Issue fraught with science and emotion (uranium mining)

Canada coming south(America)

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

February 25, 2010

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

Do they mean ...

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

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

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

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

Opponents too emotional?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do they have new, "safe" science?

Will they protect our environment?

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

Helped wanted at uranium mines: “excursions”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The process has not been without problems.

The most common problems are “excursions.”

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

The other, is spilling of contaminated water.

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

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

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

The impacts of uranium mining on indigenous communities.

Great Bear Lake, Canada (so pretty, what is wrong with people who want to destroy such a lovely place for mining?)

Comment:  Great article, please read about the same false truths that the Canadians tell about the benefits of uranium mining to their locals are the same false truths that the local uranium company are telling Virginia leaders and our people!  Demand our leaders to ban uranium mining and milling now!

 Posted by: joan.Russow on http://PEJ.org
Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 05:12 AM
Heather Tufts

The climate change debate positions nuclear power as a partial solution to carbon emissions according to some scientists and politicians. Uranium mining speculation lacks comprehensive health and safety regulations while the ethics of Canadian exported uranium, which can lead to depleted uranium used in zones of war, needs greater scrutiny.

Abandoned uranium mines and the subsequent hazards experienced in forgotten communities have also been virtually ignored in Canada leading to tragic, unmitigated circumstances.

The long-term negative impacts of uranium mining can be witnessed in the small, rural community of Déline (North West Territories) which has a Dené population of 800 people. They are located right on the shore of Sahtu (Great Bear Lake) about 300 miles north of Yellowknife. Great Bear Lake is considered to be one of the last great fresh water lakes in the world. This area on the north shore of Sahtu was the site of radium mining from 1934 to 1939, and then a uranium mine from 1943 to 1962.

During the mining era the Dené of Déline, mostly men worked as labourers and as coolies carrying gunny sacks of radioactive uranium ore and concentrates on the transportation route. Waste from both radium and uranium mines were dumped directly into the lake and used as landfill. Port Radium was owned and operated by a Canadian crown corporation but uranium ore and concentrates were extracted, milled and sold to the US Government for the Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb during the Second World War.

Déline in the North West Territories.


The mine initially operated under the emergency regulations of the War Measures Act. No warnings were issued at the time about the hazardous and toxic nature of these ores and so people took no precautions regarding their drinking water or their traditional foods.

In 1975 young men from Déline were sent to work in the tunnels on a Government training program without masks for radon gas exposure. In 1997 ten young men were sent with only two hours of training to clean up "hot spots" of radioactive soil in Sawmill Bay without shower or decontamination facilities. Once again the Dené people of Déline were not informed of these hazardous exposures but recent information mean that they now live in constant fear of their contaminated land, water, animals with ongoing concerns about their health and survival.

Déline is known as the “village of widows’ because most of the men who worked as labourers in the mines have died of some form of cancer. The widows, who are traditional women, were left to raise their families without husbands and breadwinners. As a result they became dependent on welfare and relied on the young men who remained in the community to help supply them with their traditional foods. The women are struggling and the village is seeing the first generation of young men in the history of the Dené to grow up without the guidance and teachings of their grandfathers, fathers and uncles. This unfulfilled tradition threatens the cultural and spiritual survival of the only community on the Great Bear Lake.

In 1998 the Dené First Nation lobbied the federal government for compensation and mitigation. On September 6, 2005, Déline community members were given the disappointing findings of a five-year study to examine the health and environmental impacts of the government-owned radium and uranium mine which had operated for almost thirty years in Déline. Although the community had lost 15 former ore transport workers to cancer the report stated that the numbers of deaths were insufficient to prove unequivocally the link to the mine.

By not acknowledging the full health consequences of uranium mining the government offloads the responsibility to compensate or provide justice to the Dené First Nation. To date consultations with government are still underway with anticipated costs for remediation in the millions of dollars. An agreement about cause and affect has not yet been reached. In a related situation in Port Hope Ontario, NDP MP Nathan Cullen called for an investigation in 2007 into Health Canada’s denials of the health risks of uranium contamination with the accusation that profits are influencing policy. These issues remain unresolved in 2010 even though increased uranium mining is imminent in some Canadian provinces.

Uranium exploration near the world famous Thelon Game Sanctuary in Nunavut alarmed the Dené and Inuit communities who are dependent on the caribou herds that use the area for grazing and calving. The current land use plan for Kivalliq (Keewatin) has been in place since 2000 and prohibits uranium mining in the region until Nunavut’s environmental assessment process has reviewed all the related environmental and health impact issues. In contradiction to the local land use plan Nunavut’s Inuit land claims commission adopted a policy in favour of uranium mining returning the legacy of uncertainty to the area. Their policy framework provides the tenuous rationale that uranium mining and nuclear energy could mitigate some of the climate change impacts in the north.

The policy does not account for the quantifiable fossil fuel usage in uranium exploration nor resolves issues about the impacts of nuclear waste storage. They assert that environmental and health concerns related to uranium mining have been resolved but provide no supporting evidence.

Dissention rapidly gained momentum from the Inuit in Baker Lake and the Hunters and Trappers Association who demanded a moratorium on all mining exploration. The vehement opposition to the uranium mine proposal near the Thelon Game Sanctuary eventually led the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board to recommend rejection of uranium exploration at Screech Lake in 2009.

Uranium development in Saskatchewan dates back to the 1930s when the first discoveries were made in the far north. Since that time controversial uranium exploitation has undergone several waves of investment and although it contributes to the nuclear industry and is opposed by many NGOs there has been virtually no opposition from any political party in Canada. Today uranium is one of Canada’s leading exports with the highest percentage being mined in the province of Saskatchewan on indigenous lands.

The land is rich in uranium deposits but this hazardous mining industry poses a considerable threat to the natural ecology and the values of people who live on the land. At the heart of this issue is a system of indigenous beliefs and culture which regards them as inseparable from the land, the waters and the animals. The impact of mining on their ancestral lands where they are the traditional custodians contravenes their spiritual and cultural beliefs.

Inside a uranium mine.

Conversely emerging job opportunities in a struggling northern economy have out of necessity led to the partial cooperation of some native bands with uranium mining projects. In 1993 the La Ronge Indian Band gave their support to the Kitsaki uranium mining development at Rabbit Lake citing increased economic benefits for their community, with the caveat that environmental impacts were closely monitored.

Employment opportunities are short-term and hazardous but highly financed propaganda to promote the benefits of uranium mining to northerners potentially trumps aboriginal self-determined, sustainable, economic alternatives.

Harding also argues that the geopolitical uses and long-term environmental effects are being hidden, and outweigh the short-term economic gain by which communities and governments are sometimes wooed. He cites the Harper government’s eager acceptance of nuclear energy as evidence that Canada is going down a path of misplaced intentions.

However the environmental, health and social impacts of uranium development extraction on aboriginal communities in the Canadian North remain an urgent concern to many communities.

Mining activity has altered the landscape through the construction of roads, new settlements and the underground mine sites.

Ore extraction and processing have released dangerous chemicals into the air and water and in spite of the participation of the ABDLP there is still a predominance of non-native labour which has displaced and marginalized local indigenous people.

Primarily it is the large multinationals, not the local people who benefit from the multi-million dollar uranium mining industry in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.

In the United States Canadian uranium mining speculation has increased in spite of indigenous opposition and a long legacy of life-threatening damages on Navajo Reservations.

Barrick Gold of Canada which nets profits of over 1.5 billion dollars a year is active in uranium exploration in New Mexico but it has not committed sufficient funds to adequately address the contamination that has already destroyed four aquifers in Navajo territory.

The uranium industry is attempting to convince the public that it will bring high-paying jobs and tax money to the state by buying advertisements in local papers and other news media while paying industry representatives to testify at hearings.

Four years ago, the 2006 Indigenous World Uranium Summit held in Navajo territory in the U.S. issued the following powerful declaration: “We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, at this critical time of intensifying nuclear threats to Mother Earth and all life, demand a worldwide ban on uranium mining, processing, enrichment, fuel use, and weapons testing and deployment, and nuclear waste dumping on native lands.”


More than 300 participants from 14 countries participated in the event, with a variety of topics including international efforts to halt uranium mining, and the devastating effects on health and culture. Indignation grew as they realized that American Indian uranium miners in both the United States and Canada (Saskatchewan and NWT) had been sent to their deaths to work in the uranium mines long after scientists warned of the health hazards of radon gas and radiation.

Canada is the world’s largest producer of uranium with about 60% exported to the United States.

 Many abandoned uranium mines have left behind a devastating legacy but the nuclear industry has re-branded itself as a viable solution to global warming. The profitable Canadian uranium mining industry lacks serious scrutiny; meanwhile remote indigenous communities are especially vulnerable to hazardous impacts thinly veiled as economic promise.


Read more:
http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=8041&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

SW VA Among Top 10 Southern Environmental Threats (Uranium mining)

Posted by stephen
Feb 11th, 2010

“Never in our lifetime has the Southeast faced environmental issues of such consequence or such urgency,” said Rick Middleton, founder and executive director of SELC.

“The South is the fastest-growing region in the U.S., and we are facing unprecedented pressures from explosive population growth and destructive development trends that threaten to overwhelm our mountains, forests, rivers, coast, and countryside.”

While the threat is great and widespread, the SELC, each year, publishes a list of the top ten endangered places in the Southeast, which face the most immediate and potentially irreversible threats.

Jeff Gleason, SELC’s deputy director, says “the common themes on this year’s Top 10 list include uncontrolled growth, flawed energy policy, and lax environmental enforcement, particularly as it relates to our heavy reliance on coal to produce electricity. When you look at our list this year, you’ll see that our waterways and wetlands—critical areas that protect and define the South—are experiencing some of the most negative impacts from these trends.”

In this year’s “Top 10 Endangered Areas in the South” list, SELC points to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia’s Roanoke and Dan River Basins and the Appalachian Mountains as our State’s most threatened areas.



First, the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary, faces pollution from all sides. Populations of blue crabs, oysters, and other species vital to the bay’s commercial fisheries have plummeted to historic lows, and nutrient pollution from urban and suburban runoff, sewage treatment plants, smokestack and tailpipe emissions, agricultural lands, and fish processing feeds algae blooms that die off and create oxygen-starved “dead zones.”

SELC is battling threats to the bay on multiple fronts, from fighting the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s proposed power plant to strengthening regulations to control polluted runoff.





Second, the Roanoke and Dan River watersheds

The watersheds provide drinking water for millions of people, from heavily populated areas such as Virginia Beach and Norfolk to smaller rural communities in northeastern North Carolina.

A recent push to mine uranium in southern Virginia, however, poses serious risks to water quality, public health, and the environment. Uranium mining is currently banned in Virginia because of these threats, but as pressure mounts for alternative fuel sources, a Canadian company is attempting to lift the ban.

If the ban is lifted, more sites across Virginia’s piedmont countryside will be open to uranium mining, potentially affecting people from central Virginia to the tidewater area for generations to come.

Third Mountain Top Removal:



Few can argue about the scenic beauty of the Southern Appalachians, yet weak laws and lax enforcement are allowing coal companies to literally blow up mountains and dump the leftover rubble into nearby valleys, burying hundreds of miles of streams in the process, and obliterating more than 500 mountains. SELC is collaborating with numerous national, regional and local groups to bring this destructive mining practice to an end.

SELC is collaborating with numerous national, regional and local groups to bring this destructive mining practice to an end.

Read more:
http://newsroanoke.com/?p=4654

Bureau of Land Management Sued for Withholding Records on Uranium Mines That Threaten Grand Canyon

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2010
1:13 PM
CONTACT: Center for Biological Diversity
Taylor McKinnon, (928) 310-6713, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org

Agency Ignores Obama's Freedom of Information Directive

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK - February 11 - Today the Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public records relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon National Park. The suit asserts that the Bureau violated the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to disclose records pursuant to a July 30, 2009 request submitted by the Center. The Bureau is withholding the vast majority of eight linear feet of responsive records despite directives from the Obama administration requiring the agency to respond to information requests "promptly and in a spirit of cooperation" and to adopt a "presumption of disclosure."

