Comment: A good rebuttal to the letter written by Patrick Wales, VUI Project Manager, "Foundation's intent questioned" on Dec. 26, 2010! Again the so called "The Study" by NAS will not answer if u mining is safe! Another great comments by K. Maute:
Posted by kmaute on Dec. 26, 2010 - 4:50 p.m.
"Since the NAS study - what most people refer to as "THE study" - is supposed to tell us if uranium can be mined and milled safety, then why are we in a rush to complete the other studies at the same time?"
Why would the R&B editorial staff print such a statement? "THE study" is not 'supposed to' and WILL NOT tell if uranium can be mined and milled safely. This has been stated by NAS and the media. The decision to mine and mill will be a political one. Any and all studies will be used by the uranium industry and its lobbyists to advance uranium mining in all ways possible.
Has the media bothered to ask VUI to define "safely"? All VUI needs is THE study. Then their well paid spin doctors can go to work. "Safely" means promising to do whatever the General Assembly asks in order to have the current ban lifted. VUI's lobbyist are already "working" the GA for favorable regulation. Danville' lobbyist Whitt Clement (Coles brother in law) is helping in that endeavor. Does the introduction of information in the form of a other independent studies frighten them?
Perhaps it shouldn't. When the NAS held court here on the 13th they were asked to make sure their summary statement held pertinent information because it was feared that the GA might not read the full "study" and come to erroneous conclusions. WHAT? Not read the full study? If they won't read one study...THE study...do you think they'll read 4 separate studies?
The decision will be POLITICAL.
We wait for studies while VUI lobbies for regulations they can live with. It's a smokescreen folks. Safely? Get real.
By The Editorial Board
Published: December 26, 2010
Virginia Uranium Inc. has raised questions about Hollis Stauber sending a recent e-mail to state leaders that questions the timing of the various uranium mining studies now under way.
Hollis Stauber isn’t an elected public official and, to our knowledge, she has no official role in Virginia’s decision to allowthe mining and milling of uranium.
She is the wife of Karl Stauber, who is employed as the president and CEO of the Danville Regional Foundation.
The regional foundation is doing a study of this controversial issue.
The Danville Regional Foundation has commissioned its own study of the social impacts of having a uranium mine and mill at Coles Hill, no surprise since the group’s mission is “the health, education, and well-being of the region’s residents.”
While it’s obvious why the Danville Regional Foundation is interested in the uranium mining and milling issue, it’s not so obvious why it’s wrong for Hollis Stauber to also be interested in the issue.
Does the fact that her husband works for an organization that’s studying uranium mining mean that she can’t express a view on the subject? That doesn’t make any sense.
Hollis Stauber has the right, as an individual, to express herself.
Since she can’t affect policy — or even decide what the Danville Regional Foundation will have to say about uranium mining — there is no good reason why she can’t speak out like any other concerned citizen.
As it happens, Hollis Stauber, along with KatieWhitehead, have raised an excellent question: Why can’t the socioeconomic studies of uranium mining and milling wait for the completion of the scientific study by the National Academy of Sciences?
Since the NAS study — what most people refer to as “THE study” — is supposed to tell us if uranium can be mined and milled safety, then why are we in a rush to complete the other studies at the same time?
The socioeconomic studies by both the state and the Danville Regional Foundation should wait until the scientific case for or against uranium mining has been made by the NAS.
With all three studies coming due next year — just weeks before the 2012 General Assembly session begins — it would seem that the calendar favors a fast resolution when prudence begs for enough time to answer all the questions.
Are we expected to decide the fate and future of the Dan River Region in just a few weeks next November and December?
If there’s a conflict of interest here, it’s not that Hollis Stauber is publicly asking questions, it’s the real possibility that a final decision about the future of the Dan River Region will be made in the weeks between the release of all those studies and the very next General Assembly session.
We’re not advocating “paralysis by analysis” on this issue, but no one has made a case for fast-tracking a final decision on uranium mining and milling in Pittsylvania County.
Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2010/dec/26/foundations-intent-questioned-ar-734248/
