VIRGINIA ROANOKE RIVER BASIN ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Meeting

Meeting Agenda

The Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday,

June 2, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the

Charlotte Court House County Administration Building,

250 Legrande Avenue, Charlotte Court House, VA 23923.

Agenda:

A. Call meeting to order

B. Welcome; Recognition of Members and Guests

C. Consider Minutes of March 31, 2010 Meeting

D. Sub-Committee Reports

Agriculture and Forestry Sub-Committee - Haywood Hamlet, Chair
Presentations by Todd Haymore, Secretary of Agriculture and
Forestry and Carl Garrison, State Forester
Lake Interests Sub-Committee - Russ Johnson, Chair
Permit Holders Sub-Committee - John Lindsey, Chair
Public Officials and Government Entities Sub-Committee - Robert Conner, Chair
Roanoke River Interests Sub-Committee - Read Charlton, Chair

E. Water Allocation Ad Hoc Committee Report - Discussion and Comments

F. Other Business - Doug Crowther - Discussion on Nuclear Power

G. Next Meeting Date/Topic/Location

H. Adjournment

Committee Members
Senator Wm. Roscoe Reynolds, Walter Coles, Sr., Chatham
Senator Frank M. Ruff ,John H. Feild, Mecklenburg
Delegate Kathy J. Byron ,Haywood J. Hamlet, Phenix
Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr Evelyn Janney, Floyd
Delegate Onzlee Ware. Bob Jean, Brookneal
Delegate Charles D. Poindexter Russ Johnson, Wirtz
John Lindsey, Penhook Mark Wagner, Huddleston
Mike McEvoy, Chairman, Roanoke Billy Martin, Sr., Blue Ridge
Tim Pace, Collinsville Robert H. Conner, Vice-Chair, Ebony
Read Charlton, Vice-Chair, Charlotte Kimble Reynolds for Representative Tom Perriello

http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/vrrbac/pdf/Agenda_06_02_2010_VRRBAC.pdf
Read more:
http://www.deq.state.va.us/vrrbac/

Contaminants In Groundwater Used For Public Supply

The 932 public wells (colored circles) are located in parts of 41 states and withdraw water from parts of 30 regionally extensive aquifers used for public water supply. The colored areas on this map represent different principal aquifer rock types, each of which has different geologic characteristics.

by Staff Writers
Reston VA (SPX) May 28, 2010

More than 20 percent of untreated water samples from 932 public wells across the nation contained at least one contaminant at levels of potential health concern, according to a new study by the U.S. Geological Survey.

About 105 million people - or more than one-third of the nation's population - receive their drinking water from one of the 140,000 public water systems across the United States that rely on groundwater pumped from public wells

The USGS study focused primarily on source (untreated) water collected from public wells before treatment or blending rather than the finished (treated) drinking water that water utilities deliver to their customers.

"By focusing primarily on source-water quality, and by testing for many contaminants that are not regulated in drinking water, this USGS study complements the extensive monitoring of public water systems that is routinely conducted for regulatory and compliance purposes by federal, state and local drinking-water programs," said Matthew C. Larsen, USGS Associate Director for Water.

"Findings assist water utility managers and regulators in making decisions about future monitoring needs and drinking-water issues."

Findings showed that naturally occurring contaminants, such as radon and arsenic, accounted for about three-quarters of contaminant concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks in untreated source water. Naturally occurring contaminants are mostly derived from the natural geologic materials that make up the aquifers from which well water is withdrawn.

Man-made contaminants were also found in untreated water sampled from the public wells, including herbicides, insecticides, solvents, disinfection by-products, nitrate, and gasoline chemicals. Man-made contaminants accounted for about one-quarter of contaminant concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks, but were detected in 64 percent of the samples, predominantly in samples from unconfined aquifers.

"Detections of contaminants do not necessarily indicate a concern for human health because USGS analytical methods can detect many contaminants at concentrations that are 100-fold to 1,000-fold lower than human-health benchmarks," said lead scientist Patricia Toccalino.

"Assessing contaminants in these small amounts helps to track emerging issues in our water resources and to identify contaminants that may warrant inclusion in future monitoring."

Most (279) of the contaminants analyzed in this study are not federally regulated in finished drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The USGS also sampled paired source and finished (treated) water from a smaller subset of 94 public wells. Findings showed that many man-made organic contaminants detected in source water generally were detected in finished water at similar concentrations. Organic contaminants detected in both treated and source water typically were detected at concentrations well below human-health benchmarks, however.

Additionally, the study shows that contaminants found in public wells usually co-occurred with other contaminants as mixtures. Mixtures can be a concern because the total combined toxicity of contaminants in water may be greater than that of any single contaminant.

Mixtures of contaminants with concentrations approaching benchmarks were found in 84 percent of wells, but mixtures of contaminants above health benchmarks were found less frequently, in 4 percent of wells.

Wells included in this study are located in 41 states and withdraw water from parts of 30 regionally extensive aquifers, which constitute about one-half of the principal aquifers used for water supply in the United States.

Human-health benchmarks used in this study include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Levels for regulated contaminants and USGS Health-Based Screening Levels for unregulated contaminants, which are non-enforceable guidelines developed by the USGS in collaboration with the EPA and other water partners.

Treated drinking water from public wells is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Water utilities, however, are not required to treat water for unregulated contaminants. The EPA uses USGS information on the occurrence of unregulated contaminants to identify contaminants that may require drinking-water regulation in the future.

This study and additional information about public wells can be found on the Quality of Water from Public-Supply Wells in the United States website.

Read more:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Contaminants_In_Groundwater_Used_For_Public_Supply_999.html

Workers at Uranium Mine and Workers at Uranium mill

Workers at Uranium Mine
Source Term

The radon emanation rate from the Jabiluka ore deposit in Australia was determined at 15 Bq/m2·s per %U3O8 (18 Bq/m2·s per %U) ore grade [Sonter2000]. For secular equilibrium of the uranium series nuclides, this corresponds to 0.142 Bq/m2·s per BqRa-226/g.

