Please review the great comments by K. Maute about the letter: Wales' editorial can be viewed in a myriad of ways.
Observation:
Wales opening sentence shows his arrogance and assumption of our ignorance. He accuses the DRF of "the appearance of significant conflict of interest" regarding an independent study and "appears" to have forgotten that VUI is paying for an NAS study which has the "appearance" of pro-mining members on it's panel. Christmas Eve I listened to a reading of Dickens's Christmas Carole and read The Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 7:4 seems appropriate here. "Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the mote out of your eye; and, behold, a beam is in your own eye?"
Karl and Hollis Stauber are are not DRF, nor is Katie Whitehead. It is a surprise that Wales considers Whitehead to be "a long-time foe of the Coles Hill uranium project". Whitehead has never stated her opposition to uranium mining.
Why target these two individuals? Wales and VUI must discredit studies other than the VUI study. I call the NAS study the VUI study because that, in essence, is what it is. It is a politically motivated study that will be used to mine and mill uranium in VA. The Coal and Energy sanctioned socio-economic study will be favored by VUI because it too is politically motivated. Look at the mission statements of the Coal and Energy Commission, the DRF. Both could be considered political...but "The Coal and Energy Commission exists to study all aspects of coal as an energy resource and endeavor to stimulate, encourage, promote, and assist in the development of renewable and alternative energy resources other than petroleum. " http://dls.state.va.us/cec.htm
It appears that Stauber and Whitehead. desired to secure assurances that all pertinent information would be available an reviewed concerning uranium mining and milling in VA.
If VUI, Wales and Coles sincerely desire to mine only if it can be done "safely", they would welcome all studies that will bring information to the table on which to base a decision. They do not.
Foundation's intent questioned
By The Editorial Board
Published: December 26, 2010
To the editor:
The most disappointing report in your story, “VUI raises conflict concern” (Dec. 19, page A1) is the refusal of Karl and Hollis Stauber to comment on the disturbing appearance of a significant conflict of interest by the Danville Regional Foundation in its sponsorship of a $530,000 “independent” socio-economic study on the impact of uranium mining in this region.
The facts are that Hollis Stauber teamed up with Katie Whitehead, a long-time foe of the Coles Hill uranium project, to send a report on Dec. 6 to countless political leaders and environmental groups around the state. Their report used “updated” material fromthe
Danville Regional Foundation to suggest the need for further delay in the orderly progress of the state-mandated studies on the subject.
It would be unfair to hold Karl Stauber, president and CEO of the Danville Regional Foundation, responsible for the actions of his wife and friend. But it is fair to ponder why he and the foundation did not use this embarrassing incident as an opportunity to clarify matters. Instead, Stauber and the foundation stand mute at a time when the public deserves clarification.
As a company, we have had reason to be leery about the intent of the Danville Regional Foundation in conducting a study paralleling the work of the Virginia General Assembly. However, we have elected to remain quiet and hopeful, until now.
Prior to the November decision by Stauber and the Danville Regional Foundation to launch its own socio-economic study of the uranium issue, our company sensed the Danville Regional Foundation’s negativism toward our enterprise. In its hired study, “Assessing the Economic Competiveness of the Danville, Virginia Region,” the report barely mentioned the tremendous economic potential of Virginia Uranium while, in its own summary, touted the importance of “home-grown entrepreneurial ventures” — a termwhich fits us like a glove.
Now we have the latest troubling example of why fairness and impartiality may be unattainable by the Danville Regional Foundation in passing judgment on our project. For Karl Stauber and the Danville Regional Foundation to have nothing to say at this juncture brings additional discredit to the prospect of seeing a fair study.
We came up with a total of $1.7 million to pay for the scientific study by the National Academy of
Sciences.
PATRICK M.WALES
Chatham, VA (Wales lives in City of Danville, like Mr. Coles)
(Editor’s note:Wales is a project manager for Virginia Uranium Inc. This letter is a company statement on behalf of VUI.) (Ace's comments: How come Wales did not sign the letter as such?)
Read more of lies:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2010/dec/26/foundations-intent-questioned-ar-734248/
Comments: Ace does not trust any of the studies because the groups they selected called themselves "Nuclear Power Friendly" or the real word: "Uranium Power Friendly"! So Ace thinks even DRF choosing the RTI for the study is pro nuke power, so where is the conflict of interest? Sometimes Ace believes all this stuff as “a dog and pony show” to keep the people of VA in the dark about all the studies which reflects "Nuke Power Friendly" bunch doing the studies!
