Pittsylvania, Canada dissimilar (Uranium Mining)

Pittsylvania, Canada dissimilar (Uranium Mining)

Comments:  Great Letter, now this is the real truth!

Pittsylvania, Canada dissimilar

Letter to the Editor | Posted: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 6:00 am
To the editor:

I read with interest the letter, “Homes, uranium mines coexist,” (Sept. 27, A8). I do not doubt the veracity of Kevin Scissons, former chief regulator for Canada’s uranium operations. However, I do believe we are comparing apples to oranges when discussing the proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County and the existing mines in Canada’s northern Saskatchewan Province.

To put the two affected populations in proper perspective, the hamlet of Wollaston Lake and adjacent village of Wollaston Post have 1,380 inhabitants combined. This center is roughly 26 miles from the mines and constitutes the largest concentration of people for hundreds of miles.

Given the aquifer underlying Pittsylvania County, which stretches from Charlottesville in the north to Charlotte, N.C., in the south, and the nearby rivers enjoyed by all those folks east of Pittsylvania County, I believe we are talking about a population in the millions.



PRINCIPAL IGNEOUS AND METAMORPHIC-ROCK AQUIFERS
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquiferbasics/volcan.html

Let’s talk about climate and geology. I have several concerns. Unlike northern Saskatchewan, which has a climate best described as coldly inhospitable, Pittsylvania County is subject to northeasters, hurricanes, and tornados.

Enough rain can fall to cause serious drainage problems to any containment barrier. With tornados, radioactive waste (tailings) can be deposited just about anywhere.

This does not touch on the potential disaster associated with earthquakes. Forces of nature do not concern themselves with property lines.



This brings us to the point of the proposed “unbreachable” concrete containment barriers for the radioactive waste. Concrete ages and decomposes. The rubber used to line the concrete has an even shorter life span.

The point is we are not living in northern Saskatchewan. Having safety regulations that only protect adjacent properties does not address river, aquifer or air contamination.

Furthermore, materials technology cannot address the problems of stress due to aging, catastrophic breach due to earthquake and subsequent leaching of radioactive contaminants into the aquifer, or violent weather, which can undo the best efforts of man.



http://waterwatch.usgs.gov/index.php?ym=201307&m=nwc

With all due respect to Henry Hurt and Kevin Scissons, I am not in the least convinced that any regulations conceived by even the most concerned and altruistic politicians will be able to address the potential disaster of uranium mining in Virginia.

JEFFREY R. CARSON
Danville

Great comments afterwards:
Karen Brewer Maute · Top Commenter · East Carolina University

Something else that seems to be missing is consideration by mining proponents for the recent research that has been conducted regarding uranium mining in Virginia. Recent research documents regarding uranium mining (milling and waste disposal) in Virginia may be found here. https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/Uranium/links.shtml . The documents point to the unique challenges that Virginia will face if uranium mining is permitted. They point out potential risks and benefit scenarios; they do not predict outcome.

Mr. Scissons stated that he knew little about the Coles Hill project (the first proposed uranium mine and mill in Virginia). He made no mention of information contained in the studies listed on the UWG website. Scissons appeared ill-prepared to speak with authority regarding uranium mining in Virginia.

Comment:

Scissons lives 500 miles away from the nearest uranium mine in Canada, as he stated in his pro-uranium infomercial for the Pittsylvania Co. Board of Supervisors, so he has little to risk by telling us we need uranium mining here in Virginia. If I lived 500 miles from Coles Hill, I probably wouldn't be overly concerned either.
He is not from here, knows nothing about Coles Hill (also his statement) and was paid by VUI's lobbying firm to come and spread the big yellowcake lie. He spoke a great many words but few of those words were of any real substance. Would he be willing to live a mile from Coles Hill if a uranium mine were allowed there? Two miles? Fifty miles? Probably not. But he is glad to tell us how wonderful and safe it would be for those of us who DO live here. Go back to Canada and enjoy your retirement. We are not interested in uranium mining, not now and not ever.

http://www.godanriver.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_efd0eef0-2b5e-11e3-a363-0019bb30f31a.html