Delegate Paula Miller: Uranium Mining In VA

Comment:  Hampton Roads Drinking Water right at proposed uranium mining and mill!
February 25, 2011 

An important issue which didn't come up through legislation this year, but should still be on the minds of Hampton Roads citizens, is the debate on whether or not uranium mining should be allowed in Southwest Virginia.

Since the 1980's, Virginia has had a strict moratorium policy against the mining.

In recent years, Virginia Uranium, Inc. has requested extensive studies be done to test the safety and effects of mining for uranium.

Although our Virginia neighbors to the Southwest seem far away, the effects of uranium mining could possibly have a direct impact on Hampton Roads.

I urge you to stay informed and engaged in this issue because the voice of Hampton Roads citizens needs to be heard throughout this debate.

Read more:
http://www.delegatepaulamiller.com/2011_general_assembly_session_update_1/2011_general_assembly_update_6

Uranium Mining Meeting: North Carolina Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee: Raleigh, NC

Roanoke River Basins

Uranium mining will be discussed at the upcoming North Carolina Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee.

The meeting will be held on Monday, February 28, 2011, in Raleigh in Room 1425 of the Legislative Office Building.

That is on the first floor of the building in which the House and Senate meetings are held.

The meeting will begin at 3:00 PM and last until 5:00 PM.

Please consider attending.

Region needs uranium study

Posted to: Editorials Opinion

The issue Virginia Beach spending another $165,000 to study the flow of contaminants from Kerr Reservoir to the city. Where we stand Preliminary results of a study on the flow from the proposed uranium mine to the reservoir are ominous.

The Virginian-Pilot
February 20, 2011

Not every nuclear accident looks like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. It can look like a simple mistake or an equipment failure. It might even look like a big rainstorm.

In Pittsylvania County, Virginia Uranium wants to begin mining ore from a huge deposit it controls. It would be the first such mine in Virginia, would require lifting a decades-old moratorium and would necessarily result in huge deposits of waste, much of which would be radioactive.

The mine is upstream from Kerr Reservoir, which provides most of the water to Lake Gaston. In turn, Gaston feeds a pipeline that replenishes a reservoir in Hampton Roads used by Chesapeake, Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

A preliminary study paid for by Virginia Beach indicates that a significant storm - the remnants of a hurricane, for example - could wash enough dissolved radioactive particles downstream to contaminate Hampton Roads' drinking water for months.

The study says that after a while, the radiation would be gone and the water would be again safe for drinking. Which begs an important question: Who would want to?

Virginia Beach's initial study modeled the flow of contaminants from the mine to Kerr; it will spend another $165,000 to look at what happens between there and Virginia Beach. That's money well spent.

Especially since only Virginia Beach is bothering to do it.

Virginia Uranium has paid for a National Academy of Sciences study that will look at whether mining can be done safely in Virginia's rainy climate - and at the potential dangers.

But Virginia Beach was forced to come up with its own study to determine more precisely the impact the mine might have on the drinking water for three-quarters of a million people. The first findings are ominous.

But given the risks - to the environment, to the drinking water for nearly 800,000 people in Hampton Roads and to their health - not one atom of the stuff should be pulled from the ground until the safety of the region can be ensured, if it ever can.

Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/region-needs-uranium-study

Pray for our Family in Texas

Please add "Alex Abele" to all prayer list and start a Prayer Chain, it is very serious.

We need the prayers and a cure for all cancers.

“Stop Uranium Mining” Community Awareness Concert

Comment:  People of Virginia needs to setup something like this because if the Uranium Ban is lifted in Virginia the people's water will be ruin if we have another Hurricane like Camille come thru because VA Beach Water study proves uranium mining will ruin the water.  But the main problem with uranium mining ruining our water, it will threaten national security because of the military.  Look at the facts about the Navy:   Naval Station Norfolk, in Norfolk, Virginia, is a base of the United States Navy, supporting naval forces in the United States Fleet Forces Command,^[1] those operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Indian Ocean.  It is the world's largest Naval Station, supporting 75 ships and 134 aircraft alongside 14 piers and 11 aircraft hangars, and houses the largest concentration of U.S. Navy forces.^[2] Port Services controls more than 3,100 ships' movements annually as they arrive and depart their berths.  Another security is the following:  Langley is the home of the United States Air Force's 633d Air Base Wing (633 ABW), 1st Fighter Wing (1 FW) and the 480th Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing (480 ISRW). It also hosts the Global Cyberspace Integration Center field operating agency, the 192D Fighter Wing of the Virginia Air National Guard and Headquarters Air Combat Command (ACC).  Also uranium mining will ruin all of Virginia's water if the ban is lifted because uranium is located all over VA and you will be mined!

March 26, 2011
Flagstaff, Arizona

Public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park contain some of the highest concentrations of uranium deposits in North America. Spikes in uranium prices in recent years have caused an explosion of new mining claims and exploration on those lands.

Threats posed by exploration and the potential mining it portends — damage to wildlife and habitat, contamination of waters, and the industrialization of iconic landscapes — has prompted objections from conservation groups, native tribes, government officials and the public. It has spawned litigation spearheaded by the Center, as well as congressional action including legislation and a resolution on emergency mineral withdrawal.

But the health of the Grand Canyon watershed is still in serious danger from uranium mining — and it needs your help to rally support for saving it.

The “Stop Uranium Mining at the Grand Canyon” Community Awareness Concert in Flagstaff this March will unite those who value the Grand Canyon and its natural resources in an evening of activism and music, cosponsored by the Center. Performers will be Keith Secola, Blackfire, Locura, Plateros, Radmilla Cody and the Jir Project Band.

Read more:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/action/events/index.html

Who will benefit from (uranium) mining?

By The Editorial Board
Published: February 22, 2011

To the editor:

I had an e-mail exchange with Whitt Clement, who is the lobbyist for Virginia Uranium Inc. I asked him, if VUI wants to mine uranium for the benefit of this country, will VUI guarantee that none of the uranium will be sold outside of this country.

To me, 35 years of digging for two years’ supply does not seem to create enough to sell to any other country. This is supposed to be for our energy needs, so they want us to believe.

The company has “Fuel for America” on its website with an American flag next to it. It also has this on its website: “Energy Independence. The United States is at a critical crossroad in its energy needs and dependence on foreign supply. Domestic energy sources have never been more important. The Coles Hill uranium deposit is believed to have the amount of raw materials needed to supply fuel for existing nuclear energy plants in the United States for a period of nearly two years.”

I asked Clement this question: “Will VUI guarantee they will not sell one ounce of uranium outside of this country if they mine in Chatham?”

His response to me was: “Being that the company is locally owned — predominantly — provides tremendous advantages to ensure that domestic sales are given first priority. I suspect, however, that even if VUI could ensure that their product was sold only to domestic sources, uranium is a global commodity and in theory could be transferred by that utility to another end user outside the U.S.”

If they are so concerned about our energy problem and, as they say, “Domestic energy sources have never been more important,” guaranteeing us they will not sell any uranium outside of this country should not be a problem.

Feels like a bait and switch. Either they are going to only use it here for our energy needs as they state or they are going to sell it to the highest bidder for their financial greed at everyone’s expense.

