The question of stigma is interesting. At present, it appears that "public perception" is that uranium mining, milling and radioactive/hazardous waste disposal could have a deleterious effect on human health, water quality and quantity and future economic development. In Southside, the "perception" that groundwater would be negatively impacted seems supported by the National Academy of Science National Research Council's report. Page 199 states, " Operation of a uranium mine could be expected to affect groundwater quantity at the mine site with potential effects propagating off-site. Early phases of uranium mining (exploration and construction) would have negligible effects. However, during active mine operations, there could be significant effects on groundwater quantity."
The Uranium Working Group's report states, "Lif...ting the current moratorium could result in an increase in exploration activities." Might one assume that exploration would occur if the prospect of a viable mine was evident? How might additional mines impact water quality and quantity for Danville and Pittsylvania County residents, businesses and industries? Concerns regarding "perceptions" of industrial prospects for the 200 M DPRIFA megapark seem reasonable.
Is "public perception" the same as "stigma"? It appears that "stigma", in a legal sense, can occur only after contamination is evident. The public is saying that say it does not want to risk the "stigma" attached to negative impacts of uranium mining, milling and long term radioactive hazardous waste management.
The Uranium Working Group's report states, "Lif...ting the current moratorium could result in an increase in exploration activities." Might one assume that exploration would occur if the prospect of a viable mine was evident? How might additional mines impact water quality and quantity for Danville and Pittsylvania County residents, businesses and industries? Concerns regarding "perceptions" of industrial prospects for the 200 M DPRIFA megapark seem reasonable.
Is "public perception" the same as "stigma"? It appears that "stigma", in a legal sense, can occur only after contamination is evident. The public is saying that say it does not want to risk the "stigma" attached to negative impacts of uranium mining, milling and long term radioactive hazardous waste management.
Resolution against uranium up for Danville City Council vote
By DENICE THIBODEAU dthibodeau@registerbee.com (434) 791-7985 | Posted: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:16 pm
A resolution to keep Virginia’s uranium mining moratorium intact comes to a vote at the Danville City Council meeting Thursday.
The summary from City Manager Joe King notes while the Coles Hill site is in a different watershed and Danville’s water supply would not be threatened by mining activities, the city could still be negatively impacted by the operation.
Those negative impacts include the perceived stigma attached to such a mining operation, something King’s summary said “is only marginally addressed in the Coles Hill project studies.”
King also points out that problems can arise outside the actual site, particularly during transportation of yellowcake, the unrefined output of a uranium mine and mill. Should any accidents occur, the Danville Fire Department’s hazardous materials team would be the regional responder to the incidents. According to a study done by RTI International and financed by the Danville Regional Foundation, the team would require specialized training to handle those incidents.
The resolution before Danville City Council points out that the Governor’s Uranium Working Group has determined that Virginia will need even stricter regulations in play than currently exist on either a state or federal level, because it is geographically different from areas where uranium has been mined in the past, including its water table levels, and it has a higher population density.
It concludes by stating “ … new regulations cannot anticipate all possible hazards and outcomes if fallible human beings undertake uranium mining, milling and tailings storage …” and asks the General Assembly to not only keep the moratorium but to stop a current effort to begin writing regulation to control uranium mining.
Uranium ban contention taken to Va.
“Even though they’re not a citizen of Virginia, they are still stakeholders,” Association Executive Director Andrew Lester said.
According to Lester, at noon Monday the Coal and Energy Commission meets in Richmond, Va., to go over the Uranium Working Group report submitted by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s directive.
Lester said the Association has put together an allied coalition to stand against lifting the ban. They will meet at 11 a.m. Monday in the House Briefing Room at the General Assembly in Richmond where they will hold a news conference.
“We need those of you who can attend to please come up that day,” Lester said. “Your show of support is critical.”
There will be six speakers representing the distinct stakeholder interests, and a new web site http://commonhealthva.org/ will be introduced.
“At noon the C&EC is scheduled to meet at the General Assembly, so there will be a chance to see the action first hand,” Lester said.
We can tolerate almost any industry in the area, but uranium mining is different,” Pucci said.
We can tolerate almost any industry in the area, but uranium mining is different,” Pucci said.
“It’s radioactive.”
Pucci stressed the importance of continuing to put pressure on Virginia to keep the ban and encouraged residents to visit http://commonhealthva.org/
http://commonhealthva.org/for information on how to contact Virginia legislators.
http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/uranium-ban-contention-taken-to-va/article_275d3a20-5376-11e2-b31c-001a4bcf887a.html
http://commonhealthva.org/
http://www.rrdailyherald.com/news/uranium-ban-contention-taken-to-va/article_275d3a20-5376-11e2-b31c-001a4bcf887a.html
http://commonhealthva.org/