Exposure of Miners

Inhalation of radon / radon progeny
(typ. 69% of total dose for underground miners, and 34% for open pit miners [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989)
See also: Uranium Miner Health Risk Calculator · Radon Individual Dose Calculator

External radiation

For underground positions totally within ore, a gamma doserate factor of 70 µSv/h per %U3O8 (83 µSv/h per %U) ore grade was determined for the Jabiluka mine in Australia [Sonter2000].

External radiation represents typ. 28% of total dose for underground miners, and 60% for open pit miners. [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989

Inhalation of uranium ore dust

The effective dose from inhalation of 1 mg uranium ore of an ore grade of 0.1% U is 0.42 µSv (for higher ore grades, the dose increases correspondingly).The collective dose for all 260,000 underground uranium miners worldwide is estimated at 1140 man-Sv/a, and for all 2500 open pit uranium miners at 3.76 man-Sv/a. This corresponds to 25.9 man-Sv per 1000 t uranium mined underground, and to 0.258 man-Sv per 1000 t uranium mined in open pits, with an average of 20 man-Sv per 1000 t for all uranium mined. [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989

The expected number of fatal cancers in all uranium miners is 44 per year, or 0.8 per 1000 t uranium mined.
(see also Health Impacts for Uranium Miners · Sample Calculations)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workers at Uranium mill

Source Term

Exposure of mill workers

Inhalation of radon / radon progeny
(typ. 37% of total dose [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989)
See also: Radon Individual Dose Calculator

inhalation of uranium ore dust

The effective dose from inhalation of 1 mg uranium ore of an ore grade of 0.1% U is 0.42 µSv (for higher ore grades, the dose increases correspondingly). The 20 mSv annual standard is equivalent to 47.6 g. This corresponds to a uranium ore concentration in air of 16.5 mg/m3. (See also: Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator)
(based on ICRP68 dose factors for insoluble compounds, breathing rate of 1.6 m3/h, working time of 1800 h/a, U-238 in equilibrium with progeny)
> See also Uranium Biokinetics Calculator
> See also Internal Dosimetry Model for Applications to Bioassay at Uranium Mills, NUREG-0874 , U.S. NRC, 1986

inhalation of uranium concentrate dust

The effective dose from inhalation of 1 mg pure natural uranium is 0.2 mSv. The 20 mSv annual standard is equivalent to 100 mg. This corresponds to a uranium concentration in air of 34.7 µg/m3. (See also: Uranium Radiation Individual Dose Calculator)
(based on ICRP68 dose factors for insoluble compounds, breathing rate of 1.6 m3/h, working time of 1800 h/a)
> See also Uranium Biokinetics Calculator
> See also Internal Dosimetry Model for Applications to Bioassay at Uranium Mills, NUREG-0874 , U.S. NRC, 1986

Inhalation of uranium dust represents typ. 47% of the total dose for uranium mill workers. [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989

external radiation

(typ. 16% of total dose [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989)
Typical individual doses for uranium mill workers vary within the range of 0.1 - 13 mSv/a (avg. 6.3 mSv/a).
The collective dose for all 18,000 uranium mill workers worldwide is estimated at 116 man-Sv/a; this corresponds to 2.01 man-Sv per 1000 t uranium extracted. [UNSCEAR1993] for 1985-1989

The expected number of fatal cancers in all uranium mill workers is 4.64 per year, or 0.08 per 1000 t uranium extracted.

Read more:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/ruxfw.html

‘Beautification Day’ coming to Leesville Lake

By John Crane
Published: May 25, 2010

Those interested in keeping Leesville Lake clean can lend a hand next month when the Leesville Lake Association holds Beautification Day.

The event, sponsored by the association for the seventh consecutive year, will take place from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 12 at the lake.

The association needs volunteers to remove debris from Leesville Lake’s shoreline and surface, said Gordon Bratz, who serves on the association’s board of directors.

A lot of the debris comes from the Roanoke and Pigg rivers, makes its way to Smith Mountain Lake and spills into Leesville Lake, which doesn’t have much shoreline protection, Bratz said.

Those wishing to volunteer can come by boat or car to the Brumfield boat ramp, Tri-County Marina or the Runaway Bay boat ramp at Leesville Lake.

“All they have to do is show up at one of those three collection sites,” Bratz said, adding that about 70 volunteers participate each year.

Volunteers will receive a T-shirt designed for the event and will be invited to a picnic to be held on June 13.

Removing trash and detritus from the area makes conditions safer for boaters and water skiers, healthier for swimmers and aquatic life and more attractive for visitors, Bratz said.

Those with questions can call Bratz at (434) 324-2189 or email him at bratzgr@mac.com.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/beautification_day_coming_to_leesville_lake/21397/

Virginia's 2010 Sales Tax Holidays: May through October

May 25-31, 2010: Hurricane and Emergency Preparedness Equipment.

During this seven-day period, purchases of items designated by the Department of Taxation as hurricane preparedness equipment, including portable generators, will be exempt from the Virginia sales tax. Portable generators must be priced at $1,000 or less, and other eligible items must be priced at $60 or less for each item. For details, visit our Hurricane Preparedness Equipment Holiday page.

August 6-8, 2010: School Supplies and Clothing.

During this three-day period, purchases of certain school supplies, clothing and footwear will be exempt from the Virginia sales tax. Each eligible school supply item must be priced at $20 or less, and each eligible article of clothing and footwear must be priced at $100 or less. For details, visit our School Supplies and Clothing Holiday page.

October 8-11, 2010: Energy Star and WaterSense Qualified Products.

