is caused by the recoiling nucleus after alpha emission, and this energy may in turn be especially damaging to genetic material.”

“Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a very high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population. Though the Navajo workers and families noticed this in the 1950s, bureaucrats dragged their feet and companies ignored their warnings.”

(Quotes are from Wikipedia’s research of available worldwide information. Also note that our govt. won’t release much health related information related to uranium for liability reasons.)

SO MUCH FOR MINED URANIUM BEING A HARMLESS MINERAL!

Let me repeat the above revelation concerning alpha radiation: Alpha radiation is dangerous to life when it is inhaled or ingested!

Well, duh! Guess what uranium mining does? It blasts and crushes solid bedrock into a fine powdery dust. Then the problems become three-fold:
1. How can the dust be confined to the site during the 40 year mining period?

2. How can a mountain of toxic, radioactive, powdery waste 200ft. tall by 400ft. wide and 14.2 miles long be kept out of our streams?

3. How can millions of cubic feet of deadly radon gas be confined to the site?
The answer to each of the three questions is the same: it cannot be done.

It is also important to remember that aside from being radioactive in all of its configurations, uranium is a toxic heavy metal which has proven to poison and genetically alter humans and animals.

Imagine the devastation to the farming community! Who would buy crops from tainted fields? Who would buy meat products raised on tainted fields or tainted waters?

Imagine the blow to tourism!

Now guess who would be the first candidate for a high level (and low) uranium waste repository? Virginia!


ABOUT THE ELECTION


Our Governor has the power to veto any legislation passed by the General Assembly; and that makes this year’s election so very important.

Creigh Deeds is a past member of SCC who has studied the uranium mining issue in depth and has vowed to oppose any uranium mining legislation that threatens the health, safety and welfare of the people.

Bob McDonnell, on the other hand, is a big business Republican who puts corporate profits above the welfare of people. As Attorney General, McDonnell ruled that towns, cities and counties do not have the power to enact legislation to protect their citizens from uranium mining.

Furthermore, he said he will “wait and see what the study says”. Those are buzz words used by the paid supporters of uranium mining! Also, remember the study will be paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc..

VUI is a well funded organization that employs as many as 25 lobbyists to do their dirty work, and they are adept at greasing the palms of pliable politicians. If We, The People, do not stand up for our rights we will have uranium mining with all its problems shoved down our throats.

Sincerely,

Jack Dunavant, P.E.
Chariman, Southside Concerned Citizens

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Uranium-Coles Hill

Interesting letter, Mr. Motley, especially the dairy farm part. Do you know how far away a grazing pasture must be from a uranium mining and milling operation so that the radon doesn't poison the milk or the beef or kill the animals outright? I'd consider it an example of your letter's apparent sincerity if you could answer that question for us. It's an excellent question! I'm sure lots of folks would like to know the answer. And maybe the people who know that answer will be more willing to share that info with you than with us. Thank you so much!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Letter to editor:

I have lived in the Sheva community all of my life except time in the Merchant Marines during World War II.

I would like to relate some of my experiences.

I was raised on a tobacco farm in the Mill Creek community.

My three sons operate the dairy on my home place.

I now live in the old Sheva Church of Christ building at Sheva.

Much of the land that is used by the dairy is within a three mile radius of Coles Hill where the deposit of uranium is located.

My family owns stock in Virginia Uranium. This gives us some voice in future developments.

We are now directly involved in the nuclear industry. We have members of our family that work at B&W, a nuclear facility in the Lynchburg area, and the energy used to operate the dairy comes from a nuclear power plant.

There is no place that I would rather live than in the Sheva community.

I have taken no position for or against the mining.

As I recently celebrated my 84th birthday I realize that I know less and less about more and more things.

I don't have answers to the many problems facing our community and nation. I will try to meet the challenges in a positive way.

If and when the uranium is mined, I would like to see the money used to replace the tobacco money.

The issue of growing tobacco has been an issue for most of my life. All of my family including myself have raised tobacco.

My parents and grandparents that I knew raised tobacco. They thought it was all right to grow but wrong to use it.

I have heard my parents pray for rain for the tobacco crop and also pray for the Lord to heal people suffering from the use of tobacco. I also heard similar prayers at church.

There are some questions that I would like to have answered.

What other sources of energy on the large scale provided by nuclear energy are available to us in the area?

How much damage would other sources do to the environment. I know solar energy and wind power are available but are they available to this area in the quantity now provided by nuclear energy.

There are contradictions in my own life. I used money from tobacco to develop the dairy. We have been producing Grade A milk at the homeplace since 1947.

What kind of an example are we setting for our young people?

I have never heard a person encourage their young people to use tobacco.

How do we want people to remember us?

Our record of how we used resources will follow us beyond the grave.

I have misused resources. I have asked the Lord to forgive me.

J. Fuller Motley

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/10/07/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Conflict of Interest [re: study funding]

Caswell Messenger


I think it's a bit disingenuous for Dr. Karmis, the Director of the Virginia Center for Coal & Energy Research at Virginia Tech and a professor in its Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering to say Tech's nuclear engineering program has "nothing to do with Coles Hill."

Professors and graduate students of Virginia Tech's Departments of Geosciences and Hydrogeosciences have already been on-site at Coles Hill performing various studies and tests on the unmined uranium ore body. According to Dr. Robert J. Bodnar, a professor with Tech's Geosciences Department: "All of these studies are telling us something about the subsurface - the rocks, when the rock type changes, where the major faults are. All those pieces of information are critical to understanding the ore deposit as it exists today, and that will be very useful information as the company [VUI] starts to develop the deposit in the future." ("Beneath the Surface, Virginia Tech conducts research at Coles Hill" by T. Davis, Star-Tribune, Sept. 10, 2008. Online source: www.virginiauranium.com/pdf/Beneath_the_Surface.pdf )

Clearly Virginia Tech's studies at Coles Hill are contributing to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the mining and milling of uranium.

