When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.
Cree Prophecy
Keep the Ban at Wine Festival in Chatham, VA yesterday
Virginia governor quiet, as is uranium mining
Feb. 15, 2013 @ 05:46 PM
ALAN WOOTEN
Virginia’s governor has a reputation for not wearing anything on his sleeve. His poker face remained stern on Friday when six legislators from southern Virginia met with him regarding uranium mining.
Del. Donald Merricks, one of the six meeting Gov. Bob McConnell, said it doesn’t look like uranium mining will be happening anytime soon. The issue, however, is not to be classified as done.
“He’s got a good poker face. He doesn’t show his hand,” Merricks said in an Associated Press report of the meeting. “He’s got too many other things on his plate to be thinking about uranium. I don’t even think it’s on his radar screen right now. Not saying it won’t be down the road.”
Sens. Frank M. Ruff Jr. and William M. Stanley and Delegates James E. Edmunds, Danny Marshall III and Thomas C. Wright Jr. also were in the meeting. McDonnell spokesman J. Tucker Martin confirmed the meeting and said the governor’s top policy people were in attendance as well.
Sen. John Watkins has been at the point for requesting the Virginia legislature to remove a ban on uranium mining established in 1982. Virginia Uranium, Inc., is hoping to mine a site at Coles Hill near Chatham, Va., which is about 50 direct miles from Henderson and Kerr Lake, and just 20 miles from the state border.
The Pittsylvania County site is located within the Roanoke River Basin, which supplies water into both Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston. About 1.9 million people in North Carolina and Virginia, including Virginia Beach, depend on the lakes for drinking water.
The uranium site was discovered in the 1970s, but uranium prices plummeted and it was never mined. Three decades later, it is believed a 119-million pound deposit
Watkins, a Republican from Powhatan, crafted legislation to get regulations for mining in place. Two days before lawmakers’ 43-day short session began in January, the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy gave their backing to Watkins’ proposal in an 11-2 vote.
But Watkins asked for it to be stricken before the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources could vote. A report indicated nine of 12 members in the 15-member committee opposed the measure.
Del. Jackson Miller then asked Del. Terry Kilgore, the chairman of the Commerce and Labor Committee, not to bring forward the companion legislation in the House of Delegates. With the proposal not even getting heard in committee, much less on the floors of either the House or Senate, Watkins attempted an end-around by requesting McDonnell to instruct state agencies to draw up regulations for mining.
Calls and emails from lobbyists began flooding the governor’s office immediately. More of the calls and emails were against lifting the ban, according to an AP report.
Publicly, McDonnell has said he has not formed a position on mining and may not take one. http://www.hendersondispatch.com/news/x670453248/Virginia-governor-quiet-as-is-uranium-mining Palisades nuclear power plant shut down for repairs following troubleshooting efforts http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/02/palisades_nuclear_power_plant_10.html
Ten Urgent Reasons to Reject Nuclear Power Now Sunday, 17 February 2013 07:54 By Jim McCluskey, Truthout | Op-Ed
Many citizens do not want nuclear power. They know it is both far too dangerous and far too expensive. UK governments have largely supported nuclear power as well as nuclear weapons. Many citizens do not want nuclear weapons because they know they are insanely dangerous, and they want to live without the constant threat of sudden and complete annihilation hanging over them and their children. The close relationship between the weapons and power in every sense of the word may explain differences in politicians' and citizens' agendas on these issues.
The remedy is for us to wise up, get organized and then instruct the politicians to either do what we want - or join the job market. Here are 10 reasons we should reject nuclear power now. 1. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Dangerous.
There have now been four grave nuclear reactor accidents: Windscale in Britain in 1957 (the one that is never mentioned), Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986 and now Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was supposed to have been impossible.
Aided by a corrupt IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the world has been subjected to a massive coverup and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl."
At Fukushima we have the worst industrial disaster ever. Three simultaneous ongoing complete meltdowns have proven impossible to stop or contain since they started almost two years ago. These meltdowns are still pouring radiation pollution across the Japanese landscape.
International experts (e.g. Charles Perrow in Normal Accidents) agree that there will continue to be disastrous failures at nuclear power stations, and that this cannot be avoided.
As Edward Teller, the great nuclear physicist, said, "If you [try to] construct something foolproof, there will always be a fool greater than the proof." 2. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Expensive.
Nuclear power stations are so expensive that they are never built without substantial contribution to their costs from citizens in the form of subsidies.
