Going Green While Pregnant: Ways to Help Your Baby & the Earth

by admin on August 23, 2010

As an expectant mom, you probably want to do everything you can to give your baby the best start possible. That means following your doctor’s orders, staying healthy, and avoiding hazards that can harm your unborn baby. But did you know that going green during pregnancy (and beyond) is another great way to support the health of your child?

General: These are just a few of the things you can do to be green and healthy in pregnancy.

• Don’t go overboard on gear: Only buy what you really need to cut down on baby stuff.
• Start an eco-friendly baby registry: Register on eco-friendly sites to get your little one’s life started off green.
• Learn about breastfeeding: Before your baby comes, learn how you can get prepared to breast feed– the greenest and healthiest way to feed your baby.
• Use reusable bags: Keep reusable bags in your car for last minute baby item runs to the store.
• Avoid all toxins: Stay away from smoke and other toxins.
• Cut down on plastics: Plastics often contain harmful chemicals, so stay away from plastic bottles and more.
• Have an eco-friendly baby shower: Ask for an earth friendly and all natural baby shower.
• Choose refurbished electronics: If you’re buying a new camera to catch your baby’s life, reduce e-waste by buying used or refurbished.
• Use eco-friendly pregnancy tests: Look for pregnancy tests that offer less waste.
• Get baby books from the library: Instead of buying new baby books, just check them out from the library.

Nursery:  Keep these green, safe tips in mind when creating your child’s nursery.

• Buy used furniture: Buy furniture from Craigslist or garage sales to repurpose old items.
• Reuse baby linens: Accept recycled baby linens from friends and family-used fabrics will have most harmful finishes laundered off.
• Finish painting early: Give your paint plenty of time to dry and let off gas by finishing at least 8 weeks before bringing baby home.
• Buy "normal" furniture: Get regular furniture that will grow with your baby’s needs.
• Paint low-VOC: Look for low odor, low VOC to cut down on chemical exposure from paints.
• Don’t get new carpet: Avoid the VOCs that come with new carpet by sticking with your old carpet or using a sustainable hardwood.
• Avoid fire retardants: Stay away from nursing pillows, furniture, and electronics that have fire retardants.
• Use green furniture: Find eco-friendly furniture: Look for furniture that’s made with sustainable parts.
• Go organic for your mattress: Choose an organic crib mattress or a wool cover for your baby’s crib.
• Use organic cotton bedding: Choose natural and organic fibers for your baby’s bedding

Read more:
http://www.medicalcodingcertification.com/blog/2010/100-ways-to-help-your-baby-the-earth/

Meetings

Meetings

Feb 14 6PM LIFE http://lifeincva.blogspot.com/, Meeting, Gretna Library


Mar 12 RRBA Advisory Board meeting somewhere in Roanoke Valley


Mar 14 6PM LIFE http://lifeincva.blogspot.com/  Meeting, Gretna Library


Mar 23 NAS Meeting Colorado

Mar 24 NAS Meeting Colorado

Mar 25 NAS Meeting Colorado

Apr 11 6PM LIFE http://lifeincva.blogspot.com/  Meeting, Gretna Library

Apr 16 10AM LIFE http://lifeincva.blogspot.com/ Adopt a Highway Pickup

Use NAS data to evaluate health, economic impacts (of uranium mining)

By By Katie Whitehead
Published: January 16, 2011

The uranium socioeconomic study initiated by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot, on its current timeline, produce meaningful results. It will not consider the findings of the National Academy of Sciences regarding uranium mining, milling and tailings disposal in Virginia or the volatile price of uranium.

It will be a waste of $200,000.

At a Dec. 8 meeting in Richmond, the commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee listened to five-minute study proposal presentations, asked no questions of the six presenters, allowed no public comment — and voted unanimously to award the study contract to Chmura Economics and Analytics. There was no evidence that the subcommittee members had read the proposals or given careful thought to the objectives of a proper study; one commented that legislators know the Richmond firm.

The commission’s request for proposals asked for a report by Dec. 1 at a cost of no more than $200,000. In its request, the commission provided no boundaries for the region to be studied and no scientific basis for estimating potential health and environmental costs. The commission did not require evaluation of the range of outcomes that could occur, depending on uncertainties such as the price of uranium or the effects of severe weather events. The commission did ask for “a statement of any major assumptions.”

Chmura, in its proposal, stated at least two invalid assumptions. Chmura incorrectly assumed “a collaborative connection between the Chmura Team and NAS,” which is not possible due to the NAS standard policy of disclosing only final findings. Second, they assumed “sufficient sustained market demand for uranium so that the ongoing operations of the mine can sustain the demand as long as it is technically feasible.”

The purpose of the socioeconomic study is to ground speculation about the social and economic implications of lifting Virginia’s ban on uranium operations in reality — the facts and uncertainties under investigation by the NAS, including a volatile uranium market which may not need uranium from Virginia.

Chmura did not propose the comprehensive socioeconomic study we need to make a wise public policy decision.
Although the NAS study is commonly described as “scientific and technical,” it includes research that is critically important to understanding the social and economic impacts of permitting uranium mining throughout Virginia. For example, the NAS will analyze the health and environmental impacts of uranium mining at existing uranium operations and assess what’s known about the potential short- and long-term health and safety risks, including risks from exposure to toxic heavy metals and radioactive particles. This information is needed to help bring public perceptions in line with reality and to estimate any health costs.

The NAS will review the state and federal regulatory framework. A comprehensive socioeconomic study should estimate the government costs involved in regulating uranium mining and milling and in eventually assuming ownership of hazardous waste disposal sites and evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to pay these costs.

If the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission wants to do a comprehensive study of uranium mining, milling, and tailings management in Virginia, it will allow sufficient time for people, including the Chmura research team, to read and learn from the NAS report.

Virginia Uranium Inc. claims that waiting for the NAS results would cause a “delay,” as though its corporate interest in rushing legislation to lift the uranium-mining ban should outweigh public interest in a truly comprehensive study. The problem is not delay, but haste — haste that is irresponsible and an insult to the many people who want to learn from credible sources.

The commission should make up for its previous lack of diligence by amending the contract with Chmura and by refraining from introducing uranium mining legislation in the General Assembly until 2013.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/jan/16/use-nas-data-evaluate-health-economic-impacts-ar-775688/

Interesting Facts about Recycling: METAL, ALUMINUM CANS, GLASS

METAL

*Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the energy needed to produce new aluminum from raw materials. Energy saved from recycling one ton of aluminum is equal to the amount of electricity the average home uses over 10 years. (Keep America Beautiful, 2006)

*Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a 100-watt bulb for 20 hours, (EPA, 2008)

*Recycling aluminum saves 95% of the energy used to make the material from scratch. That means you can make 20 cans out of recycled material with the same amount of energy it takes to make one can out of new material. Energy savings in 1993 alone were enough to light a city the size of Pittsburgh for six years.

*Americans throw away enough aluminum every month to rebuild our entire commercial air fleet.
*Recycling steel and tin cans saves 74% of the energy used to produce them.
*A steel mill using recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution and mining wastes by about 70%.

* When you toss out one aluminum can you waste as much energy as if you’d filled the same can half-full of gasoline and poured it into the ground.

ALUMINUM CANS

*More than 50% of a new aluminum can is made from recycled aluminum.

*The 36 billion aluminum cans landfilled last year had a scrap value of more than $600 million. (Some day we'll be mining our landfills for the resources we've buried.)

GLASS

*Americans throw away enough glass bottles and jars every two weeks to fill the 1.350-foot towers of the former World Trade Center.

*Most bottles and jars contain at least 25% recycled glass.

*Glass never wears out -- it can be recycled forever. We save over a ton of resources for every ton of glass recycled -- 1,330 pounds of sand, 433 pounds of soda ash, 433 pounds of limestone, and 151 pounds of feldspar.

*States with bottle deposit laws have 35-40% less litter by volume.

*If all the glass bottles and jars collected through recycling in the U.S. in 94 were laid end to end, they'd reach the moon and half way back to earth.

