Comment: Some more history of VA Beach and their concerns about uranium mining. The Uranium Subcommittee came to our county and was beaten by our words about the problem of uranium mining. However, the Uranium Sub has not visited other locals in Virginia about their future uranium mining. Uranium is located all over VA and it will not stop at Southside, if the ban is lifted, the whole state will be blown up for uranium. Listen up Virginia, demand the Uranium Sub to come to your area, and do not want on a Pro-Nuclear NAS to determine our fate on uranium mining!
The Virginian-Pilot
December 22, 2008
Most of the 20 speakers at last week's public hearing in Richmond on a proposed uranium mine in Southside Virginia had the same talking points.
They're worried about the mine's effect on the environment and particularly the surrounding streams and groundwater.
Members of a legislative panel will hear those identical concerns when they travel next month to Pittsylvania County, home to an estimated 60,000 tons of uranium, for a second hearing on the issue.
So far, no forum has been scheduled for Virginia Beach, which gets its drinking water from Lake Gaston, located downstream from the mine site.
Should the legislative panel even bother to schedule a Beach hearing? Absolutely.
But that doesn't negate the right for all people who could be affected by the proposed mine to be included in the discussions from the beginning.
Virginia Beach residents have a clear interest in the outcome of the mining study.
They deserve ironclad guarantees that their water supply will not be tainted by excavations for uranium or by haphazard disposal of mining byproducts laced with heavy metals.
But lawmakers overseeing the study should immediately extend an offer to meet with city leaders and residents to discuss the issue.
The interests of Virginia's largest city should not be an afterthought
Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/12/virginia-beach-deserves-hearing-uranium-mining
Showing posts with label uranium.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uranium.. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Three arrested with uranium in Navi Mumbai
on Dec 8th, 2009
By NIMY Sara Joy
MUMBAI, India: Three people were arrested with an unspecified amount of uranium in Navi Mumbai.
The police didn’t disclose the details of the arrests, not even the time and date as when they were taken into custody.
Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, Gulabrao Pol informed they arrested from Panvel and surrounding areas. The “suspicious lokking material” was sent for analyzing. It was confirmed the material as exhausted uranium by Mrinal Roy, Regional Director, Central Region (Exploration and Research) in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).
“The matter concerns national security and nothing more can be disclosed at the moment.
Read more at:
http://www.dailynews365.com/cities-news/mumbai-news/three-captured-with-uranium-in-navi-mumbai/
By NIMY Sara Joy
MUMBAI, India: Three people were arrested with an unspecified amount of uranium in Navi Mumbai.
The police didn’t disclose the details of the arrests, not even the time and date as when they were taken into custody.
Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, Gulabrao Pol informed they arrested from Panvel and surrounding areas. The “suspicious lokking material” was sent for analyzing. It was confirmed the material as exhausted uranium by Mrinal Roy, Regional Director, Central Region (Exploration and Research) in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).
“The matter concerns national security and nothing more can be disclosed at the moment.
Read more at:
http://www.dailynews365.com/cities-news/mumbai-news/three-captured-with-uranium-in-navi-mumbai/
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Nailed: EPA finally ties toxic water to old mine (Uranium)
Comment: Looks so pretty, an old copper mine leaking uranium and other bad minerals into people's water supply! Will this be Virginia's future with uranium mining ruining our wells, it may be happening now with the uranium drilling holes!
BP, which acquired the Nevada site, now acknowledges some impact
updated 4:54 p.m. ET, Sat.,
updated 4:54 p.m. ET, Sat.,
Nov . 21, 2009
YERINGTON, Nev. - Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time.
But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."
For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.
They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site — BP. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region's soil and there's no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.
That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.
And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the six-square-mile mine site.
The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower, a preacher's wife, a tribal consultant and some stubborn government scientists who finally helped crack the toxic mystery that has plagued this rural mining and farming community for decades.
"They have completely ruined the groundwater out here," said Pauly, the wife of a local pastor and mother of two girls who organized a community action group five years to seek the truth about the pollution.
"It almost sounds like we are happy the contamination has moved off the site," she said. "But what we are happy about is ... they have enough data to now answer our questions."
"Prior to this, we didn't really have an understanding of where water was moving," said Steve Acree, a highly regarded hydrogeologist for the EPA in Oklahoma, who was brought in to examine the test results. "My interpretation at this stage of the process is yes, you now have evidence of mine-impacted groundwater."
100 times above standard at mine site
But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."
For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.
They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site — BP. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region's soil and there's no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.
That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.
And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the six-square-mile mine site.
The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower, a preacher's wife, a tribal consultant and some stubborn government scientists who finally helped crack the toxic mystery that has plagued this rural mining and farming community for decades.
"They have completely ruined the groundwater out here," said Pauly, the wife of a local pastor and mother of two girls who organized a community action group five years to seek the truth about the pollution.
"It almost sounds like we are happy the contamination has moved off the site," she said. "But what we are happy about is ... they have enough data to now answer our questions."
"Prior to this, we didn't really have an understanding of where water was moving," said Steve Acree, a highly regarded hydrogeologist for the EPA in Oklahoma, who was brought in to examine the test results. "My interpretation at this stage of the process is yes, you now have evidence of mine-impacted groundwater."
100 times above standard at mine site
The tests found levels of uranium more than 10 times the legal drinking water standard in one monitoring well a half mile north of the mine. Though the health effects of specific levels are not well understood, the EPA says long-term exposure to high levels of uranium in drinking water may cause cancer and damage kidneys.
At the mine itself, wells tested as high as 3.4 miligrams per liter — more than 100 times the standard. That's in an area where ore was processed with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in unlined ponds.
She said the new evidence doesn't change the state's opposition to Superfund listing. Nevada has a long tradition of supporting mining and now produces more gold than anywhere in the world except China, South Africa and Australia.
Copper first was discovered around Yerington in 1865. Anaconda bought the property in 1941 and — fueled by demand after World War II — produced nearly 1.75 billion pounds of copper from 1952-78.
A mineral firm launched a then-secret plan to produce yellowcake uranium from the mine's waste piles in the 1970s. An engineer reported in 1976 that they weren't finding as much uranium as anticipated in the processing ponds. "Where could it be now?" he wrote. "Should we continue to look for it?"
Had they continued the search outside the processing area, Wyoming Mineral Corp. likely would have detected the movement of the contamination. But the market for uranium dipped and the company scuttled the venture.
Pauly never suspected the mine was leaking contamination when she and her husband finished building their home in 1990. They drank water from their well until 2003 — and used it to mix formula for a baby from 1996-98 — before becoming suspicious as rumors swirled about the contaminated mine.
"Everybody said it was fine," she said. "Legally they didn't have to disclose anything because technically there was nothing definitive then that showed the contamination was moving off the site."
BP acknowledges 'an impact'
At the mine itself, wells tested as high as 3.4 miligrams per liter — more than 100 times the standard. That's in an area where ore was processed with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in unlined ponds.
She said the new evidence doesn't change the state's opposition to Superfund listing. Nevada has a long tradition of supporting mining and now produces more gold than anywhere in the world except China, South Africa and Australia.
Copper first was discovered around Yerington in 1865. Anaconda bought the property in 1941 and — fueled by demand after World War II — produced nearly 1.75 billion pounds of copper from 1952-78.
A mineral firm launched a then-secret plan to produce yellowcake uranium from the mine's waste piles in the 1970s. An engineer reported in 1976 that they weren't finding as much uranium as anticipated in the processing ponds. "Where could it be now?" he wrote. "Should we continue to look for it?"
Had they continued the search outside the processing area, Wyoming Mineral Corp. likely would have detected the movement of the contamination. But the market for uranium dipped and the company scuttled the venture.
Pauly never suspected the mine was leaking contamination when she and her husband finished building their home in 1990. They drank water from their well until 2003 — and used it to mix formula for a baby from 1996-98 — before becoming suspicious as rumors swirled about the contaminated mine.
"Everybody said it was fine," she said. "Legally they didn't have to disclose anything because technically there was nothing definitive then that showed the contamination was moving off the site."
BP acknowledges 'an impact'
BP and Atlantic Richfield, which bought Anaconda Copper Co. in 1978, have stopped claiming there is no evidence the mine caused any contamination, but they aren't conceding anything about how much.
So who will pay for the cleanup?
"That is the million-dollar question," Dixon said. "Every Superfund site needs an advocate or two or three and in my view there are none for Yerington except for Peggy Pauly."
Regardless of who pays, Acree said, it likely will take decades to clean up.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34081733/ns/us_news-environment/
So who will pay for the cleanup?
"That is the million-dollar question," Dixon said. "Every Superfund site needs an advocate or two or three and in my view there are none for Yerington except for Peggy Pauly."
Regardless of who pays, Acree said, it likely will take decades to clean up.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34081733/ns/us_news-environment/
The Coming Nuclear Crisis:The world is running out of uranium and nobody seems to have noticed
Comment: We do not nuke power plants, therefore, NO to Uranium Mining!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.
That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.
Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful.
The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.
It's not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.
That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.
But what of new technologies such as fission breeder reactors which generate fuel and nuclear fusion? Dittmar is pessimistic about fission breeders. "Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant," he says.
Ref: The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.
That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.
Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful.
The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.
It's not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.
That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.
But what of new technologies such as fission breeder reactors which generate fuel and nuclear fusion? Dittmar is pessimistic about fission breeders. "Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant," he says.
Ref: The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
Friday, November 13, 2009
Australia evolving its position on uranium sales to India?
Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi
November 14, 2009, 0:34 IST
India and Australia seem to have overcome several thorny issues that have bedevilled their relationship, including the recent attacks on Indian students in that country, by forging a security and strategic partnership that ranges from maintaining the safety and security of sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean to starting a CEOs forum to consolidate the relationship.
It is not clear, however, if Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who ended his visit to India yesterday, bit the bullet and told Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he would work on his Labour Party back home and convince them to slowly withdraw its ban on the sale of uranium to India.
Rudd had waxed eloquent about growing cooperation in energy and mineral resources between both countries, and at a public speech at the Indian Council for World Affairs (ICWA) yesterday, admitted that Australia’s long-standing ban on uranium sales was not directed at India.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/australia-evolving-its-positionuranium-sales-to-india/376441/
November 14, 2009, 0:34 IST
India and Australia seem to have overcome several thorny issues that have bedevilled their relationship, including the recent attacks on Indian students in that country, by forging a security and strategic partnership that ranges from maintaining the safety and security of sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean to starting a CEOs forum to consolidate the relationship.
It is not clear, however, if Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who ended his visit to India yesterday, bit the bullet and told Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he would work on his Labour Party back home and convince them to slowly withdraw its ban on the sale of uranium to India.
Rudd had waxed eloquent about growing cooperation in energy and mineral resources between both countries, and at a public speech at the Indian Council for World Affairs (ICWA) yesterday, admitted that Australia’s long-standing ban on uranium sales was not directed at India.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/australia-evolving-its-positionuranium-sales-to-india/376441/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