Dr. Karmis is also well aware of the ongoing "nuclear renaissance" where the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power production, is being promoted by nuclear power companies like Areva to have more nuclear power plants built. This, according to nuclear power proponents, is to offset the country's growing energy needs and dependence on fossil fuels. Areva, Dominion Power and Oakridge National Laboratories are working with southeastern universities like Virginia Tech to help meet the goal of training more nuclear engineers to run the planned nuclear power plants.

Let's not forget a "nuclear renaissance" would also benefit VUI in creating the need for more uranium. Increasing the "need" will raise the price of uranium and make it profitable to mine the ore body at Coles Hill.

Finally, Dr. Karmis' statement that nuclear engineers "don't care where uranium comes from" may be true, but Tech's having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its back yard, would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure. The waste management aspect (tailings, holding ponds and long-term storage, e.g., Superfund planning), I suspect, would turn up in Virginia Tech's curriculum.

As much as I admire Virginia Tech, for it is a fine institution of learning, I see a clear conflict of interest in its "implementing" the money VUI will pay to the NAS to perform a "research study."

Anne Cockrell
Danville, Virginia

http://www.caswellmessenger.com/articles/2009/10/06/opinion/opinion02.txt


Funding the study

Money-laundering and political incest...

Danville Register & Bee

To the editor:

OK, let’s get this straight. Virginia Uranium Inc. wants studies that might indicate uranium mining and milling is good business and is safe for Virginia’s citizens. It also wants the National Academy of Sciences to conduct at least one of the studies.

The Virginia General Assembly voted not to fund such a study two years ago. Virginia Uranium Inc. persisted and apparently convinced the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission to do its bidding. The VCEC formed a uranium mining subpanel.

With the aid of Michael Karmis of Virginia Tech’s Mining and Minerals Engineering Department/Director of Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research Center, a study’s scope was determined and Karmis began communication with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. At present, no one can or will fund the NAS study but VUI.

The National Academy of Sciences will not accept VUI’s offer to pay because it does not perform its services for private industry. So Virginia Tech will take VUI’s money and give it to the NAS. The National Academy of Sciences will do the study for private industry as long as the industry does not pass the money directly to them? A “blind eye” kind of thing, I suppose.

Does this seem akin to money laundering? If NAS gets “besmirched,” they will have done it to themselves. Virginia Tech appears to be an accomplice. At this point, if the state offers to pay for a study, it looks like a disingenuous offer with those supporting it seemingly subjects of tampering. If citizens question the process, the get called “silly!” VUI has managed to make everyone look bad.

Without mining the first shovel of uranium Virginia Uranium, Inc. is already tearing at the fabric of Virginia and polluting our government institutions and causing deep divisions in the citzenry. If for no other reason than to protect the Commonwealth's integrity, uranium mining should be banned. Unfortunately, we stand to lose more if we mine and mill uranium. Why risk Virginians’ health, heritage, agricultural and tourism industry, future economic opportunities, clean air and water for a boom-bust uranium mine? To allow this, as Karmis might opine, would be “silly.”

KAREN B. MAUTE

Mount Cross

Note: The R&B chose to omit the follwing from Ms. Maute's original letter: "Without mining the first shovel of uranium Virginia Uranium, Inc. is already tearing at the fabric of Virginia and polluting our government institutions and causing deep divisions in the citzenry. If for no other reason than to protect the Commonwealth's integrity, uranium mining should be banned."

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/funding_the_study/14385/

This is the editorial that prompted Ms. Maute's letter:

Editorial: No conflict at Tech

A nuclear engineering program at Virginia Tech shouldn't impact its involvement in uranium study.

There is ample reason to be disappointed in, and wary of, the planned study of uranium mining safety in Virginia -- most notably the fact that the corporation wanting to do that mining is paying for the study.

But it is wrong to allege, as some critics of the study have, that Virginia Tech has a conflict of interest in its assigned role of managing the money and coordinating with the National Academy of Sciences on the study.

Anne Cockrell, a Danville resident and member of the mining opposition group Southside Concerned Citizens, said Tech's nuclear engineering program poses a conflict of interest.

"Tech's having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its back yard would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure," she wrote in a recent e-mail. She repeated the charge in a commentary in the Chatham Star Tribune.

In an interview with the Danville News, Michael Karmis, director of Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, called that argument "silly."

Tech is not revitalizing its nuclear engineering program because of the possibility that there may be a local source of uranium available. Rather, the move is in response to a growing demand for nuclear energy and the upcoming retirement of a generation of nuclear engineers.

There are serious reasons to doubt the safety and feasibility of mining and processing uranium in Virginia's damp climate and in a location near population centers.

For appearances' sake, it would have been far better for the state to have paid for the study. The corporation that could mine as much as $10 billion worth of uranium from the Coles Hill site has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the study, and should not be involved.

But no one else stepped up with the money, and the state isn't exactly flush with cash.

The safeguards in place -- including Tech's management of the funds -- seem sufficient to ensure that the study is not biased by its funding.

Certainly, the National Academy of Sciences will not trade its reputation in exchange for a $1.2 million study.

Based on the available evidence, Tech doesn't deserve to have its reputation besmirched, either.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/221135

Monday, September 28, 2009

Nuclear grant has more to it

VA Tech Collegiate Times

b
y Letter to the editor
Monday, September 28, 2009; 7:41 PM

Are there really no conflicts of interests here?

According to the article "Tech receives nuclear grant" (CT, Sept. 15), Virginia Tech is slated to "implement" the money Virginia Uranium, Inc. will pay to the National Academy of Sciences for its services in performing a research study, which is to determine if uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia.

Tech's newspaper, Collegiate Times, recently featured a picture of a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud with the title "Virginia Tech's History of Nuclear Energy" with the chronological dates of the program's inception (1953), its disbanding (1990s) and its revival (2007). Strangely included are the dates of the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania (1979) and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia (1986). It also lists the $850,000 nuclear grant money (2009) received from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The article by Liana Bayne relates the NRC nuclear grant money, $850,000, which will go toward hiring new professors to "revitalize" Tech's nuclear engineering program.