Read more:
http://www.oberlin.edu/recycle/facts.html

Interesting Facts about Recycling: ENERGY

ENERGY

*World electricity demand is expected to double between 2000 and 2030.  (Worldwatch Institute, 2007)

*Electricity production is the leading cause of industrial air pollution in the United States. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007)

*At most, 35 percent of coal's energy in a power plant converts to electricity.(Worldwatch Institute, 2007)

Heating

*Almost half of the average home's energy consumption is used for heating. (EIA, 2007)

*Improperly sealed/caulked windows can account for up to 25% of total heat loss from a house. (Environment Canada, 2007)

Lighting

*Lighting consumes up to 34 percent of electricity in the United States. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007)

*Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are an energy-saving alternative to incandescent bulbs — they produce the same amount of light, use one third of the electricity, and last up to ten times as long. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007)

*If every household replaced its most often-used incandescent light bulbs with CFLs, electricity use for lighting could be cut in half. (Worldwatch Institute, 2007)

Appliances and Electronics

*If you need to warm up or defrost small amounts of food, use a microwave instead of the stove to save energy. Microwave ovens use around 50 percent less energy than conventional ovens do. (California Energy Commission, 2006)

*A refrigerator built 20 years ago uses 70% more energy than today's energy-efficient models. (Environment Canada, 2007)

*Today's dishwashers are about 95% more energy-efficient than those bought in 1972 — your old dishwasher may be costing you more money in energy bills than it would take to buy a new one. (Environment Canada, 2007)

*Many idle electronics — TVs, VCRs, DVD and CD players, cordless phones, microwaves — use energy even when switched off to keep display clocks lit and memory chips and remote controls working. Nationally, these energy “vampires” use 5 percent of our domestic energy and cost consumers more than $8 billion annually. (Alliance to Save Energy, 2005)

Read more:
http://www.oberlin.edu/recycle/facts.html

New center aims to create new jobs to revive region's ag industry

Tour the Dan River Plant Propagation Center
By Tara Bozick
Published: January 06, 2011


Local research aims to give local farmers a way to take profitable plants from the laboratory to market.

The new Dan River Plant Propagation Center at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research would create 30 to 50 new jobs and would rejuvenate the region’s agriculture with new products like azaleas, daylilies, bioenergy crops and roses.

That’s why Danville Regional Foundation invested $1.2 million over the next three years in the center, said DRF CEO and President Karl Stauber. It not only creates direct jobs, but gives local farmers a competitive advantage, he added.

“Our farmers will be at the front end of the development of a new piece of the American agricultural economy, and hopefully, that will be a basis on which we’ll produce rural prosperity for years to come,” Stauber said.

This way of applying research from the lab to the ground is a fulfillment of the Institute’s promise, Stauber said.

“This lab is the next major step of the original vision, which we all embraced,” said Jerzy Nowak, the professor and former horticulture department head at Virginia Tech who came up with the idea for the center.

This is how it works: Plant scientists at the Institute for Sustainable and Renewable Resources at the Institute develop improved plants. For high volume production, these plants start as tissue cultures grown in the new propagation center. Then, growers take this tissue culture and grow the plants to a size desired for sale.

The center hopes to ship out 4,000 to 5,000 azaleas to the Virginia Nursery and Landscape Association in March and April, said ISRR Director Barry Flinn. The center is also negotiating contracts for daylilies and hellebores.

A couple months ago, scientists began researching the unofficially named “Lady Astor Rose” when the Langhorne House gave a 1922 rose bush to the Institute for study.

Scientists cloned the roses Lady Astor gave away and plan to propagate them for sale with the name “Lady Astor Rose,” Maurakis said. A portion of the profits would go to Langhorne House.

Flinn hopes to have these roses leaving the center for growth within a year.

“This is a wonderful opportunity for the area,” Maurakis said. “With this particular rose, they are preserving history and also expanding the local economy.”

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/jan/06/new-center-aims-create-new-jobs-revive-regions-ag--ar-758243/?referer=None&shorturl=http://godanriver.com/ar/758243/

Va. streams becoming more hospitable for trout

By Ted Strong
Published: January 02, 2011

A long-term study conducted by University of Virginia scientists shows that Virginia’s trout streams are rebounding from acidification, though not as fast or as thoroughly as waters in some other parts of the country.

The results were derived from a series of extensive surveys of water quality, conducted in 1987, 2000 and 2010. More than a hundred volunteers — many from Trout Unlimited, which is cooperating with UVa on the study — fanned out across the state’s mountains to collect this year’s samples.

Most trout streams are in forested mountain watersheds, where the cool, oxygen-rich water that trout love is most common. Volunteers hit streams from Shenandoah County in the north to Scott County in the south. Locally, water was drawn from sites in the western parts of Madison, Greene, Albemarle and Nelson counties.

“I think brook trout sort of represent what’s best of what remains of the natural world,” said Rick Webb, a UVa scientist and the project’s coordinator.

Brook are the native trout of the East Coast, revered by anglers as symbols of pristine nature more than for size or fight. Top predators in their environment, the trout range from deep green along their backs to yellow-pale bellies, their sides speckled with reds and blues.

They aren’t particularly sensitive creatures in the streams, unlike other creatures such as mayflies.

“The aquatic community is degraded long before the trout disappear,” Webb said.

Brook trout are sensitive to a variety of other factors related to water quality, he said, and other species of trout, some of which reproduce in the wild in Virginia, can be more sensitive to acid than are native brook trout.

The study’s results showed a marked improvement in water quality for brook trout since 2000, in contrast with the infinitesimal uptick in water quality scientists found between 1987 and 2000.

Scientists measured sulphate levels in the streams, as well as acid neutralizing capacity. When sulphate from the atmosphere reaches water, it turns to sulphuric acid. It’s best known as acid rain, though rain isn’t the only way it can end up acidifying waterways.

Median sulphate levels dropped by about 6 percent from 1987 to 2000. From 2000 to 2010 they dropped roughly 13 percent.

Median acid neutralizing capacity increased about 16 percent between the first and second surveys and 55 percent between the second and third surveys.

The results are still preliminary, and researchers are still working to calculate what effect differences between water levels from year to year have on the data, but indications are that their findings won’t change significantly, Webb said.

While Virginia has seen notable improvement, it’s not as pronounced as the improvement seen in states in the Northeast. Webb attributed the variation mostly to differences in soil types.

“Things have not fully recovered by any means,” Webb said.

The ground in some parts of Virginia will have a delaying effect on improvements, while other areas are permanently degraded, Webb said.

“Many of the streams that have been most impacted are likely not ever to recover, at least in a human timeframe,” Webb said.

Webb attributed much of the improvement that has occurred to the most recent amendments to the Clean Air Act. The amendments were passed in 1990, but phased in since.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Acid Rain Program, which was part of the 1990 amendments, has helped to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions to 33 percent of 1980 levels.

“Nationwide, it’s a success story,” said Frank Rambo, a senior attorney with the Charlottesville-based Southern Environmental Law Center.

Read more:
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/jan/02/va-streams-becoming-more-hospitable-trout-ar-747712/

Re: Notice of Violation: Denison Uranium Mines: Clean Air Act

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
DENVER, CO 80202-1129
Phone 800-227-8917
http://www.epa.gov/region08


AUG 1 7 2010
Ref: 8ENF-L
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

David C. Frydenlund
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Counsel
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265

Re: Notice of Violation

Dear Mr. Frydenlund:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing thc enclosed Notice
of Violation (NOV) to Denison Mines Corp. (Denison Mines or you) pursuant to section
113 (a)(3) of the Clcan Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.c. § 7413 (a)(3). EPA finds that Denision Mines
has violated the National Emissions Standards for Hal.ardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for
underground uranium mines, 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart B, at is facility near La Sal, Utah.

Section 113 of the Act gives EPA several enforcement options. These options include
issuing an administrativc compliance order, issuing an administrative penalty order, and bringing
a judicial civil or criminal action. The option(s) we select may depend on, among other things,
the length of time you take to achieve and demonstrate continuous compliance with the
requirements cited in the NOV.

We are offering Denison Mines an opportunity to confer with EPA about the violations
alleged in the NOV. If you choose to have such a conference, you may present information on
the specific findings of violation, any efforts you have taken to comply, and the steps you will take
to prevent future violations.

