Comment: No to Uranium Mining!
Marianna Grigoryan: 12/01/09
A protest movement against a planned Russian-Armenian uranium mine in southern Armenia appears to be picking up steam, with discussions underway with three political parties about a partnership.
Soviet-era studies indicated that Armenia could contain up to approximately 60,000 tons of uranium.
Yerevan plans to export the uranium to Russia, where it would be enriched for nuclear fuel to be used in Armenia's nuclear power plant. Exploration work in the field is already underway. Deputy Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Areg Galstian stated at an late October conference on Armenian-Russian energy cooperation.
The Armenian-Russian Mining Company holds a five-year permit for exploration of uranium ore in Syunik. Company data indicates that exploration is taking place in southern and northern Syunik.
But local residents, including inhabitants of the nearby regional capital, Kapan, and the mining town of Kajaran fear the consequences.
Expressing concern about chances for a spike in cancer rates and genetic mutations once uranium mining starts, the head of the Greens' Union of Armenia, Hakob Sanasarian, called the project "a disaster for both the local and the national population."
The director of a local Karabakh War veterans' rights group agreed. "If they start mining uranium, we will fight using all possible methods," Khoren Harutiunian declared. "We will even block the roads."
Discussions are being held with three prominent political parties about an alliance to block the mine, Harutiunian said. He declined to identify the parties involved in the discussions.
The anti-mine movement also plans to start a letter-writing campaign to government officials this week; some 2,000 Kapan residents have already joined the protest, they claim.
Grigorian stresses that public discussions have been held to explain to some 1,000 local community members how the mine will operate and safety standards maintained.
The head of the Lernadzor community administration, however, contends that public discussions are not enough. "How can I support such activities if all this results in is people wanting to leave the village?" asked Stepan Petrosian. "I don't know even whether I should finish building my house or not. Will my grandchildren ever live here?"
For now, that question remains unanswered, but the fear about the mines hangs on.
Pledged activist Haroutiunian: "We will fight till the end."
Editor's Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter based in Yerevan.
Read more at:
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav120109.shtml
Showing posts with label no uranium mining. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no uranium mining. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
100 protest in Alice against uranium mine
Comment: No to Uranium Mining!
By Kirsty Nancarrow
Posted Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:41pm AEDT
The Northern Territory Resources Minister has agreed to meet with a group of Alice Springs residents concerned about a proposed uranium mine near the town.
Kon Vatskalis approved an exploration licence for the Angela and Pamela deposit just over a year ago and the mining company Cameco has finished its 2009 drilling program.
About 100 anti-nuclear protesters assembled outside the Alice Springs parliamentary sittings this morning, urging the Government not to approve a mine at the site.
One of the protesters, Rita Apelt, says she has health concerns about the project.
"There's a lot of dust in Alice Springs and as we know, it went to the east coast a couple of months ago," she said.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2751998.htm
By Kirsty Nancarrow
Posted Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:41pm AEDT
The Northern Territory Resources Minister has agreed to meet with a group of Alice Springs residents concerned about a proposed uranium mine near the town.
Kon Vatskalis approved an exploration licence for the Angela and Pamela deposit just over a year ago and the mining company Cameco has finished its 2009 drilling program.
About 100 anti-nuclear protesters assembled outside the Alice Springs parliamentary sittings this morning, urging the Government not to approve a mine at the site.
One of the protesters, Rita Apelt, says she has health concerns about the project.
"There's a lot of dust in Alice Springs and as we know, it went to the east coast a couple of months ago," she said.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2751998.htm
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Women's body formed to voice protest against uranium mining
Shillong, Oct 5 : Women's organisations from various parts of Meghalaya have formed a new body under the banner of Women Against Uranium Mining (WAUM) to voice protest against the uranium mining in the state.
WAUM was formed in a meeting held here yesterday to go all out to stop the government's effort to mine uranium in West Khasi Hills district of the state.
Chairperson, Secretary and spokesperson of the newly formed WAUM were also elected during the meeting.
The state government has put the pre-mining developmental works on hold for three months after a meeting with KSU and other NGOs leadership held here yesterday.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-144568.html
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Protecting Great Lakes water from harm (uranium mining)
By DUNCAN and MAURA CAMPBELL
Many of us have been riveted by the spectacular images and poetic descriptions of Michigan featured in the award-winning Pure Michigan ad campaign. A vast majority of these spots focus on our state's most defining feature: fresh water.
Each of us is in the Great Lakes State has a favorite stream, river, lake or Great Lake -- the inland seas that make Michigan one of the most easily identifiable places on earth from outer space.
As the stewards of the largest fresh water reservoir in the world, we know there is no pure Michigan without pure water.
