Happy New Year to All!

Comment:  Please have a safe New Year Eve's and will see you after the holidays, LIFE, Inc.

15 Things You Can Do to Help the Environment


Green resolutions from the Natural Resources Defense Council's Simple Steps.

By NRDC Simple Steps

Give Up Plastic (and Paper) Bags: Cost: $1

Do you opt for paper or plastic when at the grocery store? Neither is a good choice. Twelve million barrels of oil were used to make the 88.5 billion plastic bags consumed in the United States last year. The best choice is reusable shopping bags made of cotton, nylon or durable, meshlike plastic.
Stop Buying Bottled Water

Cost: $14.98 for aluminum water bottle

Did you know that it takes 26 bottles of water to produce the plastic container for a one-liter bottle of water, and that doing so pollutes 25 liters of groundwater? Stop buying bottled water. Use reusable water bottles instead made from materials like stainless steel or aluminum that are not likely to degrade over time. If you choose a plastic water bottle, check the number on the bottom first: Plastics numbered 3, 6 and 7 could pose a health threat to you, so look for plastics numbered 1, 2, 4 or 5.

Stop Receiving Unwanted Catalogs

Cost: $0

Each year, 19 billion catalogs are mailed to American consumers. All those catalogs require more than 53 million trees and 56 billion gallons of wastewater to produce!
Give Up Conventional Detergents

Cost: $10.25 for one 112-oz box

Many natural detergents today are made to clean clothes just as effectively in cooler water temperatures. Choose detergents and other laundry products that are plant-based, concentrated and biodegradable.

Give Up Hot Water (At Least In the Clothes Washer)

Cost: $0

Did you know that only 10 percent of the energy used by a typical washing machine powers the motor? About 90 percent of the energy is used to heat the water, and most clothes will come clean in cold water. So switch your washing machine's temperature setting. TDG Editor note: In the market for a new washer? Look for an energy-efficient front-loading clothes washer and other green laundry gear.

Give Up the Clothes Dryer

Cost: $0

The second biggest household energy user, after the refrigerator, is the clothes dryer. Overdrying your clothes can end up costing you money as well. (As much as $70,000 over your lifetime, according to the Green Cheapskate.) And remember that hanging clothing outside in the sun and air to dry is the most energy-efficient method -- or use a folding indoor rack all year long.
Check for Leaks in Your Toilet

Cost: $0

Most of us would be surprised to find out that one in every five toilets leak, and since the leaks are usually silent, you probably have no idea if your toilet is leaking. A leaking toilet can waste anywhere between 30 and 500 gallons of water every day, so any leak should be repaired. To see if your toilet is leaking, put a few drops of food coloring in the toilet tank. If the dye shows up in the toilet bowl after 15 minutes or so, the toilet has a leak. TDG Editor note: Remodeling? Choose energy- and water-efficient bathroom fixtures.

Give Up Toilet Paper (Ok, Just Conventional Toilet Paper)

Cost: $2.96 for 4-pack, 260 sheets

Believe it or not, switching to recycled toilet paper can change the world. If every household in the United States bought just one four-pack of 260-sheet recycled bath tissue, instead of the typical tissue made from virgin fiber, it would eliminate 60,600 pounds of chlorine pollution, preserve 356 million gallons (1.35 billion liters) of fresh water and save nearly 1 million trees. And the best news is that a four-pack of recycled toilet paper costs about the same as a four-pack of conventional toilet paper.

Give Up Paper Towels

Cost: $6.95

No matter how you look at it, paper towels create waste. During your next trip to the grocery store, buy some reusable microfiber towels, which grip dirt and dust like a magnet, even when they get wet. When you are finished with them, toss the towels in the wash and reuse them again and again.  If every household in the United States replaced just one roll of virgin fiber paper towels (70 sheets) with 100 percent recycled ones, we could save 544,000 trees.

Run a Fully Loaded Dishwasher

Cost: $0

If you have dishwasher, use it. Running a fully loaded dishwasher -- without prerinsing the dishes -- can use a third less water than washing the dishes by hand, saving up to 10 to 20 gallons of water a day. TDG Editor note: In the market for a new dishwasher? Buy an energy-efficient dishwasher.

Lower the Temp in Your Fridge

Cost: $0

As one of the biggest appliances in your kitchen, the refrigerator is also one of the most power hungry, accounting for 10 to 15 percent of the average home energy bill each month. Get your fridge running in tip-top shape. First, set the refrigerator thermostat to maintain a temperature between 38 and 42 degrees (F). This temperature will protect your food from spoiling while saving electricity. Twice a year, clean the condenser coil at the back of your fridge. Condenser coils tend to get dusty, making them less efficient.

Give Up 2 Degrees

Cost: $0

Electric power plants are the country's largest industrial source of the pollutants that cause global warming. By snuggling under a blanket on the couch on a snowy winter night instead of turning up the heat, or enjoying the breeze from a fan in the height of summer instead of turning up the air conditioning, you can save pounds of pollution, as well as some money off your utility bills. Set your thermostat in winter to 68 degrees F (20° C) or less during the daytime and 55 degrees F (13° C) before going to sleep or when you are away for the day. And during the summer, set thermostats to 78 degrees F (26° C) or more.

Stop Wasting Gas

Cost: $0

Increase your gas mileage by checking your tire pressure.  If every American kept his or her tires properly inflated, we could save 2.8 billion gallons (10.6 billion liters) of gasoline a year -- and help curb global warming pollution -- so inflate the tires on your car or truck and continue to do so once a month or as necessary.

Avoid Waste: Recycle

Cost: $0

For every trash can of waste you put outside for the trash collector, about 70 trash cans of waste are used in order to create that trash. To reduce the amount of waste you produce, buy products in returnable and recyclable containers and recycle as much as you can. The energy saved from recycling a single aluminum can will operate a television for three hours! If your community doesn’t provide containers for recycling, designate a bin in your garage for recyclables to make it easy for you and your family to recycle things like the newspaper and aluminum cans.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/green-new-years-resolutions-10109#ixzz0arCAXRMG

Superfund Financial Responsibility (Mining)

Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly called Superfund) gives EPA (and, for transportation-related facilities, the Department of Transportation) the authority to require that classes of facilities maintain financial responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances.

In July 2009 EPA designated portions of the hard-rock mining industry as its priority for the development of financial responsibility requirements. EPA plans to propose a financial responsibility rule in the spring of 2011 for classes of facilities within the hard-rock mining industry, with a proposal for additional classes following within a few months.

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In December 2009, EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that identified additional classes of facilities as for development of CERCLA financial responsibility requirements. This notice followed a July 2009 notice identifying hardrock mining as the first classes of facilities for which EPA intends to develop CERCLA financial assurance requirements.

Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b); Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PDF) (21 pp, 119K About PDF)

***Administrator Jackson signed the document above on December 30, 2009, and we have submitted it for publication in the Federal Register. While we (EPA) have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the document, it’s not the official version. A link to the Federal Register Notice will be posted as soon as it is available.******

Through this ANPRM, EPA identified classes of facilities within the Chemical Manufacturing industry (North American Industrial Classification System [NAICS] 325), Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS 324), and the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution industry (NAICS 2211) as classes of facilities for which EPA will carefully examine specific activities, practices, and processes involving hazardous substances, as well as Federal and State authorities, policies, and practices to determine the risks they pose and whether requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) will effectively reduce these risks.

The Agency has also identified in the ANPRM additional classes of facilities that require further study in order for the Agency to decide whether to initiate the development of a proposed regulation These include: classes within the Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562), the Wood Product Manufacturing industry(NAICS 321), the Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing industry (NAICS 332), and the Electronics and Electrical Equipment Manufacturing industries (NAICS 334 and 335), as well as facilities engaged in the recycling of materials containing CERCLA hazardous substances. The Agency will continue to gather and analyze data on these sectors and will consider them for possible development of financial responsibility requirements. This list may be revised as the Agency's evaluation proceeds.

The publication of this ANPRM is another step by the Agency in the process of determining whether to develop financial responsibility requirements that will help ensure responsible environmental practices within industries.

EPA Publishes Notice Identifying Hardrock Mining Industry for Financial Responsibility Requirements
In July 2009, EPA issued a notice identifying hardrock mining as the first classes of facilities for which EPA would develop needed CERCLA financial assurance requirements.

Read...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/financialresponsibility/index.html

Use Your Christmas Tree in the Garden

posted by Megan
selected from Planet Green
Dec 27, 2009 12:01

We can choose a living tree, and plant it out in the yard when the holidays are over. Or we can buy a cut tree from an organic tree farm, and then recycle it. Better yet, put that tree to use in your garden.