If you request a conference, please plan for your Facility's technical and managcment
personnel to attcnd to discuss compliance measures and commitments. You may have an
attorney represent you at this conference if you choose.

The contacts in this matter are Joshua Rickard, Environmental Scientist, and Linda Kato,
Air Enforcement Attorney. You may call Ms. Kato at (303) 3J2-6852, or e-mail her at
kato.linda@epa.gov, to request a conference. You should make the request as soon as possible,
but no later than 10 calendar days after you receive this letter. We will endeavor to hold any
conference within 30 calendar days of your receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

Andrew M. Gaydosh
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice

cc: Cheryl Heying, Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Rusty Ruby, Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Read more:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/1a5ca11ec663bbd185257784001b84da/$file/caa0820100016nov.pdf

Potential Uranium Deposit in Orange County Virginia. Full Documentary part 2

Potential Uranium Deposit in Orange County Virginia. Full Documentary part 1.

See More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFMLLttLGE

Concerns raised over proposed uranium mines, ore transport.

Posted on January 19, 2011 by gctrust
By Kathy Helms, Dine Bureau
Gallup Independent

WINDOW ROCK – In the late 1990′s there was a major outcry in Western Navajo Agency from Dine drivers who traveled U.S. Highway 89 through the Navajo Nation due to an excessive number of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities.

They came up with a bumper sticker in protest: “Pray for me and mine. We drive Highway 89.”

While the number of fatalities on Arizona roads have decreased somewhat in the last couple years, a number of Arizonans are concerned about the 48 truckloads of uranium ore per day that will find its way onto U.S. 89 and other routes across the reservation to White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah, if Arizona Department of Environmental Quality issues permits for three underground uranium mines near the Grand Canyon. Arizona 1 is already operating.

ADEQ plans to issue air and water permits to Denison Mines (USA) Corp. for its Canyon Mine southeast of Tusayan in Coconino County, and the EZ Mine and Pinenut Mine near Fredonia.

The deadline for comments was Friday, but former Navajo Nation Council Delegate Thomas Walker Jr., said that’s not the end of it.

Walker had attempted to get a position statement opposing the transportation of uranium ore through Navajo passed by Council during its Jan. 7 session, but Council lost quorum before it could be presented.

“I’m going to encourage the 22nd Council to prioritize that opposition position resolution,” he said.

Two routes are proposed through Navajo, he said. The route from the south Grand Canyon mines would pass through Cameron, Tuba City, Kayenta, Dennehotso and Navajo chapters in Utah. From the north mines, ore would be transported to Kanab, Page, Shonto and Kayenta, and on to the mill north of Blanding.

“The situation has arisen where the affected tribes have vested interest and very grave concerns over the health and safety of our people because of the uranium transportation proposal,” Walker said.

In addition to potential traffic hazards, a 2010 report by the National Parks Conservation Association found that uranium mining activities on lands adjacent to the park could result in environmental and watershed contamination.

In 1984, a flash flood carried tons of high-grade uranium ore from six existing mines north of the park down Kanab Creek and into the park. While no studies have been done to determine whether there have been long-lasting effects from this event, the report states that it is indicative of how future uranium mining could lead to contamination of surface waters.

Grand Canyon Trust filed comments Friday along with the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club, stating that they are “adamantly opposed” to opening the three mines, all of which are located within watersheds that drain directly into Grand Canyon National Park.

There are two main concerns, according to Roger Clark of Grand Canyon Trust. “One, there’s not any monitoring both of air and water that measures contamination of surface and groundwater or radon gas in the air or dust particles spreading from the mine. There’s voluntary reporting by the operator.”

“More concerning is there’s no way to detect it when contamination occurs. As we’ve learned time and time again with groundwater on the Navajo rez and one mine inside Grand Canyon National Park, once groundwater is contaminated, there’s no turning back. There’s no effective way, no matter how much money you throw at it, to remediate that.”

A Coconino County supervisor expressed concern with language in the draft permit which specifies that haul trucks “shall be operated in such a way that ore cannot escape through any slits or openings in the bed of the truck,” and that loads must be covered with a tarpaulin.

This provision may prevent uranium ore from being spilled, but it does nothing to prevent fugitive dust from contaminating roadsides, he said, adding that USGS found elevated levels of uranium in soils near ore-hauling roads at the Pigeon and Hermit mines north of the Grand Canyon. He recommended the trucks, at minimum, be covered with a solid lid with sealed seams and that ADEQ monitor for contamination along haul routes.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration has issued more than 60 citations since 2009 relating to operations at Denison’s Arizona 1 mine north of Grand Canyon and the company’s Pandora uranium mine in Utah, Forgotten People stated.

Read more:
http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/news/2011/01/1284/

Virginia Outlines 2011 Agriculture And Forestry Initiatives

Source: Governor of Virginia
Posted on: 7th January 2011
Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Todd Haymore today announced Governor Bob McDonnell’s agriculture and forestry initiatives for 2011.

The announcement includes legislation and budget amendments that Secretary Haymore will advocate on behalf of the Administration, as well as long-term goals that he, along with the Governor, hopes to accomplish this year and over the next three years.

In the upcoming session, the Governor will propose legislation to preserve working farm and forest lands that will coincide with his goal to preserve 400,000 acres of open space.

Legislation will also be introduced in accordance with a recommendation from the Governor’s Economic Development and Jobs Creation Commission to create a reimbursable tax credit program for the establishment or expansion of vineyards and wineries.

In addition, family farms and the environment will be aided by two new positions in the Agriculture Stewardship Act program to help them meet water quality requirements in the Chesapeake Bay region and throughout the state while maintaining commercial viability.

This is part of the fulfillment of Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) that was recently approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

In 2010, the first year of the McDonnell Administration, agriculture and forestry continued to thrive as Virginia’s top two industries in spite of difficult global economic conditions.

According to a 2008 University of Virginia economic impact study, agriculture generates about $55 billion in annual revenue and about 350,000 jobs per year, while forestry is responsible for an addition $24 billion in revenue and 150,000 jobs per annum.

Recent reports from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) point to the maintenance, and possible increase, of the 2009 level of agriculture and forestry product exports when the industries reached an all-time high of $2.3 billion. Strong partnerships have been built with existing importers of Virginia products, as well as efforts to recruit new importers around the globe.

Some of these partnerships have spawned from recent trade mission trips to the United Kingdom and Europe, where Governor McDonnell and Secretary Haymore met with foreign companies and promoted Virginia’s leading products in July.

Also in 2010, Virginia’s wine industry continued to thrive and gain recognition both domestically and internationally. The General Assembly agreed to more than double the amount of funds placed into the Virginia Wine Promotion Fund for research, education and marketing programs.

First Lady Maureen McDonnell joined Secretary Haymore to play an active role in heightening the profile of Virginia wine by leading trips across the state to wineries and promoting the product in both the United States and abroad.

Virginia also landed two top wine industry gatherings in 2010 when both the Wineries Unlimited Trade Show & Conference and the Wine Bloggers Conference announced that they would hold their respective annual events in Virginia during 2011.

These efforts and attention resulted in a 13% increase in sales of Virginia wine during last fiscal year over the previous fiscal year. Sales of Virginia wines in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 are up 8% over the same time period of fiscal year 2010.

Speaking about the efforts, Governor McDonnell said, “Virginia’s agricultural and forestry industries make the diverse products that are the foundation of our daily lives, from the food we eat to the timber that frames our homes. These outstanding products are in high demand both here and abroad. Our farms and forests also provide many environmental benefits and the preservation of working lands for future generations. We must do all we can to support these industries so that they can continue to provide for our families. I look forward to working with Secretary Haymore and the state’s agricultural and forestry stakeholders to make sure that our farmers, foresters, producers, and manufacturers have more opportunities to move their products into the global marketplace, bringing more recognition and revenue to the Commonwealth.”

“The Governor has provided agriculture and forestry with several opportunities in the General Assembly to build on their status as Virginia’s top two industries in 2011,” said Haymore, who previously served at VDACS Commissioner from 2007 – 2010. “He has also made it clear that I am to continue to act as his and Virginia’s chief marketing and development officer for agriculture and forestry products both here and abroad. It is a mandate that I look forward to carrying it out with our private sector partners throughout 2011 and the remainder of the Governor’s term.”

Initiatives to Support Agriculture and Forestry in 2011 – General Assembly Budget Amendments – Agriculture

$400,000 – Preserves working farm and forest lands by providing meaningful funding of Virginia’s successful Purchase of Development Rights program. This will raise the program’s total appropriation to $500,000 per annum.
$280,000 (approx.) – Fulfills the intent of 2010 legislation requiring the full portion of the wine liter tax derived from the sale of Virginia wine be directed to the Wine Promotion Fund.
$250,000 – Establishes a reimbursable tax credit program for the establishment or expansion of vineyards and wineries as part of the Governor’s Economic Development and Jobs Creation Commission recommendations. Specifically, this budget amendment and legislation provides for a reimbursable tax credit capped at $250,000 annually for the expansion or installation of a winery or vineyard. The tax credit is to be applied against an individual’s income tax for 25 percent of the cost of such expansion or installation.
$185,962 – Provides two new positions in the Agriculture Stewardship Act program. In fulfillment of Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan, these two positions – one located in the Shenandoah Valley, another stationed in Richmond who will focus on state’s Northern Neck, Tidewater, and Eastern Shore regions – will help family farms meet water quality requirements in the Bay region and throughout the state while maintaining commercial viability.
$78,710 – Provides for a new dairy inspector position to address deficiencies cited by the US Food and Drug Administration. This position will support both food safety and commerce/trade initiatives.
General Assembly Budget Amendment – Forestry

$286,719 – Provides additional funding for the agency to replace or purchase emergency response equipment through the state’s Master Equipment Lease Purchase program over five years. The total investment over this period will be a little more than $1.3 million.

International Marketing / Export Promotion

Co-hosting the third annual Virginia Agricultural Trade Conference and Workshop in March in Norfolk. The final 2010 agricultural and forestry products export figures will be released during the conference.
Planned trade missions to Asia (China, Korea, and Japan), Canada, United Kingdom and mainland Europe, India, and Cuba.
Use “diversified portfolio” approach to market to both developed and developing markets.
Target foreign markets such as China and Japan that are currently very important customers and also have rapidly growing economies and an increasing demand for imported agricultural products. Also work with China for increased openness in agricultural trade.
China is currently one of the top export markets for Virginia’s agricultural exports and the market continues to develop rapidly. For the first nine months of 2010, date, Virginia has exported $122 million in agricultural products to mainland China. Japan currently ranks 15th in Virginia’s top agricultural export markets; Korea ranks 24th.

Continue to look for existing opportunities, while advocating for fair, increased market access in established markets such as Europe.
The European region purchases more than $300 million annually in agricultural products from Virginia, including wood products, leaf tobacco, grains and feed, seafood, wine, peanuts, and other specialty food items. Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Poland, and the United Kingdom are Virginia’s top European export markets.

Look towards future export opportunities by beginning to develop relationships and explore new markets such as India, which is currently a minor customer for Virginia’s agricultural product but whose economy is growing at nearly 9% per year and whose demand for imported food and other agricultural products is starting to rise significantly.
VDACS marketing and development staff recently managed a trade activity in India on behalf of the Southern United States Trade Association, a trade group representing agricultural exports from the region. The activity provided an opportunity to meet with India’s leading importers of products including apples, wood products, wine, and specialty food products.

Take advantage of unique market opportunities, such as opening more sales opportunities for Virginia’s agricultural exports to Cuba.
Through the first three quarters of 2010, Virginia ranks 4th among all states in export sales to Cuba, at $25 million. Virginia has been a leading exporter to Cuba for the past several years, based on engagement with Cuban officials and agencies since 2001. The state’s top export products to Cuba include soybeans, pork, poultry, and apples

2010 Successes

Worked with private sector partners so that 2010 is on track to maintain, and possibly exceed 2009 level ($2.3 billion, an all-time high) of Virginia agricultural and forestry products exported in an otherwise challenging global economic environment.
Built strong partnerships with Virginia companies currently exporting or exploring the opportunity to export. Crown Orchards, Smithfield Foods, Montague Farms, Virginia Poultry Growers Cooperative, Feridies Peanuts, Perdue Agribusiness, New Horizon Wines, and Richmond Cold Storage are just a few of the Virginia-based companies or companies that have significant operations in Virginia that have worked with Secretary Haymore and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) marketing and development staff to increase exports in 2010.
Secretary Haymore and VDACS marketing and development staff traveled domestically and abroad to promote Virginia products and recruit agribusinesses to the Commonwealth
Trade Mission to the United Kingdom in May, and Cuba in November
Joined gubernatorial trade mission to Europe in July
Significantly raised the profile of Virginia wine both internationally and domestically.
Worked with the General Assembly to more than double ($580,000 to $1.3 million) the amount of funds placed in the Virginia Wine Promotion Fund for research, education, and marketing programs
Worked with the First Lady McDonnell and her FLITE initiative and team to bring more attention to Virginia wineries and to encourage more restaurants and retailers to sell Virginia wines.
Worked with City of Richmond, Virginia Tourism Corporation (VTC), and wine industry to recruit the annual Wineries Unlimited Trade Show & Conference to Richmond in 2011; it had been held in Pennsylvania for more than 30 years.
New reports show that the sales of Virginia wines were up almost 13 percent in the FY10
Overall sales of Virginia wine are up more than 8 percent in the first quarter of FY11; distributor sales are up almost 9 percent during same time percent after being stagnant over the previous three fiscal years.
Created the “Choose the Commonwealth” campaign to highlight the quality of Virginia agricultural products and encourage their use by Virginia businesses and government entities.
Produced an agricultural portion of the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) that carefully balances the Governor’s commitment to Bay restoration and low financial and regulatory burdens on farmers.
Working with the statewide agricultural community, VA’s WIP relies on the implementation of voluntary resource management plans that allow each farmer to meet the specific water quality improvement needs of his operation, rather than a cookie-cutter approach.
The plan also relies on the provision of adequate cost-share funding from state and federal sources, as well as expansion of VDACS’ successful Agricultural Stewardship Act program.

Read more:
http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/virginia-outlines-2011-agriculture-and-forestry-initiatives-44469.html

Info on Uranium Mining

Edit Article | Posted: Feb 09, 2009

Tailings squander

Even the utmost grade deposits have less than 1% uranium. So vast amounts of ore have to be processed to obtain useful quantities of the uranium. The leftover ‘waste’ rock is known tailings. In the course of processing it is crushed to a well powder, which is nearly as radioactive as the uranium itself. It is perilous for more than 250,000 years, which might as well be eternally. These tailings need to be secluded from the environment to avoid a cancer epidemic, and there are previously more than 50 million tonnes of uranium tailings on Australian soil.

Radon Gas

As uranium emanates radiation; it transforms itself into a novel element, which in turn emanates radiation and decays, and so on through 14 steps until it ultimately. One of the elements along the way is radon, a radioactive gas which can travel for hundreds of kilometres prior to decaying. Mine workers and others who breathe in this gas risk mounting lung cancer and other kinds of lung disease

Environmental Pollution

Uranium mining pollutes the air, water and earth with radioactive chemicals and heavy metals which can never be well cleaned up. In addition to the radiation hazard, mining is also related with poisonous process chemicals, heavy metals and the use of vast quantities of water. In the short term, uranium mine sites ruin the ecology of the local region; in the long term, they pose a risk to a much wider area.

Health risks

The health risks of uranium mining are by now fairly well known, although still belligerently disputed by the mining industry. Collectively, uranium miners suffer the maximum radiation doses of all workers in the nuclear fuel chain. The major problems are inhalation of dust and radon gas.   As the pollution from the mines spread away from the minesite, local people are also out in the open to contamination. While uranium mining is most usually allied with cancer, low level radiation is also mixed up in birth fault, high infant mortality and chronic lung, eye, skin and reproductive illnesses.