Now, I shudder to think what the school's newspaper was thinking to post such a photograph, but it should cause more than an uneasy pause for the members of the NAS governing board, which is currently deliberating whether its prestigious institution should contract with Tech to do a study when the school, as the above article states, is clearly enjoying "a taste of the nuclear renaissance."

Let's recap: VUI wants to excavate an $8 billion to $10 billion uranium ore body at Coles Hill in Chatham, Va., and is the only entity that has offered to pay for the proposed NAS study. Tech wants to revitalize its nuclear engineering program and is well on track in doing so by receiving nuclear grant money ($850,000) from the NRC. (This is on top of a $300,000 grant it received last year for this program.) Tech will utilize VUI's north and south mines at Coles Hill, and its milling facility, as field laboratories for its students, which will be part of the curriculum of the nuclear engineering program. (In the past, Tech graduate students have already been on the site doing various studies on the un-mined uranium ore body at Coles Hill.) Tech will be the conduit to "implement" the estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million VUI plans to pay NAS for doing the research study - a study it needs in order to overturn Virginia's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium.

I have to ask, are there really no conflicts of interest here? And what does a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud have to do with Tech's revival of its nuclear engineering program? Will NAS disregard the obvious connection between the revival of Tech's nuclear engineering program and its role to "implement" the money VUI will pay the NAS to do a research study?

Does NAS have blinders on?

Anne Cocknell [sic]
Danville, Va.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14276

Consider impact first

Dr. Brugge is an expert in the field. He was a featured speaker in Danville, VA last fall re: dangers of uranium mining.


September 27, 2009


THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):

There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.

Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.

Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.

Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.

Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.

Doug Brugge
Cambridge

The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/

Thursday, September 24, 2009

7 Drawbacks To Using Nuclear Power

by Brett Stephens on September 23, 2009

People may argue that 25% of the world’s energy is produced through nuclear power, but what they do not understand is all the problems it brings:

1 – It costs a lot of money to setup:

Nuclear power plants are definitely not a cheap investment. At around six to twelve billion dollars each – just for installation – taxpayers have subsidized billions of dollars to keep the utilities afloat. This money could have been invested in cleaner renewable energies instead.

2 – It causes global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain – from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant – greenhouse gases are emitted.

What’s more is these reactors take years to be fully operational – wasting precious time in our fight against global warming. We could have used that time and money more wisely, such as improved research and development in solar and wind power.

3 – The bi-product is radioactive waste:

Each reactor creates a lot (twenty to thirty tonnes) of highly toxic radioactive waste per year. Not to mention the so-called “low” level radiation emitted in the rest of the supply chain – such as during the mining and milling process.

4 – It is a nuclear bomb just waiting to be detonated:

Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they are said to be. They could easily be attacked and even if an accident happened, there are no realistic evacuation measures in place. Furthermore, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, a utility company is liable for only $10.8 billion as opposed to the real potential damage of $600 billion! Who will be picking up the rest of the bill? The working-class taxpayers – that’s who!

5 – Low-level radiation causes cancer:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

We have also been misled about how safe it really is to “dispose” of all this radioactive waste. There is no scientific proof to show where the safest place to dump the waste is. And more nuclear plants would make the problem worse. There are only so many “safe” storage facilities. Any additional waste would have to be either burned or dumped in landfills – leading to air and water pollution.

6 – Nuclear development aids terrorism:

A country’s national security always feels at threat when extremist countries start harnessing nuclear power. Just think about Israel attacking Syria’s so-called nuclear site back in 2007, and how uneasy America was when Iran was developing its own nuclear program. Nuclear power sets the stage for the production of atomic bombs, so as long the number of reactors increases, the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons increases.

7 – There are better power options:

What frustrates us is that we we should rather be spending our time and money on the development of safer, cleaner, renewable energy solutions, such as erecting more solar plants and wind farms. Hopefully with Obama’s administration, nuclear energy will be phased out and largely replaced with the implementation of renewable energy.

But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.

About the Author:

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

VUI cares nothing about us

Amen, Jesse...amen.

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 22, 2009

To the editor:

The announcement that Virginia Uranium Inc. will be paying for the “study” of the feasibility of mining and milling uranium in Virginia only goes to point out how ridiculous this process has been up to this point. Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, sounded almost giddy with delight that this boondoggle has found a backer, even though having VUI pay for its own study is an obvious conflict of interest.

A look at the events leading up to this announcement is a textbook example of how big business controls government. In 2007, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors caved into Walter Coles’ request that they do nothing and ask no questions about his uranium-mining plan. Only Hank Davis and Marshall Ecker had the courage to raise doubts about what this might mean to the county. The rest of them bowed down and agreed to do nothing. They passed on their responsibility to the citizens of Pittsylvania County.

They and the county administrator sold us down the river to Richmond.

Then Chatham Town Council agreed to do nothing as well. Even though Mayor George Haley tried valiantly to persuade them to consider the consequences of acceding to the uranium interests, they as well chose the head-in-the-sand option. They sucked up Coles’ fairy tale of “a glorious new era for Southside” and were blinded by his promises of billions of dollars being thrown around like free candy at the Christmas parade.

As soon as the local politicians were dealt with, VUI focused its attention on the “study.” The Uranium Mining Subcommittee, appointed by the Coal and Energy Commission, set off on its own trip to Oz, with Del. Kilgore in the role of Dorothy. And that meant that we were not in Kansas anymore. The push for uranium mining had moved to Richmond and the bigger arena of the state legislature, where politics as usual dictates that what is done or not done is directly proportionate to the amount of lobbying dollars being thrown at the legislators.

So now we are at the mercy of the Coal and Energy Commission, the entity that has overseen the virtual destruction of much of Southwestern Virginia with mountain top removal coal mining, including in Del. Kilgore’s own Scott County. Now they are looking at Southside and licking their chops over the proposed uranium mine and mill. They finally have the money they need to set in motion a “study” of that mining that can only reach one logical conclusion, that uranium can in fact be mined safely with certain regulations in place — regulations that would be written with a large portion of help from the mining industry itself.