Either it is to help the United States’ energy problem or it is for their profit. Which is it?

BERKELEY BIDGOOD
Danville, VA

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/feb/22/who-will-benefit-mining-ar-857986/

Buffalo Creek Disaster (caused by damn break)

February 23, 2011

Jean Crowder - Buffalo Creek Disaster (2:32)

Saturday will mark the 39th anniversary of the deadly Buffalo Creek flood that swept through 17 small towns in West Virginia on February 26, 1972.

All told, 125 people perished in the flood. If any of this sounds vaguely familiar to BOTB readers, it's not impossible to imagine that you recall another 45 I blogged on this horrible event a little over a year ago.



The flood was caused by the failure of what is known as a coal slurry impoundment dam, which is essentially a colossal (mostly) liquid garbage dump built to contain the impurities that are left over as a result of the coal mining process.



Buffalo Creek Disaster pulls no punches in its grim description of the horrors experienced by those caught downstream of the dam. The flood's destructive powers are illuminated by Crowder's blunt but powerful lyrics telling of displaced families, drownings, orphaned children and the screams of people who knew their deaths were imminent.



In 1975, a documentary filmmaker from Kentucky, Mimi PIckering, released The Buffalo Creek Flood: An Act Of Man. Thirty years later, this film's cultural significance was recognized when it was named to the National Film Registry.

 This coming Tuesday (March 1), Pickering will present The Buffalo Creek Flood on the campus of Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. More details can be found here.

Posted by Listener Greg G. on February 23, 2011 at 09:01 AM in History, Listener Greg's Posts, MP3s, Music, Topical Songs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c29169e20147e2c1a0b6970b
Read more:
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2011/02/buffalo-creek-disaster-mp3.html

Writer: No (uranium) mining in our back yard, period

Writer: No (uranium) mining in our back yard, period


By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: February 20, 2011

To the editor:

In response to the recent letter, “Science, not hysteria, must prevail,” (Jan. 24, page A8), the author is an Areva nuclear engineer in Lynchburg and he claims he wants to clear the air. But like many a political pundit, he too is putting up a smoke screen, or he doesn’t know relevant history.

He clouds the air by using the clinical term “hysteria,” a diagnostic clinical term used by licensed psychiatrists and psychologists, not engineers.

We who oppose removing the moratorium on uranium mining and milling are well aware of its disastrous history, as well as the advances made in its technology over the past 50 years. Yes, governmental safety regulations of the mining industry have somewhat improved.

Let’s clear the air! We are hearing the big talk about cutting the size of government. during his recent campaign, Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Fifth District, said he would cut the size of government by doing away with the Environmental Protection Agency. This demands a rebuttal from environmentalists.

The letter writer gave a list of the regulatory agencies, some of which oversee safety of nuclear power plants, uranium mining and milling. He must be well aware of the efforts in the past to end those environmental controls, spearheaded by Colorado brewer Joseph Coors and carried out by the Bush Administration.

Coors founded the Mountain States Legal Foundation to challenge environmental laws.

He also was a founder of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has provided the philosophical underpinning of the anti-environmental movement. It has repeatedly pushed for small government in order to reduce environmental oversight — and continues to do so.

The author would like for us to be compliant, i.e., brainwashed, while we wait for the independent studies. Meanwhile they, as well as corporations, politicians and lobbyists, are working hard behind the scenes for the removal of Virginia’s 1983 statewide moratorium on uranium mining and milling.

Next, he would take us blindly down the future road to “possible” thousands of years of contamination of our air, land and water. This would not only affect Pittsylvania County, but the Dan, Roanoke, and Bannister rivers and their basins, Lake Gaston, the Halifax and Kerr Reservoirs and on down to Virginia Beach and North Carolina.

As responsible citizens, we know our own history and we have studies our environment. We can see our responsibility. This is the American way. We see their indifference through name calling as a cover for their own personal gains — or just plain shortsightedness.

We also see their misuse of the scientific study with its “sound modern laboratory science” for empirical evidence as merely an attempt to hide their intended goal of political action by doing away with oversight of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the EPA to profit their owners and shareholders.

It’s time we clear the air!

BOB MARTIN
Chatham, VA

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/feb/20/writer-no-mining-our-back-yard-period-ar-853510/

Denison to buy White Canyon (uranium mining in Utah, out of control)

Is this where you want your children to attend work?  Heck NO!

Comment:  Out in Utah, the Canadians,  (oh yea, the Russians are there too) some Australian uranium companies are ruining the state of Utah! This will happen in Virginia if the uranium paid part time "VA leaders" lifts the ban!  Foreign companies will be blowing up VA hills to be shipped back to their countries with the NRC blessings!  No to Uranium Mining and milling!

24 February 2011

Canadian uranium producer Denison Mines has agreed to buy Australian uranium exploration and development company White Canyon, gaining White Canyon's Utah operations in the process.

The two companies have agreed to an offer worth about A$57 million ($57.4 million), and White Canyon has advised its shareholders to accept the offer. The offer is subject to a number of conditions including the receipt of the necessary regulatory approvals.

Read more:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Denison_to_buy_White_Canyon-2402118.html

Federal Plan Announced to Protect Grand Canyon From Uranium Mining

For Immediate Release, February 17, 2011

Contact: Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7488
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713

Federal Plan Announced to Protect Grand Canyon From Uranium Mining

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. — The Obama administration today announced a draft plan to protect 1 million acres of public land around Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining. Conservationists and tribal leaders hailed the move, citing thousands of new mining claims threatening Grand Canyon ’s watersheds, fragile seeps and springs, American Indian sacred sites, critical wildlife habitat and the region’s tourism-based economy.


“Tourism, not mining, is the mainstay of our region’s economy,” said Roger Clark with the Grand Canyon Trust. “BLM is grossly inflating revenue projections for uranium mining and fails to reveal that most revenues go to Utah or overseas—not Arizona . Uranium mining imposes long-term health risks on local communities and is costing federal taxpayers billions of dollars to clean the mess from its last boom. We simply cannot afford another round of this deadly legacy.”

On July 21, 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a two-year “segregation order” banning new mining claims across 1 million acres of public lands around the world-famous national park. Today’s draft environmental impact statement proposes a 20-year “mineral withdrawal” across the same 1 million-acre area, banning new claims and blocking new mining on existing, unproven claims.
“This is an important step in protecting the people, the water and the wildlife of the greater Grand Canyon area,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Now all those who support protecting Grand Canyon — tribal leaders, local communities, water districts, conservationists — must work to make sure the final decision for these lands is as protective as possible.”


Uranium pollution already plagues the Grand Canyon region. Proposals for new mining have prompted protests, litigation and proposed legislation. Scientists, tribal and local governments and businesses have voiced opposition. Dozens of new mines threaten to industrialize iconic and regionally sacred wildlands, destroy wildlife habitat and permanently pollute or deplete aquifers feeding Grand Canyon ’s biologically rich springs.


“The world would never forgive the permanent pollution of Grand Canyon ’s precious aquifers and springs,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The only sure way to prevent pollution of the Grand Canyon is to prevent uranium mining.”


The release of the draft plan will start a 45-day public comment period. Public meetings are slated for early March in Arizona and Utah . A final decision on the proposed protections is expected this summer.

Uranium mining tailings pose significant risk

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:34 AM EST

In all the discussion of the protection provided the environment and human life against any pollution by uranium mining and milling, there is a most interesting statement posted on the Internet site of the Environmental Protection Agency.

And, I quote: "Because U.S. laws do not classify mine overburden as a radioactive waste, its placement in radioactive waste disposal facilities is not required. The Atomic Energy Act does not require controls on uranium mining overburden and neither the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nor the Department of Energy(DOE) regulates the disposal of conventional (open pit and underground) mining wastes."
EPA defines overburden as "soil and rock that is covering a deposit of ore, such as uranium. It usually contains at least trace amounts of the ore plus radioactive decay products." (This is also referred to as "waste rock" in other sources).

A Cameco (the largest publicly traded uranium mining company in the world, located in Canada) executive has stated in a World Nuclear Association Symposium paper that occurring with uranium ore frequently were nickel, copper, arsenic and sulphur minerals.

The sulphur minerals oxidize over time, mix with water and form sulphuric acid, which he stated dissolves the heavy metals which are also present.

Now isn't that a great mix to have leaching into the soil and creeks and rivers? And there is no regulation on the disposal of this overburden?


Remember Marline estimated about one and a half square miles of waste, which would be 100 feet high at the Coles Hill site.

Apparently that did not include the 343 additional lease documents filed in the clerk's office at Chatham by Marline on additional mining sites across Pittsylvania County.

(Not having seen the Marline document itself, I cannot swear this figure does not contain tailings volume, too.)

Yep, uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is going to be such fun, especially for the farmers with their new multi-million dollar agriculture center.

Wonder what they will do with that now?

Hildred C. Shelton
Danville, VA

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/02/16/chatham/opinion/opinion06.txt

Virginia Beach study provides valuable information (Uranium Mining)

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:34 AM EST

Virginia Beach acted responsibly by engaging respected professionals to conduct a study of the potential impact that uranium mining and milling may have on water quality.

The work of Michael Baker Corp. will help the National Academy of Sciences panel fulfill its project scope.
The National Academy of Sciences will not conduct or engage in actual scientific studies that produce new data.

According to the project scope, the NAS will "examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing..."

The NAS relies on credible studies, such as the Virginia Beach study for its examination. It can only examine that which exists and is in its possession.

The NAS project scope can be found at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49253.

Note #9, which states it will, "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."

The recently released Virginia Beach study supplies information vital to #9 on the NAS project scope, which will allow the NAS to better fulfill its mission.

Without this credible, scientific work and resulting document, pertinent information would not be available for the NAS to examine.

Flooding, whether considered a stochastic event or not, does occur in the Coles Hill area where uranium mining is proposed. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7mcUYAi_O4)

Those who believe that events such as this cannot occur live in, shall we say, a fantasy world.

It is also important for the NAS panel to examine results of the Danville Regional Foundation's study.

This study will be a professional, scientific assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining and milling in our region.

The purpose of the NAS project, after examination of information, is for "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."

Without pertinent, professional, scientific studies such as the Virginia Beach and Danville Regional Foundation studies, the NAS will not have the tools to adequately assist the commonwealth in any credible way.

Also, of grave concern is#7 of the project scope, which reads, " Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation."

There is, at present, no state regulatory framework of this nature. So, how will the NAS review that which does not exist?

Several of Virginia Uranium Inc.'s lobbyists are working on "matters relating to the establishment of a regulatory program controlling development of Virginia's uranium resources," according to information found at www.vpap.org.

Are the lobbyists writing the regulations?

The citizens of Virginia did not ask for a study, nor did the General Assembly.

We should keep in mind that the Coal and Energy Commission and Virginia Uranium initiated the NAS study for a purpose.

If there is to be an NAS study, give the panel the information to conduct a comprehensive study and not just the information the mining industry and the Coal and Energy Commission want to offer.

Attempts to discredit the Virginia Beach study by the industry have been duly noted by the public.

Karen B. Maute

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/02/16/chatham/opinion/opinion05.txt

Are we willing to sell our souls? (Uranium Mining)

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: February 16, 2011

To the editor:

Regarding the proposed lifting of the moratorium of uranium mining in Virginia, and the consequential mining and milling which will begin at Coles Hill: If that happens, I have to wonder.

As I follow the progression of our neighbors’ responsed to this news (Halifax, Virginia Beach, Floyd, Orange), I am humiliated. These neighbors are obviously people who are not willing to sacrifice their health — or the beauty of the birthplace of this country — to become “the energy capital of the world” and/or a “dead zone.”

Because we are locally “economically challenged” right now, are we suddenly ready to sell our souls? Short-term gain, long-term responsibility/debt/payoff, for us, as well as our friends? If the moratorium is lifted, what guarantee does Virginia Uranium Inc. give us in terms of our economy?

There are no guarantees — only risk versus loss. Will that be a Canadian company’s “bottom line” — or yours?

There are so many new opportunities arising in this area that will not be “hazardous to your health” as the tobacco label puts it (remember — that’s the one that put us all out of business in the first place). We are repeating the same mistake.

The rest of Virginia is noticing, and taking a stand — let’s not embarrass ourselves by selling out.

LINDA WORSLEY

Chatham

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/feb/16/are-we-willing-sell-our-souls-ar-845854/

Uranium mining study chair reflects on review

Comment:  A lot of studies have the results on who paid for the studies.  I do not agree with the following coments and feel they are putting paid science by the nukes is more important that the local citizens but we have science too and we have many degrees among us but we are not rock hounds:  "Locke said his goal is to deliver a consensus report. The academy process does not allow dissenting opinions and  "When we listen to scientists, we listen to how they portray facts and issues," Locke told The Associated Press. "When we listen to citizens who don't have a scientific background, it helps us understand the bigger picture." No to uranium mining and milling all over the world!

By STEVE SZKOTAK/None
Originally published February 15, 2011 at 1:30 a.m., updated February 15, 2011 at 5:37 a.m.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The chairman of a panel studying uranium mining in Virginia said hours of testimony from opponents and proponents have helped committee members better understand the issues surrounding the critical environmental debate.

Paul A. Locke talked about the National Academy of Sciences study he is chairing during an interview last week, one day after about 200 people attended a meeting of the committee in a downtown hotel. An equal number showed up for a committee meeting in Danville in December.

The NAS study is assessing the statewide effect of uranium mining based on 12 lines of inquiry including mining's impact on public health and the environment and the geologic aspects of uranium deposits in Virginia.

While science is not a popularity contest, Locke said public comments are important to the committee's task.

"When we listen to scientists, we listen to how they portray facts and issues," Locke told The Associated Press. "When we listen to citizens who don't have a scientific background, it helps us understand the bigger picture."

Virginia has had a 29-year ban on uranium mining, but the biggest deposit in the United States is located in Southside Virginia and it's seen as a reliable domestic source of nuclear fuel as the nation turns increasingly to a technology that fell out of favor following Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Virginia Uranium Inc., which estimates the ore's value at up to $10 billion, is financing the $1.4 million study. Its findings are likely to be key if the General Assembly considers lifting the moratorium.

Mining opponents fear uranium mining and milling - the separation of ore from rock - will threaten water supplies as far away as Virginia Beach, approximately 200 miles east of the deposit.

Locke is an environmental health scientist, an attorney and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He has been a part of hot button NAS inquiries before, including studies on nuclear waste - "the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle," he adds.

"This is the front end of the nuclear cycle," Locke said. "This is the mining and milling."

Locke said he intends to deliver the NAS report by its scheduled December deadline, which could put the issue before the 2012 General Assembly.

"We certainly would love to see the moratorium issue resolved as quickly as possible," said Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium.

Critics have seized on Virginia Uranium's financing of the study, contending it taints its work.

Responding to that perception, Locke stressed that all 15 members work without compensation and each is committed to providing "independent scientific advice."

"It's irrelevant to us," Locke said. "We're going to do the same project no matter where the funding comes."

For opponents like Naomi Hodge-Muse, there's no convincing her the NAS study will be unbiased.

"The National Academy of Science thing is just a rubber stamp," said Hodge-Muse, who organized a bus trip for nearly 40 residents from Henry County for last week's committee hearing. She said the opponents represented every political stripe - Republicans, Democrats and tea party members.

"Ultimately, we all breathe the same air, drink the same water," Hodge-Muse explained. "This is how democracy works. The voice of the people has to be heard."

The NAS committee has no additional public meetings planned in Virginia. It's scheduled to visit Colorado and Canada in future months to learn more about uranium mining and to hear from regulators and officials in both places.

If Virginia ends the moratorium, it would be the first East Coast state to mine the ore. Some uranium has been detected in other locations along the East Coast, but not in amounts deemed economically viable to mine.

"I think everyone is mindful that this study has important implications for the commonwealth," Locke said. "If you look at a map of the United States, you can see that those mines are in the west, and they're not in the East."

Locke said his goal is to deliver a consensus report. The academy process does not allow dissenting opinions.

"We hope that our report will be valuable for the legislators," he said. "How they make their decision, that's up to them."

Online: National Academy of Science: http://www.nationalacademies.org/
Read more:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2011/feb/15/bc-va-nuclear-study1st-ld-writethru/?business&business-wire

US House Slashes Funding for Public Health, Clean Air, Clean Water

Published on Sunday, February 20, 2011 by Environmental News Service (ENS)

WASHINGTON, DC - Early Saturday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a funding bill that environmentalists say amounts to the biggest attack on clean air and clean water in recent history.

American Lung Association President and CEO Charles Connor called the bill "a severe assault on the health of all Americans."

"The U.S. House of Representatives failed to protect the public health of all Americans by passing H.R. 1," said Connor. "This bill ignores public health and will have dire consequences for all Americans, especially people with lung diseases, including lung cancer, asthma and emphysema."

"The American Lung Association calls on the Senate to recognize that, as passed by the House, H.R. 1 is toxic to public health," said Connor. "The Senate must start from scratch and recognize that tough fiscal choices can be made without jeopardizing public health."

H.R. 1 slashes the budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by one-third and prevents the agency from acting to reduce carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants from coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, a regulatory program that began January 2.

The bill also blocks EPA from restoring Clean Water Act protections for many of the nation's most vulnerable waterways, including those that feed into drinking water supplies for more than 117 million Americans.

"American families have a fundamental right to clean air and clean water, but this bill is the biggest assault on both in recent history," said Anna Aurilio, director of the Washington, DC office for the advocacy group Environment America.

"Americans may have voted for a lot of things in November, but they surely didn't vote for more asthma attacks, more contaminated drinking water supplies and more threats to our treasured national parks."

Miranda Carter, Environment Illinois field organizer, said, "In economic times good or bad, it's critical that our government protect children's health and our environment."

The House Republicans have threatened to shut down the federal government if their bill is not enacted into law, which would halt Social Security payments to seniors, as well as payments to members of the armed forces, veterans, border guards and other federal government employees.

Now the bill goes to the Senate for consideration. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said, "Democrats believe we should make smart cuts - cuts that target waste and excess, not slashing the programs that keep us safe and keep our economy growing."

Senate Democrats have announced their support for President Barack Obama's five-year spending freeze, which will save $400 billion over the 10 years and bring domestic discretionary spending to the lowest levels since President Dwight Eisenhower.

Daniel Lashof, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, said, "the House is deaf, dumb and blind on climate change." He notes that H.R. 1 would prevent EPA from collecting basic data on who is pumping how much carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants into the air; and would prevent EPA from setting any limits on emissions of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, or perfluorocarbons for any reason.

The continuing resolution would also prevent the United States from contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, which won a Nobel Prize for its work in 2007, was established with the support of the George H.W. Bush administration to provide authoritative international assessments of climate change.

"Apparently," said Lashoff, "the House majority does not want to see how pollution is affecting the climate."

The Republican leadership claims to have the support of the American people for these measures, but environmentalists who are also Republicans expressed dismay today at the extent of the cuts.

"House Republicans fell prey to anti-environmental extremism on February 19, passing a 2011 spending plan loaded with attacks on public health standards and conservation that have little to do with reducing the nation's debt," said Republicans for Environmental Protection, a national grassroots organization of "stewardship-minded" Republicans.

"The continuing resolution that the House passed fulfills many items on the wish list of anti-environmental radicalsm," said David Jenkins, REP vice president for government and political affairs. " The resolution includes non-budgetary policy mandates that would prevent EPA from limiting carbon pollution and protecting water quality, bar the Interior Department from protecting wilderness-quality lands, and decree, without regard to scientific evidence, that northern gray wolves are no longer endangered."

"It is really hard to understand why so many in our party seem so hell-bent on wasting energy," said Jim DiPeso, REP vice president for policy and communications. "The same conservative values that compel us as conservatives to fiscally live within our means also compel us to do the same when it comes to our energy resources."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/20-3

The truth about uranium /

Patched Uranium Mining Liners

Letter to the Editor of the Martinsville Bulletin: Katie Whitehead

Friday, February 18, 2011

Virginia Uranium Inc. spokesman Patrick Wales, when called for a comment in “Groups: ask tough questions on uranium” (Martinsville Bulletin, published Wednesday), said: “The design criteria set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for long-term tailings (waste) disposal is 1,000 years.”

This is not the whole truth.

In fact, according to a representative of the U.S. Department of Energy in a presentation to Uranium Mining in Virginia study committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), federal design criteria require that tailings disposal cells “must be protective for 1,000 years, or at least 200 years.” (Source: Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of Uranium Mill Sites, Oct. 26, 2010, National Research Council Public Access Records Office. This document can be requested at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/ManageRequest.aspx?key=49253.)

In other words, cells are required to be protective for 200 years, not necessarily 1,000. In any case, no uranium tailings cells have been tested for more than about 25 years (the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act became law in 1979); and even in this short time, there have been some problems.

Katherine Mull, executive director of the Dan River Basin Association, and Deborah Lovelace, president of League of Individuals for the Environment Inc., are right: People should be asking the hard questions about uranium mining and milling and the challenge of containing the tailings for as long as they are hazardous. And we need to ask people who will tell us the whole truth.

Four uranium study reports are under way.

Preliminary results from the Virginia Beach engineering study showed that a tailings cell failure could significantly affect water quality in Kerr Reservoir and Lake Gaston ; additional findings are expected this summer. The NAS report and two socioeconomic study reports are due in December 2011.

Virginia Uranium Inc. has assured investors that the company will have a bill in the Virginia Legislature to allow uranium mining in the commonwealth one month later, in January 2011.

Such haste only serves corporate interest; it does not serve the public interest. Citizens deserve time to read the reports, critique and discuss them, and make sense of the implications — before anyone votes on whether to allow uranium mining and milling in Virginia .

Ask the hard questions. Ask reliable sources. And ask legislators for time to understand this important issue.

Katie Whitehead
Chatham, VA


Groups: Ask tough questions on uranium

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By PAUL COLLINS - Bulletin Staff Writer

The public needs to ask hard questions about a proposed uranium mining and milling operation in Pittsylvania County , officials with the Dan River Basin Association and League of Individuals for the Environment Inc. said Tuesday.

Katherine Mull, executive director of DRBA, and Deborah Lovelace, president of LIFE, addressed the monthly meeting of the Martinsville-Henry County Ministerial Association.

Mull encouraged the public to contact state legislators and local governing bodies to express their opinions and ask questions.

“We don’t want to be anti-mining. We want people to get as much information as they can,” she added.
“I’m not anti anything,” Lovelace said. “I’m pro keeping the ban, the moratorium (on uranium mining in Virginia ) until it can be proven it can be done safely.”

Virginia has had a moratorium since 1982.

“Every single uranium mine and mill in the U.S. has generated significant pollution to the air, land and groundwater. ... Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent to attempt to clean up” the pollution, Mull said.
Most methods for on-site storage for hazardous uranium mining and milling have been developed for arid climates in isolated areas, but Virginia has a wetter climate and is more populous, she said. According to experts, no similar project exists in the U.S. , perhaps anywhere, she added.

DRBA is concerned about all phases of uranium operations: mining, milling and long-term storage of radioactive wastes and heavy metals and the impacts on surface and ground water, air and soil — but is most concerned about the long-term storage, Mull said.

It also is concerned about impacts on water quality; water quantity; drinking water supplies; flow and migration of water; and concentrations of pollutants during drought conditions, she added.
Many of concerns depend on the site, climate, ore grade, chemistry and metallurgy of ore and plant process design, Mull said. None of the studies under way about uranium mining in Virginia will answer these questions in any great detail, and none of the studies is designed to be site specific when it comes to looking at the geology and hydrology of an area to be mined, she added.

When DRBA officials met early on with Virginia Uranium officials and asked detailed questions about the mining proposal, “the refrain we got was, ‘We don’t know,’” Mull said, adding that Virginia Uranium needs a detailed mining plan.

Among other things, DRBA is concerned about the costs of monitoring, oversight and redemption and feels Virginia ’s taxpayers need to be protected from bearing the costs of cleanup if a worst-case scenario occurs, she said.

“There shouldn’t be a rush” to complete the studies under way, so the General Assembly can consider lifting the ban in 2012, Mull said.

Lovelace said LIFE is a grassroots organization based in Gretna that is concerned about various environmental issues. It feels now that uranium “mining is the biggest threat to the environment,” she said.
She asked how many jobs might the region lose if some existing companies leave if uranium mining is allowed. Mull also asked whether having uranium mining might make the area less attractive to potential businesses.

After the meeting, Bishop J.C. Richardson Jr., pastor of Mt. Sinai Apostle Church, said, “We’ve got to make sure a higher percentage of the population are aware” of the potential effects of mining before “jumping on jobs, jobs, jobs” (that would be created).

The Rev. David Adkins, pastor of Starling Avenue Baptist Church , added that water systems are “our most precious resource. There are other ways of getting energy, but only one way of getting water.” He said allowing uranium mining might be like opening Pandora’s box: Once it’s opened, you can’t get it back inside.

Not exactly the truth:  Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium Inc., said in a phone interview, “The design criteria set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for long-term tailings (waste) disposal is 1,000 years.” He said he doesn’t know of any other engineered facility required to have a designed life span that long.

Read more:
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27353

NAS Uranium Mining Study Meeting in Richmond, VA

Comment: Thanks Cory for all your hard work on our fight against uranium mining!

Richmond Virginia 02-07-2011 Speakers regarding proposed Uranium mining Part 1




Richmond Virginia 02-07-2011 Speakers regarding proposed Uranium mining Part 2

The Devil in the Details: Keep the Uranium Mining Ban in VA

I’ve followed the human health and environmental devastation caused by uranium mining on tribal lands for a few decades.

And now it’s coming to our backyard, in beautiful lush green Virginia.

Last weekend I heard a Navajo man named Robert Tohe speak on the legacy of degradation from uranium mining out west. He said: “There’s really no place to hold this kind of waste, so why would you generate more if there is no place to store it? Is it need or greed?”

Uranium mining is like selling it to the devil. There’s never been uranium mining east of the Mississippi for a reason. Virginia’s climate is wet. Its land is rich with waterways. Contamination travels through the air and through water.

Isn’t it ironic that the indigenous people of the southwest have sacrificed their lives and land to uranium mining and so many of their communities don’t even have electricity?

 When I say sacrifice I mean it literally. In the 1970’s the National Academy of Sciences coined the term “national sacrifice area” for the four corners area (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado) of the southwest.

Tohe warned about Canada’s role in U.S. mining partnerships that sell to global markets. The price of uranium is up right now. Will we be fighting someday against a country or a terrorist group using nuclear weapons made with our own uranium, like Saddam used weapons against the U.S. that the U.S. sold to him?

Jobs? What about the jobs lost?

As Pittsylvania County organizer Deborah Lovelace said, “Who’s going to want to buy beef from us?” She and her husband, whose family has been farming for 9 generations, live about 5 miles away from the first proposed mining site.

It was a good turnout Tuesday night at the library for the first organizational meeting of Floyd Countains intent on keeping Virginia’s 29 year uranium mining moratorium in place. From what I could tell none of the 40 or so people in attendance had to be convinced that the risks of mining radioactive uranium outweigh the benefits.

The meeting was a follow-up to last month’s presentation in Floyd by a group from Pittsylvania County (about 75 miles south of Floyd) where investors partnered with a Canadian backed company are making plans to mine a large uranium deposit, and where exploratory drilling has already taken place.

Cheri Chalfant, (our poster girl) who facilitated the meeting, said the story I wrote for the local paper (which appeared on the front page with a picture of Cheri holding a NO Uranium Mining sign) has generated a lot of interest.

Joe Montag had just returned from a public hearing in Richmond and gave a brief report. I made a few comments about the Pittsylvania County meeting where Robert Tohe spoke.

There was some talk about the uranium mining leases that were sought in Floyd County back in the 70’s (and at least one person in the room remembered that firsthand) before everyone got down to business.

Time is short. Studies are due by the end of the year. A vote on whether to lift the uranium mining moratorium or not will likely be pushed through the General Assembly around the first of next year.

Colleen Redman

Note: The next Floyd meeting is Tuesday February 22, 7:00 p.m. at the library

http://www.looseleafnotes.com/wp/2011/02/the-devil-is-in-the-details/

Navajo Robert Tohe speaks on Uranium Mining

By JOHN CRANE
Published: February 07, 2011

CHATHAM — If uranium is mined and milled at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County, what happened in the U.S. West could happen in Chatham, said a grassroots organizer for the Sierra Club during a speech Saturday at El Cazador Restaurant.

The Coles Hill project would be the first instance of uranium mining east of the Mississippi River, said Robert Tohe, a Navajo and a field representative/grassroots organizer for the Sierra Club.

During his speech at El Cazador Restaurant in Chatham on Saturday, sponsored by the Sierra Club, Tohe focused on the legacy of uranium mining and milling in Church Rock, N.M., located in the Grants mineral district stretching from west of Albuquerque to Gallup, N.M. About 50 people attended the event.

Uranium mined in those areas was used for weapons of mass destruction during World War II and the Cold War, Tohe said, recounting the effects uranium mining and milling had on the American Indian population, including Navajos, over the last 60 years.

In Church Rock in 1979, a United Nuclear dam that contained radioactive material broke after rainstorms and released 95 million gallons of radioactive waste, which was carried into a dry riverbed and traveled 80 miles into Arizona, Tohe said.

Sludge and waste eventually moved into the Colorado River, Tohe said.

Communities there sacrificed their land and lives for uranium mining and milling, Tohe said. They have no way to clean up what’s left, he said. Affected communities are studying to find a link between exposure to toxic heavy metals and kidney disease.

Those living within seven miles of an abandoned mine have a higher chance of developing diabetes, Tohe said. During the 1960s, mining firms “scoured the land” looking for ore deposits, Tohe said. The hired local workers, Navajos and Pueblos, to enter the mines, where radioactive dust settled into miners’ clothes before they went home and contaminated their families, Tohe said.

“The workers were never told that this was dangerous,” Tohe said.

As for mining and milling effects on water, there’s no technology to clean contaminated water, Tohe said.

They cannot be addressed with regulations passed after the worst has happened, Tohe said.

Waste is a huge issue in every phase of uranium processing, Tohe said. A community where mining and milling is proposed must weight the benefits and costs of it, he said.

“There may be short-term jobs, but the mining industry is susceptible to the market,” Tohe said.

“The communities are held hostage by the boom and bust cycle,” Tohe said.

Read more:
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/feb/07/anti-uranium-mining-activist-speaks-out-project-ar-826196/

Va. lawmakers lavished with more than $250K in gifts

Comment:  No to uranium mining and milling!

David Sherfinski 02/03/11 6:44 PM
Examiner Staff Writer

Forget campaign contributions – Virginia lawmakers received more than a quarter-million dollars in free meals, gifts, and travel last year.

The top recipient was Sen. William Wampler, R-Bristol, whose gifts totaled about $17,600, including $15,000 for a trip provided by the Southern Legislative Conference, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

Virginia Uranium, which wants to mine the material in south central Virginia, spent $27,488 and paid for trips to France for several legislators.

Other items lavished onto lawmakers included hunting trips and tickets to football games, galas and the circus.

Read more:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/02/lawmakers-lavished-more-250k-gifts

NAS Denver Meeting 5: Uranium Mining in Virginia

Comment:  Make your flight arrangements now and attend the NAS meeting, also tell our friends in CO to attend the meeting and maybe request to speak!  Also request a Open Town Hall Meeting!

Meeting Information:

Project Title: Uranium Mining in Virginia

PIN: DELS-BESR-09-06

Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies

Sub Unit: Board on Earth Sciences & Resources

Water Science and Technology Board

RSO: Feary, David

Subject/Focus Area: Earth Sciences

Uranium Mining in Virginia

March 23, 2011 - March 25, 2011

Denver area - TBD

If you would like to attend the sessions of this meeting that are open to the public or need more information please contact:

Contact Name: Courtney Gibbs

Email: cgibbs@nas.edu

Phone: 202-334-2744

Fax: 202-334-1377

Agenda:

Agenda TBD

Read more:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?key=49253&MeetingId=4785

Appeal made at NAS uranium hearing

by Eva Cassada
SoVaNow.com / February 09, 2011

RICHMOND – Halifax County had no shortage of representation at the uranium meeting here Monday night even though the proposed mine is across the line in Pittsylvania County.

About 200 people, many from across Southside, attended the fourth town hall-style meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, whose scientists have been charged with studying the feasibility of lifting the 1982 uranium ban in Virginia so that a massive, $8 billion deposit in Chatham may be excavated by Virginia Uranium Inc.

Public comments largely fell into one of two categories: It’s unsafe for land and water or, in contrast, the area needs jobs and the nation needs the uranium.

Of 46 speakers, 33 were opposed to the lifting of the ban. In the course of three hours, no uranium supporter identified himself as currently living in Southside Virginia.

Keep the ban

Andrew Lester, executive director of the Roanoke River Basin Association (which formed in 1945 and helped convince the government to build Kerr Dam, he noted) said the water supply of millions of people could be affected by the proposed mine – including Virginia Beach, Tidewater’s military installations, Henderson, N.C., Roanoke Rapids, N.C., and even Raleigh, which has lately had its eye on Kerr Lake.

Even down into North Carolina, more people are getting “very, very concerned and energized,” he said.

He predicted the debate would eventually get as heated as it did over the Lake Gaston Pipeline in the 1980s and 90s.

It was that controversy, in fact, that catapulted Halifax’s State Sen. Frank Ruff into politics when Ruff, of Clarksville, was a leader in the organization.

Opponents repeatedly cited their concern that water and soil could be contaminated for thousands of years if the mine is incorrectly operated, if regulators don’t provide sufficient oversight, if catastrophic weather occurs or if, after the mine is depleted, long-term care is neglected. The Coles Hill mine would be one of only a few uranium mines in the Eastern U.S.; most North American mines are in more arid climates.

Critics say Virginia is too wet. Uranium waste products called tailings could contaminate the nearby Roanoke/Staunton River system, which includes Buggs Island Lake, they contend.

Retired environmental attorney Kay Slaughter of Charlottesville called uranium mining in a wet environment “a gigantic experiment.”

Of local speakers, Tom Brown of Halifax noted that the Navy had never had accidents with its nuclear submarines because of extensive training; however, he worried that private companies would cut corners.

Holt Evans, a Halifax Town Council member, said he’s concerned about cancer rates and health issues.

Halifax Mayor Dick Moore called mined uranium “a slow bomb.”

“I told you so,” said Jack Dunavant, a civil engineer from Halifax and leader of Southside Concerned Citizens, referring to a study released last week by Virginia Beach showing that the proposed mine – 200 miles from Chatham – could pose risks to the drinking water of more than one million people in Tidewater.

“The threat to downstream communities like Virginia Beach is real,” echoed Cale Jaffe, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, based in Charlottesville.

Peter Martin of Richmond, who once lived in Halifax and is brother to the late Rev. Fred Martin, expressed concern over the Banister River, Buggs Island Lake and Virginia Beach.

Other speakers said the jobs the mine would create were not worth the potential environmental impact or the stigma.

Both Halifax legislators, Del. James Edmunds of Halifax and State Sen. Ruff of Clarksville, oppose uranium mining but neither was present when it was their turn to speak. They were presumably called away by legislative duties as this is the General Assembly’s notoriously busy “crossover week.”

In his absence, Edmunds’ statement was read by Trieste Lockwood of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy. In it, he acknowledged the promise of jobs and the goal of energy independence, but he charged the panel: “Be … so sure that nothing will ever go wrong that you would have your children drink the water flowing from the Banister. That you would have them live downwind and that you would encourage them to build their homes nearby and raise your grandchildren.” Edmunds, a cattle and grain farmer, said he owns two miles of Banister riverfront.

“While I understand all too well that we need jobs, some risks are not worth taking … Please don’t take our future in your hands without a disclaimer that some events are simply unpredictable and the outcome of a disaster her would last forever.”

Naomi Hodge-Muse of Martinsville is head of the NAACP and the Sierra Club chapter there. She said in an interview that a bus chartered from there carried 38 people – Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers – all united against the mine.

The largest single contingent of speakers was from Danville and Pittsylvania.

A Pastor Tarpley of Chatham objected to the area being thought of as a “sacrificial zone.”

Sarah Motley, a hospice nurse living in Hampton who grew up on a Pittsylvania County farm, said she had visited uranium mines out west. She asked the panel how much tailings management had changed in the past 30 years and how many mines are federal Superfund sites.

“Protect us,” Eloise Nenon of Chatham asked the 15-member panel.

Monday’s public comment period was part of a three-day meeting, most of it private, conducted by the Academy. It followed a December meeting in Danville and prior meetings in Washington, D.C. Remaining for the body are meetings in Denver and in Saskatchewan, Canada. Its report, paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc., is due late this year and could have significant sway among legislators deciding whether or not to lift the moratorium. They could do so as early as their 2012 session.

Read more:
http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php?/news/article/uranium_debate_cites_buggs_island_lake/

National Academy of Sciences Virginia Uranium Meeting Study Series of Articles for the Week

NAS Virginia Uranium Mining Study Series of Articles

National Academy of Sciences meeting spurs further debate over uranium

• February 10th, 2011 9:39 am ET
• By Daniel Carawan, Richmond Progressive Examiner

A meeting was held on Monday at the Richmond Marriott that brought together a National Academy of Sciences panel of scientists, mining experts, and environmental officials to discuss the moratorium on uranium mining that has existed in Virginia since 1982.

Those who were opposed to lifting the uranium moratorium claimed that the statements by department heads of regulatory bodies in Virginia made it apparent that the state does not have adequate resources to supervise the mining of the biggest uranium deposit in America.

The meeting was an all-day session, the second of its kind.

The findings of the National Academy of Sciences panel are expected to be completed in December on the socioeconomic consequences of lifting the uranium mining ban in Virginia. The committee will not, however, be making any recommendations.

Perhaps needless to say, if there is not enough personnel to supervise uranium mining operations, undue risks to the uranium miners and the surrounding communities far exceeds the potential benefits.

Virginia should be looking for renewable, cleaner, and safer sources of energy like solar, geothermal, and wind, not at another nonrenewable and potentially hazardous form of energy.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: National Academy of Sciences meeting spurs further debate over uranium - Richmond Progressive
Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-richmond/national-academy-of-sciences-meeting-spurs-further-debate-over-uranium?render=print#print#ixzz1DiN3ssLY

Virginia Debates Opening Largest Uranium Mine East of Mississippi

Panel Weighs Lifting Ban on Uranium Mining in Virginia
by Scott Harper

VIRGINIA - The National Academy of Sciences on Monday took up the controversial issue of possible uranium mining in Virginia, with experts testifying for hours and environmentalists protesting what they say is a dangerous business idea.

The all-day hearing came less than a week after the city of Virginia Beach released a study showing that the proposed mine, some 200 miles away in Pittsylvania County, would pose risks to drinking water piped from Lake Gaston to more than 1 million residents of Hampton Roads.

"The threat to downstream communities like Virginia Beach is real," said Cale Jaffe, a senior attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, based in Charlottesville.

Jaffe was among a crowd of environmentalists who trekked to Richmond to urge the National Academy of Sciences to recommend that state lawmakers keep in place a ban on uranium mining first imposed in 1982.

A company, Virginia Uranium Inc., wants the ban lifted so it can extract and process the radioactive resource buried beneath a historic farm, Coles Hill, outside the town of Chatham.

If developed, Coles Hill would be one of only a few uranium mines ever tried east of the Mississippi River; most U.S. mines are found in arid, western states.

Critics say Virginia's climate is too wet and could lead to flooding that might contaminate the nearby Roanoke River system, which includes Lake Gaston, with uranium wastes called tailings.

Tom Leahy, utilities director for Virginia Beach, testified Monday that most of the tailings would not make it to Lake Gaston. But as much as 20 percent would travel to Kerr Reservoir, where the toxic wastes could threaten water supplies for Norfolk, Virginia Beach and parts of Chesapeake.

"I don't think you'd find a better place in the United States for tailings to move downstream," Leahy told the panel.

Meetings are next planned in Colorado and Canada before wrapping up in California.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/08-3

Uranium mining meeting held

Tuesday, February 8, 2011
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS -

RICHMOND — A National Academy of Sciences committee pressed Virginia mining and environmental officials Monday on the state’s ability to regulate uranium mining if a 1982 state ban is lifted.

Opponents said the statements of the department heads made it clear the state doesn’t have the resources to oversee the mining of the largest uranium deposit in the United States.

The meeting was the second all-day session held in Virginia by the panel of scientists, mining experts and environmental officials. Members are expected to complete their findings in December on the consequences of Virginia ending its ban on uranium mining. The committee will not make a recommendation.

Environmentalists and some local residents have opposed tapping the Pittsylvania County deposit because they are fearful the mining and milling will foul the air, rivers, streams and reservoirs with radioactive tailings scattered by torrential rains or hurricanes. Uranium mining in the U.S. has taken place in drier, western climates, and this would be the first on the East Coast.

Virginia Uranium, which estimates the ore’s value at $8 billion to $10 billion.

The directors of three state agencies outlined how various aspects of uranium mining would be overseen by their agencies, with the director of the state’s largest environmental agency making it clear budget cuts already have stretched his staff.

“In the context of resources, we set priorities,” said David K. Paylor, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, which has 800 employees. “The things of the highest importance continue to get done.”

The directors of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy and the Department of Conservation and Recreation also spoke before the committee. They at times struggled to explain to the committee how the state bureaucracies would regulate uranium mining.

Before that happens, however, the General Assembly will have to lift the decades-old ban.

Opponents of uranium mining said the statements did not leave them encouraged the state is up to the task.

“We don’t have the financial resources to put the kind of robust regulatory program in place you would need,” said Cale Jaffe, a staff attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

A man who once held Paylor’s job agreed with that assessment. “I didn’t hear anything that was very comforting, other than we’ll make cuts someplace else,” said Robert Burnley, a former director of the state DEQ who now works as a consultant with the SELC. “Something’s going to be cut.”

The committee also accepted a study from Virginia Beach that concluded the water supply of the state’s largest city could be threatened if a historic storm lashed the area where the mining would occur.