Read more:
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/problems-of-uranium-mining-762482.html

Interesting Facts about Recycling: PAPER

PAPER

*Each of us uses approximately one 100-foot-tall Douglas fir tree in paper and wood products per year. (EPA, 2008)

*More than 56 percent of the paper consumed in the U.S. during 2007 was recovered for recycling — an all-time high.  (Paper Industry Association Council, 2007)

*More than 400 paper mills in the United States use at least some recovered materials in their manufacturing processes, and more than 200 of those mills use recovered fiber exclusively. (EPA, 2008)

Savings: Energy, Water, etc.

*De-inked paper fiber is the most efficient source of fiber for the manufacturing of new paper products; one ton of de-inked pulp saves over 7000 gallons of water, 390 gallons of oil, and reduces air emissions by 60 lbs compared to traditional virgin fiber processes. (Abitibi Consolidated, 2005)

*Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, and 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity . (EPA, 2008)

*Recycling paper instead of making it from new material generates 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water. (EPA, 2008)

*Producing recycled paper requires about 60 percent of the energy used to make paper from virgin wood pulp. (EPA, 2008)

Uses of Recycled Paper

*Just over 48% of office paper is recovered for recycling. This becomes raw material for paperboard, tissue, and printing and writing papers. (Keep America Beautiful, 2006)

*Over 73% of all newspapers are recovered for recycling. Almost a third goes back into making more newsprint. The remainder is used to make paperboard, tissue, and insulation, or exported. (Keep America Beautiful, 2006)

*Approximately 1.5 million tons of construction products are made each year from paper, including insulation, gypsum wallboard, roofing paper, flooring, padding and sound-absorbing materials. (American Forest and Paper Association, 2002)

*Recycled paper can also be made into paper towels, notebook paper, envelopes, copy paper and other paper products, as well as boxes, hydro-mulch, molded packaging, compost, and even kitty litter. (EPA, 2008)

Read more:
http://www.oberlin.edu/recycle/facts.html

Diné speakers: No uranium mining on Canyon rim

By Cindy Yurth
Navajo Times

FLAGSTAFF, Jan. 13, 2011

Diné environmentalists on Jan. 6 joined a chorus of about 60 area citizens who spoke against issuing air and water quality permits for new uranium mines near the rim of the Grand Canyon, with one calling the hearing an "insult."

"It's insulting that a meeting like this is happening while our people are still suffering because of the legacy of uranium mining and milling," said Diné musician and activist Klee Benally of Flagstaff.

The hearing, sponsored by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, was to take public input on the issuance of Class II air quality permits for Denison Mines' proposed EZ and Pinenut mines. Also sought is a general aquifer protection permit for the EZ mine.

The permits would allow the ADEQ to monitor the air and water at the mines, although critics argued that most of the sampling would be done by the mining company itself.

"It's the fox watching the henhouse," said Flagstaff Mayor Sara Pressler, who also spoke against issuing the permits.

Rising prices have made the area attractive to mining companies again. According to the ADEQ, more than 500 breccia pipe targets are being actively explored by at least 11 companies.

Some of the old mines, most notably the Orphan Mine above the Bright Angel Trail, left radioactive tailings that drain into washes in the area.

Most of the Navajos who spoke said they're upset the government would even consider allowing new mines to open when about 1,000 abandoned mines still exist on the Navajo Nation, poisoning the earth and leaching into water supplies.

Added Nikki Alex, who said she had worked with the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, "I come here today to give a voice to the young people. The cleanup will be left up to me and generations after me."

Hertha Woody, a Diné member of the Grand Canyon Trust, noted that although the mines are quite a distance from the Navajo Nation, radioactive ore will have to be transported along the western and northern edges of the Navajo Nation to the White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah.

Read more:
http://www.navajotimes.com/news/2011/0111/011311mining.php

Money root of all evil with uranium

Money root of all evil with uranium

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:17 AM EST

I would like to respectfully respond to the recent letters from Mr. Walter Coles and Mr. Joe Aylor, and published in the Chatham Star- Tribune's issue dated Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011.

Mr. Coles: In the first paragraph of your letter you state that, "There are several errors of fact and nuance in a recent editorial in the Danville Register and Bee concerning the motives of the Danville Regional Foundation...."

However, you never enlightened us as to what these "errors" might be. Could it be that there aren't any errors worth mentioning?

You have also mentioned 300-500 jobs being involved in your propaganda.

Yet you have neglected to mention that, according to mining laws, each mining employee must be certified as a miner before he can be employed in the field.

In addition, how may we be expected to believe, since there are less than 1,000 people working in the uranium mining industry in the entire United States, that VUI (or is it VER) will employ half of the entire qualified miners used in the U.S., in your proposed operation?

Yes, perhaps there will be a few guards, gate tenders and secretaries in your employ, but you and your Canadian partners will hire experienced and certified miners to do the real (high-paying) jobs.

The rest of the Pittsylvania County persons on your payroll will be in unskilled and lower paying positions.

I would like to differ with you - once again - over your reference to the "unimpeachable National Academy of Sciences."

No one who looks closely at the credentials of the majority of the commission studying this issue for the NAS could help but wonder about the makeup of the commission.

To many of us it seems that there is a majority of mining industry executives and proponents - to say nothing about the real source of the funding (VUI).

Later on in your letter you accuse those of us who are opposed to your proposal of "delaying tactics."

Now, come on Mr. Coles! Who was responsible for the acceleration of the time required for the C&E Commission's investigation deadline?

In the last two years, the time allotted for this study has been cut from one and a half years to one year.

It isn't appropriate for you to accuse us of delaying, when, in fact, you are accelerating the analytical process.

Both you and Mr. Joe Aylor are guilty of ignoring, before they are even completed, the studies involving drinking water for the entire Piedmont sector and the Virginia Beach/Newport News/ Norfolk areas in particular.

Remember, Mr. Coles and Mr. Aylor, that the rain water that runs over the farms of Pittsylvania County ends up on the dinner tables of homes and restaurants on some of our state's most populous regions.

Both of you gentlemen have bragged about new technologies that have made the concerns of past uranium mining operations obsolete.

I guess that means that safer methods of extraction and waste maintenance have been developed, but we haven't heard of anything like this.

We've all been studying this issue for some time now, and, if there were any new and improved techniques, we would have discovered them by now.

I am also sure you would not keep these advances of technology a secret.

But you and your Canadian partners haven't even published a plan for your proposal.

If you are successful in lifting the moratorium, how do you imagine the Commonwealth of Virginia will benefit?

If uranium is sold in the same manner as coal, then none of it will be sold in Virginia, and, therefore, it is exempt from all but what is called a "capital Tax," which is a tax only on capital on site and cash on hand, over and above what is owed on payroll and expenses.

Virginia will not get any revenue at all from this venture of yours.

Messrs. Coles and Aylor, and anyone else, including your local cronies who are invested in this project, are guilty of ignoring the health and well-being of your families and neighbors in the pursuit of $10 billion.

That falls under the definition of greed.

As you know I am fond of a quotation of St. Paul: "The love of money is the root of all evil."

I would say that this shoe fits all of you, and you must wear it.

That's legacy I am talking about.

Hunter Austin
Hurt, VA

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/01/14/chatham/opinion/opinion14.txt

More Meetings Scheduled for Free Weatherization Kits

Utilities:Posted on: January 13, 2011

More Meetings Scheduled for Free Weatherization Kits

In July, Danville Utilities awarded Danville-Pittsylvania County Habitat for Humanity a $12,000 grant to collect weatherization materials and distribute 1,000 free kits to citizens in need within the Danville Utilities Service Area. The weatherization kits are comprised of materials that will seal home air leaks and help save energy and money on utility bills.

In December, Danville Utilities and Danville Habitat gave away the weatherization kits to interested Danville Utilities customers during a series of community meetings. Many kits were given away, but enough are still available for two additional meetings to be held. The kits will be available for pick-up at the following locations from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on the dates listed:

• Tuesday, January 18: Pepsi Building at the Community Market, 661 Craghead Street

• Tuesday, February 1: Pepsi Building at the Community Market, 661 Craghead Street

Meeting attendees are only required to provide their home address; one kit will be available per address. For anyone interested, demonstrations on using the kits will be provided per request.

Each kit includes one tube of caulk, a caulking gun, one can of GREAT STUFF™ insulating foam sealant, a 3-pack shrink and seal plastic window kit, and a pack of 6 electrical outlet foam sealers. A home weatherization instructional DVD produced by Danville Utilities will also be provided with each kit.

For those who cannot make it to the meetings, the kits are also available for pickup at the Habitat ReStore at 503 Hughes St. during normal operating hours: Wednesdays and Fridays, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Habitat also plans on working with area service organizations to identify and assist citizens who are unable to install the weatherization materials themselves. If you are interested in volunteering with Danville-Pittsylvania County Habitat for Humanity, please call (434) 793-3630

http://www.danville-va.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=261

Rush to judgement (uranium socioeconomic study)

SoVaNow.com / January 13, 2011
Dear Viewpoint,

The uranium socioeconomic study initiated by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot, on its current timeline, produce meaningful results. It will not consider the findings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding uranium mining, milling, and tailings disposal in Virginia or the volatile price of uranium. It will be a waste of $200,000.

At a December 8 meeting in Richmond, the commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee listened to 5-minute study proposal presentations, asked no questions of the six presenters, allowed no public comment, and voted unanimously to award the study contract to Chmura Economics and Analytics. There was no evidence that the subcommittee members had read the proposals or given careful thought to the objectives of a proper study; one commented that legislators know the Richmond firm.

The commission’s request for proposals asked for a report by December 1, 2011 at a cost of no more than $200,000. In its request, the commission provided no boundaries for the region to be studied and no scientific basis for estimating potential health and environmental costs. The commission did not require evaluation of the range of outcomes that could occur, depending on uncertainties such as the price of uranium or the effects of severe weather events. The commission did ask for “a statement of any major assumptions.”

Chmura, in its proposal, stated at least two invalid assumptions. Chmura incorrectly assumed “a collaborative connection between the Chmura Team and NAS,” which is not possible due to the NAS standard policy of disclosing only final findings. Secondly, they assumed “sufficient sustained market demand for uranium so that the ongoing operations of the mine can sustain the demand as long as it is technically feasible.” Not only is future demand highly uncertain, starting with the assumption that uranium mining in Virginia will automatically be continuously profitable seems to state a conclusion before doing the study.

The purpose of the socioeconomic study is to ground speculation about the social and economic implications of lifting Virginia ‘s ban on uranium operations in reality — the facts and uncertainties under investigation by the NAS, including a volatile uranium market which may not need uranium from Virginia .

Chmura did not propose the comprehensive socioeconomic study we need to make a wise public policy decision. Nevertheless, defying common sense, the commission contracted with Chmura for a report due by December 1, 2011, the target date for public release of the NAS report, which therefore cannot inform Chmura’s study.

For example, the NAS will analyze the health and environmental impacts of uranium mining at existing uranium operations and assess what’s known about the potential short- and long-term health and safety risks, including risks from exposure to toxic heavy metals and radioactive particles. This information is needed to help bring public perceptions in line with reality and to estimate any health costs.

The NAS will also review global and national uranium market trends and identify the main types of uranium deposits worldwide, including the types possible in Virginia . Information about known worldwide uranium reserves will shed light on the competitiveness of uranium found in Virginia .

If the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission wants to do a comprehensive study of uranium mining, milling, and tailings management in Virginia , it will allow sufficient time for people, including the Chmura research team, to read and learn from the NAS report.

Virginia Uranium Inc. claims that waiting for the NAS results would cause a “delay,” as though its corporate interest in rushing legislation to lift the uranium mining ban should outweigh public interest in a truly comprehensive study. The problem is not delay, but haste — haste that is irresponsible and an insult to the many people who want to learn from credible sources.

The commission should make up for its previous lack of diligence by amending the contract with Chmura and by refraining from introducing uranium mining legislation in the Virginia General Assembly until 2013.

By Katie Whitehead

(Katie Whitehead is a native and resident of Pittsylvania County and an active participant in the uranium study process, working toward an evidence-based policy decision.)

Read more:
http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php?/opinion/article/rush_to_judgement/

President Extends Energy Efficiency and Renewable Provisions

January 2011

President Obama has signed a bill that will extend many energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions through 2011. Included is Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides cash assistance to energy producers instead of tax credit.

Under the guidelines, the federal government will provide cash instead of tax credit totaling up to 30% of the qualifying cost of the project.

Will extend for one year the start-of-construction deadline for wind and solar projects.

Also extended through 2011 are a $1-per-gallon production tax credit for biodiesel, credit for manufacturers of energy-efficient homes, a 50-cent-per-gallon alternative fuel tax credit, and credits for manufacturers of energy-efficient refrigeration units, dishwashers, and washing machines.

Read more:
http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3334/ArticleID/11278/Default.aspx

Dates for Important Meetings

Some dates to consider for the following few months in our effort to keep Virginia a clean and green state:

Jan 18 8-3 Virginia Interfaith Center, Day for all People, Annual Advocacy Day, Richmond

FEB 7  8AM     NAS Meeting, Richmond

Feb 14 6PM Life Meeting, Gretna Library

Mar 12 RRBA Advisory Board meeting somewhere in Roanoke Valley

Mar 14 6PM Life Meeting, Gretna Library

Mar 23 NAS Meeting Colorado

Mar 24 NAS Meeting Colorado

Mar 25 NAS Meeting Colorado

Apr 11 6PM Life Meeting, Gretna Library

Apr 16 10AM Life Adopt a Highway Pickup

Interesting Facts about Recycling

WATER

*Between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. population nearly doubled.

However, in that same period, public demand for water more than tripled! Americans now use an average of 100 gallons of water each day — enough to fill 1,600 drinking glasses! (EPA, 2008)

*A recent government survey showed that at least 36 states are anticipating local, regional, or statewide water shortages by 2013. (EPA, 2008)

*Most people realize that hot water uses up energy, but supplying and treating cold water requires a significant amount of energy too. American public water supply and treatment facilities consume about 56 billion kilowatt-hours per year — enough electricity to power more than 5 million homes for an entire year. (EPA, 2008)

Appliances and Fixtures in General

*If all U.S. households installed water-efficient appliances, the country would save more than 3 trillion gallons of water and more than $18 billion dollars per year! (EPA, 2008)

*If one out of every 100 American homes was retrofitted with water-efficient fixtures, we could save about 100 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year
Bathroom: Sink, Toilet, Bath, Shower

*About 75 percent of the water we use in our homes is used in the bathroom. (California Energy Commission, 2006)

*If your toilet is from 1992 or earlier, you probably have an inefficient model that uses between 3.5 to 7 gallons per flush. Newer, high-efficiency toilets use less than 1.3 gallons per flush — that's at least 60 percent less water per flush! (EPA, 2008)

*If just 1 percent of American homes replaced an older toilet with a new WaterSense labeled toilet, the country would save more than 38 million kilowatt-hours of electricity — enough electricity to supply more than 43,000 households for one month. (EPA, 2008)

*The average bathroom faucet flows at a rate of two gallons per minute. Turning off the tap while brushing your teeth in the morning and at bedtime can save up to 8 gallons of water per day, which equals 240 gallons a month. (EPA, 2008)

*Letting your faucet run for five minutes uses about as much energy as letting a 60-watt light bulb run for 14 hours. (EPA, 2008)

*Leaky faucets that drip at the rate of one drip per second can waste more than 3,000 gallons of water each year; A leaky toilet can waste about 200 gallons of water every day. If your fixtures have leaks, you should get them repaired! (EPA, 2008)

*A full bath tub requires about 70 gallons of water, while taking a five-minute shower uses only 10 to 25 gallons. (EPA, 2008)

Other Household Water Needs

*The average washing machine uses about 41 gallons of water per load, whereas newer, high-efficiency washing machine models use less than 28 gallons of water per load. (EPA, 2008)

Read more:
http://www.oberlin.edu/recycle/facts.html

Wind Energy in Virginia

Europeans used the kinetic energy in wind to sail to Virginia for 400 years, from the 1500's into the 1900's. Since those Europeans settled Virginia successfully in 1607, rural Virginians have used windpower to pull water up from wells - long before electrical lines connected farms to the "grid" and powered modern pumps. In some cases, wind power was also harnessed in Virginia to power manufacturing facilities, such as mills that ground wheat into flour. Pumping and powering grist mills required that the windmill be located directly next to the facility - gears and belts could not transmit the mechanical energy more than about 100 feet.