We don’t have to look far to see what a dismal record the mining conglomerates have regarding the environment and public safety. If they will allow the mountains of Southwest Virginia to be destroyed and the toxic waste products bulldozed into the streams and rivers of that part of the state, why would they care about what happens to Southside?

VUI paying for this “study” and the uranium industry crafting the regulations is akin to handing a 3-year-old a shotgun at the family reunion. Someone is likely to get hurt. In this case, what VUI is planning (“away from everything”) as Del. Kilgore claims in his ignorance of geography, a great many people stand to suffer, both near the proposed mine site and as far away as Virginia Beach. Obviously no one is paying much attention to the folks living within a mile, or five miles or 50 miles of Coles Hill.

If Coles is willing to destroy his own home and the land his family has owned for hundreds of years, it is foolishness to imagine that he or the Canadian mining conglomerate he sold out to would give even a passing thought to what might happen to the rest of us. This will not be the hometown business VUI has claimed it would be.

The Canadian speculators who would destroy Pittsylvania County do not care one way or another. To them, the people on the periphery are simply expendable.

And so it will be interesting indeed to see how this greatly anticipated and heavily burdened “study” will turn out now that we know who is putting up the big bucks. It is also interesting that the National Academy of Sciences has yet to agree to anything concerning uranium mining in Virginia.

But as Del. Kilgore said, “We’re hoping to get everything signed, sealed and delivered on the scientific, technical study.” That is exactly right — signed, sealed and delivered straight to VUI’s mailbox.

JESSE PYRANT ANDREWS

Halifax

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/writer_vui_cares_nothing_about_us/14040/

State study? State money

By Katie Whitehead
Published: September 20, 2009

The Virginia General Assembly’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing the credibility — and perhaps the execution — of its proposed uranium mining studies. A study paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc. does nothing to avoid the appearance of influence.

After a uranium mining study bill failed in the General Assembly last year, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, chaired by Del. Terry Kilgore, voted in November to initiate its own uranium studies. The commission enlisted the assistance of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, headed by Dr. Michael Karmis, a mining engineer. Kilgore appointed a Uranium Mining Subcommittee with Del. Lee Ware as chairman.

The subcommittee should question not just whether uranium mining and milling might be done safely, but also whether introducing this stigmatized industry into our communities is a good idea. Even if uranium can be mined safely under certain conditions, it still might not be an industry we want in Virginia.

In spring meetings, the subcommittee focused on defining a technical study that it wants the National Research Council of The National Academies to undertake. (The National Research Council is the staffing organization for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.)

The subcommittee postponed discussion of a separate socioeconomic study, arguably the more important of the two studies. Kilgore recently wrote to NRC to request the technical study.

As proposed, the technical study will attempt to address the safety question by gathering available evidence regarding whether uranium mining, milling and tailings storage are being done safely elsewhere under conditions comparable to those in Virginia. The socioeconomic study has yet to be defined, funded or negotiated with any research organization. It should address the desirability question by providing real-life evidence about how introducing the uranium industry affects the long-term health, economic well-being and quality of life in communities. Currently, the commission’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing both studies.

In the absence of other funding, VUI has offered to pay the entire cost of the technical study (estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million). The funds would be contributed to the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, which would then pass them on to NRC. This indirectness may conform to the written policy of NRC and reduce the appearance of influence to some eyes, but it does nothing to change the fact that an interested party — a private, for-profit corporation with something to gain from the results of the study — is paying NRC for it. It’s not a pretty picture.

Many people have assumed that NRC will definitely do the technical study. NRC has expressed interest in the study and, according to its policy, may accept the proposed funding. Will NRC in fact accept?

The group that will decide is the National Research Council Governing Board, which is responsible for safeguarding the unique reputation of NRC for independent, unbiased scientific research. The members of the governing board will have to determine whether accepting 100 percent of the funding — however indirectly — from a uranium mining company is consistent with that responsibility. We don’t know how they will weigh the fact that no one other than a uranium company has demonstrated support for the study by offering funding.

No one knows how the governing board will ultimately respond to Kilgore’s request. They’ve not officially discussed it, much less made a decision.

One might argue that the National Research Council is beyond reproach and that one needn’t care who pays NRC to do a study — that one can be sure NRC will be objective and independent regardless. NRC has a hard-earned reputation for thoughtful, thorough, independent, unbiased research. This reputation depends not only on avoiding actual influence by parties that might profit from NRC study results, but also on avoiding even the appearance of such influence.

If an unbiased assessment of the safety and the desirability of uranium mining is of value to the commonwealth, then the commonwealth should be willing to pay for it, at least in significant part. The commission should request funding from the legislature to pay the majority — if not all — of the cost of both the technical study and the socioeconomic study. Securing public financial support would confirm that Virginians want this research, ensure that both studies go forward and increase confidence that the studies will fairly evaluate all available evidence.

* Whitehead lives in Pittsylvania County and chairs the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force. Contact her at mkwhitehead@yahoo.com

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/community_voices/article/state_study_state_money/13996/

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

A comment on outrageous doings

Bless you, Mr. Dixon...and thanks!

Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Chatham Star-Tribune

With the news that Virginia Uranium will pay for a study to determine the future of uranium mining in Virginia, this very major issue now moves into the realm of the absurd.

The acquiescence of the government of the commonwealth to this situation is stunning in its stupidity and bald-faced corruption.

Our elected officials have shown little judgment and even less common sense in this decision. The fate of their careers as elected officials must be in doubt.

Every state-wide representative who did not stand up to oppose this corrupt bargain has abrogated his responsibility as a guardian of the people's interest. They are unworthy of our votes and have earned our collective disdain.

I am sure the National Academy of Science is indeed a "neutral" organization through which to conduct this study, bought and paid (quiet literally) by our Canadian friends and their cadre of wealthy local and foreign investors.