"The chasm between Obama's policies and the Bureau's practices are as wide as the Grand Canyon itself," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director with the Center. "We've spent months giving the Bureau every opportunity to fulfill our requests, but this is an agency that, even with the Grand Canyon and endangered species hanging in the balance, refuses to voluntarily comply with open government or environmental laws."

Some of the records being withheld relate to the Arizona 1 mine. In November, the Center for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs sued the Bureau of Land Management for refusing to undertake new National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act reviews prior to allowing Denison Mines to resume mining. The Bureau insists that 1988 compliances are adequate for the mine, which operated for a short period prior to closing in the early 1990s. Despite a host of new circumstances since 1988, including the listing of threatened and endangered species, Bureau officials refuse to update analyses for any of the mines near Grand Canyon National Park.

"The Bureau of Land Management has painted a caricature of itself at the Grand Canyon," said McKinnon. "The agency is acting as a secretive surrogate for the mining industry that views open government, endangered species, and environmental laws as a nuisance rather than a priority."

The Bureau of Land Management has failed to produce any documents demonstrating the establishment of valid existing rights for the Arizona 1 mine or other mines around Grand Canyon.

Bureau officials have stated that many of the records requested by the Center for Biological Diversity would be made available on a Bureau Web site relating to the segregation order and proposed mineral withdrawal. However, to date the Bureau has only posted Federal Register notices, a few maps, fact sheets, and - perhaps speaking to its orientation toward Interior's proposed mineral withdrawal - an antiquated video promoting uranium mining that the Bureau developed in conjunction with the uranium industry in the late 1980s.

"The legacy of past uranium mining still lingers as deadly radiological contamination of land and water near and within Grand Canyon National Park," said McKinnon. "To think that new mining will yield different results is foolish and irresponsible."

Amy Atwood, senior attorney and public lands energy director at the Center, wrote and will argue today's lawsuit.

Background

The Park Service warns against drinking from several creeks in the canyon exhibiting elevated uranium levels in the wake of past uranium mining.

These threats have provoked litigation; legislation; public protests and statements of concern and opposition from scientists, city officials, county officials - including from Coconino County - former Governor Janet Napolitano, state representatives, the Navajo Nation, and the Kaibab Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai tribes, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, among others. Polling conducted by Public Opinion Strategies shows overwhelming public support for withdrawing from mineral entry the lands near Grand Canyon; Arizonans support protecting the Grand Canyon area from uranium mining by a two-to-one margin.

At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature - to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.

Read more:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/11-5

Niger’s uranium, poverty and France’s growing wealth

Comment:  No to uranium mining all over the world! 

Niger to get the world’s 2nd largest uranium mine

Tuesday 5 May 2009
by Konye Obaji Ori, Patrick K.

According to estimates, Niger will become home to the world’s second largest uranium mine by 2012.

But will the mines profit Nigeriens?

The $1.5bn mine is expected to yield 5,000 tonnes of uranium per year once it opens in three years’ time.

Areva, French nuclear energy giant formerly known as Cogema, is building the mine and will take a majority share in it. France has kept close ties with its former colony for its uranium; a relationship which is vital to France’s nuclear energy program.

Areva’s uranium mines have helped in shaping France’s place as the world’s fourth uranium producer and the first producer of nuclear power which represents 80% of its electric power.

In 2007, anti-Areva protests rocked the country as thousands of Nigeriens marched on the streets against the presence of the French company, following a nearly 40 year Areva operation in Niger that had yielded little development in the lives of the local people and the country.

Niger is one of the world’s poorest countries and the export of uranium provides one of its few sources of foreign currency. Other than uranium mining, Niger’s population relies on subsistence farming and livestock production.

The country suffered a severe famine between 2005 and 2006 in a backdrop of highly productive uranium mines. Little development has been seen in the last 50 years.

Activists from the local branch of the Greenpeace lobby group claim that the potential pollution from the Uranium mines will bring about the forced displacement of the local people. The open pit mine would employ 1,400 people and more than double Niger’s current uranium exports.

The price of Uranium in the world market is determined by the heavy consumers amidst other factors.

 France as a heavy consumer has great influence of the products price on the world stage.

However, the fluctuating price in uranium created by the big consumers in a profit maximization system, has brought repeated instability to Niger’s economy as the world’s fourth biggest producer of uranium.

According to the French journal Le Canard enchainé (03/08/2005), with profits from its mines running to the tune of "428 million annually", Areva’s aid to Niger’s starved population in 2005 "only amounted to 0.05% of its annual profits".

The question is, will the Nigerien people benefit from this new project and be spared from another famine?

And will Areva take on more moral responsibilities in developing the country’s agricultural sector to benefit the Nigerien population at large?

Read more:
http://en.afrik.com/article15648.html

Re-Emerging Nuclear Power to Accelerate the Growth of Uranium Mining Industry

Comment: Many people just to get along, says nuke power plants are okay but are against uranium mining! Well, the nukes do not separate the two and anti uranium people need to stand up against the nukes plants or the taxpayers will pay for the nuke junk and we will get mined! No to Uranium mining, No to Nuke Plants!
Date27 Jan 2010

Abstract:

If global nuclear capacity is to increase by predicted figures, then a 28% larger supply of uranium will be needed to run the reactors.

Read more:
http://www.mining-technology.com/downloads/whitepapers/power-supply/file938/

‘Hot’ drinking water near uranium mine in Brazil

Comment: Yeah, the nukes and uranium mining corporations always says, "Not my fault, prove it!" Well, it seems strange that the wells were fined before uranium mining or drilling takes place and the wells are tested after the mining or drilling and the water has high concentration of uranium or lead. Remember, most countries, states and the federal governments make monies from mining so when the government tells you, it is naturally occurring uranium, they are not telling us the truth!

 In October 2008, Greenpeace published data showing that drinking water around the Caetité uranium mine in the state of Bahia, Brazil was contaminated with uranium levels up to seven times higher than the World Health Organisation’s recommendations.