During this four-day holiday, purchases of products meeting the Energy Star and WaterSense qualifications, such as certain energy-efficient appliances, will be exempt from the Virginia sales tax. Eligible products must be priced at $2,500 or less for each item, and be purchased for noncommercial home or personal use. For details, visit our Energy Star and WaterSense Qualified Products Holiday page.

Read more:
http://www.tax.virginia.gov/site.cfm?alias=STHoliday

Greenpeace: Left in the Dust - Uranium Mining

May 20, 2010 — Uranium mining by French nuclear company AREVA poses a serious threat to the environment and people of northern Niger in West Africa.

Read more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9bXNc1zygo

EPA Helps People Take Control of Their Asthma

Contact: Elias Rodriguez, (212) 637-3664, rodriguez.elias@epa.gov

(New York, N.Y. – May 17, 2010) Local air quality affects how you live and breathe. Like the weather, it can change from day to day or even hour to hour. Add pollutants in the indoor air of people’s homes and workplaces, and you have conditions that can be extremely serious for people with respiratory diseases such as asthma. Asthma is a serious, sometimes life-threatening respiratory disease that affects the health of millions of people; but it can sometimes be managed if people know how the environment can affect asthma patients. Although there is no cure for asthma, people with asthma can have an active lifestyle and can control the disease through medical treatment and management of environmental triggers. This month, which is Asthma Awareness Month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is educating people about asthma, and how they can reduce the severity and frequency of attacks.

“EPA’s clean air regulations have improved air quality, resulting in better protection for people living with asthma,” said Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “It is vitally important that people understand that they can help control their asthma by knowing the warning signs of an attack, staying away from things that trigger an attack, and following the advice of their healthcare providers. Children are especially vulnerable, but can learn to manage their asthma at an early age with the help of their doctors, teachers, friends, and family members.”

About 23 million people, including seven million children, have asthma. Asthma in children is the cause of seven million physician visits and nearly 200,000 hospitalizations. Thirteen million school days are missed each year due to asthma. African-Americans are three times more likely to die or be hospitalized because of asthma according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Puerto Ricans suffer from asthma at six times the rate of other Hispanic groups.

Pollutants in the outdoor air, including particulates (soot) and ozone (smog) are major asthma triggers. When ozone levels increase, most commonly in the summer months, they can affect people’s health, especially children with asthma. Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and aggravating asthma. When ozone levels are high, more people with asthma have attacks that require a doctor’s attention or use of medication. One reason this happens is that ozone makes people more sensitive to allergens such as pets, pollen, and dust mites, which are common triggers of asthma attacks and lead to increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits.

Sources of fine particles, which are less than 2.5 micrometers or about 1/30th the diameter of a human hair, include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning and some industrial processes. Fine particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and pose serious health risks, including aggravating the symptoms of asthma and other respiratory problems in healthy individuals.

Fortunately, there are many steps that people can take to reduce air pollution and protect their health and at the national level, EPA is working to improve everyone’s air quality.

EPA’s Communities in Action for Asthma-Friendly Environments program mobilizes and equips 1,000 communities to lead the nation in the delivery of quality asthma care using innovative tools and technical assistance to improve asthma care. Community-based programs participating with EPA are achieving some of the best asthma results in the nation, reducing asthma episodes, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations by 50-80 percent.

The Obama Administration is taking great strides to reduce air pollution. In January 2010, EPA proposed the strictest air pollution standards in U.S. history. Last year, EPA announced tougher tailpipe emission standards for cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012-2016, which will result in cleaner vehicles - ultimately requiring an average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg in 2016. This will result in increased fuel economy of five percent every year, reduce greenhouse gas pollution by nearly 950 million metric tons and save the average car buyer more than $3,000 in fuel costs. EPA also finalized a renewable fuels standard, which substantially increases the volume of renewable products – including bio-fuels – which refiners must blend into transportation fuel.

As part of Asthma Awareness Month, EPA recommends these top five steps people can take to help prevent asthma attacks:

· Don’t smoke, or if you have to…take it outside. One of the most common asthma triggers in the home is second hand smoke. Until they can quit, people should smoke outside, not in their home or car.
· Play it Safe. Ozone and particle pollution can cause asthma attacks. People should watch for the Air Quality Index (AQI) during their local weather report. AQI uses a color- coded system to display whether five major pollutants exceed air quality standards. When AQI reports unhealthy levels, people should limit outdoor activities.
· Dust mites are also triggers for asthma. For mite control, people should cover mattresses and pillows with allergen proof covers. They should wash sheets and blankets once a week in hot water.
· Household pets can trigger asthma. People should keep pets out of the bedroom and off furniture.
· Break the mold. Mold is another asthma trigger. The key to controlling mold is controlling moisture. People should wash and dry hard surfaces to prevent and remove mold, and should replace moldy ceiling tiles and carpet.

Don't know what triggers your asthma? Use this new tool developed by the NYS Department of Health to find out. http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/4990/asthma_triggers_tracking.pdf

The New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services and EPA help New Jersey school children manage their asthma through their work with the Pediatric/Adult Asthma Coalition of NJ ( PACNJ). Visit the web site at http://www.pacnj.org/

Find Asthma Awareness Events near you: http://www.epa.gov/asthma/awm/index.html
Read about award-winning community-based asthma programs: http://www.epa.gov/asthma/awards.html
More information on EPA’s asthma program: http://www.epa.gov/asthma
En español, visite: http://www.epa.gov/espanol/saludhispana/asma.htm

Virginians to Get Ready for Hurricane Season

Commonwealth of Virginia

Office of Governor Bob McDonnell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 17, 2010

Office of the Governor

Contact: Stacey Johnson

Phone: (804) 225-4260

E-mail: Stacey.Johnson@Governor.Virginia.Gov

Virginia Department of Emergency Management

Contact: Bob Spieldenner

Phone: (804) 897-6510

E-mail: Bob.Spieldenner@vdem.virginia.gov

Governor McDonnell Urges Virginians to Get Ready for Hurricane Season

Save money on supplies during Hurricane Preparedness Sales Tax Holiday May 25-31

RICHMOND – Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has recognized May 23rd-29th as Hurricane and Flooding Preparedness Week to emphasize the importance of emergency preparation. He is encouraging every Virginia family to take action now to get ready for hurricane and flood season.