The scientists at Virginia Tech would never think of the opportunity to use Pittsylvania County as a laboratory and its citizens as guinea pigs in their investigations of the affects of uranium mining on the environment east of the Mississippi.

They are responsible individuals first, and scientists second. In fact, this new relationship could be the beginning of several new National Academy/Virginia Tech studies.

Let's see what else they could do. Here's one: "The Feasibility of Bank Bailouts as a Means of Helping the Economy."

That one would be paid for by Wachovia and Bank of America. I wonder what the National Academy of Science would find?

Here's another: "The Positive or Negative Effects of Socialism in America."

That one would be funded by the American Communist Party. I am sure the folks at Virginia Tech will come up with a fair and balanced conclusion.

Finally, in the area of sports we have, "Steroids: Good or Bad for Baseball?" This one has the financial backing of Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.

I am on tenterhooks awaiting that conclusion.

Pardon my sarcasm, but I fear the deck is stacked against Pittsylvania County. Is this the sad fate that must play out over the next two decades?

The "study" will conclude that uranium mining is safe "under certain circumstances."

The fine print of the extreme conditional approval will be ignored by the uranium industry and they will embrace the study as definite "scientific" proof that all is well.

Mining regulations will move swiftly through the hapless House of Delegates; mining will begin with a flourish of heady pronouncements about employment and the economic prosperity that is headed our way.

Blasting activity will begin; tailing ponds will be dug; all will move quickly forward. Then, somewhere down the line, there will be an economic (price of uranium falls) or environmental (water ruined) catastrophe.

Government and uranium industry officials will throw up their hands and declare that no one could have foreseen this (remember Katrina?), and they are not to blame.

The mines will close; the investors will go silent and Virginia Uranium will creep back to its Canadian homeland.

By that time, the people of Virginia will be left to tend the mess that Virginia Uranium began: the two 800-foot holes in the ground; the ruined landscape, poisoned water and contaminated air.

Unemployment will rise, now that tobacco and non-mining businesses have long left the area. Taxes will rise; land values will fall.

The National Academy will assert the fine print of its study (i.e. that mining probably could not be done successfully) and the scientists at Virginia Tech will have their laboratory and guinea pigs just down the road from them in Pittsylvania County.

My father used to say that if you can't pay for something, you can't buy it. If the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot pay for a study, they should not have one.

Virginia Uranium is a biased funder; the conflict of interest is so apparent that it is embarrassing for a private citizen to have to point this out to officials who should know better.

If Virginia cannot pay now for a study of this sort, how are they going to pay for the regulation and upkeep of the area once mining begins? Where will that money come from?

Until these basic questions are answered completely, all citizens of good faith must remain opposed to any study of any kind paid for by the very people who profit from its slanted outcome.

We shall and must regard the findings of this tainted study, and the people who support it, with a cynical and suspicious eye.

Richard Dixon

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/09/chatham/opinion/opinion05.txt

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Richmond drops the ball, not the cash

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 8, 2009

Virginia’s study of uranium mining finally has the funding it needs to move forward, thanks to the only entity that ever offered to pay for it.

Virginia Uranium Inc. Chairman Walter Coles Sr. long ago said his company would pay for the state study. With the commonwealth unwilling to fund the study and no one else waving their checkbook around, VUI money was the only way to move this issue forward.

In a better world, the state government should have paid for the study. The state’s moratorium keeps VUI from mining what’s believed to be the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States. If the study sways the General Assembly to lift the moratorium, it will be state agencies that will assume part of the responsibility for writing mining and milling regulations and ensuring that they’re enforced.

But most of all, it was in the state’s interest to allow the National Academy of Sciences to do its work without mining opponents from accusing the NAS of somehow being in the pocket of Virginia Uranium Inc.

That argument is a slap in the face of the scientists, researchers and others who will be involved in this project. It will no doubt plan a fertile seed of future debate, doubt and consternation. The state has done a cheap and foolish thing.

Compounding the problem is the NAS study probably won’t be a slam-dunk for either side. Both camps are likely to complain that certain things weren’t checked out by the National Academy of Sciences or that certain people weren’t interviewed or that certain places weren’t visited.

Even conditional conclusions — if this is done, then that will happen — are likely to be scrutinized right down to the syllable.

Given the stakes for both sides, we could be looking at years of argument that doesn’t convince anybody of anything — including majorities of the House of Delegates and state Senate.

Additionally, many local people supported an outside study of uranium mining and milling and are counting on the study’s results to inform their final choice on the matter.

For its part, an NAS spokeswoman said her agency doesn’t have direct contact with the companies it studies.

“We would not work directly with them (VUI),” Jennifer Walsh said. “We would only go to them with questions and concerns. They would have no say-so in the study.”

Is that the end of it? Probably not. Should it be the end of it? Probably so. But the problem could have been avoided if the state of Virginia didn’t saddle the National Academy of Sciences with this controversy.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Develop hydrogen energy to bolster state's economy

By Bobby Harrell
Monday, August 10, 2009

In today's world, the status quo of energy is foreign oil. It is a powerful force that drives economies and enables them to grow. Yet, at the same time, a shortage or change in the price of this volatile commodity can bring economies to a screeching halt.

Oil has two absolutes. One, it is limited in supply. Obtainable oil will eventually run out. Two, it is almost exclusively controlled by tyrants who hate us and the hundreds of billions of dollars we send them fund many of the evil plots aimed at destroying our country.

In order for America to gain true energy independence and break the stranglehold Middle Eastern cartels have on our economy, we must develop alternative energy sources. As a nation, we are much too dependent on foreign oil. To address this, we must first make better use of that which we already have. As Ronald Reagan said, "What is a conservative after all but one who conserves?"

This issue of energy security is very important because of the effect it can have on the sustainability of our economy and the preservation of our way of life.

However, in the face of this energy inevitability, there are still those who refuse to address or even acknowledge its existence. For now, the energy status quo seems safe to them and they attack any alternative plan as liberal or big government.