Today, almost all labor-saving devices in the home, office, or manufacturing plants operate off electricity that can be generated far away from the site where the power is used. A handful of existing wind turbines convert wind energy to electrical energy, including one 10 kW turbine at the Smith Mountain Lake Visitor Center:

The Virginia Wind Resource Map summarizes the wind potential of the state at 50 meters above the ground:2


Several areas of the state are estimated to have good-to-excellent wind resource. These include the Atlantic coast along the Delmarva Peninsula and the Virginia Beach area, the ridge crests in the north-central part of the state, and ridge crests near the borders of West Virginia and North Carolina.

Offshore locations are attractive locations physically because there are no forests, no trees to slow down the breeze.

Wind energy projects can be located according to financial and political reasons, as well as by simple physical geography. From a venture capitalist point of view, the ownership and permitting issues are also significant.

Turbines are not cheap, and "time is money," so investors look for places where the delays in getting authorization to build will be minimized. Offshore, companies can negotiate with just state/Federal governments to get rights to build towers with turbines.

Read more:
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/energy/windenergy.html

Potential hazards from uranium mill tailings

Potential hazards from uranium mill tailings


Radionuclides contained in uranium tailings emit 20 to 100 times as much gamma-radiation as natural background levels on deposit surfaces. Gamma radiation levels decrease rapidly with distance from the pile.

The radium-226 in tailings continuously decays to the radioactive gas radon-222, the decay products of which can cause lung cancer. Some of this radon escapes from the interior of the pile. Radon releases are a major hazard that continues after uranium mines are shut down.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents living nearby a bare tailings pile of 80 hectares at two cases per hundred.

EPA estimates that the uranium tailings deposits existing in the United States in 1983 would cause 500 lung cancer deaths per century, if no countermeasures are taken.

Tailings deposits are subject to many kinds of erosion. Due to the long half-lives of the radioactive constituents involved, safety of the deposit has to be guaranteed for very long periods of time.


After rainfall, erosion gullies can form; floods can destroy the whole deposit; plants and burrowing animals can penetrate into the deposit and thus disperse the material, enhance the radon emanation and make the deposit more susceptible to climatic erosion.

When the surface of the pile dries out, the fine sands are blown by the wind over adjacent areas. The sky has darkened from storms blowing up radioactive dust over villages located in the immediate vicinity of Wismut's uranium mill tailings piles

Seepage from tailings piles is another major hazard. Seepage poses a risk of contamination to ground and surface water. Residents are also threatened by radium-226 and other hazardous substances like arsenic in their drinking water supplies and in fish from the area. The seepage problem is very important with acidic tailings, as the radionuclides involved are more mobile under acidic conditions.
Tailings dams are often not of stable construction.

In most cases, they were made from sedimentation of the coarse fraction of the tailings sluge. Some, including those of Culmitzsch and Trünzig in Thuringia, were built on geologic faults.

Moreover, strong rain or snow storms can also cause dam failures.


It is of no surprise that again and again dam failures have occured. Some examples are:

1977, Grants, New Mexico, USA: spill of 50,000 tonnes of sludge and several million liters of contaminated water.

1979, Church Rock, New Mexico, USA: spill of more than 1000 t of sludge and about 400 million liters of contaminated water.

1984, Key Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada: spill of more than 100 million liters of contaminated liquids.

Occasionally, because of their fine sandy texture, dried tailings have been used for construction of homes or for landfills. In homes built on or from such material, high levels of gamma radiation and radon were found.
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the lifetime excess lung cancer risk of residents of such homes at 4 cases per 100.


Chronology of uranium tailings dam failures (last updated 6 Oct 2004)
(tailings releases without embankment failure not listed)

Date , Location,  Parent company,  Type of Incident,  Release Impacts

(1994) Zirovski vrh, Slovenia Rudnik Zirovski vrh, Gorenja vas ongoing slippage of the slope (7 million t) with the "Borst" tailings deposit (600,000 t) on the top, at velocity of 0.3 m per year - -

1994, Feb. 14 Olympic Dam, Roxby Downs, South Australia WMC Ltd. leakage of tailings dam during 2 years or more release of up to 5 million m3 of contaminated water into subsoil ?

1985 Lengenfeld, Vogtland, Germany Wismut localized dam failure ? minor

1984, Jan. 5 Key Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada Cameco (67%), Uranerz (33%) overtopping of process water reservoir, due to poor management 87,330 m3 of contaminated water ?

1979, Jul. 16 Church Rock, New Mexico, USA United Nuclear dam wall breach, due to differential foundation settlement 370,000 m3 of radioactive water, 1,000 tonnes of contaminated sediment Contamination of Rio Puerco sediments up to 110 km downstream

1979, Mar. 1 Union Carbide, Uravan, Colorado, USA Union Carbide two slope slides, due to snow smelt and internal seepage - -

1977, Apr. Western Nuclear, Jeffrey City, Wyoming, USA Western Nuclear Tailings slurry overtopped the embankment because of insufficient freeboard space, considerably less slope than the requisite 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, and a loss in structural integrity caused by the melting of snow interpersed with the fill used to construct the embankment. 40 m3 of tailings and 8,700 m3 of liquid "no offsite contamination"

1977, Feb. 1 Homestake, Milan, New Mexico, USA Homestake Mining Company dam failure, due to rupture of plugged (frozen) slurry pipeline 30,000 m3 of tailings and 7,600 - 30,000 m3 of liquid no impacts outside the mine site

1976, Apr. 1 Kerr-McGee, Churchrock, New Mexico, USA Kerr-McGee dam failure, due to differential settlement of foundation soils "minor quantity" ?

1971, Mar. 23 Western Nuclear, Jeffrey City, Wyoming, USA Western Nuclear dam failure, due to break in tailings discharge line ? "no offsite contamination occured"

1971, Feb. 16, Petrotomics, Shirley Basin, Wyoming, USA Petrotomics secondary tailing dike failure 7.6 m3 of liquid liquid lost to unrestricted area

1967, Jul. 2 Climax, Grand Junction, Colorado, USA ? tailing dike failure of unapproved retention system 1,200 - 12,000 m3 of waste liquid effluent release into Colorado river

1967, Feb. 6 Atlas Corp., Moab, Utah, USA auxiliary decant failure, overflow from main tailings pond overflowed aux. decant system 1700 m3

1963, Jun. 16 Utah Construction, Riverton, Wyoming, USA ? The dam was intentionally breached and a 2-ft depth of effluent was released to prevent uncontrolled release of the impoundment contents during heavy rain ? ?

1962, Jun. 11 Mines Development, Edgemont, South Dakota, USA ? dam failure, due to unreported causes 100 m3 tailings released reached a creek and some were carried 25 miles to a reservoir downstream

1961, Dec. 6 Union Carbide, Maybell, Colorado, USA Union Carbide dam failure from unreported causes 280 m3 effluent released did not reach any stream

1960 Gunnar mine, Beaverlodge area, Saskatchewan, Canada Gunnar Mines Ltd. dam failure ? tailings release into Lake Athabasca, creating Langley Bay tailings delta

1959, Aug. 19 Union Carbide, Green River, Utah, USA Union Carbide dam failure during flash flood 8,400 m3 tailings and effluent reach a creek and river

1958, Apr. Mayluu-Suu tailing #7, Kyrgyzstan dam failure after earthquake and heavy rain 600,000 m3 a lot of houses in the town destroyed, people were killed, and the tailings were spread over 40 km down by the river, contaminating flood plains

1954 Lengenfeld, Vogtland, Germany Wismut dam failure during flooding event 50,000 m3 tailings spread 4 km down by the river, create wetland by damming up

Sources:
United Nations Environment Programme - Industry and Environment: Environmental and Safety Incidents concerning Tailings Dams at Mines, Results of a Survey for the years 1980-1996, May 1996, 129 p.