The National Academy study is one of at least several looking at uranium mining. A legislative committee has approved $200,000 for a socio-economic study, and local studies are also planned or under way.

http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27249

Speakers at NAS Meeting discussed uranium mining in Va.

By REX SPRINGSTON
Published: February 08, 2011

Concern citizens of VA are worried about a proposed uranium mine in Southside Virginia say it would cause water pollution that cash-short regulators would be hard-pressed to address.

Supporters said the mining would be done safely while providing hundreds of jobs.

Speakers expressed the diverging views Monday during a Richmond meeting of a panel studying the safety of uranium mining in Virginia. State officials requested the study because Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill uranium in Pittsylvania County.

Some fear that radioactive waste could get into streams and hurt economic development.

"There is no win in this. Pandora's box needs to stay closed," said Naomi Hodge-Muse, president of the Martinsville-Henry County Voters League and the Martinsville NAACP.

Uranium is a radioactive fuel for nuclear-power plants. Virginia has banned its mining since 1982, but Virginia Uranium wants the ban lifted. The study should be finished by the end of this year. The General Assembly could reconsider the mining ban in 2012.

Concerned citizens include Virginia Beach, which fears that a storm could wash radioactive waste into streams leading to Beach drinking waters.

Robert Burnley, a former director of the state Department of Environmental Quality, said state oversight "won't be as strong as it should be because of budgetary restraints." He is a consultant for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which opposes the mine.

DEQ Director David Paylor said, despite limited resources, "the things of the highest importance continue to get done."

The National Academy of Sciences is doing the study. Virginia Uranium says about 119 million pounds of uranium ore, worth $8 billion, lies underground at Pittsylvania.

http://www2.nelsoncountytimes.com/news/2011/feb/08/tdmet01-speakers-voice-support-opposition-for-uran-ar-826997/

Study drinking water first (uranium mining)

Letter: Phillip M. Lovelace
Tuesday, February 1, 2011

In the Martinsville Bulletin on Jan. 16, Virginia Uranium Inc. project manager Patrick Wales stated they have 15,000 acres in their control and “probably” would mine less than 15 percent of the 15,000 acres in Pittsylvania County.


At the National Academy of Science meeting in Danville in December, it was my understanding that Virginia Uranium Inc. was only interested in mining and milling Coles Hill and downplayed any interest in deposits anywhere else in Virginia.

Coles Hill is around 3,000 acres; why would you need 12,000 acres more unless you were “probably” going to mine? Is this what the farmers were told — there is uranium on your land, and we want to lease it but we “probably” won’t mine this 12,000 acres?

This is why I am pushing so hard to make sure our water is studied, we don’t know how much land has been leased in our county and in Virginia.

Del. Lee Ware, chairman of the uranium subcommittee, requested to the National Academy of Science in Washington, D.C., meeting (that I attended) that the hydrogeology of the state of Virginia be studied. With his help and talking with the NAS committee about the hydrogeology, I am pleased someone with experience in hydrogeology has been added to the National Academy of Science Committee.

The USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) stated at the Washington, D.C., National Academy of Science meeting that it would take a long time to study the hydrogeology of Virginia, meaning several years.

Any attempt to use old study data from the Marline research cannot work to fast track this study. The fracture networks have had to change due to the earth tremors at this location and throughout Virginia in the last few years.

Our Virginia politicians must be patient and not lift the moratorium until a state-wide study of our drinking water is completed. This will take a lot longer than 2011.

Remember we live in a rural area where most of our drinking water comes from wells; they must not and cannot be destroyed.

Phillip M. Lovelace
Gretna, VA

Read more:
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=27148

The most secretive phase (Uranium in Sweden, Part 4, Jan 26 2011)

"The Origin of Nuclear Power", Part 4,
Jan 26 2011
by Fredrik Loberg

Many people and countries are very much worried that Iran, North Korea and terrorists has got the knowledge of uranium enrichment.  At the same time uranium enrichment is a absolutely necessary process for the production of electricity in Oskarshamn nuclear power plant.

This fourth and last reportage is also about the growing uranium cooperation between Oskarshamn and Russia.  From the year 2011 there is no longer any law in Sweden stopping a fourth nuclear
reactor at Oskarshamn.

When nuclear power is growing in the world more enriched uranium needs to be produced. This means an even bigger need for more controls to prevent the knowledge of nuclear weapons production may spread further.

- It is wrong in so many ways to let this industry growing, Udo Buchholtz says.

He is leading the protests in one of the European towns where the uranium, which is
being sent to Oskarshamn nuclear power plant, becomes enriched.
------------------
In three earlier reports near the beginning of 2010, from different parts of Canada, Nyheterna has written about the start of the very long global journey for uranium, from mine to electricity production in Oskarshamn nuclear power.

Now it is time to focus on the fourth stop for the uranium on its way to Oskarshamn.
The enrichment. The most secret process.

We are therefore travelling to Almelo, 1190 kilometres from Oskarshamn, a city with
more than 70 000 inhabitants in the east part of the Netherlands.

Uranium to be used in Oskarshamn nuclear power plant is enriched in Almelo.

Here we meet Jan Hammink. His parents ran a farm in Almelo until 1970. Then, the same year when Oskarshamn got its first reactor, it was decided that a plant for uranium enrichment should be built on the land where the Hammink family lived.

The family was compensated with a new house. At this time, when Jan was 17-18 years old, he was protesting against nuclear power.

- It was the flower-power era, you know, Jan Hammink says.

For six weeks young people from Almelo had an office in one of the farming buildings, where the protests where organized.

- It was the first resistance group against nuclear power here in Almelo, Jan Hammink says.

40 years later, in 2010, we are sitting in Jan Hammink's quiet, secure living room, talking while we hear the October rain from outside. Jan tells us that he liked the hippie period. He laughs a lot and explains that he is happy now also, but that he has changed. Now he thinks that the enrichment activity is good.

The fuel production in Lingen is runned by french nuclear giant Areva. OKG has decided to have closer partnership with Areva in the future. Areva will not only supply OKG with fuel elements, but also be responsible for the entire uranium supply chain to the reactor number 2 over the next four years. One of the reasons are Areva considered to have particularly good contacts with Russia. From which mines the
russian processed uranium comes from is not always easy to know.

But what is clear is that Areva for many years have lay its hands on the growing uranium market in Africa.

- For uranium companies it is easy to be in Africa, where environmental laws hardly exists, and in Africa authorities are often corrupt and in a bad situation for negotiations, Fleur Scheele says.

She works at Wise in Amsterdam, just returned from a conference in Tanzania, together with representatives from NGO:s in 20 African countries, where uranium mining is going on or is planned. Areva is the largest uranium company in Africa.  Especially Areva's 42 years of uranium mining in France's former colony, Niger,
military dictatorship and one of the world's poorest and hottest countries, has been
very controversial for a long time.

Just like in Canada the mining is going on in areas where indigenous people live. Local NGOs claim that Areva had done nothing to help people out of poverty, but simply taking the profits from mining and leaves devastated and radioactive soil behind. In recent years Areva has started several development projects,
Read more:
Fredrik Loberg
fredrik.loberg@ostran.se
http://www.nyheterna.net/kaernkraftens/the_origin_of_nuclear_power/the_most_secretive_phase