I urge those clinging to the status quo to look back at the words of Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind. Kirk said, "The spectacle of vanished forests and eroded lands, wasted petroleum and ruthless mining is evidence of what an age without veneration does to itself and its successors."

Getting our country off of oil and on to another energy source is a change that will not come overnight and will require real leadership and vision. While it may be easier to push back instead of offering solutions, we need conservative leaders who dare to take the steps that will secure our economic future. A self-described Republican with a Libertarian slant, former Congressman turned television news host Joe Scarborough, said, "American technology firms, research universities, and scientific laboratories are still the most powerful force for innovation in the world. If our leaders could wisely focus this R&D brainpower on developing a portfolio of oil-replacement technologies the same way the U.S. government teamed with universities during World War II and the space race, it would revolutionize our economy and foreign policy for the next generation."

Just imagine how our economy and way of life could change if the billions of petrodollars we send to unfriendly oil-controlling countries were instead pumped into our own domestic energy industries. A viable alternative energy — produced by Americans and controlled by Americans — will allow our economy to grow, take away the best weapon terrorists have, and protect American lives.

Prosperity follows energy, and we will need more energy in the future if we intend to grow our economy. But we have become a nation dependant on dwindling fossil fuels. This is partly because of a lack of energy alternatives, but in reality, it is because we have lacked the determination to develop them.

The good news is that in South Carolina, we are now actively pursuing this goal of energy independence. Along with nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric, solar and wind energy, hydrogen has emerged as a promising new energy source. Since the only byproduct of hydrogen energy is pure water, it is proving to be one of the cleanest energy sources being pursued. And right here in South Carolina, we are leading the country and the world in the race to develop hydrogen technology. Teaming up with private industries and our research universities, we are making substantial headway in developing this technology.

Industry is getting involved in this new opportunity and that is attracting more private interest and investments — investments that will create sorely needed jobs and grow our economy. Already, we are seeing real-world applications of hydrogen fuel cells in the market. Bridgestone Firestone Manufacturing in Aiken is converting its entire forklift fleet to run on more efficient and cost-effective hydrogen fuel cells. Television stations are using hydrogen to power some of their cameras. It is even being used to power the scoreboard at USC's baseball stadium.

This effort to move our country beyond foreign oil will take leadership and a willingness to break from the status quo ideas about energy. I am confident that the people of South Carolina have this ability and have the vision to see the thriving economic engine that rests just over the horizon.

Bobby Harrell is speaker of the S.C. House of Representatives.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/10/develop_hydrogen_energyto_bolster_states92024/

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Who will protect Virginia from uranium mining?

A cogent argument against mining Virginia uranium and an invitation to every Virginian to help stop it.

The Virginian-Pilot

August 2, 2009

Sunday Forum

by Shireen Parsons

URANIUM MINING has never been done safely anywhere in the world. It cannot be done safely. Logically, that should end this discussion, but it will not, because a few individuals, shielded from liability behind Virginia Uranium Inc. — a U.S. corporation wholly owned by Canadian corporations — would reap huge profits from mining and milling uranium on more than 2,000 acres in rural Pittsylvania County .

The Coles Hill mine would be merely the first mine in eastern Virginia, as our entire Piedmont is strewn with uranium deposits, and Virginia Uranium’s corporate mandate is to explore and develop them. If, as it surely will, the legislature lifts the moratorium, the Piedmont would become a uranium mining corridor, just as Eastern Kentucky, Southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia are coal mining corridors.

As planned, the Coles Hill uranium mine would cover an area equal to 55 square city blocks and would be 800 feet deep. Through the blasting, extracting and crushing of uranium-bearing rock, all open-pit mines and their waste piles release into the environment heavy metals, including arsenic, lead and mercury, and radioactive materials.

The radioactive contaminants persist in the environment anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to 4 billion years. They are taken up and retained by plants and animals, and they become part of the food chain forever. In animals and humans, the radioactive toxins cause lung, kidney and liver damage, cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations. In mammals, these contaminants are passed on to future generations in utero and via breast milk.

Once released into the environment, the heavy metals and radioactive contaminants travel great distances. Leached into ground and surface water in Pittsylvania County , they would contaminate the Roanoke River watershed to Virginia Beach , North Carolina ’s Albemarle Sound and the Atlantic Ocean . The wind-borne particulates would travel thousands of miles — every way the wind blows — in a few days.

Virginia Uranium’s public relations team tells us that, this time, uranium mining would be done safely, because the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia would be according to a regulatory program developed by the Virginia Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy (DMME).

But monitoring and oversight by our regulatory agencies are inadequate to nonexistent. Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970, one-third of Americans live in areas with unhealthy ozone levels. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes and tributaries aren’t safe for swimming or fishing. Deforestation, excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers — and a 60 percent increase in the amount of refuse generated in the past 25 years — have further contaminated the soil and water.

Virginia's DMME presides over one of the most devastating mineral extraction processes in the world — mountaintop- removal coal mining, which, in the Appalachian coal states, has razed hundreds of thousands of acres of once-forested mountains, buried thousands of miles of streams under the rubble and destroyed hundreds of coalfield communities. This is a legal activity permitted by the EPA and DMME. Can we rationally expect regulatory agencies to protect us from the catastrophic effects of uranium mining in Virginia?

Those who would profit from uranium mining in Virginia say it would be an economic boon, with jobs and money pouring into the economically depressed Piedmont region. Virginia Uranium says miners would make $68,000 a year in a county where the 2000 median household income was $35,000, the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent and 12 percent of the population lived below the poverty line.

What the corporate spin fails to mention, however, is that hard-rock mining requires skilled labor, and that experienced miners would be imported from other states to earn those salaries and risk their health and lives. And that, wherever hard-rock mining occurs, surrounding communities become ghost towns and regional economies implode. The economic rewards are enjoyed only by the corporate owners and officers.

In Virginia ’s Piedmont , as in all regions cursed with hard-rock mining, the blasting, heavy truck traffic, environmental contamination and impacts to human health would cause real property values to evaporate. Local businesses would shut down, and the regional economy would collapse outward in every direction. The Banister River , a source of Virginia Beach ’s water, is less than a mile from the Coles Hill mine site, and there is absolutely no doubt that the Banister would be contaminated.