United States Committee on Large Dams: Tailings Dam Incidents, Denver, CO, November 1994, 82 p., ISBN 1-884575-03-X

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Regulatory Guide 3.11.1, Rev. 1, Operational Inspection and Surveillance of Embankment Retention Systems for Uranium Mill Tailings, October 1980

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

Henry County Public Schools Receives Solar Energy Grant

January 6, 2011
By Staff

Henry County Public Schools was awarded $130,162 by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME) to utilize solar energy at Laurel Park Middle School. This project will create immediate jobs in the renewable energy field, increase exposure and knowledge about solar power technologies worldwide through the use of a website specifically designed to track and display data, and provide opportunities for career development and training for current middle and high school students, college students, and the regional workforce.

Thirty-eight solar panels will be installed at Laurel Park Middle School. These panels will generate energy to power the Laurel Park Middle School greenhouse. Based on 80% operating capacity, the annual savings are estimated at 55,845kw/$5,600 per year using 0.10 per kwh. Increasing energy efficiency will also reduce the harm to public health and the environment from air and water pollution, mining, and other aspects of power production, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.Representatives with partnering agencies were present at the announcement.

“The Workforce Investment Board endorsed this grant application and became an active partner because we saw the potential it had in enhancing our area’s infrastructure for job creation. As a partner, we have agreed to use our workforce investment network to help recruit participants into the renewable energy training program. Our job as a Workforce Investment Board is to get people back to working in growing occupations with career advancement opportunities. We believe energy-related jobs are among these types of opportunities,” said Kim Adkins, Executive Director of the West Piedmont Workforce Investment Network.

This project will immediately create 19 jobs upon the release of funds through the hiring of consultants and laborers to install the solar panels and a film crew to produce footage of the project and workforce training. As part of Henry County Public Schools’ application, these funds will benefit the local economy. In addition, a website will be developed so that students across the county and worldwide can view the solar panels via a webcam and utilize software that will provide data regarding the energy savings and usage at any given point, according to Melany Stowe, Communication Coordinator for Henry County Public Schools.

Read more:
http://martinsvilledaily.com/?p=929

Uranium foes: Where's the benefit?

Uranium foes: Where's the benefit?

CYNDY COLE
Sun Staff Reporter
Posted: Saturday, January 8, 2011 5:00 am

A Canadian mining company is proposing to open three more mines in northern Arizona -- two southwest of Fredonia in Mohave County and one 6 miles southeast of Tusayan that formerly generated deep tribal opposition.

This comes after Denison Mines reopened the area's first uranium mine on the Arizona Strip in December 2009, removing ore to process at the company's mill in southeastern Utah.

Environmentalists, local residents and tribal members told the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality not to issue the permits to allow the mines to open during a Thursday night hearing at Sinagua Middle School.

Although they don't control the mining decisions on these federal public lands, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors and the Flagstaff City Council have each passed resolutions opposing renewed uranium mining.

The Interior Department is considering a request by some to put federal lands on both sides of the Grand Canyon off-limits to mining, but mining claims that pre-date that decision can still open.

Nearly 100 people attended Thursday's forums, some coming from as far away as Havasupai.

Physician and medical anthropologist Allison Clough, of Northern Arizona University, read a list of common health problems associated with uranium mining, including increased rates of leukemia.

"Uranium mining will not lastingly or meaningfully enrich the peoples of the Colorado Plateau," she told ADEQ.

Some cried at the microphone, and others were incensed.

"Uranium has already seriously harmed our communities, and you're considering allowing three more mines to open," said Klee Benally.

The Canyon Mine 6 miles southeast of Tusayan (south of the Grand Canyon) was explored in 1978 and permitted to operate in 1986, when mining infrastructure was added but not put to work.

If cleared to open, unrefined ore from that mine is projected to come south to Interstate 40, then through Flagstaff and western portions of the Navajo Nation, including Kayenta.

"It's a shame. If this should happen, it would go through our community," said Kayenta Chapter President Stanley Clitso, who says he lost relatives due to uranium-related illness.

"... Presently, our people are still greatly affected by the atrocities that have occurred," he said.

Another speaker, Flagstaff resident Jim McCarthy, raised the point repeated by many other speakers: A mistake of any size in this new round of uranium mining could be irreversible.

He raised the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station that released radioactive gases in 1979, the most substantial accident in United States nuclear power generation.

The cause? One malfunctioning valve.

"What blew me away is that they didn't even consider what could happen if the valve failed open," rather than failing when closed, McCarthy said.

McCarthy's company was in the valve-making business at the time.

Author and river runner Michael Ghiglieri asked what the local economic or other benefits of mining would be, given possible environmental risks.

"When there are zero potential gains, why would you take any risks?" he asked.

It's not a company's job to think in these terms for environmental risks, but it is the job of a group of state agents is tasked with protecting the environment, he told ADEQ.

"I beseech you to think very carefully about the consequences of your actions," he said, "because no one will ever forgive you."

Read more:
http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/article_ef465d09-6bc7-5279-9529-947bcfa13696.html

Another $1 million for weatherization programs

By Debra Mccown
Published: August 30, 2010

ABINGDON, Va. – With another $1 million in federal economic stimulus money, more people will have help from People Incorporated to weatherize their homes before winter.

This is the second million-dollar stimulus check the Abingdon-based nonprofit is getting from the federal government for its weatherization program, which improves the energy-efficiency of homes for low-income people.

For participants, the program typically involves improvements like sealing cracks, adding insulation and replacing old windows.

But this time around, a whole new set of rules apply, said Bryan Phipps, vice president for development for the organization.

The set of projects paid for with this round of funding will include innovations like solar panels, geothermal heating and solar hot water heaters.

“It’s a way to bring some of the most advanced technologies that are out there to low-income households, which is a pretty neat thing,” Phipps said, adding that the greater up-front investment for such projects is well worth it because it helps make energy more affordable.

At the same time, he said, People Incorporated is developing a weatherization program for people who don’t qualify as low income but still may be seeking ways to decrease their energy bill.

That, too, is anticipated to begin before winter with energy audits, he said. In the future, the organization might also have contractors to do the renovation work.

The fee for an energy audit, which determines where a home is losing heat or otherwise using energy inefficiently, will range from a few hundred dollars to $1,000, depending on the size of the home, he said.

It might sound like a lot, he said, but for a homeowner who cuts a hefty power bill in half, the project can pay for itself in the near term.

“If you look at it over the course of a couple years … it can really be a good investment,” Phipps said, adding that the organization is working on a system to help spread out the cost over a period of time, to make it more affordable.

It’s also a means to expand services when the charity program seems to always have a waiting list of people in need.

“It’s not only something that has a very evident financial benefit, but it’s also something that’s good for the environment and helps manage energy costs in general,” he said.



http://www2.tricities.com/business/2010/aug/30/another-1-million-weatherizat
ion-programs-ar-480539/

NAS Meeting in Richmond, VA: Uranium Mining in Virginia, Feb 6-8

Meeting Information
Project Title: Uranium Mining in Virginia
PIN: DELS-BESR-09-06
Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies
Sub Unit: Board on Earth Sciences &Resources
Water Science and Technology Board
RSO: Feary, David
Subject/Focus Area: Earth Sciences

Uranium Mining in Virginia
February 6, 2011 - February 8, 2011
Richmond area - TBD

If you would like to attend the sessions of this meeting that are open
to the public or need more information please contact:

Contact Name: Courtney Gibbs
Email: cgibbs@nas.edu
Phone: 202-334-2744
Fax: 202-334-1377

Agenda: Tentative Agenda

Sunday, February 6, 2011
Closed Session (Committee and NAS Staff Only)
8:00 am - 6:00 pm

Monday, February 7, 2011
Open Session
8:00 am to 3:00 pm

Closed Session (Committee and NAS Staff Only)
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm

Open, Town Hall Meeting
6:00 - 9:00 pm
The Town Hall will provide an opportunity for the pulic to address the committee in an open forum.

We request that those that plan to attend, please register with Ms. Courtney Gibbs at (202)334-2744 or via email cgibbs@nas.edu


Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Closed Session (Committee and NAS Staff Only) in its entirety.

Read more:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?key=49253&MeetingId=4784