The Bahia Institute of Water Management and Climate (Ingá) opened its own investigation in the matter. In November 2009 they suspended the use of water from six wells preventively, because radioactivity in the wells was found to be above allowed limits.

On 21 January 2010, Ingá and the Department of Health of Bahia notified local authorities in Caetité that another three wells need to be closed, and clean water should be supplied to the local community.

Radioactivity was again found to be too high.

Greenpeace went to the uranium mining area yesterday, and discovered that the wells had not been closed yet. The mining company INB (Industrias Nucleares Brasileiras) as well as the Brazilian nuclear regulator CNEN (note: also shareholder of the mining company (!)) shamelessly claim the Ingá results to be false…

Greenpeace offered a bottle of water from one of the contaminated wells to the Secretary of the Water Resources, the local body responsible for the supply of safe drinking water. Surprisingly, Mr. Nilo Joaquim de Azevedo did not drink the water labelled “INB water: deadly delicious”….

INB claims that even if the water is indeed contaminated, this would not be caused by the uranium mining. Indeed, naturally present uranium could cause raised levels of contamination in ground water. Théy should do regular checks of the drinking water used by surrounding communities. Théy should warn the population if the water contains unsafe levels of uranium!

But INB has so far denied there is a problem. The Bahia Water Agency Ingá clearly disagrees.

Why do nuclear companies always start by denying there is a problem when there is a problem, only admitting it when there is a lot of pressure hoping the issue is already forgotten?

For years AREVA denied the problems in Niger and now in Brazil! With such track record do they really expect us to believe anything they say?

Read more:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2010/01/hot_drinking_water_near_uraniu.html

Green Light (uranium mining)

Comment:  Article in Blue Ridge Outdoor Magazine proves other people in our area are paying attention to the proposed uranium mining and milling in our State!  No to uranium mining and milling!

July 20, 2009
By Jedd Ferris

Legislators gave the go-ahead for a uranium mining study in the Commonwealth.

Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to unearth 119 million pounds of ore,near Danville.

Uranium mining was banned in Virginia in 1982, and many opponents are hoping to keep it that way, as it has been linked to causing cancer and birth defects in communities in its wake.

The study is expected to take 18 months and cost $1.5 million.

Read more:
http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/departments/green-light/

Coles Hill deposit, Pittsylvania County (Info on propose uranium mining in Virginia)

Comment:  No to Uranium Mining and Milling!  It will cover all of Virginia, not just Southside!

Virginia

Uranium mining in Virginia is being opposed by Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC) (comments: by many private citiziens)

Virginia panel OKs uranium mining study

A Virginia coal and energy panel on Thursday (May 21, 2009) approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in the state, saying they want to make safety their top priority. A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what to include in the study. It would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, but would not take a position for or against the mining. (The News & Observer May 21, 2009)

Virginia state panel subcommittee approves first phase of uranium study

On March 24, 2009, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee took a critical step toward a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth. The subcommittee unanimously approved a draft of the study's first phase outlining the technical and scientific aspects of the analysis that Michael Karmis, director of the Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, said would take about 18 months.

However, the second portion of the study that would address the socioeconomic aspects of uranium mining and milling will be decided upon at a later date, Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, said after the meeting held in the General Assembly Building. (Danville Register March 24, 2009)

Virginia state panel votes for uranium study

The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy voted 12-0 today to study whether uranium can be safely mined in Virginia. (Richmond Times-Dispatch Nov. 6, 2008)

Virginia House Panel rejects study of uranium mining

Lawmakers concerned about land, air and drinking water contamination killed a proposal on March 3, 2008, that would have allowed a study of whether uranium can be safely mined on 200 acres in south-central Virginia, eliminating any chance that the controversial bill could pass this year. After more than an hour of debate, the House Rules Committee defeated a bill that opponents argued would be the first step toward lifting a 25-year-old state ban on uranium mining.
The bill would have created a 17-member commission to oversee a National Academy of Sciences study. The company would have picked up the cost of the report, which had been estimated at $1 million or more. If the study had shown that mining could be done safely, Virginia Uranium could have used it as leverage in asking the General Assembly to lift the ban on uranium mining. (Washington Post Mar. 4, 2008)

Senate of Virginia approves uranium mining study

The Senate of Virginia has passed legislation establishing a two-year study on the safety of uranium mining. The study eventually could result in lifting the moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. (Daily Press, Feb. 12, 2008)

Concern about possibility of ending uranium mining moratorium in Virginia

The renewed prospect of uranium mining in Virginia's Piedmont has been raised by a state energy plan being developed by the Kaine administration under a General Assembly mandate.
Uranium mining has been barred in Virginia by a 25-year-old moratorium. A proposal to mine a large uranium deposit near Chatham in Pittsylvania County in the early 1980s generated controversy and led to the moratorium. Opponents were concerned that radioactive milling waste, a result of processing, would pollute the environment.
The possibility of lifting that ban has alarmed folks at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) in Charlottesville. (Richmond Times-Dispatch Aug. 31, 2007)

Coles Hill deposit

City of Virginia Beach conducting study of its own on possible impacts from proposed uranium mining in Chatham: A $437,000 study being conducted by the city of Virginia Beach, Va. will examine what might happen to the water quality in Lake Gaston and Kerr Lake if a proposed uranium mine in Chatham, Va. were struck by a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) storm. Virginia Beach Director of Public Works Thomas Leahy said the study being conducted by Virginia Beach is designed to supplement the work of the National Academy of Science by looking at what would happen if a major storm flooded the proposed uranium mining site and washed radioactive materials downstream. (The Warren Record Jan. 20, 2010)

Danville Regional Foundation pursues independent regional analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining and milling: While the state anticipates approval of a statewide uranium-mining study conducted by the National Research Council, the Danville Regional Foundation (DRF) is pursuing its own separate, regional analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining and milling. The foundation announced Thursday (Oct 1) its request for qualifications seeking proposals from interested firms, nonprofits and academic programs. "DRF is considering sponsoring an independent and rigorous socioeconomic examination of the effects the proposed mine, mill, and long-term waste management upon the people and institutions, including the economy, limited to the region served by DRF," foundation President and CEO Karl Stauber said in a statement Thursday. (Danville Register & Bee October 1, 2009)
DRF is requesting letters of interest, with qualifications by December 1, 2009.
> Download Request for Qualifications - Regional Socioeconomic Study of Impact of Uranium Mining and Milling , Oct. 1, 2009 (PDF - Danville Regional Foundation)

On July 23, 2009, Santoy Resources Limited announced the completion of its business combination with privately held Virginia Uranium Ltd. Post-closing, the company has changed its name to Virginia Energy Resources Inc.

Company says test drilling not cause of well contamination: In a statement released on March 24, 2009, Virginia Uranium Inc. said it is not responsible for high lead levels in some wells near the Coles Hill uranium deposit. Concerns about well testing around the uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, were raised at a meeting two weeks ago sponsored by the Pittsylvania County Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Deborah Lovelace of Gretna repeated her concerns at last week's Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors meeting, showing board members jugs of water, including one from a well with high levels of lead. "This well was fine before the drilling started," she said. "I wonder how many other people are in that same situation?" (Star-Tribune March 25, 2009)

The City Council of Virginia Beach took a stand against uranium mining Tuesday (Dec. 2, 2008) night, adopting a resolution opposing a mine proposed for south central Virginia. City officials fear uranium mining in Pittsylvania County - about 200 miles away - could contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's water source. (The Virginian-Pilot, December 3, 2008)

Virginia Beach City officials are gearing up to oppose a uranium mine about 200 miles west in Pittsylvania County, arguing it could threaten the city's water supply. The City Council was told Tuesday (Nov. 25, 2008) that under a worst-case scenario, a hurricane or tropical storm could destroy the landfill-like containers that would hold radioactive mining waste. Thomas Leahy, director of public utilities, said that also would contaminate downstream waterways, including Lake Gaston, the city's water source, which lies about halfway between Pittsylvania County and Virginia Beach. (The Virginian-Pilot, November 26, 2008)

On Feb. 7, 2008, Halifax Town Council unanimously approved a Corporate Mining and Chemical and Radioactive Bodily Trespass ordinance. A proposed uranium mining and milling operation near Chatham triggered council's adoption of the ordinance. Through the ordinance, corporations and governing officials permitting those corporations will be held liable to the people of Halifax for chemical trespass. (The Gazette-Virginian Feb. 8, 2008)

On Dec. 18, 2007, exploration drilling on the Coles Hill deposit has started, in spite of the moratorium against uranium mining in Virginia still being in place. (Danville Register & Bee Dec. 19, 2007)

On Nov. 27, 2007, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) issued an exploration permit to Virginia Uranium Inc.
> View related documents (DMME)

Read more:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusa.html#COLESHILL

Dave Searles: Uranium mining and processing problems negate nuke power benefits

Comment:  Nuke power is full of CO2, steam has some radiation, no to uranium mining and millings!

Posted: Sunday, January 24, 2010 4:20 am

Dear Editor:

Nuclear power plants once on line may not contribute to global warming (my comments, the steam has radiation and some CO2), but the problem is the (uranium) mining and processing of nuclear fuel.

This is something that the pro-nuclear people either ignore or pretend is not a problem.

Mining uranium causes water pollution problems and the processing of it for use in nuclear power plants uses tremendous amounts of energy and causes much air pollution.

The processing plant in Paducah, Ky., uses coal-fired power to process nuclear fuel. This negates any so-called benefits of nuclear power.

Dave Searles
Brodhead (maybe KY)

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/mailbag/article_e3a05b62-e121-5f7b-9e18-83a689cf3ada.html

Green groups battling uranium boom in SW Colorado laud district court ruling

Comment:  No to Uranium and Milling!
By David O. Williams 1/20/10 8:30 AM

A U.S. District Court judge late last week gave opponents of a looming uranium mining boom in Southwest Colorado some more fuel, if you will, in their legal fight to nuke a Department of Energy mine leasing program along the scenic Dolores and San Miguel rivers.

Judge Wiley Daniel ruled Thursday that a coalition of conservation groups suing the DOE could now question officials and obtain leasing records for a 42-square-mile uranium mining program environmentalists claim threatens water quality and wildlife habitat near the Dolores and San Miguel rivers in southwestern Colorado and eastern Utah.

“This is a big victory for the Dolores and San Miguel rivers and a good sign for our litigation,” Travis Stills of the Durango-based Energy Minerals Law Center said in a release. His organization is representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, Information Network for Responsible Mining, Center for Native Ecosystems and Center for Biological Diversity in a lawsuit filed against the DOE and the Bureau of Land Management in July of 2008.

“Chief Judge Daniel took a thorough look at the filings and agreed that this lawsuit brings a comprehensive challenge to the DOE’s failure to take a hard look at the effects of the uranium lease program, the issuance of uranium leases, and the approval of exploration and mining activity.”

But uranium mining and milling in Colorado have a dirty past, and many conservationists are concerned with going back down that road in some of the state’s most scenic wild places. A proposal for a new uranium mill in western Montrose County has been hotly contested and is largely seen as linked to the nearby mining lease program.

Read more:
http://coloradoindependent.com/46139/green-groups-battling-uranium-boom-in-sw-colorado-laud-district-court-ruling

Proposed uranium mine spurs Virginia Beach resolution

Comment:  Today, will be a little history of VA Beach stance on uranium mining!

The Virginian-Pilot
December 3, 2008
VIRGINIA BEACH

The City Council took a stand against uranium mining Tuesday night, adopting a resolution opposing a mine proposed for south central Virginia.

City officials fear uranium mining in Pittsylvania County - about 200 miles away - could contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's water source.

"We can't afford to risk appearing we don't oppose an activity that could ruin this water source," said Vice Mayor Louis Jones.

Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/proposed-uranium-mine-spurs-virginia-beach-resolution

Contrasting Stories: " Man turns down Billions for his Homeland"...uranium mining/Man sits on radioactive gold mine in Virginia!

Comment: Please compare the two guys and their life views about their homes and uranium mining!

Jeffrey Lee, Australian Aborigine, makes the following statement: won’t condone the destruction of his ancestral land at any cost!

The Virginian views: "They hope to persuade local, state and federal officials to allow all uranium buried beneath Coles Hill to be mined and milled"!

Now look at this comment from Lee:"Lee has rejected all requests to purchase Koongarra.

Now look at the Virginian: "Virginia Uranium, meanwhile, has agreed to merge with a Canadian mining company to enhance its financial resources."

Also the following statement was made by the Virginian: "plans to live in his ancestral home located nearly in the middle of the two uranium deposits but the Virginian has a home in the middle of Danville, Virginia and rumor not living in his house in the county! None of the people of uranium corp. live in our county; they appear to live in Danville and one in Canada according to this link :http://va-danville-propertymax.governmax.com/propertymax/rover30.asp!

So what is the main difference between the two men mention in the articles, the Australian loves his land and loves his neighbors. The Virginian loves money and will sacrifice his homestead and his neighbors for GREED according to the articles below!

Jan 15, 2010
Posted by rainlillie

"A stunning vista of jagged brick-red cliffs lies in Australia’s desolate Northern Territory. As breathtaking as the scenery is, though, most people are more concerned with what lies beneath Koongarra: A massive deposit of uranium worth $5 billion.

Just one man, 36-year-old Jeffrey Lee, holds the title to this unfathomably valuable piece of real estate – and he says it’s not for sale.

Lee, an Australian Aborigine, won’t condone the destruction of his ancestral land at any cost. As the sole survivor of the Djok clan, he believes that he has a grave responsibility to protect Koongarra and the rest of his tribe’s native lands from harm.

“There are sacred sites, there are burial sites and there are other special places out there which are my responsibility to look after,” Lee told The Sydney Morning Herald.

Lee has rejected all requests to purchase Koongarra. He is committed to protecting it from uranium mining, which would poison the land and destroy its fragile ecosystem.

It’s a shocking choice, to be sure – but Lee has no need for a fleet of yachts, his own island, or any other trappings of the decadent life. His desire is simply to preserve the legacy of his ancestral tribe.

So instead of selling Koongarra to a mining company, Lee plans to incorporate his homeland into Kakadu National Park, where “it will be protected and safe forever,” he said.

Lee’s incredible sacrifice isn’t just about salvaging the past: It’s about protecting the future, too.

 Even though he has no children yet, he believes that access to the sacred ancestral land is the greatest gift that he can provide for his future offspring.

“I was taken all through here on the shoulder of my grandmother,” said Lee. “I heard all the stories and learnt everything about this land, and I want to pass it all on to my kids.”

Read more:
http://greatmindsthinklikemerainlillie.blogspot.com/2010/01/good-news-story-of-day-man-turns-down.html


Man sits on radioactive gold mine in Virginia

A Pittsylvania County farm lies on one of the country's largest uranium deposits, worth about $10 billion.

Look at the the differences in Jeffrey Lee, one who loves his land and the Greedy Virginian who is selling his soul to the devil for MONEY!

CHATHAM -- Coles Hill is the name of a historic farm here in Pittsylvania County, a quiet place off a dirt road with a stately, brick home overlooking tangled hedgerows and rolling fields.

It also is the site of one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States, and the biggest ever discovered on the East Coast.

As much as 110 million pounds of uranium ore could lie beneath these gentle hills where cattle now graze and tobacco once reigned. The value of this radioactive deposit, based on current market prices, is about $10 billion.

Along with neighbors, family and friends, Coles has formed a company, Virginia Uranium Inc., and hired geologists and professionals, who work in a small office in Chatham, the Pittsylvania County seat. They hope to persuade local, state and federal officials to allow all uranium buried beneath Coles Hill to be mined and milled.

Instead, Coles said, he decided to "keep this a Virginia effort" and began organizing his own mining company. A 2001 study by Virginia Tech, which confirmed that the deposit is neither moving nor leaching underground, also motivated Coles to start his own company.

Coles, who says he is "approaching my late 60s," is retired after working for years as a foreign service officer for the U.S. government.

Coles and others insist that those bad days are long gone and that the industry has become smarter and safer with advances in environmental technology and worker safety.

Critics say Coles is missing a crucial point -- that the East Coast is vastly different from the West.

"I could have sold out and moved to Florida," Coles said, "but I'm staying here. I'd live right here with the mine just down the road. I want to make this happen."

Read more:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/137665

Uranium mining plan splits Pittsylvania County

BY REX BOWMAN
Media General News Service
Published: February 9, 2009

Mayhew noted that Virginia Uranium chief Walter Coles, whose family has been in Pittsylvania since the 1700s, plans to live in his ancestral home located nearly in the middle of the two uranium deposits.

Virginia Uranium, meanwhile, has agreed to merge with a Canadian mining company to enhance its financial resources. The company and the law firm that represents it have also given more than $7,000 in campaign contributions to some of the 13 legislators who are members of the coal and energy commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which is overseeing the study.

Aside from his environmental and health concerns about the proposed uranium mine, Fitzgerald said it would destroy a big part of what makes Pittsylvania unique — a quiet way of life now unknown by millions of Americans and even suburbanites in Northern Virginia and the Richmond area.

Patrick Wales, a Danville native and geologist for Virginia Uranium, said landowners’ fears are overblown: the ore deposits are in an isolated part of the county, and trucks would only occasionally haul uranium from the site.

No one, he said, intends to do any harm to the county: “We haven’t been here 4,000 years, but this is our hometown, too.“ (what the heck does that mean?)

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/state_regional/article/uranium_mining_plan_splits_pittsylvania_county/13280/

The Virginia Municipal League: Uranium mining

Comment:  Somewhat of a statement for the problems of uranium mining!  Demand our state to ban uranium mining and milling now, it has never, never been mined or milled safely anywhere in the world.  Most studies are done by Pro-Nuclear scientists paid for by the Nuclear industry or donations given by nuclear energy people!

Uranium mining

Uranium mining, milling and waste disposal of generated wastes poses health and environmental problems for
Virginians.

If these uranium mining activities are permitted in Virginia, VML is concerned that radiation and
other pollutants from mill tailings may occur, downstream water supplies may be contaminated, water supplies near uranium mines may disappear or be severely reduced, and the health and safety of uranium miners might be jeopardized.

VML supports the current moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia until evidence demonstrates that it is safe for the environment and health of citizens.

Any studies must include, but not be limited to, modeling and simulation studies that show the consequences
of probable maximum precipitation storms on containment cells.

Read more:
http://www.vml.org/VTC/09VTC-PDF/09DecVTC_web.pdf

http://www.vml.org/About%20the%20league.html

Uranium Mining a Poor Fix

Open Pit Uranium Mine in New Mexico!

Comment: A great article! People of Virginia, read the article because the Boom to Burst is familiar with the people of New Mexico, they are still living with the cancers and deaths from the last uranium boom. Our government has not clean up the polluting mess of past mines and milling. NM is allowing foreign countries to take their uranium, ruin their people lives for the dollar. Demand VA to ban uranium mining and milling!
Monday, January 11, 2010
By Eric Jantz
New Mexico Environmental Law Center

For several years, the nuclear and uranium mining industry have been hyping a new uranium boom in New Mexico and a nuclear "renaissance" nationwide.

The promises have been impressive — limitless carbon-free electricity from nuclear power, tens of thousands of jobs in the uranium mines for New Mexicans, and billions, that's right, with a "b," in revenues for New Mexico government.

Unfortunately, some New Mexico legislators have embraced the industry's slick public relations campaign and propagated its misinformation.

The more realistic assessment of New Mexico's fiscal fortunes with uranium mining is significantly more modest.

A recent economic analysis by Dr. Thomas Power, former economics department chair at the University of Montana and highly regarded resource economist, forecasts roughly 3,000 jobs and several million in revenues to the state from renewed uranium mining over 20 to 30 years.

While this might appear to benefit the state, these modest economic benefits pale in comparison to the anticipated costs to the public in the form of groundwater contamination, radioactive air pollution and disease.

Despite the well worn assurances from the uranium mining industry that its polluting days are behind it, contemporary uranium mining's environmental and public health record are as shameful as its historic record.

Furthermore, most of the proposed uranium mining projects in New Mexico are purely speculative.

Only one company of the many who have either submitted mine permit applications or exploration applications is sufficiently capitalized to actually build a mine. And that company only has enough capital because it has partnered with a Japanese multinational corporation, presumably to ship its uranium to overseas markets.

Even in a best-case scenario for industry, uranium mining wouldn't begin for five to seven years. This optimistic timeline would do absolutely nothing for New Mexico's current fiscal woes, which need attention immediately.

In the unlikely event the predicted boom comes to pass, it will be short lived.

Uranium is a finite resource, and host communities will be thrust headlong into the cruel cycle of boom and bust economies.

While those communities may see some economic benefit in the short term, soon enough the uranium mining companies will pack up and leave, leaving communities with the environmental and public health bill — and broke to boot.

The people in these communities saw it the last time the uranium market went bust, and they'll see it again.

So what's a state legislator to do?

 To start, maybe state legislators from uranium impacted communities should start listening to their constituents and stop shilling for out-of-state mining companies.

People in the northwestern part of the state are desperate for long-term, clean, and sustainable economic development. A good start would be to clean up the widespread contamination caused by the last uranium boom.

Thousands of jobs would be created by assessing the entire extent of contamination and remediating the billions of gallons of surface and groundwater and millions of acres of land contaminated by past uranium mining.

Elected officials could also work with communities to develop locally generated and distributed renewable electricity, which would bring green jobs and a clean, affordable energy source to run the local economy.

This would not only benefit communities now, it would be a long-term hedge against rising fossil fuel energy prices. Local energy could in turn run local sustainable agriculture, eco-tourism and other green businesses.

The last uranium "boom" sent shockwaves through the state that are still being felt years after the last pound of uranium was taken from the ground.

There is no good reason, economic or otherwise, to condemn communities still struggling under the burden of the last boom and bust to another cycle of woe.

Eric Jantz is an attorney for the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.

http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/11223347977opinionguestcolumns01-11-10.htm

Weld's League of Women Voters resolves against uranium mine

Comment: Has the League of Women Voters in Danville and Pittsylvania County, VA taken a stand? No to Uranium Mining and Milling now!

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

The League of Women Voters of Greeley-Weld County has joined the list of groups that oppose a planned uranium mine in Nunn.


The League unanimously passed a resolution opposing uranium mining in Weld.

Hoffman said the League opposes mining because of the danger it presents to the environmental conservation of natural resources, most specifically water.

The Larimer County League took its stance on the issue — also in opposition — in 2009. The research Larimer members conducted was used by Weld members in their decision.

Hoffman said more than 90,000 individuals have signed petitions opposing the mine, yet many people in the Greeley area are unaware of the importance of the issue.

The Weld County Board of Commissioners will have the final say on whether Weld's proposed uranium mine will be allowed.

The cities of Greeley and Fort Collins and towns of Nunn, Timnath, Wellington, New Raymer, as well as several organizations, have passed resolutions against the mine.

Read more:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20100113/NEWS/100119914/-1/RSS

Uranium company ordered to clean up camp site

Comment:  So the Canadians are great miners, right!  No to uranium mining!
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 12, 2010
9:55 AM CT
3CBC News

Plans for uranium exploration have ground to a halt at a Nunavut property held by Uravan Minerals Inc.

Federal officials ordered Uravan to clean up a cache of materials from a mining camp site for which it did not have the proper land use permits.

The site in question is at Sand Lake, on Uravan's sprawling Garry Lake uranium exploration property, located 245 kilometres northwest of Baker Lake in Nunavut's Kivalliq region.

Not only did the company not have a permit to work on the Sand Lake site specifically, but the entire Garry Lake uranium property lies within the calving grounds of the Beverly caribou herd.

"One of our geologists was doing an inspection in the area and noticed that there was a bit of construction material, fuel drums, I believe a diamond drill as well," Bernie MacIsaac, Nunavut director of operations with the federal Indian and Northern Affairs Department, told CBC News.

Fuel spill found

A federal water licence inspector also visited Sand Lake in August and found about 1,000 litres of fuel had leaked onto the ground. Garbage was also found on at the site, according to a letter sent from the inspector to Uravan.

"That was one of the reasons why we issued that direction … because it was a threat to the environment," MacIsaac said of the discovered fuel spill.

But the Nunavut Impact Review Board recommended that Uravan complete an environmental impact statement for their exploration work.

Little support

Having to complete an environmental impact statement is unusual and costly to the company involved, but concerns were raised about the impact of Uravan's work on caribou in the area.

As a result, the land-use permits that Uravan needed could not be approved until they met the Nunavut Impact Review Board's requirements.

But Uravan may be pulling out of its Garry Lake project altogether: Lahusen said there has been little support for it, and the company's desire is to withdraw and focus elsewhere.

Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/01/12/uravan-sand-lake.html

Who Are the Big They? (Uranium mining)

Comment:  Ace thought this was interesting!  Some more information:  Coles knew about uranium in the hills in the 1950's according to the article: "Virginia’s SouthsideWalter Coles Sr. still remembers the early 1950s when a Geiger counter ticked up in response to what may be thebiggest untapped source of uranium in the United States: http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/region_focus/2009/winter/pdf/feature2.pdf"
No to uranium mining and milling now!

JANUARY 9, 2010 1:11PM
By: Uranium Billionaire

In my prvious blog, I outlined the uranium situation here in Chatham, Virginia as presented in the local newspapers.

•1982 the largest uranium deposit in the United States is discovered on the property of Walter Coles in Coles Hill, Virginia 6 miles form the town of Chatham in Pittsylvania County.
•The deposit is estimated to be worth between 8 and 10 million dollars and could yield approximatly 119 million tons of uranium. The current uranium yield in the United States is 4.5 million tons.
•Also in 1982, the Virginia Assembly responding to complaints from local farmers and environmentalists placed a memoratorium on uranium mining. The ban is still in effect.
•2007, Walter Coles formed Virginia Uranium Inc.
•2008 Virginia Uranium Inc. lobbied the Virginia Assembly to ask for a study to ascertain the safety of uranium mining. The study is a initial step in an effort to lift the ban on uranium mining in Virginia.
•The Assembly agreed to request the study but did not agree to pay for it.
•Virginia Uranium Inc. agreed to pay for the study.
Reviewing the sequence of events, several questions come to mind.

Why did Coles wait twenty-five years to form Virginia Uranium Inc.?

Who owns Virginia Uranium Inc.?

How is Coles funding the uranium study?

I can only answer two out of three. Why he waited to exploit the property currently remains a mystery. Once could guess that it took him all that time to find an investor. Maybe not.

Read more:
http://open.salon.com/blog/uranium_billionaire/2010/01/09/who_are_the_big_they

Uranium mine will hurt Fort Collins

Comment:  Great Letter and uranium mining will hurt Virginia too!  Ban uranium mining and milling now!
opinion
By Jessica Hellyer
Posted: 11/16/2008 01:00:00 AM MST

A recent article in the Denver Post depicted the struggles that Cañon City residents are facing as a result of a uranium mill within their community.

There is concern that the pollution from the mill which has contaminated the groundwater has led to a high rate of cancer and neurological problems in the area.

In light of these issues, I am concerned about the "In Situ Leach Mine" proposed for Nunn, Colo., a mere 17 miles from Fort Collins where I call home.

This issues that Cañon City is facing could become very real to the Front Range if Powertech's proposed uranium mine is allowed to commence.

By taking a look at the disadvantages of mining and the possible impact on our community, it becomes obvious that in situ leach operations in Nunn should not commence.

In order to understand the impact of the proposed in situ mine, it is first imperative to gain a thorough understanding of the mining that will be occurring in the Nunn area.

The proposed Powertech operation is called in situ leach mining. The drawback to this type of mining is that it contaminates the aquifer used in the mining process.

As Chris Shuey at the Southwest Research and Information Center explains, uranium deposits occur naturally in rock formations; they are not toxic because they are bound by the rock.

In situ mining works by pumping sodium bicarbonate down an injection well into an aquifer. Upon the addition of sodium bicarbonate, the uranium is freed from the rock and becomes extremely mobile; the newly contaminated water can then be pumped out and into the processing plant where the uranium is removed. The water is added back into the aquifer and this cycle continues until most of the uranium is extracted.

While these techniques seem clean in theory, one of the problems is that the sodium bicarbonate liberates arsenic, molybdenum and other heavy metals which are left in the water along with excess uranium which could not be extracted.

Kidney disease, for example, is one of the many illnesses correlated to ingesting high levels of uranium.

Radon gas, often implicated as a cause of lung cancer, is also in this toxic mixture and released to the surface through the injection pits. The other chemicals stay in the ground water long after the mining operations have been completed.

While mining companies are required to reclaim the ground water, even John Indall, an attorney who represents the uranium industry, admits that in the history of in situ leach mining there has never been a mine that was restored to pre-mining conditions.

Beyond the obvious hazards of contaminating an aquifer that supplies multiple communities with water, there is also the potential threat of spreading that pollution.

The rock layers which encase the aquifer are heterogeneous, full of cracks and crevasses which can allow contaminated water to escape.

While monitoring wells are positioned outside of the aquifer to check for the spread of pollution, at 400 feet apart, the wells are not close enough to catch contamination.

Years of geologic depositories have resulted in the formation of dry, sandy streambeds which could allow the radioactive water to quickly escape.

Moreover, once the contamination reaches the monitoring wells, it is already too late and little can be done to reclaim that radioactive waste from the ground water.

Thus, by looking at the facts behind in situ leach mining and the destruction of previous uranium mining and milling communities, it becomes obvious that allowing Powertech to mine uranium in Weld County would have a devastating effect on the health of the people and environment.

Cañon City is an example of how the destruction of community water can affect the lives of those who use it and I am adamant that no amount of tax revenue promised by the industry is worth our lives or those of our children.

Jessica Hellyer lives in Fort Collins.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10986609?source=searchles#ixzz0bUSlMg5Y