The relevant question, then, is who decides what Virginia communities look like, how safe they are, what quality of life they enjoy? Who decides whether the Virginia Piedmont and beyond will be sacrificed for a uranium mining corporation’s profits? Is it We, the People, or is it a handful of corporate executives, aided and abetted by the state legislature and regulatory agencies?

An ever-increasing number of citizens in Pittsylvania County and beyond, understanding the catastrophic effects uranium mining would wreak upon their communities and future generations, declare that they will not consent to this corporate assault, and that they will exercise their inherent local governing authority to enact binding local laws that will protect and preserve the health, safety and well-being of their communities and the ecosystem upon which all life depends.

Like Virginia Beach , the Town of Halifax is downstream from the planned uranium mine in Pittsylvania County . In February 2008, the Halifax Town Council voted unanimously to enact the Halifax Corporate Mining, Bodily Trespass and Community Self-Government Ordinance, drafted at the council’s request by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania- based nonprofit law firm. The ordinance asserts the town’s inherent local governing authority bans

mining within the town and criminalizes chemical and radioactive bodily trespass.

Halifax Town Council member Jack Dunavant said of the decision, “This is an historic vote. We, the people, intend to protect our health and environment from corporate assault. It’s time to invoke the Constitution and acknowledge the power of the people to protect our own destiny and end this era of corporate greed and pollution.”

Citizens and elected officials of every community downstream and/or downwind from the planned Pittsylvania County mine site would do well to follow Halifax ’s lead and exert their inherent governing authority to protect themselves.

Shireen Parsons is the Virginia organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Christiansburg.

We regret that the Virginian Pilot does not publish all of its Opinion online. We have no link to the VP as source. The editorial was circulated by the author; we are privileged to publish it here.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Creigh Call Quickie: redistricting, uranium mining

From "Vivian Page" Blog... http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2009/08/05/creigh-call-quickie-redistricting-uranium-mining/

I got a chance to chat with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds a bit ago. He’s in the midst of his Deeds Country tour and I got tired just listening to all the stops he’s making as well as those coming up :)

In our brief phone call, we talked about two issues: redistricting and uranium mining, the former because it is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and the latter because a friend of mine wanted to know where he stood on it.

Deeds has been an ardent supporter of bipartisan – preferably, nonpartisan – redistricting, having sheperded legislation through the Senate over the past several years, only to see it killed in the House of Delegates. Deeds assured me that he intends to amend and/or veto restricting bills that come out the legislature until he gets what he wants in a fair redistricting bill. He pointed to the precedent of former Democratic governor Doug Wilder.

Wilder, in 1991 with a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, vetoed a redistricting bill that did not include enough black districts. Deeds said that any redistricting bill should take into account the principles of compact, contiguous districts, among other things.

While he is not discounting the possibility that Democrats may gain the six seats necessary to obtain a majority in the House – he said that he is “impressed with the quality of the candidates” and rattled off the names of a number of them running in districts around the state – he told me he is more concerned about fairness.

I asked about uranium mining, a topic that I’m not too familiar with. Fortunately for me, Deeds is. He mentioned that he practiced law in Danville in the early to mid 1980s and became quite knowledgeable about the issue during that time. (For some background, take a look here.) Deeds said that energy independence is a part of our national security so he believes in a comprehensive approach, and nothing should be taken off the table. He said, though, that he is not convinced that we have the technology to make such mining safe.

Deeds said, when the issue came up in committee, he asked two questions, one he knew the answer to and the other he didn’t. The questions were:

  1. What about the terrain in Pittslyvania County has changed?
  2. What about the science has changed?

The answer to question #1, which Deeds already knew, was nothing. The terrain is such that the mining may very well contaminate the groundwater and not just in Pittsylvania County. The problem could very well extend beyond, down to Hampton Roads.

As for #2, he would like to see a study done by the National Academy of Sciences. Such a study has been authorized but so far, the NAS has balked at doing it. They want the state to pay for it – as of now, the private sector would pay for it – and they want the request to come from the Commonwealth, as opposed to from a General Assembly committee.

The other issue is that of radioactive waste. Deeds was quite concerned about this, saying that radioactivity lasts forever, and even if the technology exists to clean it up – which he was very skeptical of this being the case – the stigma of having radioactive waste in an area may be too much to overcome.

Unless the technology exists to make uranium mining safe, I think I understood Deeds’ position to be that he would not support it.

~

It was obvious to me that these two issues were ones which Deeds was quite passionate about. They are issues that he’s put a lot of thought into in coming to his own conclusions about.

Thanks to Senator Deeds for the call. I hope we will be able to do this regularly over the course of the election cycle. Deeds will be in Hampton Roads next week. Maybe I’ll get a chance to do the call in person

Uranium all about $ signs

As Lord Overstone said, "No warning can save a people determined to grow suddenly rich." And remember, Denison now has a stake in Coles Hill. Excellent points, Phillip.

Chatham Star-Tribune
August 5, 2009

Opinion

It saddens me to think some can only think of $$ (dollar signs) and not the contamination and sickness from uranium mining and milling.

We, the citizens, have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I would like to know when the price of uranium drops will Virginia Uranium Inc. or any other uranium mining companies handle their mining and milling operations like all the other mining companies in the world do?

Will you stop operations tempora[rily] or permanently until the price of uranium rises again?

Keep in mind, even if you are an experienced miner, these jobs could be part time; you might be laid off for months.

Can you support your family on a part-time job? Would you try and build or buy a house or buy a new vehicle knowing you might only work three to four months a year?

The only milling facility (White Mesa) in the United States has only operated a few months this year, and announced in May it would not process ore for the remainder of 2009 because its cost is higher than the spot price of uranium, according to Denison Mines president Ron Hochstein.

Let's not forget about all the part-time tax revenue for our county and state.

