National Academy of Sciences won't answer our biggest questions

Comment:  Thanks for the great letter, Ms. Whitehead and so true! 

By Katie Whitehead/Opinion
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:02 AM EST

The NAS technical study will not end the intense political debate about the safety of uranium mining in Virginia. Nor will it answer the more important question: Would the uranium industry be good for our community and our state over the long term?

At a recent awards ceremony in Richmond, someone asked geologist Robert Bodnar whether uranium can be mined safely at Coles Hill. Emphasizing all three words, Bodnar responded, "I don't know."

Truly surprised and sincerely wanting to learn from an expert, the person said something like, "You've done work there; do you have an opinion?" Bodnar replied, "An opinion, yes; but I'd like to give you an informed opinion and for that I need more information."

Many people think that Virginia has asked the National Academy of Sciences the same safety question, and they expect a decisive answer - yes or no.

Dr. Bodnar, the C. C. Garvin Professor of Geochemistry and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech (VT), was recently named Virginia's Outstanding Scientist 2010 by Gov. McDonnell and the Science Museum of Virginia.

Bodnar is investigating the origin, age, and physical and chemical properties of the uranium deposit at Coles Hill. He focuses on the various ways uranium is contained in the rock and what is required to extract it.

His work is critical to engineers who investigate the potential cost of mining and milling the ore and to scientists who study environmental and health effects of uranium mining and tailings.

Funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Bodnar's current project could also help exploration geologists find similar deposits elsewhere.

He has commented, "I think there's a very high probability that there are other deposits of the same size, same grade, as Coles Hill located in the eastern United States."

Bodnar supervised recent research at Coles Hill by VT graduate students funded by Virginia Uranium Inc. VUI discontinued funding to VT in January 2009.

In Bodnar's view, an especially useful project would be to inventory and summarize the many cartons of data accumulated since the Coles Hill deposit was discovered in 1979.

The mineralogy and hydrology data needed to understand and decide whether Coles Hill could be mined safely does not exist in a usable form. It may not exist at all.

Bodnar makes clear he's not interested in withholding information. Existing Coles Hill data is not organized sufficiently to know what's there and share it.

Many people think that the purpose of the NAS study is to fill in knowledge gaps; however, NAS will not do field work or other site-specific research at Coles Hill or anywhere else, much less go through those cartons.

VUI justifies discontinuing financial support for VT geology and hydrology research by explaining that the company is spending its entire research budget on uranium studies initiated by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, including the NAS technical study estimated at $1.4 million.

VUI also budgets a comparable or larger sum on lobbying and public relations.

To produce the best information on which to base a public policy decision, truly "hands-off" funding is needed without simultaneous lobbying and self-promotion.

VUI's goal in funding VT's independent research was to "turn on the science," VUI vice president Mick Mastilovic explained to the Chatham Star-Tribune in September 2008. "Before you can answer a lot of questions you've got to collect a lot of information."

Virginia Uranium Inc. has worked hard to influence public opinion and frame the uranium mining controversy as a simple matter of safety: "If the study says the Coles Hill deposit cannot be mined safely, it will not be mined."

As a consequence many people, like the person at the ceremony in Richmond, mistakenly expect a simple yes-or-no answer to the safety question and don't necessarily ask how uranium mining could affect quality of life or question the long-term economics.

The NAS will review existing scientific literature, clarify the issues, and identify valid concerns that are relevant in Virginia.

At best, the NAS study will gather and evaluate existing evidence of the effects of uranium mining, millings, and tailings storage elsewhere and the implications for Virginia communities.

Especially helpful will be NAS comment on whether there is sufficient information available for us to make a sound public policy decision and what additional research is most needed or desirable.

Anyone expecting the National Academy of Sciences to provide a clear-cut conclusion telling us what to think and what to do will be disappointed.

The NAS will not make a simple, unconditional statement about whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia. The NAS study report will not say, "It can be mined safely." or "It cannot be mined safely."

The NAS technical study will not put an end to the intense political debate about the safety of uranium mining in Virginia.

Nor will it answer the bigger, more important question: Is there convincing evidence anywhere that the uranium industry sustains a desirable quality of life in actual communities - communities like ours - over the long term?

Katie Whitehead lives in Pittsylvania County and serves as chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/03/10/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt