Maps of Routine Mining Seismicity, Conterminous United States, May 1997 - March 2000

Comment:  So blasting a mountain causes Earthquakes, so will blasting Coles Hill, where uranium ore is located on the Chatham Fault, cause a problem?  No to uranium mining and milling?

Routine United States Mining Seismicity

The catalog, "Routine Mining Seismicity in the United States", provides listings of routine explosions and planned roof collapses at mines and quarries in the United States. For the period May 1997 through March 2000 the catalog was called "Probable Mining Explosions in the United States".

•GOAL AND SCOPE OF THE CATALOG explains the seismological context in which the routine explosions and collapses are recorded and their locations calculated: we discuss uncertainties in the magnitudes of the cataloged seismic events and variations in the completeness of the catalog.

•EVIDENCE USED IN IDENTIFYING ROUTINE MINING SEISMICITY explains the evidence that is used to identify routine explosions or planned collapses, and we note that in some areas a few natural earthquakes or unplanned rockbursts may be listed in the catalogs of routine mining seismicity.

•EXPLANATION OF CATALOG LISTINGS explains the parameters listed in "Routine Mining Seismicity in the United States".

•MINING SEISMICITY SOURCE REGIONS summarizes what we know about mining districts from which we have recorded explosions, planned collapses, and rockbursts.

Determination of Fracture Flow at the Coles Hill Uranium Deposit in Pittsylvania County, Virginia Using Electrical Resistivity and Cross Borehole Methods


Gannon, J. P.; Burbey, T. J.; Bodnar, R. J.; Aylor, J.

American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #H13A-0910

Virginia Tech researchers are currently conducting a comprehensive investigation on the Coles Hill uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County, Virginia.

This multi-faceted project includes geophysical, structural, hydrological, mineralogical, geochemical, and petrological studies to characterize the deposit in situ and to develop a genetic model to describe the origin of the deposit.

The deposit is located to the west of the Chatham Fault, which separates the Mesozoic metasedimentary basin to the east from the host Leatherwood Granite.

The hydrogeology of the Coles Hill area is typical of the Piedmont region, with ground- water flow confined to fractures in the crystalline bedrock underlying a shallow regolith.

Eleven electrical resistivity profiles were obtained that identify potential subsurface permeable fractures within the ore body and possibly along and across the Chatham fault.

Initial interpretations of the resistivity data show several low resistivity zones that trend west to east toward the Chatham fault along inferred perpendicular fault traces, possibly indicating fracture pathways for ground-water flow.

Monitoring wells will be established along these profiles to perform borehole geophysical logging and cross-borehole testing to further describe the fracture properties and related hydraulic characteristics of the site.

Understanding the amount and locations of groundwater flow at Coles Hill is critical for developing a water usage and dewatering plan should the deposit be mined.


Read more:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/mineblast/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.H13A0910G

Uranium Mining Begins in Grand Canyon

Posted by Brenda Norrell - February 23, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Canadian-based Denison Mines is mining uranium at the north rim of the Grand Canyon, continuing its disregard for Native Americans
By Brenda Norrell

Denison Mines is now mining uranium at the north rim of the Grand Canyon, threatening the water supply and health of the region.

President Obama's new focus on nuclear energy, with funding for nuclear power plants, is creating a new demand for uranium. Obama's new nuclear focus comes as a slap in the face to Native people who supported him and are now fighting new uranium mining on their lands.

Exploitative corporations targeting Native people, including Denison Mines, are continuing their disregard for the health and wellbeing of Native people and future generations. In the Southwest, Native people have long been the victims of uranium mining and were the victims of Cold War uranium mining. Still today, the Navajo Nation is strewn with radioactive uranium mill tailings.

Klee Benally, Navajo at Indigenous Action Media, said the new onslaught of uranium mining in the Grand Canyon comes in defiance of legal challenges and a US moratorium. Havasupai hosted a gathering in July to halt Denison's uranium mining at their sacred Red Butte at the south rim, pointing out the risk to the drinking water of the people of the Southwest and desecration of sacred lands.

However, Denison started uranium mining at the north rim of the Grand Canyon in December and plans to extract 335 tons of uranium per day out of the Arizona 1 Mine. Denison, based in Toronto, Canada, has already targeted Indigenous Peoples with uranium mining and ore processing in Utah and Saskatchewan. Further, Denison has uranium exploration underway in Mongolia and Zambia, targeting more of the worlds Indigenous Peoples with poisoned land and waterways.

Denison is just one of the Canadian companies targeting Native lands in the US. Navajos and Lakotas are in court fighting new uranium mining in the Southwest and Plains.

From the Grand Canyon, Denison is transporting hazardous ore by truck more than 300 miles through towns and communities to the company's White Mesa mill located near Blanding, Utah. The mining, transport and processing will put at risk Native Americans -- Paiute, Havasupai, Hualapai, Navajo and Ute -- along with tourists, other residents and those living along the Colorado River.

Benally said, "After being pressured by environmental groups, U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar initially called for a two-year moratorium on new mining claims in a buffer zone of 1 million acres around Grand Canyon National Park, but the moratorium doesn't include existing claims such as Denison's. The moratorium also doesn't address mining claims outside of the buffer zone.

"The Grand Canyon is ancestral homeland to the Havasupai and Hualapai Nations. Although both Indigenous Nations have banned uranium mining on their reservations the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management may permit thousands of mining claims on surrounding lands, he said.

Due to recent increases in the price of uranium and the push for nuclear power nearly 8,000 new mining claims now threaten Northern Arizona. Uranium mined from the Southwestern U.S. is predominately purchased by countries such as France and Korea for nuclear energy, he said.

"Under an anachronistic 1872 mining law, created when pick axes and shovels were used, mining companies freely file claims on public lands. The law permits mining regardless of cultural impacts," Benally said.

Read more of Benally's statement at:
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/

Read more:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2010/02/uranium-mining-begins-grand-canyon

Stop toxic uranium pollution

Comment: Okay, now we are in Colorado, uranium mining is not safe anywhere and we need to help one another to stop the mining! Click the links and tell CO state leaders not to polluate the water with uranium mining and forward theletter to VA Leaders and demand to ban uranium mining and milling now!
Colorado's drinking water and treasured landscapes are important to our state and deserve the utmost protection.

Yet, mining companies have time and time again argued against common sense protection of our water, land, and communities. In 2007, the Cotter Corporation said they should be exempted from environmental protections so they could dump pollution containing lead and arsenic onto our lands and into our waters. And in Northern Colorado, the Canadian company Powertech continues to argue against clean water protections that would require them to clean up their mess and restore groundwater quality to its pre-mining condition.

We have until Mar. 1 to submit public comments to Colorado's Mined Land Reclamation Board. We need to tell the board that we want to close the Cotter uranium pollution loophole, create new provisions to protect our groundwater from uranium, and ensure that all mining companies play by the rules.

Take action today by filling out the form on the right!