Five Ways to Use a Holiday Tree in Your Garden

1. Cut the branches off and lay them over perennials in your garden. This will provide protection from temperature fluctuations and prevent the plants from heaving out of the soil.

2. Once you’ve used all the branches, you’ll be left with a trunk. Don’t get rid of it! I’ve used the trunks from a few of our holiday trees to make teepees to grow beans on, rustic fences, and as supports for shade covers and floating row covers.

3. You can cut the branches up into smaller pieces and use them to mulch your beds or garden paths. Don’t think you need a big, gas-guzzling chipper for this! I use a pair of trusty bypass pruners, and snip a few branches into pieces each time I go out into the garden. It takes a little more time, but it’s free, easy, and doesn’t have any impact on the environment.

4. Provide a home for the birds. Once you’re done with it indoors, remove the decorations and place your tree, stand and all, out in the yard. Birds will find it and use it as shelter during the winter months. In spring, once the birds don’t need it anymore, either chip it up or lay it on its side in a part of your yard where it can serve as a brush pile for other backyard wildlife.

5. Cut the branches off and use them at the base of a fresh compost pile. It’s a good idea to have coarser materials, like tree branches, at the bottom of the pile because it helps increase air flow to the pile.

Being green doesn’t mean getting rid of the beloved traditions in our lives. It means making new traditions, and really thinking about how we can green those traditions. Reusing a holiday tree is one easy way to do that.

Read...
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/use-your-christmas-tree-in-the-garden.html

VA Second to Sign Contracts for Water Quality Projects from ARRA Money

Richmond, Va.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine announced Tuesday that signed loan agreements are in place for all of Virginia’s water quality funds received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and 35 projects are under contract or construction. Virginia is the second state in the nation to complete contracts for water quality projects that received funding from the ARRA.

“This is a great accomplishment that underscores the importance of the federal recovery program,” says Kaine. “Not only are these funds being rapidly deployed to create jobs for Virginians and improve our economy, but they will result in significant improvements to the state’s critical waste water infrastructure.”

The Department of Environmental Quality, with the assistance of the Virginia Resources Authority, signed its last ARRA loan agreement December 18. Only Minnesota completed its contracts more quickly than Virginia.

In April 2009, the State Water Control Board approved $77.7 million in federal money from the ARRA through the Virginia Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund. The money is for localities to improve waste water treatment plants and collection systems.

In addition to increasing employment in numerous localities, the improvements will help reduce nutrient pollution, excess nitrogen and phosphorus, that waste water plants discharge into Virginia waterways.

For example, the funds will assist in installation of seven significant water reuse projects throughout Virginia, including one in Fairfax County that will reduce the waste water discharge to the Chesapeake Bay watershed by approximately 580 million gallons per day.

Funding to the city of Lynchburg advances the city’s combined sewer overflow cleanup program by at least two years and will result in the elimination of two direct raw sewage overflow locations and a large number of overflow events from the James River.

Richmond also received funds that will enable significant progress on its combined sewer overflow project.

Other projects will result in substantial energy savings at five localities in Virginia through the use of alternative energy sources including wind, solar, biogas and methane.

In addition, a substantial amount of the funding is going to southwest Virginia localities to provide sewer service in areas of failing septic tanks and drain fields.
Read...
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/80281162.html

Coal and Energy Commission (Uranium Subcommittee Update)

Coal and Energy Commission
December 3, 2009

The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy met in Richmond. Chairman Terry G. Kilgore welcomed the members and called the meeting to order.

Subcommittee Update

Delegate R. Lee Ware provided the full commission with an update of the activities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which was created by the Coal & Energy Commission by motion on November 6, 2008.

Since that meeting just over a year ago, the subcommittee met four times to develop and finalize a scope for the study that would be used to execute the contract with the National Academy of Sciences or, more specifically, with the National Research Council (NRC), which is under the same umbrella organization as the National Academy of Sciences.

Delegate Ware reports that the public comment at each meeting was robust, extensive, and thoughtful. After receiving public comment, the scope of study was finalized and adopted by the subcommittee at the meeting on May 21, 2009. The Governing Board Executive Committee of the NRC met on November 11, 2009, to review the scope and determine whether the study would be accepted. As a result of that meeting, the NRC has asked for clarification on several issues.

First, it is critical that NRC maintain its independence in carrying out the study. The request to perform the study emanates from the Coal and Energy Commission—which would be considered the study sponsor, notwithstanding that funding for the study might be provided by a for-profit entity, and that the signatory for the study would be the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, acting as an agent for the Commonwealth.

Second, the NRC is committed to providing a completely objective, high-quality scientific assessment of the issues. To that end, any funding must be guaranteed as fully available throughout the course of the contract term and there should be no contingencies save the production of deliverables under the contract. The NRC committee undertaking the study would seek information from all interested parties, but would operate with complete independence from Virginia Uranium and from the study’s sponsor, the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Finally, the NRC would like to amend or delete the last item in the scope of study. The amendment would limit that item to a nontechnical summary of the report for public education and outreach purposes. It should also be noted by the Commission that, while the study would provide independent, expert advice to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining, the study would not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted, nor would the study include site-specific assessments. If the NRC were to accept the modifications and enter into the contract to perform the study, Delegate Ware anticipated that the next step of the subcommittee would be to hold public hearings to determine the scope of the socio-economic study and the entity best suited to perform that study.

Members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee unanimously voted to accept the scope as recommended by the NRC. Delegate Ware hopes that the socio-economic study could take place contemporaneously with the study by the NRC. The Commission thought that staff might prepare an informal query to determine which institutions might be interested in performing the socio-economic study.

Public Comment

The Commission received public comment expressing concern about the treatment of communities living around mining operations and dust exposure, particularly at the hands of Canadian mining corporations.

Chairman:
The Hon. Terry Kilgore

For information, contact:
Ellen Porter, DLS Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division of Legislative Services; Legislative Record 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more:
http://dls.state.va.us/pubs/legisrec/2009/CEC2.htm

Good Fences, Clean Water

New incentives make it free for farmers to fence livestock away from streams-helping to restore water quality in the Hazel, Hughes, Rush and Thornton Rivers.

Mike Beniek, who raises cattle, chickens, pigs, turkeys and vegetables at Belle Meade Farm in Rappahannock-which also features a bed and breakfast and a farm school-says that the main reason he decided to fence his livestock away from the farm's four streams is that it's the "right thing to do."

"It protects the water," he says. "It keeps your soil from eroding. And I think it helps build a higher water table."

What's good for the water is good for the livestock.

Now, instead of lapping at the streams where they're standing (and defecating), the cattle at Belle Meade Farm drink clean, cool well water from fountains installed in their pastures. Studies have shown that providing an alternative water source for livestock increases weight gain and keeps the animals healthier.

All the same, the costs of installing fences along waterways and constructing alternative water sources can present a major obstacle for farmers-even with government cost-share programs to cover part of the expense.

So, PEC is working with conservation partners to provide additional incentives that make livestock exclusion fencing cost-free for farmers in the Upper Hazel River watershed in Rappahannock, Culpeper and Madison. The new incentives add to government cost-share funding for agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to cover 100% of the costs of the fencing.

The Krebser Fund for Rappahannock County Conservation, which is affiliated with PEC, initiated this unique public-private partnership by offering the added incentives to farmers within the Upper Hazel River watershed in Rappahannock. Then, PEC obtained grant funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Federation to expand the incentives to the whole watershed, including parts of Madison and Culpeper Counties.

The Upper Hazel River watershed includes the Hazel, Hughes, Rush and Thornton Rivers and their tributary streams as they flow out of the mountains of Shenandoah National Park toward the Rappahannock River and the Chesapeake Bay.

Many of the tributaries of this watershed are currently listed as "impaired" by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality because of bacterial contamination in a number of stream segments. The primary goal of the new incentives is to restore water quality so that these streams and rivers run clean again and can be removed from the impaired waters list.

Don Loock, PEC's Land Conservation Officer for Rappahannock County, says, "With the Upper Hazel watershed, restoring excellent water quality is an achievable goal since these headwater streams originate right here in the mountains of Rappahannock and Madison County where they're not exposed to very much pollution from urban or suburban runoff. The bacteria loads found in these streams are primarily from failing or improper septic systems and from farm animals. Through cost-share programs for homeowners, we have seen improvements of septic systems in the watershed but to reach water quality goals we also need to provide ample assistance to farmers who want to create riparian corridors."

The benefits also flow downstream, as cleaner water enters the Rappahannock River-a Virginia Scenic River, a source of drinking water for the City of Fredericksburg, and a major tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.