“It is critical that every Virginian treat hurricane season seriously and understand how they could be affected by flooding, high winds and tornadoes during this time of year,” said Governor McDonnell. “Those who live along coastal areas also need to learn if they are in a storm surge zone and determine where they would go if they have to evacuate. Everyone should take steps now to help keep their families safe.”

“We are partnering with Virginia retailers to get the word out to families about saving money while getting ready for emergencies,” said McDonnell. “Hurricane season is also flood season. Just because you don’t live on the coastline, don’t think you aren’t affected. Past years have brought us heavy rains and slow moving tropical systems that have caused extensive damage and loss of life.”

Individuals and families should have a family emergency plan and put together a kit of essential supplies including at least a three-day supply of bottled water and non-perishable food, a battery-powered or hand-crank radio to hear emergency information, and extra batteries.

To help Virginians get supplies for hurricane and flood season, retailers are stocking up for the Commonwealth’s Hurricane Preparedness Sales Tax Holiday, which runs May 25-31.

During those days, no sales tax will be charged on the purchase of many items that can be used to prepare homes and businesses for hurricane and flood season and to fill emergency supply kits. All retailers participate, according to Virginia law.

Batteries, flashlights, bottled water of all types and sizes, cell phone batteries, coolers, portable generators and many other useful items can be purchased with no sales tax added during the week. Many retailers will post signs listing all the allowable items so that Virginians can get ready for hurricane season, which begins June 1. For a complete list, go to http://www.readyvirginia.gov/

.

To learn more about getting ready for hurricane and flood season, visit http://www.readyvirginia.gov/

The Hurricane and Flooding Preparedness Week proclamation can be found here: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/OurCommonwealth/Proclamations/2010/HurricaneFlood.cfm

What is Radon? (radiation)

Radon is a naturally occurring gas that comes from various rocks, soils, and underground water sources.

Radon gives off radiation (radiation is the process of giving off energy in waves or particles) that can cause lung cancer. Radon forms from the breakdown of the natural elements uranium and radium.

Remember your states of matter?

-They are solid, liquid, and gas.
-A solid is something that has definite shape and volume.
-A liquid is something that does not have definite shape, but still has volume.
-A gas is something that does not have definite shape or volume.

What Can Radon Do?

Radon can cause lung cancer.(-Lung cancer is a disease of a person’s lungs, where the cells’ DNA is damaged and those damaged cells replicate uncontrollably). Radon is second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer. It’s a silent killer, since people can’t tell if they’re being exposed. And its effects are more hazardous for children than adults.

Why are Children more Susceptible?

Children are more sensitive to radon because their lungs are smaller and their respiratory rates are twice as high. Doctors say that, by the age of 10, a child receives twice the lung dose of an adult who’s been exposed to radon for the same length of time.

What Parts of the Country Have a High Potential for Radon?

In the northern states, particularly as you go northeast into Maine, there are significant pockets of high levels of radon. In the Midwest, northern Iowa and Minnesota are considered high areas as are the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho. Radon levels are lower in Washington and Oregon.

How Do I Tell if Radon is in my House?

You can buy a radon test kit at a department store from about $10-$40. These can be placed in the basement of your home.

Where Would Radon Be, if it was where I Live, and How Does it get There?

If radon is in your house, it can get in through any tiny space that comes in contact with soil that contains radon or through groundwater. Radon can be anywhere, but it matters how much of it is present in relation to other air. If the concentration (amount) is high enough, then it can cause harm. In the outside air it is not harmful because radon is present in dilute (dilute means smaller or weaker concentration) enough amounts.

What Can I Do about Radon?

You can tell your family about radon, do more research to learn more about radon, test your home with an in-home test kit, spread the knowledge at your school (maybe doing a science project or paper on radon), and be just aware of radon.

What is the Environmental Protection Agency Doing about Radon?

The EPA has a new map out that shows radon potential—high, medium, or low level. The agency also works with schools to find the best way to lessen radon exposure.

How Do you Find the State Radiation Department?

Every state radiation department should be listed in the phone book under state government. NEA’s Healthy School Handbook includes a list of the radiation departments in every state and phone numbers for each of the 10 EPA regional offices. The indoor air quality office of each state, can also direct people to the state radiation department.


Where Can I Get more Information on Radon?

The EPA website is an excellent source for information.
Just go to this link http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/ for more information and there will be more links on that page.
Current radon information is available from the Radon Hotline ([800]-458-1158) or the Environmental Protection Agency ([212]-637-3663).
There are also three other websites that are helpful and fun:
http://www.radonmclean.org/jraopen.html
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/family/kids/midkid/radon.html
http://www.radonmclean.org/jraopen.htm

Read more:
http://enhs.umn.edu/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonforkids.html

Virginia students go solar to power electric car

May 12th, 2010
From Green Right Now Reports

Converting a conventional Honda to run on electricity is one thing, but how do you go about providing a power supply for your new creation?

Solar powers a garage, which powers a car, at UVA.

Next project: An EV-converted Ford Ranger.

Students at the University of Virginia seem to have found the answers on both ends of the project. Currently, they are working with the university’s Facilities Management to install photovoltaic panels near the car’s parking space in the hope of generating enough electricity to at least partially power the vehicle.

The panels will feed electricity to the garage, where the car (which will be used by the Department of Parking and Transportation) will be housed and recharged.

“The solar-generated electricity will be part of the power supply for the garage,” said Cheryl Gomez, director of utilities for the university. “And we will meter it. Assuming roughly 1,100 hours of sunlight per year, this should yield about 1,320 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.”

The car, which can travel about 120 miles between charges, will probably consume about 3,100 kilowatts of electricity if driven about 5,600 miles per year, Gomez said. This will mean the panels will offset about 43 percent of car’s energy use.

“We will put the electricity in one area and take it out another,” said James Durand, an adjunct professor and research associate in the School of Engineering and Applied Science, whose mechanical engineering students conceived and executed the project.

Six 200-watt photovoltaic cells, measuring about 3 feet by 5 feet each and weighing a total of 240 pounds, were funded through donations and installed by Facilities Management employees. These panels, guaranteed for 25 years, should reduce the University’s carbon footprint by about 0.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, Gomez said.

Durand said that about 30 students were involved with the project, which has been dubbed “Ride Forward.”

Read more:
http://www.greenrightnow.com/arkansasmatters/2010/05/12/virginia-students-go-solar-to-power-electric-car/

Public hearing set on uranium study

By John Crane
Published: May 12, 2010

Residents can voice their opinion on a socioeconomic study of uranium mining and milling during a public-comment meeting scheduled next month.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee will meet at 6 p.m. June 22 at Chatham High School to hear public input on the scope of the socioeconomic study. The study, the second portion of state’s two-part examination of the impacts of uranium mining and milling, will focus on Pittsylvania County and the surrounding region.

“The socioeconomic study … will be primarily site-specific to the Pittsylvania (County area) and adjoining counties,” said David Bovenizer, spokesman for Uranium Subcommittee Chairman Delegate Lee Ware.

The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council is conducting the other part of the study focusing on the scientific and technical aspects of uranium mining and milling. That study, indirectly paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc., is expected to be complete in the fall of 2011.

The Virginia Tobacco Commission is providing up to $200,000 to the Coal and Energy Commission for the socioeconomic study. It will be let for bids after the study’s scope is defined, Bovenizer said. Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining and milling since 1982.

Opponents say uranium mining and milling would pollute the air, land and water and threaten public health.

Eloise Nenon, a uranium mining opponent and founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens in Chatham, said she is glad the subcommittee is going to listen to residents’ comments, but there also needs to be local input throughout the study process. Local input can provide vital information about the area to those conducting the study, she said.

“None of us are authorities on areas where we’ve never lived,” Nenon said.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/public_hearing_set_on_uranium_study/21026/

Proposed Mt. Taylor uranium mine faces new obstacle: Colorado mill is already a Superfund site

By Marjorie Childress 5/10/10 9:08 AM

A controversial plan to open an old uranium mine on Mt. Taylor, near Grants, New Mexico, is now facing a new obstacle.

The Colorado legislature just passed a law forbidding an expansion or increase in operations at uranium mills until they clean up existing sites their operations have contaminated in the past.

The Cotter Uranium Mill, just a little over a mile south of Cañon City, Colorado, is owned by the same company that owns the Mt. Taylor mine, and is the designated recipient of future Mt. Taylor uranium ore.

But the new law raises doubts that the mill will be able to accept the ore.

Under the new legislation, which Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter still has to sign, the mill won’t be able to increase or expand operations until it cleans up existing environmental problems.

“This is not unexpected,” John Hamrick, vice president of milling at Cotter, told the Cañon City Daily Record. “This bill will prevent us from processing the Mount Taylor ore.”

The contamination continues to be a problem; 137 of the 259 old uranium mines have never been restored. Some activists say that all the old mines should be properly cleaned up before new mining is even considered and are skeptical of claims that new technologies render mining safe today.

The owner of the Mt. Taylor mine is Rio Grande Resources, a wholly owned subsidiary of the same company that owns the Cotter Mill–General Atomics Corporation. The environmental record of General Atomics at the Cotter Mill is cause for concern in New Mexico, said Eric Jantz, attorney for the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.

“Since General Atomics acquired the Cotter Corporation in 2000, the company has had over a hundred violations of federal and state environmental laws,” Jantz told The Independent. “This demonstrates a pattern of willful disregard for environmental law, which is a real concern for the community.”

Colorado mill is already a Superfund site

The Cotter mill opened in 1958, and from that year until 1978, radionuclides and various heavy metals were discharged into 11 unlined tailings ponds.

Those ponds were replaced in 1982 with two lined ponds, but it was too late to stop the contamination. The mill was designated a federal Superfund site in 1984, due to excessive uranium contamination of both the groundwater and the soil under the mill as well as under the surrounding community. It has also been cited for violating a laundry list of Colorado environmental regulations.

There is only one mill in the United States that is currently operating–the White Mesa Mill in Utah, which has its own environmental problems.

Read more:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/53589/proposed-mt-taylor-uranium-mine-faces-new-obstacle

Poor Mountain is Rich in Wind

by Troutman Sanders LLP

Virginia’s Energy Plan calls for energy conservation, greater use of renewable energy and a 20 percent increase in Virginia’s indigenous energy production given that we import more energy than any other state except California. The Virginia General Assembly has also called for a goal of 15 percent or more of Virginia’s electricity generation to come from renewable energy resources by 2025.

Achieving Virginia’s renewable energy goal will require the development of a variety of renewable energy sources and a commitment from Virginians to join the effort.

Wind energy is an important element in the implementation of the Virginia Energy Plan and to putting our state and nation on a path to energy independence and a cleaner environment.

Roanoke County citizens have the opportunity to play a significant role in the success of this effort with the proposed Poor Mountain wind project.

Let’s be clear. Wind energy is not a passing fad.

Wind energy is a proven renewable energy source that has been in use in the United States for more than 120 years and is widely and safely used across the globe as a sustainable, zero-emission energy source.

The Poor Mountain site offers the opportunity to harness homegrown energy from one of the windiest spots in the commonwealth on a site that has already been developed

Electrical transmission exists at the site, overcoming one of the most significant hurdles in the development of wind energy — the cost and environmental impact of connecting transmission lines to a wind farm. The project would tap into existing lines that have been there for decades. There is perhaps no more ideal location for this type of renewable energy project in Virginia.

Obviously, it is our job to advocate for renewable energy and it is up to the residents and leaders of Roanoke County to decide if this project is right for them. As they consider this project over the coming months, we encourage them to take a larger view of the positive benefits this project can have not only for the community, but also for Virginia. Roanoke County has the opportunity to take a leadership role in Virginia and to say, “Let energy independence start with us.”

Ken Hutcheson
ken.hutcheson@troutmansanders.com
Read more:
http://www.renewableinsights.com/2010/05/poor-mountain-is-rich-in-wind/

Socioeconomic study meeting to be held June 22

By Staff
Published: May 12, 2010
Updated: May 12, 2010

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee will hold a public meeting on June 22 at 6 p.m. at Chatham High School to discuss the study that will explore uranium mining and milling’s socioeconomic impacts.

The public will comment during the meeting on the scope of the socioeconomic study.

Anyone unable to attend the meeting can call House Committee Operations at (804) 698-3591, or contact William L. Owen at bowen@house.virginia.gov

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/socioeconomic_study_meeting_to_be_held_june_22/21011/

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA


STUDY OBJECTIVES: TO ADDRESS SITE- AND REGION-SPECIFIC SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS SUCH AS QUALITY OF LIFE, INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE VALUES.

STUDY COMPONENTS:

1. SOCIAL IMPACTS

a. AESTHETICS AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES
b. AVAILABILITY OF AND IMPACTS ON SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
(POLICE, FIRE, ROADS, SCHOOLS, ETC.)
c. EFFECTS ON LOCAL POPULATION AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
d. EFFECTS ON INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL IMAGE OF THE REGION
e. MARKETABILITY OF THE REGION FOR OTHER INDUSTRY AND
POPULATION
f. FEAR OF POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
g. SHORT- VS. LONG-TERM EFFECTS AND COMMUNITY
SUSTAINABILITY
h. EDUCATATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

2. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

a. JOB CREATION AND LOCAL INCOME EFFECTS
b. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
c. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN INCOME AND LOCAL ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY
d. TAX REVENUES OVER LIFE OF MINE AND BEYOND
e. IMPACTS ON GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
f. OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS, PARALLEL AND
SUPPORT BUSINESSES ETC.
g. PROPERTY VALUES VS. DISTANCE FROM MINE OR PROCESSING
FACILITY
h. IMPACTS ON REAL ESTATE VALUES IN THE AREA AND ON
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
i. LONG-TERM ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

a. INTEGRATION WITH THE TECHNICAL STUDY (I.E., NRC)
b. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
FACTORS
c. MONITORING DURING OPERATIONS/CLOSURE

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Read more:
http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cec/032409/impacts.pdf

Uranium mines near the Grand Canyon

April 24, 2010 — A 3 minute documentary on the state of Uranium mines near the Grand Canyon from a bird's eye view.

Read more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhARluHURjQ

Supervisors reject uranium ban at mega park - again

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:29 AM EDT

The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors voted 4-3 Monday to once again reject a proposed ban on uranium mining and milling at the Berry Hill Road "mega" industrial park.

Supervisors also rejected a proposed ban in January.

The issue resurfaced following a vote last week by the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission to require the county to refund approximately $13.1 million if uranium is mined at the mega park.

Del. Danny Marshall of Danville, who serves on the tobacco commission, recommended the restriction. The commission approved it 14-12.

"The $13.1 million the tobacco commission invested is for manufacturing jobs," said Marshall. "It wasn't to go out and mine uranium.

"This is just drawing a line in the sand," he added. "I just want to clarify that if mining is ever done at the site, the tobacco commission wants its money back."

Buddy Mayhew, a retired tobacco farmer from Blairs who also serves on the tobacco commission, abstained from voting.

Mayhew is an investor in Virginia Uranium Inc., which hopes to mine a huge uranium deposit about six miles northeast of Chatham.

In light of the tobacco commission's decision, Staunton River District Supervisor Marshall Ecker renewed a motion to ban uranium mining or milling at the mega park.

"We need to stand up and say we have the guts to say there will be no mining or milling in the mega park," said Ecker. "To me, it's a no-brainer to go along with the tobacco commission."

Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Henry "Hank" Davis Jr., the board's chairman, seconded the motion.

"I think it will clear up exactly where everybody stands on uranium mining in the mega park," said Davis.

Ecker, Davis and Dan River District Supervisor James Snead voted in favor of the ban.

Callands-Gretna District Supervisor Fred Ingram, Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville, Banister District Supervisor William Pritchett and Tunstall District Supervisor Tim Barber voted against it.

The vote in January also was 4-3, but with Ingram voting for the ban and Snead against it.

Karen Maute of Danville, an advocate for the environment, first asked supervisors to protect the industrial park last November, urging the board to "dispel" rumors the authority may use the property for uranium mining and milling.

The county and city, acting through the Danville-Pittsylvania County Regional Industrial Facilities Authority, have spent about $13 million for 4,000 acres along Berry Hill Road, just west of Danville.

Maute opposes uranium mining at Coles Hill near Chatham, and has repeatedly asked supervisors to tighten the county's zoning ordinance to block the proposed mine and mill.

In her proposed resolution, she pointed out some of the Berry Hill property had mineral leases with Marline Uranium Corp., which discovered the huge uranium deposit in the late 1970s.

In order to avoid the appearance that the county and city are entering into a "joint uranium mining venture," she said both localities should sign a resolution prohibiting uranium mining and milling within a 25-mile radius of the Berry Hill park.

The regional authority, which owns the mega park, has twice refused to consider a proposed ban on uranium.

The authority is composed of members of Danville City Council and the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors.

County members include Harville and Davis. City representatives include Danville Mayor Sherman Saunders and City Councilman David Luther.

Davis, who appointed himself to the authority when he was elected chairman in January, made a motion in February to adopt a resolution banning uranium mining and milling at the Berry Hill site.

The motion didn't receive a second and failed.

Davis repeated his motion in March. Once again, it didn't receive a second and failed.

Harville, the authority's chairman, said the county and city have no intention of mining or processing uranium at Berry Hill.

"It's not an issue," he said. "There's a moratorium on mining uranium in Virginia."

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/05/10/chatham/news/news50.txt

Happy Mother's Day

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer

May 6, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.

I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms.

The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”

It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.

One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.

The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.

“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”

The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market.

Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.

One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.

To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:

¶Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or http://www.healthystuff.org/.)

¶For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.

¶Filter drinking water.

¶Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.

¶Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.

¶Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html?pagewanted=print

Uranium Mining in Canada

Posted by Guest Columnist on April 30th, 2010

Editor’s Note: This series of articles, “The Yellowcake Trail,” tracks all aspects of uranium in Canada from the mining and milling, to processing and use, throughout its eighty-year history. The series begins with the history of uranium in Canada.
At every stage in the nuclear chain, from extraction to processing and use, vast amounts of radioactive waste and other highly hazardous wastes are produced. Spills and leaks commonly occur, marking treacherous places in the yellowcake trail that remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.

Nuclear waste is the Achilles’ heel of the industry. The radioactive wastes resulting from mining and milling uranium are endemic, as is the nuclear waste (spent fuel) produced by reactors, which contains so many extremely dangerous radioisotopes, such as plutonium. There is no safe way to permanently store radioactive nuclear waste.

But mining and exploration for uranium are going on full steam ahead, and Bruce Power is marching westward, seeking opportunities in areas with better economies than a “have-not” Ontario.

Canada’s Uranium – A Travelogue

Canada’s uranium, as yellowcake and in other more purified forms.

 From the mines and mills in Saskatchewan, casks of yellowcake are shipped about 3000 kilometres to Ontario.

The ore from the uranium mines is shipped by truck to the mills. Trucks bring the yellowcake from the mills to Saskatoon. The yellowcake travels most likely by truck from Saskatoon to the refinery in Blind River, Ontario. The Blind River refinery also gets shipments of yellowcake for processing from around the world. Most of the purified uranium is trucked from Blind River to Port Hope, 600 kilometres away. The rest is sent to the UK for enrichment. This is as much as we know.

Any road or rail travel must go through a number of towns en route. What emergency measures are in place in case of accidents or major spills? How is such transportation insured? To what degree are any incidents or accidents reported publicly? The trucks were on the way to the US enrichment plant in Kentucky.

On August 4, 2009, the Canadian Press reported an incident where two truckers were exposed to radiation in 2008 while hauling a radioactive device for six days across the country. Apparently, the device had not been securely locked in place before transit, causing it to shift from a shielded to an unshielded position en route. A preliminary investigation by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) found that the drivers received about 35% more radiation in their six-day trip than the regulated public dose limit for one full year.

How many more such incidents go unreported?

Churning Out the Yellowcake and the Waste

Mining and milling are at the forefront of the nuclear chain. As in any mining operation, they go hand-in-hand. Mining extracts the raw uranium ore from rock and milling processes the ore to produce yellowcake.

At the mill, usually located at or near mine sites, the ore is crushed, then treated with strong acids and other chemicals to selectively leach out the uranium from the ore and dry it to a fine sand-like powder, uranium oxide concentrate U3O8 – yellowcake (about 70% pure uranium). Finally, the yellowcake is packed into 55 US gallon steel drums, similar in size to oil barrels, each containing about 400 kilograms of yellowcake, ready to begin its long journey to be further refined.

Yellowcake is one product of the mills, the other is waste. Throughout all stages of processing, copious amounts of water are used, and numerous toxic chemicals used in processing are unleashed. Usually the liquid waste is about double the quantity of the solid waste. The leaching agent, typically sulphuric acid, extracts uranium from the ore and along with it, several other substances, including heavy metals, such as molybdenum, lead, arsenic, mercury, manganese and cadmium.

Since a relatively small fraction of uranium is actually contained in the ore, the rest of the ore is radioactive waste. The vast amounts of wastes, known as tailings, are discharged from the mills into ponds or piles nearby. The tailings contain all the original constituents of the ore, including long-living radionucleides, thorium-230 (half-life of 80,000 years) and radium-226 (half-life of 1600 years), which represent about 85% of the initial radioactivity of the ore. The tailings also contain about 5-10% of the uranium not extracted by the milling process.

The radium in waste rock and tailings continuously decays to the radioactive gas radon-222, which can readily escape from the interior of the tailings. Radon releases are a major hazard that continues after uranium mines and mills are shut down. Just to prevent seepage of radon gas from the interior of the tailings, the waste must be stabilized by at least two metres of cover soil. The mix of constituents in the tailings can undergo various reactions which contribute to additional hazards. The poisoning of fish and plants downstream from the mines and mills is due not only to radioactive substances that accumulate in the sediment but also to heavy metals and process chemicals, whose effects are noticed long before the effects of radioactivity.

From the Mills to Ontario… and Beyond

Because yellowcake is about 70% uranium, further processing is required to remove impurities before it can be used. From the mills in Saskatchewan, casks of yellowcake travel to Ontario, the only province in Canada where yellowcake is refined for further use.

 Each load hauled by truck contains about 17 tonnes of yellowcake. Some of the yellowcake may also be shipped directly to the US and other locations overseas, but neither the destinations nor the means of transport are publicly known.

Anna Tilman has researched several toxic issues, especially mercury. She is a Board member of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health.

Read more:
http://www.ourbigearth.com/2010/04/30/shift-news-uranium-mining-in-canada-part-2/

Uranium studies 'all in the family'

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 9:30 AM EDT

So, I open up my paper and learn that even our socioeconomic study of uranium mining is tainted with financial "investor" sway.

"Bacca" commission backs it, and VUI investors back the "Bacca" commission.

They even have to consult the tobacco commission's lawyers to see if they have a conflict of interest? If you have to ask....

VUI funds the National Academy of Science technical study initiated by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission.

The coal and energy commission applies for the tobacco money for the socioeconomic study and will oversee it.

Del. Kilgore is chairman of both the tobacco commission and coal and energy commission. Nothing one-sided about that, is there?

It's all in the family, isn't it? Has been from the start. Study the pedigree. Follow the money.

And wave your health and quality of life goodbye - unless, of course, you have been one of those "investors" that has recouped enough to live well - way away from the reality of the blasting and the ever-present fear of the natural disaster that they promise you will never occur. Or the mile-high mountain of radioactive rock waste that "won't be a problem."

Here's a thought: Ask the indigenous folk living next to all the existing mines in our own desert, in the frozen Canadian backwoods, or poverty-stricken Nigeria - "Ya'll think this mining thing is good?"

This is Virginia -the beginning of this nation, and still the home of "mountains to the sea."

Love it (and protect it) or sell out, via greed or apathy. Not much in between.

We don't have to have more energy. We need to have some concept of using what we have wisely.

Turn off a couple of lights, will ya?

Linda Worsley
Chatham, VA

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/05/05/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt

Mining's harm to the environment is clear

Thursday, April 29, 2010
Anne Cockrell
Cockrell lives in Danville.

Researchers at West Virginia University and Virginia Tech now have the study findings to show a causal link between West Virginia streams polluted by coal mining activities and premature cancer deaths in the humans who live near them. ("Study links stream pollution to higher cancer rates," www.tinyurl.com/279etq9).

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's toss in mountains of low-level radioactive uranium tailings/wastes, a uranium mill and a chemical plant at Coles Hill, near Chatham. Chemicals, either large amounts of an acid or base, will be needed to leach the uranium ore out of the mined rock and soil.

What would the mining activities of two huge open pit uranium mines, with a reported possible third mine at Coles Hill, do to the streams and rivers of Southside Virginia over the proposed mining span of 30 years?

How many more studies have to be done to show a causal link between mining activities and environmental damage?

This study found not only damage to the ecosystems around polluted streams where coal mining has occurred, but it also found a causal link between humans living near these polluted streams and premature deaths by cancer.

One has to ask, does "premature deaths by cancer" sound like a reversible condition, one you can mitigate?

Are the questionable 300 to 500 jobs the uranium mining industry will bring to this economically depressed area worth the possible health impacts to your loved ones or the harm it may cause to the ecosystems of Virginia?

According to Virginia Uranium Inc., $220 million dollars in annual gross revenue will be generated for each year uranium is mined and milled in Virginia.

Does this mean Virginians will get rich off this revenue? Or will a Canadian mining corporation, VUI co-owner, Virginia Energy Resources Inc., VUI's 31-area investors and a few landowners at Coles Hill see the bulk of this revenue?

Perhaps we should ask the citizens living around West Virginia's coal mines and surrounding streams what the lengthy history of coal mining there has meant economically, environmentally and health-wise for them.

The January 2009 issue of Smithsonian magazine reports: "West Virginia is the nation's third-poorest state, above only Mississippi and Arkansas in per capita income, and the poverty is concentrated in the coal fields." ("Mining the Mountains," www.tinyurl.com/8s3bpl).

Considering this recent study's findings, it's not an unjustified leap of concern to question the possible impacts to public health and the environment should uranium mining and milling ever be allowed in Virginia.

Read more:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/244956

Virginia Uranium

May 2, 2010

This undulating farmland is situated about 20 miles north of Danville, Virginia.

The Coles Hill Uranium Deposit, as it is known, contains resources currently worth billions of dollars.

 So naturally, there is a commercial venture aiming to profitably extract the uranium. Virginia Uranium, Inc. is owned mostly by the families under whose land the deposit is located.

 Last January, Chief Geologist Joe Aylor show us core samples and discuss the geology of the deposit at the firm’s office in Chatham before taking us out to an exposure of the radioactive ore along Coles Hill Road.


 We parked our cars in a spot where the scintillators indicated an exposure of the radioactive orebody, walking distance from Mr. Coles’s farm.
The hottest pieces of radioactive saprolite I collected read about 5000 CPM on a Ludlum 44-9 pancake GM tube.

This is respectable to be sure, but it doesn’t hold a candle to the more concentrated ore that can be found near Moab, Utah. Richard Hull pulverized some average ore collected at Coles Hill and compared the gamma radiation countrate with that from samples in a calibrated ore grade test kit. He arrived at an equivalent concentration of 0.253% U3O8. Richard also noted UV fluorescence along fractures in the rock.

But the big question of whether mining will occur is unresolved; Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1981.

Coles Hill has become a focal point for contention over the moratorium, as well as the broader nuclear energy debate.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, cite the threat of water pollution, the industry’s poor environmental legacy in states where mining has occurred, and the high population density of Virginia as reasons to continue the moratorium.

Vote:  Click on the link to vote: http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/virginia-uranium/


Should Coles Hill be mined for uranium?


___Of course! Why haven't we started already?

___Maybe, but understanding of the environmental impact is too premature to answer.

___No! Never! No more three-eyed babies!

___Other:


Read more:
http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/virginia-uranium/