My understanding of the tax revenue from mining and milling operations is the company has to be running and the jobs being worked to get the tax revenue.

Our great state and county are not run on part-time taxes and jobs.

It might help, but it does not outweigh the contamination of our drinking water and land, the sickness to our families and the tax increases to clean up this mess if it ever could be cleaned up.

All I hear is we need to mine this uranium, get it out of the ground if it is so dangerous, it's a matter of national security, and we need to dig so we can power our nuclear plants now.

Well watch the price drop and you will see the mining stop.

The nuclear plants still need the uranium whether the price is high or low, but we have an excess of uranium, and the mining and milling will stop and start with the greed and costs of operations.

If dug up, the radon released with be 10,000 times more than if left in the ground.

What I feel is a matter of national security is destroying your own water and agriculture land and depending on foreign countries to feed you or provide you with drinking water.

Phillip Lovelace

Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/08/05/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Friday, July 17, 2009

The history of uranium mining: doomed to repeat itself

To the nuke-advocate who, several months ago, accused me of relying on Greenpeace articles for this blog, here it is...the first Greenpeace article.

Nuclear fuel production – the mining, milling and enriching of uranium – is one of the nuclear industry’s dirty secrets. Very little attention is paid to it by industry propagandists and pro-nuclear politicians and for very good reason. It’s dirty, dangerous, incredibly damaging to the environment and endangers the health of those people unfortunate enough to live close to uranium mines.

To hear some supporters of nuclear energy talk, you’d think the whole process of generating electricity begins with the throwing of a reactor’s ‘on’ switch. But there’s a long story before we even get that far. It’s also a long, sad story that often goes untold in the wider media. Pick any uranium mine around the world and it will invariably be surrounded by stories of pollution, contamination and the exploitation of local communities. Niger, Namibia, Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan. And Australia.

The country’s ‘Environment Minister Peter Garrett has formally approved the new Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia, saying it poses no environmental risks’. The premier of South Australian, Mike Rann, welcomed the decision saying operations at the state’s nearby Beverley mine ‘show that uranium can be mined without damaging the surrounding environment’.

Which means neither man can have read the South Australian governments own figures into spills at the Beverley mine. Here are just a few…

Apr. 22, 2006: spill of 14,400 litres of solution containing approx. 0.5% uranium

Oct. 31, 2005: spill of 23,700 litres of mining solution, containing approx. 0.06% uranium
Aug. 8, 2005: spill of 13,500 litres of extraction fluid containing approx. 0.01% uranium

Mar. 7, 2005: spill of 50,000 - 60,000 litres of injection fluid

Dec. 8, 2004: spill of approx. 2,300 litres of mining solution, containing 0.028% uranium

June 13, 2002: spill of 1,750 litres of brine solution

June 7, 2002: spill of 1,500 litres of injection fluid in the well field

May 5, 2002: spill of 14,900 litres of water containing 0.0018% uranium

May 1, 2002: spill of almost 7,000 litres of brine solution containing some uranium

January 11, 2002: spill of 60,000 liters of groundwater containing acid and uranium, after pipe rupture

Fancy the premier of South Australia being so ignorant of such worrying safety violations going on in his own state. Scandalous.

In fact, that’s the word to sum up the whole Four Mile story: scandalous. Peter Garrett is a former campaigning rock star who fought doggedly against nuclear power before entering politics (‘Why would Australians support an industry that produces radioactive waste, toxic waste?’ he said just three years ago), And with the local Aboriginal communities being (yet again) left out of the negotiations and decision-making over Four Mile, this all has a horribly familiar ring to it.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/07/the_history_of_uranium_mining.html

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap

BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman

Published: 07/14/09

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.

Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to. Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.

The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process. Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.

And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.

Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.

In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.

Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.

The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.

The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.

Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.

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

Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Uranium's promise of economic prosperity rings hollow

Chatham Star-Tribune
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:41 AM EDT



Bringing uranium mining to Pittsylvania County, according to what we are told, will mean economic prosperity for our area beyond the wildest dreams of local economic development personnel.

According to the United States Energy Information Administration, there is one operating uranium mill for conventionally-mined ore in the United States.

Denison Mines Corporation operates the sole active mill, being White Mesa. Early in May, 2009, Denison announced White Mesa was being put on standby and would not process any more conventional uranium ore for the rest of the year 2009.

The president and chief operating officer of Denison Mines Corporation, Ron Hochstein, stated Denison had filled all of its contracts for uranium for 2009 and that the market price of uranium, known as the spot price, was lower than the cost of processing conventional uranium ore. (The spot price went up a whole 50 cents last week!)

The first quarter 2009 financial report for Denison Mines Corporation shows a net loss of $1.3 million and the annual financial statement for 2008 shows a loss of $80.6 million.

Ron Hochstein is also chairman of the board of directors of Santoy Resources Ltd, which, according to announcements, is the Canadian firm in the process of merging with the Coles Hill company, Virginia Uranium, Ltd. (Do look at the financial statements of Santoy, posted on its Internet corporate site.)



The United States and Russia currently have a policy of converting uranium from dismantled uranium bombs, etc., into nuclear fuel rods to keep the uranium out of the hands of terrorists, which reduces the market for mined uranium ore.

The U. S. company handling this project is USEC Inc., and the vice president of marketing and sales is John M. A. Donelson.

Whether or not this is the same person who wrote by that name a recent glowing letter to the Star-Tribune in support for uranium mining at Coles Hill, I do not know.

There are 35 states in the United States which have nuclear generated electricity, producing a total of 806,181,935 megawatt hours in 2008. This was a bit less than the 2007 figure.

There are applications for 20 additional nuclear plants, with the application status being "under review."

One might wonder how many, if any, of those will be built for years, if ever, in the currrent state of financing even with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Considering all of these factors, one might be justified in wondering just how many jobs over how long a period each year will result in Pittsylvania County from uranium mining and milling.

(The White Mesa Mill has been in operation since about 1980, including the period under another corporate name, and only has contracts sufficient for operation for four months out of 12?)

Hildred C. Shelton

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt