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.