Cleaner rivers within corridors of trees and shrubs are also a boon for wildlife. For example, bald eagles thrive in woody riparian habitats. Native brook trout, a favorite of anglers, need cool water to survive and will benefit from increased shade over streams and less body heat from wading livestock.

There are also considerable practical benefits for farms that install the fencing.

A recent study by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation entitled "Streamside Livestock Exclusion: a tool for increasing farm income and improving water quality" states: "Potential benefits from livestock ingesting greater quantities of cleaner water include increased milk and butterfat production and increased weight gain." Other economic benefits to farmers come from reduced incidents of livestock diseases and improved public image.

On the one hand, the sturdy permanent fences make it easier for him to set up temporary paddocks for his cattle, which move every day as part of the farm's rotational grazing system. Also, he can supply water to pastures where there formerly was none; the water is cleaner; and the supply is more secure, less likely to dry up in drought conditions. On the other hand, he converted over a dozen acres of good farmland to wildlife habitat and he took on responsibility to manage a complicated new project.

The new incentives through PEC and the Krebser Fund aim to tip the balance, giving riparian fencing a clear advantage for farmers who are weighing the costs and benefits.

To qualify for the additional incentives, farmers must be enrolled in an active government conservation program. The additional incentives consist of $0.50 per foot of fencing with an additional $0.10 per foot available to participants who are enrolling in a conservation program in for the first time.

The Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation District, which administers these programs locally, is a major partner on this project, providing technical assistance and authorizing the reimbursements. Another major partner, Rappahannock County, will serve as the fund custodian. PEC will be conducting an outreach campaign to encourage participation.

Nicholas Lapham, the chair of the Krebser Fund, who is also the owner of Sunnyside Farm in Washington, Virginia, says, "This funding aims to remove the financial burden for any farmer wishing to establish riparian buffers along key waterways. While cleaning the Upper Hazel watershed must be a priority, so too must be maintaining agriculture as part of our economy and heritage. This program aims to serve both goals."

The above article appeared in the Winter 2009 Piedmont View, read more:
http://www.pecva.org/anx/ass/library/219/winter_2009_piedmont_view.pdf
Read more:
http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,614,2713,44,html/Good-Fences-Clean-Water

Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium

VCERC was created by the VA legislature in 2007 and first received funds from the Commonwealth in fiscal year (July 1st 2007-June 30th 2008).

Since July 2007 VCERC has developed coastal energy technologies and the Virginian knowledge base to assist the Commonwealth in meeting the targets set out in the VA Energy Plan.

VCERC’s ongoing efforts impact three key VA Energy Plan objectives: creation of renewable energy resources; improving the environment; and economic development.

Specifically, VCERC provides the research and development required for the commercialization and implementation of renewable energy by using algal biomass, wind and wave resources available in Virginia.

Project expansion in algal biofuels and wind power will lead to spin-off industry, creating jobs, investment and lowering fuel prices in Virginia.

The VA General Assembly set out key energy policy statements and objectives. In reference to VA energy policy, VCERC’s efforts will:

■Facilitate development of energy sources that are less polluting of the Commonwealth’s air and water, and … do not contribute to greenhouse gases and global warming

■Foster research and development of alternative energy sources that are competitive at market prices

■Develop energy resources and facilities that do not impose a disproportionately adverse impact on economically disadvantaged or minority communities

■Increase VA’s reliance on agricultural-based ethanol and biodiesel from crops grown in the Commonwealth

■Ensure that energy generation and delivery systems are located in places that minimize impacts to pristine natural areas and other significant onshore natural resources, and that are as near as possible to compatible development

The Consortium is located at Old Dominion University in Norfolk.

Read more:
http://vcerc.org/index.htm

Tribune Opinion: Uranium mining regs must be kept public

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

There has been plenty of controversy over the proposed uranium mine near Nunn. Now, conversations between the regional Environmental Protection Agency office and Powertech, the company proposing to mine uranium, have raised new concerns over how the operations might be regulated.

Opponents to the mine, through Freedom of Information Act requests, have obtained correspondence between the EPA and Powertech that shows the two have been privately discussing regulations for the proposed mine.

The method of mining the uranium near Nunn is at the heart of the controversy. Called “in situ,” the mine would use water forced into the rock to wash out the uranium and bring it to the surface. Opponents are concerned about groundwater contamination in the area if this method is used.

It is important that Powertech and regulators be completely aboveboard in their discussions about regulating this potential mine.

While the EPA asserts it didn't violate any laws in its private conversations with Powertech — that it was just collecting information in anticipation of a permit application from the mine — even developing the permit requirements should be a public process.

Part of the problem is Colorado has no regulations regarding this specific kind of mining. We hope that can be rectified and soon. Chances are this proposed mine won't be the last, and our water and citizens need to be protected during this process.

We support the discovery of this information and hope it serves as a wakeup call to both the EPA and Powertech that the development of any regulations for this mine need to be done publicly and with an opportunity for citizen input.

Read More:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20091222/OPINION/912229996/-1/RSS

Let There Be Peace on Earth

Comment:  Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, be back after the holidays, LIFE, Inc.

Let There Be Peace on Earth

Let there be peace on earth

And let it begin with me.

Let there be peace on earth

The peace that was meant to be.

With God as our father

Brothers all are we.

Let me walk with my brother

In perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me

Let this be the moment now.

With every step i take

Let this be my solemn vow.

To take each moment

And live each moment

With peace eternally.

Let ther be peace on earth,

And let it begin with me.

(child)

Let there be peace on earth

And let it begin with me.

Let there be peace on earth

The peace that was meant to be.

With god as our father

Brothers all are we.

Let me walk with my brother

In perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me

Let this be the moment now.

With every step I take

Let this be my solemn vow.

To take each moment

And live each moment

In peace eternally.

Let there be peace on earth

And let it begin with me.

Christmas Poems

Christmas Bells

By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old, familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till, ringing, singing on its way

The world revolved from night to day,

A voice, a chime,

A chant sublime

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth

The cannon thundered in the South,

And with the sound

The Carols drowned

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said;

‘For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!’

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

‘God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,

The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!’

'Twas the Night Before Christmas

(or A Visit from St. Nicholas)

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

in hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

while visions of sugar plums danced in their heads.

And Mama in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,

had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap.

When out on the roof there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

tore open the shutter, and threw up the sash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

gave the lustre of midday to objects below,

when, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

but a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.

More rapid than eagles, his coursers they came,

and he whistled and shouted and called them by name:

"Now Dasher! Now Dancer!

Now, Prancer and Vixen!

On, Comet! On, Cupid!

On, Donner and Blitzen!

To the top of the porch!

To the top of the wall!

Now dash away! Dash away!

Dash away all!"

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky

so up to the house-top the coursers they flew,

with the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

the prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my head and was turning around,

down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

and his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,

and he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.

His eyes--how they twinkled! His dimples, how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

and the beard on his chin was as white as the snow.

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

and the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

that shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

and I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself.

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head

soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

and filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk.

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

and giving a nod, up the chimney he rose.

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!"

The Gift Of God

There was seen a radiance

Glowing one night

Near the little maiden Mary

In blue and white.

"Lilies are not fairer,

"Roses more red,

Than the Child she sings to slumber,"

An angel said.

So the shepherds ventured

Through the white cold,

And their eyes beheld the Infant,

An hour old.

Long they gazed and wondered,

Awkward in awe,

At the paramount perfection

Within their straw.

"Diamonds are but trifles!

"Rubies no gem!"

Cried the hearts that slaved for pittance

Near Bethlehem.

So it was forever,

After the night

When the little maiden Mary

Wore blue and white.

Voices from Copenhagen - Wind Energy Jobs

by: Eileen
Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:49:01 PM EST

Sierra Club's Virginia Chapter Director, Glen Besa, is in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change conference.

Last week he had the opportunity to take a boat tour of Middelgrunden (Denmark) offshore wind farm.

Glen recorded this 1 minute video interview with Jakob Lau Hoist
with the Danish Wind Industry Association discussing wind energy jobs.

Read more:
http://www.articlexi.com/diary/377/voices-from-copenhagen-wind-energy-jobs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNomAx_7Hek&feature=player_embedded

Uranium mining 'a health risk'

Tuesday, 18 August 2009
By Aaron Fernandes

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr Helen Caldicott says uranium mining could pose a range of health risks to WA inhabitants.

Uranium mining could present WA communities with a variety of health problems, from leukemia to congenital defects, according to a health expert at a recent forum.

Speaking at the Public Health Association of Australia’s “Uranium Mining: What are the health risks for WA?” seminar, Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr Helen Caldicott said the public health effects on Western Australians could be disastrous if plans to begin uranium mining in the State go ahead.

Dr Caldicott said miners and nearby residents could be at risk should they be exposed to harmful materials.

“Often when people mine uranium, radon in the form of gas is inhaled into the terminal bronchi, which quickly converts by radioactive decay to lead (Pb212, Pb210) which induces lung cancer.

“All radiation is cumulative, every small amount of radiation you get adds to your susceptibility to cancer.”

Dr Caldicott also said the transportation of uranium could prove a serious health risk to regional communities.

“After processing the uranium is packed into drums and transported on road trains. There will be accidents.

“The region could then be contaminated for ever more.”

Dr Caldicott said uranium exists naturally in two forms, uranium-235 and uranium-238; present in 0.7 per cent in raw ore. It must be enriched to 3 per cent for use in reactors, greater than 50 per cent to produce bombs. She said a huge amount of ore would need to be mined to produce small amounts of uranium.

Various groups and businesses, such as Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and Rio Tinto, have endorsed uranium mining as a clean, low cost alternative to carbon heavy fossils fuels, however Dr Caldicott said uranium mining would drastically increase WA’s carbon emissions.

“With uranium mining you have to dig up hundreds of thousand of tones of ore and rock to discover the uranium. It is then crushed which produces more CO2.

“This is a very energy consuming process, to enrich the uranium."

A story provided by ScienceNetwork WA
Read more:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091808-19572.html

Uranium Mining: Australia and Globally

Author: Gavin M. Mudd
energyscience.org.au

What is Uranium and How is it Mined?

Uranium is the heaviest, naturally occurring element. It consists of two principal isotopes – uranium-238 (238U) with 238 neutrons in its nucleus, and uranium-235 (235U) with 235 neutrons. The 235U isotope is the desired isotope for nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons due to its ability to fission or split apart and release vast quantities of energy in the process. Natural uranium consists of 99.3% 238U and about 0.7% 235U. Uranium is unstable – it decays into slightly lighter elements, which are also unstable and further decay. The process of decay releases energy and a small atomic particle, and is known as radioactivity.

There are two principal types of radioactive decay – alpha decay, the release of a charged helium atom, and beta decay, the release of an electron. This decay chain progresses through until a stable isotope is achieved (i.e. lead-206 or 206Pb from 238U and 207Pb from 235U). The rate at which an isotope decays is a characteristic of that isotope, and the time taken for 50% of an isotope to decay is known as its ‘halflife’.
The various decay products from uranium have half-lives ranging from fractions of a second to billions of years, shown in Table 1.

As uranium is mostly present in oxide form, it is commonly reported as either uranium (U) or its oxide ‘U3O8’. Averageconcentrations of uranium in typical soils and rocks are about 3 mg/kg U3O8 or parts per million U3O8 (ie. about 3 grams per tonne). This background uranium is partly responsible for natural background radiation. In order to mine uranium economically using existing technology, this concentration has to reach at least 300 mg/kg or 0.03% U3O8, with most uranium mines historically ranging between 0.1 to 0.5% U3O8. Due to uranium’s variable chemistry, it can be concentrated to mineable ore grades and deposits by numerous geologic processes. The most common types of mineable economic uranium ores are found in sandstone deposits, unconformity deposits, breccia complex deposits,
intrusive deposits, metamorhpic deposits and surficial deposits.

Uranium is mined using traditional techniques such as open cut or underground mining, but sandstone deposits can also be mined by ‘in situ leaching’ (also known as solution mining).Once the ore is mined it is finely ground and the uranium is chemically extracted through conventional processes involving leaching with acid or alkali, concentration and then purification to uranium oxide. Acid leaching is the most common. An oxidising chemical is commonly also used, such as pyrolusite (MnO2) or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), to
ensure the leaching is rapid. For in situ leaching, the acid or alkali is injected directly into the ore zone and pumped back to the surface (no ore is excavated). After leaching from the ore, the uranium is further concentrated usingsolvent extraction or ion exchange, followed by chemical precipitation to an impure oxide using ammonia (this product is ‘yellowcake’). Finally, the yellowcake is heated at high temperature to remove the ammonia and leave relatively pure uranium oxide (>97% U3O8).

Is Uranium Mining Like Any Other Mining?

Uranium ore is significantly radioactive – a property that is very uncommon across the mining industry. There are some other mineral deposits that also contain elevated uranium or thorium (also radioactive), however these aregenerally very few. A uranium ore deposit may have outcrops at the surface, presenting a major localised radiological risk, although more commonly uranium deposits are not visible at the surface and hence have negligible radiological risk. The geologic structure that holds the uranium is relatively stable. The process of mining and milling uranium ore involves severe disturbance to this natural equilibrium, especially as crystalline rocks are broken up during mining, ground for milling and aggressively chemically treated to liberate the uranium. An ore grade of 0.3% U3O8 means that 99.7% of the ore is left as solid waste, known as tailings (the minor loss of uranium is easily made up by the amount of chemicals added during leaching). Uranium mill tailings retain about 85% of the original radioactivity of the ore, and must be managed so as to minimise releases of radioactive decay products such as radium and radon as well as heavy metals (eg. arsenic, copper, lead).

What are the environmental impacts of uranium mining?

The environmental impacts of uranium mining include the traditional impacts associated with gold or copper mining, as well as additional radiological impacts. Depending on the type of deposit and method of mining, the environmental impacts are associated with solid waste management, water management, and chemicals and emissions from milling.

In open cut mining large quantities of waste rock are excavated to access the ore, with much of this waste rock also containing low grade, uneconomic quantities of uranium. Additionally, this waste rock may also contain sulphide minerals such as pyrite. When undisturbed in situ this rock is stable. However, the process of mining increases the cracks present and allows water and oxygen to diffuse into the waste. The oxygen and water reacts with the sulphide to produce sulphuric acid. This in turn dissolves much of the heavy metals and radionuclides present in the waste, allowing it to leach out of the rock into the surrounding environment.

This leachate, known as acid mine drainage (AMD), is extremely toxic to aquatic ecosystems and will cause major, long-lasting environmental impacts. AMD is a major problem in the mining of many metals, but presents an additional problem when combined with uranium mining.

 Infamous sites where environmental impacts from AMD have been extensive include Rum Jungle, near Darwin in Australia, as well as the Elliot Lake district in northern Ontario, Canada.

Since the late 1970’s, in Australia at least, more stringent requirements have been placed on solid waste and water management at uranium mines.

At Ranger, all tailings will be required to be emplaced within former open cuts and all waste rock re-contoured to a landform which is intended to be stable. For Olympic Dam, however, the present planning is for all tailings to remain above ground and then covered with engineered soils to minimise erosion, infiltration and radiological releases.

Recent analyses have examined the energy and water costs and greenhouse emissions associated with uranium production.

Energy is measured in Joules, and a GJ is one thousand million Joules. (About 1GJ of heat would be produced by 500 typical electric radiator bars operating for an hour.) The analyses show that the energy cost of extracting uranium is between 170 to 350 GJ per tonne of U3O8, with higher values from lower grade ores,

while for water it takes between 46,000 to 2,900 litres/t U3O8 (eg at Beverley, an acid leach mine, consumes an average 7.7 million litres of water per tonne of U3O8). The corresponding greenhouse emissions of carbon dioxide ranges from 8.5 to 51 t CO2/t U3O8. These environmental costs are particularly sensitive to ore grade, with higher values from lower grade ores.

How much radioactive waste does uranium mining produce?

The radioactive nature of uranium means that any mining leads to the production of significant quantities of
radioactive wastes – principally waste rock and tailings. The extent of waste will depend on the specifics of a
particular deposit and mine plan, but in general open cut mining produces significantly more waste than underground mining.

By December 2005 in Australia, on average, each tonne of uranium extracted has led to the production of 848 tonnes of mill tailings and 1,152 tonnes of combined low-grade ore and waste rock (excluding in situ leach production). The total quantity of tailings is about 128 million tonnes (grading about 0.03% U3O8) with about 175 million tonnes of combined low-grade ore and waste rock. In comparison to the volumes of radioactive waste in the nuclear fuel chain, the largest quantity is easily produced in the mining and milling of uranium.

What are the radioactivity releases from uranium mining?

The releases of radioactivity from uranium mining are sourced from tailings, low-grade ore and, to a lesser extent water management. The principal release is that of radon – a noble gas that is a radioactive decay product of uranium. Radon has a high rate of radioactivity per mass, and is implicated in lung cancers in long-term health studies of former uranium mineworkers.

Can uranium mines be operated safely?

The most recent experience of Australia’s operating uranium mines demonstrates the challenges involved in uranium mining, which are distinct and unique. There have been numerous incidents at the now closed Nabarlek mine and the operating Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverley projects.

The most common examples include mismanagement of water, sometimes leading to unauthorised releases to adjacent creeks, significant risks to mine/mill workers, waste rock leaching, and ongoing seepage impacts from tailings. Some relatively recent examples include:

Ranger:
• despite being expected to operate under a “no-release” water management system, incidents involving misplaced low grade ores or failures in water control bunds have led on numerous occasions to contaminated runoff waters being leaked into adjacent creeks (especially Corridoor Creek, a tributary of Magela Creek).
• in early 2004 incorrect plumbing saw the process water circuit being connected to the potable drinking water circuit – leading to rapid and significant toxic process water being mixed with drinking water, and much of the Ranger workforce being potentially exposed to both acute chemical and radiological exposure.

Olympic Dam:
• after operating for nearly a decade, a major ongoing leak from the tailings dam was revealed, amounting to the loss of billions of litres of tailings water to groundwater.
• in March 1999, and again October 2001, major explosions and fires caused substantive damage to the mill and smelter complexes, including major releases of noxious fumes – though the extent of radiological releases
remains highly contentious, the fact that the uranium solvent extraction circuit in the 2001 incident was on fire
raises serious concerns about how these incidents are handled by current regulators.
Beverley:
• numerous spills and leaks from pipelines have occurred.

Nabarlek (now closed):
• due to the need to reduce the inventory of contaminated mine site waters, evaporation pond water was irrigated over an area adjacent to the mine/mill and led to significant tree deaths and lasting impacts on water quality in the adjacent creek which have taken nearly two decades to flush through.

Can uranium mines be satisfactorily rehabilitated?

The experience of rehabilitating uranium mines to date in Australia is questionable. The first generation of uranium mines from the Cold War, namely Rum Jungle, Radium Hill, Mary Kathleen and the South Alligator group of mines, all still present environmental and radiological management problems and require constant vigilence and maintenance.

Examples include:

• Rum Jungle – despite extensive remediation/rehabilitation works in the early 1980’s, including excavating
remnant tailings and disposal into former pits, re-contouring and engineering soil covers over low grade ore and waste rock dumps, acid mine drainage continues to pollute the Finniss River, and the complete site still urgently requires more remediation/rehabilitation works.

• Radium Hill – after being abandoned in early 1962, minimal earth works were undertaken in the early 1980’s, mainly just engineering soil covers over the tailings piles – erosion is a continual problem and tailings requires ongoing maintenance.

• Mary Kathleen – operating in both the Cold War phase of the late 1950’s to mid-1960’s as well as again in the commercial era of the late 1970’s, the mid-1980’s rehabilitation of the mine won an engineering excellence award for its perceived quality – despite internal concerns by the regulators about potential for long-term seepage from the tailings dam. Recent field studies in the late 1990’s have validated this concern and shown ongoing seepage of saline, metal and radionuclide rich waters from the tailings dam – well above the quantities predicted at the time of rehabilitation – impacting on the local creek.

Overall, the experience to date with uranium mining does not give rise to any sufficient degree of confidence, as past sites – even after significant rehabilitation works – are still showing problems with erosion and seepage and ongoing impacts on water quality.

About the author:

Gavin Mudd holds a PhD in Environmental Engineering and is a lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University. His research interest include the environmental impacts from uranium mining and milling in Australia.

Read more:
http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS06%20Uranium%20Mining.pdf

Short Pump Rattled by Earthquake

Small earthquake rattled residents of the West End late Monday night.

According to the Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory, a 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck Short Pump around midnight.

According to observatory officials, the quake lasted three or four seconds.

The earthquake was felt from the Lakeside area all the way to the Wyndham development in Henrico County.

Manakin area of Goochland also reported hearing a boom.

Read more:
http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=10655338

Earthquake hits near Dillwyn, Virginia

WSLS News Staff
news@wsls.com
Published: December 17, 2009

Eastern parts of the WSLS viewing area may have felt a brief rumbling Thursday evening.

The U.S. Geological Surbey says a 2.2 magnitude earthquake hit around 8:20 p.m., about three miles west of Dillwyn.
No damage was reported.

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/article/earthquake_hits_near_dillwyn_virginia/69305/

US lawmakers warned about uranium mining

12:59 AEST
Sat Feb 28 2009

Australian aborigines, a French physicist and a US actor joined representatives of indigenous peoples from Africa and the United States on Friday to send US lawmakers a stark warning about the dangers of uranium mining.

"We want US lawmakers to understand that uranium mining is highly pollutant and that there is currently no scientific answer to the question of radioactive waste containment," said Bruno Chareyron of France's CRIIRAD laboratory, which measures radioactivity in the environment.

"We want them to know that the information they are given by the mining companies is not wholly reliable," he said.

Representatives of the Tuareg nomads of Niger, Native Americans and Australian aborigines told of the ravages of uranium mining on their communities.

In Niger, French company Areva has been mining uranium for more than 40 years with "no regard for the environment, people's health, animals", said Sidi-Amar Taoua, a Tuareg who has lived for seven years in the United States.

"Uranium mining has impacted every area and sparked a war between the Tuareg who took up arms to defend their land, and the government, which is complicit with Areva," he said.

Areva announced last month that it has applied for US government approval to build a $US2 billion ($A3.08 billion) uranium enrichment plant in the northwestern state of Idaho.

The project would be the French state-controlled group's first uranium enrichment plant in the US.

Native American lands in the southwestern US have been the site of more than 1,300 uranium mines.

Although most have been closed, the mines' legacy includes contaminated drinking water and illnesses from cancer to kidney disease, said Native American environmental activist Manny Pino.

"In this process of nuclear renaissance, it's almost like the federal government is ignoring the historical legacy of uranium mining in the past and prioritising the economic benefits of nuclear power in the future at the expense of our land, our water and our people," he said.

Mitch, an aboriginal militant against radioactive waste dumps and uranium mining in Australia, the world's biggest producer of the mineral, said: "Short term monetary gain will leave us with long-term deadly waste for generations to come."

Uranium mining saw a long boom period in the US between the 1940s and 1980s, before coming to a near halt in the 1990s as prices paid for the mineral plummeted.

In 2005, as uranium prices were starting to climb upwards again, the Navajo passed a law banning the mining or processing of uranium on their lands.

But when the price of the mineral peaked at around $US140 ($A215.52) a pound in 2007, mining companies descended "like vultures" on uranium-rich areas, 70 per cent of which are situated on land inhabited by low-income indigenous communities, said James Cromwell, the actor who played George H.W. Bush in the film W, which has just opened in Australia.

"There's a lot of activity. When uranium prices went up we saw proposals for exploration all over the place," said Sandy Bahr of environmental group the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter.

In January, Arizona lawmaker Raul Grijalva introduced a bill in Congress that would permanently withdraw from mineral extraction one million acres of public lands in watersheds surrounding the Grand Canyon.

Read more at:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/758600/us-lawmakers-warned-about-uranium-mining

The Chesapeake Bay could get a new lease on life -- but not if we stay silent.

The Chesapeake Bay could get a new lease on life -- but not if we stay silent.

We have until Jan. 8 to let the EPA know that we want a clean and healthy bay. That's when they stop accepting public comments on their proposed cleanup plan for the bay.

Click here and tell the EPA you want a healthy bay:  http://www.environmentvirginia.org/action/cleanwater/email-epa?id4=ES

We must take serious steps to limit all sources of pollution and clean up our bay.

But big developers and industrial agribusinesses are lashing out at the plan.

The same people who have failed to clean up the bay for 25 years continue to stand in the way, and if we don't fight back, they will likely win again.

What would losing this fight mean? Fewer blue crabs, larger dead zones and a major hit to our economy.

We can win this time. The EPA wants to do the right thing, but they need our support in order to take action.

http://www.environmentvirginia.org/action/cleanwater/email-epa?id4=ES

Sincerely,

J.R. Tolbert
Environment Virginia Environmental Advocate
http://www.environmentvirginia.org/

EPA Hosts Video Competition to Promote ‘Three Rs’ of Consumer Waste

CONTACT:
Skip Anderson
anderson.skip@epa.gov
202-564-9551, 202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

December 16, 2009

EPA Hosts Video Competition to Promote ‘Three Rs’ of Consumer Waste

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is sponsoring a video contest that challenges filmmakers to produce short, creative videos that highlight the “Three Rs” of individual consumption: reduce, reuse, and recycle. The agency is accepting submissions for the contest, called “Our Planet, Our Stuff, Our Choice,” through Feb. 16.

Entries should be either 30 or 60 seconds in length. The video should creatively promote steps individuals and organizations can take to minimize negative environmental impacts within their communities on the following topics:

Reducing and reusing
Recycling
Composting
Consumption and its effect on environmental footprint

The winning submissions will be announced in April 2010 in time for the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. Awards will be given to the top three videos in the following amounts, as well as a special “Student Winner” category exclusively for submissions by persons 13 to 18 years old at the time of entry.

1st Place - $2,500
2nd Place - $1,500
3rd Place - $1,000
2 Student Winners (13 to 18 years old) - $500 each

More information on the contest: http://www.epa.gov/waste/wycd/video

Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
View all news releases related to trash and recycling
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

Pittsylvania County tables megapark mining issue

By John Crane
Published: December 15, 2009

CHATHAM — A proposal by a Pittsylvania County resident to prohibit uranium mining at the Berry Hill Road industrial megapark site has hit a dead end.

The Board of Supervisors voted to table the idea during its adjourned meeting Tuesday night, but not before Staunton River Supervisor Marshall Ecker urged the board to pass the resolution to protect county taxpayers’ investment.

“I believe that this board should step up to the plate,” Ecker said.

Dan River Supervisor James Snead made a substitute motion to table the matter and the board, by a narrow 4-3 vote, passed it. Snead, Tunstall Supervisor Tim Barber, Banister Supervisor William Pritchett and Westover Supervisor and Board Chairman Coy Harville voted in favor. Ecker, Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis and Callands-Gretna Supervisor Fred Ingram opposed Snead’s motion.

Karen Maute, a uranium mining opponent, asked the board last month to ban uranium mining within a 25-mile radius of the proposed industrial megapark site. Maute also wants Danville City Council and the Danville Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facilities Authority to sign the resolution.

Snead said he proposed the substitute motion because the park belongs to RIFA.

“I think it (the resolution) needs to come from the RIFA board,” Snead said after the meeting.

Maute proposed the resolution because the 3,700-acre megapark site includes historic Marline mineral leases. Marline Corp. had plans to mine and mill uranium in Pittsylvania County in the early 1980s.

Maute expressed consternation during an interview after the vote.

“If they’re not going to pass a resolution to protect the megapark, what are their plans for the park?” she said.

Maute’s resolution points to at least one former Marline parcel covering 504 acres. RIFA owns the leases.

Harville said last month that RIFA purchased the property with the condition that the previous owner could not have the mineral rights to the leases. RIFA has no intention of mining uranium at the Berry Hill megapark site, Harville said.

City and county officials hope to attract a major manufacturer to the park site. County Administrator Dan Sleeper said installation of roads, utilities, erosion control, grading and making the site into a park will cost $222 million.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/pittsylvania_county_tables_megapark_mining_issue/16372/

Real Christmas tree is best for environment

Ashcroft Farm,White Post, Virginia

Published: 12:00 AM, Sun Dec 13, 2009

By Joe Lamp'l
Scripps Howard News Service

Over the last several years I've researched a lot about various aspects of living a more eco-friendly life.

But when it comes to choosing a Christmas tree, everything I thought I was doing right for the environment by using an artificial tree went out the window. And it looks like the message is getting out.

According to the National Christmas Tree Association, Americans purchased about 33 percent fewer fake trees in 2008 than in the previous year. Rick Dungey, public-relations manager for the association, shared a few eye-opening thoughts on the real environmental impact of artificial trees in a recent conversation.

Artificial trees never biodegrade

Fake trees are not biodegradable, so they never break down.

Real trees are good for the garden

After the season, real trees can be hauled to the back yard as a mini-habitat, or they can be ground and used as mulch. But in all cases, real trees are 100 percent biodegradable.

Artificial trees include potentially harmful material

Part of what makes artificial trees so sturdy are the components used in construction. PVC plastics are made from petroleum byproducts, heavy metals are used to stabilize the plastics, and the metal branches are mined from the ground.

Real trees are good for the environment

In 2008, 45 million new Christmas trees were planted in tree farms across America. At any moment, there are approximately half a billion trees growing for future harvest that otherwise would not be there.

While growing, they're absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, stabilizing soil and providing habitats for wildlife. As trees are harvested, new trees are planted to take their place. And unlike artificial trees, real trees can often be purchased from local farms.

Buy a living tree and replant it in your yard or donate it to a park or school after the holidays.

The bottom line to a greener Christmas this season is to think twice before opting for artificial Christmas trees as the more eco-friendly choice, because they're not.

Read more:
http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/12/13/957422

Launder environmentally

Chantal Lamers
Sunday, December 13, 2009

If you're addicted to the fluff cycle, it might be time to make a change.

We asked Collin Dunn, a senior writer for TreeHugger.com and PlanetGreen.com, for tips on how to green our laundry habits.

His top three recommendations: Use cold water to reduce energy consumption, be thoughtful about detergents and avoid the dryer as much as possible. Here are more:

Choose detergent wisely. There are dozens of environmentally friendly detergents on store shelves. The most ecological are usually those with the fewest ingredients, are formulated to work efficiently in cold water, come in powder form and are packaged in cardboard. (These containers ship more efficiently and are universally recyclable.)

DIY detergent. Dunn's preferred detergent is the kind that can be made at home. Not only is it easy and cheap, but you can also control exactly what goes in and customize with ingredients such as lavender and essential oils.

Follow this recipe from PlanetGreen.com for whipping up a batch of liquid detergent:

You'll need: 1 quart of boiling water, 2 cups of grated bar soap, 2 cups of Borax, 2 cups of washing soda. (Essential oils are optional.) Once the water boils, add the finely grated bar soap until melted and reduce to low heat. Pour soapy water into a large clean pail. Add Borax and soda. Stir until dissolved. Add 2 more gallons of water and stir until dissolved. Once it cools, you can add five to seven drops of essential oils. Keep the mixture covered and stir before each use until it gels. Use 1/4 cup per laundry load.

Fabric softener from the kitchen. Pass on traditional fabric-softening liquids and cloths for white vinegar. Add 1 cup during the rinse cycle. Dunn assures laundry won't come out smelling like vinegar.

Dunn favors white vinegar but says oxygen bleaches like Borax and OxiClean are also safe.

Better ways to dry.

The dryer is the biggest home appliance energy hog next to the refrigerator, says Dunn.

One way to cut down on dry time is by using a laundry spinner ($189 at realgoods.com). The large canister spins out excess water, detergent and mineral deposits from clothes in minutes. This typically reduces machine-drying time as much as 30 minutes.

Indoor clothesline. The most energy efficient way to dry is to use a clothesline. If you lack outdoor space, create room inside. Ikea sells a host of drying racks such as the Antonius, a rolling 63-inch tall by 27-inch wide collapsible rack with plenty of drying room (Ikea.com).

The store also sells smaller folding stands and wall racks from $6.99 to $39.99.

Bag your cleaning. Cut down on wasteful plastic dry cleaning bags and wire hangers. Bring your dry cleaning in on your own plastic hangars in reusable garment bags.

- Chantal Lamers, home@sfchronicle.com
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/13/HORN1ACD1E.DTL

Existing Energy Efficiency Technologies Could Provide Major Savings

Date: Dec. 9, 2009

Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Existing Energy Efficiency Technologies Could Provide Major Savings

WASHINGTON -- Energy efficiency technologies that exist today or that are likely to be developed in the near future could save considerable money as well as energy, says a new report from the National Research Council. Fully adopting these technologies could lower projected U.S. energy use 17 percent to 20 percent by 2020, and 25 percent to 31 percent by 2030.

Achieving full deployment of these efficiency technologies will depend in part on pressures driving adoption, such as high energy prices or public policies designed to increase energy efficiency.

Nearly 70 percent of electricity consumption in the United States occurs in buildings. The energy savings from attaining full deployment of cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies in buildings alone could eliminate the need to add new electricity generation capacity through 2030, the report says.

New power generation facilities would be needed only to address imbalances in regional energy supplies, replace obsolete facilities, or to introduce more environmentally friendly sources of electricity.

Many cost-effective efficiency investments in buildings are possible, the report says. For example, replacing appliances such as air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, and hot water heaters with more efficient models could reduce energy use by 30 percent.

Opportunities for achieving substantial energy savings exist in the industrial and transportation sectors as well. For example, deployment of industrial energy efficiency technologies could reduce energy use in manufacturing 14 percent to 22 percent by 2020, relative to expected trends. Most of these savings would occur in the most energy-intensive industries, such as chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, and cement.

Although there is great potential, many barriers exist to widespread adoption of energy efficiency technologies, the report points out.

The upfront costs can be high, which can deter investment despite the possibility of long-term cost savings.

Volatile energy prices can cause buyers to delay purchasing more efficient technology due to a lack of confidence that they will see an adequate return on their investment. In addition, there is a shortage of readily available, trustworthy information for consumers hoping to learn about the relative performance and costs of energy-efficient technology alternatives.

Investments in energy-efficient infrastructure are particularly important, as these can lock in patterns of energy use for decades. Therefore, taking advantage of windows of opportunity for infrastructure is crucial.

Overcoming these barriers will require significant public and private support, and sustained effort.

Many energy efficiency initiatives have been successful, such as the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star labeling program. Efforts undertaken by California and New York have yielded large energy savings for those states. These experiences provide valuable lessons for national, state, and local policymakers on enacting effective energy efficiency policies.

This is the final report in a series from the National Academies' America's Energy Future project, which was undertaken to stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about the nation’s energy future.

Copies of Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu/
Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).
[ This news release and report are available at http://national-academies.org/ ]
Read more at:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12621

Radiological hazards from uranium mining (Failed Uranium Mining in France)

Abstract. At all the French uranium mines where it made radiological surveys, the CRIIRAD laboratory discovered situations of environmental contamination and a lack of proper protection of the inhabitants against health risks due to ionizing radiation.

Radiological problems are not only to be addressed during mining or milling operations but also on the longer term after mine closure.

Uranium and its by-products

All natural uranium isotopes (238U, 234U, 235U) are radioactive. The most common isotope, 238U, decays naturally into a succession of 13 other radioactive nuclides. All are metals (thorium 230, radium 226, lead 210, polonium 210, etc) except one, radon 222, which is a radioactive gas.

Uranium and its decay products emit various ionizing radiation such as alpha and beta particles and gamma radiation.

This presence of natural uranium in the Earth crust, and therefore in numerous building materials made out of natural minerals, is the main source of exposure of mankind to ionizing radiation. This is especially due to the diffusion of radon gas from the soil and materials containing uranium- and its accumulation in the air inside buildings and dwellings.

This radiological hazard is now well documented and International (The International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP) and European (Euratom) regulations determine recommendations and action levels in order to lower radon concentration inside buildings and reduce cancer risks.

The health impacts of ionizing radiation even at low doses include the increase of various types of cancers, genomic instability, life-shortening and negative impacts on all the body functions.

Radiological situation before extraction

The activities of uranium ores have an important variability.

Typical ore with a uranium content of 0.2 % has a 238U activity of about 25,000 Bq/kg. The total activity, including all the 238U by-products and the 235U decay chain will therefore exceed 360,000 Bq/kg. Such material should be managed with a great deal of caution due to the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation.

As long as the ore remains buried underground - the depth being a few tens and even a few hundreds of meters - the radiation levels at the surface of the earth remain low and usually have the same order of magnitude as of typical natural radiation levels.
Indeed, alpha and low energy beta particles are stopped by a thin layer of soil (much less than 1 cm.). Even penetrating gamma radiation does not cross a layer of soil of a few meters.

Regarding the radiological characteristics of air and water, the situation is more complex.

Nevertheless before mining activities most of the radon gas remains trapped inside the soil. Because of its short half-life (3.8 days) a lot of the gas atoms will disintegrate inside the soil during their migration before reaching the biosphere.

The amount of nuclides in underground water may remain low if the minerals containing uranium are trapped in unpermeable layers.

Radiological situation during uranium extraction

The radiological situation is reversed as soon as the uranium extraction begins.

There are many reasons for this. Radioactive dust is transferred to the atmosphere by mining operations, extraction and crushing of ore, uranium milling, management of waste rocks and tailings.

This has to be emphasized because some of the nuclides contained in the uranium decay chains (such has thorium 230) are very radiotoxic when inhaled.

For example, when inhaled, a given activity of actinium 227 (part of the 235U decay chain) gives a radiation dose 5 times higher than the same activity of plutonium 238 (Euratom 1996).

Radon gas is transferred to the atmosphere by the vents of the mines and by diffusion from radioactive rocks and tailings (Chareyron and Castanier 1994).

Surface and / or underground water is contaminated by uranium and its by products.

Some of them are very radiotoxic when ingested (Chareyron and Castanier 1994). Lead 210 and polonium 210 for example are among the most radiotoxic elements. When ingested, a given activity of polonium 210 gives a radiation dose 4.8 times higher than the same activity of plutonium 239 (Euratom 1996).

Huge amounts of waste rocks, with activities exceeding the normal activity of the earth crust by one to two orders of magnitude are dispersed into the environRadiological hazards from uranium mining

ment and may be used for landfill, road construction or even building (Chareyron 2002b).

Huge amounts of radioactive tailings (with typical total activities exceeding 100,000 and even 500,000 Bq/kg) are generated and stored without proper confinement (Chareyron and Castanier 1994).

Long term contamination after mines closure

Even decades after the shut down of uranium mines and mills, the radioactive contamination of the environment will remain.

This is due to the fact that 238U half life is very long (4.5 billion years). But even the tailings from the mills - whose uranium content is lower than the initial uranium concentration in the ore - will remain radioactive on the long term.

They contain all the radioactive metals included in the uranium decay chain which have not been extracted in the mill, especially thorium 230 and radium 226 whose half lives are 75,000 years and 1,600 years respectively.

This long term impact will occur in many ways. Some examples are given below, based on studies performed by the CRIIRAD laboratory since 1992 in France (and Niger).

Transfer of radionuclides to the aquatic environment

Accumulation of radioactive metals in sediments and plants of rivers, ponds, and lakes by contaminated waters from former mines (and also tailing deposits, uncovered waste rock deposits, etc.) is a problem that is not yet properly addressed by the companies.

Table 1. Radioactivity of sediments upstream and downstream Saint-Pierre a mine (year 2003, 2004, 2006). Sample type Sample Location Year Uranium 238 (Bq/kg dry) Radium 226 (Bq/kg dry) Lead 210 (Bq/kg dry)
Sediment Brook, upstream 2006 76 77 123 Sediment Ditch. near Lake, downstream 2003 49,900 1,191 1,387 Sediment Ditch. near Lake 2006 144,000 430 2,150 Sediment Lake, downstream 2004 126,000 735 3,533 a Saint Pierre mine is located in Cantal (France). Uranium extraction took place from 1956 to 1985.
The mining companies were SCUMRA, then Total Compagnie Minière. The site is now under COGEMA-AREVA’s responsibility (Chareyron 2004, 2005a; Chareyron and Constantin Blanc 2007).

4 Bruno Chareyron 1
The CRIIRAD laboratory discovered that sediments, aquatic plants and soil from river banks downstream former uranium mines have such a contamination that they deserve in many cases the terminology: “radioactive waste” (238U activity or the activity of some of its by-products were exceeding 10,000 Bq/kg).

Some results are summarized in tables above (Table 1) and below (Tables 2 to 4).

Table 2.

Radioactivity of sediments and soil upstream and downstream Les Bois Noirs b uranium mine (year 1996, 2001 and 2006).

Sample type Samplecation Year Uranium 238 (Bq/kg dry) Radium 226 (Bq/kg dry) Lead 210 (Bq/kg dry) Sediments River, upstream
1996 87 85 109 Marshy soil downstream tailings pond
2001 7,900 18,400 7,500 Sediments River, 25 m downstream water discharge
2001 510 770 390 Soil River shore 25 m downstream discharge
2001 5,900 10,600 4,100 Deep sediment (20/30 cm) Dam, 12 km downstream
1996 4,048 1,928 1,613 Sediment Dam, 12 km downstream
2006 4,700 1,630 1,680 b Les Bois Noirs mine is located in the Loire department (France). Uranium has been extracted there from 1955 to 1980 by the CEA and then COGEMA-AREVA. (Chareyron
2002b, Chareyron 2008b).

As shown in the table above (Table 2) the accumulation of uranium and or radium downstream uranium mines is usually more intense for surface soil sampled from the river shore than for river sediments (one order of magnitude in this example).

Bioaccumulation of radioactive metals can be extremely high in the biota. In some cases, the contamination of aquatic plants by radium 226 downstream uranium mines can exceed 100,000 Bq/kg dry (Table 3). This shows that the mine water treatment system is not operating properly.

The problem of bioaccumulation is usually not taken into consideration by the companies nor the dministrations in charge of environmental monitoring and regulatory control.

Should be noted as well that radioactive metals are transported far away from the mines. At Les Bois Noirs mine, uranium accumulation in sediments is still 54 times above background value 12 km downstream the mine (Table 2).

Uranium Radiological hazards from uranium mining 5 and radium accumulation in aquatic plants are 4 to 6 times above background value 30 km downstream the discharge pipe from the mine (Table 3).

Table 3. Radioactivity of aquatic plants upstream and downstream Les Bois Noirs b uranium
mine (Year 2001 and 2006) Sample type Sample Location Year Uranium 238 (Bq/kg dry) Radium 226
(Bq/kg dry) Lead 210 (Bq/kg dry) Fontinales River, upstream

2001 109 144 323 Fontinales Drain downstream tailings pond
2001 32,400 113 1,250 Fontinales River, 25 m downstream the discharge pipe
2001 9,000 93,600 1,430 Fontinales River 1.5 km downstream
2001 3,500 37,800 600 Fontinales River, 9 km downstream
2001 1,900 5,500 480 Fontinales River, 30 km downstream
2001 450 990 210 Fontinales Inside discharge pipe
2006 3,400 143,000 6,000 Fontinales River < 1 km downstream
2006 10,200 147,000 2,400

Table 4. Radioactivity of sediments and soil upstream and downstream (PDL) Puy de l’Agec and (BZN) Bellezaned uranium mines (year 1993, 2004).

Sample / Mine Sample Location Year Uranium 238 (Bq/kg dry) Radium 226 (Bq/kg dry) Lead 210 (Bq/kg dry) Sediment River, upstream
1993 73 60 68 Sediment / PDL River, downstream
1993 13,470 28,740 7,282 Sediment / BZN River, downstream
1993 36,167 1,971 1,928 Sediment / BZN River, 1.5 m downstream
2004 63,000 13,400 2,770

Puy de l’Age mine is located in the department of Haute-Vienne (Limousin, France). The mine has been reclaimed by COGEMA-AREVA in 1993 (Chareyron and Castanier, 1994).

Bellezane mine is located in the department of Haute-Vienne (Limousin, France). Uranium has been extracted from 1975 to 1992 by COGEMA-AREVA (Chareyron and Castanier, 1994, Chareyron 2006).

6 Bruno Chareyron 1
Dispersal of radioactive minerals

At many places, radioactive minerals from the mines are kept by local people or former workers unaware of the radiological hazards which are, in some cases, verysignificant.

For example, the CRIIRAD laboratory discovered in France that an inhabitant living near Les Bois Noir former uranium mine was keeping a sample of waste rock with a dose rate of 1 milliSievert per hour at the surface of the stone (Chareyron, 2002a).

This figure is about 5,000 times above local background level. The gamma doserate was 18.3 microSievert per hour at a distance of one meter. Staying at a distance of 1 meter during only 10 minutes per day will lead to exceeding the annual maximum permissible dose for members of the public i.e. 1 milliSievert per year (Euratom, 1996).

Dispersal of radioactive waste rocks and radon gas accumulation

Re-use of radioactive waste rocks for landfill has been in some areas a common practice. CRIIRAD demonstrated that several places near a French uranium mine were contaminated including the car park of a restaurant, the yard of a farm, several sawmill buildings, kilometres of path and ro ads, etc. (Chareyron 2002b).

The mining company had therefore to pay during year 2003, for the evacuation of 8,000 m3 of radioactive waste rock from the sawmill back to the former open pit (Chareyron 2002b).

Dispersal of contaminated scrap metal

Dispersal and re-use of contaminated scrap metal from the mines or mills has also been a common practice. During 2003, the CRIIRAD laboratory discovered in Niger that radioactive scrap metal was sold in Arlit city. One piece was a pipe from the uranium mill. It was sold without previous decontamination and the 226Ra activity of the crust inside the pipe exceeded 200,000 Bq/kg. Such a practice cannot be justified.

The mining company COGEMA (now known as AREVA) stated that before 1999, no radiation limit was used for scrap metal recycling. Later, a dose limit of 1 microGray per hour at a distance of 50 cm had been applied. Such a limit is much too high. If someone uses such metallic pieces inside his house – which is common in African countries –staying 3 hours per day at a distance of 50 cm will lead to exceed the annual maximum permissible dose for members of the public. (Chareyron 2003, 2005b).

Radiological hazards from uranium mining

At present, discussions are still going on with the mining company, local NGO’s and the administration, in order to decide whether radioactive rocks used at other places will or will not be evacuated (ski resort house, garage of a citizen, etc.).

Radioactive material have been detected again in 2007 inside private houses or at scrap merchants (Chareyron 2008a).

Problems posed by the disposal of tailings

The disposal of radioactive tailings and their control on the long term, has not received yet satisfying solutions, taking into consideration their activity, radiotoxicity and long half-lives. Some examples from France (where about 50 million tons of tailings are stored) and Niger are given below.

In France 1.5 million tons of tailings have been dumped in a former open pit (Bellezane mine) but the CRIIRAD laboratory discovered that the finest fraction of the radioactive material could reach the underground galleries underneath the pit. Furthermore, the mine water treatment plant was not efficient enough to prevent the contamination of the river and meadows downstream (Chareyron and

Castanier 1994, Chareyron 2006).

In Niger, more than 20 million tons of radioactive tailings are stored in the open air, near SOMAÏR and COMINAK mills, a few kilometers away from the cities of ARLIT and AKOKAN (about 70,000 inhabitants). Radon gas and radioactive dust can be scattered away by the powerfull winds of the desert (Chareyron 2003, 2005b, 2008a).

Conclusion

At all the French uranium mines where it made radiological surveys, the CRIIRAD laboratory discovered situations of environmental contamination and a lack of proper protection of the inhabitants against health risks due to ionizing radiation.

This is due to the lack of proper regulations, a poor awareness of the radiological hazards associated with uranium and its by products, insufficient monitoring practices, the lack of controls by the local and national administration, etc.

When the mines are shut down, the radioactive waste remains, and it seems that the costs for managing this radioactive legacy will have to be largely supported by the society, not the companies.

If such a situation occurs in a so-called “developed country” one should fear what could actually happen in other parts of the world.

The preliminary mission made by CRIIRAD to Niger confirmed this fear. In Gabon, the improvement of
the conditions in which tailings are disposed is being paid for by the European Community and not by the mining company. The former workers and local population do not benefit any more from medical care and they receive no compensation when they become sick, years and decades after the mine shut down. 8 Bruno Chareyron 1

References
Chareyron B, Castanier C (1994) CRIIRAD, Etudes radioécologiques sur la division minière
de la Crouzille, Février 1994 Chareyron B (2002a) Compte rendu de mesures effectuées par le laboratoire de la CRIIRAD sur un bloc de minerai d’uranium présent chez un particulier de la commune
de Saint-Priest-La-Prugne (Loire) Chareyron B (2002b) Rapport CRIIRAD N°03-38, Bilan radioécologique du Site Bois Noirs, octobre 2002 Chareyron B (2003) Note CRIIRAD N°03-40. Compte rendu de mission à Arlit (Niger) du 3 au 11 décembre 2003. Décembre 2003 Chareyron B (2004) Rapport CRIIRAD N°04-05. Contrôles radiologiques préliminaires dans l’environnement de la mine d’uranium de Saint-Pierre (Cantal). Mars 2004 Chareyron B (2005a) Note CRIIRAD N°05-02. Analyse de sédiments lors de la vidange du lac de Saint-Pierre (Cantal). Mars-avril 2005 Chareyron B (2005b) Note CRIIRAD N°05-17. Impact de l’exploitation de l’uranium par les filiales de COGEMA-AREVA au Niger. Avril 2005 Chareyron B (2006) Note CRIIRAD N°06-41. Remarques sur le projet COGEMA-AREVA de stockage de boues et sédiments contaminés sur le site de Bellezane (Haute-Vienne). Juin 2006 Chareyron B, Constantin-Blanc T (2007) Rapport CRIIRAD N°07-68 Expertise 2006 Phase 2 Tome 1 Milieu aquatique. Situation radiologique de la mine d’uranium de Saint-Pierre (Cantal) et de son environnement. Octobre 2007 Chareyron B (2008a) Note CRIIRAD N°08-02 AREVA : du discours à la réalité –L’exemple des mines d’uranium du Niger. Janvier 2008 Chareyron B (2008b) Note de synthèse CRIIRAD N°08-50 Ancien site d’extraction ’uranium AREVA des Bois Noirs / Suivi CRIIRAD-Collectif des Bois Noirs 2006-2007. Avril 2008 EURATOM (1996) Directive 96/29/Euratom du Conseil, du 13 mai 1996, fixant les normes de base relatives à la protection sanitaire de la population et des travailleurs contre les dangers résultant des rayonnements ionisants. L 159

1CRIIRAD (Commission de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité),Immeuble CIME, 471 av Victor Hugo, 26 000 Valence, FRANCE, Email: bruno.chareyron@criirad.org
Read more at:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.criirad.org%2Faccueil.html


ttp://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/CD_TM_Swakopmund%20200710/14%20Petitclerc.PDF