The State of Colorado requests that you include your name, phone number, and street address with your official comments. Your contact information will be kept confidential.

Follow these 3 easy steps to help out.

1. Look over the message to the right, and feel free to add your own comments. Using your own words makes the message more meaningful.
2. Sign the letter by filling in the form to the right. We will not share your information with anyone else.
3. Click the link to send your message: http://www.environmentcolorado.org/action/other-issues/stop-toxic-uranium-pollution?id4=ES


Subject
Re: HB08-1161 & SB08-228 rulemaking


Letter *

Dear members of the Mined Land Reclamation Board:

I am writing to you today in support of protecting our water and our lands from the impacts of uranium mining and to ensure that the public is heard on issues of mine prospecting.

The final rules for House Bill 08-1161 and Senate Bill 08-228 should adhere to the following principles:
*Uranium companies should be held accountable for cleaning up their mess and returning groundwater quality to its original state that existed before any mining or mine prospecting took place.
*All uranium companies should play by the rules as a "designated mining operation" and submit environmental plans to minimize the impacts of toxic uranium pollution on our land, water and communities.
*The public, local governments, and other stakeholders must be notified about mine prospecting activities and have the right to submit comments on proposed prospecting permits.
*The public and stakeholders should have the ability to appeal mine prospecting permit decisions to ensure that the environment and public health are protected in those decisions.

Very sincerely,

Click the link below to go to the letter:
http://www.environmentcolorado.org/action/other-issues/stop-toxic-uranium-pollution?id4=ES

Flooding keeps coal mine closed

The Rolleston to Springsure Road cut by flooding, which has also inundated the Rolleston coal mine (submitted: Trina Patterson)

Comment: You ask Ace what has a flood at an Australian Coal Mine got to do with uranium mining in VA? Well, this is modern mining at work, Mother Nature loves to slap humans in the face when they make comments like, and “Modern mining won't hurt anyone"! Well, think again, if this was a uranium mining pit, where would the tainted water be pump to? Will the miners be able to draw unemployment checks when the mine shuts down? Does VA really want this type of business in our lovely state! Ban uranium mining and milling now!
By Stephanie Fitzpatrick
Updated Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:01pm AEDT

Rolleston coal mine in the Bowen Basin in central Queensland is still flooded after heavy rain.

The mine has been forced to close with water filling up the open-cut pits.

Xstrata Coal spokesman James Rickards says it is trying to pump the water out.

"The recent rain we have received has been at such a level that there has been widespread flooding throughout the region," Mr Rickards said.

"It has affected the mine significantly therefore production has ceased.

"What we need is clear skies and the opportunity to start pumping out some of that water but it's too early yet to determine how long production will be down for.

"We've been able to move the majority of machinery out of the pits that have been affected so the flooding that had occurred has had a minimal impact on the equipment," he said.

First posted Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:45am AEDT

Read more:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/18/2823146.htm

Virginians asked to help find old oil, gas wells

Comment:  Ace wonders if the Marline bore holes and wells from the past uranium drilling counts in Pittsylvania County, VA and other counties in VA?
By Staff Report
Published February 24th, 2010 | 0 Comments

BIG STONE GAP — The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy is asking Southwest Virginia residents to help the agency locate, plug and clean up old, abandoned gas and oil wells.

The agency is asking residents of the coalfield counties who may know of such abandoned well sites to notify its Division of Gas & Oil (DGO) so the information can be added to the agency’s abandoned well database.

“We have some data on wells predating 1950, we believe local residents may have valuable information about the specific locations of early gas or oil wells that were abandoned before being properly plugged,” said DGO Director David Asbury.

“These old wells can be a source of danger to the public and the environment and need to be targeted for plugging and reclamation.”

During the early and mid-1900s, a number of exploratory wells may have been drilled in Southwest Virginia on private property, the agency said, and there may be limited or no public records available on those activities.

The Virginia Gas and Oil Act established an orphaned well fund administered by the DMME. Orphaned wells deemed an imminent danger to public safety are given the top priority for reclamation.

The DGO is working to expand its database on old, abandoned gas and oil wells and seeks any public input on the location of previously unidentified, abandoned well sites. Anyone having specific information is asked to contact Orphan Well Project Coordinator Jerry Hagy at the DGO office in Lebanon by calling (276) 415-9700 or e-mailing Hagy at dgoinfo@dmme.virginia.gov

Read more:
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9020884

National Research Council call for nominations - Uranium Mining in Virginia

Comment:  Thanks Anne for all you do.  Contact the NRC (NAS), they are seeking nominations from everybody about the uranium mining study in Virginia.
Dear Colleagues

The NRC has started a new study on Uranium Mining in Virginia under the auspices of the Board on Earth Science and Resources’ Committee on Earth Resources and with collaboration by the Water Sciences and Technology Board; the statement of task for this project is appended below.

We seek your assistance in identifying suitable members for the study committee (approximately 12 people) who will have expertise in areas such as ecology; environmental and mining law; environmental remediation; geology; ground and surface water hydrogeochemistry; health communications; mine safety; mine regulation and reclamation; radiation health effects; and uranium mining, milling, processing, and engineering.

Please send any nominations for expert members of the study committee to Nicholas Rogers (nrogers@nas.edu), with cc to David Feary (dfeary@nas.edu). David is the study director. It would also be most helpful if you could include a brief description of the particular expertise of nominees.

Thank you.

The Statement of Task is:

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007. A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens. In particular, the study will:

(1) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium.

(2) Review global and national uranium market trends.

(3) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.

(4) Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.

(5) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

(6) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).

(7) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

(8) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.

(9) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.

(10) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

(11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

(12) Provide a non-technical summary of the report for public education purposes (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

Contact: Nicholas Rogers (nrogers@nas.edu)
cc: David Feary (dfeary@nas.edu)

Issue fraught with science and emotion (uranium mining)

Canada coming south(America)

Comment:  A great letter, we hear the same comments from the pro uranium group in VA!  No to uranium mining!

February 25, 2010

Supporters of in situ leach uranium mining in Weld County claim that opponents of uranium mining are too emotional and do not know "the science."

Do they mean ...

The "geological" science that the U.S. Geological Survey used to determine "to date, no ISR uranium mine in the U.S. has successfully restored the aquifer to baseline conditions."

The "groundwater" science that geoscientist B. K. Darling used to evaluate restoration of ISL mines in Texas, reporting, "The Texas commission on Environmental Quality routinely grants requests for relaxed restoration standards that allow operators to depart from original groundwater cleanup objectives ... as a result of the inability of the operators to reduce uranium concentration."

The "medical" science that the Larimer County and Colorado medical societies used to decide their opposition to uranium mining, stating, "there are documented increases in rates of testicular and ovarian cancer, leukemia, childhood bone cancer, miscarriages, infant death, congenital defects and genetic abnormalities in populations living near uranium mining sites."

The "meteorological science" that the past president of the American Meteorological Society used saying, "Weld County is windy. Surface soil contaminated by radionuclide and heavy metals has the potential to become airborne and be ingested by surrounding humans and animals for miles."

Opponents too emotional?

Were Fort Collins, Greeley, Nunn, Timnath, Wellington, Ault and New Raymer too emotional when they all wrote resolutions opposing uranium mining, or were they acting on behalf of public health and safety?

Fort Collins was voted best place to live. A uranium mine nearby could negate this area's desirability.

Real estate values could plummet. Local college enrollment could decrease. Businesses could vacate. Reduction in quality of life, job losses and the inability to sell your house are emotional.

The mining company projects using a million gallons of groundwater per month for 20 to 25 years. This could affect availability of fresh groundwater.

Weld County is the eighth-most-productive agricultural county in the United States.

Contaminated or reduced volumes of water could adversely affect this industry. Loss of local business income and at-risk agricultural products are emotional.

Abandoned uranium mine sites historically become superfund sites that use tax dollars to clean up.

With ISL mines, it is the aquifer that needs restoration, and if it can't be restored, what do we use? There are more than 250 wells of record within one mile of the mine site. Contaminated water is emotional.

A Canadian mining company proposes to mine uranium 10 miles from Fort Collins, make a lot of money and take it back to Canada. In return, it says it will create maybe 100 jobs and residual business.

Having a foreign company mine U.S. resources, possibly contaminate our environment and leave us with the bill is emotional.

So, is it an issue of science or emotion? It's a little of both, with many promises and projections from an industry that has historically contaminated the area where it operates.

Do they have new, "safe" science?

Will they protect our environment?

We'll just have to trust them ... or not.

Uranium mining opponents react to study

Comment:  Demand our local leaders to ban uranium mining and milling now! VA Tech is pro nuclear, pro mining, pro moutain top removal, they love to blow things up!
By John Crane
Published: February 24, 2010

Uranium mining opponents reacted with trepidation — and determination — to the National Academy of Sciences’ agreement to perform a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia.

Karen Maute, who’s against uranium mining and milling in Pittsylvania County, said she would like to see all studies on the process complete — including those conducted by the NAS, the Danville Regional Foundation, Virginia Beach and the second part of the NAS study which would examine the socioeconomic aspects of mining and milling — before the state’s moratorium on uranium mining is lifted.

In addition, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors and residents must have the chance to review and question all the completed studies before a moratorium is lifted. The board also needs to ensure mining in the county is not allowed until then, Maute said.

“Pittsylvania County is ground zero for mining and milling of uranium,” Maute said in a statement Wednesday. “The moratorium can be lifted by the General Assembly regardless of the direct consequences to us.

We need to position ourselves (legally) so that uranium mining and milling do not occur until all studies are conducted, concluded and we, the citizens and governing body of Pittsylvania County are satisfied that our health, safety and welfare are protected.

 I believe the Board of Supervisors has the authority and duty to put us in that position.”

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

The National Research Council, an arm of the NAS, has contracted with Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research to undertake a $1.4 million study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth. NAS/NRC officials say the study should be complete by the fall of 2011.

VUI, through the Center for Coal and Energy Research, is paying for the study.

Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, said the NAS/NRC’s Provisional Committee, tasked to conduct and report on the study, will not be paid to perform it, Karmis said.

“The source of money is totally irrelevant,” Karmis said.

Jack Dunavant, chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens, said the study will be biased in favor of pro-mining interests.

“If the study is not tainted, which I’m sure it will be, we’ll welcome it,” Dunavant said, adding that if the study becomes compromised, “we’ll certainly bring it to people’s attention.”

Dunavant questions whether a pile of powdered milling waste sitting in a flood plain above a river bed can be controlled, especially given the region’s rainy climate.

Eloise Nenon, founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said the study may be scientific, but science is constantly changing and facts that may be apply now may be proven false in the future.

“We have to realize the limitations we now face,” Nenon said.

While Nenon said she was pleased at the mention of public participation in the Danville data-gathering meetings during the study, she would like to see NAS/NRC meetings open to the public. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy has said the country doesn’t need new uranium supply since the nation can downblend enriched uranium.

Also, the commonwealth has a responsibility to the citizens to pay for the second part of the study that would examine mining and milling’s socioeconomic impacts — how it would affect the local economy, and the water supply for Southside, Virginia Beach and North Carolina, and centuries of local history, Nenon said.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_mining_opponents_react_to_study/18329/

Uranium mining study gets official green light

Comment:  We want the NAS meetings to be in Chatham, VA, not Danville!  There should be meetings in Richmond, Virginia Beach and all over VA since uranium is located all over VA!  Since the NAS are Pro-Nuclear and have lots of so called "scientist" are from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on their board, will this be a fair study of uranium mining, you be the judge!

By John Crane
Published: February 23, 2010

The study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia is a go.

Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research has signed a contract with the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council for the study, NAS Spokesman William Kearney said Tuesday.

“We received word that the contract has been signed,” Kearney said.

The NAS/NRC will begin the study process when Virginia Tech pays the first installment for the $1.4 million study, Kearney said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will pay for the study’s first phase — which could cost up to $1.4 million — focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

The second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be developed by the Virginia Coal & Energy Commission. VUI will not fund the second part.

Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Once the NAS/NRC receives the first payment, the next step will be to form a provisional committee and hold a 20-day public comment period on the makeup of the committee, Kearney said.

 Citizens will be able to comment by visiting http://www.nationalacademies.org
and clicking on “current projects.” The provisional committee of about a dozen scientific experts would perform the study and write its report.

The NAS/NRC will consider the public comment regarding the committee and discuss its balance, Kearney said. Committee members will be required to comply with the organization’s conflict-of-interest policy, which prohibits those with a financial stake in the subject examined from serving, Kearney said.

Kearney said the NAS/NRC Executive Committee hopes to hold the first data-gathering meeting this summer in Danville and Richmond, which will include public comment. The study’s fieldwork will begin this summer and last through the fall of 2011, Kearney said.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_mining_study_gets_official_green_light/18279/

We won’t get fooled again — or will we? (Uranium Mining in VA)

Hills in Pitts. County

Comment:  A great article which is fair and balance!  No to uranium mining and milling! (Ace would write more but he has a cold!)

Sunday, February 14, 2010
Posted by Robert Benson at 10:20 AM

If you only know one thing about Patrick Wales, know this: He’s passionate about geology(just the money it makes for him off the backs of people's lives, ACE).

Wales is a native who came back home to work with Virginia Uranium Inc. Wales has every reason in the world to want to see that 119-million pound ore deposit mined.

Wales sees good local jobs, tax dollars for local governments and a valuable mineral locked in solid granite that can eventually be used as fuel for use in nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is an important part of Dominion Virginia’s total energy output.

Needless to say, Wales takes a particular interest in what this newspaper writes about VUI and uranium mining and milling. He took exception with, “Not now, not ever; why not?” (Feb. 10, page A10), the editorial about the RIFA board not taking action on a resolution to ban uranium mining and milling in the Berry Hill Road industrial mega park.

“The whole purpose of these resolutions was to hijack the pages of your paper so that the anti-uranium folks could have another day in the sun, and as usual your paper obliged with priority coverage of the resolution followed by a silly editorial,” Wales wrote to me. “…the anti-uranium folks are merely using your paper as their soapbox. Hopefully, common sense and journalism can return to the pages of your paper.”

I don’t think it ever left.

Wales is correct that these resolutions are non-binding and don’t have the force of law behind them. But we believe that government resolutions are a way for the people’s elected leaders to express their views about issues, events and problems.

While it’s true that Virginia Uranium Inc. is only interested in Coles Hill, it’s also true that the uranium mining and milling study currently being done by the National Academy of Sciences is looking at uranium mining and milling throughout Virginia, not just at Coles Hill.

That means that if VUI gets the green light to proceed, we could see other mining companies come to Virginia searching for the next Coles Hill.

Since parts of the Berry Hill industrial mega park site include land that may have uranium under it, we believe this resolution makes sense given the substantial public investment in that industrial park.

Did anti-mining folks like our editorial? Probably. Was one of their goals to score some news media attention? Probably. Did they raise a valid public issue? Absolutely.

Wales may not agree with that, and that’s his prerogative.

I don’t expect a geologist working for VUI to agree with everything we’ve written about uranium mining and milling in Pittsylvania County.

 But this proposed project has raised a lot of questions that demand answers — and the time to ask questions is right now.

Read more:
http://www.mygodanriver.com/index.php/benson/comments/we_wont_get_fooled_again_or_will_we/

Uranium study gets green light

Comment:  No to uranium mining and milling!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:36 PM EST

The National Research Council has agreed to conduct a statewide scientific study on uranium mining in Virginia.

William Kearney, a spokesman for the National Research Council in Washington, D.C., said a contract for the long-awaited study has been approved and signed with Virginia Tech.

The university will serve as a conduit for funding from Virginia Uranium Inc., which has agreed to pay for the $1.4 million study.

"Once we have the signed contract and funding is released, we'll begin," Kearney said Tuesday.

The study will take about 18 months. A final report is due Dec. 1, 2011.

According to Kearney, the first step will be for the National Research Council to solicit recommendations for experts to serve on the committee that will conduct the study.

He said the committee will be composed of about a dozen scientists from the National Academies of Science and Engineering as well as the council's own scientific staff, academia and government officials.

"The goal is to pick a committee with the expertise to carry out the objectives of the study and also be balanced from a scientific perspective," said Kearney.

Nominations will be posted on the council's website for a 20-day public comment period.

"The committee remains provisional until every member has complied with our conflict of interest policy," the spokesman said.

Kearney expects the committee to be approved this spring and begin meeting early this summer.

He said one of the group's first public meetings will be in Danville.

Virginia Uranium Inc. announced plans three years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

Discovered in the early 1980s, the uranium deposit is one of the largest in the United States and is worth an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion.

The National Research Council presented its recommendations for a study in May to the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy's Uranium Mining Subcommittee.

The subcommittee, chaired by Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, voted 8-2 to approve a framework for the study and made public safety a top priority.

According to the National Research Council's "Statement of Task," the study will "examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."

In particular, the study will:

_ Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to "daughter" products of radioactive decay of uranium.

_ Review global and national uranium market trends.

_ Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.

_ Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.

_ Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in Virginia.

_ Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments ("cells").

_ Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

_ Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.

_ Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.

_ Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

_ Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

_ Provide a non-technical summary of the report for public education purposes (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

The National Research Council, however, will not offer recommendations on whether uranium mining should be permitted, and the study will not include "site-specific" assessments.

That decision will be left to the General Assembly, which placed a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.

Coal and Energy Commission chairman Del. Terry Kilgore said the state also plans to conduct a study of the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.

The second study, which will address the effects of uranium mining on businesses, schools and the community, will be conducted by another organization and funded separately, the chairman said.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/02/24/chatham/news/news50.txt

NAS, Virginia Tech agree to uranium mining study

Comment:  Don't forget who is paying for the study:  The Uranium Corporation's listed below!

By Staff
Published: February 23, 2010

The long-awaited study of uranium mining and milling in Virginia has been given the green light to proceed. The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech have agreed to the study. The NAS will conduct the study.


Is this the future of Pittsylvania County, VA (ironic the name "Pitts"?)

Scientific study is statewide in scope, the news is especially relevant in the Dan River Region because Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill.
Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/nas_virginia_tech_agree_to_uranium_mining_study/18268/

AREVA fails to address radiation problem around Niger mines: Dr. Rianne Teule

November 23, 2009

Greenpeace reports that high radiation levels have been found on the streets of Akokan in Niger due to its proximity to uranium mines owned by Areva.

Comment:  Dr. Rianne Teule, GreePeace International  will be at the Mar 11: Uranium Mining in Virginia Symposium!  Everybody needs to come!
 
Greenpeace International (Amsterdam)
5 January 2010

Following Greenpeace's report of radioactive hotspots in the uranium mining city Akokan in Niger, AREVA has confirmed that the radioactivity in the streets of Akokan was unacceptably high.

Under pressure from civil society the French nuclear company has taken action to clean up the spots indicated by Greenpeace [1]

"Areva's reaction supports our call for a comprehensive, transparent and independent environmental assessment of the area," said Dr. Rianne Teule of Greenpeace International. "We are glad that the streets of Akokan have been partly cleaned up, but remain very concerned that other problems cannot be ruled out without a comprehensive study.

A Greenpeace team visited AREVA's two uranium mines in Niger at the beginning of November 2009.

 (2) During this visit Greenpeace identified dangerous levels of radiation in the streets of Akokan, at one location up to 500 times higher than the normal background levels.

(3) AREVA had earlier declared the streets safe. A comprehensive report on Greenpeace's findings will be published in early 2010.

Read more:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/areva-fails-to-address-radiati
http://weblog.greenpeace.or/...

Notes to Editor



[1] Note CRIIRAD N°07-53, Présence de matériaux radioactifs dans le domaine public à ARLIT et AKOKAN (Niger), à proximité des mines SOMAÏR et COMINAK (AREVA), CRIIRAD, 14 May 2007.
[2] Greenpeace Briefing Nov 2009, http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/briefing-radioactivity-in-ak.pdf
[3] “Correspondance en date du 6 octobre 2008 avec les Service Départemental des Mines sur le contrôle radiologique de la zone urbaine accompagnée d’une carte des travaux effectuées”, document provided by AREVA, 4 November 2009

Herbert derails Utah-bound shipments of depleted uranium

By Amy Joi O'Donoghue
Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010
1:15 a.m. MST

SALT LAKE CITY — Planned shipments of depleted uranium from the U.S. Department of Energy's South Carolina's storage site will not be shipped to Utah under an agreement negotiated Monday by Gov. Gary Herbert.

"This is a monumental win for the state of Utah," Herbert said. "At one point, we were told these trains were all but on the tracks, making their way to Utah. The Department of Energy has now agreed, after we registered our concerns, that those trains will head elsewhere."

In addition to derailing the two remaining shipments of 7,000 tons of the material, Herbert said federal regulators agreed to take back the depleted uranium that came in December if planned state changes to the disposal process fall through.

HEAL Utah's executive director was delighted with the news of the averted shipments.

"Today we celebrate the huge victory won by Gov. Herbert for the people of Utah," said Vanessa Pierce. "We salute him, as well as the scientists, concerned citizens, and radiation control board members who have played an active role in safeguarding the health of all Utahns from this dangerous material."

Herbert met for an hour in Washington, D.C., with Ines Triay, the department's assistant secretary for environmental management. As a result, the department agreed to divert two train loads of depleted uranium originally intended for storage at EnergySolutions' Clive facility in Tooele County.

Additionally, a DOE representative will travel to Utah to address the state's Radiation Control Board and will work closely with state regulators to develop a site-specific performance assessment to determine if depleted uranium can be safely stored at Clive.

That process is expected to take up to two years.

Members of the state Radiation Control Board are also sifting through the dozens of comments the agency received on a proposed rule that puts in place site-specific conditions for the storage of depleted uranium.

The public comment period ended in early February and the board is reviewing those comments as part of the decision to either adopt the rule as written or institute changes.

Finerfrock said division staff are compiling responses to the comments, which will be incorporated into a "Public Participation Document" that will be available for review.

The terms of the agreement reached between Herbert and the Department of Energy will also be outlined in a written document.

Read more:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700011309/Herbert-derails-Utah-bound-shipments-of-depleted-uranium.html

Helped wanted at uranium mines: “excursions”

Comment:  Thanks DL!  Modern uranium mining at work only 27 “excursions”, well duh, uranium mining has never been mined safely anywhere in the world!

Published:Sunday, February 21, 2010
10:05 AM CST
Terence Corrigan

After lying dormant for over nine years, Uranium mining operations in the Powder River Basin are coming back to life.

The Christensen Ranch site in Campbell County and Irigrary site in Johnson County are reopening. The mines were in operation until the end of 2000, owned and operated by COGEMA Mining, Inc. In August 2009, Uranium One purchased the facilities for a reported $35 million.

With license renewal approved, Uranium One is now advertising for help.

Uranium is mined at the Christensen Ranch and Irigrary site with a process called in-situ leach mining (ISL).

To extract uranium using the ISL method, groundwater is mixed with a leaching agent and injected into the below-ground ore. The uranium ore and fluid is pumped to the surface where it is processed.

The process has not been without problems.

The most common problems are “excursions.”

When contaminated water is released by monitoring well pipe breaks or otherwise escapes impoundment, it is called an excursion.

The other, is spilling of contaminated water.

From 1996 to 2004, the Christensen Ranch and Irigrary sites reported 27 incidents.

The Bulletin attempted to reach Uranium One vice-president Donna Wichers twice by phone and once via e-mail last week but our calls were not returned.

Read more:
http://www.buffalobulletin.com/articles/2010/02/21/news/local_news/doc4b7c47df64d3d019953561.txt

Let's not kid ourselves: Uranium mining (nuclear energy) kills people.

garybeck

With the debate on nuclear energy coming to a peak, we hear much talk about the safety (or lack of safety)of a nuclear power plant, and and how we might deal with nuclear waste, but often neglected in the debate is discussion of uranium mining.

That’s because there’s not much to debate about it. It’s nasty. While nuclear advocates will tout its safety and say “not a single person has died from nuclear power,” this is ignoring nuclear energy’s dirty little secret: Uranium mining kills people.

Below is a collection of articles, studies, and links to information that documents the deaths and illnesses directly related to uranium mining. Hopefully people will stop ignoring this important issue and it will become part of the debate:

A French state-owned company mines uranium in northern Niger where mine workers are not informed about health risks, and analysis shows radioactive contamination of air, water and soil. The local organization that represents the mine workers, spoke of “suspicious deaths among the workers, caused by radioactive dust and contaminated groundwater.” {citation found at URL at top of post}

Engineers say cleaning up the mill tailings at a single site, the defunct Atlas mill on the banks of the Colorado River just outside of Moab, could cost $300 million.   The dead and dying include miners and mill workers, innocent children who found mill tailings to be an inviting sand box, mothers who swept and dusted the wind-borne radioactive dust that filtered into their homes. {citation found at URL at top of post}

...Excess deaths from lung cancer among two groups of European miners had been associated with relatively high concentrations of radon in the mine atmosphere. In that same year … conclusions were drawn that prolonged breathing of air containing a high concentration of radon, may have caused what was estimated at that time to be a 30-fold increase in the incidence of lung cancer. {citation found at URL at top of post}

In Canada we have 200 million tons of this radioactive waste, called uranium tailings. As Marie Curie observed, 85 percent of the radioactivity in the ore remains behind in that crushed rock. How long will it be there? . . . . Well, it turns out that the effective half-life of this radioactivity is 80,000 years. That means in 80,000 years there will be half as much radioactivity in these tailings as there is today. ... In addition, as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas.  It’ll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive byproducts {citation found at URL at top of post}

And let’s not forget, that uranium mining often takes place in areas where impoverished people are taken advanatage of, and have no legal recourse to prevent it. Native American land and third-world nations are often targeted for uranium mining because no one with power or money wants it happening in their backyard.

But let’s not kid ourselves. It’s not just the safety of of the plant, and it’s not just a matter of finding a good way to store the waste.

Nuclear energy, in particular uranium mining, kills people.

Read more:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7740158
http://solarbus.org/blog/?p=113

Proposed PolyMet Mine Would Violate Environmental Laws and Cannot Proceed

For Immediate Release, February 1, 2010
Contact: Marc Fink, Center for Biological Diversity, (218) 525-3884

DULUTH, Minn.— The Center for Biological Diversity today submitted detailed comments on the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed NorthMet copper-nickel mine on the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. The Center’s comments rely on the agencies’ environmental analysis to demonstrate that the proposed mine would violate numerous environmental laws, destroying critical wildlife habitat and valuable wetlands, and cannot proceed.

“According to the draft analysis, PolyMet’s proposal would violate the Endangered Species Act by destroying critical habitat for lynx and wolves, would fail to meet water quality standards, would violate wetlands laws, and is not allowed on the Superior National Forest,” said Marc Fink, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

The proposed mine would be the first copper mine permitted in the state.

The proposed mine would destroy nearly 1,500 acres of designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx and gray wolf as well as more than 800 acres of high-quality wetlands, which would represent the largest recorded disturbance to wetlands in the region. And the mine would add massive amounts of tailings waste on top of the existing LTV tailings basin, which is already leaking and violating state water-quality standards.