Today our water is under threat. Mining companies are actively exploring an ore body that extends throughout the Upper Great Lakes from Minnesota to Wisconsin to Michigan's Upper Peninsula and down into the mitten of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. These proposed sulfide and uranium mines differ from the oxide mining historically done in this region. Mining companies have been buying up thousands of acres of mineral rights and are actively exploring dozens of mining sites across Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Sulfide mining and water don't mix. In a water-rich environment like Michigan there is virtually no safe way to conduct this type of mining. Due to their unique and complex geology, these sulfide rock formations contain rich metallic ore bodies of copper, nickel and other heavy metals while others contain uranium.
When mining activities expose the sulfide bearing rock to air and water, it decomposes releasing among other chemicals, sulfuric acid which causes acid mine drainage and heavy metal acid rain that can be devastating to fresh water, fish, aquatic life as well as plant and wildlife hundreds of miles beyond the mine or processing sites. Since Lake Superior and Lake Michigan feed all the other waters of the Great Lakes this could impact the entire Great Lakes water basin.
It is clear the only way to give voice to this threat and win the battle for pure water is to take the message to Michigan voters directly via a ballot initiative campaign. This is a powerful and effective tool and provides a grassroots political front to let people take action not only throughout the Lower Peninsula but across the Great Lakes Region and beyond. It will help us reach all those who believe as we do that our single most important strategic resource is the fresh water in our Great Lakes.
The language proposed by the Miwater.org campaign is tough and it should be since the stakes are so high. We consulted the best legal, technical and political minds to put it together. It protects our water by shoring up weaknesses in Michigan's existing mining law including prohibiting this type of mining operation within 2,000 feet of a body of water unless it can be proven no harm will be done to the water. It also corrects a huge oversight with respect to uranium mining - namely Michigan currently has no rules pertaining to it.
As former Gov. Bill Milliken put it, "I am a big believer in the wisdom of the people of this great state and know that if given the choice, they will always choose protecting Michigan's water and environment over other interests."
Wisconsin has already taken a tough stand to protect water from this type of mining. It's time for Michigan, at the heart of the Great Lakes, to do likewise. Learn more or join our cause at www.miwater.org.
Read whole article at:
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2009/10/23/opinion/doc4ae1f93e591a0801916944.txt
Many of us have been riveted by the spectacular images and poetic descriptions of Michigan featured in the award-winning Pure Michigan ad campaign. A vast majority of these spots focus on our state's most defining feature: fresh water.
Each of us is in the Great Lakes State has a favorite stream, river, lake or Great Lake -- the inland seas that make Michigan one of the most easily identifiable places on earth from outer space.
As the stewards of the largest fresh water reservoir in the world, we know there is no pure Michigan without pure water.
Today our water is under threat. Mining companies are actively exploring an ore body that extends throughout the Upper Great Lakes from Minnesota to Wisconsin to Michigan's Upper Peninsula and down into the mitten of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. These proposed sulfide and uranium mines differ from the oxide mining historically done in this region. Mining companies have been buying up thousands of acres of mineral rights and are actively exploring dozens of mining sites across Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Sulfide mining and water don't mix. In a water-rich environment like Michigan there is virtually no safe way to conduct this type of mining. Due to their unique and complex geology, these sulfide rock formations contain rich metallic ore bodies of copper, nickel and other heavy metals while others contain uranium.
When mining activities expose the sulfide bearing rock to air and water, it decomposes releasing among other chemicals, sulfuric acid which causes acid mine drainage and heavy metal acid rain that can be devastating to fresh water, fish, aquatic life as well as plant and wildlife hundreds of miles beyond the mine or processing sites. Since Lake Superior and Lake Michigan feed all the other waters of the Great Lakes this could impact the entire Great Lakes water basin.
It is clear the only way to give voice to this threat and win the battle for pure water is to take the message to Michigan voters directly via a ballot initiative campaign. This is a powerful and effective tool and provides a grassroots political front to let people take action not only throughout the Lower Peninsula but across the Great Lakes Region and beyond. It will help us reach all those who believe as we do that our single most important strategic resource is the fresh water in our Great Lakes.
The language proposed by the Miwater.org campaign is tough and it should be since the stakes are so high. We consulted the best legal, technical and political minds to put it together. It protects our water by shoring up weaknesses in Michigan's existing mining law including prohibiting this type of mining operation within 2,000 feet of a body of water unless it can be proven no harm will be done to the water. It also corrects a huge oversight with respect to uranium mining - namely Michigan currently has no rules pertaining to it.
As former Gov. Bill Milliken put it, "I am a big believer in the wisdom of the people of this great state and know that if given the choice, they will always choose protecting Michigan's water and environment over other interests."
Wisconsin has already taken a tough stand to protect water from this type of mining. It's time for Michigan, at the heart of the Great Lakes, to do likewise. Learn more or join our cause at www.miwater.org.
Read whole article at:
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2009/10/23/opinion/doc4ae1f93e591a0801916944.txt
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Mounting pressure against new uranium mining and nuclear power plants
Oct 19, 2009
There is a growing civil society movement against the new uranium mining and nuclear power plants in India. The National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM) is mobilizing citizens to protest against the reported decision of the government of India to take a quantum leap in installed capacity for nuclear power generation, from the current level of 4,120 MW to 63,000 MW by 2032. "This decision is but an invitation to disaster" says activists.
"Nuclear power, contrary to orchestrated hypes, is actually costlier than power from conventional sources like coal, gas and hydro. And once all the hidden costs are factored in, it would be costlier than even from renewable sources, like wind, in particular" says the NAAM petition that is swelling with citizens signing and endorsing the petition addressed to Ms Pratibha Patil, President of India; Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India and Mr Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
"More importantly, it is also intrinsically hazardous, as large amount of radiation is routinely released at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. An even more intractable problem is that of safe storage of nuclear waste and safe disposal of outlived power plants, given the fact that the half-lives of some of the radioactive substances involved are over even millions of years" further reads the petition.
"The promise of nil greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is also nothing more than a myth if the entire fuel cycle – including mining, milling, transportation and construction of the power plant – is considered. Moreover, nuclear energy with its highly centralized power production model would only further aggravate the problem by accentuating the current development paradigm reliant on mega-industries and actively blocking any possibility towards ecologically benign decentralized development.
The NAAM petition further adds:
As nuclear power is economically unattractive and socially unacceptable, on account of radiation hazards and risks of catastrophic accidents, no order for new nuclear reactors was placed in the USA and most of West Europe during the last 30 years, since the Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979.
The US and European companies in nuclear power plant equipment and nuclear fuel business are thus looking to Asia for markets – India, China and Japan spearheading the current expansion programme.
It is unfortunate that the Indian government is becoming their willing collaborator in this in pursuit of its megalomaniac hunt for nuclear power and weapon. It has thus, over a period of just one year, rushed to enter into agreements with as many as seven countries, viz. the US, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Mongolia and Argentina.
Viewed thus, "energy security" may be achieved by: (I) Increasing efficiency of electricity generation, transmission and distribution. (II) Doing away with extravagant and wasteful use of energy. (III) Pursuing a path of low-energy intensity and decentralised development. (IV) Making optimum use of alternative energy options. (IV) Radically raising investment in development of sustainable and renewable energy sources and technologies, especially wind and solar energy.
The signatories of this NAAM petition demand that the government of India put a complete stop to the construction of all new uranium mines and nuclear power plants, and radically jack up investments in renewable and environmentally sustainable sources of energy. [To sign the petition, click here or go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/Nonukes/petition.html ]
Bobby Ramakant, CNS
(The author is a World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General’s WNTD Awardee (2008) and writes extensively on health and development. He is a Fellow of Citizen News Service (CNS) Writers’ Bureau. Website: www.citizen-news.org, email: bobbyramakant@yahoo.com)
Please click below to read all report:
There is a growing civil society movement against the new uranium mining and nuclear power plants in India. The National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM) is mobilizing citizens to protest against the reported decision of the government of India to take a quantum leap in installed capacity for nuclear power generation, from the current level of 4,120 MW to 63,000 MW by 2032. "This decision is but an invitation to disaster" says activists.
"Nuclear power, contrary to orchestrated hypes, is actually costlier than power from conventional sources like coal, gas and hydro. And once all the hidden costs are factored in, it would be costlier than even from renewable sources, like wind, in particular" says the NAAM petition that is swelling with citizens signing and endorsing the petition addressed to Ms Pratibha Patil, President of India; Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India and Mr Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
"More importantly, it is also intrinsically hazardous, as large amount of radiation is routinely released at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. An even more intractable problem is that of safe storage of nuclear waste and safe disposal of outlived power plants, given the fact that the half-lives of some of the radioactive substances involved are over even millions of years" further reads the petition.
"The promise of nil greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is also nothing more than a myth if the entire fuel cycle – including mining, milling, transportation and construction of the power plant – is considered. Moreover, nuclear energy with its highly centralized power production model would only further aggravate the problem by accentuating the current development paradigm reliant on mega-industries and actively blocking any possibility towards ecologically benign decentralized development.
The NAAM petition further adds:
As nuclear power is economically unattractive and socially unacceptable, on account of radiation hazards and risks of catastrophic accidents, no order for new nuclear reactors was placed in the USA and most of West Europe during the last 30 years, since the Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979.
The US and European companies in nuclear power plant equipment and nuclear fuel business are thus looking to Asia for markets – India, China and Japan spearheading the current expansion programme.
It is unfortunate that the Indian government is becoming their willing collaborator in this in pursuit of its megalomaniac hunt for nuclear power and weapon. It has thus, over a period of just one year, rushed to enter into agreements with as many as seven countries, viz. the US, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Mongolia and Argentina.
Viewed thus, "energy security" may be achieved by: (I) Increasing efficiency of electricity generation, transmission and distribution. (II) Doing away with extravagant and wasteful use of energy. (III) Pursuing a path of low-energy intensity and decentralised development. (IV) Making optimum use of alternative energy options. (IV) Radically raising investment in development of sustainable and renewable energy sources and technologies, especially wind and solar energy.
The signatories of this NAAM petition demand that the government of India put a complete stop to the construction of all new uranium mines and nuclear power plants, and radically jack up investments in renewable and environmentally sustainable sources of energy. [To sign the petition, click here or go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/Nonukes/petition.html ]
Bobby Ramakant, CNS
(The author is a World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General’s WNTD Awardee (2008) and writes extensively on health and development. He is a Fellow of Citizen News Service (CNS) Writers’ Bureau. Website: www.citizen-news.org, email: bobbyramakant@yahoo.com)
Please click below to read all report:
Friday, July 3, 2009
Uranium Mill Issue Will Set National Precedent
by Beverly Corbell07.01.09 - 01:10 pm
MONTROSE – Deep divisions in the Paradox Valley community may well remain after the Montrose Planning Commission’s vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend a special use permit for a uranium mill in Paradox Valley.
Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.
Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.
The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.
“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”
As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.
After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.
Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.
“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.
The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.
“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.
But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.
New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.
The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.
Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.
“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”
But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.
“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”
Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.
“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”
Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.
During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.
Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”
However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.
© telluridewatch.com 2009
http://www.telluridewatch.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent%20&id=2867706-
Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.
Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.
The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.
“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”
As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.
After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.
Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.
“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.
The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.
“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.
But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.
New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.
The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.
Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.
“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”
But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.
“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”
Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.
“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”
Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.
During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.
Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”
However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.
© telluridewatch.com 2009
http://www.telluridewatch.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent%20&id=2867706-
Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent&instance=secondary_stories_left_column
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Visitors didn't get entire uranium story
Comment: A great letter and I do not think any money in the world that I could destroy my home, my neighbors home for the greed of uranium money!Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:21 AM EDT
This is in response to Glenn Giles' recent letter, "Area residents visit uranium site." I, along with others, did as Mr. Giles did and contacted Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) for their "briefing" as they like to call it. I also have done little else but study this matter since it was brought to my attention some 18 months ago. I believe it is only sensible to listen to all sides (there are normally more than two sides to any issue) and draw your own intelligent conclusions.
What, exactly, did Mr. Giles expect to hear during his visit to VUI's offices and the Coles Hill site, except the absolute best-case scenario about uranium mining and milling when there is so much money for them to make at stake?
Did he expect to hear the truth about the illness, destruction and devastation that has been left in the wake of uranium mining and milling throughout the western United States?
Did he think any of VUI's "friendly and professional hosts" would even mention, let alone discuss, the thousands of abandoned uranium mine sites in this country, the ones that have leached radioactive waste into the soil and water for years and wait for the federal government to come clean them up at taxpayer expense?
Did he expect anyone to mention that many of the towns associated with mining and milling in other parts of the U.S. have become ghost towns after the mines were exhausted and mills done with processing because of the widespread radioactive contamination can't be remediated? Of course not!
VUI is going to give its visitors the nicest, most pleasant and reassuring fairy tale of uranium mining and milling its public relations firms can dream up. It has to. If it spoke the truth on any aspect of uranium mining and/or milling as it's been done in this country or around the world, for that matter, its visitors would flee so quickly the lovely hosts would see only a blur of flailing limbs. That's certainly not the reaction VUI needs for its visitors to experience. VUI needs its visitors to leave believing that the planned uranium mine and mill will be the biggest, safest boon to Southside in decades, not that it will be the biggest gamble in the history of Southside, which will use the Giles family's lives and yours and mine as the ante. And VUI surely doesn't want the Giles family or yours or mine to know that so far, everywhere in the world where this gamble has been taken, the winners were only a handful of stakeholders and investors. The rest of the folks, those whose lives were the ante, lost big. Very big.
No one who has spent any time at all researching the realities of uranium mining and milling could sit still and listen to what sounds like the biggest bunch of self-serving malarkey being served up anywhere in Southside these days. But VUI depends on its visitors to be ignorant of the truth about what it plans to do, not just to Coles Hill, but also to Southside. It needs local citizens to be brainwashed by its PR magic and old southern hospitality so that they won't want to believe the truth, if they even try to seek the truth. Sometimes fantasy presentations, also known as propaganda, are so cleverly crafted that the truth appears too ugly to be believed, especially when those who speak the truth can offer no wonderful promises except for a healthy environment for us and our children with clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.
I encourage Mr. Giles and those who accompanied him to the VUI "briefing" and visit to the Coles Hill site to realize that what they heard and saw while being entertained by VUI was just that, entertainment. And I encourage them to spend as much time as they did with VUI in pursuit of the other side of the story, the side that tells the harsh, unvarnished truth about the widespread illness, destruction and contamination of all living things that will ensue should VUI proceed with its plan to mine Coles Hill. Perhaps, after hearing and/or reading the rest of the story, Mr. Giles will understand that the long and interesting history of Pittsylvania County, of which he has been a dedicated steward, will, for all intents and purposes, end when the first rock is blasted loose in Coles Hill as those living in the shadow and contamination pathways of Coles Hill will be required to leave in order to preserve their health and lives.
Mr. Giles and his family and guests deserved the truth about uranium mining and milling. They didn't get it, but they got a pleasant outing. I hope, that for their own sakes and for the sakes of their grandchildren and their grandchildren, he and his guests will realize that what they heard from VUI is only one tiny theoretical piece of the story and a piece that, as of right now, has not yet been a part of the reality of any town in America in which uranium has been mined or milled. And I hope they'll wonder why and make every effort to find out.
VUI did not show me any sort of plan to mine or mill uranium, even though they want to do what is an illegal activity now in the state of Virginia. Every business owner knows that you must have a plan to implement it to its best and most profitable use. Any question that I asked was answered by, "That is why we need a study." I believe the company must have a plan, otherwise, how on earth do they know even a simple thing as how many people they have reported numerous times hiring? Did they pull those figures out of their magical hat or make them up? Why won't VUI disclose its plans? Why are they keeping everyone in the dark? Maybe they know that we would not believe the magic if they did not skirt the issue and were forthcoming in all aspects.
I keep remembering the last week of school when we were under a tornado watch and the county schools wisely kept our children at school where they would be safe, and my child did not get home until almost 5 p.m. That night at my home, we received over seven inches of rain, which overflowed everything including my swimming pool and goldfish pond. How could that be contained in a holding pond? Would we have the same disaster as they did in Tennessee with the coal sludge pond dam breaking? I am only talking about one incident. What about 30 years worth of uncontrollable situations? How many times have we been under a flood watch just this year?
Deborah Lovelace
Gretna
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/altavista/opinion/opinion01.txt
This is in response to Glenn Giles' recent letter, "Area residents visit uranium site." I, along with others, did as Mr. Giles did and contacted Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) for their "briefing" as they like to call it. I also have done little else but study this matter since it was brought to my attention some 18 months ago. I believe it is only sensible to listen to all sides (there are normally more than two sides to any issue) and draw your own intelligent conclusions.
What, exactly, did Mr. Giles expect to hear during his visit to VUI's offices and the Coles Hill site, except the absolute best-case scenario about uranium mining and milling when there is so much money for them to make at stake?
Did he expect to hear the truth about the illness, destruction and devastation that has been left in the wake of uranium mining and milling throughout the western United States?
Did he think any of VUI's "friendly and professional hosts" would even mention, let alone discuss, the thousands of abandoned uranium mine sites in this country, the ones that have leached radioactive waste into the soil and water for years and wait for the federal government to come clean them up at taxpayer expense?
Did he expect anyone to mention that many of the towns associated with mining and milling in other parts of the U.S. have become ghost towns after the mines were exhausted and mills done with processing because of the widespread radioactive contamination can't be remediated? Of course not!
VUI is going to give its visitors the nicest, most pleasant and reassuring fairy tale of uranium mining and milling its public relations firms can dream up. It has to. If it spoke the truth on any aspect of uranium mining and/or milling as it's been done in this country or around the world, for that matter, its visitors would flee so quickly the lovely hosts would see only a blur of flailing limbs. That's certainly not the reaction VUI needs for its visitors to experience. VUI needs its visitors to leave believing that the planned uranium mine and mill will be the biggest, safest boon to Southside in decades, not that it will be the biggest gamble in the history of Southside, which will use the Giles family's lives and yours and mine as the ante. And VUI surely doesn't want the Giles family or yours or mine to know that so far, everywhere in the world where this gamble has been taken, the winners were only a handful of stakeholders and investors. The rest of the folks, those whose lives were the ante, lost big. Very big.
No one who has spent any time at all researching the realities of uranium mining and milling could sit still and listen to what sounds like the biggest bunch of self-serving malarkey being served up anywhere in Southside these days. But VUI depends on its visitors to be ignorant of the truth about what it plans to do, not just to Coles Hill, but also to Southside. It needs local citizens to be brainwashed by its PR magic and old southern hospitality so that they won't want to believe the truth, if they even try to seek the truth. Sometimes fantasy presentations, also known as propaganda, are so cleverly crafted that the truth appears too ugly to be believed, especially when those who speak the truth can offer no wonderful promises except for a healthy environment for us and our children with clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.
I encourage Mr. Giles and those who accompanied him to the VUI "briefing" and visit to the Coles Hill site to realize that what they heard and saw while being entertained by VUI was just that, entertainment. And I encourage them to spend as much time as they did with VUI in pursuit of the other side of the story, the side that tells the harsh, unvarnished truth about the widespread illness, destruction and contamination of all living things that will ensue should VUI proceed with its plan to mine Coles Hill. Perhaps, after hearing and/or reading the rest of the story, Mr. Giles will understand that the long and interesting history of Pittsylvania County, of which he has been a dedicated steward, will, for all intents and purposes, end when the first rock is blasted loose in Coles Hill as those living in the shadow and contamination pathways of Coles Hill will be required to leave in order to preserve their health and lives.
Mr. Giles and his family and guests deserved the truth about uranium mining and milling. They didn't get it, but they got a pleasant outing. I hope, that for their own sakes and for the sakes of their grandchildren and their grandchildren, he and his guests will realize that what they heard from VUI is only one tiny theoretical piece of the story and a piece that, as of right now, has not yet been a part of the reality of any town in America in which uranium has been mined or milled. And I hope they'll wonder why and make every effort to find out.
VUI did not show me any sort of plan to mine or mill uranium, even though they want to do what is an illegal activity now in the state of Virginia. Every business owner knows that you must have a plan to implement it to its best and most profitable use. Any question that I asked was answered by, "That is why we need a study." I believe the company must have a plan, otherwise, how on earth do they know even a simple thing as how many people they have reported numerous times hiring? Did they pull those figures out of their magical hat or make them up? Why won't VUI disclose its plans? Why are they keeping everyone in the dark? Maybe they know that we would not believe the magic if they did not skirt the issue and were forthcoming in all aspects.
I keep remembering the last week of school when we were under a tornado watch and the county schools wisely kept our children at school where they would be safe, and my child did not get home until almost 5 p.m. That night at my home, we received over seven inches of rain, which overflowed everything including my swimming pool and goldfish pond. How could that be contained in a holding pond? Would we have the same disaster as they did in Tennessee with the coal sludge pond dam breaking? I am only talking about one incident. What about 30 years worth of uncontrollable situations? How many times have we been under a flood watch just this year?
Deborah Lovelace
Gretna
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/altavista/opinion/opinion01.txt
Thursday, June 4, 2009
What's In The Land Beneath Your Home?
Comment: Again, more people fighting uranium mining!!! Our Board of Supervisors can ban uranium mining and mill with zoning and ordinances!!! Posted: June 3, 2009 01:27 AM EDT
By Marshall Zelinger
m.zelinger@krdo.com
Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/mzelinger
FREMONT COUNTY - Do you know what's in the land beneath or near your home?
Residents of a neighborhood in Fremont County know they live on or near Uranium. Now, some of those residents want help from the county's planning commission.
The neighborhood group called "Tallahassee Area Community" wants to update Fremont County's master plan. The group wants to add language that would protect homeowners from health and safety issues that come from the potential of Uranium mining.
The area they live in used to be a Uranium mining area prior to 1980. Since then, homes and ranches have taken over the land. Recently, a company called Black Range submitted a permit to start mining in the area. More than 50 residents packed the Fremont County Planning Commission meeting. They want the master plan updated to protect them from the health and safety risk of Uranium mining, protect their land and water rights and keep the mining at least two miles away from the nearest home.
"We're asking the county not to permit mining activities close enough to where we live, that it becomes a health and safety hazard," said Tallahassee Area Community Spokesman Lee Alter. "Uranium mining, large-scale hard rock metal mining in general, is dangerous."
At the meeting, the planning commission had the county attorney give her opinion on what the county could address and what was more of a state issue.
"Reasonable land-use restrictions can always be enforced by county government, except for when they conflict with state regulations and state control," said Fremont County Attorney Brenda Jackson. "I do not think that the county has the scope of power that is necessary in order to enact the amendment (to the master plan). Further, I don't think the amendment is appropriate in the master plan, which is advisory. Much of what's being proposed is regulatory in nature and the master plan is not a regulatory document, it's an advisory document."
"Our goal is to get the planning commission to add to the master plan a series of protective provisions that essentially say if you're dealing with a potential dangerous activity, look at it very carefully and decide before you're forced on a time-pressure basis to make the decision in favor of protecting the citizens and, in fact, protecting the environment," said Alter.
"Even if all of this got put into the master plan, it wouldn't be enforceable as written," said Jackson.
According to Jackson, the master plan is simply suggestions that can be followed, nothing binding. That's not stopping the group from trying to add restrictions to future Uranium mining.
"We had no reason to believe that there was ever going to be any interest in Uranium mining again," said Alter. "We are not saying that there should not be any Uranium mining in the county, what we're saying is that because people now live and have bought property and have invested their life savings in property, where there happens to be exploitable Uranium resources that had been ignored for 30 years..." said Alter, who suggested a two-mile buffer between the nearest home and any mining.
"Anything less than two miles surely is inadequate," said Alter.
"Potentially the county could restrict distance, but if the effect is to prohibit mining, then I don't think it's legally supportable," said Jackson. "You have to look at the map of the area because the area where the Uranium is located is in a neighborhood, where if we restrict it to a two-mile radius, there's no mining."
Another argument from the landowners, the safety hazard of diesel trucks using county roads to and from the potential mine to get to the main highway.
"Aside from the fact that diesel exhaust is hazardous to my health, it surely can't be good for my horses," said Alter. "All we're asking the county to do is when you're looking at a project, whether it be mining or anything else, take a look at the fact that if you have high volume, high traffic, heavy duty truck traffic in the area, that you have to look at it carefully from a standpoint of health and safety."
http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=10468611&ClientType=Printable
The area they live in used to be a Uranium mining area prior to 1980. Since then, homes and ranches have taken over the land. Recently, a company called Black Range submitted a permit to start mining in the area. More than 50 residents packed the Fremont County Planning Commission meeting. They want the master plan updated to protect them from the health and safety risk of Uranium mining, protect their land and water rights and keep the mining at least two miles away from the nearest home.
"We're asking the county not to permit mining activities close enough to where we live, that it becomes a health and safety hazard," said Tallahassee Area Community Spokesman Lee Alter. "Uranium mining, large-scale hard rock metal mining in general, is dangerous."
At the meeting, the planning commission had the county attorney give her opinion on what the county could address and what was more of a state issue.
"Reasonable land-use restrictions can always be enforced by county government, except for when they conflict with state regulations and state control," said Fremont County Attorney Brenda Jackson. "I do not think that the county has the scope of power that is necessary in order to enact the amendment (to the master plan). Further, I don't think the amendment is appropriate in the master plan, which is advisory. Much of what's being proposed is regulatory in nature and the master plan is not a regulatory document, it's an advisory document."
"Our goal is to get the planning commission to add to the master plan a series of protective provisions that essentially say if you're dealing with a potential dangerous activity, look at it very carefully and decide before you're forced on a time-pressure basis to make the decision in favor of protecting the citizens and, in fact, protecting the environment," said Alter.
"Even if all of this got put into the master plan, it wouldn't be enforceable as written," said Jackson.
According to Jackson, the master plan is simply suggestions that can be followed, nothing binding. That's not stopping the group from trying to add restrictions to future Uranium mining.
"We had no reason to believe that there was ever going to be any interest in Uranium mining again," said Alter. "We are not saying that there should not be any Uranium mining in the county, what we're saying is that because people now live and have bought property and have invested their life savings in property, where there happens to be exploitable Uranium resources that had been ignored for 30 years..." said Alter, who suggested a two-mile buffer between the nearest home and any mining.
"Anything less than two miles surely is inadequate," said Alter.
"Potentially the county could restrict distance, but if the effect is to prohibit mining, then I don't think it's legally supportable," said Jackson. "You have to look at the map of the area because the area where the Uranium is located is in a neighborhood, where if we restrict it to a two-mile radius, there's no mining."
Another argument from the landowners, the safety hazard of diesel trucks using county roads to and from the potential mine to get to the main highway.
"Aside from the fact that diesel exhaust is hazardous to my health, it surely can't be good for my horses," said Alter. "All we're asking the county to do is when you're looking at a project, whether it be mining or anything else, take a look at the fact that if you have high volume, high traffic, heavy duty truck traffic in the area, that you have to look at it carefully from a standpoint of health and safety."
http://www.krdo.com/global/story.asp?s=10468611&ClientType=Printable
Friday, May 22, 2009
Uranium mines 'flood prone'
Comment: Will the Virginia Uranium SubComm. consider flooding at Coles Hill when we have hurricanes or floods during some our wild rain storms!!!????Tony Moore
May 22, 2009 - 3:07PM
Uranium mining does not produce jobs and is increasingly flood-prone, meaning toxic waste could run from flooded tailings dams, Queensland's Conservation Council said this morning.
QCC co-ordinator Toby Hutcheon said he acknowledged the job losses predicted by Australia's peak mining organisation in Queensland's mining industry as a result of an emission trading scheme.
However Mr Hutcheon said he did not accept this meant a shift to nuclear energy as a green source of producing electricity, saying Queensland had just two per cent of Australia's uranium reserves.
He said Queensland Premier Anna Bligh should instead build on her plans - announced in the State Budget - to produce local and regional jobs through a grass-roots solar hot water installation program.
"Uranium mining is not a big earner and it is not a big job creator for a start," Mr Hutcheon said.
"And the key issue is that now almost all of Queensland's uranium deposits were under water at the beginning of this year.
"And with floods set to become more regular we have a resource that is essentially in an inappropriate location.
"And it would be inappropriate to develop it.
"You could have old tailings dams running into the rivers and creeks."
Mr Hutcheon said the impact of an emission trading scheme on Queensland's carbon-intensive mining industry should be replaced by a bigger investment in industries linked to solar power.
"You have hundreds of thousands of roofs in every major city in Queensland that don't have a solar hot water system on them," Mr Hutcheon said.
"How many jobs could be created by a program of putting solar panels and solar hot water on all those roofs?" he asked.
"It creates local regional jobs and it has the effect of reducing energy costs for all those households."
The Premier promised 200,000 solar-powered hot water systems for Queensland during the March State Election.
The ACTU and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) in October 2008 published a "Green Gold Rush" policy statement predicting the number of green jobs in Australia could increase from 112,000 to 500,000 by 2030.
This would include jobs in renewable energy, sustainable water, biomaterials, green buildings, waste and recycling.
Mr Hutcheon said it was clear Queensland's economy was vulnerable as prices for mineral exports fell.
"And it is likely that we will see a decline in demand as countries look to find alternatives other than using coal," he said.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/uranium-mines-flood-prone-20090522-bhzo.html
Monday, May 18, 2009
7 reasons why nuclear power sucks:
by Tim McDonald
Nuclear power has always been seen as a “safe” alternative energy to burning fossil fuels.
So much so they today is accounts for about twenty-five percent of worldwide power generation.
But here are 7 reasons why nuclear power sucks:
1 - It costs a lot of money to setup:
Nuclear power plants are definitely not a cheap investment. At around six to twelve billion dollars each - just for installation - taxpayers have subsidized billions of dollars to keep the utilities afloat. This money could have been invested in cleaner renewable energies instead.
2 - It causes global warming:
Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain - from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant - greenhouse gases are emitted.
Another thing is the installation of a nuclear reactor takes far too long to have any positive impact on global warming. Why not use that money and time instead in the technological advancement of cleaner renewable energies, like solar power?
3 - What happens to all that radioactive waste?
Each reactor creates a lot (twenty to thirty tonnes) of highly toxic radioactive waste per year. Not to mention the so-called “low” level radiation emitted in the rest of the supply chain - such as during the mining and milling process.
4 - A damaged reactor could lead to a catastrophe:
A nuclear reactor is so vulnerable to damage or attack it could be considered a nuclear bomb just waiting to be detonated. And if an accident were to happen the precautions in place are ridiculous. Not to mention that the utilities are liable for less than 2% of the actually cost of damage that could be caused. Guess who pays for the remaining 98%? We, the taxpayers, of course.
5 - Increased risk of cancer:
The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.
The way utilities currently “store” nuclear waste is irresponsible. The have made assumptions instead of finding scientifically safe places to dispose of the waste. Just imagine how much worse the problem would get if more reactor were built. Additional waste would soon have to be incinerated or buried in landfills. Who knows how much water, soil and air pollution that would cause!
6 - Where there’s nuclear power, there’s war and terrorism:
A country’s national security always feels at threat when extremist countries start harnessing nuclear power. Just think about Israel attacking Syria’s so-called nuclear site back in 2007, and how uneasy America was when Iran was developing its own nuclear program. Nuclear power sets the stage for the production of atomic bombs, so as long the number of reactors increases, the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons increases.
7 - There are greener energy solutions:
What bothers us most is we already have better, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available and ready to implement. Perhaps with the recent election of our new US government, nuclear energy will be put to rest and renewable energy will be harnessed on a larger scale.
But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.
http://onlinecreditprofessor.com/7-drawbacks-to-using-nuclear-power/
1 - It costs a lot of money to setup:
Nuclear power plants are definitely not a cheap investment. At around six to twelve billion dollars each - just for installation - taxpayers have subsidized billions of dollars to keep the utilities afloat. This money could have been invested in cleaner renewable energies instead.
2 - It causes global warming:
Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain - from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant - greenhouse gases are emitted.
Another thing is the installation of a nuclear reactor takes far too long to have any positive impact on global warming. Why not use that money and time instead in the technological advancement of cleaner renewable energies, like solar power?
3 - What happens to all that radioactive waste?
Each reactor creates a lot (twenty to thirty tonnes) of highly toxic radioactive waste per year. Not to mention the so-called “low” level radiation emitted in the rest of the supply chain - such as during the mining and milling process.
4 - A damaged reactor could lead to a catastrophe:
A nuclear reactor is so vulnerable to damage or attack it could be considered a nuclear bomb just waiting to be detonated. And if an accident were to happen the precautions in place are ridiculous. Not to mention that the utilities are liable for less than 2% of the actually cost of damage that could be caused. Guess who pays for the remaining 98%? We, the taxpayers, of course.
5 - Increased risk of cancer:
The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.
The way utilities currently “store” nuclear waste is irresponsible. The have made assumptions instead of finding scientifically safe places to dispose of the waste. Just imagine how much worse the problem would get if more reactor were built. Additional waste would soon have to be incinerated or buried in landfills. Who knows how much water, soil and air pollution that would cause!
6 - Where there’s nuclear power, there’s war and terrorism:
A country’s national security always feels at threat when extremist countries start harnessing nuclear power. Just think about Israel attacking Syria’s so-called nuclear site back in 2007, and how uneasy America was when Iran was developing its own nuclear program. Nuclear power sets the stage for the production of atomic bombs, so as long the number of reactors increases, the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons increases.
7 - There are greener energy solutions:
What bothers us most is we already have better, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available and ready to implement. Perhaps with the recent election of our new US government, nuclear energy will be put to rest and renewable energy will be harnessed on a larger scale.
But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.
http://onlinecreditprofessor.com/7-drawbacks-to-using-nuclear-power/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