The UK government has said it will not subsidize new nuclear power stations. However this seems to refer to the most overt form of subsidies and not to "hidden" subsidies.
Nuclear power stations are so dangerous that no insurance company will undertake to pay the total costs of a disaster or a terrorist attack. So to get them built, the government has to limit liability. This is a subsidy.
The cost of decommissioning also is an enormous sum. Any limitation to liability for decommissioning costs will be a subsidy. If the industry does not pay the total costs of disposing of nuclear waste and ensuring it is safe for thousand of years, then this is a subsidy. The industry does not pay the total costs of all research into nuclear energy. This is a subsidy. 3. The Same Technology is Used for Power and Weapons.
Any country that purifies uranium for use in nuclear power stations can also use its purification plant to manufacture weapons-grade fissile material. Nuclear power stations use the same technology as that required to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Already, nuclear power development has been used repeatedly as a cover for creating nuclear weapons. Of the 10 nations that have developed nuclear weapons, Jim Green, of Friends of the Earth, Australia, tells us, "six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program - India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea and France." 4. Nuclear Waste is Dangerous for Thousands of Years.
Since nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years, we are dumping our energy problems on future generations instead of using the benign methods of creating energy that are available to us.
The currently favored "solution" of burying the waste in bedrock and sealing off access forever is desperate and irresponsible. 5. Plants and Waste Storage are Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack.
Because of their potential of mass destruction, nuclear power stations are a major target for terrorists. The 9/11 atrocity would be tiny by comparison. If a large plane were flown into a nuclear power station, the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl.
John Large, an international independent expert on nuclear power, has said that if a plane was flown into the nuclear waste storage tanks at Sellafield, the whole of the English Midlands could be catastrophically contaminated. Safety studies of Sellafield carried out for local authorities tell us that a direct hit by a passenger jet on the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant would contaminate Britain with two and a half times more radioactivity than the amount that escaped during the Chernobyl disaster.
The studies also inform us that up to 2,646 pounds of the highly radioactive and long-lasting isotope caesium-137 would be released into the atmosphere, contaminating Britain, Ireland, continental Europe and beyond, making huge swathes of the country uninhabitable and causing more than two million cancers.
In the light of the twin towers atrocity, this is a completely unacceptable risk. 6. They Epitomize the Centralization of Power.
There is a burgeoning awareness among citizens that they are more free and more in control of their lives if facilities and decision-making occur at the local level, that national government should only control those matters that cannot be dealt with locally. Nuclear power is the ultimate way of centralizing power, putting it in the hands of experts, multinational corporations and national - often distant - government. In complete contrast to this, benign methods of supplying power, such as wind and water turbines, solar energy and heat pumps can be in the control of local communities and even, for some provisions, households. 7. Poor countries are made dependent on rich ones.
Poor countries do not have the knowledge and facilities to design, build, maintain and run their own nuclear power stations. This puts them at the mercy of the rich and more technically advanced states if they go down the nuclear power route.
Technically less advanced countries with nuclear power stations increase the safety risks. As Professor Peter Bradford of Vermont Law School, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes, "A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption." By adopting benign forms of power supply, the UK could help to promote the people-friendly way forward. 8. These plants draw funds away from the development of sustainable energy.
The spending of funds on research and other nuclear power development is highly detrimental to the development of sustainable energy supplies.
Each nuclear power plant costs around 5 billion pounds (7.9 billion in US dollars) to build. With such sums available, we could quickly realize our sustainable energy potential. As Friends of the Earth tell us, "With some of the windiest weather in Europe and almost 8,000 miles of coastline, the UK is a powerhouse waiting to be switched on." 9. Uranium will become increasingly scarce.
The quantity of available uranium is limited and will decline. The price will go up. If the world adopts nuclear power as a major source of energy, there will be uranium wars just as there are now oil wars. There are unlikely to be wars fought over sustainable locally generated solar, wind or wave power.
Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies writes, ". . . shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it." 10. Government supports nuclear power against the will of the people.
The adoption of nuclear power is favored by the government, but in a referendum, it would be rejected by citizens as being too dangerous and too expensive. A major reason that government favors this form seems to be due to vast amounts of money and effort being put into lobbying by the power companies. Their profits are huge, so they have the funds for lobbying, whereas the NGOs and citizens-at-large, who are against nuclear power and have overwhelming arguments, do not make the same impact http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14461-ten-urgent-reasons-to-reject-nuclear-power-now
Roanoke, New River basins off drought watch
State authorities say the rain and snow this winter have brought water levels into the normal range.
The state is lifting its drought watch on the Roanoke River and New River basins because increased rain and snow in the past several weeks have boosted water supplies.
The precipitation of the past few weeks has increased stream flow, ground water level and the amount of water in area reservoirs, the state Department of Environmental Quality said Thursday.
A drought watch remains in effect for the upper James River basin, however. That watch affects the counties of Alleghany, Bath, Botetourt, Craig and Rockbridge; the cities of Buena Vista, Covington and Lexington; and the towns of Clifton Forge, Fincastle, Iron Gate, New Castle and Troutville.
Even so, Alleghany County announced it was lifting mandatory water use restrictions set in December, effective Saturday. The county had, among other things, banned watering established landscapes and gardens and washing vehicles, except at commercial vehicle-washing businesses, after water levels in Lake Moomaw fell to 22 feet below normal.
Elsewhere in the basin, Rockbridge County Public Service Authority Director Karen Austin, Craig- New Castle Public Service Authority Director Donald Jones and Clifton Forge Town Manager Darlene Burcham all said that despite the drought watch, their communities' water supplies remained in good shape.
In lifting the watch for the Roanoke and New River basins, the state said stream flows have increased to levels greater than 25 percent of historic recorded flows, while ground water levels are also up. Precipitation since Oct. 1 has been more than 85 percent of normal amounts, the state said. The state also lifted its drought watch for the middle James River basin.
Even before the January rains started, the Western Virginia Water Authority's reservoir at Carvins Cove never fell farther than 8.6 feet below the spillway, spokeswoman Sarah Baumgardner said. That's well above the 18- to 20-foot mark that would trigger a wintertime call for voluntary conservation measures.
The reservoir's water level was at the spillway on Thursday, which means it is full. The Spring Hollow reservoir is 87 percent full.
Baumgardner said the authority did tap some backup wells earlier this winter, when officials feared a continued drought could eventually bring reservoir levels down too far. http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/320400
FaceBook Friends: Nuclear energy consortium (SB1138)
This the damning evidence on what the true intentions of the "authority" and "consortium" Nuclear energy consortium (SB1138)plan is full steam ahead to get that uranium. We better raise some hell! Here is a video of Del. Scott Garrett with his take, on "This Week in Richmond", Feb., 8, 2013 edition, Broadcast this evening on WBRA 15. The Consortium is discussed and then Uranium Mining starting at about 10 minutes in.
This Web site, provided by Blue Ridge PBS, is home to information about the programs and services offered by the station. Blue Ridge PBS Online hosts content for everyone; including kids, parents, educators, and the general audience Alarming leak announced at Hanford Nuclear Reservation Author: Annie Bishop, KXLY4 Reporter , annieb@kxly.com
Published On: Feb 16 2013 12:21:24 AM PST
BENTON, Wash. -
Governor Jay Inslee has only been in office for a month and he's already faced with cleaning up one of the biggest messes of our time.
On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy notified Gov. Inslee about an underground tank leaking at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
The tank is believed to be leaking between 150-300 gallons of radioactive waste a year. In all, there are 177 underground tanks with radioactive sludge at Hanford.
We cannot leave 149 single-shell tanks with high-level radioactive liquid and sludge in the ground for decades after their design life," Gov. Inslee said.
"Let me be clear. Washington state has a zero tolerance policy on radioactive leaks. We will not tolerate any leaks of this material into our environment. Our highest priority is the security at this site. And we have got to make sure that we are sequestering radioactive material in these tanks and not accepting a federal sequestration that threatens the continued viability and clean-up at Hanford," he added.
WashPIRG, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group based in Seattle, has been keeping an close eye on Hanford for decades.
"Well, today's news is to be honest shocking, but at the same time we could have anticipated it because it's another reminder that there is no proven way to safely dispose of radioactive waste," Micaela Preskill said.
"So it really is a huge crisis and something that we must address," she added.
The spent fuel pools at Fukushima are a bomb waiting to go off. Each pool contains irradiated fuel from several years of operation, making for an extremely large radioactive inventory without a strong containment structure that encloses the reactor cores;
Several pools are now completely open to the atmosphere because the reactor buildings were demolished by explosions; they are about 100 feet above ground and could possibly topple or collapse from structural damage coupled with another powerful earthquake;
The loss of water exposing the spent fuel will result in overheating can cause melting and ignite its zirconium metal cladding – resulting in a fire that could deposit large amounts of radioactive materials over hundreds of miles.
Fukushima is in an active earthquake zone. The urgency of the situation is underscored by the ongoing seismic activity around NE Japan in which 13 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 - 5.7 have occurred off the NE coast of Honshu last week in the 4 days between 4/14 and 4/17. This has been the norm since the first quake and tsunami hit the site on March 11th of last year. Larger quakes are expected closer to the power plant. http://www.countercurrents.org/alvarez240412.htm
California is downwind from Japan. Radiation from the earthquake hit is increasing. http://www.infowars.com/california-slammed-with-fukushima-radiation/ A Chernobyl type explosion from the spent fuel pools could force coastal California to evacuate for decades.
Tepco and the Japanese government lack the staggering resources- up to $250 billion- to clean up Fukushima before another disaster happens. Tepco's timeline is way too slow- 10 years to contain the spent fuel ponds.
We urge the California Senators to join Oregon Senator Wyden in touring Fukushima, and then investigate the risks, with an eye to mobilizing US and international support for the cleanup.
To: Senators Boxer and Feinstein
I just signed the following petition addressed to: Senators Boxer and Feinstein.
---------------- Investigate the ongoing danger from the Fukushima nuclear reactors
The spent fuel pools at Fukushima are a bomb waiting to go off. Each pool contains irradiated fuel from several years of operation, making for an extremely large radioactive inventory without a strong containment structure that...
I just signed the following petition addressed to: Senators Boxer and Feinstein.
---------------- Investigate the ongoing danger from the Fukushima nuclear reactors
The spent fuel pools at Fukushima are a bomb waiting to go off. Each pool contains irradiated fuel from several years of operation, making for an extremely large radioactive inventory without a strong containment structure that encloses the reactor cores;
Several pools are now completely open to the atmosphere because the reactor buildings were demolished by explosions; they are about 100 feet above ground and could possibly topple or collapse from structural damage coupled with another powerful earthquake;
The loss of water exposing the spent fuel will result in overheating can cause melting and ignite its zirconium metal cladding – resulting in a fire that could deposit large amounts of radioactive materials over hundreds of miles.
Fukushima is in an active earthquake zone. The urgency of the situation is underscored by the ongoing seismic activity around NE Japan in which 13 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 - 5.7 have occurred off the NE coast of Honshu last week in the 4 days between 4/14 and 4/17. This has been the norm since the first quake and tsunami hit the site on March 11th of last year. Larger quakes are expected closer to the power plant. http://www.countercurrents.org/alvarez240412.htm
California is downwind from Japan. Radiation from the earthquake hit is increasing. http://www.infowars.com/california-slammed-with-fukushima-radiation/ A Chernobyl type explosion from the spent fuel pools could force coastal California to evacuate for decades.
Tepco and the Japanese government lack the staggering resources- up to $250 billion- to clean up Fukushima before another disaster happens. Tepco's timeline is way too slow- 10 years to contain the spent fuel ponds.
We urge the California Senators to join Oregon Senator Wyden in touring Fukushima, and then investigate the risks, with an eye to mobilizing US and international support for the cleanup.
Nuclear Industry’s Latest LIES: SB 1138, STOP The Nuke Con Job! Call or Write the Governor Now!
Email the Governor: http://www.governor.virginia.gov
Mailing Address: Office of the Governor, Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor , 1111 East Broad Street , Richmond, Virginia 23219
Phone Numbers: Office: (804) 786-2211, Fax: (804) 371-6351
TTY/TDD (For the deaf or hard-of-hearing): 1-800-828-1120, or 711 :
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/CommunityRelations/
SB1138/HB1790 - Nuclear Energy Consortium bills headed to VA Governor Bob McDonnell -
We do not want more Nuclear Power in VA, nuke power is not green or clean, starts with uranium mining to nuke rods which last 4ever!
The General wording allows for a lack of transparency and public accountability, and that that may have been deliberately written into the bill to give VNECA unchecked powers, including the authority and power to promote and expand cradle to grave nuclear industries using taxpayer’s monies for grants.
SB 1138 Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority;
Introduced by: Jeffrey L. McWaters
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+sum+SB1138
SUBSCRIBE to VA Against Uranium Mining Blog Now ! Keep up with latest info delivered to your email!
“Visit the Keep The Ban Coalition website and sign the petition.”