The project is located near the headwaters of the Partridge and Embarrass river watersheds, tributaries of the St. Louis River that flows into Lake Superior. Many of the streams in the area and downstream are already designated by the state as impaired due to past and ongoing water pollution.

The Center for Biological Diversity, along with Save Lake Superior Association and the Indigenous Environmental Network, sent notice last week pursuant to the Clean Water Act that they intend to file suit to stop the ongoing pollution at the LTV site, which the groups maintain should be addressed before any new mines in the area are considered.

Read more:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/polymet-02-01-2009.html

Government Study: Elevated Uranium Levels in Grand Canyon's Watershed

Grand Canyon:  No to uranium mining!

For Immediate Release, February 18, 2010

Contact: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7466

Exploration and Mining Sites Consistently Exceed Background Levels

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK— A series of studies released today by the United States Geological Survey show elevated uranium levels in wells, springs, and soil in and around uranium exploration and mining sites within the watershed feeding Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River. The agency conducted the monitoring to provide information for an environmental impact statement that is analyzing a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would protect nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from future mining activities.

“These reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands,” said Stacey Hamburg of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Contaminated lands and waters around the Grand Canyon are not what we want for the future of northern Arizona. Cleaning up contaminated sites should be the government’s first priority.”

Elevated uranium levels consistently exceed natural background levels in and around exploration and old mining sites – sometimes, as in the case of the Kanab North mine, by as much as 10 times.

Elevated uranium levels were also detected near the old “Hack” uranium-mine complex, which the Bureau of Land Management actively promotes on its Web site as a model of good mine reclamation. Reclaimed in the 1980s, the mines are located in Hack Canyon, a tributary to Kanab Creek and the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.

Uranium mining has already contaminated lands and waters in and around Grand Canyon, and today’s research confirms that new uranium mining would threaten aquifers that feed Grand Canyon’s springs, the Colorado River, and nearly 100 species of concern,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “These risks aren’t worth taking – and they’re risks neither the government nor industry can guarantee against.”

Elevated uranium levels were also detected at another nearby old mine that the Bureau has said it will allow to reopen without updating 1980s-era federal environmental reviews. The first such opening, of Denison Mines’ Arizona 1 mine, provoked a lawsuit in November from conservation groups seeking updated reviews.

Fifteen springs and five wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water; hydrogeologists have warned that new mining could deplete and pollute water in aquifers and connected springs. Today’s report concludes that: “Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface water and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase mobilization of uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. In addition, waste rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by wind and runoff.”

“The USGS research confirms that mining uranium within Grand Canyon watersheds risks permanently polluting waning water supplies for 25 million people and arid ecosystems. There are some places where mining should not occur, and the Grand Canyon is one of them,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust.

Last week the Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public records relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon National Park. The Bureau is withholding the vast majority of eight linear feet of responsive records despite directives from the Obama administration requiring the agency to respond to information requests “promptly and in a spirit of cooperation” and to adopt a “presumption of disclosure” (see Obama’s Freedom of Information Act memo to federal agencies here).

All of today’s reports can be downloaded here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/

Summary of Research Findings (From USGS)

• The area proposed for withdrawal is estimated to contain about 163,000 tons (about 326 million pounds) of uranium oxide (U3O8), which is about 12 percent of the estimated total undiscovered uranium in northern Arizona (1.3 million tons or 2.6 billion pounds). For comparison, the United States consumes about 27,550 tons (55 million pounds) of uranium oxide each year in its reactors; most of it comes from Canada, Australia, and Russia.
• Soil and sediment samples were analyzed for six sites that experienced various levels of uranium mining in Kanab Creek area north of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed sites, mined sites currently on standby, and sites that were exploratory drilled but not mined. Uranium and arsenic were two elements consistently detected in the areas disturbed by mining in values above natural background levels.
• Analysis of historical water-quality data for more than 1,000 water samples from 428 sites in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium concentrations in areas without mining were generally similar to those with active or reclaimed mines. Sixty-six percent of the sampled sites showed low dissolved uranium concentrations (less than 5 parts per billion). Ninety-five percent of the sampled sites had dissolved uranium levels of less than 30 parts per billion, the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water.
• Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water. These springs and wells are close to or in direct contact with mineralized ore bodies, and concentration levels are related to natural processes, mining, or a combination of both factors.
• Almost 100 plants and animals identified by the State of Arizona or other land managers as species of concern inhabit the area proposed for withdrawal. Because uranium and its byproducts such as radon can affect survival, growth, and reproduction of plants and animals, USGS scientists identified exposure pathways (for example, ingestion or inhalation) for these species of concern.

Read more:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/grand-canyon-02-19-2010.html

Link Between Exploration Well And Lusi Mud Volcano

The Lusi volcano, which first erupted on May 29, 2006

by Staff Writers
Berkeley CA (SPX) Feb 17, 2010

New data provides the strongest evidence to date that the world's biggest mud volcano, which killed 13 people in 2006 and displaced thirty thousand people in East Java, Indonesia, was not caused by an earthquake, according to an international scientific team that includes researchers from Durham University and the University of California, Berkeley.

Drilling firm Lapindo Brantas has denied that a nearby gas exploration well was the trigger for the volcano, instead blaming an earthquake that occurred 280 kilometers (174 miles) away. They backed up their claims in an article accepted this week for publication in the journal Marine and Petroleum Geology, by lead author Nurrochmat Sawolo, senior drilling adviser for Lapindo Brantas, and colleagues.

In response, a group of scientists from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Indonesia led by Richard Davies, director of the Durham Energy Institute, have written a discussion paper in which they refute the main arguments made by Nurrochmat Sawolo and document new data that provides the strongest evidence to date of a link between the well and the volcano. That paper has been accepted for publication in the same journal.

"The disaster was caused by pulling the drill string and drill bit out of the hole while the hole was unstable," Davies said. "This triggered a very large 'kick' in the well, where there is a large influx of water and gas from surrounding rock formations that could not be controlled.

"We found that one of the on-site daily drilling reports states that Lapindo Brantas pumped heavy drilling mud into the well to try to stop the mud volcano. This was partially successful and the eruption of the mud volcano slowed down. The fact that the eruption slowed provides the first conclusive evidence that the bore hole was connected to the volcano at the time of eruption."

The Durham University-led group of scientists believe that their analysis resolves the cause beyond all reasonable doubt. According to their discussion paper, 'The pumping of heavy mud caused a reduction in the rate of flow to the surface. The reason for pumping the mud was to stop the flow by increasing the pressure exerted by the mud column in the well and slowing the rate of flux of fluid from surrounding formations.'

"An earthquake trigger can be ruled out because the earthquake was too small given its distance, and the stresses produced by the earthquake were minute smaller than those created by tides and weather," said co-author Michael Manga, professor of earth and planetary science at the University of California, Berkeley.

The group of scientists has identified five critical drilling errors as the causes of the Lusi mud volcano eruption:

•having a significant open hole section with no protective casing •overestimating the pressure the well could tolerate •after complete loss of returns, the decision to pull the drill string out of an extremely unstable hole •pulling the bit out of the hole while losses were occurring •not identifying the kick more rapidly

"This is the clearest evidence uncovered so far that the Lusi mud volcano was triggered by drilling," Davies said. "We have detailed data collected over two years that show the events that led to the creation of the Lusi volcano."

"The observation that pumping mud into the hole caused a reduction in eruption rate indicates a direct link between the wellbore and the eruption," he added. "The decision was made to pull the drill bit out of the hole without verifying that a stable mud column was in place and it was done while severe circulating mud losses were in progress. This procedure caused the kick."

Read more:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Link_Between_Exploration_Well_And_Lusi_Mud_Volcano_999.html

Thursday, March 11, 2010: URANIUM MINING SYMPOSIUM

Coles Hill, area of Proposed Uranium Mine and Milling (sad, such a pretty area)

URANIUM MINING SYMPOSIUM

World Experts On Health And Socio-Economic Impacts Of Uranium Mining To Speak At Symposium In Richmond

Thursday, March 11, 2010
10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.

Richmond Center Stage for the Performing Arts

7th and Grace Street, Richmond, VA (804) 225-9000
Public Parking on Grace Street; http://www.richmondcenterstage.com

Reception to follow for participants and invited guests

Register at http://www.vcnva.org/ or call 804-644-0283
Please register so that we have an accurate count for lunch and the reception (no charge)

Goals:

• To examine the health and socio-economic impacts of proposed uranium mining in Virginia. The conference will provide participants with information about experiences with uranium mining all over the world.
• Specific attention will be given to the water quality and quantity impacts of uranium mining, alternatives to uranium mining, health consequences of uranium mining to local populations, and new versus old techniques of uranium mining.

Note: The conference will not focus on the pros and cons of nuclear reactors and power plants.

Speakers:

Dr. Doug Brugge: Tufts University
Dr. Gordon Edwards: Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Manuel Pino: American Indian Studies, Scottsdale Community College
Paul Robinson: Southwest Research & Information Center
Dr. Rianne Teule, Greenpeace International

These world experts have written and spoken extensively on uranium mining
and its impacts in the US and around the globe.

Sponsoring Organizations:

Dan River Basin Association; Friends of the Earth, Piedmont Environmental Council; Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter; Southern Environmental Law Center; Virginia Conservation Network, and Virginia Interfaith Power & Light

Who Should Attend? :

State and local officials, the media, concerned citizens, planners, and those living in potentially impacted areas

Speakers Bios :

Douglas M. Brugge, Ph.D. is Professor in the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine. Dr. Brugge has written numerous analyses of the health impacts of uranium mining and processing. A co-editor of The Navajo People and Uranium Mining, he testified in 2007 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on uranium contamination in the Navajo Nation.

Gordon Edwards is a founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) and its president since 1978. Dr. Edwards is an expert on the nuclear cycle in Canada and has helped many communities deal with radioactive contamination. Through research, articles, public presentations, and radio and television appearances, Mr. Edwards played a key role in bringing about moratoria on uranium mining in Labrador, British Columbia, and Nova Scotia.

Manuel F. Pino is professor of sociology and American Indian Studies at Scottsdale Community College. Formerly, he served as an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University in the School of Justice Studies. Mr. Pino received a Masters degree in Sociology from the University of New Mexico. A member of the Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico, his research focuses on environmental issues and their impacts on American Indians. He has published widely in academic journals in both the U.S. and Canada with a focus on uranium mining and nuclear fuel cycle issues impacting indigenous peoples throughout the U.S.

Paul Robinson is an environmental analyst, natural resource management planner, and environmental and technology assessment consultant. He serves as research director of the Southwest Research & Information Center in New Mexico, which provides technical services for communities facing mining and other resource development issues. He has provided technical analysis for formal proceedings in the U.S., Canada and Europe, as well as for publications of the national and international organizations, including the New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources and the Western Governors' Association as well as other corporate, tribal, governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

Rianne Teule, Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, is an expert on all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle with Greenpeace International. Dr. Teule has examined areas with radioactive contamination around the world, including the Chernobyl region of Ukraine, Iraq, and Brazil. Most recently, she visited two uranium mines in Niger, Africa and documented the contamination of the cities of Arlit and Akokan.

For questions,contact Brent Blackwelder at tbblackwelder@yahoo.com.

RSVP:
http://vcn.citizen-networks.org/site/Calendar/1139699596?view=Detail&id=100181

Greens call President Obama's resurrection of nuclear power and handout for Georgia nuclear reactors his "worst idea yet" (uranium mining)

Comment:  No to the nuke cycle, what is the present administration thinking, uranium mining and nuke plants kills people!
GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org/
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, February 18, 2010


WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders and candidates are calling President Obama's resurrection of nuclear power with a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer-funded subsidy for a Georgia plant his "worst idea yet" and warned about serious public health threats posed by mining, waste transportation, and waste storage.

The Green Party disputes the myths that nuclear power is 'green energy' or a solution to the advance of climate change.

"The twin nuclear reactors in Burke County, Georgia, would be financed with $5.4 billion in loans from the Federal Financing Bank with money of the US Treasury. According to the GAO, this investment has a 50/50 percent or worse chance of failing. President Obama wants taxpayers to assume 80% of the financial risk to turn the southeast Atlantic states into a big open-pit radioactive barbeque. This investment is a terrible idea -- President Obama's worst yet," said Lisa Green, Green candidate for California Assembly Candidate, 53rd Assembly District (http://www.votelisagreen.net).

"If built, the plant will be a financial disaster because of high construction expenses and likely cost overruns, compared with other sources of electrical power. As the first of a new generation of nuclear power plants, it'll carry huge technical risks.

Even more ominous is the problem of mining, waste storage, and waste transportation through populated areas, which carry huge public health dangers," added Ms. Green.

Greens noted that, in the US, more people have died from contamination from uranium mining, from causes such as water sources polluted by mine tailings, and from uranium transportation than from all the causes after materials reach the first processing plant (http://www.hcn.org/blogs/grange/what-the-nuclear-boosters-dont-tell-you / http://www.hcn.org/issues/371/17708).

Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently told a Senate committee that, for the foreseeable future, the plants will probably store spent fuel rods on site. No long-term plan exists anywhere for storing commercial radioactive waste.

"We are already seeing tritium in the wells in Girard Georgia, and the cooling ponds at Plant Hatch are filled to overflowing," said Patricia Crayton, co-chair of the Georgia Green Party (http://web.greens.org/georgia).

"The fuel cycle which feeds the power plants in Hazlehurst and Waynesboro is intricately linked to the one which feeds the bomb plant across the Savannah River near Aiken. $5 billion could better serve setting Georgia on a sustainable energy path worthy of our children."

"If Republicans and Democrats really believed in the free market, they would strenuously oppose nuclear power, which is enormously expensive and carries astronomically high liabilities.

But they don't believe in the market. They believe in targeted, special interest handouts and guaranteed profits for favored corporations, despite flawed corporate agendas. That's why they want nuclear plants built with taxpayer dollars, with utility ratepayers in states like Georgia and Florida assuming the financial risk and local residents assuming the health risk," said Nicholas Ruiz III, Green Party candidate for Congress in Florida's District 24 (http://intertheory.org/nriiiforcongress2010.html).

 "Nuclear power proponents are gambling that Americans have forgotten the Three Mile Island Meltdown in 1979. We haven't forgotten it. Nor are we ignorant about the risk of breast cancer and other ailments that uranium poses."

Greens insist that clean energy, not nuclear power, must replace fossil fuels in the effort to fight climate change.

"President Obama is calling for major investments in nuclear, coal, and natural gas, when we should drastically reduce the use of such energy," said Carl Romanelli, 2006 Pennsylvania Green candidate for the US Senate.

"Here in Pennsylvania, we have cancer clusters in the eastern part of the state due to too many nuclear plants (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/201699-US-Report-finds-high-rate-of-thyroid-cancer-in-eastern-Pennsylvania-blames-nuclear-power-plants / http://carbonwaters.org/polycythemia-vera/p-vera-media-coverage/20090203-researcher-identifies-cancer-cluster-in-eastern-pennsylvania/).

Considering advancements in renewable technologies, it would make more sense for our energy resolve to be applied to these industries, not filthy and destructive forms of energy production so touted by the President.

The president continues to act as if fossil and nuclear is the only manner in which energy is produced."


MORE INFORMATION:
Green Party Speakers Bureau: Greens available to speak on energy policy, climate change, and related issues: http://www.gp.org/speakers/speakers-energy.php

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org

Read more:
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=297

Squirrely stance (on uranium milling and mining)

Comments:  A great letter, Ms. WORSLEY and so true!  Also great comment, Howe!  No to uranium mining and milling! (Article about Mega Park follows)
By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: February 18, 2010

To the editor:

I find it hugely disappointing, as I’m sure so many of my fellow Pittsylvania County and Danville voters do, that our representatives on the Board of Supervisors, City Council and Danville Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facility Authority are so squirrelly on taking a stance against uranium mining in the proposed Berry Hill megapark.

They’re saying, basically, the following: “Uranium mining is not going to happen, but we’re not willing to put it in writing. We’re not going to sign our name to it. We’re not going to promise you, our constituents, that it may not happen in the future.

What we are going to do is find a prohibitive resolution unnecessary and table it so we can change our minds later if it means more money.”

Makes you want to go “Hmmmmmm,” doesn’t it?

Take that thought to the voting booth with you next time.

LINDA WORSLEY
Chatham

Posted by howe on February 18, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Linda,
You’ve hit the nail right on the head. We’re taking about a potentially HUGE amount of money. Some in the area would wager a “possible” short term gain at the expense of radioactive contamination for many lifetimes.

I say “possible” because it’s been touted that this endeavor will bring high paying jobs back to the area. That is a foolish assumption unless it is explicit in any final contract.

I also think it foolish to have any faith in a “scientific study” to determine whether mining and milling is safe in an area as populated as Danville.

Many of our so called “scientists”... paid enough money…will gladly find ANY conclusion you want…and fabricate data to prove it. I would cite the “global warming” hoax. Remember…we’re talking HUGE amounts of money here.

Linda is right. There is still time. Vote every one of these fools out of government…even the ones who voted against mining…more than likely they are posers…voting against to make it look good.

Vote in fresh new anti-mining folks. It’s our only chance…otherwise this thing is a done deal.

Linda has brought into focus for me that NONE of the folks on ANY of these councils are trustworthy.

HOWE

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/squirrely_stance/18091/

Danville City Council passes on uranium resolution

Comment: The county and city leaders do not get it! We do not want our taxpayer's monies that may enable a foreign uranium corporation for an uranium mill or mine at anytime, we want a resolution now to stop future mining or milling, this has nothing to do with the study, if the study comes back and says VA can mine uranium, we do not want the Mega Park to be mine or milled! WE DO NOT WANT MINING OR MILLING OF URNAIUM EVER, NOT ON TAXPAYERS MONIES! Why are the uranium mining group attending these meetings, they have not been seen at meetings until we started requesting the Mega Park resolution! Did RIFA look at other lands near the Danville Expressway, RT 29 or Rt 58, where highway infrastructure, water, gas and electricity is located or just buy land with former Marline Uranium Leases!! No to uranium mining or milling EVER! Thanks everyone for working on the Mega Park Resolutions but keep it coming, never give up!
By Denice Thibodeau
Published: February 16, 2010

Danville City Council discussed the possibility of enacting a resolution prohibiting uranium mining or milling at the Berry Hill Road mega park at a work session Tuesday night, and decided to hold off on taking any action.

Deborah Dix, the Pittsylvania County resident who has been campaigning for such a resolution from the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, the Danville Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facility Authority and City Council, addressed council members during the public comment period at the beginning of the regular meeting.

“Uranium mining and milling is not a fit for Virginia,” Dix said, exhorting them to do their part to make the region safe for future generations.

Dix said uranium mining and milling could affect the health of residents, contaminate the water supply and prevent businesses from moving to the region. She also pointed out that taxpayer money is paying for the park, and taxpayers’ voices should be heard on this issue.

During the work session, council members agreed the mega park is being designed to house large manufacturing industries, not mining operations. They questioned whether a resolution was needed to ban something that was not in the plans anyway.

Tomer said while he agrees with Dix’s statement that taxpayer dollars are building the park, creating a resolution against something that is not currently legal anyway is “probably jumping the gun.”

“Our intent all along is to develop a quality technology park,” Councilman Fred Shanks said. “The ordinance is well written, but not necessary.”

After the work session, Dix said she was disappointed in the outcome, which matched the decisions of both the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors and RIFA, which also declined passing a resolution banning uranium mining at the mega park.

“Taypayers should have a say,” Dix said. “(City Council and the Board of Supervisors) should take care of their citizens. We feel like we don’t have a voice.”

Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium, also attended the work session.

“We have nothing to do with the mega park,” Wales said. “I’m just an observer, listening to the debate tonight.”

Comments:
Posted by DanHoodVirginia on February 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I wonder how many uranium mines will be up and running once the already written study is presented claiming that it can be mined safely.

You think there will be only one uranium mine in a state as rife with uranium ore as Virginia?

There could be hundreds of uranium mines, all belching radioactive dust into the air and water. All of our elected officials are in league with the devil. (the uranium industry) Time to replace them all.

Comment Posted by woc1 on February 17, 2010 at 5:06 am
These elected official have to go .... Vote them out of office. They are not looking out for us or spending tax payer money wisely if they will not agree to ban mining at Berry Hill.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/danville_city_council_passes_on_uranium_resolution/18053/